US says no to nanotechnology

Lies. Everyone knows that the scientists there spend most of their time having drunken parties and driving golf buggies, occasionally putting new and crazy things in the collider to smash into each other.

"Oh my gawd, dudes, what if we put a hamburger and a pair of panties into the smasher? WHAT KIND OF PARTICLES WOULD WE GET OUT OF THAT ONE?"

And then all the other scientists would start laughing, chugging beers, and slapping him on the back. Then the burger-panty collision would destroy the universe.

-Angry Lawyer
 
Well that makes sense actually.

Geneticists are always doing stuff like trying to cross butterflys with elephants, just for the lulz.
 
Angry Lawyer said:
Lies. Everyone knows that the scientists there spend most of their time having drunken parties and driving golf buggies, occasionally putting new and crazy things in the collider to smash into each other.

"Oh my gawd, dudes, what if we put a hamburger and a pair of panties into the smasher? WHAT KIND OF PARTICLES WOULD WE GET OUT OF THAT ONE?"

And then all the other scientists would start laughing, chugging beers, and slapping him on the back. Then the burger-panty collision would destroy the universe.

-Angry Lawyer
Click to expand...

what is a panties-hamburger monster comes out of it and start eating everyone!
 
Oh no! Not another ignorant topic! It's just like nuclear power all over again! These people say no because they have no bloody clue of what it's about! >,<
 
Krynn72 said:
Im sorry but I totally couldnt follow that. What/How do you get a confidence interval? What is the percentage number representing?
Click to expand...

The confidence interval is an arbitary number that you want to be confident within. If you want 95 percent confidence (that is, 95 percent of the samples you take should contain the true percentage of the population with the desired trait) then you look at a normal model (the bell curve) and find a proportion of the normal model which equals 95 percent. Then, you find the standard deviations away from the center of the normal model to find the confidence interval.

But this is boring, so we generally just memorize that the confidence interval for 95 percent is 1.645, the interval for 98 percent is like 1.96 and so on. The bigger your confidence interval is, the bigger your margin of error will be.

The percentage refers to the percentage of the population you found which possesses the desired trait (in this case, having moral problems with nanotech).
 
I think 66% of them are confusing nano-technology with stem-cells harvested from unborn human babies.
 
Although, if I could get nanobots from killing unborn babies, I'd probably do it.

-Angry Lawyer
 
phantomdesign said:
I think 66% of them are confusing nano-technology with stem-cells harvested from unborn human babies.
Click to expand...

I suspect it is because they are ignorant of what nanotech is.

I don't think americans are stupid. Not living in america, I cannot say, but I would guess either poor education system or extreme brainwashing via media/parents.
 
Krynn72 said:
Thats the most retarded thing ive heard all day. And Im going to sleep now, so congrats on winning the "Most Retarded Thing Krynn Heard All Day" award for Saturday, Febuary 15th. You will automatically be entered as a contestant for the weekly award.
Click to expand...

And without backing this up, you've made a wonderful ass of yourself.

I thought you where cool :(
 
concept-1.jpg


Can you hear him, kids? You might have to lean in a bit closer, because he's fragile and doesn't even have the strength to defend himself from our harsh, old world. Can you hear him? He's saying, "Please, don't kill me, mommy! All I want is a chance at life... :("
 
Angry Lawyer said:
Lies. Everyone knows that the scientists there spend most of their time having drunken parties and driving golf buggies, occasionally putting new and crazy things in the collider to smash into each other.
Click to expand...

Physics parties, bring your own calculator.
 
ugh. sometimes i hate living in the U.S.

at least I'm atheist, so I can make my own decisions. thats all religion is, so people have something to blame and something to tell them what to do. (but i don't look at christians and go, "HA, what idiots." That would be wrong)
 
Angry Lawyer said:
Although, if I could get nanobots from killing unborn babies, I'd probably do it.

-Angry Lawyer
Click to expand...
Heh, I'm imagining you prowling around women, occssionally pouncing on one and ramming your hand into her cervix to gather sweet, sweet nanobots.

I should go to bed. :|
 
Cheomesh said:
And without backing this up, you've made a wonderful ass of yourself.

I thought you where cool :(
Click to expand...

Im always cool baby :farmer:


Anything I post on hl2.net should not be taken seriously, unless i state that my post is serious business.


But I still dont think that would happen. <- serious business.
 
Human Genetic Augmentation should never be attempted. We are fine as we are, developing the world around us to suit our needs.

As for nano-tech, I wonder if that will help us make those molecular fabricators...
 
Cheomesh said:
Human Genetic Augmentation should never be attempted. We are fine as we are, developing the world around us to suit our needs.
Click to expand...

This is something I strongly agree with. I've seen plenty of documentaries where they promote the possibility of making genetically modified humans specifically designed for different environments. For zero gravity, for living in a highly radioactive environments etc. This really pisses me off. They seem to be completely bind on how dramatically something like that could alter human civilisation, we would practically stop being human altogether actually:|
 
THAT'S IT! THE U.S. IS ****ED UP! WE NEED A REAL GO-GETTER IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THAT'S WHY I MOVE HOOVER FOR PRESIDENT '08!

HOVER FOR PRESIDENT!

(For those of you who don't get the joke, Hoover is one of the most hated presidents in U.S. history, next to Nixon, and some others.)
 
Remus said:
This is something I strongly agree with. I've seen plenty of documentaries where they promote the possibility of making genetically modified humans specifically designed for different environments. For zero gravity, for living in a highly radioactive environments etc. This really pisses me off. They seem to be completely bind on how dramatically something like that could alter human civilisation, we would practically stop being human altogether actually:|
Click to expand...

Which is just fine with me. Genetic augmentation is the future. We will try to stop it with our laws, but eventually it will become a very important part of our future.
 
Saying that human genetic modification is immoral is immoral in itself. Say your kid was going to be born with down syndrome. He would never be able to live a normal life. He would need to care for the rest of his life, not just childhood. He will be compeltely ignorant of everything.

But the doctors offer you a way out - germline modification. Through germline modification, they modify the child before it is born, thus removing the down syndrome.

Sorry to put it so bluntly, but if you are willing to destroy the childs right to a good, healthy life because of your pathetic neo-luddism, then YOU are the inhuman monster.

/rant.
 
Granted, I'm not over the moon about biotechnology, but I think Material Science could benefit
 
I don't think there's any argument here. Nanotech isn't just one subject of interest - it has repercussions in every field of science. Any country that discourages nanotech research is going to lag behind (same with genetic and stem cell research).

As for nanoaugmentation and artificial evolution, most opponents are simply afraid of the unknown. Man has never been a slave to nature, it's in his blood to shape destiny. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. My vision of a utopian society would be like th Helios ending from Deus Ex - total connectivity.
 
theotherguy said:
Which is just fine with me. Genetic augmentation is the future.
Click to expand...

Hopefully I won't have to see that future...

delusional said:
What would you say to your children millions of years later when they evolve into something not human?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say anything because they wouldn't be my children.

Atomic_Piggy said:
Saying that human genetic modification is immoral is immoral in itself. Say your kid was going to be born with down syndrome. He would never be able to live a normal life. He would need to care for the rest of his life, not just childhood. He will be compeltely ignorant of everything.

But the doctors offer you a way out - germline modification. Through germline modification, they modify the child before it is born, thus removing the down syndrome.

Sorry to put it so bluntly, but if you are willing to destroy the childs right to a good, healthy life because of your pathetic neo-luddism, then YOU are the inhuman monster.

/rant.
Click to expand...

What you fail to understand is that I don't oppose genetic modification, when it's necessary for medical purposes(like your example). However I have a very big problem with it when it goes way beyond that and it's used to modify at birth someone who is completely healthy for purposes like the one in my pevious example. Something like this: Hey we want to have colonies on Mars, why bother teraforming it when we could make humans designed to live on Mars as it is now...
Yeah... that's just... great.:|

Oh and in that scenario you showed if there was no alternative for the kid having a normal life, my answer would be abortion, period.
 
Remus said:
What you fail to understand is that I don't oppose genetic modification, when it's necessary for medical purposes(like your example). However I have a very big problem with it when it goes way beyond that and it's used to modify at birth someone who is completely healthy for purposes like the one in my pevious example. Something like this: Hey we want to have colonies on Mars, why bother teraforming it when we could make humans designed to live on Mars as it is now...
Yeah... that's just... great.:|
Click to expand...

The problem there is that even if we did modify people rather than modify mars, there would still be limits. Mars would still need significant changes (oxygen, water, etc.) because without those things, it doesn't matter how adapted you are, your dead.

Remus said:
Oh and in that scenario you showed if there was no alternative for the kid having a normal life, my answer would be abortion, period.
Click to expand...

I'd disagree with just having an abortion because he isn't going to be normal, but there.
 
Atomic_Piggy said:
Saying that human genetic modification is immoral is immoral in itself. Say your kid was going to be born with down syndrome. He would never be able to live a normal life. He would need to care for the rest of his life, not just childhood. He will be compeltely ignorant of everything.

But the doctors offer you a way out - germline modification. Through germline modification, they modify the child before it is born, thus removing the down syndrome.

Sorry to put it so bluntly, but if you are willing to destroy the childs right to a good, healthy life because of your pathetic neo-luddism, then YOU are the inhuman monster.

/rant.
Click to expand...

Good argument in principle, but bad example.
Down's Syndrome is caused by non-disjunction of chromosome 21 during meiosis, leading to trisomy of chromosome 21.
It's not caused by genetic mutation, and so isn't really a candidate for genetic engineering.

A better example would be something like PKU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DreamThrall
After Bush: How to Restore America's Place in the World
Replies
1
Views
741
co05
co05
G
The top five myths about the United States
2 3 4
Replies
134
Views
5K
K e r b e r o s
K e r b e r o s
N
US policy is State Terrorism
2
Replies
60
Views
4K
Mechagodzilla
Mechagodzilla
Back
Top