Adam007

Oh jeze, this again? I'm pretty sure he was disproven somewhere. The whole thing's pretty stupid anyways, as if anything he predicts doesn't come true (which has been the case - we were supposed to have a civil war in the US), then he has the alternate dimension excuse or whatever it was that was explained. Long story short, it's pretty much an elaborate and interesting prank.

Yeah, from 2001 to 2007 the world really changed. Old traditional and conservative values out the window, and runescape followed. The entire world, from 2001, to 2007, has become self centered and individualistic, within those years, and runescape has followed.

:o You'd have to be around -1 years old to weigh 1-15 pounds. Get involved in a sport like martial arts. Like running, martial arts isn't a great idea. You're going to want to do heavy lifting. Look up muscle building info. Not toning, but muscle building. Through muscle and muscle alone will you pack on pounds. Running or doing karate won't do anything except improve your cardio. It's all about weight training. And just as important, probably more, is your diet. You need a ton of protein and a ton of carbs.

I remember finding a ton of scapeboard forum archives using the wayback machine too. I love digging up old memories like this. :)

Meh, I wouldn't call accidentally crossing a border an invasion, which perspective is the only thing that makes this story funny in the first place.

You're wise beyond your years Bubsa. Thanks for posting that. I tend to ask what if a lot, and that perspective hadn't really occurred to me.

No, we're not. Some people will be smarter, some people will be more beatiful. Apparently this is acceptable because of element of chance involved, but the moment we start choosing it, it becomes the preclude to a genocidal war. Huh? (And you just said every person who elects to marry someone over someone else discriminates. Can I sue?) The word discriminate means to pick one over the other. Discrimination in that sense isn't wrong. People pick mates because they discriminate to their tastes and whatever's the most attractive to them. I guess we just disagree on principal here. I think people should be discriminate in choosing their spouse/mate. But it's just not fair to someone if they're born into a world where they're genetically inferior to other people only because their parents couldn't pay for them to be like the rest. Either have it available to everyone under a universal healthcare system that covers this, or have it available to no-one. Oh, and I thought I should mention I'm not fully decided on this issue. I'm just taking this side partially because I like being convinced by other people that it's ok, because when I talk to people about it, 99% of them are completely horrified/disgusted of the notion. If I do go into this field, which I'm seriously considering, I'm going to have to face this issue a lot.

We're not talking a difference of being slightly stronger, more attractive, or healthier. We're not talking about getting rid of diseases. We're talking about the whole scope of this pandora's box here. Again, you're not understanding me. People discriminate when they choose their mates based on how attractive they are. But they're still picking out of the whole human race. Everyone genetically is on the same ground. People might be slightly different genetically, but overall we're extremely similar. Let me just give you an example, a somewhat weird one, but an example nonetheless. The rich are able to pay ridiculous sums to have an extra chromosome extraction that was specifically designed to turn regular humans into elves. They're taller, more attractive, more agile, and more fit. They're better at basically everything, so they push the regular humans out of society basically, since they can't even function close to what the new genetically engineered people function at and can accomplish. The other breed, the unmodified humans, are now, let's say, segregated to do manual labor in dark mines or something. Again, weird example, but I guess I have to draw a picture of the extreme to get my point across. These people are living lives in mines, and eventually they change. From living underground so long, they become dwarf-like. Again, a really stretched out example, but now we have elves and dwarves. They have no attraction to each other whatsoever. They're not even able to breed together anymore. And next thing you know, the elves decide they don't need the dwarves on the planet anymore. They build robots to take the jobs the dwarves once had. Then they kill the dwarves since they no longer serve any purpose on the earth. But it's ok, because they're the superior race, and it's justified of course. Again, I know the example is farfetched. But who's to say something like this wouldn't happen? Why can't we just leave genetic engineering to curing disease? Is it necessary to enhance ourselves? And who's to say we won't mess up while trying to design new people? We could end up making all kinds of creatures we didn't mean to with all kinds of side effects we don't want. What do we do with these people? What if they're too strong for us? What if countries create armies of brainless brutes to go on suicide bombing missions? I could go on and on with what-if's. Now they're a stretch, but they're a stretch that's possible. Since there's no way to draw a line, we just can't toy around with this like that.

Where's as what's - at best - described as the genetic lottery of birth is "fair"? Being born with a genetic defect causing [developmentally delayed] because your parents both have the recessive genetic is fair? The fact that little Albert over there was born with the genetic predisposition for a higher IQ than Johnny over there is fair? 'Life isn't fair' is actually a pretty fitting argument. It's only unfair as nature allows it to be, which is fine. It's not fair to the poor though that they would suddenly become a genetically inferior race. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be with someone in your class. But artificially separating the human race into two subspecies is wrong. You can't compare whether people would mate who are in different social classes to whether they would if they were almost at the point of being different species. So genetic "superiority" automatically means discrimination? I'd like that leap of thought explained further. Maybe we're looking at this differently. Scientists might not draw lines at making everyone look like a supermodel. They might just start adding new genes to make people look entirely superior. The upper class might all be engineered to have blond hair, be 6 feet tall, and be incredibly built with brilliant minds. And again, for all we know scientists could add in genes we can't even imagine that gives them superhuman abilities. This new breed of humans would definitely discriminate. They would think they're better, which they are, and who knows what at that point could happen? I just don't think you're fully extrapolating what possibilities this technology has, and what problems this can lead to. I'm sure most scientists wouldn't abuse it, but there's the 1% that would, and that's 1% too many.

Yes, there's a division, but that division is signified by wealth. You obviously have no idea what kind of implications separating the human race has. Again. We're talking about separating the human race here. Two different species that eventually could no longer even breed together. Are you not seeing what I'm seeing? Where that could lead to? I'm not arguing that life should be fair to everyone. It shouldn't. But come on. The rich should not be able to turn into a super race above the rest of the world. You might think what I'm talking about couldn't happen, but with genetic engineering, the potential of what can be done is limitless. And with time, people could be able to change themselves in ways we can't even imagine. Notice your own use of the word "probably"? Like the gap between the rich and poor, the rich generally pair with the rich, poor with the poor. At times they do mix- but it's not like it's a common thing. Anyways, who's to say that they will no longer will be able to breed together? The rich already are a super race above the world. Ok, I'll say it without using the word probably. The two races would eventually separate so far they would lose physical interest in each other. Sooner or later they would become so different they wouldn't be able to breed. I know you gave your own reasons as to why the rich are a super race, but that's just not true. Status is an issue of nurture, not nature. What's great about the human race is that people are born equal. They might be born into unequal lives, but their genetics are equal. The poor don't need the one thing keeping them on equal footing as everyone else taken away. Claiming that they're genetically inferior is just ridiculous. I'm sorry if I sound condescending on this issue. It's just that you don't seem to know much about the possibilities of this science and don't really care about the bad things that could be done with it. I've done a lot of reading on opposing viewpoints and initially thought it would be cool to be able to design the features of your own baby, but it just wouldn't. That's the kind of thing that catalyzes really bad events.

We have that exact same division here in the US, between the rich and poor. No it isn't fair- life isn't fair, period. Yes, there's a division, but that division is signified by wealth. You obviously have no idea what kind of implications separating the human race has. Again. We're talking about separating the human race here. Two different species that eventually could no longer even breed together. Are you not seeing what I'm seeing? Where that could lead to? I'm not arguing that life should be fair to everyone. It shouldn't. But come on. The rich should not be able to turn into a super race above the rest of the world. You might think what I'm talking about couldn't happen, but with genetic engineering, the potential of what can be done is limitless. And with time, people could be able to change themselves in ways we can't even imagine.

Are you being sarcastic or directly responding to my post? I actually am really interested in going into genetic engineering as a career, and have done a lot of research and written papers on it. I do support most genetic engineering. It's just an extremely powerful tool that should be taken very seriously though. We can't rush into it once we're able to. Doing things like altering the aesthetics of how people look not only has various social implications, but who knows what adverse effects we could possibly put in. Natural selection, random mutation, and evolution have always determined what genes people will get. I just don't know how far we should take this new technology.

Rebdragon, do you think that's fair though that people would be able to pay for better children? That would create such a divide, possibly even culminating into two species of humans separated by genetics. You have your upper class genetically modified super humans, then you have your natural born humans. The super humans would probably only want to breed with fellow super humans for super children, and they'd leave the lower class even further behind with their super abilities that the lower class couldn't match. The lower class would be discriminated against and everything. Is it fair that only the rich would be able to have better children? With today's common accepted values of morality, the overwhelming opinion is no.

I chose this as my project for my science fair in 8th grade. I compared ages and sexes. Can't remember the results, but it was fun seeing how different people performed.

As long as it's not for aesthetics or improving beyond the norm, aka only for combating disease, it should be used.

I'm not saying this applies to you, but nobody ever considers that they themselves acted the same way when they first started as people do now when they first start. See, I'm willing to be there's a good chance you acted somewhat immature and had fun when you first started fishing joking around and making fun of things. At that age, or stage of maturity, those things seemed perfectly normal for you to talk about. Now that you're older, people are acting the same way you used to, but you've matured. This type of talk seems like everybody else changed and you've stayed the same to you, but people tend to only look at things through their own eyes. I think if you looked objectively at a bigger scheme of people and their habits in relation to their age/stage of playing, things stayed the same. It's you who changed, not the community. Now it's completely possible that you're over 18 and all that I said doesn't apply to you, but I think overall it applies to most people who started playing rs when they were 12-13, are now 14-18, and are wondering why everyone seems so immature. It's not the game that changed. It's the individual perspective.

Oversimplify much? While greed is perceived as a bad thing, it in no way kills the economy. People's desire to make more and more money helps the economy if anything. Greed Helps? Well, since you believe greed improves the economy, proof please. If it does, i'll go out and start hoggin things for myself. Of course.. don't really see how thats helping my neighbors. Once again, show me proof. ~Defender~ What do you mean, proof? That's like asking me to prove that people with motivation are more likely to succeed. You just don't prove these kinds of things. I'm sorry if the premise that people who have a drive to make money are likely to help an economy just doesn't work for you. But then again, I could just flip things around, and ask you to find me proof that people's desire to accumulate wealth is bad for an economy.

Oversimplify much? While greed is perceived as a bad thing, it in no way kills the economy. People's desire to make more and more money helps the economy if anything.

Oh the old days...everything was sooo much better then. Everyone was so much nicer. Andrew came riding down on his rainbow unicorn and visited every player and showered gifts onto the land. People over-glorify the past. In real life, in runescape, everywhere. Nothing's different.

Would you stop screaming apocalypse? This in no way is a real crash in the sense that it won't recover. Stocks hit an all time high and have been going up for a long time now. They had to take a fall eventually, and a lot of things culminated at once today, so it dropped.

I just have to revive this thread. I missed the show Monday and just watched the full episode online, and wow. This definitely was the most suspenseful, gripping, and overall amazing episode so far. The writing of this show never ceases to amaze me. You think you know what's going on at the start of an episode, then by the end everything you knew was just 180'd. Especially in this last episode. Wow.

This isn't an issue that suddenly sprung up. We've had decent medicine for awhile now that people have been treated with, thereby 'spoiling' the gene pool as you said. The thing is, natural selection is based off how well an individual survives and passes down genes. Since we have the medicine to help people with illnesses survive, they are no longer 'bad genes' since the illness is treatable. Granted the genes might still be 'spoiled,' we still have the technology to make the person's life normal, so it's ok if he/she passes down those genes. In general, people with 'bad genes' don't reproduce anyways. Natural selection not only favors the ability to survive, but the ability to find a mate and reproduce. Ill people tend to reproduce a lot less than people who are fine. Genetic engineering will help with the issues you're talking about, but we can't rely on that. We don't need to take any action - if anything you should be worried about genetic engineers accidentally bringing in genes with unintended adverse effects to people in the future that could potentially mess up aspects of the gene pool.

If you could really graph the rate that party hats would completely disappear from the game, it would probably go for one hundred years - they'd get passed down to family, etc. Since runescape won't last that long, only 5-10 years more, that won't ever happen in the game's lifespan. So it's not really an issue worth debating. Party hats are gradually disappearing, but it's on such a negligible scale compared to the entire supply of buyable party hats. Party hats disappearing from the game don't effect prices as much as other factors do.

What bothers me the most is how people type "buy lobbies" or "sell lobbies" instead of "buying" or "selling."

I agree with much of these, but in addition, I thought the Shawshank Redemption had a great ending.