I covered that part already.

"Just leave it alone and give it a chance" isn't so difficult a standard for reasonable people to apply. Note, too, that this doesn't inhibit contraception in any way.

If your pill only targets those zygotes that would have been lost anyway, then I can see no problem with it.

I'm willing to limit the conversation to 'in the womb', but the point still applies. Also, we don't allow the killing of unwanted infants, so your logic stumbles a bit.

This assumes that either:

A) Government is immune from private sector influence.
or
B) The private sector's behavior was in any way surprising.

Both are pretty naive. At least we all know better now, right?

Right?

Anybody?

You're focusing on the wrong aspect. It isn't about potential, but human potential. The same as eating meat is allowed, but eating human meat is not. This is largely because nobody wants to be eaten.

However rudimentary it is, if left alone it will most likely develop into a human. Same as you did when you were in that rudimentary stage because nobody interfered with your genetic material.

Note, too, this is why many of us don't object to funding primary education even though we don't all have kids. We received such an education, and wouldn't have wanted it taken away due to lack of funding.

So while the nervous system makes a fine line for certain arguments, in general it's the 'what if this happened to me' angle that makes human-material issues most unique.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It's called 'First Past the Post', and Facebook has nothing to do with it.

I thought the assumption was that had apes learned to fish as humans did, they would have evolved brains like ours.

Well, now, I'm an ameteur, but isn't the assumption that brain development required to be a higher mammal requires gigantic amounts of protein intake?

Bingo

Observational sciences are always weaker than experimental sciences for exactly this reason. Today we debunk the previous assumption that cave men only ate meat. How did we come to that conclusion in the first place? Wild ass guess, most likely.

Put it this way - we know 'they ate plant matter'. We might (according to the study's conclusions) be able to determine 'how much' with further study. But I imagine we're quite a ways away from 'what plants'. We're also still making WAGs about how they got those plants, vis-a-vis hunter gatherers.

They could have farmed them.

They COULD have used biodegradable tools, sustainable farming, etc, and we'd never know they did 50,000 years later because those things don't leave behind fossils.

TLDR - Pics or it didn't happen

Let's try this, then:

Pay attention:
1) Electric current encountering resistance generates heat. Falsifiable, and tested.
2) The VAST majority of heat from electrical resistance is generated by humans. Falsifiable, and tested.
3) Man's use of electricity correlates directly with the hockey-stick. Falsifiable, and tested.

Unplug your computer to save the planet!!!

(By the way, don't you mean VERIFIABLE? Wouldn't it weaken the argument to use falsified data?)

It could be that in a system as vast and complex as the Earth's atmosphere, you probably can't draw up a bulleted list to explain all the reasons we're observing what we're observing. Unless you're God, you're just guessing along with everyone else. It isn't like you have a series of scale model Earths you can use to run your tests.

Here's another list...
A) We've (supposedly) been hotter than we are before, when there were (supposedly) no humans around to blame.
B) The Sahara (supposedly) used to be fertile.
C) Humans are extremely resilient creatures.
D) The Earth is quite likely more resilient, and is unlikely to explode in a ball of fire if it gets too hot. It may require some adapting, but life WILL go on.
E) Polar bears are down, but sharks are up. See D, above.
F) The impact of changing the entire human energy experience is not insignificant, and could well upend society itself if not managed properly.
G) Every government on the planet is currently ran by complete idiots, and even if they knew EXACTLY what to do, they'd still fuck up the implementation.
H) It is entirely possible that 'humans > polar bears' is a valid opinion to have.

Lists are fun. I could go on and on... :)

So you had the citation you requested, but didn't think he had it? /boggle

Imagine a secret raid about to be conducted on a property. One where they would rather you not call any of your buddies and warn them that you've been attacked. They can quietly shut down every phone in the building right before they throw in the flashbangs. They can do this on a phone-by-phone basis, and without involving the phone company since their rubberstamp FISA warrant has already given them complete access to the phone.

This is exactly right, and I believe this is the exact reason they so very much want this technology on phones and in cars.

Maybe they got the idea from TV, if you want to go there, but the idea being on TV doesn't automatically make it impossible.

Why solicit my opinion at all? Why is this my (or Google's) problem?

I grew up in the 80s under that same concept as well: "equality means everyone is treated equally"

But again, we're in a different world today. The fresh crop feels that a special status called 'privilege' exists, and that anyone who even tangentially benefits from that status is less of a person because of it.

And in fact, they probably don't realize what a piece of shit they actually are, until they shed their 'privilege' and join the war against the machine.

Or something.

These are the kinds of people who wonder why too few Google employees have thrown themselves off cliffs in order to bring the gender gap down.