Alex_Krycek

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    178
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Neutral

1 Follower

About Alex_Krycek

  • Rank
    Baryon

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Psychology, Archaeology

Recent Profile Visitors

1361 profile views
  1. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general are helping eliminate waste and inefficiency across the globe. Hence I would keep the bitcoin job.
  2. The landscape on the internet is changing. People want some semblance of privacy these days after all the scandals and intrusion. Google and FB have clearly overstepped their bounds.
  3. The right wing has wanted a war with Iran for decades. With today's news of a British tanker "accidentally" veering into Iranian waters, it seems everything is being done to stoke a conflict at this point. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/19/british-tanker-iran-capture-fears-stena-impero-uk-ship-latest Everything that's happening now seems like a provocation.
  4. I would recommend using the search engine Duck Duck Go. They don't track / monitor you like google does, and there's a "safe search" feature which guarantees that the only Japanese nurses you see are middle aged and fully clothed.
  5. Agreed - so the logical solution is to get the current administration the f*** out.
  6. In a representative democracy, the will of the people is the law. For some reason you choose to relegate the will of the people only to the private sector - hoping against hope that corporations will eventually offer the kind of environmentally friendly solutions that the world so desperately needs. This is a pathetically inefficient approach to the magnitude of the problems facing the world. Corporations will always choose the slowest path towards change as long as it is legally possible - profit drives corporations, not ethics. Only when their hand is forced by the government (with respect to carbon emissions, renewable energy, or environmentally friendly products) will they abide by new standards. Otherwise, the change will be glacial - too little too late, which is where the world is now. Depressingly, the notion that we will somehow stay below 2C is now a bit of a pipe dream. Countries that have adopted strong regulatory stances towards improving the environment, on the other hand, are seeing noticeable results. Germany, for example, has a heavily regulated energy industry and is on track to implement 80% renewable energy by 2050. Uruguay has already transitioned to 95% electricity using renewable energy and has done so incredibly quickly, primarily because of government action "https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/uruguay-makes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy From the article: "In fact, he says that now that renewables provide 94.5% of the country’s electricity, prices are lower than in the past relative to inflation. There are also fewer power cuts because a diverse energy mix means greater resilience to droughts." "There are no technological miracles involved, nuclear power is entirely absent from the mix, and no new hydroelectric power has been added for more than two decades. Instead, he says, the key to success is rather dull but encouragingly replicable: clear decision-making, a supportive regulatory environment and a strong partnership between the public and private sector." The bottom line is this: allow corporations to run the show and expect little to no change. Pressure the government to set meaningful standards and corporations will have no choice but to follow suit.
  7. All major corporations must spend 10% of their annual net profits to improve the environment.
  8. I think it has profound implications for not only quantum mechanics but also broader philosophical issues relating to free will, mind over matter, Jung's collective unconscious, a potential interplay between consciousness and evolution, etc. There has been quite a bit of research done into this subject at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) lab over the last several decades under the auspices of former Dean of Engineering at Princeton, Robert Jahn. PEAR conducted extensive research on the effect of the observer/observed relationship influencing supposedly chance events using RGEs (Random Event Generators). The experiments yielded consistent results indicating that there was some consistent and measurable effect of conscious intention from the observer on the outcome of the RGEs. An archive of their research can be found here: http://pearlab.icrl.org/publications.html One such paper which is more aligned with this topic: "On the Quantum Mechanics of Consciousness with Application to Anomalous Phenomena": can be found here: http://pearlab.icrl.org/pdfs/1986-quantum-mechanics-consciousness.pdf.
  9. Any Sci-Fi people see Netflix's latest A.I. feature? It's called "I Am Mother". Synopsis: a young human girl "Daughter" is raised by A.I. "Mother" in a secure bunker after humanity has experienced an "extinction event". Things go awry when another human enters from outside, and tells the girl that all is not as it seems. Definitely worth a watch - lots of twists and turns and seamlessy produced. The film was also interesting because it's basically the movie version of Stuart Russell's TED talk: "3 principles for creating safer A.I" and his "fetch the coffee problem".
  10. With all the gloom and doom surrounding global warming, sometimes there's a sliver of good news. Planting billions of trees across the world is by far the biggest and cheapest way to tackle the climate crisis, according to scientists, who have made the first calculation of how many more trees could be planted without encroaching on crop land or urban areas. The analysis found there are 1.7bn hectares of treeless land on which 1.2tn native tree saplings would naturally grow. That area is about 11% of all land and equivalent to the size of the US and China combined. Tropical areas could have 100% tree cover, while others would be more sparsely covered, meaning that on average about half the area would be under tree canopy. “This new quantitative evaluation shows [forest] restoration isn’t just one of our climate change solutions, it is overwhelmingly the top one,” said Prof Tom Crowther at the Swiss university ETH Zürich, who led the research. “What blows my mind is the scale. I thought restoration would be in the top 10, but it is overwhelmingly more powerful than all of the other climate change solutions proposed.” Tree planting is “a climate change solution that doesn’t require President Trump to immediately start believing in climate change, or scientists to come up with technological solutions to draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere”, Crowther said. “It is available now, it is the cheapest one possible and every one of us can get involved.” Now, if indoor vertical farming can be mastered along with synthetic food production, there might be hope for the Earth yet. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions
  11. Perhaps, but the articles I linked to raise some interesting questions. Why would behavior be measurably affected in subsequent generations if the environmental stimulus that caused the behavior was absent? I find that interesting. Also: In a second study, researchers found that rats raised by stressed mothers that neglected and physically abused their offspring showed specific epigenetic modifications to their DNA. Incorrect. I understand Darwinian evolution full well. However, I question if there is a purpose behind it, and if the full story has been told. Again, incorrect. I studied the evidence in university like everyone else. Yes, there is a mountain of evidence that evolution occurs, of course, but little to no evidence for why it occurs. Causation of evolution is still firmly in the realm of speculation. You can posit that it's purely random and purposeless, but there is no proof of that. Unnecessary, as is your condescension. Like everyone else I learned about the theory of Darwinian evolution. I understand the premises being put forth, and like I said, I don't question that evolution is a fact. However I think Darwin's theory is incomplete. Why, and yes, in large parts, how evolution occurs is still open for exploration. You seem to be conflating these two issues. I don't read the bible, thanks. Funny thing is, your reaction reminds me of a lot of some of the religious people I know. They patronize, condescend, and then dismiss. Interesting.
  12. These are the exact ideas proposed by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Do you not recognize a direct contradiction with the precepts of Darwinian evolution? I disagree with your assumptions. Is that intolerable to you? Why evolution happens is still speculation. Your mental construct of what you think evolution is is subjective. You say it occurs by random chance with no purpose. Ok. Prove it.
  13. There is emerging evidence in neuroscience to suggest that genetics can be directly influenced by the environment. That is, when an organism encounters certain environmental circumstances it's DNA begins to adapt in real time to that environmental stimulus. In one study, subsequent generations of mice were conditioned to fear a unique and synthetic olfactory stimulus that was not found in nature. The parents were conditioned to fear the smell, and subsequent generations also feared it: Studying the biological basis for those effects in humans would be difficult. So Ressler and his colleague Brian Dias opted to study epigenetic inheritance in laboratory mice trained to fear the smell of acetophenone, a chemical the scent of which has been compared to those of cherries and almonds. He and Dias wafted the scent around a small chamber, while giving small electric shocks to male mice. The animals eventually learned to associate the scent with pain, shuddering in the presence of acetophenone even without a shock. This reaction was passed on to their pups, Dias and Ressler report today in Nature Neuroscience1. Despite never having encountered acetophenone in their lives, the offspring exhibited increased sensitivity when introduced to its smell, shuddering more markedly in its presence compared with the descendants of mice that had been conditioned to be startled by a different smell or that had gone through no such conditioning. A third generation of mice — the 'grandchildren' — also inherited this reaction, as did mice conceived through in vitro fertilization with sperm from males sensitized to acetophenone. Similar experiments showed that the response can also be transmitted down from the mother. https://www.nature.com/news/fearful-memories-haunt-mouse-descendants-1.14272 Similarly, another study tested the genetic effects of environmental conditioning by the parents in relation to fitness and memory: In Feig’s study, mice genetically engineered to have memory problems were raised in an enriched environment–given toys, exercise, and social interaction–for two weeks during adolescence. The animals’ memory improved–an unsurprising finding, given that enrichment has been previously shown to boost brain function. The mice were then returned to normal conditions, where they grew up and had offspring. This next generation of mice also had better memory, despite having the genetic defect and never having been exposed to the enriched environment. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/ Epigenetic inheritance challenges the old paradigm of evolution and natural selection. Personally I think it's more plausible than the previous model of evolution. Why wouldn't organisms begin to adapt genetically in real time in response to their environment? It seems much more logical that direct interaction with the environment would be the true driver of evolution, rather than random chance.
  14. That evolution is goal driven. There is a "point".