Roamer

But let's say someone develops a hypothetical "mind control" device, where free will becomes nullified because you are ultimately under the control of that device. Would free will then become as such?

What makes you think we don't have things like this yet ?

Social interaction means different minds have a need to come to a unified perspective, this happens in many way, conversation, discussion, propaganda, schooling, banning of a particular teaching/book.

There are plenty of people with little to no free will of their own out there, who will instinctively take orders without question.

Well, social constructions/organisations; like church,state, multinationals etc, are evolving for quite a while now, most have a longer lifespan then any human as well.

Something bigger then that, well, we tend to value events insofar they effect us, and if the bleach comes our way we 'll have to deal with that just like any other natural disaster.

I'd say SSC.

but honestly i'm just guessing, there's too little to go on.

the only time nukes have been used is when no one else had them

What is unclear about this ?

You don't go to your neighbour's house and shoot him, if you know he's got a gun.

The nazis and Japan wouldn't 've bombed the shit out of hostile cities if they had realized their enemies would soon have the same capabilities.

You can add additional reasons why some people don't do immoral things, they can be taught things, made to believe things,

and even move to a place where no polar bears live,

But their validity does not invalidate other reasons.

The point is there is no data, because the only time nukes have been used is when no one else had them,

Maybe that's no cold hard scientific data, but it certainly is relevant data.

I think the main question I wanted answered was: "Do singular organs form on the axis of symmetry and migrate to their positions?"

Organs form on the position they more-or-less stay.

Also, your questioning is a bit confusing;

axis suggests that organs would revolve around this axis/centre, this doesn't happen(except when you do a pirouette)

 

 

My anti-polar bear fence has been 100% successful, yet my Canadian cousin’s fence fails every time.

 

Would the Ukraine have been safe with a nuclear arsenal? My guess, given the way Putin attacked, is no.

Ukraïne isn't save because of at least two different races inhabiting the country.

Would Iraq have been invaded had they actually possessed serious weapons-of-mass destruction(WMDs) or even MAD-capabilities ?

Do nuclear weapons realy keep us save ?

Has there ever been an invasion of(or nuclear attack on) a country that has nuclear weapons ?

“Let him who is without sin cast the first stone”

 

But when that stone can kill untold numbers shouldn’t he who thinks ,or pretends, he is without sin, be restrained?

This is like saying that when you are attacked by a drunk in a bar you can't hit him on the nose because "his nose-cells are innocent"

Perhaps the brain is a case in point that symmetry isn't always ideal.

I think we only have double(-ish) organs etc. because it means we only have to evolve them once.

but are there seriously better timekeepers (2-3 orders of magnitude or more

Well, you could look at insects and other small creatures;

some have a lifespan of a day or less, so IF they have an internal clock, it 'd be quite accurate.

Does regular Facebook use inhibit personal growth due to inability to cut formerly established ties/friendships?

 

Does it constrain you and make you less open to change due to being tied to the past?

 

Please discuss. =]

This used to be true for me when i just started on facebook, then i removed a particular "friend" i knew from a long time ago, and later on some other people, and i'm all good now.

is this discussion still about whether/which animals have better time-keeping then us(hint:without clocks/intelligence there would be plenty)

That's pretty much circular though. I was hoping you had something more concrete. No worries; as I cited above, the biological clock mechanism remains unknown even by the experts. Time will tell?

Most things in life are circular.

linguïstics ?

 

"Furthermore evolution will push very hard not to get excluded of selection entirely. ".

Evolution doesn't do things, it just happens.

Only organisms and sometimes communities/tribes/flocks will "do" and may or may not push for survival.

A mutation from 7-8 is only an increase of 1/7th birthrate, while going from 0 to 1 is a relative infinite increase.

(especially considering most if not all species age and die.)

But let's compare mutations from 1 to 2 and from 5 to 6 instead.

from 1 to 2 is still +100% vs 5 to 6 being +20%.

Competition, for the remaining habitat/food-supply etc, will also only be fiercer with more offspring,

generally speaking, if there are 100 organisms of a species, it means there's room for some 100 organisms,

making more offspring then 100 means the survival chances of the first 100 decreases,

while making LESS offspring enables the parents to put more time/effort into the individual offsprings, increasing their survival chances.

Does it differ in tournament and monogamous species?

Though the underlying mechanics differ a bit, they'll still get an average of 2 successfull offspring per mother.

Countries-differences will mostly depend on culture, government and is more of a sociology-question.

I don't know exactly why this thread is pinned, but 2 of the links in the OP are expired(and they're not explained in the OP)

1) Plenty of species went exinct in the last few centuries, i 'm not sure how many of their genes still survive in other species.

There is probably more, but i 'm not aware whether we actually tested for this.

2)Plenty of new (arrangement of) genes, which get interpreted differently.

3) It is easier to see on a macro-scale, but for scientific testing you need multiple generations, so mostly smaller creatures(bacteria etc.) have been experimented with.

But for the more "advanced" organisms, what purpose does survival even have? Why does a conscious entity, aware of its surroundings and even possibly of itself, want to continue to live and reproduce?

 

Organisms all react to their environments in order to survive. But why? What is so special about survival?

Why do you survive ?

They may be there as some kind of passage for animals, although Russia doesn't realy need those.

sounds like you need a financial construction where someone(or some funds) with 3M backs a buyer.

Won't these slow quakes release energy that would otherwise be released with "the big one" ?

Both. I'm sorry, but they voted for a liar (your word). If we vote a lunatic into power and the lunatic makes a complete Horlicks of everything, who is to blame? I say the voters.

 

That is the power of democracy.

 

Voting is a serious business. We get what we vote for.

 

On a side issue. I believe some say we (UK) had a warmonger as PM a while ago. But he was voted in with a significant majority three times, two of which while he was doing his - what I believe has been called - warmongering!!

I'm sorry, I just can't get my head around any of it.

We(the EU) live in a autocracy with a people's representation, not in a democracy.

In a democracy people vote on the laws governing them, not on the people making the laws.

Switzerland can be considered a democracy, but in most of the EU, referendums are held but only respected by politicians if the people voted as they wanted them to.

A lot of the institutions(paid for by tax money) are able to operate more-or-less autonomous.

Large companies(private money) are making it necessary for governments to "stand together" to not be played out against each other tax/rules-wise.

(about the last point, i suppose the EU is at least partly responsible for this, due to open borders, but it is also a way of standing together,

it's one of the many examples how the EU makes itself necessary.)

Games try to be balanced to attract the most players, as most players enjoy a fair competition.

IRL, we(humans) also prefer fair competition, but it is more of a tool of getting the best/desired results.

It doesn't matter whether one speaks from an "economic" perspective or a "moral" perspective.

In both cases, generally, debts just have to be paid, under the conditions agreed upon.

In both cases, if the debt is too high/unpayable, the lenders will need to take some responsibility as well.

In both cases, if a debt doesn't get paid this reflects bad on the borrower, and they will have a hard time borrowing again(as they should)

@Delbert, if you realy have to compare institutional loans with private loans,

have you considered comparing with a private bank loaning 500k to someone who only makes 25k/annually and loses his job a few years later?

In the civilised world, even private banks have some responsibility as well.
(and generally institutional banks have a higher responsibility then private banks.)

Printing their own drachme does not invalidate the euro currency already in hands of greek population, their foreign accounts and matresses. Greeks will keep using their euros; new drachmes will fall into deep devaluation to the point of being useless and ignored, except perhaps for minor daily commerce, taxes or giving change to tourists.

 

There is no way a 'printing machine entity' will convince the Greek population to surrender their held euros in exchange of new drachmes.

Are you implying the greek government has no legal authority over greek people and should just accept the ECB to hold monopoly over their money-printing ??

The debt can remain unpaid, their exports/tourism can still collect in euros, imports will diminish. Industry will self focus into more exports production of vessels, wine or whatever they do better.

1) An unpaid debt is never a good thing, but for Greece it might be the only way out.

But by then they will NEED drachmes, since the ECB isn't going to (again) print them euros for no payback.

2) Imports/exports(trade deficit/surplus) are greatly influenced by the money that is used, not using an own currency will hurt the economy.

I resided many years in a country were the inflation was fought by also using a parallel US dollar currency for important transactions and matress/foreign savings. The poor went poorer, the wealthy became more.

 

A close friend there advised me to buy US dollars constantly; which I did as much as my paychecks allowed for a decade+. I kept afloat if not actually ahead of average allowing a better future.

Inflation in double digits (well over 20%) is a brutal strike against personal progress, and a life of frustration. I think Greeks experienced that before the euro and stays in their retina. Drachmes will not work.

Since the euro the greek people have experienced more then 20% loss of, umm, purchasing power.

Before the euro they had a high inflation, but at least they weren't going bankrupt.