Phi for All

Indeed, though it seems lately that we have to sift through 5 spammers, 4 religious extremists, 3 crackpots, and 2 science deniers before we get a sincere science enthusiast.

You're in luck, since I've heard some very convincing arguments lately that laziness, at least the way we typically think of it, never existed in the first place. It's simply a way to judge people who aren't doing something you think they should. The idea that people would rather do nothing than anything else is patently untrue. What we've always thought of as laziness is often just smart people refusing to do something in which they see no value, or smart people doing their jobs with the least amount of effort. Some jobs have been so dumbed down that they're almost insulting. Personally, I've always bragged about working smart rather than working hard. Does that make me lazy? This is one reason why I think the term is being misused. Right now, lots of business owners are screaming about lazy workers bringing conflict and problems, but I know a lot of those folks are just fed up with being underpaid. Productivity has been through the roof for the last 50 years, but wages have stagnated for workers and they're sick of working for a pittance while the rich sit on fat stacks of cash, waiting for the worker to falter so they can buy up their assets at twenty cents on the dollar. Again I think you're off by a bit. It's not the comforts that makes us less smart or want to work less, because historically, saving up for the comforts made us work harder to earn them. I think it's the convenience. Convenience seems to promote an attitude where people should do dumb things in order to save time. Spend an extra 25% on items from a small store so you don't have to spend the time dealing with a bigger store. Or shop online thinking to save some time but end up researching 20 products and their comments sections for three hours. Convenience lets you drive on fresh asphalt AND ensures you'll have potholes next year. I think "lazy" is a pejorative whip used by those who want us to work harder on their terms. Humans in general aren't lazy at all. We're ultra smart and curious, and we all prefer to do the things we want to do as opposed to the things we may HAVE to do. Nobody teaches us when we turn 18 that we have to parent ourselves from now on, and the real job of parents is to get us to do things we don't want to do. Practically everybody wants to do things as opposed to not doing anything, but they often don't want to do what everyone else thinks they should be doing. I remember being called lazy once because I arranged my work area to where everything was a bit closer to me. The boss hired me to make fittings and put them into boxes, not walk around unnecessarily, but when I tried to do a better job he called me lazy for not wanting to walk those extra steps. I pointed out that it saved me a LOT of time, but he still thought it was lazy. Said a young man shouldn't mind a few extra steps. I thought he was crazy.

! Moderator Note The latest spam tactic is to later add the link to their essay writing services in the quote they use, rather than in their own writing. The delay must fool the system, so it needs to be dealt with manually.

I have humor blindness because I can't see myself laughing at that.

When viewed through the right lens, we represent a diverse spectrum of light-hearted people.

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion forum. This reads like your blog, and it's not. We discuss science here. If you'd like to do that too, start a topic in the appropriate section, and give us a good place to start a conversation.

You don't get to base anything off that thread, since you did a really poor job of supporting your ideas there. Anything you stacked on top of that pile of nonsense is just going to fall over quickly. You make a LOT of assumptions, you suppose a great deal, and you don't bother to back any of it up with more than your waving hands. Honestly, you claim it's impossible to define life or death but then claim it's necessary to define it in order to understand what you're talking about. None of it seems rooted in any kind of science, but is rather just how you think things should be, or what makes the most sense to you. The problem with that is you don't know enough science to make guesswork like that meaningful. There's no way to test your ideas, so they aren't science. Sorry, but discussing a wild guess isn't as fun as you seem to think. People of science want more.

If you have a question for Homework Help, post it just like your first post. Give it an appropriate title, ask your question, the members will try to help.

Pretty sure we've got enough resources to invest some effort towards the viral threat of coronavirus AND possible bacterial threats from new sources. Don't fall into the trap of thinking humans as a species have to focus on one thing at a time. Back on topic, it seems clear this is a classic crisis representing both big dangers and big opportunities. I hope we have the time to sort through which is which.

1-2 It's been pointed out that you misunderstand what GDP represents. It's the value of all the goods and services a country produces, and represents the size of its economy, not what kind of buying power it has. 3 The IMF ranks the UK as #5 in nominal GDP in the world. How is that "second class"? 4 This is just the poor opinion of one Chinese state media editor, according to your link. They don't speak for "the rest of the world". In fact, nobody I know thinks Australia is nothing. 5 You should read the link you posted. It's the opinion of one political analyst from Curtin University, not every Australian. 6 This is a very shallow and hasty analysis of a very complex situation. Do you think it's wise to leap to such conclusions, especially given your misunderstanding of the socio-economic issues mentioned above?

! Moderator Note We're a science discussion forum. Can you give us an idea of what you wish to discuss? Sending us to a website we don't know, requiring members to click links they may not trust is against our rules. Please give a bit of an overview of what you want to talk about wrt the documents, or copy/paste enough to give us an idea of the direction you want the discussion to go.

! Moderator Note This is definitely a medical question you should ask your doctor about. Nobody here knows enough of your medical history to prescribe or comment on your medications, and your eyesight is too valuable to trust random people with, even on a science discussion forum. Ask your doctor, or check out the manufacturer, please.

! Moderator Note No offense, but opinion isn't what we discuss in Speculations. You've been given the tools to find some evidential support for your idea, which is what we're really interested in. Please do some analysis and see if that helps to support what you're proposing, and elevate that opinion to actual evidence.

Do any of the arguments the comments are about sound like they're made in good faith? I think the comments are proper for the argument that "the scientific world approaches the end of its capabilities". The OP clearly isn't swayed by the already listed accomplishments.

It doesn't matter if they aren't spotted. The interesting question is which side of a zebra has the most stripes? And of course, it's the outside. Last time I bought zebra, the clerk scanned the wrong barcode and I got charged for rhino.

This same kind of "Is it worth it?" BS used to revolve around the space programs, until it became blindingly obvious that the investments were returned manyfold in terms of practical knowledge and innovation. The same is true of the LHC, because most laypeople don't know enough about beam optics or particle physics to judge the value of an investment in experiments using such technologies. The average Joe is too ignorant of science to make a qualitative judgement, so they fall back on "It's expensive and I don't get it so it's WRONG!".

! Moderator Note Stop right there. You can't use a speculation like this to support further speculation. If you want to establish support for "those who created us", do so in another thread in either Speculations or Religion. And if you're using omnipotent capabilities as an argument, it won't be accepted because science.

! Moderator Note You can't support one speculation with arguments that failed in another speculation. You need to support the idea with evidence, or move on from the idea, or this thread will be closed.

Putting this first makes the rest fairly meaningless. If survival is Job #1, it could come at the cost of your second and third choices. If it comes down to a choice between you getting food or the rest of us getting food, you'll feed your belly before your "inner soul", and doing something good for others takes a back seat to your survival. As for contributing to human race running, you'll have to clarify what you're talking about. Does your survival contribute to the human race running?

How can it be "a very good example of the above"? In "the above", you claim "the scientific world approaches the end of its capabilities", then go on to rant about building even bigger colliders and technological challenges. Your reasoning doesn't seem very sound. Your argument is weak. And you aren't dealing with other arguments like cost comparisons and knowledge gained. It's starting to sound like soapboxing.

This is a rigor-free assumption I think you need to support a little, or at all. It doesn't matter how little about science you know, a statement like this is basically trying to Beg the Question. What makes you think this dilemma exists?

I don't think it's ever irrational to disbelieve something based on faith. I'm skeptical that the "statistics" used to form accurate predictions "confirm its doctrine". Can you give us an example of such statistical evidence?

To me, this says "If you're tired of reason, clarity, and predictability, and want to base your beliefs on things that can't be supported with evidence, this book won't disappoint!"

! Moderator Note There are no common minds here, so the premise of the OP is flawed, and this thread won't work. Since there were so many enthusiastic responses, I won't spamban the new god member, but that's my first reaction. Obviously some members are interested in the new knowledge this encounter represents.

! Moderator Note This is exactly what we want. Members must be able to take part in the conversation without requiring them to leave the site, or open documents they may not trust. The idea is to make the arguments for your idea here, in this discussion, and if you need to paste something from your website into your post to support them, please do so. This rule also protects us if you're only here to drive traffic to your website. Mostly, we want to hear about the evidence you have that led you to your conclusions. Again, thanks for understanding.