Phi for All

Lady Byrd Johnson used her platform as FLOTUS to support the Keep America Beautiful campaign back in the 60's, and that worked exceedingly well to place trash bins in many places, and more importantly call attention to the need to be responsible with our trash. That ad of the Native American crying at the pollution of the time had a real impact (I'm seriously not sure if I could ever throw trash on the ground to this day). So I would say do something similar but modern, like get all the social media influencers to help show that you have to be a moron to trash your own environment.

This should have priority, imo. In the US, Capitalists want workers to revere working hard, not reaching their intellectual potential. I can't even imagine the money that's been poured over the years into campaigns and laws that emphasize this bootstrap mentality where sweating is preferable to thinking. There were an awful lot of free colleges and universities in the US before Ronald Reagan (as gov of CA) started charging for tuition in California, to keep out "undesirables". Much of the reason why there are so many poorly educated white people is because folks like Reagan didn't want smart black people taking over. Perhaps forty years later we can overlook our fear of PoC and decide smarter is better.

! Moderator Note From now on, if your post contains one of these famously ignorant assertions that force the rest of the members to correct you, or wonder why you aren't reading the supporting material, I'm tossing it to the Trash Can. We tried to give you some leeway, but you really are wasting everyone's time.

It's a FOX News perspective that ignores the centuries when those folks were being actively suppressed. It focuses instead on how unfair it seems to do more than simply remove the suppression. This perspective complains that "extra privilege" to correct the problem is unfair. I've never understood the stance. I've been on enough boats to know that if you're off course, it's not enough to simply return to center. You need to overcompensate, steer hard to port for a while before coming back to center, because you were headed too far to starboard.

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion forum. Don't abuse the site by promoting commercial books.

! Moderator Note Do you want to discuss non-existent science as a Speculation, or do you want to examine how current theories in QM might be used in the future? We can't discuss fictional Star Trek tech in mainstream science sections.

! Moderator Note Sorry, but this is outside our purview. We're a science discussion forum, not a commercial translation service.

Our skulls wouldn't have had the room if our jaws hadn't shrunk due to eating cooked meat. You'd have to define "smart" and "keen" first. Also carnivore usually refers to obligate carnivores, which are different from animals that can eat meat. Humans are omnivores, not carnivores, and we can be pretty smart and keen, by my definitions.

Except when they don't, which is most of the Gospels and Letters. Those accounts are all over the place.

No, I think it's weird that being naked was evil, since they were supposedly created that way. I'm saying that the only evidence to work with is your bible, and what's written there suggests that God was OK with nudity. However, when Adam & Eve gained knowledge of good and evil, the first thing they did was make belts to cover their groins, which would seem to suggest that flashing your genitals is evil. So God created humans with an evil nakedness, then bore false witness long before he made it part of the 10 Commandments.

I always thought the real sin committed in that story was God lying to Adam and Eve about dying on the day they ate from the tree. How could being naked be evil if God created them that way, and how is it more evil than an outright lie? "In the day that you eat of it, surely shall you die" didn't happen, never would have happened, yet God threatened them with it. You can interpret the lie out of it if you try, but the Hebrew in Genesis 2 seems pretty clear.

I thought it read more like Adam and Eve, after gaining the knowledge by eating the apple, knew that showing off their genitals was evil, so they made belts out of fig leaves. This was before God's judgement, right?

Research is important, always, and the study of our own bodies is critical, imo. "As much knowledge of the human body as humanly possible" is an ongoing project, and we certainly need those who can add to that accumulated knowledge. In this scenario, you'd need to study several disciplines and apply the knowledge gained across multiple fields of study. The other way to add to our current knowledge is to specialize in a specific field. Pick an organ or system that is interesting to you, and focus your study on learning everything you can about it. Is there any part of our physiology that interests you more than others?

I completely agree. It's not any single organ. It's the fact that we started cooking our food with fire, which shrank our guts, which shrank our jaws, which made room for bigger brains, but at the same time made it easier to walk upright, which led to using our opposable thumbs to make tools and discover even more things (to oversimplify). The evolution of our body is an amazing story.

! Moderator Note But this isn't true, is it? You aren't making suggestions, you're making assertions, and those are being challenged with observations and known science. And you keep using arguments that have been shown to be false, from threads that were closed because your assertions were shown to be false. I'm not sure why you think any meaningful argument can be based on a false foundation; would you continue to build the house if you knew the concrete in the foundation was rotten? Most ideas in science are wrong, and we use specific methodology to make sure we find the bad parts before investing more in the idea. You seem to be asking people to continue to invest time and effort discussing something they know won't work. THAT is why you're getting so much pushback.

! Moderator Note This is a valid assumption. And you should think about this before insisting someone's response to you "can't be correct". This style is very reminiscent of the time-wasters you claim not to be. Either knock it off now or I see some suspensions headed your way. Nobody has the time to correct your hand-waving insistence. This modnote is for you to take under consideration. Don't waste anyone's time responding to it.

Even if something like this caused me to reevaluate whether or not a god exists, it would not change my conclusions about creationism. I find NOTHING intelligent about the idea that this god made the Earth a few thousand years ago but in a way that it appears much, much older. It's one of the most absurd religious teachings among many absurd religious teachings.

You say this like it's a given, but it's easy to imagine alternative scenarios. This doesn't address the topic though. Sure, if we somehow moved away from private ownership, humans could be trusted with all the resources we'd encounter off planet, and have less reason to fight amongst ourselves (or hold Earth hostage from outer space). But that still doesn't address alien counterparts who have their own agendas.

Apparently you spent 4 pages NOT supporting this idea in that other thread: ! Moderator Note You were told not to bring it up again if you didn't have anything more to support it. You ignored people telling you the reasons why your concept was wrong, and we're not doing THAT again. Theories are the best supported explanations we have for a particular phenomenon. They aren't laws, but in order to supercede them, you need something that explains the phenomenon at least as well, if not better. Your idea doesn't explain anything, you have no evidence to support it, and others have pointed out your flaws. Study some more science, or ask questions, but don't bring this topic up again. The idea is demonstrably WRONG.

! Moderator Note Do your claims have any basis in science? Is there any evidence for massive photons? Can you support the idea of photons at rest? Science isn't looking for "proof". Science is all about the best supported explanations for various phenomena.

! Moderator Note Since this is a "new idea", I'm moving this to Speculations. It will only be closed if you continue to try to sell your book, or if you can't support the idea with evidence. We welcome your attempt to "ruin" a model that works so well, but you can't do that by waving your hands. Show us some evidence that can be analyzed, and we can discuss the science.

That's a lie AND a strawman. I'm not speaking for others, I'm trying to show you there are some universal individual needs, and they probably start with some form of "nobody is inherently better than anybody else". When you awake to that fact, you can more easily see how the system favors some over others by design, which seems to be antithetical to what YOU claimed we need. How can an individual's needs be up to the them if the system is biased against them? As for the rest of your post, it seems you're saying that people affected by the bias in the system deserve what they get, and often crave having their individual rights taken from them. It's a strange argument in a thread about things we should try to achieve.

At the most basic level, we know we're all different, so doesn't an individual human need to know another human can't overshadow them simply based on those differences?

This post comes across as you being an privileged, ignorant American redneck (I know you're not American) who doesn't understand the conversation they find themselves in. You claim to know what the individual needs, yet deny the most basic treatment of those needs. The privilege has you intellectually tied in knots, imo.

Here's an open link to the article: https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/12/fusion-energy-breakthrough-by-us-scientists-boosts-clean-power-hopes/