If you think that's bad, wait until the countersuit...

It's because vaccines aren't always 100% effective in 100% of people, nor are they claimed to be. Something that's only 90% effective will likely still protect 99% of the population through herd immunity.

For a better idea of how and why this works, this video provides a pretty good explanation.

Well, it's a typical catch-22: people want these things extremely tested (which they are) and regulated. Testing and regulation is expensive on top of already highly expensive high-tech science R&D. Hence, there's a very, very high barrier to entry in these industries and it's left up to the mega-corps that can afford it.

What would stop a company like Monsanto that sues companies for geting their seed stock contaminated with GMs from suing you for not having paid a license because that jellyfish gene in that GMO Cheeto you ate migrated into your DNA and has shown up on a recent blood test?

Biology.

99% of all species that ever lived are extinct and that ours is in the tail end of average life expectancy.

99.99999...% of all species that ever lived have never built a skyscraper either.

Seriously, your biggest argument is that a science fiction series isn't 100% accurate to currently known laws of physics? How far back in the past do you think we'd have to go before our technology would look like magic to them?

Define "meaningful".

The beauty of the Star Trek universe is that people have the capability to define themselves what is meaningful to them and pursue it without having to worry about if they will be able to afford to feed, clothe, and house themselves. For some people, that might be nothing but seeing how many other people they can fuck. I believe for a lot more people, that meaning will come from creative or scientific endeavors.

I'm sorry, but you have some sort of noble-savage view of human beings, or a view that supposes the existence of a soul (i.e a view based on philosophy or religion).

LOL. There aren't enough LOLs in the world for this sentence.

If there really was such a thing as "post-scarcity", or if it were even physically possible, we would still be just another species of animal. We would still be nothing more than biological organisms following our perceived self interest.

Nanotechnology research aims at this very goal with our very biology as proof of concept showing that atomically precise manufacturing is possible, and I believe it's just a matter of when, not if. So we're animals. So what? You think that we're constrained by biology to have no other interests than eating and fucking?

The number of people who would risk their lives for some "meaningful" reason - when there was no material one - in deep space for no material benefit would be in the fraction of single digits.

These people would probably disagree. Thankfully, not everyone has the same outlook on life as you do.

Star Trek gets away with the no-money concept because it's a post-scarcity society where you can conjure up almost anything from your replicator or holodeck. Even if we did have this technology today, people would still want to do something meaningful with their lives. Money isn't the only incentive for people to work: some people want to accomplish things for their ego, people join an organization such as Starfleet for the feeling of belonging, or even just to alleviate boredom. I would think that on /. of all places, people would recognize that some people do just work for no reason (FOSS anyone?)

Speaking of keyboards (of the musical variety types), it's no longer possible for us to fix some older keyboards because originally the weights under the keys were made of lead because it was dense and the weights could be relatively small. Now these parts aren't available any longer because of lead restrictions, and attempts to replace lead keyweights with steel ones resulted in the keyweights having to be so large to get the same weight (and hence the feel) that they don't fit in older keyboard actions. Sure we don't want kids sticking toys in their mouth that might contain lead, but why make such a broad restriction that it affects something like this?

Something similar happens in Roger Williams' Metamorphosis of the Prime Intellect. Fantastic story, IMHO.

Because Monsanto doesn't sue farmers who are found with patches of their products in their fields; they sue farmers who intentionally harvest and replant entire crops of Round-Up Ready plants without paying for it. There has been a lawsuit just like you suggested; the entire case was thrown out because the farmers bringing it couldn't provide a single example of where Monsanto has sued innocent farmers; Percy Schmeiser and Vernon Bowman were both found to be intentionally infringing on Monsanto's patents. If you could cite examples to the contrary that actually support your original argument, you would be the first to do so. Ever.

But I guess I'm just stupid for allowing things like "facts" to cloud the issue instead of just spouting out propaganda to stick it to The Man.

[citation needed]

From what I understand

The rest of your comment shows that you do not, in fact, understand.

You clearly do not know what "Luddite" means. Are people trashing Monsanto's crops, equipment or property? No, they are not.

Yes they are.

It certainly is "not inherently toxic" to humans, as humans are not insects, don't have alkaline guts, and the Cry proteins are incapable of harming humans in the same way that they kill insects by their very nature. I suggest you actually learn something about the very issues you are trying to argue before you suggest others to look up definitions. Simply saying "OMG pesticide!" shows how unfamiliar you are with the entire topic that you're trying to argue, so why should anyone listen to anything you've said at all?