Re: Vat grown liver

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/31/2006 10:31:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, megaknee@... writes:

Then I'm relieved it wasn't grown from stem cells taken out of an embryo's body leaving it harmed. It proves you don't need to do that.

The best results have been coming from adult stems cells and umbilical cord blood. Some really nasty things have happened when they have used embryonic stem cells in humans. The trouble with the embryonic cells seems to be that it doesn't know when to stop growing and turns into cancerous growths or otherwise just runs wild.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 10/31/2006 10:31:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, megaknee@... writes:

Then I'm relieved it wasn't grown from stem cells taken out of an embryo's body leaving it harmed. It proves you don't need to do that.

The best results have been coming from adult stems cells and umbilical cord blood. Some really nasty things have happened when they have used embryonic stem cells in humans. The trouble with the embryonic cells seems to be that it doesn't know when to stop growing and turns into cancerous growths or otherwise just runs wild.

[Guest guest]

Personally, I think when organs fail, it's God's will. If the option

becomes available for me to " grow " replacement parts of my body if I

need them, it will be a moral dilemma as to whether or not I could

accept such a service.

Tom

Administrator

In a message dated 10/31/2006 10:31:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,

megaknee@... writes:

" Then I'm relieved it wasn't grown from stem cells taken out of an

embryo's body leaving it harmed. It proves you don't need to do that. "

The best results have been coming from adult stems cells and umbilical

cord blood. Some really nasty things have happened when they have used

embryonic stem cells in humans. The trouble with the embryonic cells

seems to be that it doesn't know when to stop growing and turns into

cancerous growths or otherwise just runs wild.

[Guest guest]

Personally, I think when organs fail, it's God's will. If the option

becomes available for me to " grow " replacement parts of my body if I

need them, it will be a moral dilemma as to whether or not I could

accept such a service.

Tom

Administrator

In a message dated 10/31/2006 10:31:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,

megaknee@... writes:

" Then I'm relieved it wasn't grown from stem cells taken out of an

embryo's body leaving it harmed. It proves you don't need to do that. "

The best results have been coming from adult stems cells and umbilical

cord blood. Some really nasty things have happened when they have used

embryonic stem cells in humans. The trouble with the embryonic cells

seems to be that it doesn't know when to stop growing and turns into

cancerous growths or otherwise just runs wild.

[Guest guest]

I have a living will that says no extra-ordinary measures should be

taken to keep me alive.

I think you have it wrong by the way about the good manufactured

organs can do. The rich might use such services, and the poor would

die off. But those of the poor who were robust would spawn more

generations while the weak rich would continue to sire unhealthy

offspring. Eventually, the poor would be physically superior to the

rich and take over.

Tom

Administrator

In a message dated 10/31/2006 10:31:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,

megaknee@... writes:

" Then I'm relieved it wasn't grown from stem cells taken out of an

embryo's body leaving it harmed. It proves you don't need to do

that. "

The best results have been coming from adult stems cells and

umbilical cord blood. Some really nasty things have happened when

they have used embryonic stem cells in humans. The trouble with the

embryonic cells seems to be that it doesn't know when to stop

growing and turns into cancerous growths or otherwise just runs

wild.

[Guest guest]

I've been reading Plato's Republic and it has influenced some of what I've commented on. I'm not using that as a backup or excuse. What you said makes sense in terms of evolution. Also, it sounds like your'e on the same page as far as not being kept alive. Beth kind of shocked me into awareness about that one when she said she couldn't talke about it because of some potential repercussions. Okay, I don't know about the manufactured organs and I have no way of judging that. What I proposed is simply get rid of all corporations, go back to small businesses, put more tax dollars for the science that is truly groundbreaking and give the people a chance to take aggressive, permanent, authority and action over companies who step out of bounds, which includes the owners of those companies who are poisoning and altering DNA. I've talked with people who have said this is the age of pollution and humans will die off if they don't do something quick. Hawking

himself has pointed to that very real and frightening future if humans (companies who hold a monopoly over the competition and use the cheapest resources available which obviously points to their indifference to the rest of the world as long as they have money to keep themselves in good shape and away from the fear of retribution) don't stop poisoning everything and changing ecosystems. I've thought about what you said previously and it does make sense if one believes in an afterlife that it is God's will that they die earlier out of a harsh existence and into a better one. Maybe they do believe that when they're about to die if they were good people and had faith. environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: I have a living will that says no extra-ordinary measures should be taken to keep me alive.I think you have it wrong by the way about the good manufactured organs can do. The rich might use such services, and the poor would die off. But those of the poor who were robust would spawn more generations while the weak rich would continue to sire unhealthy offspring. Eventually, the poor would be physically superior to the rich and take over.TomAdministratorIn a message dated 10/31/2006 10:31:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, megakneebtopenworld writes:"Then I'm relieved it wasn't grown from stem cells taken out of an embryo's body leaving it harmed. It proves you don't need to do that."The best results have been coming from adult stems cells and umbilical cord blood. Some really nasty things have happened when they have used embryonic stem cells in humans. The trouble with the embryonic cells seems to be that it doesn't know when to stop growing and turns into cancerous growths or otherwise just runs wild.

Want to start your own business? Learn how on Small Business.

[Guest guest]

Busting the corporations and large companies will never work. Those big companies exist because they are more efficient and cost-effective than small businesses. Imagine how expensive a computer would be if small scale producers had to buy small lots of material to build different bits of the computer and the final assembler had to buy small lots from them. They would easily cost like they did in the 1980s when home computers were $4,000 or more of 1980's money, probably $7,000 today.

Computers and other electronics only became commonplace once companies could apply the economy of scale to producing the microchips and processors needed for it all. New manufacturing techniques helped too, but that would not have happened at the cottage industry level.

Simply put, a return to cottage industry might produce more jobs, but it would also greatly increase the cost of living for everyone and, since there would also be fewer goods, standard of living would drop.

What the politicians need to do is to get the Securities and Exchange Commission back up to snuff and increase oversight to prevent price fixing and the formation of trusts.

The more government becomes involved in just about anything, the more it messes it up. With economics, the politicians usually react to the business cycle at opposite ends of the curve. That is, if a recession is on, usually by the time they react, the economy is on the way to recovery and the actions they take hurt the recovery. By the time they catch up to the recovery, the down cycle is back and it starts all over again. The best thing they could do is to prepare a simple and fixed tax code where the regulations and rates change from year to year, then keep out of it. That would allow the cycle to take care of itself. As for the scandals and corruption, that is what the FBI and the courts are for. If the politicians left the rules alone and didn't keep cutting funding for oversight, then things would run smoother there as well. What would help is a law saying that corporate officials responsible for those things would have their personal and ill-gotten assets confiscated and the proceeds given back to the shareholders who lost money, starting with the small investors and working their way up.

Most effective though would be to modify Social Security so that everyone had their own private, broad market investment fund. Since every worker and taxpayer would thus be vetted in the system, they would pay much closer attention to it and would demand much harsher penalties for the wrongdoers and from the politicians who allowed it to happen, such as by cutting oversight funding. Training in personal finance and economics would help too.

The problem with the environment now is that while the West is taking steps to reduce their pollution and environmental impact, other countries, like China and India, are making up that difference and then some. Those two countries today put out almost as much pollution and the US and Europe combined and they have much smaller economies. Other nations do nothing about the stripping of rain forests and there is the tremendous problem of overpopulation. This is happening in the poor countries and between the corruption and crime there, the economies aren't growing to create sufficient jobs, which leads to more unrest and crime. It also leads to more people because the statistics show that the poorer the country, the higher the birthrate.

As for dying, we all will one day. My big question is will the politicians and others make such a mess of things that will it be worth bothering to stick around? Right now by 2030, the US is facing about $40 trillion of unfunded debt, almost all from social programs. If nothing is done to correct that, taxes would have to be confiscatory to cover it. (Bet you didn't know: the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that Social Security and Medicare are NOT government obligations like a Treasury Note. The government could pass a law tomorrow saying Social Security was over and not one more cent would be paid and would be perfectly within its rights.)

But I'm more worried about the immigration and terrorism issues. Terrorism especially could leave us with a world not fit to live in.

[Guest guest]

" What I proposed is simply get rid of all corporations, go back to

small businesses, put more tax dollars for the science that is truly

groundbreaking and give the people a chance to take aggressive,

permanent, authority and action over companies who step out of

bounds, which includes the owners of those companies who are

poisoning and altering DNA. "

That's an idea.

However, a better thing to dowould be for politicians to actually

take a stand for a change and put in the aggressive measures

themselves without disbanding major cooperations. That was you have

stability in the marketplace while ensuring that companies be

responsible for the environment. Yes, the cost of products would

rise, but the average consumer already buys more than they need

anyway.

In Canada, the government seems to have its fingers in just about

anything, and while there are certainly problems that come with

that, the Canadians seem to have a reasonable standard of living for

the most part, and are happy. We could certainly achieve that in the

states also.

" I've talked with people who have said this is the age of pollution

and humans will die off if they don't do something quick. "

Yes. I have a theory that Aspies are a sort of indicator species

that is sensitive to sound, air, water, and light pollution, and

that is why more people are getting " diagnosed. " Either humans are

nearing the threshold of what they can stand in terms of these kinds

of pollution, or else we are seeing the effects of 200 years or so

of industrialization manifest themselves in " differences. "

" Hawking himself has pointed to that very real and

frightening future if humans (companies who hold a monopoly over the

competition and use the cheapest resources available which obviously

points to their indifference to the rest of the world as long as

they have money to keep themselves in good shape and away from the

fear of retribution) don't stop poisoning everything and changing

ecosystems. "

Yes. And I don't know if you've noticed this, but somehow, and

somewhere, spin doctors seem to make people like Hawking (who is a

brilliant man) look foolish when they pronounce their environmental

observations and theories. I believe that humans have removed

themselves so far from nature that they now have a hard time

accepting the impact of their own deastruction of it.

" I've thought about what you said previously and it does make sense

if one believes in an afterlife that it is God's will that they die

earlier out of a harsh existence and into a better one. Maybe they

do believe that when they're about to die if they were good people

and had faith. "

I don't worry too much about dying. For me, Christianity and the

afterlife is easy to grasp and believe in. People have a hard time

believing that God can create the universe from nothing, but humans,

who are made in the image of God, create ideas where no thoughts

existed before, and sometimes these ideas move mountains.

If I can believe that something can be made from nothing, I can

believe what the Bible says about creation, and I can believe in

what the rest of the Bible says also.

I suppose other people feel similarly about their own religions,

religious texts, and what these religions and texts say about the

afterlife.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

They will get payback from Mother Nature for that. You cut down the

trees and erosion will take away the top soil and make the underlying

clay and bed rock unable to hold in water. Eventually, the clay and

bedrock will reflect light and prevent the buildup of clouds and

mositure, and these areas will turn into deserts.

Meanwhile, other parts of the world will get more rain. This year we

got 35 inches so far when the normal level is about 30 by this month.

Tom

Administrator

" Other nations do nothing about the stripping of rain forests and

there is the tremendous problem of overpopulation. "

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/2/2006 12:54:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

They will get payback from Mother Nature for that. You cut down the trees and erosion will take away the top soil and make the underlying clay and bed rock unable to hold in water. Eventually, the clay and bedrock will reflect light and prevent the buildup of clouds and mositure, and these areas will turn into deserts.

This is what is happening. Rain forest soil is very poor and can't be farmed for more than a few years before it is no good. The natives would use slash and burn agriculture where they would burn a section of forest to clear it for crops with the ashes providing fertilizer. In a few years they would do another slice and so on. By the time they worked all the way around, the first area had regrown and recovered and could be farmed again. Worked alright when populations were small and only light agriculture was needed.

Interestingly, in the Amazon there was and advanced culture there about the time the first Europeans arrived. They had developed a kind of soil that was very fertile and can actually replenish itself if it is left alone for a while. Today, some of these places are mined and as long as about a foot of the material is left, in a few years it will regrow to several feet thick and can be mined again. Some research is going on into this, but I don't know if anything will come of it though.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/3/2006 10:48:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, crouchingowl@... writes:

I agree, to the extent corporations do things like damaging theenvironment governments should do something to regulate their activityin that regard. As far as communism goes... the problem is that theentire idea of dismantling all of the power elite structures(corporations, democratic governments, media, churches) never worksbecause one has to create an elite structure to accomplish it. Thatelite then has the monopoly on power and can do whatever it likes,including shipping all the grain out of Hungary and starving thousandsif not millions to death because they revolted and the communist USSRcared more about power than about the will of the (local) people.

Something else wrong with communism is that prices were set by the government for everything. This plays hell with supply and demand, among other things. Just think about how many things it would have to set prices for. Just look at the computer in front of you. They would set a final price for the computer, but it is more than that. They would also have to set prices for each component of the computer: the housing, the wiring, the chips, fans, etc. Not only that, but they would set prices for the machines in the factories that made each of these components. Yes, they would also set the prices for the machines that built those machines and all their component parts too. On and on its goes. When the Soviet Union fell, the government was setting prices for hundreds of millions of items.

When I first went to college in 1991, we had some Russian exchange students. They were amazed at the grocery stores that actually had food in them and that the waiting lines were to check out with what you had bought, not just to get what the store might not have. They also marveled that we had huge stores just for toys. None of this was possible under the state controlled system.

The big problem with communism and its like is that it ignores human nature. Well, it ignores the human nature of those who suffer under it while encouraging the nasty side of human nature of those running the show. Why bother to work hard or innovate if you won't be rewarded for it? You've got a job because the government gave it to you and you have no real hope of making more money, nor do you have any real chance of being fired if you do a bad job. You'll never be able to buy a better home so that three generations aren't sleeping in a one bedroom apartment with the grandparents sleeping in the kitchen (I actually saw this on one program and it is far from uncommon). With conditions like that, it is little wonder the Russian population isn't much greater than is was during WWII, while that of the West has risen.

Little governments is just asking for trouble. Not only will they devolve into feudalism and fight, even worse would be the legal and economic impact. Each little government would have laws and taxes that were different from its neighbors. This would turned a unified country like the US where it is easy to travel and do business, into a real mess. It would be like each county and town suddenly having the authority of a full fledged state. Most of them don't really get along now, so giving them that much autonomy would be nasty.

The other major problem is that they would lack the political and economic mass to accomplish anything. On the mundane end, there would be no good road systems or rail network. This would be partly because of the myriad of laws and taxes, but also because these little states could not afford to build and maintain decent roads, and that's not even counting the pettiness that would have one little state using a different railroad gauge than its neighbor, something that happened in Europe and even in the US in places. Right now, Northern Virginia is growing fast and they are demanding more roads. However, they want the whole state to pay for it rather than face a surcharge just on themselves, the ones who want the roads.

On the other end, there would be no space program. No having gone to the moon. No Hubble Telescope. No Voyager or any of the other missions. There would be no central push for control of pollution, protection of the environment or in the fight against disease. There simply wouldn't be the resources for any of that. Any group that tried wouldn't work because it would be the worst committee you could imagine: each little state pushing to get the biggest role in the project it could or it would leave and take it money home. We see this today with government agencies when there are only a few. Imagine having hundreds of them with even less connection.

[Guest guest]

I agree, to the extent corporations do things like damaging the

environment governments should do something to regulate their activity

in that regard. As far as communism goes... the problem is that the

entire idea of dismantling all of the power elite structures

(corporations, democratic governments, media, churches) never works

because one has to create an elite structure to accomplish it. That

elite then has the monopoly on power and can do whatever it likes,

including shipping all the grain out of Hungary and starving thousands

if not millions to death because they revolted and the communist USSR

cared more about power than about the will of the (local) people. Lot

of happiness under that form of government. That kind of thing is

what made Whittaker Chambers conclude that communism was another brand

of fascism. The idea of a bunch of little governments checking each

other based on military power, well, that is asking for a lot of

little wars, except with better weapons than in the dark ages. Little

power organizations like that don't tend to exist very well. I mean,

the occational Singapore can get along just fine, but only because

they are very technologically advanced as things go and have friendly

bigger powers that can protect them. And it is questionable whether

Singapore could exist at all except that it could buy weapons from

larger governments with larger tax bases who could fund the

development of weapons just about as good as Singapore's enemies have.

Feudal societies broke down because kings could control a larger tax

base and therefore have a standing army with cooler technology than

the nobles. Similarly, until developing and deploying advanced

weapons systems is as cheap as dirt, small governments with little or

no industry tax base because there are only mom and pop shops will

stand no military chance against bigger countries with tax bases and

industry. If you mean a little country with lots of high tech

industry and corporations etc supporting them, then thats a different

story. Mom and pop armory just doesn't stand a chance against say

Boeing or Lockheed . And, only having the military being large

corporations is asking for continual war. Corporations want money,

war based corporations want war so the society has to buy more from

them. So if the only power centers in society were technology and

military, you would have one big continual round of high tech warfare

because the rich and powerful in society could only become more so by

engaging in high tech warfare.

And the torture thing, well, isn't that a great way to keep the body,

spirit and mind of a person in a healthy balance the way Plato

advocated. Plato's Republic does talk about a communistic type system

for the upper classes, but he used it as an analogy for what is just

or righteous in the human soul, concluding that all portions of the

soul should be kept in the balance of their proper functions,

commanded by the mind. War and aggression are aspects of the body and

spirit (the physical struggle and emotional hatred and passion) and

using technology as a maid servant of war is, well, putting the mind

below the body and spirit rather than above.

This is fun. I like debating this kind of stuff Feels like a

study group from class.

CrouchingOwl

>

> " What I proposed is simply get rid of all corporations, go back to

> small businesses, put more tax dollars for the science that is truly

> groundbreaking and give the people a chance to take aggressive,

> permanent, authority and action over companies who step out of

> bounds, which includes the owners of those companies who are

> poisoning and altering DNA. "

>

> That's an idea.

>

> However, a better thing to dowould be for politicians to actually

> take a stand for a change and put in the aggressive measures

> themselves without disbanding major cooperations. That was you have

> stability in the marketplace while ensuring that companies be

> responsible for the environment. Yes, the cost of products would

> rise, but the average consumer already buys more than they need

> anyway.

>

> In Canada, the government seems to have its fingers in just about

> anything, and while there are certainly problems that come with

> that, the Canadians seem to have a reasonable standard of living for

> the most part, and are happy. We could certainly achieve that in the

> states also.

>

> " I've talked with people who have said this is the age of pollution

> and humans will die off if they don't do something quick. "

>

> Yes. I have a theory that Aspies are a sort of indicator species

> that is sensitive to sound, air, water, and light pollution, and

> that is why more people are getting " diagnosed. " Either humans are

> nearing the threshold of what they can stand in terms of these kinds

> of pollution, or else we are seeing the effects of 200 years or so

> of industrialization manifest themselves in " differences. "

>

> " Hawking himself has pointed to that very real and

> frightening future if humans (companies who hold a monopoly over the

> competition and use the cheapest resources available which obviously

> points to their indifference to the rest of the world as long as

> they have money to keep themselves in good shape and away from the

> fear of retribution) don't stop poisoning everything and changing

> ecosystems. "

>

> Yes. And I don't know if you've noticed this, but somehow, and

> somewhere, spin doctors seem to make people like Hawking (who is a

> brilliant man) look foolish when they pronounce their environmental

> observations and theories. I believe that humans have removed

> themselves so far from nature that they now have a hard time

> accepting the impact of their own deastruction of it.

>

> " I've thought about what you said previously and it does make sense

> if one believes in an afterlife that it is God's will that they die

> earlier out of a harsh existence and into a better one. Maybe they

> do believe that when they're about to die if they were good people

> and had faith. "

>

> I don't worry too much about dying. For me, Christianity and the

> afterlife is easy to grasp and believe in. People have a hard time

> believing that God can create the universe from nothing, but humans,

> who are made in the image of God, create ideas where no thoughts

> existed before, and sometimes these ideas move mountains.

>

> If I can believe that something can be made from nothing, I can

> believe what the Bible says about creation, and I can believe in

> what the rest of the Bible says also.

>

> I suppose other people feel similarly about their own religions,

> religious texts, and what these religions and texts say about the

> afterlife.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

[Guest guest]

" This is fun. I like debating this kind of stuff Feels like a

study group from class. "

We think such discussions are fun too. This board is designed

primarily for folks who are kind of tired of the fluff on the maga-

boards. It's a place for serious discussions, friendship,

support...and...well...clowning around sometimes.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

The roadways have already been set in place for robotic vehicles to carry the goods to certain places at certain times. Basically it would only be a matter of calculations much in the same way as street lights are calculated. The people wouldn't have that as transportation. That would take place on electromagnetic roadways. It would be very quick getting from Texas to New York. Everyone would have a box that shoots them through the road whenever it's concluded that no one else is on it. Going that speed would cause the person to have their skin ripped apart. So, there would be a water model to study and basically conform the human body to that without breaking anything. That would be difficult but, possible. It wouldn't be the standard seating position. There would have to be an antigravity tank the person is sitting in before he crashes onto the destination magnet. The destination magnets would be atleast as numerous as cell phone towers are today. The freedom to travel,

there's one. Ruled by the people for the people sounds better than ruled by competing corporations. The central government would be thoughts calculated by brain waves at certain regions taken by a computer out of certain people's heads, unclouded by ambition. There would be a consensus based on many thoughts from these random people. The central part would be a computer system that is run by none other than a transgenic, Human-type creature. There would be electrodes in it's brain that feeds to the computer and vice versa. It's main objective would be founding a sensible world order. Therefore random, anonymous people would be chosen as the most logical way to rule the world. Everyone would feel responsible. Science would be simply for advancement of information, life, exploration, freedom, balancing electromagnetic energy fields, understanding energy particles etcetera. I said something bad about Plato the other day and didn't mean it. I have begun reading his Republic

and haven't found anything that doesn't make sense. I've thought about what you referred to as the spirit, mind, passions, etcetera. I'm thinking they are just different happenstances of the illusion of familiar energy patterns. Sort of like how some people were saying the Virtual reality. It all involves time and time is what erases the record. crouchingowl <crouchingowl@...> wrote: I agree, to the extent corporations do things like damaging theenvironment governments should do something to regulate their

activityin that regard. As far as communism goes... the problem is that theentire idea of dismantling all of the power elite structures(corporations, democratic governments, media, churches) never worksbecause one has to create an elite structure to accomplish it. Thatelite then has the monopoly on power and can do whatever it likes,including shipping all the grain out of Hungary and starving thousandsif not millions to death because they revolted and the communist USSRcared more about power than about the will of the (local) people. Lotof happiness under that form of government. That kind of thing iswhat made Whittaker Chambers conclude that communism was another brandof fascism. The idea of a bunch of little governments checking eachother based on military power, well, that is asking for a lot oflittle wars, except with better weapons than in the dark ages. Littlepower organizations like that don't tend to exist

very well. I mean,the occational Singapore can get along just fine, but only becausethey are very technologically advanced as things go and have friendlybigger powers that can protect them. And it is questionable whetherSingapore could exist at all except that it could buy weapons fromlarger governments with larger tax bases who could fund thedevelopment of weapons just about as good as Singapore's enemies have.Feudal societies broke down because kings could control a larger taxbase and therefore have a standing army with cooler technology thanthe nobles. Similarly, until developing and deploying advancedweapons systems is as cheap as dirt, small governments with little orno industry tax base because there are only mom and pop shops willstand no military chance against bigger countries with tax bases andindustry. If you mean a little country with lots of high techindustry and corporations etc supporting them, then

thats a differentstory. Mom and pop armory just doesn't stand a chance against sayBoeing or Lockheed . And, only having the military being largecorporations is asking for continual war. Corporations want money,war based corporations want war so the society has to buy more fromthem. So if the only power centers in society were technology andmilitary, you would have one big continual round of high tech warfarebecause the rich and powerful in society could only become more so byengaging in high tech warfare.And the torture thing, well, isn't that a great way to keep the body,spirit and mind of a person in a healthy balance the way Platoadvocated. Plato's Republic does talk about a communistic type systemfor the upper classes, but he used it as an analogy for what is justor righteous in the human soul, concluding that all portions of thesoul should be kept in the balance of their proper functions,commanded

by the mind. War and aggression are aspects of the body andspirit (the physical struggle and emotional hatred and passion) andusing technology as a maid servant of war is, well, putting the mindbelow the body and spirit rather than above.This is fun. I like debating this kind of stuff Feels like astudy group from class.CrouchingOwl> > "What I proposed is simply get rid of all corporations, go back to > small businesses, put more tax dollars for the science that is truly > groundbreaking and give the people a chance to take aggressive, > permanent, authority and

action over companies who step out of > bounds, which includes the owners of those companies who are > poisoning and altering DNA." > > That's an idea. > > However, a better thing to dowould be for politicians to actually > take a stand for a change and put in the aggressive measures > themselves without disbanding major cooperations. That was you have > stability in the marketplace while ensuring that companies be > responsible for the environment. Yes, the cost of products would > rise, but the average consumer already buys more than they need > anyway.> > In Canada, the government seems to have its fingers in just about > anything, and while there are certainly problems that come with > that, the Canadians seem to have a reasonable standard of living for > the most part, and are happy. We could certainly achieve that in the > states also.>

> "I've talked with people who have said this is the age of pollution > and humans will die off if they don't do something quick."> > Yes. I have a theory that Aspies are a sort of indicator species > that is sensitive to sound, air, water, and light pollution, and > that is why more people are getting "diagnosed." Either humans are > nearing the threshold of what they can stand in terms of these kinds > of pollution, or else we are seeing the effects of 200 years or so > of industrialization manifest themselves in "differences."> > " Hawking himself has pointed to that very real and > frightening future if humans (companies who hold a monopoly over the > competition and use the cheapest resources available which obviously > points to their indifference to the rest of the world as long as > they have money to keep themselves in good shape and away from the

> fear of retribution) don't stop poisoning everything and changing > ecosystems."> > Yes. And I don't know if you've noticed this, but somehow, and > somewhere, spin doctors seem to make people like Hawking (who is a > brilliant man) look foolish when they pronounce their environmental > observations and theories. I believe that humans have removed > themselves so far from nature that they now have a hard time > accepting the impact of their own deastruction of it.> > "I've thought about what you said previously and it does make sense > if one believes in an afterlife that it is God's will that they die > earlier out of a harsh existence and into a better one. Maybe they > do believe that when they're about to die if they were good people > and had faith."> > I don't worry too much about dying. For me, Christianity and the > afterlife is easy to

grasp and believe in. People have a hard time > believing that God can create the universe from nothing, but humans, > who are made in the image of God, create ideas where no thoughts > existed before, and sometimes these ideas move mountains. > > If I can believe that something can be made from nothing, I can > believe what the Bible says about creation, and I can believe in > what the rest of the Bible says also. > > I suppose other people feel similarly about their own religions, > religious texts, and what these religions and texts say about the > afterlife.> > Tom> Administrator>

Access over 1 million songs - Music Unlimited Try it today.