Online gamers cracks AIDS enzyme puzzle.

[captain handy]

Why hasn't he been banned? I mean, seriously?

more irritating than an under ball sack rash unfortunately is not against the rules

[Mistral]

Why hasn't he been banned? I mean, seriously?

Because being an idiot or holding reprehensible moral views (except for in certain categories) is not in itself against the rules. If it was, this forum would be emptier by far.

[Nemkoon]

Damn.
Oh well.
Time to kill him instead.

[Sprung]

Ignore the trolls and they go back to arguing amongst themselves.

[Grouch]

Spoiler warning:

Scarcity is a relative concept. Even if demand for resources outstrips supply, economic imperatives will lead to the development and extraction of new resource deposits previously uneconomical in previous supply-demand ratios. These deposits are frequently already known, such as the shale oil deposits of the western US, closed mines in the Mesabi Range or the Iberian Pyrite Belt, or even the historical development of Middle Eastern oil, which only occurred after oil use soared during the Cold War. In addition, technological imperatives also extend the development and extraction of existing resource deposits. Malthus' greatest failing was his presumption of arithmetic growth in agricultural development, which failed to account for technological developments such as synthetic fertilizers, mechanization of agriculture, the expansion of and into new resource pools/economic markets such as Africa and Asia, and today, GM. Scarcity of food today stems not from lack of agricultural production; we actually produce far more food than is necessary to feed all of the people of the world today. Scarcity of food today stems from failure to distribute this food in an equitable fashion. Population trends will only exacerbate this issue; the breadbaskets of the world, such as those in China, Ukraine, and the USA, are generally located in regions with stable or declining populations.


Incorrect. For one thing, you seem to have a fundamental misapprehension about IQ tests. IQ tests are always normalized to the population being tested - the average is always 100, by definition, to avoid issues such as accounting for possible correlative and causative effects in an ill-understood field. There is in fact a well-known documented effect, however, referred to as the Flynn effect. In essence, there is a continuous and consistently linear increase in IQ test results over time, requiring constant renormalization every time such tests are revised. This is attributed to a variety of factors, and the idea that actual intelligence is rising over time is subject to question, but the fact that such test results are increasing even as quality of life, education, and other similar benchmarks of cultural progress are expanded, and on a global scale, generally correlate directly to these benchmarks, indicates that a genetic component of intelligence, while undoubtedly present, is not necessarily the primary component of actual expressed intelligence.


This is an interesting thing to say. After all, my opinion is much the same, but it goes one further. Space exploitation is a natural progression of existing trends and will occur as economic imperatives of supply and demand on Earth drive the development of LEO and beyond. We already put hundreds, if not thousands of satellites in active orbits ranging from LEO to GEO and beyond, which is the first step. Continuing development into cheaper surface-to-orbit launches (driven by such mundane things as GPS receivers for cars and sat phones) will drive the front-loading of costs down for manned as well as unmanned operations, which will gradually permit more extensive operations to be attained. The last thing we need is to artificially drive a bubble that will ultimately pop prematurely and set the industry back decades out of nothing more than sheer impatience.


Incorrect, and this attitude is both outdated and extremely insulting. Milady has already pointed out how HIV is not limited solely to certain lifestyles. It can occur in a wide range of people in every walk of life, just as other illnesses can occur in such ways. Besides, this is why we seek to control such illnesses, precisely through this action. We may not be able to create a disease-free society in the next 50 years, say, but that is no reason for, as you yourself say, "nay-sayers saying its not possible, just because they can't figure it out immediately," like you. The treatment of disease is necessary to ensure that we cannot be "devastated" in the future, such as in the case of smallpox. Vaccination is a fundamental tool in that particular case to ensure control.


"Right now they got nay-sayers saying its not possible, just because they can't figure it out immediately." Isn't that what you said? You may not necessarily be incorrect in the "warlike" nature of humanity, but you are incorrect in every other particular. Even assuming such a nature, which is itself not a given, it ignores the fact that we are not limited to our base natures. We grow and expand as people and societies. Generally, violence has decreased over the millenia people have been in existence. Hunter-gatherer societies of the most primitive sort generally exist at a state of low-level endemic warfare; there is no diplomacy beyond at the "barrel of a gun", as you put it, but this expresses itself in a low quality of life and a high mortality rate. As societies develop, mature, and grow to encompass greater and greater numbers of people, they must in turn become more flexible and capable of compensating for the commensurate increase in numbers of opinions, and this must by necessity include the creation of new outlets for differences of opinion beyond simple warfare. These outlets, created and developed internally, then extend outward. The concept of peace through marriage, where an arranged marriage between two families created ties of blood, is a primitive example of this viewpoint relying on the concept of a societal bond as carried by blood, the clan structure that underlies the fundamental principle of family which formed the original view of society. Beyond family came the town, where people who lived and worked side by side began to develop similar bonds based on shared experience. From there, the development of nationalism, for instance, allowed for new structures of societal cohesion to be created, beyond the family, based on perceived commonalities of language and culture, which permitted larger populations to be linked together - no longer Schwaben or Rhenish or Baverian or Saxon, or Hohenzollern or Wittlesbach or Wettin, but German. Ideology, as republicanism in the United States of America, too created a similar and parallel bond between disparate peoples. Development in diplomacy and discussion through newfound commonalities made conflict resolution possible without recourse to violence; compare the end of Czechoslovakia which, despite economic and social differences between the industrial Czech Republic and agrarian Slovakia, was peacefully discussed, arranged, and ultimately implemented, to the collapse of Yugoslavia, for instance, where such peaceful bonds had been broken through decades of Serbian dominance and repression. It is possible to solve problems without bloodshed, without the power that stems from the barrel of a gun, in a superior fashion that can be equitable, fair, and even beneficial to both parties, in large part due to the necessity that drove the development of such methods stemming from the stable methods used to govern and mediate between larger and larger populations. Population growth drives social development by necessity, and social development will never occur without, at the least, a perceived necessity. Stability is, after all, the fundamental watchword of society.

once again mistral you have blown my mind with your wonderfully thought out words. You may now consider me a fan of your artistic and intelligent writing.
also i second what sprung said.

[Raype]

Everything from non-renewable resources, to food is going to get scarce in the future. Food will be much too valuable of a commodity to just be giving away to people for free.

No such thing as a non-renewable resource when painting in broad strokes. Everything is technically renewable. And believe me, we're nowhere near the point where we have to seriously worry about running out of metals. And even then, alternative building materials do exist. Food is not scarce, and there's more than enough to go around. The only scarcity comes from greed. My nutritional intake today was enough today to keep a person going a week, and I'm not even one of the more gluttonous folks.

I'm not talking about Aristocracy, I'm talking about modern society as a whole, sure we may live like kings compared to the poor sobs in Africa, but that doesn't technically make us wealthy.

We live in a global village these days. those 'other countries' are much like the serfs of yore.

From what I read about it, there are a variety of factors, that determine intelligence, but genetics are one of the largest factors. Differences in human appearance and genetics is mostly attributed to differences in environment.

Said reading was probably just another case of geneticists overplaying their cards. In most cases, the only real role genetics plays concerns mental deficiencies and disorders. Smart people do not necessarily have smart children, nor do dumb people necessarily have dumb children. But what do I know, my parents are idiots according to standardized testing and both are dropouts, so clearly my IQ must be super low.

200 years ago, they didn't have IQ tests, and there is no accurate way to compare humans now to 200 years ago as far as raw cognitive ability goes. Judging on the way they solved problems in ancient times, I would say ancient man was just as capable of solving problems as we are today, considering what they had available.

Mental examinations and psychology go way back. While the modern IQ test as it stands is approximately 100 years old, equivalents go back centuries. And using the scale of the last century people are getting smarter. A person who wrote the original IQ test with an average IQ would probably score in the 70's today.

Most of the "accomplisments" of ancient humanity were largely collaborative efforts between large groups that frequently involved extensive teamwork. Just because some guy can build a skyscraper downtown or some guy a few towns over is splitting atoms doesn't reflect on my abilities as a person. Nor would I be able to claim a knowledge of astrophysics because I can turn a screwdriver on a satellite build. The things we have available today are largely available because of increases in intelligence. We have the benefit of learning from what came before leading to an increase in average "intelligence". The power of knowledge. Which IQ tests are not especially great gauges of.

This is why its very important they start putting some serious effort into getting off this rock, because I doubt we got 2 or 300 more years of sustainable climate on this planet. Interstellar travel? I would have to agree with you we are likely 2-300 years away from, but we could colonize the solar system sooner than that, if effort was put into it. All they would need for a sustainable power source is a working efficient fusion reactor, probably 20-50 years away. This could power a space colony, or a moon/mars base, and a propulsion system for a craft. Right now they got nay-sayers saying its not possible, just because they can't figure it out immediately.

The world is fine, relax. We've been around millions of years, and this planet is practically as old as time itself. What's the chances a mere moment in the infinite expanse of time is going to be truly crucial? Etc. etc. Aren't you the one advocating that sticking to traditional belief is fine? Your inability to stick to one logical fallacy is staggering.

There will never be a complete stamping out of viruses/bacteria that are harmful, the best we can do is make sure we can't be devastated by them. A virus like Ebola, or Small Pox uncontrolled could be devastating. AIDS is limited mostly to certain groups of people living unsanitary, and unhealthy lifestyles. Things like the Plague in the middle ages were also as a result of unsanitary conditions. I think we do just fine in keeping our native bacteria and viruses in check. Keep things clean and sanitary, and you can eliminate most viruses/bacteria that are harmful. Even things like the Flu, if you just wash your hands frequently you are much less likely to get it.

And yet we can still have rather serious limited outbreaks of the stuff that can kill a shitload of people and our containment heavily depends on understanding what causes the disease in the first place. I think looking into that is a good idea. Fun fact, we have no real idea what causes Ebola. It just "happens". And when it does, it can wipe out entire towns even with decent containment measures. Because it can hit a lot of people before anyone even realizes what's happening. It's not the only disease like that. In fact, it's not even close. And then there's things like malaria or any other mosquito borne disease which are not especially easy to contain. Imagine an outbreak of something like that on a space station. Worse yet when you factor in the probability it could take out an entire group of necessary technicians. Medical advancement is just as important to the furthering of humanity as anything else.

There is no such thing as a perfectly sustainable, perfect functional society, nor can there ever be one. But we can do better. The best diplomacy is through the barrel of a gun. Humans are warlike in nature, it is in our instincts to conquer and acquire. Humans are also territorial, like many other species of animals, or we would simply be the planet Earth instead of hundreds of countries.

And yet it is a REQUIREMENT for any sort of non planetary living. We can't survive in space without keeping everyone in order and cutting waste and loss almost completely. It's also how earth is supposed to function, but that's another story.

And what if the other guy has a larger gun?

Incorrect. Early humans had a communal lifestyle like many variety of ape. Any comment to the contrary is a poor attempt at pessimism. It's in our nature to get along with others. Early human ancestors were also not predatory, they were known to scavenge and live off of organisms that were not well equipped to defend against considerably larger mammals IE bugs. I don't exactly look at a chimp and thing "wow, what a warlike predatory creature!". Also, we didn't wipe out the other proto-humans as some maintain. We fucked their brains out. The proof is in the DNA. So yes, we're totally capable of getting along with other species.

EDIT-

I really, really should not step away from my computer mid post when Mistral is online. It never ends well.

[Dr Mario]

Chimps probably aren't the best example there - they're literally warlike, as the only known species (other than humans, natch) to conduct open warfare. And they do it on a fairly regular basis.


Course, that has little bearing on the idea of multiple countries instead of one earth government. The logistics alone are a pretty good reason behind that not happening any time soon.

[Mistral]

Chimps probably aren't the best example there - they're literally warlike, as the only known species (other than humans, natch) to conduct open warfare. And they do it on a fairly regular basis.


Course, that has little bearing on the idea of multiple countries instead of one earth government. The logistics alone are a pretty good reason behind that not happening any time soon.

Bonobos: solving the problems of the world through free love.

[Dr Mario]

Bonobos, Gorillas, pretty much every great ape except the Chimps. None of them are what you could call warlike, nor are most of the other intelligent pack omnivores found around the place (insofar as you can make any temperament statements about them). Which points to the whole war thing being a product of something other than intelligence combined with pack behaviour.

[TheRealSpiders]

Bonobos: solving the problems of the world through free love.

You shouldn't that that mentality, you might end up contracting HIV.

Then you'd have to be culled.

[crimsonedge]

No such thing as a non-renewable resource when painting in broad strokes. Everything is technically renewable. And believe me, we're nowhere near the point where we have to seriously worry about running out of metals. And even then, alternative building materials do exist. Food is not scarce, and there's more than enough to go around. The only scarcity comes from greed. My nutritional intake today was enough today to keep a person going a week, and I'm not even one of the more gluttonous folks.

This world is largely dependent on non-renewable energy sources for quite a few many things, including automobiles. If prices get too high, farmers will be growing crops for bio fuel instead of food, prices will go up, the modern world will be able to afford food, but the 3rd world won't.

We live in a global village these days. those 'other countries' are much like the serfs of yore.

More like the peasant beggars.

Said reading was probably just another case of geneticists overplaying their cards. In most cases, the only real role genetics plays concerns mental deficiencies and disorders. Smart people do not necessarily have smart children, nor do dumb people necessarily have dumb children. But what do I know, my parents are idiots according to standardized testing and both are dropouts, so clearly my IQ must be super low.

Nobody said it was it was guaranteed because there is always variation, but smart parents are more likely to have smart children. Considering only around 5% of people have an IQ above 140, its pretty rare.

Mental examinations and psychology go way back. While the modern IQ test as it stands is approximately 100 years old, equivalents go back centuries. And using the scale of the last century people are getting smarter. A person who wrote the original IQ test with an average IQ would probably score in the 70's today.

I don't believe men of 200 years ago were any less smart on average than people are today with what they had available to them. The ancients built many things thousands of years ago, and we can't figure out how some of them did it with the tools they had available to them. I think they were as smart as we are today.

Most of the "accomplisments" of ancient humanity were largely collaborative efforts between large groups that frequently involved extensive teamwork. Just because some guy can build a skyscraper downtown or some guy a few towns over is splitting atoms doesn't reflect on my abilities as a person. Nor would I be able to claim a knowledge of astrophysics because I can turn a screwdriver on a satellite build. The things we have available today are largely available because of increases in intelligence. We have the benefit of learning from what came before leading to an increase in average "intelligence". The power of knowledge. Which IQ tests are not especially great gauges of.

You can't just skip from point A to Z you have to learn and make progress over time. It doesn't mean we are any smarter, it only means technology has made progress in due time. The modern scientists today would be nothing without referring to the theories and laws that were written by people in the past.

And yet we can still have rather serious limited outbreaks of the stuff that can kill a shitload of people and our containment heavily depends on understanding what causes the disease in the first place. I think looking into that is a good idea. Fun fact, we have no real idea what causes Ebola. It just "happens". And when it does, it can wipe out entire towns even with decent containment measures. Because it can hit a lot of people before anyone even realizes what's happening. It's not the only disease like that. In fact, it's not even close. And then there's things like malaria or any other mosquito borne disease which are not especially easy to contain. Imagine an outbreak of something like that on a space station. Worse yet when you factor in the probability it could take out an entire group of necessary technicians. Medical advancement is just as important to the furthering of humanity as anything else.

Well limited outbreaks of deadly viruses are going to be about the best we will be able to do as far as controlling and containing them goes. Realistically hoping to achieve any more than that would be unreasonable. They have done a fairly commendable job in controlling outbreaks at least in the modern world for the past few decades. Just like we are going to have to deal with natural disasters when they happen, and there isn't anything we can do to stop them.

And yet it is a REQUIREMENT for any sort of non planetary living. We can't survive in space without keeping everyone in order and cutting waste and loss almost completely. It's also how earth is supposed to function, but that's another story.

It wouldn't be a requirement, it just wouldn't be feasible until we could provide at least somewhat comparable living conditions to that on Earth. The tight cramped spaces like the pictures you see on the international space station isn't going to work for a massive population. They are going to need something to keep them occupied so they don't go stir crazy. And decent living standards.

And what if the other guy has a larger gun?

Figure that one out first, and if they do then we either steer clear, or ask them to show us how to make the bigger guns, and then turn and use it on them.

Incorrect. Early humans had a communal lifestyle like many variety of ape. Any comment to the contrary is a poor attempt at pessimism. It's in our nature to get along with others. Early human ancestors were also not predatory, they were known to scavenge and live off of organisms that were not well equipped to defend against considerably larger mammals IE bugs. I don't exactly look at a chimp and thing "wow, what a warlike predatory creature!". Also, we didn't wipe out the other proto-humans as some maintain. We fucked their brains out. The proof is in the DNA. So yes, we're totally capable of getting along with other species.

This communal lifestyle was more of a tribal rule, there were chiefs/elders, hunters, someone had too cook the food and make the clothing, and etc. Apparently you haven't read up much on every civilization that rose up to amount to anything in the last 5000 years, they have all basically kicked their neighbors asses into the ground, conquered territory, acquired slaves, gold, etc. This is humanity, its what we do, and we do it very well.

And Chimps can be very violent, they are territorial creatures and humans that enter their territory in the wild are often attacked. A popular way they attack is throw rocks and even turds at you. Some of the rocks they throw are big enough to crush a skull. I guess you never heard of the term "Chimp out" where they just go nuts and start attacking/throwing stuff sorta like they are having a tantrum.