If I were to try to mentally deal with stuff like this I'd likely end up an eco terrorist or something.
It seems like a reasonable response.
No it fucking doesn't.
Well, what is a reasonable response?
It seems silly to think that we could quanitify the damage in terms of moneys. Even shutting down BP wouldn't fully deal with the negative impacts of what they've done.
We could use the event as a strong argument against fossil fuels, and try to spur some motion towards alternative energy. That doesn't seem to deal with the immediate problem of the shrimp, though.
I seriously cannot understand why BP was not fined out of business, and every one of their shareholders held accountable.
Because for all the anti Anglo rhetoric, the fact is that an appreciable number* of BP's shareholders are American.
You figure out the rest.
*i.e. almost half.
Oh that old canard, because Britain is uncomfortable accepting its responsibility.
Seriously?
BP is approx 40% UK and 40% US owned.
Of course that's ignoring the fact that Halliburton and Transocean were found to be just as culpable for the crisis.
So take your responsibility and shove it up your fucking geyser.
World's best janitor
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
There is no immediate problem of the shrimp and terrorism isn't a reasonable response at fucking all.
Fining BP for environmental damage, lobbying, voting for, running as a candidate to move away from fossil fuels and strengthen the EPA and such, those are reasonable responses. Protesting BP events, sure.
Terrorism? No thanks. Violence isn't an acceptable response in the first world, sorry kids.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Violence isn't an acceptable response in the first world, sorry kids.
Ever?
Not so long as the things that make us a first world democracy exist, no.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
even if it were straightforward mutagenesis, what you would find is that the population would rapidly adapt back to having eyes - the shrimp with eyes would breed at a greater rate than the eyeless shrimp, and it would be pretty standard darwinian selection from there onwards
the thing is, most mutagens are pretty random, and a very specific effect like this is something else entirely
epigenetic just means, quite literally, everything that is inherited that is not sequence change - its super general
in rats, for example, the normal rough figure for an epigenetic change caused by dna methylation to revert is 2-3 generations assuming it was a perturbation of the normal state
this though could be anything, so who knows how long it will take
ceteris paribus, even if its epigenetic the mutants will get out-competed fairly quickly
Posts
It seems like a reasonable response.
No it fucking doesn't.
Well, what is a reasonable response?
It seems silly to think that we could quanitify the damage in terms of moneys. Even shutting down BP wouldn't fully deal with the negative impacts of what they've done.
We could use the event as a strong argument against fossil fuels, and try to spur some motion towards alternative energy. That doesn't seem to deal with the immediate problem of the shrimp, though.
Ever?
BP is approx 40% UK and 40% US owned.
Of course that's ignoring the fact that Halliburton and Transocean were found to be just as culpable for the crisis.
So take your responsibility and shove it up your fucking geyser.
Fining BP for environmental damage, lobbying, voting for, running as a candidate to move away from fossil fuels and strengthen the EPA and such, those are reasonable responses. Protesting BP events, sure.
Terrorism? No thanks. Violence isn't an acceptable response in the first world, sorry kids.
Not so long as the things that make us a first world democracy exist, no.
the thing is, most mutagens are pretty random, and a very specific effect like this is something else entirely
epigenetic just means, quite literally, everything that is inherited that is not sequence change - its super general
in rats, for example, the normal rough figure for an epigenetic change caused by dna methylation to revert is 2-3 generations assuming it was a perturbation of the normal state
this though could be anything, so who knows how long it will take
ceteris paribus, even if its epigenetic the mutants will get out-competed fairly quickly