>> ^criticalthud:
Seismic activity has increased

Source, please.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2439&from=rss_home

"Scientists say 2010 is not showing signs of unusually high earthquake activity. Since 1900, an average of 16 magnitude 7 or greater earthquakes — the size that seismologists define as major — have occurred worldwide each year. Some years have had as few as 6, as in 1986 and 1989, while 1943 had 32, with considerable variability from year to year."

Increasing population densities do mean earthquakes will be more devastating than before.

>> ^bcglorf:

As Aniatario pointed out, the definition of marriage was changed very recently (in 1967) to allow interracial marriage, so there certainly isn't anything inherently untouchable about it.
From Webster's unabridged dictionary in 1900, the definition of marriage:
1.The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.


From merriam-webster.com:

1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Looks like Webster's has changed their definition.

>> ^bcglorf:

I'm not seeing anything in the 1900 definition that demanded or banned interracial couples from marriage. In fact, it would certainly appear that long, long before your arbitrary 1967 date, marriage was already defined as the union of a man and a woman, without regard for race or any other considerations.


The Racial Integrity Act of 1924 criminalized all marriage between white and non-white:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924
The Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia ruled the Racial Integrity Act unconstitutional in 1967:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

I can't help but notice you ignored my question. When did you choose to be heterosexual?

As Aniatario pointed out, the definition of marriage was changed very recently (in 1967) to allow interracial marriage, so there certainly isn't anything inherently untouchable about it.

From Webster's unabridged dictionary in 1900, the definition of marriage:
1.The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

I'm not seeing anything in the 1900 definition that demanded or banned interracial couples from marriage. In fact, it would certainly appear that long, long before your arbitrary 1967 date, marriage was already defined as the union of a man and a woman, without regard for race or any other considerations.

It appears to me the definition that was used more than 100 years ago still is remarkably unchanged, save for the very loud and demanding cry from some today that want to remove the reference to "a man and a woman". Why change an existing word when civil union is already a much more apt description for a long term couple, independent of gender combination?

The problem with the free market is that it has no respect for humanity. Profit motive has no moral objections to slavery, violence, pollution, theft, war or oppression. In recent times, deregulation has lead to massive corruption, further social stratification and consolidations of corporate wealth and power. In times past, unregulated markets lead to a multitude of inhumane labor abuses, including slavery, child labor, unfair wages, dangerous working conditions, long hours, no breaks, no redress for on the job injury and the murder of workers who step out of line. All is fair when selfishness is seen as virtue. Do you really want to go back to these dark times?

Why do you think corporations spend so much money on the institutions that inform your politics? You never did comment on the fact that the same people who fund Cato and Reason also fund the 'Project for a New American Century'.

'Volunteerism' is such a load of bullshit. People will always need food, water, security, energy and shelter. Those things are necessities, and cannot be 'voluntarily' opted in or out of. Whomever takes control of these resources becomes the new King.

There is no utopia and there will always be a state. Embrace it. Every system is going to be flawed, because human beings are flawed. If not a public state, then other forces will rise to take control.. Never has there been a failed state that resulted in 'people freely interacting and engaging in voluntary agreements'. That's a pipe dream. In reality, power vacuums in failed states are quickly filled by warlords, gangs and financial interests. What we want to do is have the system that empowers everyone, not just the strong and wealthy. Democracy accomplishes this, the free market does not.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
A free market is merely people freely interacting and engaging in voluntary agreements without coercion. That's a good place to start. That's not been the problem. The problem is interventionism and cronyism. I think you conflate corporatism with free markets. And I know you think we've had unfettered raw free market practices in the US for 200 years and that's been the cause of our ills, but it's simply not true. We've been living at the trough of progressivism since the early 1900s, and that's only fostered a dangerous climate of corporatism and crony capitalism.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
The free market isn't the cure, it's the disease.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
There's never a guarantee of anything. Life is dangerous. Freedom is dangerous. Without a state there's no guarantee there won't be violence, theft and oppression. Violence, theft and oppression will always exist. There is no human utopia. But maybe it'll get better?

I can guarantee this: under our current system the plagues of our society (violence, theft, etc.) will continue to exist and probably will get worse as the police state grows. I know you see it. I know you see the problems with government. You hate the war as much as me. You hate the police state as much as me. Voting hasn't and will never remedy this growing problem, because it's only proven to increase it over time.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why do you think these problems would go away without a state? Why should I believe that violence, theft, guns and oppression wouldn't be much worse under your system?

A free market is merely people freely interacting and engaging in voluntary agreements without coercion. That's a good place to start. That's not been the problem. The problem is interventionism and cronyism. I think you conflate corporatism with free markets. And I know you think we've had unfettered raw free market practices in the US for 200 years and that's been the cause of our ills, but it's simply not true. We've been living at the trough of progressivism since the early 1900s, and that's only fostered a dangerous climate of corporatism and crony capitalism.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
The free market isn't the cure, it's the disease.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
There's never a guarantee of anything. Life is dangerous. Freedom is dangerous. Without a state there's no guarantee there won't be violence, theft and oppression. Violence, theft and oppression will always exist. There is no human utopia. But maybe it'll get better?

I can guarantee this: under our current system the plagues of our society (violence, theft, etc.) will continue to exist and probably will get worse as the police state grows. I know you see it. I know you see the problems with government. You hate the war as much as me. You hate the police state as much as me. Voting hasn't and will never remedy this growing problem, because it's only proven to increase it over time.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why do you think these problems would go away without a state? Why should I believe that violence, theft, guns and oppression wouldn't be much worse under your system?

While service providers, especially cable, satellite, cell..whether it be voice/data/text/whatever, are posting profits in the billion or more range they do not need to increase their rates. This "it will only affect a small portion of the customers, the heaviest users" argument is great until it doesn't or their definition of "heavy user" changes....or more people become "heavy users" because their definition of "heavy" is 5 years old and everything increases in quality/size/consumption. Everything except their networks seems to increase in size and capability, which is an odd thing.

As long as they post those profits and don't build out their networks to offer faster, cheaper, better services, they should be regulated even more heavily. Because there is some sort of collusion going on where all the big guys seem to agree that it's in their best interests to not expand but meter their existing services and raise their rates consistently.....to presumably pay for "network improvements" you never see.

And this is ignoring past facts of these guys taking millions and billions of dollars from the tax payers to improve their infrastructure and never doing so, pocketing the money. And now they "can't keep up with the demand" and need more money on top of those previously huge profits to deal with the increased load. But they never say it'll be used to actually make it possible for them to handle the increased load....it's more of a stepping stone to make it so they can continue to use the same old lines, with a much smaller workforce (cheaper!), and make more money.

This is akin to someone having an old wood cabin from the early 1900s, outhouse and all...never updated just maintained as is. And charging you rent equivalent to a up to code modern house might be. And you might say move if you're not happy!....except when you go to look for another place to live..everyone seems to be offering old wood cabins with lower introductory rates but after the first 6 months it's just as expensive to live there. And the modern places are now for "business clients" and corporate/government entities.

Regulate them, require % of profits to be put into replacing the network with better infrastructure, guarantee outages and problems are addressed within 24 hours, resolved within 48 unless extreme conditions apply, rate hikes are fixed and must be justified (if it's increased inflation, make it actually be the rate of inflation, not just some made up amount to increase profits), unbundle offerings (I don't watch many of the channels they bundle...if I don't watch any of the channels they buy in a bundle then don't make me pay for that bundle. If there's one channel I like in a bundle, then let me choose whether or not I buy that particular bundle or not.)

And if they don't want to be regulated, make it possible for people to actually compete against them. The way it's setup now is just ripe for them to rape their customer base. They won't be forced to change until their network is so bad people get more speed out of alternatives.

we are in agreement. Hurray

EXCEPT for your refutation of the my statement on peace.
your refutation is based on my population numbers being wrong.

I'm not sure exactly what your meaning is here. My main beef was with the video. It said your same statement about how everyone had been getting along well for a long time before. Then, at the 6 minute mark it suddenly changed course and declared that "in 1900 there were hardly any Jews in Palestine".

My beef is the video selectively wants to be able to use contradictory sets of facts. It will use the peaceful cooperation between Jews and Arabs as proof that before Zionism, things were fine. Then later, when it wants to paint Zionism as a foreign infiltration of Palestine, suddenly there were very few Jews in Palestine in 1900. Either there were centuries of Jews and Arabs living together peacefully or there were very few Jews, NOT both.

I also objected to the video declaring, again in the first 5 minutes, that the Zionists were unwilling to entertain any idea of sharing any land with Arabs. Quite plainly, the strongest counter argument is that in 1948 they went along with the other Jewish Palestinian leaders in declaring independence along the borders the UN had mandated. Clearly there is a time in 1948 where even the Zionists were content to accept a peace on terms that left 43% of Palestine for the Arab Palestinians. Clearly at this point in time, the neighboring Arab states, and not the Zionists, were the ones that instigated further hostilities. This is so clear, that you'd be hard pressed to find any Arab scholar who disagrees. The neighboring Arab nations were absolutely set and intent on rejecting and removing the newly independent Israeli state, no matter how peaceful or friendly it was willing to be.

I'm merely rejecting the video's view of Zionism as the sole instigator and agitator in the entire conflict. I don't deny in any way that Zionist's committed numerous atrocities, and worked actively to incite violence and conflict. I deny only that the Zionists were hardly the only faction in Palestine doing that after the British withdrawal. Ignoring the Arab majority's own active role in prejudice against non-Arab Palestinians is beyond dishonest, it's sinister. To mention how little land the Jewish Palestinians owned, without mentioning the active programs to legally block non-Arabs from purchasing land is sinister.

Sorry, the first 6 minutes of the video leaving me utterly convinced that it is not only one-sided, but deliberately and knowingly one-sided with intent of biasing it's viewers with half-truth.

>> ^MaxWilder:

This actually shed a lot of light on a lot of questions I had. I have not at all made up my mind on the subject, and I welcome anyone who would like to argue against the points made in this video.


If you have a lot of questions, history books are a better starting place than a blatantly biased video like this. I made it to minute 6 before the outright lies and falsehoods were more than I needed to know this video was not worth more of my time.

The very opening claim of the video declares Israel has always, since before it's inception seen no legitimate claim for any other people in Palestine except their fellow Jewish people. Historical fact is that in 1948, when the fledgling UN recommended a partition of Palestine into two states, Israel accepted the borders and declared independence. This could have been the end of the civil war in Palestine between Jews and Arabs. It wasn't the Zionists that where aggressive at this point. The entirety of the Arab world declared a united war against the new state of Israel, trumpeting that they would drive them into the sea. My description here is not in question either within the Arab world, Al-Jazeera has an article covering all these points in even more detail.

Now the video decides around the 6 minute mark to contradict itself:
At the end of the 19th century, there were hardly any Jews living in Palestine.
And yet, the video just finished telling us in the introduction that historically Jews and Arabs had been getting along famously. We might wonder how that is imagined to have happened if there were hardly any Jews there to get along with?

Historians largely say the best guess at populations in 1900 Palestine are not possible, and largely inaccurate. The closest commitment they make is to sate there was a significant Arab majority, but also that the Jewish population was by far the most significant minority in the region. Enough so that it is well agreed, even by anti-Zionist pro-Arab sources that the city of Jerusalem itself has had a Jewish majority since the very late 1800's.

So, the video has started by lying about the basic facts of how many Jews where in Palestine when the conflicts started, and about their willingness to accept a rather reasonable partition of the country. Useful answers and insights aren't likely forthcoming from a source like that.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Given your bullet reply I will do likewise...


I) I agree that culture may influence hypotheses that have a strong influence on popular ideas of the day. When considering your example, it was the church that was the main player on the opposing side, and ideas that go against the church doctrine, well... we all know what happens then. Climate change has similar implications, as it is rooted in politics and lifestyle - it may be influenced by culture. However, the supporting hypotheses are not largely influenced by culture because they are largely scientific in nature and do not have a direct influence on laymen. For example, the ecological hypothesis to which I eluded earlier concerning altitude and species' ranges is not debated on CNN or FOX. It's fairly obvious why. MOST (I'd wager 99%) scientific ideas are similar to this latter example.

a) I can agree with your point somewhat.. I agree that most people (including scientists) are subject to culture and view their world through the influence of it. However, just because this may be true, does not invalidate peer review. This is linked to my former point, if strong contrary data were to arise, it would greatly behoove a scientist to publish those data, not bow to the pressure of culture and hide it. Reviewers would be forced to view the evidence as it stands, in its raw naked truth, regardless of culture or influence - the editors, co-editors, and colleagues of the authors would demand it.
To your point about trends in science, I can also agree, yet climate change has more to do with the pressing nature of the matter then to a trend. This contrasts greatly with your example of Einstein and Newtonian theory. Climate change is "trending" at the moment, because we are forced to confront it - much like we were forced to confront the depletion of the ozone layer, we are confronting the loss of biodiversity in rainforests, the endangered species act, etc.

b) Indeed, I agree with you that it would not necessarily be "bad". However, you questioned if climate change would even be environmental in its effect. With the examples I provided, I hoped to show you that, indeed, it would be. Some ranges would increase, some would decrease, of course. However, as you surely know, evolution of unique taxonomic macroorganisms can take millions upon millions of years. It is not the increasing ranges with which we are concerned, it is the decreasing ones. Once they are gone, biodiversity decreases, even though it may increase for others. The health and environmental ramifications of that I surely do not need to explain.

c1) See my first point (I) - same argument, really.

c2) You're right and that is my fault - I misspoke (mistyped?). I meant that nobody has yet developed any strong evidence to the contrary. However, you have also committed a scientific falsity, which is one never "proves" anything in science. Therefore, a naysayer would never have to 'prove' that climate change is not occurring, but merely present his/her evidence of such to the contrary. He/She would then address the current models and present opposing ones (as many have done). The theory would quickly unravel, as many theories have done (e.g. Clemons vs. Gleason over the forest climax / succession model is a classic ecological theoretical battle that occurred in the early to mid 1900s. Clemons' theory was accepted for decades until a new hypothesis emerged from Gleason. The latter eventually racked up more evidence and is not generally accepted by the scientific community. [one more theory we never heard about in the papers, with practically no cultural influence]).

I was born in 1900, Im that old.

I do celebrate it in the early 1900s, so in your face, shagen454.

It's true the brits are a horrible breed. Well, I guess they'd be anglo-saxon's, right? Anyway, their colonies have all fallen apart except for a few including the US. You see, the US set forth to rid themselves of the bank of Britain but during the bank scares before the Depression the UK took control of our banking system. So, we are not in fact free. Independence Day is a myth - if you celebrated it in the early 1900's you'd be celebrating in a true and pure fashion but America is not independent any longer. Face the facts.

@chilaxe @NetRunner

I've been stupid busy all week, but would've loved to talk about this stuff with you two.

About importing poverty...have either of you heard of this thesis? I gather that it has been tested, but I haven't seen that evidence myself.

Dopamine, a pleasure-inducing brain chemical, is linked with curiosity, adventure, entrepreneurship, and helps drive results in uncertain environments. Populations generally have about 2% of their members with high enough dopamine levels with the curiosity to emigrate. Ergo, immigrant nations like the U.S. and Canada, and increasingly the UK, have high dopamine-intensity populations.


It's been cited numerous times in things I've read, including in the infamous citigroup plutonomy memos:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1

High dopamine is also associated with risk-taking. The citigroup guys were obviously citing it as though being an immigrant nation was going to save us in uncertain times. However, regardless of which theories or hypotheses you subscribe to or hear about, there's something quite different about people who emigrate. Taking that idea further, you have to separate people who emigrated en masse because of rather forced conditions (tons of Irish people during the potato famine, Polish/Lithuanian people in the early 1900s, etc) and individuals who emigrate simply because they're after more money/opportunity.

I've also read some stuff that indicates dopamine levels affect your perception of time. Schizophrenics have really high dopamine levels, which causes their internal clock to speed up, and it alters their perception of time. This is interesting in relation to the dopamine/emigration theory because of Philip Zimbardo's work on perception of time and how it relates to personality.

Plus, Zimbardo's work is just interesting, period:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Secret-Powers-of-Time
http://fora.tv/2008/11/12/Philip_Zimbardo_The_Time_Paradox

Another article about time perception with a few mentions of dopamine, drugs, etc.
http://delontin1.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/stretch-time/

Anyway, not to derail things, but it's mostly on topic with all the earlier discussion of brain stuff. I really think perception of time affects our personality in profound ways, and it's clear that brain chemistry affects our perception of time. I also think there's evidence that there can be overall brain chemistry trends in populations which have interesting implications.

Maybe someone could clarify, but what exactly is being "won?"

I would give a qualified agreement to Hawkings... the scientific method works at expanding our knowledge about the objective world. But science itself does not always work. This interview is proof of that. Doctors used science to predict that Hawkins would be dead 43 years ago. They were wrong. People can use observation and reason and still come to the completely wrong conclusions. This does not make science useless, but Hawkings should have qualified his statement to say science usually works. Or rather, it works more reliably than other methods (revelation for instance) for discovering things about the objective world.

Also, I think the view that all religion is based on authority is a very narrow view of religion and more accurately describes fundamentalists and dogmatism. Furthermore, I'd disagree with him that somehow science is not based on authority. It absolutely is. It has to be. If it wasn't, any crackpot who did a study and got some result that disagreed with scientific consensus would get to have their results accepted immediately.

But there's a huge downside to that--new scientific ideas can take decades before they finally overturn prior "consensus." Adenoidectomies (getting your tonsils out) are one example. Scientific consensus in the early 1900s was that everybody should get their tonsils removed--and nearly everybody did. It took nearly 30 years for researchers to turn the tide and convince doctors that removing the tonsils could actually do more harm than good. Meanwhile, during those 30 years, based on their authority as doctors, surgeons unnecessarily removed the tonsils of millions of kids.

All this is to say simply that science is not some magic bullet. I guess I get a bit annoyed when people try to glorify science. Science isn't perfect, but it's the most reliable method we have for exploring the objective world. That's all you can say about it. And really, that's all that needs to be said.

Muslim solidarity reigns supreme.

Yes, the Arab Sunni and Persian Shia are inseparable. If you think the Middle Eastern countries have any 'solidarity' with one another you could hardly be more mistaken. It's been that way for a long time too. They even blame their loss against the Jews in '48 on infighting between Egypt, Jordan and Syria. It is telling that they're own defense is that the Jews 'stole' Palestine because Egypt, Jordan and Syria were too busy fighting amongst themselves over which parts they themselves should 'steal'.

The Jews wouldn't even have had the opportuntity to steal palestinian land had not the English occupied it beforehand.

Trolling? Both Arabs and Jews had lived in Palestine long before the British came along. You can't blame the civil war that the Arab's lost solely on the British.

Secondly, I can't see any racism in the quote you provided (didn't click the link cause you never know these days, could land me in guantanamo, ironic since we're talking about recently stolen land

Well, I went did and the men haven't come for me yet. I'll even go ahead and condemn Gitmo as an affront to humanity. I'll even dare say Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted for numerous crimes around failing to extend fundamental human rights to prisoners. I'm not afraid anyone is gonna send me off to Gitmo for saying that, you needn't be either.

You can't see the racism because you apparently don't consider the murder or removal of all Jewish people from Israel/Palestine as racism.

Why were Jews relocated to Palestine folowing WWII?

Go find a real history book and read it. Your statement reveals that you have not heard anything but the worst and most racist form of revisionist history. Even Al Jazeera recognize that the Jews were not 'relocated' following WWII. I don't even think Hamas and Hezbollah deny that the Jewish population in Palestine in 1900 was considerable, and that the growth in population during WWII was based on the Jews fleeing Europe. Hamas and Hezbollah also don't deny that the Jew's 'theft' of the land was the result of a civil war. Their only contention is that the Jews were the aggressors in the civil war, and that the Jews would have lost the war against the superior Arab armies but for the fact that the Jews were backed by all-powerful imperialist empires.