"Evils" Now:

[Stung]

What do you think is most threatening to your existence (and the healthy status of such) in this world now?


1. Theocratic Policy in the Executive Branch.

We've moved away from a Jeffersonian Democracy and have become largely what we condemn in other countries: one that basis policies on presuppositions. See: Stem Cell vetoes

2. Oligarchial Policy of the U.N. with respect to the Security Council.

Despite that Ahmadenijad is loony, he raised several good points with respect to this and why belligerence results from nations that take the U.N. with a grain of salt, because, in layman's terms, they represent the haves not the have nots more favorably by far.

3. Nation-State system in its Current Form.

With the burgeoning populations, borders will lose greater significance over time. Exclusionary classes and bases for society predicated on nationhood will further threaten peace when push comes to shove, as it always does, if this is not addressed globally.

4. Television. Not slippery slope, but neurological. Transmission is set purely on receive and the message goes by so quickly that critical analysis goes by the wayside. Therefore, we accept a skewed perspective as reality and true when its just one of many perspectives and/or may just be dead wrong. Solution? Internet, possibly.


I would suggest that you post your own perspective on the issue; rebuttals are obviously accepted but I am not saying there are 0 benefits to these things either. End of disclaimer =).

[eieio]

What do you think is most threatening to your existence (and the healthy status of such) in this world now?


1. Theocratic Policy in the Executive Branch.

Moved away from a Jeffersonian Democracy and have become largely what we condemn in other countries: one that basis policies on presuppositions. See: Stem Cell vetoes

2. Oligarchial Policy of the U.N. with respect to the Security Council.

Despite that Ahmadenijad is loony, he raised several good points with respect to this and why belligerence results in nations that take the U.N. with a grain of salt, because, in layman's terms, they represent the haves not the have nots more favorably by far.

3. Nation-State system in its Current Form.

With the burgeoning populations, borders will lose greater significance over time. Exclusionary classes and bases for society predicated on nationhood will further threaten peace when push comes to shove, as it always does, if this is not addressed globally.

4. Television. Not slippery slope, but neurological. Transmission is set purely on receive and the message goes by so quickly that critical analysis goes by the wayside. Therefore, we accept a skewed perspective as reality and true when its just one of many perspectives and/or may just be dead wrong. Solution? Internet, possibly.


I would suggest that you post your own perspective on the issue; rebuttals are obviously accepted but I am not saying there are 0 benefits to these things either. End of disclaimer =).

WHAT?!?!??!

[Canadian*Sniper]

Thinking basics, I'd say Television. Families that watch too much television per day are couch potatoes. Humans weren't meant to sit down all day. FOX NEWS. FOX NEWS. FOX NEWS!

[Baker]

1. Theocratic Policy in the Executive Branch.

We've moved away from a Jeffersonian Democracy and have become largely what we condemn in other countries: one that basis policies on presuppositions. See: Stem Cell vetoes

The stem cell thing was annoying, that's for sure. But I don't believe stem cell research is as magical as it is claimed to be and I don't think the research has been slowed by this much either (See California tax allocation).

2. Oligarchial Policy of the U.N. with respect to the Security Council.

Despite that Ahmadenijad is loony, he raised several good points with respect to this and why belligerence results from nations that take the U.N. with a grain of salt, because, in layman's terms, they represent the haves not the have nots more favorably by far.

I think the UN is a really silly institution and I am not sure what they do for sure or if they are relevant.

But let's say they do matter:

It would be no surprise that the "have nots" are not well represented since almost every "have not" is a brutal dictatorship.

Democracy and free speech leads to prosperity and every dictatorship obviously hates the concept. China has liberalized greatly which is why they are growing.

3. Nation-State system in its Current Form.

With the burgeoning populations, borders will lose greater significance over time. Exclusionary classes and bases for society predicated on nationhood will further threaten peace when push comes to shove, as it always does, if this is not addressed globally/

Illegal immigration has become a very important source of labor (and cultural transmission).

The US has silly immigration policies and every attempt to fix it has been a joke with ideas like cruelly kicking out millions of illegal immigrants and their families that have been here for years.

We need immigration and the US Government is as slow to adapt and inept in execution as always.

When the law is illogical, it gets ignored. The naturalization policies in this country are onerous.

It seems that the status quo is the best we can hope for.

4. Television. Not slippery slope, but neurological. Transmission is set purely on receive and the message goes by so quickly that critical analysis goes by the wayside. Therefore, we accept a skewed perspective as reality and true when its just one of many perspectives and/or may just be dead wrong. Solution? Internet, possibly.

So was print media (newspapers/magazines) and radio. Humans have a strong bias towards believing what they hear, but television isn't responsible for it nor does it make it worse.

I don't see any harm from television. It helps educate people and make them aware of what they would never consciously seek out.

I don't believe it has any negative impacts at all, but there is also almost nothing worth watching either :d :d :d

I would suggest that you post your own perspective on the issue

I think probably the greatest "EVILs" are:

1. A government saturated by corporate interests. Freedoms erode. Corporations are not dogmatic -- they do not usually have a "greater good" interest, but a selfish devotion to profit and a willingness to distort to obtain what they want.

Corporations don't respect people, they view them as either employees (slaves) or consumers (sheep).

2. Selling out of the young for the gain of the old.

Soaring college costs, predatory lenders and a proposed national health care system that shifts the burden of paying for the health care system on the people that need it the least.

Plus a ballooning national debt and vast and excessive social spending on the elderly.

/My ideas, right or wrong.

[spooker]

global warming

[Stung]

The stem cell thing was annoying, that's for sure. But I don't believe stem cell research is as magical as it is claimed to be and I don't think the research has been slowed by this much either (See California tax allocation).



I think the UN is a really silly institution and I am not sure what they do for sure or if they are relevant.

But let's say they do matter:

It would be no surprise that the "have nots" are not well represented since almost every "have not" is a brutal dictatorship.

Democracy and free speech leads to prosperity and every dictatorship obviously hates the concept. China has liberalized greatly which is why they are growing.



Illegal immigration has become a very important source of labor (and cultural transmission).

The US has silly immigration policies and every attempt to fix it has been a joke with ideas like cruelly kicking out millions of illegal immigrants and their families that have been here for years.

We need immigration and the US Government is as slow to adapt and inept in execution as always.

When the law is illogical, it gets ignored. The naturalization policies in this country are onerous.

It seems that the status quo is the best we can hope for.



So was print media (newspapers/magazines) and radio. Humans have a strong bias towards believing what they hear, but television isn't responsible for it nor does it make it worse.

I don't see any harm from television. It helps educate people and make them aware of what they would never consciously seek out.

I don't believe it has any negative impacts at all, but there is also almost nothing worth watching either :d :d :d



I think probably the greatest "EVILs" are:

1. A government saturated by corporate interests. Freedoms erode. Corporations are not dogmatic -- they do not usually have a "greater good" interest, but a selfish devotion to profit and a willingness to distort to obtain what they want.

Corporations don't respect people, they view them as either employees (slaves) or consumers (sheep).

2. Selling out of the young for the gain of the old.

Soaring college costs, predatory lenders and a proposed national health care system that shifts the burden of paying for the health care system on the people that need it the least.

Plus a ballooning national debt and vast and excessive social spending on the elderly.

/My ideas, right or wrong.

If you dont believe it's as good as it's trumped up to be (stem cell research), then you havent read the most recent research with respect to regenerating neural tissue, and with respect to reprogramming skin cells to embryonic stem cells, or actually dont know much about it all, no offense. It's the basic logic of the human body in that if you go back far enough, you get to the root of the problems, beit genetics or stem cells. Stem cells can be any and all tissue (pluripotency), and as such, safe therapies involving such can theoretically cure cell aging itself (recent research involving stem cell communication with newer cells has shown that a primary reason why tissue repair gets hindered with age is that the communication gets garbled directly by a stem cell maintenancing protein). It is not magical, it's logical, and I'm afraid people are grossly underestimating it as hype.


TV:: Print media is exactly NOT the problem at all. It is not visual signals that redirect your attention immediately from critically analyzing whatever is in the content. It is print media and the internet that gives you time to think about things before blanketly accepting them and diverting your attention to the next rapid fire and hip GAP commercial. It is not equivalent at all. Furthermore, neurological evidence lately suggests otherwise--that TV is directly correlated and possibly causal in depleting the development of the prefrontal cortex.


www.medicalnewstoday.com
For any/all material (summarized for ones convenience--actual Journals these things appear in are useful too but I presume nobody wants to go through them) related to what I have discussed.

[Stung]

Hear Hear to the corporate influence in imbalancing the economy further, and the adherence of our government to such an economic model. Definitely problematic.

With respect to damaging the prospective future of the youth I say hear hear as well. Education access/costs are sharply decreasing overall comparatively to other nations, and even those nations aren't that great. Quality of K-12 Education is lackluster at best.

[Baker]

If you dont believe it's as good as it's trumped up to be (stem cell research), then you havent read the most recent research with respect to regenerating neural tissue, and with respect to reprogramming skin cells to embryonic stem cells, or actually dont know much about it all, no offense. It's the basic logic of the human body in that if you go back far enough, you get to the root of the problems, beit genetics or stem cells. Stem cells can be any and all tissue (pluripotency), and as such, safe therapies involving such can theoretically cure cell aging itself (recent research involving stem cell communication with newer cells has shown that a primary reason why tissue repair gets hindered with age is that the communication gets garbled directly by a stem cell maintenancing protein). It is not magical, it's logical, and I'm afraid people are grossly underestimating it as hype.

I'm not underestimating the potential of stem cell research, but rather how it is portrayed by some people who do not know what it is.

Some people act like stem cell research would have made Christopher Reeve (had he not died) walk again in 5 years -- that isn't plausible.

A lot of medical research is done in Europe/Asia/Canada and those countries are not affected by (misguided) US science funding decisions).

I was disputing the "evil" and the impact, not the value of stem cell research. Large changes always occur slower than we expect, but with deeper impact than we expect (as a general rule).

Certain cloning research is illegal in the US, but that has not stopped the research from being pursued other countries.

The USA does not equal the world.

TV:: Print media is exactly NOT the problem at all. It is not visual signals that redirect your attention immediately from critically analyzing whatever is in the content. It is print media and the internet that gives you time to think about things before blanketly accepting them and diverting your attention to the next rapid fire and hip GAP commercial. It is not equivalent at all. Furthermore, neurological evidence lately suggests otherwise--that TV is directly correlated and possibly causal in depleting the development of the prefrontal cortex.

I'm inclined to believe you with this added information and the reference.

That makes a great deal of sense.

Stem cells can be any and all tissue (pluripotency), and as such, safe therapies involving such can theoretically cure cell aging itself (recent research involving stem cell communication with newer cells has shown that a primary reason why tissue repair gets hindered with age is that the communication gets garbled directly by a stem cell maintenancing protein.

I am under the understanding that much of the aging that occurs to due to shortening of the telomeres that occurs with cell reproduction; eventually they become too short and fail to reproduce effectively.

I'm not sure how stem cell research would be able to change that.

I think you know more about these topics since you are in medical school so I'm challenging your statements to provide more information and/or prove your points better.

[foq]

nuclear war
its gonna happen eventually

[lust7afk4ever]

sting:

e=mc2

[Canadian*Sniper]

ooo oooo Cell Phones. We're going to kill off the honey bees with our radio waves.

[rudl]

Feel threatened by Cyborgs and Klingons

[Stung]

Nice reference to telomeres...telomeres are coded by genes and therefore genetics applies more to this aspect of cell/tissue aging, but there are other factors that go into the equation as well--how well one repairs their tissue over time, how much impact antioxidants have in inhibiting free radical damage, and so forth. It is not in my interest to attribute stem cell research as THE fountain of youth, but rather a contributing factor (along with genetics and in a way quantum mechanics), so I get your point.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/79373.php

One of the articles I was talking about, referring to muscle repair specifically. There is far more to be learned, and you're right, California and other states have taken initiatives, but a theocratic policy that passes up the opportunity to catalyze the research makes no sense to me. Anyway, good talk, time for class, there's more on that site about stem cell research that I don't have time to post right now.

[Phenom]

Stung needs to be on a gameshow.