Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Galileo Was Wrong: The Hubris of Anti-Science

1235

Posts

  • AtomikaAtomika Social Justice Mage + 12 charm/-5 lockpickingRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Elitistb wrote: »
    For it to be rewarding, the individual in question would have to be reasonable and rational in regard to the bible. Which if that were true, the individual would never had made such a case to begin with.

    *sigh*


    The fatal flaw of religious debate.

    When I have these arguments, I always feel like Superman when he gets cut by an enchanted sword or something.

    "Oh, fuck. Magic. Forgot about that. Yeah, I got nothin'."

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    either God isn't impotent

    o_O

    Well he has a son so he's clearly not impotent.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    oldsak wrote: »
    either God isn't impotent

    o_O

    Well he has a son so he's clearly not impotent.

    Angelic IVF doesn't count.

  • oldsakoldsak Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Oh man, way to make me lol in a hospital waiting room. I'm getting looks now.

  • corcorigancorcorigan Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Things like this make me sad, because there are a multitude of people out there when confronted with this bullcrap will go "Well, let's see, you have a good point, but..." when the proper response is "I'm sorry, you're either stupid or willfully ignorant."

    Were you in orbit watching the earth move!? Were you there!? No, you weren't, you're just blindly following your textbooks.

    video

    *skip to 21:00*

    Wow that's just so....childish. Its like the scientific equivalent of shouting "NOU" to everything anyone says.

    mouth agape . gif

    Oh dear. Awesome video though, and that guy has a vastly better video manner than most amateurs I've seen. I think I would be a bit concerned if I was employing him to do stuff for me in a lab though.

    Ad Astra Per Aspera
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    corcorigan wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    Things like this make me sad, because there are a multitude of people out there when confronted with this bullcrap will go "Well, let's see, you have a good point, but..." when the proper response is "I'm sorry, you're either stupid or willfully ignorant."

    Were you in orbit watching the earth move!? Were you there!? No, you weren't, you're just blindly following your textbooks.

    video

    *skip to 21:00*

    Wow that's just so....childish. Its like the scientific equivalent of shouting "NOU" to everything anyone says.

    mouth agape . gif

    Oh dear. Awesome video though, and that guy has a vastly better video manner than most amateurs I've seen. I think I would be a bit concerned if I was employing him to do stuff for me in a lab though.

    It's a very nice amateur video. It's not some grainy footage, the audio is clear, and he's not using a blackboard to outline his points. More importantly, he stays on message and, for the first half, lays out his evidence behind his belief and discredits the evidence he doesn't like for the second half. Half and half = sensible presentation skills.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • GanluanGanluan Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I got into an argument with a co-worker about evolution vs. creation today.

    That was a mistake.

    I honestly had no idea what to say when their response was "I didn't come from a fish". Well, aside from that I don't want to live here anymore.

  • CorehealerCorehealer The Nevas Sing for me, and I shall sing for you the song that ends the world.Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I actually think it's cool that we evolved from other life forms and that, in the future, we may again evolve as a species into something more fantastical.

    I don't know why the idea is such an adverse thing to people.

    fLl2cwm.jpg
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Corehealer wrote: »
    I actually think it's cool that we evolved from other life forms and that, in the future, we may again evolve as a species into something more fantastical.

    I don't know why the idea is such an adverse thing to people.

    We're not going to evolve anymore because we're *in a deep, heroic voice* MASTERS OF OUR ENVIRONMENT!

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • CorehealerCorehealer The Nevas Sing for me, and I shall sing for you the song that ends the world.Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Corehealer wrote: »
    I actually think it's cool that we evolved from other life forms and that, in the future, we may again evolve as a species into something more fantastical.

    I don't know why the idea is such an adverse thing to people.

    We're not going to evolve anymore because we're *in a deep, heroic voice* MASTERS OF OUR ENVIRONMENT!

    He-man.jpg

    fLl2cwm.jpg
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Corehealer wrote: »
    I actually think it's cool that we evolved from other life forms and that, in the future, we may again evolve as a species into something more fantastical.

    I don't see us evolving all that much anymore. We may lose an allele here or there or pick up some nifty new combinations from interbreeding, but most of modern civilization is basically meant to negate natural selection. People are breeding that nature would have weeded out, or who would be unable to breed "in the wild."

    Technology moves faster than biology. Rather than waiting to evolve a lair of blubber or thick fur, we just cut it off another animal and strap it on, ta da! Now we're a cold weather species.

    Edit: Beat'd with a He Man reference. Damnit.

  • CorehealerCorehealer The Nevas Sing for me, and I shall sing for you the song that ends the world.Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Hevach wrote: »
    Corehealer wrote: »
    I actually think it's cool that we evolved from other life forms and that, in the future, we may again evolve as a species into something more fantastical.

    I don't see us evolving all that much anymore. We may lose an allele here or there or pick up some nifty new combinations from interbreeding, but most of modern civilization is basically meant to negate natural selection. People are breeding that nature would have weeded out, or who would be unable to breed "in the wild."

    Technology moves faster than biology. Rather than waiting to evolve a lair of blubber or thick fur, we just cut it off another animal and strap it on, ta da! Now we're a cold weather species.

    Edit: Beat'd with a He Man reference. Damnit.

    Hah!

    Also, if we use technology instead of biology to enhance ourselves, we can evolve in a sense by going cyborg. Metal arms, legs, computer chips, interfaces for the eyes, etc.

    fLl2cwm.jpg
  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Corehealer wrote: »
    I actually think it's cool that we evolved from other life forms and that, in the future, we may again evolve as a species into something more fantastical.

    I don't know why the idea is such an adverse thing to people.

    We're not going to evolve anymore because we're *in a deep, heroic voice* MASTERS OF OUR ENVIRONMENT!

    Well we are still going through periods of "evolution", at least on the molecular and genetic level, but I don't know how confident I am that millions of years down the road humans will look vastly different than we do now if we keep up with technology.

    Unless those futurists are correct.

    I think this line could be carried into a new thread, and I was thinking about making this very thread a few days ago. If I have the energy/time I will work on it.

  • Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA
    edited September 2010
    Hevach wrote: »
    Corehealer wrote: »
    I actually think it's cool that we evolved from other life forms and that, in the future, we may again evolve as a species into something more fantastical.

    I don't see us evolving all that much anymore. We may lose an allele here or there or pick up some nifty new combinations from interbreeding, but most of modern civilization is basically meant to negate natural selection. People are breeding that nature would have weeded out, or who would be unable to breed "in the wild."

    Technology moves faster than biology. Rather than waiting to evolve a lair of blubber or thick fur, we just cut it off another animal and strap it on, ta da! Now we're a cold weather species.

    Edit: Beat'd with a He Man reference. Damnit.

    I think you underestimate how the modern world can still apply selective pressure on individuals. Shit, except for our head, we've barely evolved since the Homo erectus. I expect we'll continue evolving, and the results will stay largely in how our cranium develops.

    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Corehealer wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    Corehealer wrote: »
    I actually think it's cool that we evolved from other life forms and that, in the future, we may again evolve as a species into something more fantastical.

    I don't see us evolving all that much anymore. We may lose an allele here or there or pick up some nifty new combinations from interbreeding, but most of modern civilization is basically meant to negate natural selection. People are breeding that nature would have weeded out, or who would be unable to breed "in the wild."

    Technology moves faster than biology. Rather than waiting to evolve a lair of blubber or thick fur, we just cut it off another animal and strap it on, ta da! Now we're a cold weather species.

    Edit: Beat'd with a He Man reference. Damnit.

    Hah!

    Also, if we use technology instead of biology to enhance ourselves, we can evolve in a sense by going cyborg. Metal arms, legs, computer chips, interfaces for the eyes, etc.

    Or the Andrew Ryan route and do it genetically. Which I actually see happening in the next hundred years. Gene therapy is already proving effective at combating some diseases, I can see a push to make a more advanced permanent method into a childhood "vaccine" meant to inoculate an entire bloodline against genetic disorders, some forms of cancer, etc. Sort of like the eradication of smallpox, once it's complete you don't have to keep doing it regularly.

    Neither genetic nor cyborg modification are really evolution in the classic sense, though.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I think thanks to technology we'll be completely twisted in a few million years. Imagine a world where technology let's anorexic's look like however they want, without the negative consequences it has now. Just down that one line alone we'd pretty much speciate humanity.

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    If we're willing to significantly genetically engineer humanity, there are so many practical things we could do, like reinforcing our lower backs, restructuring our throats to reduce the possibility of choking, or making giving birth not suck.

    Of course, tamper too much and you'll wind up with something that isn't really human anymore. But is that really that bad of a thing in the long run?

  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Dracil wrote: »
    Gattaca

    Gattaca! Gattaca!

    dog-day-afternoon.jpg

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I image in the future there will be jet packs

    on everything

    sig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I image in the future there will be jet packs

    on everything

    Nah, we'll just have anti-gravity vests.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I image in the future there will be jet packs

    on everything

    Nah, we'll just have anti-gravity vests.

    Fuck that, who wants quiet when you can have flame spewing rockets?

    sig.jpg
  • NuckerNucker Registered User
    edited September 2010
    jothki wrote: »
    If we're willing to significantly genetically engineer humanity, there are so many practical things we could do, like reinforcing our lower backs, restructuring our throats to reduce the possibility of choking, or making giving birth not suck.

    Of course, tamper too much and you'll wind up with something that isn't really human anymore. But is that really that bad of a thing in the long run?

    The current healthcare system in any country could certainly provide genetic engineering to everyone of every social class.



    ...Or could it?

    Really, you probably would see a new species emerge in the middle of humanity, but it would be bred from those of a high enough social class as to afford expensive genetic engineering modifications--the practical ones aside, what about the elective modifications? The poor stay poor and the rich get more beautiful and impervious to cancer.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    It would certainly put a wrinkle in the 'all men are created equally' bit.

    Firefighters Wanted: Flammable organisms need not apply.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • Zilla360Zilla360 Spaaaace! In Space.Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I image in the future there will be jet packs

    on everything
    http://jetlev.com/

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Zilla360 wrote: »
    I image in the future there will be jet packs

    on everything
    http://jetlev.com/

    Put one on a toaster and its the future baby.

    sig.jpg
  • corcorigancorcorigan Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Nucker wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    If we're willing to significantly genetically engineer humanity, there are so many practical things we could do, like reinforcing our lower backs, restructuring our throats to reduce the possibility of choking, or making giving birth not suck.

    Of course, tamper too much and you'll wind up with something that isn't really human anymore. But is that really that bad of a thing in the long run?

    The current healthcare system in any country could certainly provide genetic engineering to everyone of every social class.



    ...Or could it?

    Really, you probably would see a new species emerge in the middle of humanity, but it would be bred from those of a high enough social class as to afford expensive genetic engineering modifications--the practical ones aside, what about the elective modifications? The poor stay poor and the rich get more beautiful and impervious to cancer.

    I suspect actually improving people is a long way away, although I would not be surprised if genetic diseases are all gone in the west within a few generations.

    In any case, having all the wealth in the hands of people who are literally designed be extremely smart and generally awesome is probably not that bad an outcome, assuming someone can figure out how to build in a nice personality to go with it.

    Ad Astra Per Aspera
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    corcorigan wrote: »
    In any case, having all the wealth in the hands of people who are literally designed be extremely smart and generally awesome is probably not that bad an outcome, assuming someone can figure out how to build in a nice personality to go with it.
    I find the idea of a genetic aristocracy kind of troubling.

    I wouldn't assume that such a group would be engineered to be "awesome," unless you mean "awesome at ruling the non-metahumans with an iron fist."

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • ArchArch HELLO YES THIS IS BUG Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Modern Man wrote: »
    corcorigan wrote: »
    In any case, having all the wealth in the hands of people who are literally designed be extremely smart and generally awesome is probably not that bad an outcome, assuming someone can figure out how to build in a nice personality to go with it.
    I find the idea of a genetic aristocracy kind of troubling.

    I wouldn't assume that such a group would be engineered to be "awesome," unless you mean "awesome at ruling the non-metahumans with an iron fist."

    I find the idea of a genetic aristocracy kind of irrational.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Wait, Gattaca or Attica?

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    corcorigan wrote: »
    In any case, having all the wealth in the hands of people who are literally designed be extremely smart and generally awesome is probably not that bad an outcome, assuming someone can figure out how to build in a nice personality to go with it.
    I find the idea of a genetic aristocracy kind of troubling.

    I wouldn't assume that such a group would be engineered to be "awesome," unless you mean "awesome at ruling the non-metahumans with an iron fist."

    I find the idea of a genetic aristocracy kind of irrational.

    Indeed. I could see genetic manipulation being well suited to creating a superior working class, but I can't see it being applied to create an organism better suited to rule. Unless we're theorizing activation of some pheromone that makes people submit, or splicing in Vogon DNA.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Maybe they can find and eliminate the "Selfish prick" gene.

    The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Maybe they can find and eliminate the "Selfish prick" gene.

    What are you, some kind of communist?

    optimusighsig.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Cervetus wrote: »
    Maybe they can find and eliminate the "Selfish prick" gene.

    What are you, some kind of collectivist?

  • PeccaviPeccavi oh... oh my!Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Arch wrote: »
    Modern Man wrote: »
    corcorigan wrote: »
    In any case, having all the wealth in the hands of people who are literally designed be extremely smart and generally awesome is probably not that bad an outcome, assuming someone can figure out how to build in a nice personality to go with it.
    I find the idea of a genetic aristocracy kind of troubling.

    I wouldn't assume that such a group would be engineered to be "awesome," unless you mean "awesome at ruling the non-metahumans with an iron fist."

    I find the idea of a genetic aristocracy kind of irrational.

    Indeed. I could see genetic manipulation being well suited to creating a superior working class, but I can't see it being applied to create an organism better suited to rule. Unless we're theorizing activation of some pheromone that makes people submit, or splicing in Vogon DNA.

    If genetic manipulation will be as expensive as I imagine, then only the rich will be able to afford it for their children. Will the rich want their children to be a superior working class? No. Instead, much as they do already with private schools, tutors, etc., the rich will pay to ensure that their children are the best and the brightest. As these children grow up, they will associate with other genetically superior beings, businesses will hire them over, and they will eventually take over the highest rung of society, breeding only with those whose genetics are equal to theirs.

    Bam. Genetic aristocracy.

    kvhn.png
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    But what is the genetic advantage that creates a distinction between this and a clique of Ivy Leagers? They may be prettier, faster, and stronger, but you can't legally promote based that in a management hierarchy; ivy league cred is still going to get you farther.

    [Edit] I guess what I'm saying is that still seems like an aristocracy based solely on money, but with No Retreat, No Surrender brand hairlines and large natural breasts instead of hair plugs and large fake breasts.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    edited September 2010
    On average, more-successful people breed less. I think that genetic aristocracy would be self-limiting.

    the GOP shouldn't give a rats ass about them since they won't vote for them. If someone won't vote for you they might as well not exist.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    On average, more-successful people breed less. I think that genetic aristocracy would be self-limiting.

    Clones

    sig.jpg
  • DracilDracil Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    But what is the genetic advantage that creates a distinction between this and a clique of Ivy Leagers? They may be prettier, faster, and stronger, but you can't legally promote based that in a management hierarchy; ivy league cred is still going to get you farther.

    [Edit] I guess what I'm saying is that still seems like an aristocracy based solely on money, but with No Retreat, No Surrender brand hairlines and large natural breasts instead of hair plugs and large fake breasts.

    What about smarter? Even stronger and faster means future sports teams and scholarships will be made up purely of these superhumans. And like it or not, looks DO affect success. Stuff like taller people tend to have higher average income. People will think you're more competent just because you're prettier.

    Getting an innate ability to reroll on the negative events table while growing up will also affect your long-term prospects.
    Octoparrot wrote: »
    On average, more-successful people breed less. I think that genetic aristocracy would be self-limiting.
    They can also make themselves more fertile, and theoretically have kids that mature faster/less of a pain growing up.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Dracil wrote: »
    People will think you're more competent just because you're prettier.
    :winky:

    Your genetically augmented flattery has won me over, genetically smarter would definitely be trouble. I thought it seemed a little more far fetched than the rest, but it's probably equally feasible; especially coupled with the best education money can buy.

    So now that I have accepted it as a feasible problem, I will offer a remedy for the common man: Black market sperm banks using DNA harvested from a shady network of barber shops, spas, and sex workers.

    Alternately: The jokes on them (the Gene-Elite) when Monsanto (no doubt run, by then, by the Ultra-Gene-Elite) claims IP rights over their children and any assets they hold.

    Automata-Sg.png
Sign In or Register to comment.