I actually had to google that. Presumably it's due to poor farming and curing? Either way I can only blame alcohol and low tolerance for my first trip to whitey hell I fear.

Certainly beats the one and only bad trip I had on mushrooms though. Good God! The floor opened up and swallowed me and I spent what seemed like eternity (actually about a hour I'm told) in purgatory coming to terms with the fact I had just died (which I'm told resembled me just staring into a bathroom mirror chanting gibberish).

My own fault, I was at a metal gig (Chimera) and decided that the moshpit was the ideal place to come up. Though I did have a great time after that (everything is going to seem great after you just died and came back to life), and every other of the 20 or so trips I had were wonderful and enlightening and even this incident probably did me a lot of favours in hindsight...

So you know..don't be put off kids! Drugs can be great.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'split, dna, genetics, half black, half white, half boy, half girl' to 'split, dna, genetics, half black, half white, half boy, half girl, chimera' - edited by Grimm

The idea of modifying organisms to produce foods that have stronger, more desirable qualities is not in of itself bad. Just as understanding the human genome is all about learning how things work. Issues come up over the use of that knowledge. Once you know how to utilize atomic energy, do you build a network of high-speed electric trains or destroy a city? The knowledge generated by this scientific research has been mismanaged. And yes, much of that boils down to lawyers, patents, greed, corruptions, and other corporate practices.

As far as your pet desires, perhaps a duck-horse, or shark-gull?

>> ^PlayhousePals:

Male DNA in the minds of women? That may explain why I enjoy it here at the Sift so much =oD


That makes you awesome on VS!

If you view free market as a processes like natural selection, then everything counts including regulation. Regulation is simply an adaptation to market conditions by certain segments of a population. It is an ability to exert control on the market while avoiding the volatile, risky and harmful consequences other methods might accrue.

There will always be someone/something trying to control market forces in their favor. If you were to eliminate any regulation you would be eliminating one side's ability to exert control, they would be at the mercy of those who control the resources. So I guess in rebuttal to your argument, we either already have free-market working as intended or it doesn't exist and can't exist because anytime you put in a stipulation that you can't do X you're regulating someone's ability to exert control over the market forces.

As far as consumers go, I'm torn by the desire to see people acting more personally responsible and the opinion that you shouldn't have to be a professional in everything. You just can't compete when you're trying to know everything so you can make the right decisions, against someone who specialize in a specific area. At some point you're going to have to appeal to an expert. Unfortunately we have become so used to appealing to the experts its become increasingly easy for the experts to take advantage of everyone else.

Also:
I really think there are numerous systems which can successfully regulate a market but we've got these bits and pieces of several of them that don't work together. The people we've put in charge of this stuff all have such deep emotional attachments to their one economic gospel that they're often unwilling to even honestly discuss things with anyone from a different church.
I can't help but feel that is an exceptionally true statement. Our system of regulations has been cobbled together and broken apart by various ideologues over the years as painful a process it might be I wish we could redo everything in a manner that makes sense for the current market.


In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
A totally free market runs on the same principals as natural selection. It's totally possible. The question is whether it's desirable. The problem with both is that you have to be willing to deal with some chaos and most people are not willing to.

My own tastes are for a somewhat high degree of market freedom, with with a handful of absolutes protected by regulation. A bill of rights for the market, if you will. I admit, though, that this is closer to a gut feeling than a detailed plan.

A healthy free market requires responsible consumers. I made a comment about this just a couple days ago so I won't rehash it here.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
Well many of us don't think there is such a thing as a 'free market'. Not just that there isn't one now, but that the idea of a free market is only possible conceptually. We see it as a chimera, a mythical beast constructed of other animals, that does not exist and cannot be created. So while individual pieces exist, lions, eagles, supply, demand, the combination of these pieces into some self balancing force seems impossible.

So I guess to put it another way when we hear the words free market we think about the human factor, those people actually exerting their control and manipulating market forces and the basic hierarchy for control goes something like this:
1% > next 4% >> government >>>> everyone else.
So when we hear free-market we usually think of the people who can exert the most control.

As for the free market or the 1% giving us child labor laws, that was government regulation in the form of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you want to call government regulation free-market corrections go ahead.

A totally free market runs on the same principals as natural selection. It's totally possible. The question is whether it's desirable. The problem with both is that you have to be willing to deal with some chaos and most people are not willing to.

My own tastes are for a somewhat high degree of market freedom, with with a handful of absolutes protected by regulation. A bill of rights for the market, if you will. I admit, though, that this is closer to a gut feeling than a detailed plan.

A healthy free market requires responsible consumers. I made a comment about this just a couple days ago so I won't rehash it here.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
Well many of us don't think there is such a thing as a 'free market'. Not just that there isn't one now, but that the idea of a free market is only possible conceptually. We see it as a chimera, a mythical beast constructed of other animals, that does not exist and cannot be created. So while individual pieces exist, lions, eagles, supply, demand, the combination of these pieces into some self balancing force seems impossible.

So I guess to put it another way when we hear the words free market we think about the human factor, those people actually exerting their control and manipulating market forces and the basic hierarchy for control goes something like this:
1% > next 4% >> government >>>> everyone else.
So when we hear free-market we usually think of the people who can exert the most control.

As for the free market or the 1% giving us child labor laws, that was government regulation in the form of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you want to call government regulation free-market corrections go ahead.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

The entire video is based on the strawman laid out at 0:29.
I'm not backing Schiff, but this is a misrepresentation of his argument. He said the free market provided these improvements, not "the 1%". These are not equivalents and you all know it.
You're all so eager to dismiss the opposition that you don't even pay attention to what they are saying.


Well many of us don't think there is such a thing as a 'free market'. Not just that there isn't one now, but that the idea of a free market is only possible conceptually. We see it as a chimera, a mythical beast constructed of other animals, that does not exist and cannot be created. So while individual pieces exist, lions, eagles, supply, demand, the combination of these pieces into some self balancing force seems impossible.

So I guess to put it another way when we hear the words free market we think about the human factor, those people actually exerting their control and manipulating market forces and the basic hierarchy for control goes something like this:
1% > next 4% >> government >>>> everyone else.
So when we hear free-market we usually think of the people who can exert the most control.

As for the free market or the 1% giving us child labor laws, that was government regulation in the form of the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you want to call government regulation free-market corrections go ahead.

>> ^luxury_pie:
You do realize that there was a human leg and arm inside of that alligator, right?


Nope...

Either they screwed up the tests, or she's a chimera:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29

si-nek-duh-kee?

Well, I've been making an ass of myself. This is chimera all over again.

>> ^Phonecium:
Non-news would be Immanuel Nobel's third son not rolling over in his grave shaped like a chemistry set full of stable ordinance, upon hearing the so-called Peace prise(s) are handed out to all-comers, who make some creamy teen-agers load in their sleep-Bleeegh! All presidents' suck!
Bejeeszus H. Chimera, transplant or transfusion, fake your pick!!! Can we simply throw shit at whoever poses as some leader android, or wHAATT!


I will give you a Nobel for Literature if you agree never to write anything again.

This has to be some of the most worthless tripe posing as alleged news anyone can be subjected to-For example: News would be a near-earth impact on Venus!!

Non-news would be Immanuel Nobel's third son not rolling over in his grave shaped like a chemistry set full of stable ordinance, upon hearing the so-called Peace prise(s) are handed out to all-comers, who make some creamy teen-agers load in their sleep-Bleeegh! All presidents' suck!

Bejeeszus H. Chimera, transplant or transfusion, fake your pick!!! Can we simply throw shit at whoever poses as some leader android, or wHAATT!

Peace prizes are for effectual, human entities-Try 1964 or 1935, or any other year the award was allocated to the "special fund". Christ or Cthulhu!

Who else thinks the "peace prize is meaningless?? We can't be the only ones?!

>> ^gtjwkq:
^ Let consumers and consumer groups who care about the environment boycott industries that harm it. Let private companies that check and endorse industries that respect the environment inform the consumers. Let environmental friendliness become a competitive advantage when the environment becomes a concern. Let news organizations and environment activists denounce industries that harm the environment. Let courts punish those who harm the property of others. The list goes on...

Perfect plan. Why then did slavery go on for thousands of years? Certainly there would have been high-minded people who would've boycotted slave-produced goods, right? That would've led directly to slavery being abolished, right?

Or perhaps it was a market that refused to recognize that some things, like people, are not a commodity to be bought or sold. It took government to put an end to it by changing the definition of human rights, or arguably just the definition of human.

The problem with "shaping" the market to do what you want is that it has already been done many many times over and over, usually you don't get what you want, you just distort the market into all sorts of unforeseen consequences, and you open yet another precedent for more intervention and abuse to "correct" that distortion that you created in the first place.

Why ban murder or theft then? Clearly that hurts the protection racketeers and organized crime syndicates, who obviously serve a vital role in society since they remain economically viable, and "big police" hasn't been able to totally eliminate them, so why keep trying?

In fact, what we have are already extremely distorted markets, and you're thinking cap'n trade, which is just another great idea, would just fly in and save the day?

I know! In the good old days you could require 100 hour work weeks, never give any paid leave, benefits, pension, and you didn't have to worry about minimum wage cutting into your profits.

Oh yes, and can't forget all the child labor. Ahh, back in the good old days, there was no public education, and kids just went straight to work in the fields & factories...

I'm not sure why libertarian-minded people put forward this trivially disproven canard about how government interference in the economy have never, ever, in the history of mankind done anything that was a net benefit to society.

There's a certain understanding about free markets that, when you get it, you know a free market has a tendency to correct itself with time. Even if it takes a while. I believe that's also the case when it comes to the environment.

Many religious people tell me this same thing about God. Once you "get it", you realize that God's plan always works out for the best, even if it takes a while and lots of horrible things happen in the "short run."

That is faith, not reason. I can respect faith for what it is, but don't try to pass it off as some sort of scientific conclusion beyond debate. Your view of economics is equivalent to intelligent design -- it's "science" where the conclusion is the starting point for the the theory.

I'm not saying markets can't produce positive results, but I am saying there are no guarantees the the results it produces are morally superior to one that's been shaped by law. There's no guarantee laws will produce the desired results either, but many have, and have been successful beyond people's wildest dreams.

Just like freedom of expression: I'm sure there's a LOT of crap out there, but I know that things that make sense, ideas that work, philosophies and knowledge that help us instead of deceive us, they end up staying. The rest gets slowly culled out.

Only if people actually read their history. Only if information isn't manipulated. Only if people care. The scenario in 1984 is just as likely to be enacted by private industry as it is by government.

I don't know that a law could guarantee us a perfectly objective view of history. I do think the best law for that is the 1st amendment, which protects people's freedom of speech. By the way, that's a big "intervention" in the economy too, especially if you outlaw fraud!

You may have noticed I love making the free market --> freedom of expression comparison a lot, not football or traffic, etc.

I do notice that you repeatedly conflate them, rather than provide any practical real world examples that support your theory. Has a "free market" as you would define it ever existed? If not, how would you know how "free" it really would be?

So when I talk about free market, it's like a chimera, most people can't imagine it, some even think it's bad, and few people care. I hope our descendants can laugh at us about it.

It is very much like a Chimera! It's a mythological creature that nobody believes was anything but a convenient storytelling device, and while people can imagine that genetic engineering may one day let us create one, what would we make it look like? It's been depicted in thousands of different ways, and it's unlikely you could ever get people to unanimously agree that any one interpretation of it is the one and only true Chimera...

Our descendants will laugh at us, because they will say that by the 21st century the laissez-faire economic theory has resulted in horrors for humanity time and time again, and yet people still clung to it despite that.

They will also laugh (or cry) about how we so shortsightedly wiped out much of the Earth's ecosystem with our hubris, fueled by adherence to thoroughly disproven and discredited absolutist theories such as yours.

^ Let consumers and consumer groups who care about the environment boycott industries that harm it. Let private companies that check and endorse industries that respect the environment inform the consumers. Let environmental friendliness become a competitive advantage when the environment becomes a concern. Let news organizations and environment activists denounce industries that harm the environment. Let courts punish those who harm the property of others. The list goes on...

The problem with "shaping" the market to do what you want is that it has already been done many many times over and over, usually you don't get what you want, you just distort the market into all sorts of unforeseen consequences, and you open yet another precedent for more intervention and abuse to "correct" that distortion that you created in the first place.

In fact, what we have are already extremely distorted markets, and you're thinking cap'n trade, which is just another great idea, would just fly in and save the day?

I have to take a step back though, because the reason you would suggest "correcting" a free market is because, well, you don't trust it, right? Just say it. Left to its own devices, bad things will happen and free society will inevitably self-destruct and implode planet Earth. If that's the case, then it's where you and I disagree. There's a certain understanding about free markets that, when you get it, you know a free market has a tendency to correct itself with time. Even if it takes a while. I believe that's also the case when it comes to the environment.

Just like freedom of expression: I'm sure there's a LOT of crap out there, but I know that things that make sense, ideas that work, philosophies and knowledge that help us instead of deceive us, they end up staying. The rest gets slowly culled out.

It's not a "faith in humanity" thing, it's more like an understanding of the mechanisms, already in place, that favor this kind of selection.

You may have noticed I love making the free market <--> freedom of expression comparison a lot, not football or traffic, etc. For much of our history, our ancestors couldn't give a rat's ass about free speech, hell, not even 200 years ago, most people thought slavery was OK, or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, etc. Today we know those ideas are absurd, yet they were unquestionably accepted by the majority not too far back.

Today, the concept people are entirely unfamiliar with in our own age is that of "economic freedom". We don't have it. We don't even know that we don't have it, it's like being born in a prison. Actually, it's more like almost the entire prison population is convinced that prison is better than being free, because that's what the warden and prison guards tell us, he's in charge of educating prisoners anyway, so that's what he's told them over and over to foil any escape attempts.

So when I talk about free market, it's like a chimera, most people can't imagine it, some even think it's bad, and few people care. I hope our descendants can laugh at us about it.

"Scientific method requires that you approach the world without unproven preconceptions -- and saying there's no God is definitely an unproven preconception."

It's all about probabilities. Very few things, many of which are very reliable in all of their relevant applications, outside of mathematical proofs can we ever be 100% sure about and are truly knowable. Saying god cannot be 100% disproved is a non-argument. There is zero proof-positive of it, just like there is for faeries, cyclops, and chimeras. People are not supposed to imagine things and then go find the evidence for it. It works the other way around. He/she/it is a psychological construct. You do have a pretty good point though and I agree about trying to defend indefensible positions or trying to address an argument which is already rigged to the opposing side's favor, because of it's seemingly intentional, hazy, and nebulous nature which is by default auto-immune to scientific scrutiny and protocols. It's like trying to not get wet from the rain by jumping into a pool.

I do not say, "There is no god." I say, "There is no known evidence for god, therefore I choose to live my life not wasting the very little time I have thinking there is." If anyone has something, anything ...I'm all ears.