Sure it is. Not at the same rate, but given two spacetime points far enough away from each other, the distance between them can increase much more than the speed of light.

The thing about expansion is that it will appear "faster" the farther apart two points are. On the proverbial balloon you blow up, two marks that are close together will move much slower apart than two marks that are far from each other. And this is a very very big balloon. The ant called Andromeda crawls towards the ant called Milky Way faster than the expansion happens, because the expansion is very small at such a short distance. But an ant that's much farther away won't ever be able to reach us, because the distances involved means a larger distance increase too. And an ant that's far enough away won't even be able to send a light signal to us, because the distance expands more than the speed of light, relative to us and it. The edge of the observable universe simply means that anything beyond it recedes faster than c. But no movement is involved, just a distance increase.

If it weren't, it would be detectible. The cosmic background radiation, for example, would be doppler shifted and have larger temperature variations than what we observe. We'd see more older galaxies far away and more younger galaxies close to us, depending on how the speed of light had varied. That's not what we observe, though.
Also, gravity would behave differently, and stars would have different colors and spectral lines than what we observe, depending on what the speed of light were where/when the stars exist(ed). We'd have small stars turning into black holes, and giant stars much bigger than what is possible with c being what we think it is.
Again, we don't observe that.

Oh, absolutely. Usually by bouncing light back and forth between mirrors far apart. And we still do - we've just have realized that's it's not really the speed of light we're really measuring, but the distance/time relation.
Because time itself is variable. A second here is not the same as a second at a GPS satellite. But the speed of light in vacuum is the same.

Anyhow, that's our current point of view, because it makes it easiest to do calculations and make observations. We could use a point of view where time was a constant, and have a very variable light speed instead. It's just as mathematically legal as a point of view, but it would complicate how we have to perceive things. Planck's constant would be variable, and atoms smaller or larger depending on location. We'd have to shift our view of distant galaxies to being very small, close, and low energy, but having a very slow speed of light compared to our speed of light. A headache, even if mathematically valid.
So Einstein took the simpler point of view, and let distance and time be variables with a fixed relation.

The speed of light cannot change, because it's the definition of speed, not a measured speed. When we say that the speed of light in vacuum is 299 792 458 m/s, what we're defining is the meter and the second relation. If you "slowed" the speed of light, distances would shorten and time would expand and c would still be 299 792 458 m/s. I.e. you would not notice anything. Only an observer outside our universe could possibly detect it, because inside our universe, we exist relative to c.

Discard the broken embryo? Yes.

Frank Herbert's "The White Plague". Damned scary and plausible, not TV sci-fi. There are many others. Ignore Hollywood - aint no science in that SF.

Terry Pratchett certainly would have volunteered. But now he's dead.

Governments spying on each other is one thing, but USA goes a lot further than that, including industrial espionage, spying on civilians en masse, strong-arming and assassinations.
Apart from Russia and Israel, I can't think of any other country that disregards other peoples to this extent.

Moral being religious, as that is the only argument against being paid for sex. And if you think all sex for pay is exploitation, there are a few thousand sex workers on Twitter who'd like a chat with you. And we can only say: any of Donald Trump's wives would fall under that definition.

If women could be legally paid for sex, young pretty women would be rich, even if they started out poor. Always would have been rich, if it were legal. Being illegal, then men can hide them off the radar of the police and explot them.

Keeping the practice underground CREATES a subservient secret prostitution class owned by criminal men. Also prevents women from having the power to monetize their bodies, if that were their wish, which has been utterly forbidden by men for thousands of years. Not for moral purposes - the trade exists anyway - but to KEEP THE WOMEN FROM BECOMING WEALTHY and instead diverting the profits to thuggish men who keep the women prisoner, away from the police. Women are not meant to be independently wealthy, esp if that money naturally belongs to men, as it should, and women should be subservient to men.

And ya get the bonus of treating the women like rapeable scum when you arrest them and put them in prison. Win-win for men.

If it were legal, women would become wealthy quite young and retire early or fund any life they'd like. Gadz, can't have that.

If everyone is pretty, then no one is. Which would be kind of refreshing.

What's wrong is that in the US system, it's possible to treat someone against their will and then bill them for it.

Someone just recently went on vacation from Europe to Florida, and a combination of sleep apnea and jet lag caused him to fall sound asleep in the hotel lobby before even getting to his room. They rushed him to an ER against his half-awake protests, and he ended up with an *enormous* bill. That's just not right.

Aging IS an inherited collection of diseases and disorders we haven't needed to select out of the pool because we only need to be alive about 25-30 years to pass on our genes. And it is a horrible thing to inflict on a human being. You may think it a natural process, but that is because you haven't experienced it on the sharp end yet. I'd rather die on a timer, healthy and whole at the end, then to die of thousands of breakdowns over the same period.

You are young and healthy, naturally, about thirty years. About ten of those is you as an adult. The other fifty years you will die slowly, and in the end, horribly, disfigured and crippled by autoimmune attacks on your joints and breakdowns in your brain and organs. All naturally, because *you are supposed to have died at the age of 37*, because Genes Said So.

And cancer is a natural cause of death as well. Accept that nature wants you dead and skip all that sciencey treatment! :)

We can't design wings that work, and physically we couldn't lift off anyway. Birds are shaped as birds because that shape works. Ditto nightvision, all the other stuff. Can't do it.

We could get rid of acne, arthritis, bad teeth alignment, breast cancer tendencies, baldness (that's not hard), all the diseases that are transmitted by parents who dearly wish they didn't and pretend hard they don't.

Cosmetically, tall beautiful men with sharp jaws do have better lives on the whole than those who don't. Women who are smart, athletic, shapely, and have faces which sculptors long to carve do better in life as well. It would be a sad thing indeed if people used GM to edit out the stuff that doesn't help you socially and include things which do. But...

We do that anyway. Successful men, of whatever appearance, tend to have children with beautiful intelligent successful women. Beautiful intelligent successful women overwhelmingly mate and produce offspring with beautiful men who match their capabilities; let's not bother arguing it doesn't happen that way all the time. It does, and it shows in the makeup of wealthy corporations, wealthy suburbs, and top-flight universities and political life as well. Beautiful people marry beautiful people, make beautiful babies, and those babies go on to mate with people mostly like themselves. Those people are segregating into their own communities, both physically and virtually. It IS genetic engineering - we're not selecting for the best hunter or the best baby-maker, but for social success and physical appearance. CEOs don't marry homely janitors, etc. It's so intrinsic we've developed adaptive language to cover up what we're doing- dorks and poor losers versus cool, pretty and almost inevitably successful. Eh maybe letting people choose their kid's appearance is yet another selection process - the intelligent not-purty people will use the opportunity to prettify their kids vs just letting nature take its course, and so their kids will become more wealthy and powerful, and the cycle goes on, as it always has.