That's the big question. Population density, unemployment, culture... there are any number of things to consider here. The only thing that's clear from the statistics is that strict gun control laws do not seem to have any meaningful impact on violent crime, just as banning drugs and alcohol didn't have any meaningful impact on their existence.

It's all about redistribution, it's the only explanation. It's a game to shift the burden around.>> ^bareboards2:

The big question is -- if you cut deductions while cutting the tax rate, how does that promote growth? It is tax neutral.

The big question is -- if you cut deductions while cutting the tax rate, how does that promote growth? It is tax neutral.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^deathcow:
Why does the universe exist and why did it develop in a fashion which encouraged life?

We don't know yet, and may never.
Why does that answer mean we need to say "Magic did it."?

Cause at least someone is trying to write a story. I've got no beef with religion and I would say I'm an atheist. However Richard Dawkins is a dick, even Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks so.
I've always found Dawkins to be a relatively mild and reasoned debater. He loses his cool sometimes, but I don't understand why people claim he's a "dick", unless calmly arguing away people's cherished belief in imaginary friends that provide easy answers to big questions makes you a dick. Neil deGrasse Tyson probably thinks Dawkins is a dick because Tyson is a pussy who feels the need to sugar-coat his science and his atheism to avoid offending people. And dicks, as we all know, fuck pussies.

@hpqp
Sadly, I think you're spot-on about the other failing of the firearm analogy; some people are just itching for an opportunity to shoot someone. And yes, some of those people will try to raise children in their image.

In my view, my answer to "The Big Question" is "Only before implantation, if at all. Because I know that a child is demonstrably human well prior to delivery, and tracing back I cannot rationally distinguish a point where the line is crossed after implantation. I would rather err on the side of caution when human life is involved." In light of this, it should be obvious why I am opposed to even early abortion. I'm curious about your almost offhand dismissal of adoption as a non-solution and "worse". It sounds like this is a topic you have discussed previously at length. To me, even a grievously flawed system of adoption is preferable to abortion.
I do think you raise a potent point with respect to sex through coercion as distinguished from rape.
Even so, I do not see carrying and delivering a child to be "punishment". It is a substantial burden, to be sure, but in my perspective the alternative is abhorrent to the point as to be unacceptable.

I think analogies in general fail when discussing abortion because it is such a unique situation.
Note: In discussing your analogies, I'm going to use the term "kill" with respect to abortion. Going back to "the Big Question", whether or not this is an accurate term is probably going to depend on your perspective relative to the wad of cells we term a fetus. (Which I see you're searching for.)
The helmet analogy fails because efforts to save the life of the helmet-shunner do not necessarily harm someone else as directly as in abortion. You can find harm, sure: saving feckless may divert resources from saving the life of burning-nun-bus-rescue-hero, but you aren't necessarily killing someone else to save him.
Same for the STDs. Treating an STD kills bacteria, or uses up anti-viral medication, but there's no direct harm to another individual in the process. For me, living with the consequences of getting an STD means living with one of the incurable ones or living with a curable one until it gets managed, and dealing with the social stigma of informing other partners of your status.

I disagree with the assessment that the procedure is "punishment enough", primarily because I don't think that punishment is due. Again, it's not a woman's "fault" that she's pregnant, and sex is not some grievous crime to be prosecuted. Sex is a wonderful experience that can be a carnal pleasure, an act of intimacy, or both, but one that carries consequences. The initiation of a new human life is a possible outcome. (Yes, the procedure is unpleasant, often painful, and some women will experience regret or other emotional disturbances afterwards, but those are, again, possible consequences of a choice.)

I agree wholeheartedly that more education is essential. Increased access to contraceptives (and hopefully more effective contraceptives) will (almost) certainly lessen the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. I appreciate that "don't have sex if you can't accept being pregnant" is not a magical incantation that makes people not have sex, but it has to be a part of it, because no method of contraception is 100% effective, even if used correctly.

I look forward to your followup on the "ball of cells" issue.

@ReverendTed

Abortion is not murder, but that's not really the point. America, and by extension, the world, doesn't really have a problem with killing as a whole. We war with ourselves and kill fellow beings in the name of religion, politics, land and other resources. We kill criminals if they commit heinous enough crimes. We kill vast amounts of wildlife for fun and sport. We kill flies and other insects merely because they bother us. We step on insects without even knowing it.

We humans kill.
We are killers.
There is no escaping this fact.
Create the right conditions and anyone will kill...anyone.

The only thing you can do is: 1. Hopefully create a world in the future where we don't have to kill as much and 2. Hope that we are killing for the right reasons. Sometimes this will be true, sometimes it won't be. But that's life. That's the human condition. A law will change nothing other than whether or not abortions are performed safely or not. I choose to live in a world where if someone I know decides to have an abortion, that they do it safely with a doctor and not in some back alley. Abortions will happen REGARDLESS of what the law says. If we're going to end an unborn child's life, let's at least make sure the mother remains safe. Outlawing abortions just increases the chance that we'll have two ended lives instead of just one.

Abortion, by definition is the LAWFUL termination of an unborn child...LAWFUL. Murder is the UNLAWFUL termination of a life. Key distinction there.

This false morality that some people are somehow above and beyond the rest of us mere mortals and hold life to be irrevocably sacred just does not understand history or the human condition. These sorts of people seem to be the same people who would casually send us to war for religious or ideological reasons and thus condone the termination of more lives. The hypocrisy is glaring.

In regards to this notion that a person would go have an abortion just because a baby would be inconvenient is sad certainly, but when it comes right down to it....tough. Cost of living in a free society. people are going to things you don't approve of. deal with it. Your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. People who go have abortions out of convenience are in the minority. Quit worrying about what the minority does..especially with their own body. You and I don't get to decide what is right for someone else.

We don't live in a post-scarcity world yet. If every viable pregnancy ever was brought to term, we would have an even bigger resource shortage problem on our hands.

We live in a world where your quality of life (and your offspring) is directly related to your job. Until the quality of life of humanity becomes more equalized, We are going to continue to have situations where if someone gets pregnant it will directly affect their quality of life (and their child's) for the worse. So I really don't have a problem with someone terminating the pregnancy so that they go on to improve their quality of life so that they can have a kid later who will benefit from that better quality of life.

I too would ideally prefer adoption to abortion. But that's not exactly saying much. Adoption agencies have tons of kids and not enough parents to go around. As fertility science continues to improve, fewer and fewer parents are going to want adoption when they can just undergo a procedure and still have their own. This recently happened to a friend of mine who was having difficulty conceiving. She and her husband initially decided to adopt, but at some point, they changed their mind and pursued some massively costly fertility treatments so that they eventually did conceive. I was immensely happy for her, but at the same time, I personally felt they should have stuck with the adoption as those orphans are already here and need help now. But here's the thing. It's not my choice, it's hers and her husbands. So we can deal with the realities of the situation or continue to play hypotheticals. If everyone gave their kid up for adoption instead of abortion, we'd just have a different kind of problem and the quality of life of a vast amount of kids would be affected for the worse.

As for your big questions, They are best left to people far more educated on this subject than you and I. Of course there is some point in a pregnancy where abortion should no longer be an option. I don't think anyone is arguing this. As you say, the question is when. I simply don't know and am unqualified to make that judgement. No matter what is decided upon, it obviously won't satisfy everyone, but a decision has to be made and you can't please everyone.

So it seems like the big question is, assuming humans could reduce CO₂ and other green house gas emissions to (a) zero tomorrow, what happens to the climate/atmosphere over the next century? What is the effect if we reduce them to (b) 50% current output? What is the effect at (c) 85% output?

Assuming (a), are we already past a point at which extreme weather, sea level rise, etc. will disrupt human activity for at least 20 years? Would that be the case assuming (b) or (c)? The question we really need an answer to is how do we optimize, over time, the economically relevant weather extremities against energy generation and consumption.
In reply to this comment by DerHasisttot:
FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Also: "Global warming is the current rise in the average temperature....

" Most birds and some mammals make beautiful sounds, but primarily to scare others away -- or to get laid."


and this is different from humans how? lol, marilyn manson nine inch nails korn .... every guy in a rock band ever...


the main difference is we can say there is a difference. shrug.

Can they make it, do they like it, and do they like making it are all big questions!

Then what does belong in the main Sift Talk?

>> ^jonny:

if [Mitt] takes office we all know the chances of war with Iran go up
I don't think that's necessarily true. Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability. Also, just because Romney is a Republican doesn't mean he's anywhere near as crazy or willfully blind to reality as Bush. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'd rather have Romney in office, even just for this particular issue. I'm just saying I don't think as voters we have any real indication what either one of these men will do if, e.g., Israel launched a unilateral attack. Also, it's worth noting that these decisions tend to be made based on large amounts of information that will never be known to any of us.

if Obama goes in, at least we have a chance of accomplishing our goal in a timely manner.
What makes you think that? The timely manner in which Guantanamo has been shut down? Or perhaps the timely manner in which we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan?
What do you guys think about this situation?
I would hope that anyone occupying the White House is aware that any direct attack on Iran by the US will almost certainly lead to a very large regional conflict, and could quite possibly result in a true world war. I'm not trying to be melodramatic or hyperbolic - if the US directly engages Iran militarily, there is no doubt neighboring countries will be brought into the conflict. The big question is would China or Russia or some other significant power dependent on oil from Iran and the rest of the Gulf region decide to get involved to limit the US's influence. It's not hard to imagine China playing at least a covert role in assisting Iran. How would the US react? For that matter, how would India and Pakistan react? Both have nukes and are not exactly on the best of terms with China. The potential consequences of a US invasion of Iran are just too great to risk, for any President.

_{Also, this (and several other posts) really doesn't belong in the main Sift Talk.}

if [Mitt] takes office we all know the chances of war with Iran go up

I don't think that's necessarily true. Obama has shown his willingness to engage in war, even when it should be clear that doing so will accomplish little in the long run either in terms of US security or the given country's or region's security and stability. Also, just because Romney is a Republican doesn't mean he's anywhere near as crazy or willfully blind to reality as Bush. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'd rather have Romney in office, even just for this particular issue. I'm just saying I don't think as voters we have any real indication what either one of these men will do if, e.g., Israel launched a unilateral attack. Also, it's worth noting that these decisions tend to be made based on large amounts of information that will never be known to any of us.


if Obama goes in, at least we have a chance of accomplishing our goal in a timely manner.

What makes you think that? The timely manner in which Guantanamo has been shut down? Or perhaps the timely manner in which we pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

What do you guys think about this situation?

I would hope that anyone occupying the White House is aware that any direct attack on Iran by the US will almost certainly lead to a very large regional conflict, and could quite possibly result in a true world war. I'm not trying to be melodramatic or hyperbolic - if the US directly engages Iran militarily, there is no doubt neighboring countries will be brought into the conflict. The big question is would China or Russia or some other significant power dependent on oil from Iran and the rest of the Gulf region decide to get involved to limit the US's influence. It's not hard to imagine China playing at least a covert role in assisting Iran. How would the US react? For that matter, how would India and Pakistan react? Both have nukes and are not exactly on the best of terms with China. The potential consequences of a US invasion of Iran are just too great to risk, for any President.


_{Also, this (and several other posts) really doesn't belong in the main Sift Talk.}

I really hope this doesn't suck. The thing about Philip K. Dick's writing is that it's smart. He asks big and interesting questions and presents them in exciting but though-provoking scenarios. Most adaptations of his work have been straight-up action flicks, which are usually terrible. The Schwarzenegger version was actually one of the better ones, but the big questions are overshadowed by the fact that it's an Arnold movie, with all that entails.

The gold standard is still Blade Runner, and that's the stick by which I'll be measuring this film.

Like I said, I hope it doesn't suck.

>> ^renatojj:

>> ^Stormsinger:
Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.
I think what truly undermines capitalism is:

- Public education: if you let people be educated by the state, they'll be deprived of the critical thinking needed to challenge it.
- Economic intervention: if government has any power over the economy, those with money will buy that power. Are TV networks and newspapers lobbying government to censor competitors? No, because censorship is unnaceptable in a free speech society.
Oligarchs don't want free markets, they're the ones who built this crony capitalism, where they get to make rules for their own benefit.

- The issue has -nothing- to do with public education. Even the stupidity of our electorate has nothing to do with education...it's that most people don't care about anything past the end of their nose, and are too stupid to actually think about issues in the first place. Education won't change that, it never has. But it makes a nice red herring.


- Yes, of course. The answer to a capture of regulators is to abandon all regulation on the offenders whatsoever...I'm sure that'll make things better. We can obviously count on their better nature to ensure our well-being, once we stop trying to do it for ourselves. Typical libertarian lunacy. You might want to see Somalia for the actual results of that sort of thinking.

A much better answer is to design a system such that those people involved in regulating have an incentive (and the power) to stay opposed to any increase in power of the oligarchs. Negative feedback loops are the time-proven method of maintaining a balance. Designing such a social system is difficult, of course, and implementing it is likely to require a violent overthrow of our current system. But it's going to have to happen sooner or later, if we want an end to these boom-and-bust cycles of the robber barons.

>> ^Stormsinger:

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.
I think what truly undermines capitalism is:



- Public education: if you let people be educated by the state, they'll be deprived of the critical thinking needed to challenge it.

- Economic intervention: if government has any power over the economy, those with money will buy that power. Are TV networks and newspapers lobbying government to censor competitors? No, because censorship is unnaceptable in a free speech society.

Oligarchs don't want free markets, they're the ones who built this crony capitalism, where they get to make rules for their own benefit.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Seems to me that the People need to vote with their dollars and stop, for example, buying Dominos Pizza, once they learn that it's profits support anti-gay campaigns, or Snapple once they learn that it's owned by Rush Limbaugh, and so on.>> ^Stormsinger:
Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.


That's effectively the situation today...and we see how well that's been working. If it worked, this video wouldn't exist.


In order for that approach to be effective, it requires a change in normal human behavior...such that
many people would willingly inconvenience themselves for principles that don't immediately affect them.

If we can change human nature, we don't need any other answer. Let's just change it so capitalism (or communism, or objectivism) works well without regulation. They all work fine if those pesky humans would just do what the various Utopians think they should.

Seems to me that the People need to vote with their dollars and stop, for example, buying Dominos Pizza, once they learn that it's profits support anti-gay campaigns, or Snapple once they learn that it's owned by Rush Limbaugh, and so on.>> ^Stormsinger:

Capitalism is virtually guaranteed to become state-sponsored, over the long run, especially in a democracy (or republic, there's little effective difference). When the government has no built-in opposition to the capitalist class, sooner or later, it gets bought.
The big question is how do you build in a negative feedback loop to limit the power of the oligarchs.