I mean, the bleak thing is that the world works through people making deals with murderers to not be murdered, instead allowing other people to be murdered. I don’t give a shit about her gender, I just want a story about a good person winning in spite of corruption, not a bad person winning because of it.
As bleak as it is, given the high amount of other political opponents that died, the fact that she didn’t is likely an indication of how nice she plays with the people doing the murdering. I’m hopeful that she’s just good at dodging assassins, though!
Well, yes, but that’s kinda my point. If you don’t patent, you get exploited, like how the discoverers of insulin synthesis decided not to patent, so companies patented similar, but not exact methods, and now it’s incredibly expensive. But, as you said, if you do patent, there is still a risk of exploitation if the patent holder sells to an exploitative company. However, that exploitation is still less likely than when not patenting, so I support the practice so long as patenting is still possible.
I worked at a small nonprofit back when genes were still able to be patented; we mostly studied the condition Pseudoxanthoma Elasticum, and held the patents to a few of the genes associated with it. However, we still allowed people to research them freely - we only patented them to prevent a company like Myriad Genetics, who had been patenting genes so that they could sell expensive genetic tests, from patenting it instead. We celebrated when genes were no longer able to be patented; I imagine that the researchers working with golden rice will do the same if we’re ever lucky enough for GMO’s to no longer be able to be patented.
I wholeheartedly agree. I was working for a small genetics nonprofit when they removed the ability to patent genes, and the whole office had a party to celebrate. It was mostly a celebration about freedom to research and test, but we were also very excited to no longer have to deal with having a bunch of patents. Even though we let people research the genes freely, we still had a bunch of paperwork that needed to be done any time someone wanted to do so.
Selection technically isn’t modification, since the modification had to have already occurred for it to be selected for. However, modification certainly did occur, and all crops are genetically modified. Indeed, all living creatures are genetically modified, as without modification, evolution can’t occur.
The public fear of GMO’s is largely due to Monsanto, who aggressively protect their GMO crop patents to the point where farmers who just happened to have some seeds blow into their fields have been sued.
The issue with GMO’s isn’t the modification, it’s the lax patent laws that allow companies like Monsanto to exploit people for profit, giving a bad name to the field as a whole, in spite of the immense potential good it can do, for which Golden Rice is a prime example.
The huge difference is who holds the patent. The example you gave involves Monsanto, the patent holder for several GMO crops, and a terrible company that does everything in its power to make money by exploiting people. Golden Rice, however, is patented by the scientists who designed it, who likely only patented it so that a company like Monsanto couldn’t just make some similar GMO and patent it instead, using it to exploit people even more.
This same thing happened back when genes themselves were able to be patented; some companies like Myriad Genetics would patent genes like the BRCA gene, a common source of inherited breast cancer predisposition, so that they could charge an arm and a leg for testing. So, researchers and non-profits would patent genes that they found just ensure they could be fairly studied and tested for.
Ah, my mistake. I’m surprised people can be so publicly selfish as to actively strike against the notion that there should be a greater amount of people who can save lives…
This is like how American schools are authorizing unqualified people to be teachers to “resolve” the teacher shortage. It’s not “empowering,” it’s a dangerous short-term solution that they’re choosing over fixing the actual issue because that would require making actual positive change.
It should be pointed out that Israel is clearly NOT doing this in response to Oct 7th. Hamas was clearly responsible for Oct 7th, and Israel is clearly not attempting to retaliate against Hamas; bombing a building on the off chance that your enemy is within it isn’t a counterattack, it’s just terrorism, and repeating that action on the scale that Israel is repeating it is not a war, it’s genocide.
Yeah, I’m a bit surprised. Pokemon cards have sold for more than that on dozens of occasions.
You’re dancing around the basis of my argument. They’re not counterattacking Hamas, they’re killing Palestinians. It’s like if you punched me in the face so I killed your innocent grandma and called it justice.
Israel is attacking now because 10/7 gives them the excuse. Again, they’re not attacking the people responsible for 10/7, they’re attacking everyone in that area, and hoping maybe they got one.
Hamas is evil, yes, but ultimately Israel isn’t attacking Hamas. It’s attacking Palestinians indiscriminately and hoping afterward that some of them might’ve been associated with Hamas. People aren’t calling for a ceasefire because they like Hamas, they’re calling for it because Hamas has nothing to do with Israel’s attack on Palestine besides being a convenient scapegoat.
It’s possible that something else would’ve gotten in the way if religion hadn’t, but I guess we can leave that immeasurable thing up to faith as well. I’m glad we came to an agreement in the end.
You’re absolutely right - ultimately, true scientific method is impossible for humans, since we all have biases, but striving for perfection is how we get as close as we can to it.
As you mentioned, scientific progress can be made even with biased data from people who have let religion and science intermingle, but as others have shown in this thread, it often leads to a slow process of chipping away at society’s default answer of “God did it” little by little over time, which has significantly delayed scientific progress.
Even just 100 years ago this man likely wouldn’t have lost his job for making a claim without data that sin has directly impacted human health, and I see the fact that it’s now an unacceptable claim to be an indication that science as a whole is becoming less biased, in part due to its further separation from religion.
My point is that religious scientists are required to walk a very fine line to do both, because every interaction a human has with the world is a form of measurement.
Looking at a blue sky is a measurement, watching a child grow up is a measurement, smelling a flower is a measurement; these things are science, and for a religious scientist to be unbiased, they cannot allow any question of why or how they exist to be answered with “God.” So, the question becomes: “What’s left for a religious scientist to truly believe in, and not measure?” and the answer is that only the immeasurable can be left up to faith - the idea of an afterlife, the idea of a creator who kicked off the phenomenon of “reality” itself, and other such immeasurable things can be left up to faith, but nothing else.
Anything that can be answered by looking closer at existence itself cannot - in any way - be answered scientifically with anything other than real data. What this man did was show that he had allowed the measurable to be defined by the immeasurable in his work, and thus lost his legitimacy as a scientist.
You’re really desperate to find an argument I’m not making. Again, people can be religious. Scientists can be religious. However, if a scientist is religious they need to make very sure that their religion - that they believe in spite of no data, and is thus nothing more than an opinion - does not affect their science, which is required to be based on measurable data alone.
What this man did was make a scientific presentation based on his beliefs - his opinions - which were not based on measurements, and were thus unscientific. That was what crossed the line. I will always be wary of a religious scientist because I cannot determine whether their measurements are unaffected by the biases their religion gives them, but I can never truly dismiss their measurements, because I cannot be sure they are not legitimate. But when someone openly announces that they believe sin has caused a god to directly influence human genetics, and their claim is not based on any collected data, it shows that they absolutely have allowed their biases to affect the legitimacy of their work. In that instance, any past or present data that that person has collected will need to be re-measured by someone who has not shown to have allowed their biases to influence their work.
Something immeasurable is the antithesis to science, which is the act of measuring. If that thing later becomes measurable, it stops being the antithesis to science, because that immeasurability is no longer present. Insofar that we cannot know whether or not religion exists, it will continue to be something immeasurable, and will be antithetical to science. If someone wants to support both, they need to make absolutely sure that they are entirely compartmentalized, so that if the day comes that religion is either confirmed or denounced, it will not affect their work.
How many times do I need to tell you that I’m specifically saying that religion CAN exist? It CAN! I’ve never said nor implied that it’s impossible, and I’m not saying we should believe it’s impossible! I’m saying that it’s just as bad to believe it’s specifically real as it is to believe it’s specifically fake when we can’t measure it. To believe in religion is just as wrong as to believe in a lack of religion. We cannot know, so to believe anything about it is nothing more than an opinion and not a measurable fact. It’s fine to have an opinion, but to think about something scientifically is to remove any preconceived notions about whatever you’re studying and focus solely on what you can measure; since you can’t measure religion, you can’t think about it scientifically, which makes it the antithesis to science.
Yes, some things that are immeasurable end up being true - of course they do, but until they become measurable, they should not be assumed to be anything. If God shows up and we measure him, then he can be thought about scientifically, but until that point he can’t, and he shouldn’t be. Until we have something to measure, we should not assume any baseless ideas about its existence or lack thereof are true.
You say the logical mind has trouble saying “It might or it might not, for now we can’t say” but that has been my entire point this entire time! To be religious is to say “Yes, it does exist,” and to be atheist is to say “No, it does not exist,” both of which are wrong. The scientific way to think about religion is to specifically not make any decision one way or another, so when a scientist says they’re religious, that shows they’ve made a decision, which shows they’ve allowed unscientific biases to enter their daily life. Now, we’re all human, and we all have biases, but when we start making scientific presentations centered around our biases, as this man did, it’s incredibly problematic. Science and religion started out hand in hand, and most of our progress over the years has been due to our slow separation of the two.
Watson and Crick were fine scientists, but their discovery of the double helix structure was largely due to them looking at Rosalind Franklin’s unpublished data and completely omitting her name from their announcement of its discovery. They were certainly not shining examples of scientific excellence or integrity, and I consider most geneticists I know to be well beyond their capabilities.
Small price to pay, imo. When my job was forcing everyone back into the office in 2021 I just picked out one of the headhunters who contacted me on linkedin, got an offer for a remote position with better pay, and brought it to my employer to get a raise and the go-ahead to keep working remotely. I’ll suffer the occasional spam email for the knowledge that I have options for another job lined up pretty much whenever.