jimmydasaint

Loved the chart Essay The link between global recession and also carbon dioxide outputs is, no doubt, multi-faceted. However, the global recession would have been in swing about three years now and it would be interesting to read the new figures. However, IMHO, there is a need for a serious re-think about our wasteful, luxury-laden culture with an inappropriate education system. I think it is about time that we start agreeing with the economist Schumacher and start thinking about work with personal meaning and industries with sustainability as a starting point instead of mass manufacturing capacity. Link I don't want to derail the thread so I will look for some more recent references on oceanic acidification.

Thanks for the link and the diagram iNow. It is curous that between 2000 and roughly 2005, there is a substantial drop in carbon dioxide air comcentrations and a subsequent rise in pH. I wonder what humanity were doing right at the time and why can't we replicate this trend? Hope you are well mate.

For what it's worth: Link

I don't mean to be pedantic but I would like to see solid data over the past 50-60 years about ocean acidification. Thanks.

You are right. Human behaviour is complicated and I would be certain that more hormones are involved and more complex biochemical process. However, I think that it is not simply an innate characteristic controlled by genes. Think of a family that is inspired by the change people can effect by kind or charitable behaviour. They are determined to pass on their habits to their children. The children would presumably reflect the values of their parents and then derive a sense of satisfaction from their 'good deeds'. I take it that nurture plays a substantial part in developing philanthropic actions in this case. What is harder for me is the case of apparent philanthropic behaviour by animals because I would assume that these genes would be strongly selected against (due to sheer number of deaths). Yet this seems to be the case. I would agree with you in principle Athena. I think that we are pre-programmed for a number of behavious by God. For example, babies seem to realise the caiuse and effect relationships that govern a ball being pushed by a hand on a computer/TV screen but show puzzlement when a ball rolls by itself. However, remember that most scientists would favour selection and genetic drift arguments and would there are genetic predispositions which cause hormonal, change and affect the final behaviour. In this latter case, nature and nurture would be both relevant. AFAIK, the oxytocin receptors theory has an animal model, but I have not heard about a human model, bearing in mind the sheer variety of genetic predispositions and final emergent behaviour. Therefore, I love the 'bastard' theory but would like to read more about it.

Does giving to charity or helping old people across the road release 'feel good' chemicals in the brain? I assume that doing good deeds releases endorphins or other similar chemicals in the brain, and, as a result, make people feel good about themselves and their philanthropic actions. However, do all people feel similarly and how would the brain of someone who has a psycopathic personality work if they do a good deed?

I think it goes in the following order: Many members of a species in competition for food, space, water, mates Variation in the code (DNA) due to small changes called mutations, do that all members of a species are slightly different (mutations caused by errors in copying DNA or from chemicals in the atmosphere or from radiation affecting the DNA code) Nature causes some to be selected e.g. after an event that causes death of thhose with the 'wrong' DNA The survivors pass their version of the DNA to their children (descendants) For example a small section of DNA that codes for 'features' is called a gene or allele. If a woman has a mutated gene or allele that prevents muscle being broken down after exercise, she could be unusually strong. If her husband also has a mutated allele for unusual strength, due to having loads of muscle and they have a baby, that baby also has a chance of receiving two mutated alleles and therefore being much stronger than other children. This was shown to be the case for this child in Germany: Article

Of course it is a possible atavistic behavioural response to survival/food searching. However, Abrahamic faiths start and finish with the soul and it is the domain of faith. Again, it is a possible cost/benefit calculation which is atavistic. However, IMHO there are personality types which are self-sacrificing and seem to derive pleasure from it. IMHO, genes, upbringing and environment seem to play a part in developing what we call personality, but what is it in the person that gains the sense of satisfaction. Is it mere epiphenomenology? Or something deeper? Surely the societal systems we build are those which are filled with pain and suffering because their is no magic formula for happiness. Money and freedom do not seem to provide many answers in general. Even in the midst of the richest societies in the world, we find that the system is flawed. Poverty is widespread, people feel that their responsibility stops at their front doors, for the most part. I can see that the answers to meet the unhappy nature of a society are based on trial and error. Perhaps it needs a metacognitive approach to find true spiritual and bodily happiness. So far, no society that I can see has found a way out of the rat race.

iNow, you gave some beautiful quotes to clarify Einstein's position as an agnostic atheist with an awe and reverence for the Universe. It forced me to read about this humble and rational man. However, back to the OP, the question of a soul is a thorny issue. We seem to have a complex consciousness, which includes a unified sense of 'self' which can respond to the environment and to which events seem to happen. We also have recursive thought which can express itself in complex syntax. We seem to have been given a pre-formed brain structure which can recognise cause and effect and seems to recognise the need for worship, rather than the blank slate or tabula rasa that philosophers thought existed in humans. We are causative agents at beyond our immediate geography and can cause positive or negative change in other organisms in a giant cause-effect chain. I can see why people believe in a soul that is instantiated into human form at birth and that could survive it at death. It is a way of achieving the reward for a personality that 'evolves' to improve itself and others and receives its eventual award, with illusion (not deception) of free will. IMHO, God's role is to create the Laws of Nature and an invisible Law that allows man the rewards of his good actions and punishment for actions where others suffer unnecessarily.

With respect, how is Science destroying society? The scientific method has not been widely or frequently for social engineering, except for some disastrous, uncommon consequences in Nazi or Communist States. Capitalism, as far as I know, has no need for satisfying morality but only to grant some fundamental freedoms- economic and political for the main part. Science refers to the experimental method to establish or uncover fundamental objective truths. The destruction of society cannot be attributable to the door of Science or technology. It only makes sense to read religious scripture as allegory or metaphor, with a general ethical underpinning that allows societies to flourish. However, flawed man-made scriptures are open to ridicule, if they have been wrongly transcribed or reflect the knowledge of their times. You should not expect anything else. If I can paraphrase what iNow said in a similar thread: your right to have a faith must be respected; your attempts to find scientific truth in scripture is open to criticism.

Reading on a bit in the article, it is quite interesting to read the following: so it might be a war between possible embryo and mother... pz myers

I have been trying to clarify my main point but that is close to what I meant. Also, I extended the example to the lack of success of HIV-based vaccines because I did not anticipate a high success rate for another important virus which has historically shown notorious resistance, both to anti-retroviral drugs and to effective vaccine development. Link to HIV Subtype Diversity Your main point is correct. The seasonal strain is anticipated for, and vaccines produced accordingly. However, do we produce a vaccine against a huge number of possible epitopes that may emerge, or is it currently circulating strains? I do take the point that the research may be valuable in ascertaining the zoonosis of influenza, or its propagation in a species. Additionally, is the seasonal protection even close to an average of 50%? There may be confounding factors in measuring both deaths attributable to flu, or degree of immunoprophylactic activity. I did learn something from both what you have written and also this site: CDC

It sounds like an attempt to combine hermeticism and science and to explain the origin of all life as a geometric form - the gyre. The article is probably self-funded and the part-time occupation of a profssional scientist. It really belongs in the Pseudoscience section.

CharonY, I cannot think of any good reason to make a more dangerous form of the influenza virus. Perhaps the researchers can identify the mutations involved in increasing infectivity in aerosolised form, but then where does the research go next? IIRC, orthomyxoviruses have segmented genomes and are capable of recombination of genomic segments (correct me if I am wrong here). Mutations are bound to arise in the serotype anyway. I would have thought that resistant 'strains' of the influenza virus would arise within a short time of circulating a vaccine. I am not up to date with the data on HIV, but is there a successful vaccine now available? Excellent question Captain but I will let CharonY answer it, because I do not have the knowledge of the biostatistics field. However, a quick glance at a paper seems to suggest high mutation rates for RNA viruses. Link to Paper

With respect, I don't think there is any clear justification for the introduction of a highly virulent strain of a virus that can cause pandemics, after potentiation by passing through animals and selection. What is the point in creating a vaccine when we already know there will be resistant strains created by Natural Selection? IMHO, this is one of the reasons that vaccines against HIV have been partly successful. Although I am aware of the attenuation of viral pathogenicity in other species, and even in the same species, the justification of creating a vaccine is highly contentious, given the viral proclivity to mutate.

The Independent UK (emphasis is my own - jimmy) Some may ask: 'What is the bloody point?'

At the end of October 2011, I had a very vivid dream. I was driving along a motorway in my car when, all of a sudden, there was thick black smoke all across the motorway. I had to make a quick decision what to do and I decided to speed up to get clear of the smoke. I could not see anything at all in front of me. Suddenly, I saw a car in front of me and I could not stop in time. As the collision occurred I woke up. About a week and a half later this happened: M5 Motorway Crash Which field of science could answer the reasons behind this occurence? Is it simple coincidence? Because if it is, then my wife and one of my children dreamed about the death of my mother (when she was in good health) about 6 months before she passed on. Was this also a coincidence? I don't honestly know the answer to this. But is it possible that we are capable of tapping into a collective consciousness at some point?

Thanks for the replies guys. The track and guidelines are electromagnetic and do consume energy. However, as it is for a short time, as others have stated, and does not experience the friction of moving on wheels, so it is a potential energy saver. How Stuff Works http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/maglev-track1.gif Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, by swansont and others, that the costs of setting up this technology are dollar-intensive when a second recession is looming. Popular Mechanics Academic Study

From a very prelliminary scan of the paper, it mentions Type I as including inflammatory responses to graft rejection, autoimmune reactions (also known as Type II and III hypersensitivity) and also seems to include normal Tcell-B cell interactions to antigen presentation, so the definition must have broadened since the 'old days': Plos Link Also found this ks: Wiki

IIRC there are hypersensitivity disorders given the numbers I to IV, with I being common allergic responses, e.g. asthma, whilst Type IV represented delayed type hypersensitivity to antigens. Maybe if you use these as search strings it may relate to what you are looking for.

Hang on, I thought the % method referred to weight per volume, e.g. 5% of agarose would represent 5 g dissolved in, and made up to 100 ml. I don't think I need to say more because this is homework help.

IMHO, the Maglev train using computers to guide a train by the principles of repulsion and attraction is a superb example of modern engineering overcoming a problem. The problem is to move populations around as quickly safely, and without hassle to different conurbations, either within a country or internationally. The priciples are demonstrated below: and How Maglev trains work However, it strikes me, as a member of the energy consuming public, that this seems to use a lot of electricity and raw materials. Of more concern to me is how much energy the trains will drain from the National Grid, and how this compares to the amount of fossil fuels used by aeroplanes. Is a maglev another energy consuming idea that will force us to burn more fossil fuels to generate electricity for it, or can it become an elegant and intelligent solution to future travel?

It certainly looks that way. Has this topic been controversial because one looks like a strain of the other? Additionally, are the proteins significantly different, because each yeast would display proteins on their surface, which could be recognised by antibodies?