NO ONE is advocating Social Darwinism are they? I think you stuck in the straw man and beat him. By stating we have stopped evolving is a statement of truth. What we do now is in limbo. We are skirting around the issue, and in some cases such as this one by Gore, simply stating opinions by appeal to emotion. I also never said their aren't risks, we all know that. The bigger issue is, instead of open discussion, we get a lot of immediate negative reaction. Furthermore, we can't predict the outcome of evolution either (again another simple statement of truth). I am in awe of Evolution and it's simplicity and it's truth, yet it doesn't always produce human-nice results (viruses, bacteria, weeds, insects that eat crops,etc.), or dolphin friendly, or anything friendly, it is a mechanism and nothing more. To say we shouldn't mess with it or talk about it is blasphemy to science. And it's hypocritical - we have no problem when GE is used to eradicate disease, do we? Or having doctors come up with solutions that allow people to live who normally wouldn't. By interfering and extending life and allowing more to live, we are contributing to human overpopulation, which does more to eradicate species than anything else, yet in the world of negative opinion, i have yet to see so many people rail against this as much as GE.

Exactly bussdriver. What is natural? And what is the purpose of having the word? Why 'do' we have the word is debatable but less so than why 'did' and why 'should' we have it. There's the definition 'Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind', if you are to believe google. What about the one where natural has a happy picture of earth and sunshine associated with it, and unnatural has the Terminator as its poster child? The one where a person get's all squinty eyed and shakes their heads and looks disgusted. Evolution is great, it is simple, it is true, and it now no longer applies to human beings. Are we going to steadfastly hold on to our previous connotations of natural and unnatural? Evolution has virtually stopped with us, and stops moreso with each medical advance. So what do we accept as the 'natural' thing now? Do we believe human beings are content with letting random mutations dictate our genetics and just solving the consequences (as we are doing now mostly)? What is wrong with engineering a goat to make (perhaps large amounts) of spiderwebs? We use them for milk essentially - do we have a problem with harvesting spiderwebs from animals and not milk? Should we allow it to live for x amount of generations to see if it will survive then deem given infinite time, evolution could have really produced this and then be OK? Will it hurt it's feelings or make it an outcast in it's social circle? What about making different kinds of meat without brains so we reduce the mass slaughter of animals? What about dogs and fixing all newborns - that's not 'natural' - what makes it ok and acceptable instead of 'creepy and scary'? What about circumcision? What about 'fixing' clef lips? What about heart surgery? What about driving a car - is that 'natural'? Would it be OK if many goats had the similar spin-off and lived together? Are people just wanting to wait to know more, how much more is acceptable? Look how many things are unnatural, so you can see there's a problem here with the old definition. I don't have all the answers, but I guess Gore does. Maybe he get messages from Zeus in his sleep? Or maybe he has arachnophobia? Or maybe he watched one too many bad sci fi movies? Did I ask too many questions? :) -- -Ultimate Stickman Game Developer Infinite World Puzzler

We have already virtually stopped evolving naturally - under the traditional sense of 'natural.' Yet our brains are the consequence of this 'naturalness' is using it somehow not?

They were also inspired by John Stuart Mill and other great political thinkers/philosophers. I don't think afraid of democracy applies as much today (try getting enough people to give a crap to get worried). What is far more worrisome is corruption and ignoring issues that politicians indefinitely throw on the backburner (patent system, science), or things that are good for the nation, are not good for either political party. While many of these philosophies still hold, new ones have emerged along with scientific data (like you pointed out soundly about voters and contradictions).. For example, a clear system of better quality voting is by ranking all candidates rather than be forced to make a single is almost unarguably a better system, and (may) reduce polarization somewhat. But if you are democrat or republican, you wouldn't want because, while being a more fair system, it in effect decreases your party's power.

I knew someone who drank bleach to impress 5 drunk people he didn't know. Corruption comes in all forms.

The United States was founded as Republic, primarily (so it is said) because having individual voices was impossible with the technology of the time. However, we live in an age where the Internet has given us instant communication and access to vast information, where we can relatively securely pass information around, and where especially, we can have every voice heard to write our own bills and laws. Iceland may be small, but they have proven it's more than just a theory. We have open source books, open source software, open encyclopedia, with more 'open' type projects all the time - which have proved immensely successful and very efficient when it comes to money. However, the trend is in the opposite direction, with more power given to lawmakers and large corporations (in the de facto sense at least as contributions are now unlimited, it raises the bar of entry), and congress with it's two main parties, are in a huge poker match. What do you see as the pros and cons against an open-Bill type of system, where the power of the people get a more realistic voice, where the history can be saved for eternity, where the slightest changes can all be remembered using repositories, where anyone can contribute, where it would save multi-millions of dollars in taxes, where multiple types of Bills can be presented and the one the people wish for most receives the most votes? You have represented a party that claims they stand for smaller government, yet it's one that has increased government size as much and many times, more than democrats. Shouldn't such a system be at the forefront of Republican agenda? Or has big business lined the pockets so fat of every member in congress that this is not possible without some type of revolution..?

Anti-Cheat #1: If you are using university computers to do the exams, you can always use a key-logger/screen-logger - so you know exactly what information they search for. Though open information and privacy are huge concerns in every day life, try to find a way to explain the need of Internet privacy during an open Internet exam. You must of course, pre-warn them that if they access their own email or any site with passwords, that snapshots will be recorded, as will be their passwords, etc.

Anti-Cheat Backup: This should go with #1, but used separately if #1 proves too difficult or if there is somehow a privacy issue even during an exam (oh, i just thought of one - my fingers slipped 104 times in a row and sent an email to a friend with the exact question i needed answering and got a response quickly was pure coincidence and I couldn't possibly not write down that answer since that was what I was going to write anyway!). Anyway, the back-up: don't install one, but SAY it's installed (be sure to go on about the name of the software, developed by X-high-tech-company-just-for-universities, what kind of new technology that has gone into them, how it's code is updated quarterly, and be sure to emphasize that every single keystroke makes a difference and can be used as official evidence for expulsion in the case of cheating).

Ways to Cheat: Photo cryptography may go undetected in some situations, though it's difficult when you have a key-logger present in the case of two-way transmission. One way cryptography is possible, though also difficult (If the list of answers to all questions exist in photos somewhere good for them.) (two-way is not practical -> the student can't send without typing keys - unless he uses a Ceasar cipher or something that is relatively quickly broken. Any other cipher for that matter, though this is already a huge red-flag in the first place if they aren't typing an accepted language or are using obvious code wording (What does the Gangster mean daddy when he says "The duck is about to lose its feathers..."?) Another crack, if someone uses something like a wiretap (leaving a phone on or other device) so the listener can hear the question and post a page. student could write every question on the screen as well while another 'listener' is watching (which is relatively easy if there's a pre-agreed upon site or by listening in on the phone), post the site relatively hidden on another pre-agreed upon website after x-minutes - and do this in of a pre-agreed upon cipher (such as the first word of each sentence is the solution (or more obscure than this if they are hard-working enough)). I think that's a good start - and unless I'm missing something obvious, it is about as tough to cheat, if not tougher, than current exams (university computers are relatively secure, and no phones allowed during exams - oh i guess hidden phone may be another one, but that's general cheating related, not open Internet test). Someone may find another way, at which time that knowledge can be used to thwart future use of that method, or discontinue it's use if it's a devastating one.