>> ^chilaxe:

So you're arguing against markets (meritocracy)

Markets aren't meritocracy.
>> ^chilaxe:

and in favor of collectivism & experientialism ('feel good' degrees paid for by somebody else)

Honestly, I don't really know what I'm in favor of. Given all the discussions I have here, I'm pretty sure your conception of "collectivism" differs from mine, and I only have a vague notion of what you're trying to say when you refer to "experientialism." It doesn't matter though, because your parenthetical ascribes a position to me that I have already explicitly disavowed (along with the premise it's based on).
>> ^chilaxe:
It does seem relevant then whether or not meritocracy causes greater contributions to humankind

It's no more relevant than talking about the ecological impact of unicorn migration, seeing how meritocracy doesn't exist.
>> ^chilaxe:
(it appears to, if we compare my outcomes to those of my lazy collectivist friends)

Anecdotes aren't data. Especially considering the cognitive biases of the source.
>> ^chilaxe:
"Would you really stop working on it if you got paid less, or if everyone got paid the same no matter what they did?"
Yes I would, and that's one of the reasons I stopped working in academia early on.
I'm asking you to respond to a hypothetical, specifically what would you do if material wealth wasn't connected to how you spent your time? Would you just become a couch potato? Or would you still feel driven to do something worthwhile, because being idle doesn't appeal to you?

I think if you are who you say you are, you'd still choose to do things that are useful and meaningful to society in such a situation. I know I would.

>> ^chilaxe:
I realized most human problems are self-caused and aren't relevant to rationalists (same as the make-believe problem of student loans).

Too bad you aren't a rationalist, then.
>> ^chilaxe:
But fortunately it's not generally necessary to make the choice between passion and career... individuals have general interests, and they can follow the most socioeconomically valued paths within those interests.

Sure it is. Who becomes a janitor because it was their passion? Lots of people get channeled into jobs that don't align with their passions, largely for reasons beyond their control.

As for "socioeconomically valued paths" my point is that that's a pretty strong external constraint on your ability to choose how to live your life, and that "freedom" doesn't entail making those constraints and pressures stronger.

One can make the argument that a society with that level of paternalism is more beneficial for everyone (I sometimes even believe that myself), but one can't seriously contend that such pressures constitute the very definition of freedom.

But if your goal for society is to promote rationality, markets aren't your mechanism.

Bill Nye doesn't get paid more than Sean Hannity, and Judge Judy gets paid more than the entire Supreme Court. There is no meritocracy, and there is no connection between rational behavior and their reward. Hannity and Judge Judy both would probably lose their jobs if they started publicly promoting rationality instead of inanity. Not to mention, Paris Hilton can probably buy and sell them all.

One can play a certain shell game with this, and say that it's rational for the producers to pay Hannity to be publicly inane because it's going to make them money, but this just further amplifies my point -- markets give rational people incentive to do irrational and destructive things, like give Sean Hannity a TV show, or try to rig the real-estate market, or to base a business on encouraging young women to become prostitutes.

dannym3141:

Claiming that people should stop burning fossil fuels would HEAVILY dent the income of just about every country because of how much tax they can charge from it. Britain's economy is almost based on fossil fuel tax. How can you possibly argue that they are a politically influenced source over fossil fuel use when they criticise such a money earner?

Politics aside, fossil fuels remain the cheapest, most abundant source of energy, and new supplies of it are being discovered all the time. I never said people should stop burning them.

I hesitate to even mention that "science" as a global community is above reproach in ways that hardly anything else can be due to the method of a scientist. If you are not performing science for truth and discovery, you are not a scientist, so you're not part of the community anymore. That's why it's above reproach. I'm sure you'll argue with me about that, but i know that you'd argue about the time of day if you were proven to be wrong.

I'm not arguing, but I am astonished you would believe scientists are above politics (and reproach), not because the scientific method is flawed, but because scientists are fallible humans with their own beliefs and interests. As W. Pennypacker said in so many words, governments reward scientists which confirm a pre-determined outcome (like secondhand smoke killing 100 billion people a year). Junk science is real; it may not be everywhere, but it's out there. And not just "the oil companies" which have "scientitians" in their corner.

Another thing, gang. Over the last few years, global warming hysteria has been relentless. It's the alarmists who declared, "The debate is over." There was even one smug a-hole who compared "climate deniers" to Holocaust deniers. Classy! There was the faked data scandal. These are not the actions of scientists confident in their conclusions. Yet the lazy media continues to back the alarmists without question.

100 storylines blaming climate change as the problem:

1. The deaths of Aspen trees in the West
2. Incredible shrinking sheep
3. Caribbean coral deaths
4. Eskimos forced to leave their village
5. Disappearing lake in Chile
6. Early heat wave in Vietnam
7. Malaria and water-borne diseases in Africa
8. Invasion of jellyfish in the Mediterranean
9. Break in the Arctic Ice Shelf
10. Monsoons in India
11. Birds laying their eggs early
12. 160,000 deaths a year
13. 315,000 deaths a year
14. 300,000 deaths a year
15. Decline in snowpack in the West
16. Deaths of walruses in Alaska
17. Hunger in Nepal
18. The appearance of oxygen-starved dead zones in the oceans
19. Surge in fatal shark attacks
20. Increasing number of typhoid cases in the Philippines
21. Boy Scout tornado deaths
22. Rise in asthma and hayfever
23. Duller fall foliage in 2007
24. Floods in Jakarta
25. Radical ecological shift in the North Sea
26. Snowfall in Baghdad
27. Western tree deaths
28. Diminishing desert resources
29. Pine beetles
30. Swedish beetles
31. Severe acne
32. Global conflict
33. Crash of Air France 447
34. Black Hawk Down incident
35. Amphibians breeding earlier
36. Flesh-eating disease
37. Global cooling
38. Bird strikes on US Airways 1549
39. Beer tastes different
40. Cougar attacks in Alberta
41. Suicide of farmers in Australia
42. Squirrels reproduce earlier
43. Monkeys moving to Great Rift Valley in Kenya
44. Confusion of migrating birds
45. Bigger tuna fish
46. Water shortages in Las Vegas
47. Worldwide hunger
48. Longer days
49. Earth spinning faster
50. Gender balance of crocodiles
51. Skin cancer deaths in UK
52. Increase in kidney stones in India
53. Penguin chicks frozen by global warming
54. Deaths of Minnesota moose
55. Increased threat of HIV/AIDS in developing countries
56. Increase of wasps in Alaska
57. Killer stingrays off British coasts
58. All societal collapses since the beginning of time
59. Bigger spiders
60. Increase in size of giant squid
61. Increase of orchids in UK
62. Collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden
63. Cow infertility
64. Conflict in Darfur
65. Bluetongue outbreak in UK cows
66. Worldwide wars
67. Insomnia of children worried about global warming
68. Anxiety problems for people worried about climate change
69. Migration of cockroaches
70. Taller mountains due to melting glaciers
71. Drowning of four polar bears
72. UFO sightings in the UK
73. Hurricane Katrina
74. Greener mountains in Sweden
75. Decreased maple in maple trees
76. Cold wave in India
77. Worse traffic in LA because immigrants moving north
78. Increase in heart attacks and strokes
79. Rise in insurance premiums
80. Invasion of European species of earthworm in UK
81. Cold spells in Australia
82. Increase in crime
83. Boiling oceans
84. Grizzly deaths
85. Dengue fever
86. Lack of monsoons
87. Caterpillars devouring 45 towns in Liberia
88. Acid rain recovery
89. Global wheat shortage; food price hikes
90. Extinction of 13 species in Bangladesh
91. Changes in swan migration patterns in Siberia
92. The early arrival of Turkey’s endangered caretta carettas
93. Radical North Sea shift
94. Heroin addiction
95. Plant species climbing up mountains
96. Deadly fires in Australia
97. Droughts in Australia
98. The demise of California’s agriculture by the end of the century
99. Tsunami in South East Asia
100. Fashion victim: the death of the winter wardrobe


Do you really expect free people to surrender to THIS?

...if the left could prove that man-made global warming was dangerous, and there was a solution to be found to the global warming "problem", the solution wouldn't arrive via socialist edicts, the free market would find it.

First off, thanks for proving my point. You have no interest in hearing about any problem that turns your political ideology on its head. This pretty much seals the deal of what your motives actually are.

Which problem would that be? The correlation between man-made activity (industry) and global warming remains scientifically unproven. Plenty of theories, NO demonstrable proof. This would be fine, except the alarmists wish to radically change the world to suit their "vision" in aforementioned ways. Not just tomorrow but 100 years from now. We've seen this collectivist BS repackaged and resold over and over again, and the result is always the same: central planning by elites = failure.

My "motive" is this: I wish to live free, it's my GOD-given right to live free. Or, if you prefer, it's a NATURAL right to live free, and this right cannot be "revoked" by any legit government. Pure anarchy doesn't work, so a free society surrenders some freedom to achieve the maximum amount of freedom possible.

Now along come the warming alarmists. They have declared, in hysterical fashion, that our dynamic ever-changing global climate now poses a threat because it isn't doing what they assumed it would do, without even knowing what is "normal". By some accounts, we're way past due for another ice age.

Private property rights and free markets have proven they're the best ways to manage both themselves and the "common good", which too often is code for non-competitive hangers-on and government incompetence. Capitalism creates ecologically-friendly goods when they're what consumers want. Capitalism creates new, more efficient technologies.

Does this mean capitalism is perfect? NOPE. Humans are selfish and regulation is necessary, but the latter is not a "solution" to all of life's problems any more than capitalism.

In the case of global warming, just for the sake of this discussion, assume that yes, burning of fossil fuels is causing global warming, and that global warming is in fact detrimental to humans.

Then there's still no easy answer. The burning of fossil fuels has made a high standard of living for nations which in turn grow food and build technology to sell to less advanced nations. Global warming (or cooling) simply cannot be detrimental to all humans at the same time. So assuming--for the sake of argument--that the alarmists' theories were somehow proven, there is still no solution, only trade-offs.

Free markets and private property rights are not utopian. HOWEVER, while they may not self-correct to the exacting standards of some, they're a hell of a lot more responsive and 'organic' than governments, whose motives are all over the map.

The most effective way to deal with such a problem for capitalists is simply deny the problem actually exists. Your problem is you desperately want there to not be a problem to fit your capitalist ideology, so you will not ever be convinced that global warming is real and human influenced. This is largely because if it is real, it likely cannot be dealt with using market forces solely, and your ideology will be irreparably destroyed.

This is just a silly ad hominem attack. One more time: the direct correlation between man-made activity (industry) and global warming remains scientifically unproven. Plenty of theories, NO demonstrable proof.

No, heropsycho, I have no interest in personally labeling anyone, as if that would solve anything.

As Videosift's resident doctor of ecology, I approve this video.

If the citizens hate the law against front yard gardens (yardens?) so much they should change it. Until then, if the law is proven to define no front yardens, then that's the law.

It's all a matter of degree, isn't it liberals? You're upset about THIS when your eco-fascism is now fully one-third of fedguv's laws...LOOK at the arbitrary power you've given your masters!

All of a sudden you're FOR private property rights? Out-RAGEOUS!



Here's some of the voices of reason of your heroes:

"We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure."

--Paul Elrich, Stanford University biologist and Advisor to Albert Gore

"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."

--Judi Barri of Earth First!

"Capitalism is a cancer in the biosphere."

--Dave Foreman, Founder, Earth First!

"The northern spotted owl is the wildlife species of choice to act as a surrogate for old-growth forest protection," explained Andy Stahl, staff forester for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, at a 1988 law clinic for other environmentalists. "Thank goodness the spotted owl evolved in the Pacific Northwest," he joked, "for if it hadn't, we'd have to genetically engineer it."

--Andy Stahl at a 1988 law clinic for environmentalists, staff forester, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund

"Now, in a widening sphere of decisions, the costs of error are so exorbitant that we need to act on theory alone, which is to say on prediction alone. It follows that the reputation of scientific prediction needs to be enhanced. But that can happen, paradoxically, only if scientists disavow the certainty and precision that they normally insist on. Above all, we need to learn to act decisively to forestall predicted perils, even while knowing that they may never materialize. We must take action, in a manner of speaking, to preserve our ignorance. There are perils that we can be certain of avoiding only at the cost of never knowing with certainty that they were real."

--Jonathan Shell, author of Our Fragile Earth

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

--Richard Benedict, an employee for the State Department working on assignment for the Conservation Foundation

"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

--Stephen Schneider, Stanford University Professor and author Quoted by Dixey Lee Ray in Trashing the Planet (1990)


"More science and more technology are not going to get us out of the present ecological crises until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one."

--Lynn White, Jr. "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis," Science, (Mar. 10 1967), p 1206

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license.... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

--David Brower, Friends of the Earth

"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state."

--Keith Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept

"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."

--Earth First! newsletter

@GenjiKilpatrick

Like I said, we can't have a conversation about science and religion if we aren't talking about the same thing when we use those words--and especially when you insist on grossly misrepresenting my position and wandering off-topic (I agree with you that we should eat less meat because of its ecological consequences, but I would like to see the research that says the only solution to the problem is for all of us to become vegetarians--PM me a link if you've got one).

The gaps are fundemental..here are some more quotes:

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series." (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll, Robert L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)

"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species." (Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.)

"He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search....It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong." (Eldridge, Niles, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1984, pp.45-46.)

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is out-pacing integration...The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps." (George, T. Neville, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," Science Progress, vol. 48 January 1960, pp. 1-3.)

"Despite the bright promise - that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing’ evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record." (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467.)

"It is interesting that all the cases of gradual evolution that we know about from the fossil record seem to involve smooth changes without the appearance of novel structures and functions." (Wills, C., Genetic Variability, 1989, p. 94-96.)

"So the creationist prediction of systematic gaps in the fossil record has no value in validating the creationist model, since the evolution theory makes precisely the same prediction." (Weinberg, S., Reviews of Thirty-one Creationist Books, 1984, p.

"We seem to have no choice but to invoke the rapid divergence of populations too small to leave legible fossil records." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 99.)

"For over a hundred years paleontologists have recognized the large number of gaps in the fossil record. Creationists make it seem like gaps are a deep, dark secret of paleontology..." (Cracraft, in Awbrey & Thwaites, Evolutionists Confront Creationists", 1984.)

"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood (Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981.)

"As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of graduationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups -- between say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65-66.)

"Transitions between major groups of organisms . . . are difficult to establish in the fossil record." (Padian, K., The Origin of Turtles: One Fewer Problem for Creationists, 1991, p. 18.)

"A persistent problem in evolutionary biology has been the absence of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Long term gradual transformations of single lineages are rare and generally involve simple size increase or trivial phenotypic effects. Typically, the record consists of successive ancestor-descendant lineages, morphologically invariant through time and unconnected by intermediates." (Williamson, P.G., Palaeontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin, 1982, p. 163.)

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71.)

"One must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil record . . . There is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged." (Ruse, "Is There a Limit to Our Knowledge of Evolution," 1984, p.101.)

"We are faced more with a great leap of faith . . . that gradual progressive adaptive change underlies the general pattern of evolutionary change we see in the rocks . . . than any hard evidence." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 57.)

"Gaps between families and taxa of even higher rank could not be so easily explained as the mere artifacts of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, Niles, Macro-Evolutionary Dynamics: Species, Niches, and Adaptive Peaks, 1989, p.22.)

"To explain discontinuities, Simpson relied, in part, upon the classical argument of an imperfect fossil record, but concluded that such an outstanding regularity could not be entirely artificial." (Gould, Stephen J., "The Hardening of the Modern Synthesis," 1983, p. 81.)

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artifact of a poor fossil record." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59.)

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163.)

"Gaps in the fossil record - particularly those parts of it that are most needed for interpreting the course of evolution - are not surprising." (Stebbins, G. L., Darwin to DNA, Molecules to Humanity, 1982, p. 107.)

"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40.)

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." (Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140.)

"The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 34.)

"Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large." (Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 35.)

"We have so many gaps in the evolutionary history of life, gaps in such key areas as the origin of the multicellular organisms, the origin of the vertebrates, not to mention the origins of most invertebrate groups." (McGowan, C., In the Beginning . . . A Scientist Shows Why Creationists are Wrong, 1984, p. 95.)

"If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, Dr. Eldredge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory." (The Guardian Weekly, 26 Nov 1978, vol. 119, no 22, p. 1.)

“People and advertising copywriters tend to see human evolution as a line stretching from apes to man, into which one can fit new-found fossils as easily as links in a chain. Even modern anthropologists fall into this trap . . .[W]e tend to look at those few tips of the bush we know about, connect them with lines, and make them into a linear sequence of ancestors and descendants that never was. But it should now be quite plain that the very idea of the missing link, always shaky, is now completely untenable.” (Gee, Henry, "Face of Yesterday,” The Guardian, Thursday July 11, 2002.)

>> ^Drax:
Shiny, it's kind of like you're saying,
Ok, we have: . -> O
And you say, ah! But there's no transitional species that spans the gap of . and O
Then we find . -> o -> O
And you say, ah! But there's no transitional species that spans the gap of . and o
or o and O
Basically, the more evidence we find.. the stronger your argument gets! <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oh.gif">
ok, that last part's just a joke.. but seriously.. the other parts ARE your stance.
It's either that, or you're looking at o and e and expecting to find æ, which just doesn't happen.

Fade, behavior is a trait passed on from parent to offspring in most lizards. With humans we teach our young how to do things. However mot lizards have no interaction with their young, so any behavior changes are passed on genetically, just like any physical trait. Behavior evolves in exactly the same way a physical trait does, but often faster. It's easy to see the natural selection here. The two escape mechanisms will work differently for different predators. I'm sure the twitching lizards fair less well against the more traditional predators, but more will survive ant attacks than will be predated by the traditional predators.

Not fake, just a clear demonstration of natural selection in progress.

Like all good scientific research it's publish for peer review. According to the video the research appears in the Jan 2009 edition of the journal Ecology. You can look it up for yourself to see what the original research shows.

But..some people want to keep who they love with them as long as they can.
Good care naturally causes that to happen. Just like in human history.
>> ^entr0py:
but we don't need to optimize the longevity of dogs, just give them good lives while they're around.

But you haven't backed up any statistics. You've done no quantitative reasoning nor cited anything.

The claim was about land usage, not energy or greenhouse emissions, although I don't believe that a dog can be worse than the average Land Cruiser by any of those metrics.

If the production and transportation of dog food really took so much energy, then it would be expensive. Instead it is 1 dollar a pound for quality food. Is it being subsidized in some way that the fuel for the Land Cruiser is not?

I'd prefer a citation to examine.

>> ^Peroxide:
Oh, and if I haven't pissed off pet lovers enough by backing these QI statistics, think about how many people will starve to death while your obese dog bongo fills up your back yard with shit today.

That was a surprising answer.

We just got a cat for Christmas. If I were at all concerned with my "ecological footprint", she'd be vegetarian.

@GeeSussFreeK, @Psychologic, this experiment was tried. It was called "the United States" until about 1932.

Basically the answer was that voluntary donation for humanitarian purposes, and ecological purposes wasn't zero, but it was trivial compared to the money that goes towards those causes now, and the increased funding and universalized benefits made massive improvements in human welfare.

This is kinda the problem I have with even moderately libertarian arguments. The US wasn't a pure libertarian ideal at any point, but a lot of the big changes libertarians want were in place (no Social Security, Medicare, public schools, income tax, Federal reserve, labor laws, food safety laws, environmental laws, etc.) in the US for a long time, and the result wasn't pretty, even if you overlook stuff like slavery. Hell, you even had an extended period of lawlessness in the West, where "police brutality" was never an issue -- just holdups, kidnapping, rape, murder, etc. Lynchings in the public square were what made for justice back in those times.

Instead of giving rise to a perfect libertarian/anarchist/voluntaryist/whateverist society that had no need of government, it gave rise to the country that we live in now.

The great dispel.

Supernatural claims are quashed as the information flows free over the Internet or whatever replaces it when Telecommunication Companies try to stifle it with data tax.

God is banished into even smaller gaps to hide in.

The tone of politics will erupt and recede back to a less aggressive stance.

America will economically continue to decline while China and the eastern countries rise.

China's continuing social and technological advances will cause weather problems unlike what we've seen so far, if they have to go through the same dirty steps we in the western world did. Eventually, the western world will hopefully help them to skip the worst ecological steps in the energy production.

Entertainment will continue its current trend of getting more and more personalized. The same will happen with news. The two will merge and it will be hard to tell them apart.

The Simpsons will continue all through the decade. Futurama will be cancelled again. South Park will hit dire straits but continue nonetheless. Family Guy will continue. American Dad will be cancelled. Cleveland Show will be cancelled. Joss Whedon will make a new show; it will be cancelled.

3D will fail.

The Optical Discs (cd, dvd, bluray etc) will vanish and Solid State Disks will be common place.

Telephones will become wallets and Cash will be obsolete, only used by people who don't yet embrace the digital credit/debit card.

Facebook will only continue to grow and the 2010 will see people as far more connected. The Internet will reach more people than ever before, and the speeds will increase in general, but not unexpectedly so.

Computers will continue their trend of getting "wider" instead of "higher" - more cores will be added, frequencies will on average reach 4-5 GHz but not much higher. Processor companies will hit the physical ceiling on their processors when they cannot make the process any smaller with silicon. Quantum processors will start to show signs of life and might even start to become marketable.

Global Warming will continue to happen like it does now, it won't be catastrophically bad, but it will be there. Emissions in the west will lower, but the east will offset it. If Africa starts getting in gear it will only get worse.

Polls will show that Obama will not be reelected, but in debates he will flatten the opponent and he will get four more years. Fox will claim foul play and try to foul play the other way. Jon Stewart will cover it and it will be hilarious. Also, netrunner will sift it.

The Sift will change form from what we know now. I hope it will last, but it's hard to say at this point.

More things will happen. Good and bad.

Basically a round-about argument for following ecological economics. *promote

>> ^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]).