beecee

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

unless it's good an heroic

 Stop  trying to put words into people's mouths...It's wrong, deceitful and unjust.  War is evil and bad. The soldier in question was a conscientious objector that irrespective, obeyed the laws of the land at that time during a world war, and proved to be a hero in saving many lives of his comrades. He deserves recognition for his efforts.

2 hours ago, Peterkin said:

So the only thing that's good and right is The Law

If you believe a law is wrong or unjust, do something about it, within the laws of the land. Waxing philsophically and rhetorically about it, on a remote science forum, won't get you anywhere. Or would you be in the minority in your society if you did do something practical reflecting your opposition? I took part in two anti Vietnam moratorium marches in Sydney in the sixties. But I still respected those troops that were conscripted and sent away, some never to return. We show them respect on a special day we call ANZAC Day in my country...a solemn day of rememberence, reflection, and honour. 

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

They may be unscientific but you don't have to be scientific, or rational, to be an atheist. 

True enough, but  we all prefer rationality. And I would argue that if one were atheist, and rejected religion as in belief in a creator/deity, then by reason the scientific explanation would be implied.

Not knowing that much about Budhism I found this, "Buddhism has no creator god to explain the origin of the universe. Instead, it teaches that everything depends on everything else: present events are caused by past events and become the cause of future events."

and...

"There are many examples throughout the Buddhist world of non-scientific worldviews, such as dogmatism, fundamentalism, clericalism, devotion to supernatural spirits and deities. Nevertheless, since the 19th century, numerous modern figures have argued that Buddhism is rational and uniquely compatible with science."

https://www.google.com/search?q=budhism+rationality&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=budhism+rationality&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i13j0i390l5.9568j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

So debatable at best.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15665399.2008.10819972

https://scholarworks.smith.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=phi_facpubs

The Way of the Dialetheist: Contradictions in Buddhism

3 hours ago, Genady said:

Sure.

Another limitation is that if an original cloud is too large, it would break and make several smaller stars rather than one large star.

A reason in fact why our own star the Sun, is not part of a binary, trinary or bigger system...actually relatively rare in that respect.

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Also, their chemical composition or metallicity.

that would validate then what I was trying to say here....

3 hours ago, beecee said:

Also (although I am less certain as a non physicist) the original first generation stars were much larger in volume, with consequently shorter life spans. These stars formed from the accretion of large areas of H and He with no metallic content. So I would also hazzard a guess and say the content of the cloud from whence the stars formed. Later generation of stars are smaller and obviously formed from clouds of dust and debris, that did have metallic content, that was synthesised from the original larger stars.

I would wait though for some confirmation on that.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

I'm no expert, but as far as I know there is no God in Buddhism.

That maybe the case, but as I did mention aspects like mythical overtones, communion with nature, transcendence, karma and other such  concepts that invokes out of this world type of experiences, are also unscientific concepts.

3 hours ago, WAMF said:

Yes and yes. However I'm speculating our universe isn't the only thing out there. The field existed before and it's our matter that is spreading out in this field. 

Have you read Professor Lawrence Krauss' book, "A Universe from Nothing"?

Briefly it describes the quantum foam, from whence our universe arose, (and possibly other universes) as "NOTHING" .

It means of course redefining what we think of as nothing at all, but we have already done that sucessfully when a hundred or so years ago, we thought space was nothing. We know better now. And of course this quantum foam is far closer to the nothing at all we may ascribe to than anything else we can name.

17 hours ago, LazyLemonLucas said:

Being an atheist does not exactly entail being "rational". 

Correct of course. 

17 hours ago, LazyLemonLucas said:

Buddhists are the followers of the religious ascetic Siddhartha Gautama or Gautama Buddha. Buddhists may believe in deities but they do not hold positions about god (in the classical sense). Thus, they are atheistic. By the way, I do know that certain Buddhists have varying beliefs about the legitimacy and existence of God but the teachings of Buddha do not explicitly state so. Indeed, Buddhist teaching states that one who goes through the path of the Buddha can become an entity like Gautama Buddha did. 

Buddhists have different dogma and issues for themselves but aren't the kinds of atheists who proclaim odd rhetoric like my aforementioned Swolliw friend. 

To answer the question: Yes. it's entirely rational for an atheist to believe in religion because atheism and religion are completely compatible. Buddhists are the definition of a religious atheist.

All supernatural, paranormal, and  mythical overtones, re communion with nature, transcendence, karma and other such  concepts that invokes out of this world type of experiences, are unscientific concepts.

And of course the whole concept of this thread with regards to the title, remains irrational.

Atheist= a  person who does not believe in a creator/deity/ID/god

Religion = The belief in a super duper omnipotent being/god, and the supernatural and the paranormal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Rational = A belief based on reason, logic and evidence. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=rational+foundations+of+religion&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-GBAU952AU952&oq=rational&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0i67i131i433j0i67j0i67i131i433j69i60l3.2928j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

"Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching"

34 minutes ago, Kurious12 said:

Compared to the size of the Earth the sun is massive but there are stars out there that would reach out to the orbit of Jupiter if they were where our sun is. I read that when our star reached a certain size it started fusion at the core and then stopped growing because it will start to blow all the gases away that it was feeding on. Most stars are born in a cloud of gas and dust that can be light years across so there's no end of material to feed on while growing. With that in mind what determines how small or large a star will become during its birth?

A star essentially is a balancing act between radiative pressure trying to expand the star, and gravity compressing it. These essentialy are determined by the nuclear fusion processes going on in the core of the star. Consequently, a star’s size is set by its own mass. 

Also (although I am less certain as a non physicist) the original first generation stars were much larger in volume, with consequently shorter life spans. These stars formed from the accretion of large areas of H and He with no metallic content. So I would also hazzard a guess and say the content of the cloud from whence the stars formed. Later generation of stars are smaller and obviously formed from clouds of dust and debris, that did have metallic content, that was synthesised from the original larger stars.

I would wait though for some confirmation on that.

26 minutes ago, Kurious12 said:

If someone stumbles across a life form that is total new to the world, who gets to name that life form?

The discoverer?

A recent discovered frog species was named after David Attenborough.

17 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

It doesn't change my opinion on how dangerous a dog breed is.  Sure any dog can be aggressive but I would much rather get attacked by a Pekingese than a Pit Bull.

That goes without saying. My point though, the real danger is the irresponsible, ignorant dog owner.

5 hours ago, iNow said:

No thanks. Far too much time and bandwidth has already been wasted on this ridiculousness. 

While I agree with that, and since I have "some" disgreement with most everyone so far that has contributed, (part of that disgreement is that I believe that sometimes PC can be taken too far) I think the crux of the argument is the opportunistic, publicity seeking, controversy creator that jumped at this, is imo someone truly to be despised. Although one must admit, he is good at achieving the discontent and controversy he purposely sets out to achieve. Jordon Peterson his his name. A shame also of the hypocrisy shown by one or two contributers  in particular.

Biden made a decision based on qualifications, in the first instance, and to show that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done in the second instance. His pre-announcment simply aligned with those two points. IMVHO of course!!!

https://phys.org/news/2022-04-diminishing-arctic-sea-ice-impacts.html

Diminishing Arctic sea ice has lasting impacts on global climate:

As the impacts of climate change are felt around the world, no area is experiencing more drastic changes than the northern polar region. Studies have shown the Arctic is warming at two to three times as fast as the rest of the planet, resulting in a rapid loss of its sea ice volume.

That sea ice loss, declining at an average rate of about 13 percent per decade, is having a long-lasting climatic impact in the Arctic and beyond, according to a new study published this month in Nature Communications.

The research team, led by University at Albany atmospheric scientist Aiguo Dai, analyzed observational data and climate model simulations to show how fluctuations in Arctic sea ice cover are able to amplify multi-decadal variations in surface temperatures not only in the Arctic, but also in the North Atlantic Ocean.

more at link...............................................

the paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29810-7

Sea ice–air interactions amplify multidecadal variability in the North Atlantic and Arctic region:

Abstract:

Winter surface air temperature (Tas) over the Barents–Kara Seas (BKS) and other Arctic regions has experienced rapid warming since the late 1990s that has been linked to the concurring cooling over Eurasia, and these multidecadal trends are attributed partly to internal variability. However, how such variability is generated is unclear. Through analyses of observations and model simulations, we show that sea ice–air two-way interactions amplify multidecadal variability in sea-ice cover, sea surface temperatures (SST) and Tas from the North Atlantic to BKS, and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) mainly through variations in surface fluxes. When sea ice is fixed in flux calculations, multidecadal variations are reduced substantially (by 20–50%) not only in Arctic Tas, but also in North Atlantic SST and AMOC. The results suggest that sea ice–air interactions are crucial for multidecadal climate variability in both the Arctic and North Atlantic, similar to air-sea interactions for tropical climate.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

About 5 years ago, Netherlands had 19 prisoners only and now in 2018, the country doesn't have any criminals. 

You should explian to the Dutch the futility of their approach.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-05-13/the-netherlands-is-closing-its-prisons

Nonsense to the first statement highlighted, and from your link.....

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

To which I responded: I did not and will no ask it.

OK?

And I didn't say you did or had responded. I said......"You may ask the next obvious question, as to why. I cannot answer that one". 🙄

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Genghis Khan, Qin Shi Huang, Alexander the Great, Hammurabi, Maratha, Pachacútec, Joshua,  Charlemagne, Sundiata Keita, Napoleon, Cortez, Churchill, LBJ... etc. (I do not use the H word except in strict factual historical context.) 

Sorry, I didn't know this was a history lesson, otherwise I would have named many more...Idi Amin of course is another. There have been and still are war mongers, and Putin is obviously one as well as a war criminal, as of course was Hitler. Are you casting some doubt on Hitler and what history tells us? I mean I remember this phyco nut on another forum, trying to convince the members that the holocaust didn't happen. 🤮 

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Exactly. The Law requires peaceable men to turn killer on command. Others fared less heroically. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/a-responsibility-to-fight-why-a-ww-ii-era-judge-jailed-mennonite-pacifists-1.5084337

No, the law requires peaceable men and woman to do their duty in times of conflict. If they have a genuine conscientious objection to fighting, there is always other non combatant regions to do their duty.eg: paramedics/catering/ chaplins/ etc etc......"Non-combatant is a term of art in the law of war and international humanitarian law to refer to civilians who are not taking a direct part in hostilities;^[1] persons, such as combat medics and military chaplains, who are members of the belligerent armed forces but are protected because of their specific duties (as currently described in Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, adopted in June 1977); combatants who are placed hors de combat; and neutral persons, such as peacekeepers, who are not involved in fighting for one of the belligerents involved in a war. This particular status was first recognized under the Geneva Conventions with the First Geneva Convention of 1864."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant

6 hours ago, Peterkin said:

The Law does not equate war with crime.

I didn't actually say that. I said words to the effect that war is/was  wrong and evil, as are individual wrong doers and criminals in a society.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I did not and will not ask it.

Who said you had asked it? Is this a comprehension problem? I asked....

3 hours ago, beecee said:

You may ask the next obvious question, as to why. I cannot answer that one.

OK?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Maybe when you do. Unlikely. You don't even speak the same language.  

Are you speaking for dimreeper? On the same language, you are probably correct. Unlike dimreeper and yourself, I'm not out canvassing or promoting some passive totally unworkable philosophy that we have discussed amply in at least two other threads.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

I think so. But it is not criminal, according to the law of any country in the world. You alone equate evil = bad = criminal. The laws of civilization do not; the religions and moral codes of civilization do not. War-mongers are not put into jails - draft-dodgers are.

I equate all as undesirable but unevitable due to human nature. I certainly am not detracting from that, and I'm pretty certain the laws of civilisation you speak of, also push them as undesirable, including religion, and basic moral codes of reasonable westernised society. Which war mongers are you on about? Hitler?? there were about six attempts on his life, sadly all failed until he took the coward's way out. Putin? How can the west put him in jail? Or are you suggesting we risk a nuclear war, or even another conventional war? Draft dodgers...who are you referring to? I remember a movie starring Garry Cooper about an American bloke named Calvin York from memory, a passivist and anti war, but he upon being conscripted went anyway and obeyed the laws of the land. He ended up an American hero and won its top medals of valor.

I suggest if you have a problem with your society (as it appears you do with any debate) then do something about it. I'm concerned about global warming, and I'm also doing at some initial outlay, things to reduce my carbon footprint. Action my friend is more imporatnt then words!!!

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

I want to highlight that as a society we do decide what is evil and how harsh we want to punish someone. The US has demonstrated that we can racialize these decisions, e.g. by punishing crack harsher than cocaine or investigate and jail black drug users more frequently than white. In fact, certain behaviours (such as drug addiction) might be treated better with health intervention strategies than criminalization. I suspect that this is not actually the direction of your argument, but I thought I might want to bring that up, if only to illustrate that things are tricky.

I would add that the important rehabilitation factor, and alternatives such as suspended sentences, parole and such, are now being looked at much more critically at least where I am, due to the numbers of criminals on parole, bail, or suspended sentences, that have literally thrown it back into the faces of the authoriries, by reoffending, many in short spaces of time. 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Sure; but thieves are not the only criminals.
And despite the fact that they can afford good lawyers to get them off, a large number of thieves are actually wealthy.

I'm of the opinion that without jails there may be no prisoners, but that does not mean there are no criminals.

3 hours ago, MigL said:

So Jeffrey Epstein wasn't criminal for molesting young girls, because he certainly wasn't poor. And Donald Trump shouldn't be considered a criminal for his part in the Jan 6 insurrection, or all the people he has taken advantage of ?

Not all criminals are thieves because of poverty, Dim.
Very few steal simply because they are hungry, otherwise bakeries and delis would be getting robbed as often as banks.
Some steal because they are greedy.
 
You're making less sense than usual; but I did not downvote you ...

These are the points I'm having great difficulty in getting dimreeper to accept. That would obviously mean accepting he was wrong.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If the fact of war is relevant to the fact of crime, should not the proportions of war casualty and criminality be compared between civilized and uncivilized peoples?

I'm not going to argue with your's and dimreeper's ideal heart warming desired society's, other then they are unworkable due to the fact that there is good and evil in all of every society, including American Indian, Australian indigenous people, any democratic western society, Russia, Ukraine. That is an indisputable fact that only a fool, drunk or sober, would deny.

You may ask the next obvious question, as to why. I cannot answer that one.

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

But to be fair, the Trumps and Epsteins are not the folks who are more likely to end up in jail. Also the link between crime and poverty is quite strong.

While you are correct on both counts, it certainly is not exclusive to both counts as dimreeper claiming.

3 hours ago, Peterkin said:

If the fact of war is relevant to the fact of crime, should not the proportions of war casualty and criminality be compared between civilized and uncivilized peoples?

When the man says they didn't have criminals, he does not say there was no bad in people; he does not say there was no aggression in people; he does not say there were no conflicts between people. He says they viewed persons as persons, not classes or categories. That is a distinction many civilized people are unable to perceive. 

Firstly again, my full statement was "Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't some of those American Indian tribes constantly fight each other? That was certainly the case with our indigenous Australians. Isn't that evil? or wrong? or have you got some philsophical exemption for that?"

Without delving into any of your deeeeeep philsophical type thinking, the facts are war, crime and all actions against just, reasonable laws of the land are wrong...some more then others...some unforgivable, (as per war, Hitler and Putin) other's certainly forgivable, (but we can't forgive them if they are banished from society)  if and when the wrong doer feels remorse and/or apologises for his/her actions and possibly makes recompense. But hey!! don't let that concern you too much. I'm only a simple old bastard, that trys to see things as they are, and as simple as possible, (punishment, protection of society, and rehabilitation if possible) and without any unneccesary philosphical complications. Occam's razor I think. 😉

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

for instance, is it fair that England's women's rugby team wins because they're paid to train harder than Scotland's women?

They are supposedly all professional sportswomen, and are paid to play to the best of their ability, just as the coach is paid to coach to the best of his/her ability. Professional sportswomen and men are paid to all train to the best of their ability.

7 hours ago, pears said:

You're right. You can never make sport truly fair. Then let's remove all attempts to level the playing field. We shouldn't discriminate older ages from children's sports and men competing with women.

As far as Rugby goes, League or Union, you are either amateur or professsional, mens or womens. A big man or woman will use their size to advantage, just as a smaller, perhaps faster player can use his or her size and speed to advantage.

Junior RL in Australia is played based on ages and graded according to those ages, despite the fact that you can have a big lumping 12 year old, playing against a smaller, slimmer 12 year old.

1 hour ago, WAMF said:

Dark matter was proposed first , then when it didn't add up they introduced Dark energy. 

DM was proposed to explain the apparent anomolous rotation of galaxies.

DE was proposed to explain the acceleration in the expansion rate of the universe/space/time.

5 hours ago, swansont said:

Objects move in a straight line unless a force is exerted, which only happens once they reach the edge, where an inward force can be exerted, to cause them to move in a circle.

Hence why Centrifigal and centrepedal forces are know as pseudo forces.

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Hence why Centrifigal and centrepedal forces are know as pseudo forces.

I'm wrong of course! Only centrifigal forces are pseudo....centripedal forces are real. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Is that your attempt to dismantle Kipling's poem, line by line? (very grown up)...

them.

Not at all. It was just as relevant though.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

To you maybe, but then you're not of that culture, so how do you know what they mean by the word criminal?

I really don't care what word you chose to use. You claiming that there was nothing but good and perfection in any American Indian tribe, is nonsense. There is good and bad in any society. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't some of those American Indian tribes constantly fight each other? That was certainly the case with our indigenous Australians. Isn't that evil? or wrong? or have you got some philsophical exemption for that?

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If they had no jails, they had no prisoners ergo no criminal's, just banished people i.e. no bad Indian's, in their society. 

 Whether they banish all the criminals and bad people, does not detract from the fact that there is good and bad in any and every society. And again having no jails does not mean no criminals or bad people. In essesnce you seem to be saying...perhaps if we banish all the criminals and wrong-doers in our society to an isolated landmass or Island, never to be seen or heard from again, with no chance of rehabilitation. So this is what you are suggesting dimreeper? 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

We have thieves because we have poverty and we have jail's because we have thieves.

No, not necessarily and certainly not exclusively. And we certainly have a greater range of criminals then just thieves. But yes, we have jails because we have thieves and other criminals to punish them, protect society and hopefully show them the error of their ways. Alternatively and obviously, having no jails does not mean we have no thieves. Think about it.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As you said in your Anzac thread "Lest we forget"...

How does punishing/banishing criminals and wrong doers, and whether we have jails or not and the necessity of them, equate to solemnly remembering our war dead, and all those that have given up their lives so that you can live in peace and security and practise your philsophical preference? 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If a culture makes a business out of prisons, they'll need an excuse to populate them.

Your whole questionable philosophy only stands if everything is arse up...you know, like sympathy for the criminal instead of the victim. We have prisons and jails as I have told you in a couple of other threads, to rightly punish them for their misdeamenor, to protect society from their evil, and possibly to rehabilitate them. No culture or society benefits from evil criminals and wrong doers. One can be thankfull thankfully, that such philsophy as you seem to be pushing at every opportunity is in the minority.

9 hours ago, geordief said:

We are not at war with Russia.If we were , the  assassination of its leader would not  as far as I know be a war crime or similar.

 

 

We were at war with Germany and so the assassination  of Hitler would have just been part of the war.

 

As we are not at war with Russia an assassination  attempt by a Nato country  would be both stupid and also  very probably used  as a casus belli (just what we all need)

 

In my previous posts re taking this war criminal out, I always preferred it be done by one of his confidants, close assoccciates or a normal Joe Blow Russian citizen.

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

How would an immoral win in Germany have affected the path of the Allied countries?

Any win against Germany cannot ever have been seen as immoral. 

A new genetic study involving more than 2,000 dogs and 200,000 survey answers from dog owners has revealed that a dog's breed is a poor predictor of behavior on its own.

The first-of-its-kind, peer-reviewed study—conducted by professors, students and researchers at University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School—is set to appear this month in the journal Science.

The major findings go against the popular beliefs that breed plays a role in how aggressive, obedient or affectionate a dog can be. Those stereotypes can prompt breed-specific legislation, insurance restrictions and home bans for some dog breeds, including pit bulls and German Shepherds.

more at link.....................

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I could have told them that. Having been the owner of a Labrador, German Shepard, two Rottweilers, and now two miniature Dachsunds, and never once having anything that even looked like a problem with any of those dogs at least.

Yes, a person to own any large dog breed, or any breed for that matter, should have to undergo a phycological test methinks.

https://phys.org/news/2022-04-blueprint-life-asteroids.html

Using new analyses, scientists have just found the last two of the five informational units of DNA and RNA that had yet to be discovered in samples from meteorites. While it is unlikely that DNA could be formed in a meteorite, this discovery demonstrates that these genetic parts are available for delivery and could have contributed to the development of the instructional molecules on early Earth. The discovery, by an international team with NASA researchers, gives more evidence that chemical reactions in asteroids can make some of life's ingredients, which could have been delivered to ancient Earth by meteorite impacts or perhaps the infall of dust.

All DNA and RNA, which contains the instructions to build and operate every living being on Earth, contains five informational components, called nucleobases. Until now, scientists scouring extraterrestrial samples had only found three of the five. However, a recent analysis by a team of scientists led by Associate Professor Yasuhiro Oba of Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan, identified the final two nucleobases that have eluded scientists.

more at link...................

the paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29612-x

Identifying the wide diversity of extraterrestrial purine and pyrimidine nucleobases in carbonaceous meteorites:

Abstract

The lack of pyrimidine diversity in meteorites remains a mystery since prebiotic chemical models and laboratory experiments have predicted that these compounds can also be produced from chemical precursors found in meteorites. Here we report the detection of nucleobases in three carbonaceous meteorites using state-of-the-art analytical techniques optimized for small-scale quantification of nucleobases down to the range of parts per trillion (ppt). In addition to previously detected purine nucleobases in meteorites such as guanine and adenine, we identify various pyrimidine nucleobases such as cytosine, uracil, and thymine, and their structural isomers such as isocytosine, imidazole-4-carboxylic acid, and 6-methyluracil, respectively. Given the similarity in the molecular distribution of pyrimidines in meteorites and those in photon-processed interstellar ice analogues, some of these derivatives could have been generated by photochemical reactions prevailing in the interstellar medium and later incorporated into asteroids during solar system formation. This study demonstrates that a diversity of meteoritic nucleobases could serve as building blocks of DNA and RNA on the early Earth

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Come On Eileen was a huge hit in the States when I was in my mid twenties.  

While Johnny Ray was popular in Australia, and did at least one tour here, that particular song never made it. My Sister certainly had a crush on him, as did most teenagers at that time in the early fifities.

4 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Assassination is a fascist tool. Be careful of authoritarian responses to authoritarianism. The pigs just love it when you get down in the mud with them.

While that maybe morally correct, perhaps as in the torture thread, it could be seen as the lesser of two evils. How many attempts were mad on Hitler's life? How many possible lives may have been changed if one of them was successful?