Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by wanabe

  1. The driver of social activity is war. "Generals" are the elite.


    In reality brutes, warriors, mercenaries rule all classes, however sophisticated or indirect their methods. In theory the brutes can't function without a support system, however without the support system all suffer, and brutes emerge from "perfect" unbrutish systems seemingly regardless. Noncompliance with bruits results ultimately in death, and often times so does compliance. Economic systems in modern terms are irrelevant. All that matters is that the brutes are cared for to standards at or above what they are accustomed to, and the brutes make sure of that.


    The simple approach is a two part class system, predator and prey. Top and bottom don't even begin to stress the complexity of the system, because it's not a linear hierarchy in any way.


    Also important to note, there likely isn't one driver of social activity. Though human systems attempt to defy nature -- chaos or incomprehensibility -- attempting to always work the same way, we are still influenced and challenged by nature.


    Even the most advanced science-fiction aliens of our human imagination require ships, nature presents a challenge that the alien ships are designed to overcome. Only "god" can best the aliens, requiring no ship.


    In theory if any part of the system fails (ex janitors) to perform its task the system fails.


    In reality when parts of the system "fail," [ex by agitation (or protest?)] there are many other systems capable of continuing where the "failure" left off.


    Might makes right for humans. Reality however states that luck makes right.


    ~~~end of short answer~~~


    "Failure" is every systems fate, it's how the system copes that decides if it can continue; even if altered. It could also be said that it's not failure, simply change then. Failure indicates that we know what direction we should go with absolute certainty, and we don't, we exist in a state of trial and error "experimentation".


    One proposed "formula" for "correcting" common system "failure" of a "class": If all people are in solidarity in a "class" the group will be herd, and reacted to as a large group, then as smaller groups. Reaction in favor of the "class" change is rare historically. Division is commonly encouraged within the "failure-class" by outsiders or simply a group that at some point developed a different agenda then when this "failure" originally occurred.


    Generally, be it willed or not, divisions within the class form. It is from one of these divisions, or a reaction to one of these divisions by another class; that dominance even in the most passive-unintentional-statistical sense comes to be. This social reality is analogous to the biological reality. The divisions we designate simply for communication don't exist in any real sense though, we don’t remind our selves of that enough. In reality there is simply a "soup" of "individuals" dissolving within eachother and sometimes the soup creates or releases new energy.


    "What then is the right approach?" Certainly not any system with a top or bottom those things don't actually exist. Top and bottom are something that we agree to believe in, or more likely, are coerced into believing.


    The "right" approach I think logically is to live in reality.

    Reality is "chaotic," accept "anarchy." Accept that the only order is the one we imagine and believe in as a group.

    This view that I'm saying is reality, ultimately yields, what its critics would call destruction. This reality would take us back to the stone age, meaning the majority would die. Even though we know we couldn’t actually go back-in-time, and that the world is overpopulated – since people are still starving to death despite “progress” – so therefore destruction is inevitable anyway. The reality is, we don't really know if were going to be on the "winning team" and we all want to be on the "winning team," we "deserve" to live. Only something we comprehend as "luck" is the true origin of “deservedness.”

    This is what stifles us: We typically assume that whoever can kill should be yielded to, because killing is wrong, especially if it's oneself. The human position at "the top" changed where its power originates from. Changing from numerical superiority, to instead, the ability shrink the numerical superiority of others. Until weapons are destroyed, or somehow made irrelevant, the human condition will be dictated by what generally is described as war. To eliminate weapons we have to understand or at least believe that the ideas of true-self and individuality are worth the dying, sacrificing, and martyrdom. Free speech should not end with words. Everything should be free.

    -We don't know reality from a dream though... A metaphor is a fractal of ideas put into words.


    Feeding the world isn't a matter of GMO or not, it's about the delivery of the food. Developing countries generally lack the necessary infrastructure to support the amount of food delivery they need. There is plenty of food right now for all the people, the people who need it just cant get it.

    It's politics that causes world hunger, not a lack of science.

    Relatively good news over all though.

  3. Phi for All,


    The B12 study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19552428. Sadly they make you pay to view it entirely, sorry.


    Sorry, dirt isn't a technical term. Should have said from the (compost or bacteria[dirt]) on the mushroom surface. 7 cups of mushrooms is not a lot to eat in a day nor is 14 nor 28, if your not eating meat. Point is one can get B12 from mushrooms. It builds up in the system so its not a big deal if you only get part of a DV.

  4. Nonsense. We've bred them for countless generations to produce massive amounts of meat at the expense of the natural ability to defend themselves against predation. Chickens with breasts 3x the size they were just 50 years ago, cattle that have never faced wolf packs... They aren't just going to magically survive attack because you want them to, friend.
    We do this enlargement via chemicals and corn feeding, they will lean out in a few months eating grass. There will be a huge die off yes, but all animals spook and scatter, it's so basic to their defense. Extinction or endangerment: no way Esp. considering rural animals that roam and do encounter wolves/other predators.


    The amount of daily needed B12=



    2. Age Male Female Pregnancy Lactation
    3. 0–6 months* 0.4 mcg 0.4 mcg
    4. 7–12 months* 0.5 mcg 0.5 mcg
    5. 1–3 years 0.9 mcg 0.9 mcg
    6. 4–8 years 1.2 mcg 1.2 mcg
    7. 9–13 years 1.8 mcg 1.8 mcg
    8. 14+ years 2.4 mcg 2.4 mcg 2.6 mcg 2.8 mcg
      As an exampleChicken, breast meat, roasted, 3 ounces 0.3mcg 5%DV




    In early 2009, researchers at the University of Western Sydney confirmed that bio-available B12 exists in the skin & flesh of button mushrooms, 5% RDI (per 100g) (28g in 1 OZ).


    Same as a chicken breast essentially. A lager volume of food is eaten as a vegan so the DV are only slightly different.


    We can get more B12 if we farm organically and don't have to be so paranoid about washing it off. In regards to soil, yes there is a cycle so we could argue about it all day but in the end there is more earth than animals hence B12 is from dirt. Its not like were going to stop finding poop on the ground.

  5. In the cities and towns?! They'd get killed by cars! They could stampede and hurt themselves and other creatures!In the rural areas?! They'd eat crops and get hit by... tractors!In the wild?! They'd get slaughtered by predators, with no one to protect them and no concept of how to survive out there!It's clear we need to think of something different. For instance, since we'd all be weak from improper protein sources and lack of B12, maybe we could strap ourselves to the back of cows to get around....


    Really the problem that makes this question ridiculous is no one gives a concrete indicator of how many animals there are, nor where they are. Thus reader/commenter assume the worst just to be sensational(like the media most are accustomed to), not the most realistic. The question ignores basic supply and demand. Most importantly the problem with this thread assumes ideology is the driving force behind veganism, when at its core there is just as much practicality. The people would continue to eat meat until this problem wouldn't arise.


    People are vegan and not deficient in protein or b12 or any other thing that we actually need. Meat enzymes block the absorption of protein so some never gets absorbed in the fist place, we just don't notice because there is SO much protein. We also don't need as much protein as we consume, we are not all body builders, so it's just turning into fat anyway. Though there are vegan body builders. B12 comes from bacteria in dirt firstly not meat. B12 in meat is a byproduct of animals eating plants that are(were) in dirt, thus we would get B12 the same as animals do, and there are mushrooms of course. There are lots of vegans that are perfectly healthy who do not take supplements. Though if the supplements don't harm or take from animals then they are vegan, regardless if they are natural or not.


    In the spirit of the question though.


    Farms though I think are in rural areas so I don't see a huge problem there. Realistically, there wouldn't be a full farms worth of animals, the farmers would obviously hear the news about the massive vegan shift. Right before the populous went vegan; meat would have been so cheep the most die hard of the meat eaters would have had meat for every meal, and making jerky just because it was so cheep to do so.


    It's not like we couldn't steer the animals away from traffic and our food sources. As for being prey: that is the natural world. However slow as farm animals may be, that has more to do with their diet than their static physical nature. The animals would figure out predators pretty fast and would not be as helpless as people make them out to be. Remember it was us who needed to farm in the beginning because we were weak. Animals are anything but weak.

  6. For sake of argument, everyone has gone vegan, and has done so faster than we could eat all of the meat. What is a vegan to do with all of the livestock? It's obviously unethical for a vegan (for the purposes of this thread, the vegans are so because of ethics based on animal suffering) to kill them.


    Do they send them off to the wild to die? How about restricting their mating into extinction?


    Set the animals free, let them roam. With all the newly freed farm land we would have more clean places to live or restore to natural habitat.

  7. The meaning or point of life is choice. Life is a choice, an opportunity we are given, to use as we wish. There are choices that foster more life and more choice. The Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, And Help All Others To Do So. This choice is simply the result of there not being choice for some things, everything has an opposite.

  8. To a blind man the sun is something that offers warmth, but to those that see it is something that offers warmth and light, it exists to both of them but in different ways. Does evidence cause your perspective or does perspective cause your evidence (notice there is no empirical in this question)?


    This is not a case of either or. It's a case of and. We are born with a unique physical perspective with which we gather -the presently ambiguously defined- "evidence". The perspective being described in the question is one of ideas, not just physical evidence, as implied by the blind man story.


    What is accepted as evidence is different for each person, evidence is what makes a person believe they know something. What a person finds to be acceptable for convincing evidence depends on their prior perspective(experience).


    Short of having a definition for evidence. We can change the way we see things, and from what angle we see things, and the way we think about things. Evidence does not change. Given this, evidence should cause perspective, there is no imperative though.


    By definition there is no evidence beyond empirical evidence. Something touted as evidence that is not empirical is -at absolute best- a reasoned belief.

  9. Can anyone provide any evidence that our body is more real than our intangible thoughts' date=' feelings, sensations and decisions? We know our body exists only because we infer its existence from our perceptions. Our mind is our primary datum and sole certainty.


    Define real.

  10. I do enjoy this sort of thing.


    A 'zombie' could be not dead but a form of possession or the diseased. If this possession/disease causes pain receptors to stop functioning, and also at the same time begins the body on a mission to create as much adrenaline as possible for extended periods. Then coupled with hormones associated with aggression(testosterone), then what could result is what would probably be described as a "super human", on a potentially suicidal mission to destroy anything they encounter. 'zombies' could be killed as easily theoretically as a real human, but they wouldn't necessarily be the mindless zombies of any movies.

  11. ajb,

    For quantum mechanics the single particle has some "fuzziness" or uncertainty associated with it inherently.
    Can you explain where this fuzziness comes from? It is because some particles can act as waves and particles? Is there an explanation for that?





    I probably shouldn't be answering this, but I believe as long as there is a whole atom classical physics applies. I think Its when that single atom is broken(changes from being physical into energy) apart somehow that quantum begins.

  12. Ah yes: pv=nrt, fond memories.


    (The units are ft sorry) The dimensions I used are based on a spherical version of a 3-5 passenger hot air balloon. The "power" source I'm planning to use weighs about 90lbs. Let's assume 150lbs is the weight of a "passenger". The "power" source can deliver 10% of the "average homes" "power".


    My hope is to carry at least 2 people and their cargo.


    Is this enough information? If so is this feasible?

  13. I'm thinking about making a new type of hot air balloon, but I need to see if I can even make the math/physics work out let alone the engineering. I would be more than happy to collaborate on the effort, may be make some one very rich.


    How much heat would it take to lift a spherical hot air balloon (r= 81.4) x ft in to the air?


    How much heat at x altitude (function would be appreciated) would be needed to raise the balloon 200 ft?


    I'm most concerned with the lift off, as once in flight I have a different source of power than a flame.

  14. The uncertainly comes from us not being able to keep track of all the particles in a collection, and being forced to account for average probability instead; if i have understood you correctly. Yes?


    "n" is essentially the dimensions(number of particles in a collection) "of a large collection"?


    "[a,b] =ab-ba" the "a" and "b" are representative of different particles in a collection(each with their respective energy?) (Is this how we define types of particles?)? Could we then include [a,b,c]= abc-cba (and of course abc does not equal cba)?


    It certainly sounds like people on the Internet have no clue(not a surprise, my self included).

  15. Genecks,


    So you feel that after all this strife(sexual equality movement) women will still look to men for support? You seem to disagree with the premise of post 1.


    Couldn't women simply pick from a sperm bank of successful(by their definition) males and match it with their eggs saved in a bank as well, reproductive biology is irrelevant at this point because of our technology.


    No one would never marry except in cases of true love and raise a family for nostalgic purposes. Most of the time people would simply have sex for fun.


    I think In the future child rearing won't be done by the parents but by teachers/daycares.

  16. amanda more,



    It's most important while talking about this issue not to simply use the term "scientist", but specify which kind of scientist you are talking about.


    It's the manner in which we generalize all living things. The sciences involving nonliving things can be isolated and made into formula.


    When you take a living thing from its environment and isolate it you have changed how it lives. The data is speculation and can't account for a real life scenario. A formula would only be good in a lab setting for sure.


    In order to have accurate scientific accounts of living things it takes a life time of work and one must also account for how things are changing in their life time.


    Its not to say there is no credence in the work of psychologists and specialized statisticians, their work is merely subjective and probabilistic at best ultimately.

  17. Immoral people win battles, not wars.


    Immorality has a way with catching up with an individual, eventually. For example by constantly exploiting china the American businessman now stands the threat of china becoming the dominate economic super power and the businessman money falling prey to inflation. Of course there are those who get away with immoral actions and suffer little consequences. What they don't get is great historical recognition; when their money goes so does there legacy.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.