Student invents gel that stops excess bleeding near-instantly

  On 3/21/2013 at 10:39 PM, 3849 said:

Good thing I won't be alive when shit happens [by shit I mean people being cyborgs or something and people living on Mars], so eventually it's not my problem, not now, not when it's gonna happen, by the time it escalates, I won't be around no more.

please go on anti-depressants

lol

  On 3/21/2013 at 10:39 PM, 3849 said:

Good thing I won't be alive when shit happens [by shit I mean people being cyborgs or something and people living on Mars], so eventually it's not my problem, not now, not when it's gonna happen, by the time it escalates, I won't be around no more.

you're 19. it will surprise you how fast technology is going to progress.

We should just get rid of hospitals already and let people take care of themselves. Natural selection y'all.

We should kill a bunch of people

  On 3/21/2013 at 9:53 AM, gaarg said:

I kinda agree with 3849, as I believe that yes there is too much human on this planet and yes, technological advances in longer life do not necessarily make us happier.

 

Still, we're part of nature and all the shit we do is just natural.

 

Also 3849, what are your views on Karl Pilkington's views?

Was hesitant to say this, but I kind of agree with him as well, but I feel like he's 15 and has a lot of pent up angst against the world and so it renders whatever kind of argument he might have had invalid.

Also, 3849, look up the Cambodian genocide. We can't all be farmers, bro.

this could be the cure for verbal diarrhea

I say we all toss our life away ....

  On 3/21/2013 at 11:44 PM, drukqs said:

 

  On 3/21/2013 at 9:53 AM, gaarg said:

I kinda agree with 3849, as I believe that yes there is too much human on this planet and yes, technological advances in longer life do not necessarily make us happier.

 

Still, we're part of nature and all the shit we do is just natural.

 

Also 3849, what are your views on Karl Pilkington's views?

 

Was hesitant to say this, but I kind of agree with him as well, but I feel like he's 15 and has a lot of pent up angst against the world and so it renders whatever kind of argument he might have had invalid.

 

.

An argument should stand or fall on its own merit. It doesn't matter if Ghandi said it or John Wayne Gacey.

  On 3/21/2013 at 11:58 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 3/21/2013 at 11:44 PM, drukqs said:

 

  On 3/21/2013 at 9:53 AM, gaarg said:

I kinda agree with 3849, as I believe that yes there is too much human on this planet and yes, technological advances in longer life do not necessarily make us happier.

 

Still, we're part of nature and all the shit we do is just natural.

 

Also 3849, what are your views on Karl Pilkington's views?

 

Was hesitant to say this, but I kind of agree with him as well, but I feel like he's 15 and has a lot of pent up angst against the world and so it renders whatever kind of argument he might have had invalid.

 

.

 

An argument should stand or fall on its own merit. It doesn't matter if Ghandi said it or John Wayne Gacey.

lol. My point being that his judgement is clouded, allowing him to overlook obvious facts and not see the bigger picture. I'm not saying his argument exactly, I mean that there are similar arguments from more educated people that I agree with.

the idea of the earth's "carrying capacity" for humans has been around for a long time, and always seems to be being revised upwards. It's pretty clear though that we are starting to push the limits as far as resources are concerned. Not sure where Rambo was going with that whole "we could all fit in Texas" thing, as the point is resources not real estate.

As a big fan of nature I'm always sad seeing it trashed...as a resident of China I can see the ill-effects of enviro abuse all around me. For me it's more about quality of life than species survival. Sure, humans will probably survive, but we're doing a pretty good job of turning our lovely globe into a shithole.

That said, as someone else noted, best way to halt runaway population growth is to educate women in developing countries. Full stop. The effect is really dramatic. Well-educated women just don't want to spend their lives being baby machines (oh, of course contraceptives are a key part of that...fu pope).

And I do have faith that some clever people will help us "think our way out of this" with new technologies. However I don't think it's wise to bet that that will happen.

tl;dr: yeah, I do believe it's basically immoral to have more than 3 kids. I think it'd be cool if the US and other countries taxed families heavily who want more than 3 kids.

  On 3/22/2013 at 1:12 AM, lumpenprol said:

. Not sure where Rambo was going with that whole "we could all fit in Texas" thing, as the point is resources not real estate.

That was just an aside. Resources are obviously the issue and I'm firmly in the "thinking our way out of problems that may arise " camp.

wikipedia is cool, this is an informative entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

  Quote

Current estimates expect the world's total fertility rate to fall below replacement levels by 2050,^[19] although population momentum will continue to increase global population for several generations beyond that. The promise of eventual population decline helps reduce concerns of overpopulation, but many^[who?] believe the Earth's carrying capacity has already been exceeded and that even a stable population would not be sustainable.

Some believe that not only this (apparent) economic depression we have entered, but the 'Great Depression' of the 1930s (and beyond?) may be, and may have been, the result of a decline in birthrates overall.

Euro governments are insane. "Slightly natural increase"? wtf

  Quote

European analysts hope, with the help of government incentives and large-scale change towards family-friendly policies, to stall the population decline and reverse it by around 2030, expecting that most of Europe will have a slight natural increase by then. C. D. Howe Institute, for example, tries to demonstrate that immigration can not be used to effectively counter population ageing.^[23]

We should start another thread and let this one be about the gel thingy.

Also, I can't really tell what I think on the internet [written] in a language that isn't my first, although my English is better than most people [on Earth and my country] [not trying to brag], still I have trouble expressing everything I think. Usually I say stuff in both Dutch and English, and people understand me here, but on the internet, where the main language is English, I can't use my other half of thoughts [not really half, since I can express the biggest part in English as well] here.

So it's not like I don't think about other things and don't look at the bigger picture, it's just a language barrier. Also it might look like I'm a total douche, I'm not, again, language barrier and it's the way I usually talk in real life...

in vietnam he was ninininineteen

massive troll i say

yeah, I call troll

Now I'm just playing devil's advocate and throwing hypotheticals out there but... Say there is too many people on this planet and that we would benefit from some dying off. What if while we are creating all these medical advancements to prolong lives, we also started allowing euthanasia in hospitals for those who choose to take that way out. As far as I know euthanasia is still considered taboo and even malpractice in most institutions, but what if we started allowing it? If you're sick and/or horribly injured and wanna die, well okay, fine. Would this not clear up some overpopulation? Hell, maybe even cheapen some medical costs overall with less resources spent trying to keep those alive?

another proposal: we take anyone who doesn't believe in vaccinating children and dip their kids in a bucket of polio

  On 3/21/2013 at 3:53 AM, usagi said:

because of said implications, I really, really hope this doesn't get squished by big pharma or someone in some underhanded way. I have a nagging feeling that there have been medical breakthroughs in the past which have been quietly suppressed in the interests of parties who would stand to lose money from such innovations being put into widespread use.

 

is that another depressing tangent?

That's an accurate fear. I hope the student has enough concern for others to not try to cash-in on it.

Jonas Salk was the guy who developed the Polio vaccine, and he didn't bother to patent it.

  Quote

Salk preferred not to have his career as a scientist affected by too much personal attention, as he had always tried to remain independent and private in his research and life. But this proved to be impossible. "Young man, a great tragedy has befallen you—you've lost your anonymity", the late television personality Ed Murrow said to Salk shortly after the onslaught of media attention.^[50] When Murrow asked him, "Who owns this patent?", Salk replied, "No one. Could you patent the sun?"

  On 3/22/2013 at 1:12 AM, lumpenprol said:

the idea of the earth's "carrying capacity" for humans has been around for a long time, and always seems to be being revised upwards. It's pretty clear though that we are starting to push the limits as far as resources are concerned. Not sure where Rambo was going with that whole "we could all fit in Texas" thing, as the point is resources not real estate.

 

As a big fan of nature I'm always sad seeing it trashed...as a resident of China I can see the ill-effects of enviro abuse all around me. For me it's more about quality of life than species survival. Sure, humans will probably survive, but we're doing a pretty good job of turning our lovely globe into a shithole.

 

That said, as someone else noted, best way to halt runaway population growth is to educate women in developing countries. Full stop. The effect is really dramatic. Well-educated women just don't want to spend their lives being baby machines (oh, of course contraceptives are a key part of that...fu pope).

 

And I do have faith that some clever people will help us "think our way out of this" with new technologies. However I don't think it's wise to bet that that will happen.

 

tl;dr: yeah, I do believe it's basically immoral to have more than 3 kids. I think it'd be cool if the US and other countries taxed families heavily who want more than 3 kids.

this x 1000

  On 3/22/2013 at 7:00 AM, ghOsty said:

Now I'm just playing devil's advocate and throwing hypotheticals out there but... Say there is too many people on this planet and that we would benefit from some dying off. What if while we are creating all these medical advancements to prolong lives, we also started allowing euthanasia in hospitals for those who choose to take that way out. As far as I know euthanasia is still considered taboo and even malpractice in most institutions, but what if we started allowing it? If you're sick and/or horribly injured and wanna die, well okay, fine. Would this not clear up some overpopulation? Hell, maybe even cheapen some medical costs overall with less resources spent trying to keep those alive?

But that wouldn't be enough though. Sure there are some people who don't want to live anymore, but that group is not as big as the people who want to survive.

This thread made me want to kill myself.

Ok.