Dan6541

Two animals of the same species can still breed with each other when only one of them has the mutation. Their offspring gets DNA from both parents so there is a good change they will have the mutation as well.

I think all the people in the world would only come together under one nation if we found intelligent alien species, and we saw that we are very similar. The way we are now, there would always be too many cultural differences to form one nation.

The system you described, with a world government, then country governments, isn't that similar to what we have now, with the UN. Obviously the world government would be more powerful, but is it the same sort of idea?

We have to dream. We have to strive to realise our dreams. Mankind's success is an outgrowth of exploration. If we wish to redirect expenditure towards eliminating poverty and starvation lets do it by addressing things such as cosmetics or entertainers salaries, not by abandoning our higher aspirations.

 

Moreover a program of Martian colonisation would require the development of more effective recycling systems, the creation of more productive food crops and the establishment of more ethically responsive societies. All of these elements would be transferable to Earthbound solutions of poverty and malnutrition.

 

So, I would ask you how can you ignore the starving people alive today and all of humanity alive tomorrow, by rejecting the opportunity do somthing lasting and meaningful for all of them?

I'm not saying don't dream, rather just weed out all the projects and ideas that are done purely for the enjoyment of a few people, like building space hotels.

You say a Martian colonisation would lead to the development of new and more efficient systems etc., but since when did these advancements have to be a result of such a mission?

I know this is getting off topic, (sorry) but which do you think is a more realistic goal?

1.The colonisation of Mars and getting it to a condition where humans can live and survive easily, and live a life that isn't hell,

or 2. The identification of an earth-like planet and the sending of humans to this planet.

If it is number 1, sure the colonisation of Mars is a justifiable goal.

People will always dream, of course they will, I'm just saying just develop and goals that will actually be useful.

Rigney, we don't need to import your crazies, we have some very good ones of our own.

 

Dan, I don't hate the Greens, I just think that they're a bunch of people who are so far out of touch that they couldn't find reality with a Ouija board and a Star Chart.

 

A 40% reduction of CO2 on 1990 levels by 2020 is a great sounding policy. Now look at the others. Nuclear is off the table, they oppose any new dams for hydro, they oppose any new clean coal and they have grave reservations about wave and tidal. You simply aren't going to replace some 50% of our power generation with Solar and wind. Taken one at a time, their policies are reasonable, taken together they are unworkable and nonsensical.

 

The Oz Greens live in a fantasyland, they are Ideologues that are impervious to logical thought or reason. This makes them very dangerous when in the "Balance of Power" situation. The upside is that their policies and behaviour will now become highlighted and they will probably go the way of the Democrats. I don't think it will take long for the Australian voters to work out that in a fight between the "environment and sustainability" and 50,000 jobs, the workers will lose every time. Note Browns comment on election night that a CO2 tax isn't a tax on the people, it would be charged on the elecricity generating companies so "the people" won't be paying it. Where does this fool think the generating companies get their money from? Fantasyland, pure dreamland.

 

The Democrats were in a similar position some years ago, it was their end. All fluff and bluster with no workable policies is not the way to re-election.

 

It's true the Greens did well this time, but from the figures I've seen, a lot of it was from ALP preferences, not Primary vote.

 

As for Bob Brown? The man is a twit. He stands "for" nothing, only against things. His position shifts based on what gives him sound bites on TV. He castigated the Howard gov for joining the invasion of Iraq, both publicly and from the Floor. What many have forgotten is that he castigated the Hawke/Keating gov (and the UN and everybody else) back in 1991 for not invading Iraq and toppling Saddam.

 

He's from the old guard, like the ALP people that still go around calling each other "comrade", whether he's a closet Malthusian as well, I'm not sure, but he acts like it.

 

The really interesting part of this Parliment are the swinging Independents. The lone Green is a watermelon and will side with Labor every time but the other three spice things up. For the first time in Australian electoral history, the "Opposition" have as much chance of introducing Bills and getting them passed as the "Government" does.

 

Previously only the "Gov" had the numbers on the Floor of the Lower House to introduce laws and get them passed, the Opposition could only try for amendments, with all the back room dealing that this implies. Now, the two major sides have to convince the three swinging votes as to who has the better legislation. For example, both sides have policies for the introduction of paid "Carers Leave". Previously it was the govs version or none, now it might be the Govs version, the Oppositions version, or a mix.

 

An experiment in Democratic Government that may work out very well provided that all concerned hold to high ethical standards. Since we're talking about politicians, there isn't much hope of that, so a complete cock up is highly probable. Meh, a barely functioning gov for 3 years is still better than a bad one for 3 years.

Would you admit that the Greens are a more socially progressive party, for example by allowing gay marriage? And at least they don't play on peoples fears like the Coalition has in relation to asylum seekers.

I'm a teen and it pisses me of when I see on TV or in newspapers etc stuff like: "Shocking teen sex habits," or "teen violence" and it portrays all teens as being extremely violent people who f*** everyone they see.

Looking at all this mosque and Koran burning stuff recently, I'd have to say bad.

I'd say advances in DNA sequencing. This has been going on for 30 or so years, but now is reaching the point where it can be done very cheaply. A landmark is the 2001 publishing of a draft sequence of the human genome. The technology and costs for sequencing DNA are constantly and rapidly being improved. According to this, the costs dropped 100 fold between 2004 and 2006. While I can't point to any particular one and say "There -- that one is the greatest advance", this combined with other technology has the potential to completely change our lives.

Yeah DNA sequencing is huge, and its not just human genomes. Scientists have determined the entire mitochordrial gemone of a wooly mammoth and about 50% of it's whole genome. There is hope that in the future they might be able to brought back to life through cloning or combining its genetic material with an Asian or African elephant.

it should be red like this

http://www.google.co...=1t:429,r:0,s:0

yeah that'd be much better

I'm just happy Tony Abbott didn't get in, that bogan.

Also thankful those independants are finished with their obvious glee at being in the spotlight.

You obviously hate the Greens as a party, what do you think about Bob Brown?

Don't judge me!

 

Haha, I won't.

Philanthropy is kind of an obvious answer. Do you want everyone to spout off about how many hospitals and schools they would build? That wouldn't make for a very interesting thread.

Oh, so you just want an intresting thread.

Besides, I think taking the first steps toward leaving this planet would be a great benefit for humanity. I think its in our best interest to spread ourselves out a bit... the sooner the better.

Then it turns into a moral question. Should we stay on Earth, and try to make it as livable as possible and reduce greenhouse gases and all that, or should we spend lots of money on trying to travel to other habitable planets, which might not be possible for a very long time, while millions starve on a still very habitable planet?

I see your point, sooner or later something will wipe out life on Earth, and to avoid being wiped out we do need to spread.

It's not just newspapers and TV, now it's that stupid Twitter thing, with celebrities constantly sending out unsubstantial information like "having a coffee." Who cares?

A lot of people, on second thoughts.

You can't solve poverty by giving people money, if that's what you were suggesting. That would only postpone things a little. But scientific progress is forever, and also can help all peoples.

How would building a orbiting hotel or a hotel on the moon possibly benefit people?

You can't solve poverty by giving people money

But education, building schools, all that stuff would make a huge difference.

Same here. Except I would create my own charity, focused on helping children in any way possible. As much as I would like to invest in future technologies, I would feel awful if I didn't help those who needed it most.

That's my thinking.

Cool space projects

Initiate the colonisation of Mars.

Hotel orbiting Earth.

my money would go towards science/inventions/innovations

How can you all think up all these lavish (and wonderful, admittedly) scientific uses and ignore all the starving people in the world?

I'm not sure if this is the right spot for this question,

But what do you think is themost significant scientific discovery or advancement in the last ten years?

No, I think you're right, there's no way you can come up with anything conclusive.

 

But what about general trends? What if someone just whipped up a little filter that scanned for instance of the word "sick" in Facebook posts, and then sorted them by time and location, and then compared that data with statistics over the time domain from the CEC, etc?

 

If there was a correlation, that might suggest that the tool could be useful for seeing general spread patterns. I mean, we are talking about half a billion people. Seems like that potential data pool ought to be useful for something. (grin)

 

It also occurs to me that one could offer a Facebook application that allowed participants to opt in to an epidemiological study. The app could have them report their health status on a weekly basis, and report immediately if they contract something. Of course that would be a much smaller number of people, and with still no way to confirm the reporting, but that would address the automation problem.

If you searched for the word sick, you'd get all kinds of posts like: "I'm sick of Chelsea beating Man Utd," or "I'm sick of school."

Hmm, I'm just wondering how a Portuguese Man of War would enter the CSF.

Nanotechnology is already being used in food. Nanoparticles are used to deliver DNA to plants, nanocapsules are used to add Omega-3 fatty acids to a brand of white bread in Australia, and there are various nanoencapsulated flavous enhansors.

http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1360.php

99,990,000,000 to charities. I can survive with 10 million. Just.

Don't tell me all of a sudden Steven Hawkins isn't a great scientist because he divided by zero.

Never said that, I'm just not that familiar with his most significant work about black holes.

Do you think Stephen Hawking is smarter than all the other physicists in the world, or is he only in the news so much because of his popular science work and maybe to a certain extent his condition?

Anglerfish have lures on their heads, that they wiggle to draw in prey by mimicking the movements and light of their own.

Yeah, true, but it's not just the Anglerfish that have bioluminescence to attract prey, have you seen all the other creatures of the deep? If not, watch this:

This whole vertical city thing is a while away, but I don't think it's completely out of reach considering how high we're building already. Check this out, it's the 800 metre tall building in Dubai:

And the view from the top (click on it to zoom in, it gives you a better idea of how tall it is):

It's something like 820 metres tall.

Good luck mate.

It looks like a cross between the Stig and a power ranger. cool robot.

Looks like Samus from Metroid as well.

How long it will take depends on where in the world you live. Here in Australia, it's a very multicultural society. In my class we have a couple of Greeks, an Italian, a Asians, Israelis, and a couple of Indians, so over here race will become less and less important relatively quickly. In places like China it will take a lot longer.

It's impossible for me to put a figure on it, but I think it will be a very long time before race it totally irrelevant because of how deeply imbedded some cultures are. I'm no expert but I think in places like China and India there will remain a distinct "race" for a very long time.