Alex_Krycek

Too true.

From my perspective the ethical implications hinge on this point: whether the goal will be to grow custom organs independently using stem cells (acceptable) or if the organs will be taken from fully developed hybrid organisms after the organism has reached maturity. If the latter approach is taken, then there would be animal rights implications, especially if the experimentation impacts the cognitive development of the species (i.e. if the cognition of the species is at a certain level of general intelligence, higher than a monkey but below that of a human).

Interesting development in the experimentation of human / primate genetic hybrids in China. The research is being conducted by Juan Carlos Izpisúa Belmonte of the Salk Institute in California. The purported aim of the experiments is to cultivate human/monkey chimeras which can generate human organs: The idea behind the research is to fashion animals that possess organs, like a kidney or liver, made up entirely of human cells. Such animals could be used as sources of organs for transplantation. Their objective is to create “human-animal chimeras,” in this case monkey embryos to which human cells are added. Izpisúa Belmonte tried making human-animal chimeras previously by adding human cells to pig embryos, but the human cells didn’t take hold effectively. What are your thoughts? Should this type of research be sanctioned in western nations (US, UK, Europe, etc)? Or should it be prohibited for ethical reasons? SOURCE: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614052/scientists-are-making-human-monkey-hybrids-in-china/ The original story was reported by El Pais: https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/30/ciencia/1564512111_936966.html

That's what I thought you would say. Do you also think that eligible Canadian citizens should receive elderly benefits? It depends what your priorities are, and how intelligently the program is structured. In the US, we could provide free public college quite easily by knocking 50 billion USD off the Defense budget. It would be a more productive long term investment as well. What I find interesting is that conservatives in places like Canada, France, the UK etc, are still considerably to the left of American right wingers, and yet they still espouse the same deep seated fears about expanding new social programs (in our discussion free public college). An American right winger would fight tooth and nail against the healthcare system you wouldn't give up, despite it being "far from perfect". It seems to be a deficiency of sociological imagination - the person can't imagine a solution on such a massive scale working properly in a productive way, and sees only the negative impact. Yet, when that solution has already been implemented by others (such as universal healthcare), they're quite happy to take advantage of it, and integrate the system deeply into their own lives, such that it becomes almost indispensable to them. However, if that system were not already in place, they would revert to the position of the American conservative, and once again be dead set against it, for the aforementioned reasons.

Can you answer my question, please, before we go any further? What is so unrealistic about asking for universal healthcare? You're from Canada, or at least you live there. Would you be willing to trade your healthcare system for the system in the United States? Yes or no.

Sanders Yang Gabbard Warren All worthy candidates. I'm curious to know what you feel is "unrealistic" about having universal healthcare, considering that every other developed nation on the Earth has it figured out? What's unrealistic is slashing taxes yet again for the wealthiest Americans, giving 750 billion USD to the Defense Industry every year, perpetuating forever wars, and maintaining a healthcare system that isn't the slightest bit interested in helping people, but rather wants to extort patients financially until they're on the brink of ruin. What's "unrealistic" is expecting the status quo to somehow improve the lives of average Americans without making substantive change. Cost only matters to right wingers when the proposed programs benefit average Americans. Rand Paul's vote to stop the 9/11 First Responders healthcare bill was a perfect example. If a bill benefits the elite or major corporations - fiscal responsibility goes right out the window. If a bill actually helps people, it's scrapped, to the frantic cry of: "How are we going to pay for it?" How are we going to pay for it?" It's an obvious sham at this point. There's more than enough money to do most of what the progressive candidates want to do - the right wing just doesn't want to do it, preferring to serve their donors instead.

Your analysis is too vague to have a substantive discussion. Further I don't think it's accurate when it comes to 2020. If we look the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate hopefuls, for example, so far the strategy has been to offer detailed policy proposals that will move America in a positive economic/social direction: ending the forever wars, expanding healthcare coverage, re-balancing the tax burden to provide additional revenue, rebuilding infrastructure, etc. The overall strategy of these candidates (with the exception of Biden) has been to offer a vision that is better than Trump's, not merely attack and denounce him.

Is it related to family?

I agree with this statement. I'm still a little unsure about the circumstances in which the OP is operating, but if you are dealing with a schoolyard bully, then the rules of engagement are different: 1.) If you're under-age (a minor), you're unlikely to face any legal consequences for fighting this person. (Unless you seriously injure him, that is) 2.) Unlike in the real world, where you can simply avoid the person and negate him/her from your existence, in a school environment you are forced to co-mingle daily with the aggressor in the same environment. This puts you in the unfortunate situation of feeling trapped. 3.) If a person is harassed in the "real world", as an adult he/she can report the aggressor to the police and get a restraining order, while in school the teacher will supposedly look out for you. But let's be honest - secondary school is like prison: the teacher can't help you all the time and telling the teacher only increases the bully's rage. So what are your options? 1.) Ignore the bully. This is the unrealistic standard that parents foist upon their children, as if bullies have any ethical standards. In my view this approach doesn't work. Bullies see your indifference as weak passivity and an invitation to continue their harassment. 2.) Engage the bully. This is highly effective in my experience. I was bullied for a while in high school by this sick kid named Trevor. Everyday in class he would insult me and my family repeatedly in the most despicable manner. Then one day he started physically hitting me. I ended up punching him in the face a couple of times and then put him in a headlock until the teacher came and broke up the fight. He didn't bother me again. It's a cliché, but bullies are weak cowards. They only respond to force. Fighting a bully works. 3.) Coalition Formation. If you know of other kids who are bullied, you could potentially recruit them into a group with a shared objective (similar to zapatos' experience). Attack the bully together - strength in numbers. 4.) Learn to Fight. If there is a boxing gym or martial arts dojo in your community, then this is an excellent resource for you. Tell the instructors at the gym or dojo about why you are joining. Be 100% honest. Tell them a bully is making your life a living hell and you want to learn to defend yourself. They will immediately understand your situation and offer you advice. If you can make friends with a boxing coach or MMA instructor and participate in formal training it will help significantly I think. This guy has some decent advice:

What Dems are you referring to? Be more specific.

Perhaps some grassroots elements on the far left (such as Antifa) - but not in Congress. I'm referring to elected Republican officials, those who have the power to vote on legislation. These are people who seem completely ignorant of the law and are detached from reality. To state that elected Democrats are in any way equal to them is a false equivalence.

I agree. They're completely self righteous and deluded. At least the intelligence community will now be on high alert.

The focus of this investigation was Russian interference in the election (which absolutely occurred) ; this is the threat that Mueller wanted to warn the American people about. The nit-wit Republicans can't seem to understand that although Trump may not have willingly participated in this interference, it nevertheless occurred on a massive scale and needs to be safeguarded against.

Is there no way to extricate yourself from this situation? Walk away? Revenge is a tricky road. Freedom is better, no?

First, examine your belief systems. What have you accepted as true? What software (ideologies) have you chosen to run on your hardware (your brain)? Where do you get your information? Who do you listen to as your authority? How can you be sure the conclusions of said authority figures are 100% accurate? Investigate. Doubt. Question. Then you'll be on the right track to freeing your mind from external influence.

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general are helping eliminate waste and inefficiency across the globe. Hence I would keep the bitcoin job.

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.

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.

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.

Agreed - so the logical solution is to get the current administration the f*** out.

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.

Sounds good to me.

All major corporations must spend 10% of their annual net profits to improve the environment.

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.

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".