Whoever modded this insightful has a pretty poor understanding of human physiology. The heart gets external maintenance constantly, in the form of oxygen supplied by the lungs, nutrients from the digestive system, waste export from the excretory system, and so on. The heart's surroundings are the human body, and while I see that the parent comment could be read in that context, it doesn't make sense in that context. The heart is necessary for the proper function of all systems in the body, but it is energetically expensive to operate; it does harm to its surroundings by consuming energy and resources.
While I will agree that, as a whole, the heart doesn't shut down for maintenance, individual cells within the heart certainly do as they die and are replaced, or as they commit more metabolic activity to repair than to other activities. The heart, or any other organ, is simply a collection of specialized tissues acting in concert. It's a large machine made up of millions of smaller machines. At any given moment, hundreds or thousands of those smaller machines can be out of service without affecting the overall function of the organ.
Sorry, but biology is fundamentally different from technology and you can't make car analogies here. Biology is a consequence of emergent behavior from chemical systems orders of magnitude more complex than anything we've come up with pushing electrons around or using controlled explosions to make wheels turn.
Hi, I'm a former computer nerd, now a biologist.
Don't overestimate the role of mutation in short-term evolution. The rate of mutation per site per generation in almost all extant species is very low, and almost all mutations are deleterious. For any de novo allele to persist in a population, it must confer a significant benefit to survival or reproduction. If its selective benefit is only slight, its chance of persistence or fixation in a population is equal to its initial frequency, which is extremely low (except in very small populations, but then you have other problems). Mutation is certainly necessary for evolution, but it works on extremely long time scales.
From a biological standpoint, what Monsanto does is pretty irrelevant. They create populations that, barring mutation, don't reproduce. What they do does not affect the genetic variation of natural populations, except insofar as it restricts the total acreage occupied by non-GMO crops. But it's important to realize that those non-GMO crops are _not_ natural populations, nor are they "natural" plants. Such crops have been as thoroughly modified by man as has any Roundup-Ready plant. That's exactly what selective breeding for greater yield, better taste, etc. are - genetically modifying organisms. Corn, wheat, cabbage, mustard, and a whole host of other plants that are grown "organically" and eaten every day do not occur in nature in the forms we consume. The only difference is that companies like Monsanto target single genes, because they can. There is an argument to be made that, by selectively adding or modifying only beneficial alleles, biochemical engineering is a safer way to shape crop plants to our needs; selective breeding is sloppy, messy, and can't eliminate negative genes that, for example, are in linkage disequilibrium with selectively positive genes. And, if you don't want to grow GM seeds... don't. Agribusiness isn't preventing anyone from growing old crops the old way.
From what I have observed, most people's objections to Monsanto boil down to what one of my non-major humanities professors said: "It just doesn't seem natural." People don't seem to realize that when engineering these plants, what is happening is simply a refinement of a process that's been going on in agriculture since we first figured out planting seeds makes plants grow. It's just a more precise version, and able to avoid a whole host of problems presented by the old way of doing things. But it's happening in a lab, so it's automatically unnatural, and interfering with either God's plan or evolution. Evolution is a tricky subject, and far more complicated than most people realize.
I guess what I'm saying is, don't get a gut feeling about something and just call it good. There is a huge amount of propaganda on both sides of this issue, and the reality of the situation is more nuanced than 99% of people realize. I'm probably going to get attacked for this as a Monsanto shill, but please note that I didn't take a firm position either way. There's a reason for that: despite all the screaming from both sides, there is not enough reliable data available to do real, objective science on the broader effects of widespread GMO agriculture. Unfortunately, this dearth of data just feeds the gut feelings on both sides.
Lecture over. Feel free to flame.
*snip* because if it were cheaper, then you wouldn't *need* regulations.
That makes no sense whatsoever. The need for regulation is not predicated on the price of a service, but on the potential for damage, to the consumer and the economy as a whole, from incompetent practitioners.
Again, all of that is made up. It also assumes that the alternatives available are "fully licensed" and "totally unregulated with horrible quality." What about stuff like Underwriters Labratories, an "Independent, not-for-profit product safety testing and certification organization." In a dark and scary world where light bulbs were not tightly regulated by the government, couldn't you vote with your wallet and be like "Well I'm not buying light bulbs unless they're tested by this third party that has a good reputation."
The "vote with your wallet" argument is, in this context, disingenuous at best. Sure, the cost of waiting for the market to weed out shitty lightbulb manufacturers is relatively small, and the market will eventually produce a generally decent grade of lightbulb-makers. But we are not talking about lightbulbs. We are talking about professional services, many of which involve direct risk to human and economic health. It may cost the economy a few million dollars to weed out Shitty Lights, Inc., but the cost of weeding out shitty or marginally-competent doctors, engineers, and lawyers is astronomically higher. None of those people are going to be drummed out of business by one dissatisfied (or dead) client, or even a hundred, in a deregulated market.Consumers are generally poorly informed and unwilling to do much research when seeking professional services, and that is simply not going to change.
I would imagine for something important like surgery it would happen almost immediately. Now I have a choice. If I need a heart transplant, I'll go to an expensive doctor just like now. If I have a broken finger and I need some pain medication and a splint, well guess what it's not going to cost $1800 for a trip to the ER. I'll go to the hedge witch down the street for $50, no insurance required.
Yes, in that hypothetical. But you're pulling that out of thin air. You can't use it as an argument.
Unregulated services are not going to be uniformly horrible, but without a guarantee of minimum competence the services you get below a certain price point are going to tend to suck. Even if your $50 hedge witch gets things right 70% of the time, she is still screwing up 30% of peoples' broken fingers. Those mistakes have a much higher overall cost to the individual and the economy than the price difference between a licensed doctor and an unlicensed quack.
You are also ignoring the fact that you have a choice, now, too. The $1800 ER trip could just as easily be a $400 urgent care clinic trip, no insurance required. $400 is more than $50, but it's also much more reasonable to most people than $1800, and you also get the guarantee that the MD or RNFP seeing you knows what they're doing.
You can tell the ideals of a nation by its advertisements. -- Norman Douglas