xcorps

How many wars have been started by people who have little education? Wars are the ultimate expression of violence, and they are generally started by the political elite, who are generally well educated. Now, if you were saying CRIME and not violence (or violent crime perhaps), then we would be in agreement. I think the society that we (you and I) live in prefers a peaceful resolution to a violent one, but I don't believe that the accumulation of knowledge is the reason for that. And I gently refer you to the Mao Zedong Reforms, the Soviet terrors from 1917-1953, the atrocities in Congo under Leopold II, the Taiping Rebellion, the WWII genocide, the Armenian Genocide, the Rwandan Genocide... Lack of contact with extraterrestrial species is evidence of only 1 thing. We have not had any confirmed verified contact with an extraterrestrial species. All else is speculation without evidence. Yes, my Fred Flintstone and Jonah in the whale response was tounge in cheek

What are you on about? If you are alive, you are either a member of a social group or you are not. If you are, you accept the behavior that the group has determined to be acceptable before you ever existed. If you chose not to accept that behavior, the group labels you as an unfit member and you are ostracized. Your own personal sense of morality is only a factor when it comes into conflict with mores. I might think it as acceptable to eat human flesh, but if I do then I have to deal with the consequences that the group has determined are appropriate. What does this have to do with anything that I said? Speak up about what? You think there is some silent majority of people who are dissatisfied with a taboo on patricide? They are subjective to the individual and objective to the group. Then I invite you to rewrite Title VI of the Clean Air Act of the United States. See how that goes for you.

You present changes to mores as a member of a community. Those changes are accepted or rejected by the community. Freedom is subjective, not objective. EDIT: Behaving in a way that acceptable to a group of people does not make you a slave. I hate it when people use the word slave as if it had more than one definition. You are not a slave to anything, excepting yourself. If you want to rob a bank, go do it. But accept the reality that if caught, you will lose your membership in the group. This concept "argh, I'm a slave because I can't do what I want" nonsense is pathetically immature. Leave the group. Go live on your own. Raise chickens, grow onions. Enjoy. Start a Cult. Do whatever you like, but if you break the rules of society, you will have to deal with the fallout. Patently and undeniably false. Moral rules are set by the group. Rules exist for the purpose of defining what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. Laws exist to codify those rules and provide protection from those who seek to break the rules. This idea that YOU alone are the moral focus of YOUR universe demonstrates a remarkable lack of awareness. Please don't take what I have posted as a personal attack. I have no animus towards you as an individual. I am referring specifically to the ideas and concepts that you have posted in this thread.

Couple of things here: A) correlation does not equal causation. The intentional homicide rate per 100k in the United States in 1901 was 1.2. In 1906 it was 3.9. Since then, it has varied considerably, peaking at 10+ in 1980. Are you suggesting that people in 1980 were 10 times more impoverished and more ignorant than people in 1901? I challenge your claim that ignorance leads to poverty. If you were to suggest that poverty led to ignorance, I would agree. So the Book of Matthew is evidence of the existence of Jesus, therefore the existence of God, therefore existence of Jonah, therefore proof that a man can be swallowed whole by a fish for three days, visit hell, and return. We also have equally valid proof that a caveman named Fred excavated unknown minerals from the back of a sauropod.

A)Do you doubt the validity of radiometric dating or are you unaware of its existence? why do you think "cavemen" were more intelligent? C) what observations can you present that knowledge suppresses violence D) other than star trek, what source do you have for the existence of a prime directive that you insist that a speculative species will follow?

"You" do not determine what is right or wrong. Those mores are imposed upon you from birth. You do not imitate behavior. You make a choice to act within the boundaries of what is acceptable to your community/society. If you make the choice to act outside of those boundaries, you are chastised.

Lets. Earth's age 4.4 billion years First appearance of life 3.8 billion years ago First appearance of complex cells: 2 billion years First appearance of multicellular life: 1 billion years First appearance of animals: 500 million years First appearance of primates: 60 million years First appearance of humans: 2.5 million years First appearance of modern humans: 250,000 years. This is 0.00006% of the timeline of Earth. Not really much of a history to talk about. First launch of a human into space: 54 years. Humans have had the capability to travel into space for .0002% of their existence. Number of times the Earth has experienced an event that extinguished more than 70% of extant species: 5 Someone smarter than me can calculate the odds that a life form capable of imagining travelling into space and then actually doing it here on Earth at it's inception. I'm willing to bet they are pretty astronomical (see what I did there?) Could you provide a citation of proof please? This is mere speculation. It has as much value as quoting from a Robert Frost poem. Why not? What evidence do you have that "cavemen" are less intelligent than you are?

http://www.marineturbine.com/fire.asp Towards the bottom.

With sincere respect, that was civics. Not politics.

It's a horrible comparison. A) Columbus wasn't trying to find anything new. He was trying to prove that the distance to Japan from the Azores was only 3700km, based on his interpretation of the Biblical verse " "Upon the third day Thou didst command that the waters should be gathered in the seventh part of the earth; six parts hast Thou dried up and kept them, with the intent that some of these, being planted by God and tilled, might serve Thee. " from 2 Esrades. Clearly he was wrong, which is why he was turned down by Portugal, Portugal, Genoa, Venice, England, and Spain. Columbus wasn't after scientific knowledge. He was after the title "Admiral of the Ocean Sea" and revenue from newly established trade routes. C) Columbus didn't go where no man had gone before. D) There is nobody on Mars to enslave.

And it takes weeks to sit on a jury. And your vote doesn't matter as much as you seem to think it does. The President, for example, is not elected by you. Neither is anyone else in the Federal executive branch or the Federal court system. The most impact your vote has is in local elections, and then state. None of which has an impact on the amount of dollars spent to fund space exploration. Those funds come from the House of Representatives, and unless you live in 1 of seven states, there is a good possibility that YOUR representative will have to deal with a plurality if he or she does in fact want to increase space exploration funding as a matter of ideology. The bigger question is where is the money going to come from? Only half of Americans pay any Federal Income tax. Are you going to raise taxes? Not on me, my Federal Income tax burden last year was $49,000. I couldn't care less if we find any more unknown stars, so no. You can't have any more of my money to pay for it. You going to take it from another branch of government? Good luck with that. There's a whole lot of recipients of that money that will be happy to fight for instead of funding zero-g experimentation on kidney stones.

Um, what reputation? That's like saying the reputation of the Department of Transportation suffers because someone with epilepsy has a drivers license. The patent office is not a scientific body. It's a government entity that exists to protect a person from infringement upon his original work. It does not exist to approve, validate, test, verify or support any invention or idea. The Patent Office does not promote science or engineering. It exists to protect an individual. A patent does not apply to a thing. It applies to an idea. Whoever includes whacky people with too much time on their hands.

2 space towers, one at each pole. giant stick connecting them. Faraday disk on the stick. Induction motor with really long wires connected to the disk. Win. You mad engineers?

Meh, I don't know about the absolute veracity of that statement. The K-Pg event was pretty violent.

People will move in and out of your life. Some will be close, some not so close. Some you will wish you had never met, some you will wish you had never lost. Find another friend and move on. Live your life for you and those you chose to share it with. Some will rejoice, some will reject.

What would that strategy be? The holding back on all symptoms until max infection?

I think a bigger error of science fiction is to almost unanimously assume that any alien life will automatically be more technologically sophisticated and evolved than what we are.

Vanamonde, there is a significant precedence that the United States government would do exactly that. Tuskegee OPERATION BIG ITCH Statesville Penitentiary US Navy operations over San Francisco to test serratia Willowbrook state school PROJECT SHAD I am not saying that is the case with Ebola. I am saying that I would not be surprised. Not at all.

Sure, check the Wikipedia page for Monsanto. The Superfund sites are briefly discussed and there is a link to court cases where Monsanto lost verdicts in civil matters relating to harm caused to citizens and employees due to the unlawful disposal of PCBS and Mercury. I would post themhere but I am not on my PC at the moment and it would be a PITA on this phone.

More than just bad business practice. Business practice that is actually harmful to society. The BP oil spill was a result of bad business practice but it wasn't intentional. BP didn't actually WANT oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Monsanto intentionally poisoned rivers and aquifers.

Blatantly untrue. Suppose you were at a party at mentioned that you worked at Enron. Would the looks of distaste be aimed at upper management or you? Suppose you told a stranger that you worked for BP? They automatically associate you with oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

A corporation is just a legal entity. It doesn't have a will or mind of it's own. It is a legal personality, not a person and the purpose for corporate existence is to limit the exposure and risk of the owners (the shareholders) to their investment. While I agree with your statements about corporate cultures creating an environment where wrongdoing is rewarded, that doesn't make the corporation itself evil. I think that the majority of upper management of Monsanto has for decades met the definition of "evil", I don't for one second believe that every person employed by Monsanto meets that definition. Nor do I think the shareholders would support a whole hell of a lot of the things that Monsanto has done.

I think you made a mistake by posting this. You should run. Now.

I understand and respect your argument, but I reject it. An accountant who is a perfect citizen is as much a part of a corporation as a manager who decides to dump mercury into an aquifer.

Evil? Certainly some of the crap Monsanto pulls is evil, but those decisions are made by certain individuals. A corporation cannot be evil or good. It's run by people who can make really evil decisions. Monsanto is not a good corporate citizen. At all. They spend a lot of money to skew information and manipulate legislation in order to prevent consumers from making informed decisions. Monsanto is associated with over 40 superfund sites (A Superfund site is an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people.) They manufactured 99% of PCB's used in US industry until 1977, and they knew about hazards associated with PCB's and actively and purposely behaved in a manner inconsistent with safe and responsible manufacture of such a dangerous chemical. That is established fact. Bt cotton seed sale in India may have been a significant contribution to a very large number of suicides by farmers. That is arguable, but there is a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmers%27_suicides_in_India There is a very special relationship between the EPA, the FDA, the SCOTUS, and Monsanto that in the opinion of many people is counterproductive to public health and safety and inappropriate. I share that opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#U.S._public_officials.27_connections_to_Monsanto Personally, I'd take Big Pharma and Big Oil over a corporation like Monsanto any day of the week and twice on Sunday.