foodchain

Sometimes I really, really, just want to seriously hurt some people to the point of non existence.

Could you model a house as to generate its own electricity via algae biodiesel and solar power? I thought if you could make an efficient system that could produce up to 500 gallons a month you could power not only a vehicle but a majority of home electricity use for a small group of people, possibly even just a dyad. I would think you could work this in with a couple of pet animals, possibly chickens or what not for example. You could process it along with algal specie selection so that the algae could also be feed, and the animal manure could be feed along with CO2 scrubbed from a generator, or possibly just piped in indirectly. I know you cant make modification to vehicles in any fashion you would like, but a system to scrub carbon from diesel combustion for a 24 hour period could also be nice for a CO2 source. I was thinking if you could model some system like that you could then produce one that works within American economic system. I think the key would just be making the system user friendly and automated to some extent. I also think it would help if the system could be diversified to be able to use all waste materials possibly from any given kind of a home with related products to facilitate such. If a generator only had to be fueled two times a day it would also be much more user friendly. That along with a constant solar system should be able to take up a bulk of electricity used by a home. Plus the house could still be on the grid, which could possibly mean earnings for a house. Overall it would be a massive retooling of American infrastructure, but electricity generation is a huge source of CO2 production itself from hydrocarbons primarily.

So would it be an issue of momentum too? Like if I poured from a foot of distance with a volume that would be large environmentally, compared to almost at the surface with a very small flow at the center. I just wonder if the rapid motion of the boiling water would keep the cooler water segregated for a bit of time or if the boiling motion itself would make it easier for the cooler water to move around. Would there be a density difference between the two?

If you have a small pot of boiling water and you add some cold water to it does the motion of the boiling water keep the cooler water at a boundary for a bit of time, or does the cool water instantly sink in and mingle with all of the water?

How would any process protect against damage caused by all of that water freezing?

Why are alternate formalisms to physical phenomena altogether bad? For instance I don't know how to model energy, or energetic interactions. Could you use just a graph really. In terms of chemistry this is more interesting though. Why cant you try some alternate system to describe an atom, or polyatomic systems? Giving conservation laws couldn't I just try to model these interactions as noise on a number line. I mean if its regular or periodic in any way I would think this could yield patterns.

Just that if the bulk introduction of various traits will impact ecology in ways. If a population of insects is no longer being able to obtain X amount of crop, what do they do? Do they just starve to death, do other phenotypes do better, I mean what happens. Then you have the traits themselves, open up to a multitude of ways to get different. How giving biological systems could a trait be looked at as under control really? All of those crops, could you lock all of that out of horizontal gene transfer, and I think that form of heredity is more common in plants also.

What if the process that generated life, or the environment, required over a hundred years to lead to life? For it to be disproved would require science I imagine. All we have right now is hypothetical stuff on the origin of life, or nothing proven fully. Back to the hundred years in a specific environment, we really cant set up such an experiment yet. To be honest going from my readings correctly modeling the behavior of chlorine in the atmosphere is considered a very difficult task.

Is there a percentage estimate for safety in which a biotech product, such as a crop, is automatically stopped from going into application? For instance with single nucleotide polymorphisms and biotech crops. Is there a timeline in which the natural occurrence of such would render controls over such a crop impossible to maintain? What about any other variable, such as what do insect populations do if they can no longer feed on a percentage of the crop? I mean crops that used far less water and were far less intensive for pesticides and fertilizers would be great, but are there sure standards to make sure biotech crops themselves do not become massive problems. More if you consider resource issues, how many people need to eat, population growth, and other factors like global warming. Biotech may be one of the only options in all reality to support human life.

If you could get the roots to be able to attach to a variety of surfaces that would also be nice. I would think some kind of film or membranous material would also be useful there. If it could attack to rock, or soil, or what not. Heck you could probably have a ball of molten garbage as a soil then. Think if it could react or recognize certain materials, it could behave in a way to refine it to other materials. You could have all kinds of behavior like that from a perspective of metabolism. Then you could have crops that produced hydrogen in a form usable for large scale electricity production, along with something producing water, it probably would not be so far fetched to have it produce breathable environments. You could simply place them on a planet and come back for resources produced.

Could you engineer plants to become solar panels? Maybe it could produce film concentrated with some kind of photosynthetic mechanism. I would think you could then use the energy to produce maybe a yield of something else, perhaps usable hydrogen or what not. I would think that you could make the leaves to be transparent with some kind of a skeleton that could be connected in the form of a leaf with a film of photosynthetic organisms. Then the energy could be chained into some reactions in which hydrogen would get feed into some kind of budding organ that contains it in an accessible form. I don't know but could you model carbon nanotube structures into DNA expression, this could possibly form the skeleton in which the film attaches, perhaps this could be worked into come kind of a cellular differentiation process. The inside of the tubes could be filled with some kind of a substance possibly to aid in transferring energy. Maybe the roots could be used to produce various compounds for all kinds of chemicals in the soil, and expression of such could match how much is captured via use of the protein or enzyme in the cell. I think a lot of such chemical mechanisms exist in bacteria already for instance. You could probably even work in some kind of process that interacts to make water. Such plants I think could serve to be a resource that could be made large enough to for power plant use.

What does greenpeace holding political power mean to you? There is also the green party, and that also has variation in terms of what can suck in votes. Also the Democrats in America and various other political parties around the globe make various environmental issues part of their plateforms to some extent. Also greenpeace is not the only environmental agency really.

Anaerobic metabolism is not as limited as you think and evolution of sea vent communities prove life is not dependent on the sun also. I dont think any particular rules exist or molecular laws exist for biological structure yet, or at least nothing absolute and or determined as to how you place the role of oxygen, you could say the same for carbon or even Iron if you wanted.

A major shift in European governance took place along with American influence. The road there is not one way I guess is all. TO my topic its more or less that all major shifts are heated, or polarized. Be it in the U.S with any issue, such as civil rights for example. I furthermore think this can be found going over recorded history. Maybe human nature has this wired into it, and that one of our greater success is finding a way for humans to change in a more civilized manner. Not to say no one ever tried to do such before, or that thinking was somehow absolutely novel in regards to the constitution, just that its workings were radical in how they applied to people at that point in history. That this radical nature was simply finding a way for resolve conflicts within a society by virtue that conflict itself is guaranteed within people. Such change itself is packed with conflict, and in the end all of it can be framed as people that argued to change. So is that very act applied to some certain criteria like above always to be automatically met with resistance for more primal reasons, like a human nature issue.

Yet people in warm climates can also get colds.

I think its hard to equate oxygen to life when you can have metabolism that varies. All oxygen could be is a way life did manage to come to use in some way, but that oxygen itself is not the limit of what can be for life to exist in some form, how is that? Biological thermodynamics are of interest to me, just as how closely related on the periodic table various elements common to life happened to be classified, but thats not really my questions. If chromosomes in terms of euchromatin and heterochromatin single complex biochemical behavior occurring along various cell activities, then how much of that is cell to cell based behavior from a gene point of view. What about sexual reproduction, it in a reductionist sense touches gene material somewhere is all. I also dont have a super discrete thinking when it comes to life and or species. In terms of reproduction the interaction of viruses have a diverse role just like maternal RNA. I happen to wonder if that continuous interplay or organisms in an environment also is at play early on in evolution to multicellular life. Transformation allows genetic material to be absorbed by bacteria, the F plasmid is also well known for conjugation. Plus bacteria and archaea lacks true nucleus and instead have a much more "disorganized" nucleiod. Maybe this lack of organization is because these cells were not selected on criteria surrounding cell to cell behavior. Having a gene based view here of a molecular question pertaining to evolution I guess.

When thinking of being Patriotic at time its often spins into various other concepts. One I think is if being Patriotic is like being ignorant basically. I mean to explain on it goes like this. Do you think that because a nation has an established set of social laws and or customs, such as being democratic, that such a system should be viewed outside of ever changing? I think the constitution of America was a grand achievement for humanity really, the concepts themselves helped lay the groundwork for some kind of notion of universal human rights outside of anything prior to it that I know of. Yet I wonder if in all things possible that its so good it could never be changed. I know that you can alter the constitution, something that gives it the title of a living document in many ways. I am more concerned though on real change. Say just some other new way of life came about just like democracy once did, could one argue for real radical change to a nation, such as switching from being capitalist to some other system? The philosophy behind it is simple. If something gets so powerful, can you argue for it to radically change, or is such behavior always futile? Furthermore would such behavior always be viewed as wrong in any context or environment that it takes place.

I am not interested in high details so much, just that for instance genetic material can also be transfered via virus behavior and plasmids. Not to each denotes some homology to the other, but I am looking at it sort of from that perspective. Basically life had evolved to the point of bacteria, and for what its worth its when the population levels of that get high enough that it allowed for selection to influence differently perhaps, and that via variation in transfer of genetic material that some organisms can more interactive with fellow organisms. Either by food or whatever, and this specialization is what drove the complexity that is eukaryote structure, and why pigs are not bacteria. Basically that complexity of eukaryote structure was a product of individual cells evolving in ways that aided cell to cell interactions.

I was just wondering if anyone thought the action of virus material and or plasmids could be part of what lead to multicellular life. I know bacterial mats exist, but beyond that nucleated cells seem special in being multicellular. Again I wonder that if early on in evolution the action of viruses and plasmids could have been what fostered an environment for being multicellular. If selection had only brought single celled on so far, maybe reproduction keep it that way. Thus maybe beneficial traits existed in pockets or populations and would have to radiate. I think another example would be that such could have had the advantage of generating bacterial mats, which maybe then allowed for mutation to develop organisms more prone to feeding on each other or some other trait based interaction that was beneficial or at least neutral. Basically my idea is that if selection lead to single celled organisms, that via population density alone that multicellular traits were allowed to evolve via plasmids or other molecular interactions between bacteria.

Well dust is a good home for microbial life, and with that I think some studies have found that various metals can be taken up by those populations. I wonder if this introduces such chemicals to other organisms, or what role that plays in other areas. I imagine you could just put some by the vent, if not the vent itself that could allow for it to be electrostatic or attract the dust without it being a risk to touch, then it would be a simple wipe down on a more durable surface. Such technology could probably even be a bit of an air purifier, though not primary by any means, for a small room.

Could you place something around computer case vents to attract incoming or outgoing dust? It would just seem to be a beneficial future is all, maybe something that could gain some electricity from the computer to attract it around the vents.

So what you are saying is if people use science then they can see reality? I think that sort of goes outside of this question though, as the way I see it is how can you prove it really. With evolution I accept that a physical process took place, like an earthquake, or volcanic eruption. I think one can safely assume existence to be real, like objectively real for whatever we can say is objectively true. So with that do we place ourselves in some anthropic universe, or one that is not? Going from biological science like ecology I have a hard time accepting the anthropic principle to the point in which it places determinism such as safety from extinction. I surely disagree on any magic that claims some destiny for human existence. Furthermore I cant given issues like global warming accept nature and humanity to be purely subjective, as in cant be understood.

At a bacterial scale though there really is no structure I think to support mechanical stuff, such as moving in a manner similar to an ant and or some other invertebrate. There its mostly chemical interaction with the environment at the scale of single celled organisms. I mean you have structure in some ways for motility, but not like with an insect. That scale is incredibly small also, so maybe they dont really need any. I mean could you look at some microbes as being able to survive by being a sort of colloidal suspension.

I think it matters as the hypocrisy aspect of this thread is lame. The amount of deaths in the U.S from issues like guns, cars, and the rest I think only serves to show minimal control on people, unlike how you phrase our future government as a tool for socialism I can and do agree with laws. Not all of them mind you, but I also like aspects of our consitution. I think you would have to argue aspects of it to rid American government with the responsibility for the welfare of its people. Death, sickness, injuries are as much apart of staying alive as eating. I can understand I guess the use of such data to show possible costs, but in regards people being able to get health care there exists and issue. Irregardless of that we don't deny the emergency room, and why should we? That is Greece with such issues. Some countries have lose biotech laws, some allow for pedophiles to be legal, and all kinds of countries have variance in various areas, economically, socially, etc. Again what would occur in America is going to be at the mercy of its environments. I don't live in California, and the last time I went to California the air made me sick. Healthcare as proposed would be held accountable, its not as if because the patient is on obamacare that the doctor can then legally become mengele. Fighting hospitals on criminal behavior already occurs, and deaths in hospitals from various things already kill staggering amounts of people yearly. All obamacare would do is offer a way to remedy a situation in which lots of people have limited to no access to medicine. I think healthcare has its reason to exist, and if the government is to even outlaw drugs and fight a war against them then even more so. The economic side of it is not impossible, nor is really that big considering government spending. The other option is private sector everything, but I think thats a bad choice. Simply because you would have to way to make policy visible to any extent within a democratic populous, would there be a president still or a congress? I actually wonder if you could think of obamacare as something needing to be part of social security, I also imagine that if tax companies were more receptive all kinds of "new deals" could come about.

I think hypocrisy can be found in calling government healthcare "death panels" even while its ok for insurance companies to drop or deny coverage. I think its hypocrisy to talk about spending when the cost of current warfare is where its at along with its history. I also think its pointless to muddy topics with such stuff. America is in a recession and things are not going to great. Personally I am glad we have some marginally organized means to lessen how detrimental this could be.