Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 10-07-2009

By Grail-seekeron

"The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head." – Terry Pratchett

Quote of the Day:

No doubt, in the depth of my eye, the picture is painted. The picture, certainly, is in my eye. But me, I am in the picture.

Jacques Lacan

Grail-seeker
Related

12 Comments

  1. Lewis Wolpert vs Rupert Sheldrake
    Wolpert is wrong, but not for the convoluted reasoning that Sheldrake gives. We don’t need to invoke higher powers either. The reason is much simpler.

    An embryo develops, controlled by the DNA, using chemical materials from its surrounding environment, in a serious of (very complicated) chemical reactions.

    The product of these chemical reactions depends on the availability and concentration of the chemicals used to make the product, AND on the concentration of other chemicals, AND on the physical aspects (heat, pressure etc) of the environment surrounding the embryo.

    If you only look at the DNA as proposed by Wolpert (and agreed to by Sheldrake), then you have no knowledge about the surrounding environment. In particular you don’t know if the embryo will develop at all.

    —-
    No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.

  2. carbon eating artificial tree
    Nice idea, but some strange statements in the article:

    After being trapped in a chamber, the carbon would be compressed and stored in liquid form for sequestration.

    If it’s really carbon that is captured, as opposed to carbon dioxide, then the best thing would be to burn the carbon as an energy source. That way we would not need so much oil or coal.

    But since the carbon dioxide in the air is actually very concentrated, the device required to collect it can be fairly small.

    No it is not very concentrated. It is just above 0.03%. That’s not concentrated.

    What kind of people write these “science” articles?

    —-
    No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.

  3. America: land of the irrational
    Why do I even read pieces like this? Nothing like an arrogant scientist telling us all how gullible and stupid we are. This fellow is just annoying and probably fancies himself as part of some great skeptical tradition. All the cool people think we’re still evolving but with a twist—we have a conscious role in it. As for angels, yes they exist.

    1. Sheeesh
      [quote]I broke up with a woman when she found Jamie Foxx’s waving his Oscar at his dead grandmother “touching.”[/quote]

      That’s actually comforting to know, because the idea of this man marrying, reproducing, and teaching his children his intolerance, is disturbing to say the least.

      Then again, I confess I showed a bit (or a lot) of intolerance myself, when discussing this new project of Jelly Telly, by the same people who brought you Veggie Tales. What can I say… mea culpa.

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

  4. Suing Gore
    You know there’s something we need to fix, when we live in a world that needs lawyers to settle scientific issues.

    —–
    It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
    It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

    Red Pill Junkie

    1. maybe, but
      But Gore is guilty of browbeating people into submission – you have to believe as he does, or he will ruin you.

      —-
      No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.

  5. Singularity Spread
    The technological singularity believers fail to take the actual state of the world into account when they make their claims. They assume the world to be much as the part they live in, and so the effects will be felt to all as though to them. The fact of the matter is these people live in an extremely priviledged society very different from most of the world. Frinstrance: a quarter of the world has no regular access to electricity, and half the world doesn’t have regular access to a phone. There are many such data, but they all point to an inescapable fact. There are a large number of technological have-nots. If they don’t have access to technology, technology has little or no access to them. Just as has been happening in economics for decades, those that have are getting more, those that don’t are getting less, and the distance between them is increasing. Vinge has already recanted on his ‘problem child’. Kurzweil is getting too much attention from it to do so. But their estimations are that this thing should occur in 20 to 35 years respectively. The have-nots are unlikely to become haves within that time frame, and so should it occur, it won;t occur for everyone, and maybe not even a majority.

    No, I am not the brain specialist…..
    YES. Yes I AM the brain specialist.

    1. not entirely
      I don’t agree with the singularity people, I think they are mainly selling books and speeches, and looking for research funding.

      However when you say

      Just as has been happening in economics for decades, those that have are getting more, those that don’t are getting less, and the distance between them is increasing.

      I must disagree.

      The distance in terms of technological level may be increasing, with regard to the very top level.

      But saying that the folks at the bottom technology level are getting less is patently false.

      For example, there is more access to phones in Africa now than before, not less. There is more electricity in Asia, in the poor parts, not less.

      Because of that, there is also more economic opportunity for many disadvantaged people, not less.

      Things are far from perfect in many parts of the world. Things are probably not even good or middling. But things are getting better for a lot of the disadvantaged.

      —-
      No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.

      1. Smore Poorer
        [quote=earthling]I don’t agree with the singularity people, I think they are mainly selling books and speeches, and looking for research funding.

        However when you say

        Just as has been happening in economics for decades, those that have are getting more, those that don’t are getting less, and the distance between them is increasing.

        I must disagree.

        The distance in terms of technological level may be increasing, with regard to the very top level.

        But saying that the folks at the bottom technology level are getting less is patently false.

        For example, there is more access to phones in Africa now than before, not less. There is more electricity in Asia, in the poor parts, not less.

        Because of that, there is also more economic opportunity for many disadvantaged people, not less.

        Things are far from perfect in many parts of the world. Things are probably not even good or middling. But things are getting better for a lot of the disadvantaged.

        —-
        No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.[/quote]

        Actually the same situation exists in economic terms. The wealth of the poor is greater than ever before. However, compared to what it could be, as in an even division of wealth, the poor are getting less than their fair share. With technology, sure they all have more now. But compared to what is available, they have a smaller share than ever beforet.

        But I most strenuously disagree that they have more economic
        opportunity than ever. They have the economic opportunities that they are allowed to have. When they are allowed to accumulate greater wealth, it is because they are being converted to consumerism. They have fewer options with only the image of wealth. Western corporation culture is turning the world into an 8,000 mile diameter spherical company town. As some pull ahead and achieve some semblance of wealth, such as urban India settings, far more are born and mature in poorer worlds.

        No, I am not the brain specialist…..
        YES. Yes I AM the brain specialist.

        1. top-down
          Sure these problems exist. And the poor in the poor regions are limited by the top-down management imposed on them. That is top-down both from big business and by their local government.

          But with regard to lifestyle, I disagree. Who are we to say that they should prefer a non-western lifestyle?

          It’s fine to live a comfortable life and wax philosophical about how the old ways were so much better. It is another thing to say that people who have been trapped in the old ways should remain trapped.

          The honest alternative is to let them have fair trade, and the tools and education to make a choice. Then leave it up to them individually. Let them have freedom of movement.

          Oh yes before I forget, limits are not only imposed by our governments and our big businesses. Limits are also imposed by our protectionist labour groups.

          —-
          No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.

          2. experience
            Ah but you see, the Western experience has taught us that living in nice houses, with nice transportation and nice communication, heat in the winter, AC in the summer and all that, is a really bad experience.

            Therefore we have to tell the cave people that they should stay in the caves, it is much nicer, and much better for their souls.

            Meanwhile we Westerners tough it out with the terrible life of luxury. Sadly, someone has to suffer, so we are volunteering. The western lifestyle just isn’t for everyone.

            —-
            No amount of cursing at the round earth will make it flat.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal