You should look up "Other-Kin". Be prepared to laugh and cry at humanity at the same time.
Yeah. We have people identifying themselves as non-human and we have people trying to identify various non-humans (ie. chimps) as human. It is a crazy world we live in.
If race and gender aren't based on anything anymore than what the individual identifies themself as, then why should planet of origin be any different? As for being an ambassador or getting diplomatic immunity, isn't that up to the entity granting such privileges, not the one sending them?
If Elon Musk identifies himself as a martian, who are we to judge? If gender is no longer based on chromosomes and race is no longer based on ancestry, then why should one's planetary identity be based on planetary origin?
The real question is, whether the problem with artificial ingredients, is just a problem with regard to specific artificial ingredients that are just selected to mimic a specific characteristic of a natural ingredients (flavour, odour, texture, anti-biotic activity) with little regard to the other characteristics of that artificial ingredient and those other characteristics causing problems.
Would a completely artificial food, properly engineering for safe consumption and low allergen characteristics with an indigestible fibre added for digestive function be a suitable goal. Logically it could prove far safer than genetic manipulation and ever increasing levels of toxins in the environment. Rather than fake food pretending to be natural food how about actual completely engineered artificial foods. Taste is important though, as it allows active dietary control via flavour profiles, a preference for particular minerals via varying flavour preferences.
Most things that people eat are completely engineered artificial foods. Real food does not contain ingredients. An apple is an apple. An egg is an egg and a chicken leg is a chicken leg. On the other hand, if there are ingredients listed on the label, then it is already engineered and most likely artificial. It is possible to have ingredients that are all foods in and of them self. A cobb salad could be an example, but even though it might not be artificial, if you are buying it pre-packaged, it is still engineered.
Is it? That HFCS is "bad" is something that everyone "knows", despite little or no evidence. The NIH did a comprehensive review of research on fructose, and found no basis for believing that replacing other sugars with fructose leads to obesity, or is worse for you than sucrose or glucose in any way. Yes, you should try to reduce the amount of sugar in your diet, but there is no reason to single out fructose over other sugars.
You are misinterpreting the abstract you pointed to. First, the NIH did not research the link between HFCS and increased BMI (weight gain). They "reviewed" existing studies. The conclusion of the review is that it discredits the non-scientific studies that have been done in the past (both showing an increase in obesity or not) and specifically states that there is not enough scientificly valid data to reach a conclusion one way or the other. It strongly recommends that more scientific research is needed specifically targeting the effect of HFCS and increased BMI.
who in the right mind would buy a car with wheel sensors?
Everyone, after the government mandates it be in place in all new automobiles.
And that is different than the US Congress declaring climate change doesn't exist?
I'm sure it will soon. There are some potential benefits: noticing that a diabetic student is buying a frosty milkshake everyday, or that a child with seafood allergies is buying fish sticks every week, or that a morbidly obese student or builimic student are buying 5 servings of ice cream every day might all be useful to the parents and the school. And the usefulness of such information can be used to justify monitoring _all_ students.
Is it really the school's or government's responsibility to protect kids from these things? In addition, since only poor kids will qualify for free lunches, is this simply a way for the government to add to a fingerprint database to track these kids as adults? When biometrics are used for security at a place of work, you as an individual can choose to work there or not. When used at a public institution, you don't have the ability to refuse.
Shouldn't we first determine if nuclear weapons would even be effective against a NEO before asking if we should keep them on hand?
Bullshit. Name one city served by Amtrak that doesn't have a nearby airport.
Amtrak runs through the midwest as a bribe to midwestern congresscritters.
Except that most of those midwest states are red states and want to shut Amtrak down. If Amtrak's future depends on lobbying midwestern congressman, then they aren't doing a very good job at it. As for Amtrak cities without commercial airports, there are many, unless you consider driving 100 to 200 miles to an airport as having a nearby airport. And if they have a small regional airport, you can bet it is heavily subsidized by tax dollars in one form or another.
Which means that in a massive economic downturn, your silver is going to be just as worthless as dollars. The only reason that silver is worthwhile is because people assign a value to it. If it has no value, then it's worthless. If you can't get access to water or food and the people around you have no need for silver because they value their food/water higher than your silver, then you're kinda stuck.
And if you are one of the people with food/water and the people around you need it, your pretty much at their mercy, too. Think of all the zombie movies, even though you can actually kill people, you can't kill or defend from all of them and eventually, you, too, will be over run and without food and water.
The best solution is to stop the apocalypse before it gets that bad because if it really happens we're all screwed.
Properly funding Amtrak is defunding it's money losing routes and extracting the profits from the NE into the general fund.
Your anti-Amtrak bias is showing. If you did defund Amtrak and let it close routes, wouldn't it need the profits from the NE to use for operating the NE?
Give me a legitimate argument why we should be subsidizing Amtrak's daily operating expenses. Because of Congressional interference and failure to follow the 1997 law we have a situation where taxpayers are paying up to half the cost of a ticket for those almost 1 million riders who ride the northeast corridor on a daily basis.
Well, on 9/11, when all planes were grounded, Amtrak looked pretty good. Could the infrastructure in the NE handle an extra 1M commuters? 30% of the bridges there are already classified as sub standard and past their useful life. If the infrastructure can't even be maintained for current levels of use, how will they fare with increased use?
Besides, Amtrak is like the post office, it is a private entity that is extremely regulated by the government. It might make great business sense to stop Saturday delivery for the post office or for Amtrak to cut routes, but they aren't allowed to do so. It's also ironic that most major cities will pay more to build a stadium for a professional team than Amtrak gets in its government subsidy.
Again, why single out passenger trains? Why not all manner of transportation, include air? There is far more spent subsidizing these other modes of transportation than Amtrak gets. There is a reason why every other western country subsidizes rail (and air) transportation and at a far greater level than the US -- it's called the common good.
Silver is just as worthless in an environment where nobody has anything. If things really go to hell, it'll be whomever has water/shelter/food, so don't bother hoarding precious metals as they won't be so precious if you can't get clean water.
On a small scale, you are correct. Simple bartering for goods and services works well. Unfortunately it doesn't scale up and some common means of exchange is always developed, whether it be silver, gold, sea shells or even bitcoins.
Real Estate will always be worth something. Even if we decide that precious metals are worthless (maybe someone invents a Star Trek replicator), land will always have value. At the very least you can farm it and feed yourself and your family.
It may always be worth something, but not necessarily anything close to what you paid for it. As for land always having its value, tell that to the people in Centralia, PA or Times Beach.
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton
