Nothing to do with the Fermi Paradox at its core (and I’ve worked in Fermi Lab). The paradox is why life that originated on its own somewhere else in space has been located or come calling yet. Basically “Why does space seem so devoid of life”?
1 Like
One one theory is because intelligent life keeps killing itself
"It is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself
This is the argument that technological civilizations may usually or invariably destroy themselves before or shortly after developing radio or spaceflight technology. The astrophysicist Sebastian von Hoerner stated that the progress of science and technology on Earth was driven by two factors—the struggle for domination and the desire for an easy life. The former potentially leads to complete destruction, while the latter may lead to biological or mental degeneration.[78] Possible means of annihilation via major global issues, where global interconnectedness actually makes humanity more vulnerable than resilient,[79] are many,[80] including war, accidental environmental contamination or damage, the development of biotechnology,[81] synthetic life like mirror life,[82] resource depletion, climate change,[83] or poorly-designed artificial intelligence. This general theme is explored both in fiction and in scientific hypothesizing.[84]"
You should read up on the Fermi Paradox a bit more. There’s a lot to it. Probably a lot more than Fermi himself envisioned.
I have. It was coined in 1950 over lunch with his fellow researchers. He died 4 years later. The paradox itself was mostly touted by Arthur C. Clark and others who took his original question of “Where is everyone/everything?” a bit further.
So I say again, what you are discussing is/was added on to the original paradox by others after Fermi died.
You also tell others to think for themselves but are just quoting a Wiki page in your post. The civilization self-destruction solution came about nearly 30 years after Fermi originally asked the question. And yes…I am aware that we wasn’t the first to do so without looking at Wikipedia.
1 Like
You clearly need a hug, dude.
I quoted wiki because it’s easier and it’s clear if I use my own wording it doesn’t get through to you. I’ve been saying the same thing in different ways throughout the entire debate. It’s very tiring trying to get you to accept my point even if you don’t agree with it
I understand you feel that we need to act all big and tough with the big bad Putin. I’m simply saying a drone isn’t worth killing the entire planet over egos.
Can you at least see where I’m coming from? If so then can you admit there’s some truth to it?
I bet that pilot wasn’t even told to splash the drone. It was probably some idiot who has now been punished for it. He thought he was Maverick or some crap. No commander would have ordered that maneuver because it put an extremely expensive asset in danger over a drone.
A commander would have ordered it shot down not pissed on.
Done with this. You are like talking to a five year old. You have even now just admitted that you have nothing else but the same stuff to say and are only to to say it different ways which have been dispelled by myself and others here. You just can’t seem to accept that even when given stuff to the contrary.
I’ve already made my point clear on this forum before you joined that we need to stop playing the world’s policeman…It ain’t worth it in the long run. I have also made it clear that I understand your point of view no matter how far all over the map you’ve been.
You muted @Jperr for nothing and I’ll follow your example and mute you out of respect for others here.
2 Likes
You haven’t dispelled anything. Your argument is Russia bad, spank Russia.
My argument is everyone bad, calm the F down.
Did I summarize it clearly enough?
I muted him because if you look through his posts every single one was adversarial. Nothing that strayed into interesting topics.
We clearly disagree here but every other topic we’ve engaged in has been good.
You guys are forgetting one very big thing: we blew up the pipeline. Of course Russia is going to be touchy.
First, I have never made this personal which is the last resort of those presenting a losing argument. Second, let’s just cut to the chase. Your positions ultimately are based upon a legitimate, albeit hysterical and irrational, fear of a nuclear exchange. The theme repeats again and again – at first focused upon Putin and his supposed grievances, then in retreat focused upon the weaknesses of our own President.
“They have nukes and we therefore must allow them to walk all over us and our strategic interests lest they in one unhinged minute unloose the nuclear Armageddon the fear of which makes me wee.”
I neither know nor care your age, but most of us have lived far longer with the threat of nuclear annihilation. Many of us did duck and cover drills in grade school which of course we now know were useless and really amounted to kissing you’re a$$ goodbye. But the doctrine of mutually assured destruction has maintained an uneasy peace for roughly 70 years.
There is, and has always been, the possibility of a deranged and irrational actor unleashing the atomic storm. But that threat cannot dictate, control or cripple policy. If the opponent is deranged enough to start a nuclear war, then capitulation and appeasement on other fronts is the worst possible course as it will always embolden and reinforce the megalomaniacal instincts of the adversary. Most of us learned that lesson in grade school when we, or someone else, stood up to the schoolyard bully. True, there was a risk that doing so would lead him to bring Dad’s AK to school, but the alternative was to live in continued abuse and cowardice.
The simple fact is that allowing an adversary to achieve objectives through the threat of nuclear action is counter-productive and undermines the entire concept of deterrence. The proper response is, “I’ll see your nuke and raise you two.” How will your arguments and fears apply when Iran achieves nuclear capabilities? Should we then allow them to dominate the Middle East for fear of escalation?
One should perhaps tread more carefully when confronting a wounded badger in his den, but defending international law and protecting American assets in international airspace is hardly comparable. We are not marching on Moscow or threatening regime change when we protect our assets from unwarranted hostilities.
I am done with this nonsense and will pass on the hug you smugly presume I may need.
3 Likes
You guys can send your kids to be drafted first then, not mine.
We shouldn’t even be there in the first place. We are the aggressors. We always were the agressors. The CIA installed Zelensky. NATO broke their agreement and encroached. Now we’re literally arming Nazis in Ukraine. Then we blew up a billion dollar Russia asset. In international waters (nobody believes that crap about some private group doing it. It was too deep for that.)
I’m honestly surprised they only nudged a drone out of the air.
But, sure, go ahead and send out son’s to die over a drone because we sure as heck don’t have anything remotely more pressing to deal with here, right?
The hug thing is because you’re acting like a bully. I’m literally advocating for a peaceful resolution. Why does that make me the bad guy and you the good one? Do you see a flaw in that? Just a teeny, tiny one perhaps?
Three years ago the New Yorker ran an article saying Ukraine was the most corrupt country on the planet. Now we’re all supposed to send the $200,000,000,000? WTF?!?
Let them fight it out amongst themselves. They deplete each other’s assets and we don’t have to do anything. If we just stay out of this one all it will do is weaken Russia and get rid of a problem at the same time.
It’s not even remotely close to Germany invading Poland.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying exactly but you haven’t said what the response should be. You’re implying going hot over a piece of hardware. Am I wrong?
This is still going on?
7 Likes
Some arguments must be continued long enough for the adversary to drop its drawers and demonstrate its hysteria. After that you are just feeding the trolls which is where I now am
6 Likes
Me too. I try to stop but sometimes can’t help myself. I got blocked. I was the lucky one.
2 Likes
this is NOT directed @ you, Thatoneguy but to merely show how half-assed some labs-including some US military ones-truly are…
2014:
Forgotten vials of smallpox were found in a cardboard box in a research centre near Washington. The dangerous live pathogens were accidentally sent to laboratories that were neither expecting them nor equipped to deal with them.
2015:
The US military accidentally shipped live anthrax samples instead of dead spores to as many as nine labs across the country and a military base in South Korea.
2003 to 2004: There had been six separate “escapes” reported from virology labs studying SARS: one each in Singapore and Taiwan, and in four separate events at the same laboratory in Beijing, according to Dr Furmanski’s report.
August 2003:
A 27-year-old virology graduate student at the National University of Singapore was infected by SARS. He had not worked directly with SARS, but SARS was present in the virology laboratory where he worked with West Nile Virus (WNV). Investigation showed that his preparation of WNV was contaminated with SARS virus, and that this was the likely origin of his infection. After falling ill on Aug 26, he sought outpatient medical care in several venues, and was admitted to the hospital only on September 3. He recovered and there were no secondary cases. Investigation revealed multiple shortcomings in infrastructure, training and observed procedures at the laboratory, and remedial actions were ordered.
December 2003:
The second escape was reported in Taiwan in, when a SARS research scientist fell ill on a return airflight after attending a medical meeting in Singapore December 7- 10. Although he felt is illness was SARS, he remained at home for 5 days, unwilling to seek medical care because he dreaded bringing disgrace to himself and his institution. He was only persuaded to enter the hospital when his father threatened to commit suicide.
Preliminary investigation implicated a laboratory exposure due to an attempt to decontaminate a bag of leaking biological waste, suspected to have had no proper protection and against protocol the day before he left for Singapore. His 74 contacts in Singapore were put under quarantine for ten days. Fortunately, none developed SARS.
April 17, 2004:
The investigation at NIV also uncovered an unrelated laboratory infection in a 31-year old male laboratory researcher at the NIV who fell ill on April 17, 2004. The entire NIV institute was closed and all of its 200 employees placed in quarantine in a hotel. Subsequent investigation confirmed these first three cases as SARS, and eventually identified a total of nine cases, in three generations, including health care workers and their family contacts.
April 22, 2004:
China reported a suspected case of SARS in a 20-year-old nurse who fell ill on April 5, 2004 in Beijing. The next day, it reported she had nursed a 26-year-old female laboratory researcher who had fallen ill on March 25, 2004. Still ill, the researcher had traveled by train to her home in Anhui province where she was nursed by her mother, a physician, who fell ill on April 8 and died April 19.
The researcher had worked at the Chinese National Institute of Virology (NIV) in Beijing, part of China’s Center for Disease Control (CDC), and which was a major center of SARS research.
The two primary patients had not worked directly with live SARS virus. WHO investigators had expressed “serious concerns” regarding biosafety procedures at the NIV at that time, according to the WHO Global Alert and Response (GAR) update issued on May 18, 2004.
Was there anything done to improve the situation?
Yes, an expert committee from WHO investigated the laboratories and their procedures, and recommended improvements. On December 18, 2003, WHO released a new protocol for handling SARS specimens, with special emphasis on reducing risk of and performing surveillance to detect laboratory infections.
Although this protocol was clearly created after the first (Singapore) escape, WHO chose to “parse” its words to avoid offending members. It chose to treat the risk as hypothetical.
The WHO wrote in its report then: “The possibility that a SARS outbreak could occur following a laboratory accident is a risk of considerable importance, given the relatively large number of laboratories currently conducting research using the SARS-CoV or retaining specimens from SARS patients. These laboratories currently represent the greatest threat for renewed SARS-CoV transmission through accidental exposure associated with breaches in laboratory biosafety.”
FRIGGIN WHO bowed down to protect China
Were there studies conducted labs on pathogens to ‘enhance’ their function?
In general, the manipulation of microorganisms in labs is the lot of virologists. But in recent years, it has gone a notch higher. In a well-documented field of study, called “gain-of-function” (GOF) research, virologists have focussed on “pathogenicity” or “transmissibility” studies among mammals by respiratory droplets of the following pathogens:
Influenza
MERS-CoV
SARS-CoV-1
H5N1
anthony fauci claimed no gain of function… here is the proof he lied
What is GOF research?
GOF studies or research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (or actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. In general, a GOF research improves the ability of a pathogen to cause disease. GOF research is a subset of “dual-use research” — i.e., research that can be used for both beneficial and malevolent purposes.
3 Likes
Thanks Snuffy. Even if the labs in Ukraine weren’t doing gain of function as long as they had live viruses they’re a danger to literally the entire world.
No matter how careful people are there are still accidents.
But Joe went on TV last Monday and told everyone the banking system is fine so everything is cool, guys.
1 Like
Thanks for not being direct. And yes, labs are Fvck all dangerous. This is this same for any industry though. It comes down to the people researching, performing and administering the work.
Now…I’ve never worked directly in a biological lab, but have done biocompatibility studies of lead compounds with cells. This was considered GOF research as we were ensuring the cells maintain “proper” function after the introduction of an outside substance.
Please understand the actual definition of GOF research has been narrowed and skewed n the past few years by the media, government entities and even some scientists. The actual definition of GOF is to ensure the biologic you working with has “Gained the Function” you desired…no matter what said function was. This is how biologic based medication (and I know your feelings on this subject as well and mean no disrespect) for rheumatoid arthritis and different forms of psoriasis have been developed. The final testing of these and other medications is/was known as gain of function testing. They had to make sure the base biologic they used “gained the function” they desired to suppress a known condition. It’s not as narrow as increasing transmitability or virulence which the term is actually being properly (albeit narrowly) applied.
I mean the list for….we’ll say chemical plant accidents could look just as bad as the lab accident you’ve posted.
Let’s also remember some dbag a$$holes torched whole navy ships and subs because they didn’t want to work that day…any where can be a dangerous job site…it depends on those you work with.
1 Like
No fighting. No politics.