Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Dynamic

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Statistics, Fisheries
  1. Man is an electro-chemical-mechanical engine. We are capable of using livestock as a source of energy. Our cells are also capable of deriving matter from livestock. From an efficiency stand point. We are able to convert more energy, and convert more matter into our own via the use of plants per input of solar energy and matter vs the use of animal energy sources. However..... The ethical dilemma is pointless. There is no ethical dilemma. Such a situation would assume we were capable of: A: Providing all matter, and energy required threw plants. [we are] And: B: That the behavoir of the human race was conditioned in such a way to remove our inclination to consume livestock for energy and matter despite our capability of doing so. C: We were for one reason or another (via conditioning, genetics, w/e) we were inclined to reduce "suffering" in livestock.... Canabalism in not uncommon in some cultures. Its not a matter of whether something is ethical or not, its a matter if something is possible, and if environmental and genetic variables allow it to occur. But to entertain your question.... Assuming man for one reason or another was interested in reducing "suffering" you would first need to determine how you want to define suffering. Unfortunately cows are very poor at communicating with humans. Is suffering a behavoir we can monitor, and quantify? Such as the frequency of a certain moo or oink above a certain wavelength? Or do you want to to assume that stress and pain is related to "suffering", and measure the concentration of certain chemicals in the brain or blood? The vegans would then seek to minimize events that caused the oinks and the moo's using various methods, or they would try to ensure that the concentrations of stress related chemicals are below a certain level by limiting stress causing events, or providing the livestock drugs that retard the production and release of stress related chemicals.
  2. http://www.lightandmatter.com/
  3. No a Romney-Ryan ticket is not a guarantee. If you actually wanted an anwser to your question instead of a bunch of "beliefs" regarding what will improve the future for Americans, you would look up, studies that tried to examine if there is a correlation(with a causation, which will be hard to determine. Assuming a correlation is found does the amount of resources per capita effect who is elected? Or does who is elected effect the amount of material resources per capita? And are there are any lurking variables that might influence such a study!) And if no studies existed you would try to complete one yourself. An example: Does the election of a republican candidate correlate with an increase in energy, and material resources? [in this study you would go off of the assumption that all republican candidates are the same, or you would have to devise a way to measure how "republican" a candidate is] I'm going off the assumption a better future is one with more energy, and materials per capita. But if you want to include various environmental variables, or happiness indexes based of sample polling, it gets even more complicated. Cheers, Dynamic
  4. Science doesn't care what you think, or care for your preferences (nor mine) [edit: meaning that our personnel views on things without applying the scientific method are typically wrong, just because I say not having gravity would be favorable because humans would live longer does not make it so, there is a probability that my belief / preference for a lack of gravity , and the removal of gravity would make humans live longer (although that probability is unknown until a series of events is observed), but until determined to be a fact (fact defined: as a close agreement of a series of observations of the same phenomenon) the belief should not be taken as true. What do you even mean when you say life "matters". Are we talking about the duration of life? Are we talking about the quality of life? How do you want to measure it? Hypothesis: If we do not euthanize the elderly (define elderly in terms of age) or sick (define sick in precise terms for the experiment) ____ will occur What if an "atheist society [i guess your defining it as one that performs eugenics, without a belief in god?]" was able to improve the duration of life via euthanasia and eugenic practices? What if the number of non lethal diseases experienced in a lifetime was reduced from the use of eugenics practices? What is to stop a "religious [one that holds the belief there is a higher power]" society from practicing eugenics (to make man more into the image of "god" [god being defined as whatever traits the particular religious organization desires])? Or from "euthanizing" non believers (lets relief them from the pain and suffering of sin!)? Before we can even begin to verify what will happen we need a better definition of religious society, and atheistic society, and from there we would need to study it empirically. And to be honest I don't see how a belief or lack there of in god is relevant to the use of eugenics, or euthanasia on society. Your also not defining a religious society at all. What is it a society in which X number of sample participants choose between claiming to be religious, and claiming not to be religious? You would also have to clarify what you meant by religious because many practices/beliefs are quite different, but associated with the term. Just some things you should take into account. Cheers, Dynamic.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.