Posts by Sam F
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
FFS "parasite" - back to the 70s useless discourse
Whoops - not my intention... I was aware that "parasite" would probably come across as some kind of moral judgment, rather than as a strictly accurate biological definition, but went for it anyway. Hope the rest of my post makes more sense, except for the bit about eggs (obviously non-fertilised as they appear in the average eggcup), and apologies to vegans for the halfhearted dig too.
Insensitive souls like me would really appreciate an edit button. It's only been a year and a half since PAS went up.
What do people with the ability to think have that people with the ability to build human bodies don't?
Hmm. Let's try to parse this. A person by definition is capable of consciousness and thought - utter cessation of these functions may leave behind a (semi) living human, but probably not a 'person' by any sensible definition. So people with the ability to think versus only the ability to grow have humanity, whereas those who merely grow do not.
However, I see you've lazily applied the term 'person' both to sentient beings and to jumbles of growing human cells, so I expect you to disagree. Don't say I didn't do my best trying to decode your nonsense, though.
-
I think we have successfully established that people like "Grant" are not going to be convinced, no matter how rational the argument, that a human consciousness based in brains thousands of times more complex than the most advanced computers on earth cannot also run on a tangle of basic synapses with less connections than a 1980s-era calculator, and that decisions regarding said bundle of synapses and ancillary cells ought to be made with according regard for the (fully human) host rather than the parasite - which may have potential for amazing things, but then so do eggs, and even vegans can find better arguments than this.
That Grant is in all likelihood shitting himself with laughter from his trollden on Formosa is another question altogether.
-
Start with a car-free city core and gradually roll it out, so to speak, through the central city and out beyond - and invest more in public transport. Fuel prices will do the rest in time, barring of course the much-anticipated future discovery of some dirt-cheap eco-friendly fuel that doesn't take food out of the mouths of Third World citizens.
Those who really do need to drive will probably get much better value out of their vehicles in time - problem being that so many people are unwilling to even entertain the proposition that their driving is less than essential and unavoidable.
-
True enough about the trucks. I could probably live with a bit less heavy road traffic and a bit more rail freight, safely out of everyone's way.
And a wicked link, too. Thanks.
Just to mix things up, one of the most hardcore road cyclists I know also runs a Range Rover Sport, a Jeep Grand Cherokee and a work-related Humvee... although not all at once.
-
I'm sure you are far from unusual, Andrew, but if every SUV I saw on Auckland streets over the course of a week was being used for righteous outdoor pursuits and bush-bashing, we'd be seeing some pretty well-worn paddocks and trails.
From the perspective of a cyclist I'm less than happy to be surrounded by vehicles that seem expressly designed to kill people like me in the event of an accident, but I suppose it's worth living with it in the name of stereotype avoidance. After all, people say they buy SUVs for the visibility, so they'll probably spot me, right?
-
"Loss of microsatellite diversity in overexploited New Zealand snapper"
I'm intrigued. Care to explain a bit more about this?
-
...
Ixnay on feeding the olltray, people.
-
And then, as long as we maintain multiple copies of ourselves to protect against a system crash, we won't die.
Oh man, the (UK time) most recent episode of Doctor Who examines one dimension of this idea in a really heart-rending way. The "ghost" of a person, left imprinted on a comms device after life has gone from the body; blind, confused, fading to black ...
I kind of prefer the Iain M Banks model: perfect backups of the human consciousness in case of bodily death. To any observer, it really is your consciousness and personality, and the backup has all your memories and is convinced it is really you... but is it really you? What must it like to have all the memories of a fully human life alongside the certainty that you are a replica of the original human being and no more?
But I'm rambling. Quality post, David.
-
Seriously, I've found the substance of the debate fascinating, even if the "melodrama side line" seems to have become the main event at a few points.
I would have stuck my oar in earlier, but forgive my humble self, a mere member of the public, for not having anything much to add to a twenty-page discussion of NZoA funding priorities which includes several industry experts and a senior official from the body in question. I know we are all about getting everyone involved here, but even by PAS standards this thread is intimidating to the common folk.
So you can interpret my posts as a compliment, or a heckle, or a sign of intellectual weakness, or whatever. But at the same time, can't we have a little fun? How po-faced and dignified a response do you expect after you've ended a post with a (seemingly backhanded) comment about group hugs? If there isn't enough sarcasm in the world, you seem happy to be doing your bit.
-
Why not? I think you've both arrived somewhere really special over the last twenty-one pages...