leugi

Unless the artificial meat is made or grown from living cells. Then of course we have death again.

 

Also, if we only get to eat artificial meat I guarantee I'll be complaining!

yea but people don't really care about organisms that don't have feelings because it is only things that have feelings that make us reflect and think as if we were in their place. and yea me too, i'll be complaining that my stomach hurts because i ate too much of it.

I think you are going to have to try to define what you mean by 'better off' in order for people to address what you are looking for.

it mean whatever you wanted it to mean, i'm not looking for a specific answer.

the light that burns the brightest burns out the fastest, and we have burn so very bright, so is life on this planet better off without humans?

what we need, is to find a way to make artificial meat, then nothing dies and people stop complaining.

When the bag is expanded, we say the atoms that made up the bag has moved its location further away from its original centre. The empty space is not expanded, it remains the same in this process.

yes the atoms that make up the bag do move away from the original center, but the volume of the inside of the closed bag has increased, and if it is not filled by atoms, then what is it filled with?

I have two questions, first i want to know if there is anything else other than atoms that can fill up empty space, for example if i have an empty bag, with nothing in it, can it be filled with photons, electrons, or something else?

second, if you have an empty bag, but there is a mechanical apparatus that expands the bag, what will the empty space be filled with?

If we were able to build a robot that has intelligence, is conscious, feels emotions and has its own free will, then I would consider it alive.

 

Species is maybe not the correct technical term for such a lifeform, but a large population of such replicating robots would certainly be able to build nations, wage war and conquer extraterrestrial worlds.

 

However I don't think that inventing such robots is the ONLY way for us to secure future survival of intelligent life, it is much more likely that we will build machines that helps us travel through space, improve and preserve our biological life, to such extent that humans can survive the Sun and explore the Milky Way.

but robots can survive without oxygen, and other things that we need, therefore robots may be our best shot because the chance that we find another planet like earth is not that good, i think that the best way to preserve all the biological living organism from this planet is by storing them in capsules then the robots do space travel to find another earth.

"Probably not as life is generally considered to consist of:"

the only difference of what you are describing and what could potentially be a living robot is that one is an organic form of life and the other is not, it's kind of like thinking that DNA is the only way for life to exist, what if there was another type of life form in another planet that didn't run on DNA, would we consider it to be living?

This is also incorrect. There are many species that are incapable of self-locomotion, like for instance, most plants.

okay, never mind, i guess my new definition for life is the ability to replicate, but my question still stands, because if we are able to create a robot with the ability to create other robots and the ability to better itself, then would it be considered alive.

Unbiased things exist only in Probability and other assumed events like an unbiased coin.

What you are proposing would never ever be democracy unless you make all people agree to your proposal, remove current political parties if the law in your country doesn't allow a change in main ideology.

Oops, I assume, even if you get scientist on work, they will have to work what the people demand. You can't change their demands.

And, it is not always quality/degree required in political life. Maybe your unbiased scientist might not connect to people. They might, though being unbiased, not able to see the regional demands.

Further, let us say we apply your system. Now, how many parties would be there. More than 2 parties will make it a democracy. Let us suppose we have 5 parties. Since all members are unbiased, they all will have same manifesto and same ideology. They wouldn't compete for healthy politics.

In politics, if you have more than one major party, it is clear indication that the other parrty has made certain people unhappy.

well, how about this, this new government that i am talking about consist of the board, which might be a couple of people that are extremely smart and make all the decisions, but they do not come up with the solutions themselves they have to be assisted by another part of the government, which consist of experts for all kinds of subjects, and this experts are actually the ones that come up with the solutions for the problems.

Having a brain is not a prerequisite for life.

i did not mean having a brain, what i meant is that being alive has to derive from movements that are not made by physics, for example, rocks are not alive because physics is able to predict its movements, but intellectual movements are made by being some sort of organism, having DNA, whatever you want to call it and physics cannot predict them.

I was thinking that what we consider to be alive has to have intellectual movements, and that we humans are at the top of this pyramid, but if by this definition of being alive wouldn't an intellectual robot be consider alive as well and if we are able to make a robot smart enough to replicate then wouldn't they be considered a species? if this is true then wouldn't sending robots out into space to repopulate another world be considered as the only way for intellectual species of this world to survive after the sun destroys everything?

"What WOULD help, IMO, is to better educate the public on critical thinking, and to try to move away from this distrust of science and intellectualism we're seeing propagated so broadly lately. Too many people think that their uninformed opinion is equivalent to a conclusion drawn from evidence, and that's just ludicrous and really not good for us as a society. "

i used to think that way as well, but i believe now that some people are just reluctant to learning, and even with all the evidence in the world they prefer to believe in their fantasies.

"In my opinion, it's not how bright the politicians are, it's how corrupt the system lets them be. The government is a tool, and it needs to be shaped properly so it does its job well no matter who wields it."

but then you can argue that a gun is a tool as well but the person that is wielding it is responsible for using it well, therefore a tool that is given to a human to handle is always subject to error, and the accuracy of this tool can be increased by the person wielding it.

The Government of any given country is there to establish law, but lets face it, a lot of the people in the government are not very bright, so if we were to replace the government by a board of scientists that decided laws in a totally un-bias way, do you think that that would be better and improve our quality of life?

Well, yes natural nutrition is important, but that is not to discredit medication. Naturally managing things like epilepsy or psycosis would be very strenuous to try and achieve. Medication is fragile in the sense that its use needs to be well understood (that is supposed to be the reason it is prescribed). Drugs like methotrexate for example are being formulated and have potential to treat certain types of cancer. As more is understood, better medicines are being developed, and better methods of delivery and reducing side effects is ever increasing. We seem to be continuely moving further from the direction of an 'attack everything and hope the disease dies before the patient' approach to a much more selective 'seek and destroy'.

but normal people should not be taking any sort of vitamins pills or medicines, nor going to the hospitals for checkups every few months, the hospitals should be for people with pathological diseases not for healthy people, therefore it sometimes makes me sad that going to the hospital has become such a normal thing for people now day, and even though i don't want to ever visit a hospital i know that i probably will some day, so sometimes i think do we really need medicine or does medicine need us.

i don't know if this is true but i don't think it would work because you would still need to get rid of dark matter, the stuff that holds the universe together in order to bend time.

i believe that the question is very interesting as fully understanding our brain will probably lead to some of the greatest discoveries of all time, the other question would be, can we apply this knowledge on machines, creating a computer that has the same characteristics as a human brain, only infinitely more powerful, maybe the two types of intelligence don't combine really well, but i guess only time will tell.

Oh yes.... let's inhale irritating oxidisers... I wont get pulmonary edema...

 

Here is an MSDS for a 3% solution in water. You will notice "Harmful if swallowed" under the ingestion subheading in the toxicological profile.

http://www.anachemia...nglish/4988.pdf

 

Also, the body does utilise hydrogen peroxide inside special vesicles in cells (and the hydrogen peroixe specially made for this purpose). It is used in conjunction with high acidity and special peptides designed to destroy proteins of the cell that are no longer needed or by immune cells to destroy pathogens- DESTROY PROTEIN and MADE AS REQUIRED being the important part. Otherwise, hydrogen peroxide (and radical) byproducts are quickly broken down and sequested by various mechanisms of the body to protect it from such uncontrolled damage. If you understand that H₂O₂ is used to destroy cells, why put it in your body to flow around and kill whatever cells it happens to encounter? There is no reason for it to target any one item in particular.

 

Also, hydrogen peroxide can react with Fe²⁺, such as that in hemoglobin in the blood, catalysing the decomposition into water and the HO^. and HOO^. radicals... These are particularly harmful to cells. We synthesis our own anti-oxidants like glutathione, however once used up your body needs time to resynthesis its stores, and during this time the radicals can wreak havoc. (The toxicology of panadol (acetaminophen, tylenol) overdose is actually caused by this same principle/mechanism (i.e. on overdoes, a reactive metabolite is produced reducing glutathione levels which then lets the molecule destroy DNA and proteins)).

 

Finally to indicate the damge radicals can cause, adding concentrated sulfuric acid to 30% hydrogen peroxide and heating makes a solution commonly referred to as "pirrana solution". Radicals are produced so readily, that carbon and organic residues can be disolved off in seconds (seen as a rapid liberation of carbon dioxide leaving the solution), I would imagine placing a fresh cutting from a living plant in this solution would have the same effect (although, would probs take longer)- actually I might try this next time im in the lab.

 

At best these sites take information and present it in a biased way. At worst they just make it up, or deliberately ignore important evidence.

yea, i did a lot more research and most websites say that radicals can be dangerous because of the reasons that you gave above, i just wanted to find out because radicals can also kill bacteria and therefore can be regarded as beneficial in some cases, but i understand now why it is unsafe to ingest now, i guess the best way we can fight disease is to stick with a natural nutrition, everything made by humans always seems to break the natural balance.

i have been doing a lot more research and from what understand now free radicals can cause some damage in certain parts of our body, but in the other hand, antioxidants are not necessary in excessive amounts, so therefore the best thing to do for a healthy body would be to try to keep everything balanced and not try to overdo the effect of any of them. i guess i just thought that it would be good because it can help fight bacteria and there is a lack of oxygen now days, but i guess a good nutrition would be just as good.

Haha, Ever looked up DHMO? Such sites are probably more credible than these H₂O₂ miracle cure sites. They use exaggerated accurate information to betray water (yes... H₂O) in a very negative light (enough so that people try to 'ban' it). Never trust the internet blindly.

i did not, that is why i asked, but i am still not convinced that h2o2 is a poison, maybe i need to do more research but most of the evidence in the internet is very vague therefore is kind of hard to know what to trust anymore.

You assert that people don't get along, what informs this assertion? My experience is that people do generally get along it's cultures that don't seem to be able to do so.

 

 

that's what i meant, different cultures, religions.

I think you would be better asking a doctor than surfing the net.

i disagree, doctors only know what they know, in the net i can get multiple opinions.

You said nothing was real, and you keep on saying it.

To whom do you think you are talking?

i was giving my opinion based on the topic why can't people get along, in which i think they can't get along because they are very closed minded and believe thing to be 100% real, i was stating that i can accept people as they are because i don't necessarily believe in anything 100%.

First, it has been tested.

second that page is trying to make money (by selling a book).

Third, imagine that H2O2 works for some condition- say prostate caner since that's one of the examples they cite.

I could look up how much the UK government spends on treating prostate cancer and how much of a loss to the economy that illness causes.

If some magic cure would treat that then there would be a huge financial incentive for the government to use the stuff.

It's possible that no company would make much money directly from the research, but there would be a lot of money saved- well in excess of that needed to fund the testing.

 

So, would you like to explain why you are favouring the opinion of a site that can't do simple arithmetic over the combined wisdom of the existing research?

 

Oh, BTW, if you want to repeat their "experiment" don't bother with buying a glass eye dropper bottle. The glass is alkaline and will decompose the peroxide quite quickly (which, of course, means that they have been using cold water and getting results. Do you plan to patent using water, diluted with water, as a cure all?)

hey, i don't want to favor anybody, all i want is to know people's opinions, and learn from that, what do you think about using regular 3% hydrogen peroxide as a mouthwash.

"but in my opinion nothing is real"

Then you seem to be talking to yourself. Perhaps you should stop.

what? are claiming that i am insane, all i was saying is that people seem to believe in things that can never be proven 100% correct, therefore nothing is truly real, there is only a probability that things can be real, but they can never be truly real.