[blackshoe]

The Founding Fathers abhorred a standing army, and the Constitution attempted to preclude our ever having one. Our current standing army was created after WWII by an end run around the Constitution.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-04, 09:16, said:

The Founding Fathers abhorred a standing army, and the Constitution attempted to preclude our ever having one. Our current standing army was created after WWII by an end run around the Constitution.

Anyone else amused that this posting is cropping up in a thread about individuals divorced from reality...

(And yes, I know about the National Security Act of 1947)

[Flem72]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-04, 09:16, said:

The Founding Fathers abhorred a standing army, and the Constitution attempted to preclude our ever having one. Our current standing army was created after WWII by an end run around the Constitution.

As I recall, the FF weren't so worried about Congress creating a standing army -- there is a specific power. So it is hard to see the NSA as an "end run."

[mike777]

The Dividing Line Reality verses Imagined Reality an old and common theme: what is reality

just watched the 1973 movie from Germany.

World on a Wire.


Rainer Werner Fassbinder, West Germany 1973, 212 min

A dystopic science-fiction epic, World on a Wire is German wunderkind Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s gloriously cracked, boundlessly inventive take on future paranoia. With dashes of Kubrick, Vonnegut, and Dick, but a flavor entirely his own, Fassbinder tells the noir-spiked tale of reluctant action hero Fred Stiller (Klaus Lowitsch), a cybernetics engineer who uncovers a massive corporate and governmental conspiracy. At risk? Our entire (virtual) reality as we know it. This long unseen three-and-a-half-hour labyrinth is a satiric and surreal look at the weird world of tomorrow from one of cinema’s kinkiest geniuses.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2013-May-04, 20:38, said:

The Dividing Line Reality verses Imagined Reality an old and common theme: what is reality

just watched the 1973 movie from Germany.

World on a Wire.


Rainer Werner Fassbinder, West Germany 1973, 212 min

A dystopic science-fiction epic, World on a Wire is German wunderkind Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s gloriously cracked, boundlessly inventive take on future paranoia. With dashes of Kubrick, Vonnegut, and Dick, but a flavor entirely his own, Fassbinder tells the noir-spiked tale of reluctant action hero Fred Stiller (Klaus Lowitsch), a cybernetics engineer who uncovers a massive corporate and governmental conspiracy. At risk? Our entire (virtual) reality as we know it. This long unseen three-and-a-half-hour labyrinth is a satiric and surreal look at the weird world of tomorrow from one of cinema’s kinkiest geniuses.

Reality can be defined as that which is, irrespective of opinions. We may not know what reality is, but we do know by definition that if something involves opinion it is not reality, but an opinion about reality.

[blackshoe]

Flem72, on 2013-May-04, 20:22, said:

As I recall, the FF weren't so worried about Congress creating a standing army -- there is a specific power. So it is hard to see the NSA as an "end run."

What power would that be? And who said anything about the NSA, besides you?

[onoway]

PassedOut, on 2013-May-03, 09:49, said:

Hillary Clinton aptly pointed out that many of her critics don't inhabit the evidence-based world. It's hard to communicate across that dividing line.

The March of Antireality Continues, by Phil Plait


The people in the anti-evidence, anti-science, anti-reality crowd are bound to lose out in the long run, but they sure can and do raise a lot of Cain in the meantime. It gets really tiresome...

The reason for at least some of the anti science paranoia is because too many times it has turned up that science is not actually being presented, but a selection of biased results. So how are people to trust they are getting the whole story?

There are probably hundreds of examples (TED Talk Dr. Ben Goldacre) in the area of prescription drugs alone. To belabor a point, Monsanto has never run any tests (that anyone can access at least) on the safety of GMO foods for longer than 90 days. When independent scientists ran one for longer and found massive health issues occurring from cancers on down, they were subjected to a massive attack on their competence and protocol, but nothing whatsoever in terms of alternate studies with different (and safer) results.

Science is too often becoming a sort of commercial viability issue which is touted if things work out and selectively ignored if not, it has little or nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge. More and more Government research agencies are being replaced by commercial outfits and it's only reasonable to assume they are not disinterested parties.

The controversy on climate change illustrates how a scientist can select a theory and find other scientists to support it energetically, while others equally energetically dispute everything about it. So how can people expect non scientists to take science seriously when it appears that science is often a bandwagon that some scientists leap onto and other scientists mock? How are non scientists supposed to make a decision about which to believe? It turns science too often into a sort of popularity contest and it isn't surprising that a whole lot of people say "a pox on science, those guys can't even make up their minds what's what, or if they do know they wont tell us, so what's the point?"

[kenberg]

Science is a way of thinking, a way of approaching life. This can be corrupted by money, probably everyone understands that, and in my opinion ideological commitment is an even greater danger. We can follow the money trail, or we hope we can, but ideologial pre-dispostion is more difficult to uncover. And it is not confined to one ideology.

So Pam has a point.

Nonetheless, science is the best approach we have. We correct errors, we uncover carelessness and bias. Maybe not right away, maybe not as soon as we should, but the scientist will change his mind, eventually, when facts stare him down. It may not be perfect, but it's a lot better than whatever is in second place.

[Winstonm]

Quote

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” ― John Maynard Keynes

I find it quaint that the greatest anti-Keynesian ballyhoo comes from the anti-evidence crowd.

[mikeh]

onoway, on 2013-May-05, 13:01, said:

The reason for at least some of the anti science paranoia is because too many times it has turned up that science is not actually being presented, but a selection of biased results. So how are people to trust they are getting the whole story?

There are probably hundreds of examples (TED Talk Dr. Ben Goldacre) in the area of prescription drugs alone. To belabor a point, Monsanto has never run any tests (that anyone can access at least) on the safety of GMO foods for longer than 90 days. When independent scientists ran one for longer and found massive health issues occurring from cancers on down, they were subjected to a massive attack on their competence and protocol, but nothing whatsoever in terms of alternate studies with different (and safer) results.

Science is too often becoming a sort of commercial viability issue which is touted if things work out and selectively ignored if not, it has little or nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge. More and more Government research agencies are being replaced by commercial outfits and it's only reasonable to assume they are not disinterested parties.

The controversy on climate change illustrates how a scientist can select a theory and find other scientists to support it energetically, while others equally energetically dispute everything about it. So how can people expect non scientists to take science seriously when it appears that science is often a bandwagon that some scientists leap onto and other scientists mock? How are non scientists supposed to make a decision about which to believe? It turns science too often into a sort of popularity contest and it isn't surprising that a whole lot of people say "a pox on science, those guys can't even make up their minds what's what, or if they do know they wont tell us, so what's the point?"

What you write about what is known as Big Pharma has some validity. I don't know enough about GMO foods to comment, other than to suggest that a lot of what I've seen argued against GMP products, in general, seems to be credulous nonsense, based on ignorance. That is not to say that there may not be very real reasons to be concerned, but it is to say that most of those who are vocally opposed, in my experience, don't have a clue.

As for climate science, some 98% of accredited experts, that is those who have legitimate credentials, seem to agree on the broad strokes. That there are differences between experts, even on important details, is a good thing, since it is in the differences that topics for theses and for research grants lie. When a topic is considered to be fully understood, no-one has much chance of getting grant money to do research.

Edit: it also occurs to me that much of the perception problem to which you refer is because of the absymal level of basic scientific education afforded students. Such exposure as most get seems to be rote learning rather than learning how to think...how to question and how to test answers. Throw in the scientific illiteracy of most media editors, and the trash that is put out on the television screen and it is no wonder that so many people are so profoundly ignorant and distrustful.

[onoway]

mikeh, on 2013-May-05, 15:22, said:

What you write about what is known as Big Pharma has some validity. I don't know enough about GMO foods to comment, other than to suggest that a lot of what I've seen argued against GMP products, in general, seems to be credulous nonsense, based on ignorance. That is not to say that there may not be very real reasons to be concerned, but it is to say that most of those who are vocally opposed, in my experience, don't have a clue.

That idea is precisely what Monsanto works tirelessly to promote and they have the funds to do so.

Yet- why are they so adamantly opposed to letting independent scientists do long term studies on their products? Why are people like Dr. Vandana Shiva, eminently qualified AND experienced with what happened over a number of years when large tracts of land were transferred into GMO crops, still voices in the wilderness? Why have some scientists who worked for Monsanto for a number of years, quit saying they could no longer in good conscience continue?

Most products destined for market for internal use are required to be demonstrably safe before they are released. GMO foods have this reversed..it appears to be the responsibility of others to prove they aren't. How and why should this be the case?

Most of all, why, when the possible ramifications of GMO seeds could be devastating, are they being given carte blanche to preempt the world's food supply WITHOUT any independent science to support the technology? We don't allow drugs for pimples onto the market without scientific studies but our food supply isn't important?

If GMO products were so wonderful and had no downsides then surely farmers would embrace them without duress. They've had no problem with hybrid seed. If people have to be starved, threatened, bullied and legislated into GMO seed then of course people who watch this wonder why.

I listened to an interview the other day with a man who supposedly had seen the light and gone over to supporting GMO products. He offered nothing more than the unbelievably arrogant opinion that anyone who was concerned about them was basically an anti science Neanderthal deliberately ignoring the evidence. He had nothing to offer as to exactly what the science or evidence was he was talking about, but did a sort of verbal wave of the hand suggesting anyone who wasn't a mentally deficient yahoo would know. Unfortunately the interviewer apparently had no background in the topic so he couldn't (or didn't) challenge him at all about exactly what science he was referring to so the interview was extraordinarilly frustrating to listen to.

As far as people thinking science is unimportant, I wish politicians cared (a lot) more about it.

[mikeh]

onoway, on 2013-May-05, 18:07, said:

That idea is precisely what Monsanto works tirelessly to promote and they have the funds to do so.

Yet- why are they so adamantly opposed to letting independent scientists do long term studies on their products? Why are people like Dr. Vandana Shiva, eminently qualified AND experienced with what happened over a number of years when large tracts of land were transferred into GMO crops, still voices in the wilderness? Why have some scientists who worked for Monsanto for a number of years, quit saying they could no longer in good conscience continue?

Most products destined for market for internal use are required to be demonstrably safe before they are released. GMO foods have this reversed..it appears to be the responsibility of others to prove they aren't. How and why should this be the case?

Most of all, why, when the possible ramifications of GMO seeds could be devastating, are they being given carte blanche to preempt the world's food supply WITHOUT any independent science to support the technology? We don't allow drugs for pimples onto the market without scientific studies but our food supply isn't important?

If GMO products were so wonderful and had no downsides then surely farmers would embrace them without duress. They've had no problem with hybrid seed. If people have to be starved, threatened, bullied and legislated into GMO seed then of course people who watch this wonder why.

I listened to an interview the other day with a man who supposedly had seen the light and gone over to supporting GMO products. He offered nothing more than the unbelievably arrogant opinion that anyone who was concerned about them was basically an anti science Neanderthal deliberately ignoring the evidence. He had nothing to offer as to exactly what the science or evidence was he was talking about, but did a sort of verbal wave of the hand suggesting anyone who wasn't a mentally deficient yahoo would know. Unfortunately the interviewer apparently had no background in the topic so he couldn't (or didn't) challenge him at all about exactly what science he was referring to so the interview was extraordinarilly frustrating to listen to.

As far as people thinking science is unimportant, I wish politicians cared (a lot) more about it.

It seems to me that there are two different, but related, aspects to gmo foods.

I am completely with you on the dubious ethics of certain large corporations, monsanto being perhaps the exemplar, in terms of such things as creating dependencies upon them, and promoting the use of mono-cultures. Big Agro is as bad as Big Pharma.

But GMO foods, as a concept, are actually a pretty good idea if used with an awareness of the need to maintain biodiversity and to not put all of our eggs in a single metaphorical basket.

Plants (and animals as well) are constantly seeing their genome altered by viruses, mutations and so on. Look at bacteria than develope resistance to antibiotics. There is in theory nothing inherently sinister in deliberate modification and, indeed, done properly it should be far safer than, say, the natural mutation of an avian flu virus.

It seems to me that those who protest against the 'unnatural' aspect of GMO are ignorami. Those who protest against the business practices of the mega corps are fighting, I hope, a different fight and one I would support.

[Vampyr]

mikeh, on 2013-May-05, 19:18, said:

Plants (and animals as well) are constantly seeing their genome altered by viruses, mutations and so on. Look at bacteria than develope resistance to antibiotics. There is in theory nothing inherently sinister in deliberate modification and, indeed, done properly it should be far safer than, say, the natural mutation of an avian flu virus.

Well, maybe and maybe not.

Even without the developments discussed in the link, I have never thought that herbicide-resistant crops were a good idea, allowing, as they do, more liberal use of herbicides than before. It is time to stop polluting the planet with these poisons. Organic farming is the only morally acceptable option.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-05, 21:42, said:

Organic farming is the only morally acceptable option.

Trying to get my head around the concept of inorganic farming.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-05, 22:15, said:

Trying to get my head around the concept of inorganic farming.

Work on it some more. You'll get there.

EDIT: In case it's a terminology thing, this is what is understood by the term "organic farming" in the UK.

[onoway]

mikeh, on 2013-May-05, 19:18, said:

It seems to me that there are two different, but related, aspects to gmo foods.

I am completely with you on the dubious ethics of certain large corporations, monsanto being perhaps the exemplar, in terms of such things as creating dependencies upon them, and promoting the use of mono-cultures. Big Agro is as bad as Big Pharma.

But GMO foods, as a concept, are actually a pretty good idea if used with an awareness of the need to maintain biodiversity and to not put all of our eggs in a single metaphorical basket.

Plants (and animals as well) are constantly seeing their genome altered by viruses, mutations and so on. Look at bacteria than develope resistance to antibiotics. There is in theory nothing inherently sinister in deliberate modification and, indeed, done properly it should be far safer than, say, the natural mutation of an avian flu virus.

It seems to me that those who protest against the 'unnatural' aspect of GMO are ignorami. Those who protest against the business practices of the mega corps are fighting, I hope, a different fight and one I would support.

As a concept they can be a good idea. The problem is that the concept has been given free expression to overwhelm food production without any long term studies or safeguards just in case we are not quite as clever as we think we are. It has happened before from time to time such as the escape of bees now known for good reason as killer bees, or the use of thalidomide for morning sickness. Good intentions and great concept. A bit of a problem in reality.

There is also a very real possibility that SOME GMO combinations would be just fine and others not so much. We have no ideas which are which nor controls to manage the not so good ones.

I think people who worry about the "unnatural" aspect think somewhat like this. There is a world of difference between GMOs and mutations or hybrids or the results of virus and bacterial activity. First of all none of those happen on the scale that GMOs are being introduced, and secondly the ones that don't work well within natural systems don't survive and reproduce. The GMOs are being supported artificially with chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, cultivation. When any of these aren't adequate, at least some GMO species won't thrive and yield (reproduce), witness Monsanto's own admission after the major corn crop failure in Africa. I doubt you will ever find anyone who would maintain that fish and tomatoes might somehow naturally ever host each other's genetic material.

Natural systems have evolved over the centuries to interact and are interconnected and intertwined. It may be problematic to introduce organisms which are alien. We can and have flooded GMOs into the systems without any idea what - if any- affect this might have over time.

For example:
We do know that most people lose the ability to a greater or lesser degree to manage milk as they get older. The body stops producing the enzyme required to digest it. If over millennia the body cannot maintain the ability to digest milk, how is it going to handle totally unknown genetic material? The patents are granted on the concept of the material being unique, unknown in nature.

A few years ago I read a study done in Scotland looking at the result of feeding rats GMO feed. The research showed that GMO foods caused a change in the bacteria of the gut. They found this interesting but had no speculation as to whether this might be important and if so in what way. Recently other researchers found that certain changes in the bacteria of the gut are precursors to diabetes. Is there a connection? (I tried to find the Scottish study again but the link was on a now defunct computer and I was unable to find it again to see if the type of changes were the same.) It's something that needs to be looked into.

It particularly becomes important when there has been an independent study showing severe health issues connected to the GMO feed being fed to lab animals. We need to know if this is replicable and if it's a result which shows up with other GMO material.

Perhaps the most scary possibility is that GMO plants might be associated with bee colony collapse. If bees are unable to cope with the pollen from GMO plants then a diabetes epidemic is a very minor problem. Perhaps it isn't the GMO plants, perhaps it's a chemical required by those plants, or perhaps there's no connection at all. We should KNOW, is the point.

There is also the problem that the GMOs are actually causing some problems to become worse, as in what has happened with the corn borer. It has already developed a degree of immunity to the poisons embedded in the genetic material so now scientists are scrambling to find a more lethal poison to regain control. That's the path we have taken with antibiotics and it has not been a particularly successful path to follow.

The main problems I see with GMOs :We are allowing GMOs to become the basis of food production without a backup in case an unsuspected weakness suddenly shows up, such as the blight which caused the potato famine in Ireland because almost all the potatoes grown were genetically similar and they all happened to be susceptible. We know as they are at present, GMOs are not sustainable over time because of their heavy reliance on chemical fertilizers etc. We simply don't know enough about what if anything they are doing to us and/or the environment over time. The predatory and thuggish behaviour of the companies, Monsanto in particular, is doing their best not only to obstruct any effort to find out the truth but to restrict options to reverse things if any or all GMOs turn out to be a disaster.

It's not science, it's lobbying, marketing and media manipulation that got them where they are.

[onoway]

blackshoe, on 2013-May-05, 22:15, said:

Trying to get my head around the concept of inorganic farming.

Try thinking about what heroin, or better example, methamphetamine, does to the human system. That's sort of the equivalent of inorganic fertilizer. Farmers dose the fields with artificially concentrated or manufactured chemicals which boost the growth of the plants. Too much will kill them. It literally kills or at least makes the earth highly inhospitable to the organisms found in healthy soil. Because of that, plants become more and more dependent on the artificial fertilizers to yield at all, so what you end up doing is really a sort of hydroponics with the soil mostly just holding the plants in place.

Just as addiction in people, it takes a while for the soil to recover. The Rodale institute found that once the artificial dosing was stopped, it took an average of three years for conventionally farmed land.
Incidentally they also found over a 30 year study, organic farming was also both more productive and more lucrative than conventional farming. The transition period is a real barrier for farmers to change though.

[Winstonm]

Curious correlations

Study finds connections with science denial.

[mikeh]

Vampyr, on 2013-May-05, 21:42, said:

Well, maybe and maybe not.

Even without the developments discussed in the link, I have never thought that herbicide-resistant crops were a good idea, allowing, as they do, more liberal use of herbicides than before. It is time to stop polluting the planet with these poisons. Organic farming is the only morally acceptable option.

Since current levels of production by organic methods seem to be significantly lower than with herbicided, and the cost per unit far higher, the only morally acceptable solution would appear likely to cause the death of quite a few humans, not to mention massive economic and social upheaval.

Btw, I do think that the 'only morally acceptable solution' ought to involve a significantly reduced human population, but I wouldn't advocate getting there by killing existing people (not that you do, of course, but if we were to impose organic farming, that would be the result).

[barmar]

mikeh, on 2013-May-06, 07:34, said:

Btw, I do think that the 'only morally acceptable solution' ought to involve a significantly reduced human population, but I wouldn't advocate getting there by killing existing people (not that you do, of course, but if we were to impose organic farming, that would be the result).

We could reduce gun control world-wide, and let human nature take its course.