Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

They just handed down a unanimous decision that DNA code cannot be patented.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jun/13/supreme-court-genes-patent-dna

cDNA, synthetically created DNA that, like inimalists name, not capitalized when you start a sentence with it, is still patentable because it is created by a lab technician and is not a product of nature. It's unclear what effect this will have on the legal status genetically modified organisms, probably none.

I'm actually extremely happy they didn't ban patents on genes modified in labs. As touchy as the subject is, there is a lot of science that depends on that atm.

Hey Oliver, you've been summoned at the Writer's Tournament thread.

ha, ya, Bardock was mentioning that to me earlier

saving the long explanation, I've been an emo-wreck after my grandfather's death + finishing my masters + finding a new job + trying not to lose my apartment and needing to move thousands of miles back to my parent's house + everything else in probably the most chaotic 2-3 months in my life.

I should have mentioned something, but I'm hoping either to have something up tonight or this weekend, I have a job shadowing/interview tomorrow though /shrug.

I've said I'm not as interested in winning the tourney as I am in completing the story, but man... this is probably my weakest issue as well...

Sorry Sym for the derailing.

Of course.

We're a bio-conservative nation, dictated by a deliberately perplexing myriad of political hierarchies.

The founders of our republic-democracy wanted to avoid both fascism AND communism, what they resulted in was chaotic fascism. Humans can't govern humans.

I was going to say something to Dolos, then I remembered that Dolos is Dolos.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Dolos is Dolos.

Originally posted by Dolos
Humans can't govern humans.

Its amazing how in agreement we are on this point, yet how much we disagree on what that means for society...

Originally posted by Oliver North
Its amazing how in agreement we are on this point, yet how much we disagree on what that means for society...

I'm blissfully optimistic.

In my experience, being optimistic has resulted in better decisions, and more concern with other's problems than my own. It seems fitting that when one is happy, focus is no longer inward.

Originally posted by Dolos

The founders of our republic-democracy wanted to avoid both fascism AND communism, what they resulted in was chaotic fascism. Humans can't govern humans.
Well, I know what I just said, but I can't leave this one alone.

The founding fathers had no concept of fascism or communism as they hadn't been created yet. They feared despotism, monarchism, and "mob rule" (populism, more or less).

Originally posted by Dolos
I'm blissfully optimistic.

In my experience, being optimistic has resulted in better decisions, and more concern with other's problems than my own. It seems fitting that when one is happy, focus is no longer inward.

Its not that I'm not optimistic, its just that to me, the inability of humans to deal responsibly with authority means that we need to eliminate centralized authority over people's lives, whereas my impression is that you think a strong central authority is good, just that it should be technology rather than human.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Its not that I'm not optimistic, its just that to me, the inability of humans to deal responsibly with authority means that we need to eliminate centralized authority over people's lives, whereas my impression is that you think a strong central authority is good, just that it should be technology rather than human.

Technology has no aim, no self-related goals. It performs tasks, functions. See; internet technology.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well, I know what I just said, but I can't leave this one alone.

The founding fathers had no concept of fascism or communism as they hadn't been created yet. They feared despotism, monarchism, and "mob rule" (populism, more or less).

Those terms are different than a communism or a dictatorship in technicality. Ultimately, our government is money driven, to avoid things like these.

Ergo, chaos. Cybernated resource management differs from current monetary systems as it's sooo much more efficient and pragmatic. Apropos, more orderly - or less chaotic, if you will.

Originally posted by Dolos
Those terms are different than a communism or a dictatorship in technicality. Ultimately, our government is money driven, to avoid things like these.

Ergo, chaos. Cybernated resource management differs from current monetary systems as it's sooo much more efficient and pragmatic. Apropos, order.
There's no such thing as "a communism."

I'm not touching the rest of your post because it's irrelevant.

Originally posted by Dolos
Technology has no aim, no self-related goals. It performs tasks, functions. See; internet technology.

sure, I still don't think it should have authority over people's lives

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There's no such thing as "a communism."

I'm not touching the rest of your post because it's irrelevant.

There are communist nations, and that is what I meant. I am not as inclined with you in terminology, obviously.

You mean off-topic?

I think our monetary institution gives incentive for political decisions like these. Id est, replacing planes and airports with subterranean transcontinental and sub/urban transit maglev vac train - after the technology is invented of course. Or maglev highways and maglev electric powered vehicles. This would remove the need for fossil fuels like gasoline by a great deal as well as save money while simultaneously being safer and more efficient for everybody. Our court will never reach such a technoprogressive decision. Ever. Obviously for monetary related motives in the 'myriad'.

Another example being the Super Collider, proposed in the 60's IIRC. It was rejected.

Originally posted by Dolos
You mean off-topic?

There are communist nations.

That too.

Yes, but you don't call them "communisms."

Originally posted by Omega Vision
That too.

Yes, but you don't call them "communisms."

My mistake.

To clarify, communism isn't a political ideology, it's an economic one. The fact that all communist nations have been dictatorships is probably due to all communist nations being inspired by or modeled after the Soviet Union.

Originally posted by Oliver North
sure, I still don't think it should have authority over people's lives

Would you rather it be survival of the fittest. Anarchism?

I think it's far better than what we have now. It's pure, motiveless logic. Quantum politics, if you will.

Originally posted by Dolos
Would you rather it be survival of the fittest. Anarchism?

I think it's far better than what we have now. It's pure, motiveless logic. Quantum politics, if you will.

what anarchists have ever described their system as survival of the fittest? that is almost a tautological component of fascism...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
To clarify, communism isn't a political ideology...

It affects political ideologies and vice versa. They're interrelated, my point had technical errors in it, I concede this much.

Originally posted by Oliver North
what anarchists have ever described their system as survival of the fittest?

Anarchism is often defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. However, others argue that while anti-statism is central, it is inadequate to define anarchism solely on this basis. Therefore, they argue instead that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

??????

Originally posted by Dolos
Anarchism is often defined as a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful. However, others argue that while anti-statism is central, it is inadequate to define anarchism solely on this basis. Therefore, they argue instead that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

??????

how do you possibly interpret that line as "survival of the fittest"?

it is the opposition to authority. In fact, anarchists would oppose the biological concept of "fitness" in human society, as it creates an authoritarian hierarchy.

Originally posted by Oliver North
??????how do you possibly interpret that line as "survival of the fittest"

it is the opposition to authority. In fact, anarchists would oppose the biological concept of "fitness" in human society, as it creates an authoritarian hierarchy.

Natural selection results in hierarchy less in a free for all without rules than in a governed society with rules?

Originally posted by Dolos
Natural selection is more the term I was going for.

what anarchists support natural selection as an organizing principle of human society?

again, anarchists would oppose this concept on the basis that it creates castes between those who are fit and those who are not, and empowers not only the "fit", but especially those who get to define what "fitness" is in the first place.

please, please stop talking about anarchy...

Originally posted by Dolos
Natural selection results in hierarchy less in a free for all without rules than in a governed society with rules?

no...

where did I contend that anarchy was a result of natural selection?

Originally posted by Oliver North
...castes between those who are fit and those who are not...

What are gang rivalries?

Forget urban gangs, tribal affronts, packs of animals, etc. It's inherent, and more recurrent the more sophistication of government breaks down.

Originally posted by Dolos
What are gang rivalries?

what is a gang?

Originally posted by Dolos
Forget urban gangs, tribal affronts, packs of animals, etc. It's inherent, and more recurrent the more sophistication of government breaks down.

you do realize that political anarchism (as opposed to philosophical) is not against authoritarian structures, it simply demands they be justified in ways that the modern state cannot be. For instance, here is Chomsky, please watch this before continuing this debate, as I'm almost entirely convinced you have no idea what anarchy is:

2G6kf7XM9Nk

EDIT: ugh, again, sorry Sym, I think the patenting of DNA is a really interesting topic, if you have something you want to discuss, I'm totally down. I'm going to defend my politics though

Originally posted by Oliver North
(as opposed to philosophical)

Looks like I brought up the wrong definition. :facepalm:

My original statement pertaining to, "would you rather have": would be the philosophical term, not the one I quoted afterward.

You're talking decentralized government...I'm talking a totally ungoverned society, a total anarchy. What a cluster****.

Now do you see what I was saying earlier though? Or did you lose that train of thought.

I actually believe this 'Cybernated' technocracy would utilize elements of political anarchism, as what is efficient for one group may not be efficient for another. It's the breakdown of sociology, as well as resource management, which is also very sporadic depending on the variables that arise when a society is spread out.

However, due to the fact that perpetually sophisticated information technology does sort of shrink the world with more and more synchronized communication and coordinated effectiveness worldwide - anarchy would only be useful for colonies in outer space.

Originally posted by Dolos
You're talking decentralized government...I'm talking a totally ungoverned society, a total anarchy. What a cluster****.

so you are critiquing a version of anarchy that no anarchist actually believes in?

/slow clap

Originally posted by Oliver North
you do realize that political anarchism (as opposed to philosophical) is not against authoritarian structures, it simply demands they be justified in ways that the modern state cannot be.

How is that anarchism anymore? I get the sentiment but not the name.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How is that anarchism anymore? I get the sentiment but not the name.

It sounds like libtertarianism. lulz

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How is that anarchism anymore? I get the sentiment but not the name.

its about justification

I agree, a valid critique might be that any such structures may be indistinguishable from a "form" of government (not any that exist in the real world), but the term "anarchy" has never been defined as "there are no limits on human behaviour".

the distinction between political and philosophical, in my mind (there are as many definitions of anarchy as there are anarchists ) is that political anarchists actually have a system they think is justified and represents an "end point", whereas philosophical anarchists almost accept those critiques by definition, and work within the dominant framework to oppose unjustified authority, even if it is some type of "anarchist authority".

Something I've always wanted to write is a critique of human biology and psychology from an anarchist perspective. Basically, outlining the reasons why we are, genetically, incapable of a truly anarchist utopia. A political anarchist (as I define them) would be against such a critique, whereas a philosophical anarchist would work within this paradigm.

Because there are so many possible definitions of anarchy, it could or could not be considered "anarchy", depending on who you talk to. As I've said before, the only people who have ever questioned whether I am actually an anarchist or not are Anarchists . Capital A anarchists would probably argue this point with you, I'm willing to accept all forms of human organization are probably, in some way, authoritarian. I'd rather try to reduce this to the lowest possible interference in people's lives rather than support some ideology that wants to "smash the state" or whatever.

I hope that gets at what you are saying.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It sounds like libtertarianism. lulz

if you go back 30-40 years, there is a very thin line between libertarianism, objectivism and conservative anarchy.

The Pauls have had, imho, a very negative impact on this in recent time.

DP, my bad

Originally posted by Oliver North
...but the term "anarchy" has never been defined as "there are no limits on human behaviour".

I thought the more pure definition would be the complement (stats) to that "event": Humans are free to make whatever decisions they wish.

Originally posted by Oliver North
DP, my bad

No one should have to apologize for double penetration. 313

I don't think humans know what's best for them.

One thing I do know is that, while behavior may be very broad, humans are limited by this very fact. Jumbled information, lack of communication.

One IQ of 200 is better than 200 IQs of 1. The high IQ is a centralized group of people and how in sync with one another they are, the low IQs are decentralized group of people and how in sync they are.

That's why I disagree with you. It's for a larger effect, a larger capacity to make things better for everyone in the form of scientific discovery and innovative technological progress - and, therefore, societal progress.

Originally posted by Dolos
One IQ of 200 is better than 200 IQs of 1. The high IQ is a centralized group of people and how in sync with one another they are, the low IQs are decentralized group of people and how in sync they are.

What about 200 IQs of 75 organized and tasked in such a manner that each task is easily done by 1 of the 75 toting IQ peeps but the distributed task among the 200 works to such an excellent extent that they accomplish a far more efficient and intelligent task than even 10 people with an IQ of 200 are capable of accomplishing?

AHA!

Originally posted by dadudemon
What about 200 IQs of 75 organized and tasked in such a manner that each task is easily done by 1 of the 75 toting IQ peeps but the distributed task among the 200 works to such an excellent extent that they accomplish a far more efficient and intelligent task than even 10 people with an IQ of 200 are capable of accomplishing?

AHA!

But this single task is very limited, no? It has to suit 200 fancies.

And no longer applies because IQ is 75, not one. Let's see what an IQ of 150,000 can do in that same task.



Humans don't lack a certain capacity, they lack coordination for the right capacity that best suits them.

That means 1 IQ of 150,000 has to monitor and find what these 200 IQs of 75 will work best at together for the greatest mutual benefit.

Cybernated Government. My point, alas.

Originally posted by Dolos
But this single task is very limited, no? It has to suit 200 fancies.

And no longer applies because IQ is 75, not one. Let's see what an IQ of 150,000 can do in that same task.



I had to turn up the IQ a bit because they had to be intelligent enough to complete semi-complicated (complicated enough that it would bar every other animal in existence except humans) tasks.


And I'd imagine that a human with an IQ of 150,000 still would not be able to compete with a well-organized group of the 200 I mentioned...because that being would be limited by physical capability unless that task offered a long time for that being to alter themselves or create Artificially intelligent bots to assist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
because that being would be limited by physical capability unless that task offered a long time for that being to alter themselves or create Artificially intelligent bots to assist.

A technoprogressive solution?

That's the thing about a cybernated government, all technoprogressive solutions are viable, there is no discussion, if it is the best solution, it will be utilized.

Whereas the US Supreme Court acts mainly out of irrelevant, monetary driven motives.

Originally posted by Dolos
A technoprogressive solution?

That's the thing about a cybernated government, all technoprogressive solutions are viable, there is no discussion, if it is the best solution, it will be utilized.

Whereas the US Supreme Court acts mainly out of irrelevant, monetary driven motives.

Monetary driven motives? That's the thing about working hard towards buying a Ford GTX. You really have to work hard if you do not have old money to be able to afford a Ford GTX.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Monetary driven motives? That's the thing about working hard towards buying a Ford GTX. You really have to work hard if you do not have old money to be able to afford a Ford GTX.

There's always work to do.

One most earn their keep, even in a resource based economy.

Those resources don't come from nothing.

Obviously there'd be money-like compensation to add incentive for people who work 4 hours a day 4 hours a week on neat desirable jobs. Beyond that there's no monetary system or economy, no monetary driven politics.