/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3370687
I value a chemical synthesis reaction that I've set going on reflux for three days, because if it stops, or someone breaks it, I have to set it up and go another three days.

If, for example, someone stops the collection of complex physi-organic reactions called Carl Sagan, I would be upset because I can't set up that same reaction and let it go for another eighty or so years and get the same results out of it.

Just because you are nothing but a complex conglomerate of interreacting chemical pathways, doesn't mean life is valueless. It does imply that life has no inherent value, but that does not prevent value from being assigned to it.

>>3119768
Well shit. Science isn't possible.

Show's over folks. Nothing to see here.

>>2783824
Cosmos is still the best comprehensive science series ever put on television.
It explains the history of human science from the beginning, in a way that younger/uneducated viewers can understand but is still amazingly profound and engaging to older/educated people.

It's also astoundingly accurate. The only major problem I had with it, was when it claimed that DNA was the original chemical of life, when we're pretty certain RNA was - but CancerSagan of the Future corrected that at the end of the episode.

>>2673928
Him talking about aliens was an encouragement to look at our species from a dissociated, outsider's perspective. How indeed would an alien traveler, coming upon our world and finding a species that could destroy itself hundreds of times over, react?

>>2415600
>Ceres
>Oceans
I just realized, we have very little information about Ceres. I request a probe/rover be sent immediately.

Carl sagan, stop spamming message boards
you are not a troll
trolls cant do science

He explained to an uneducated audience a broad range of topics in science and mathematics, while preserving the inherent truth and beauty which is usually completely erased in the teaching process.

Is morality subjective, /sci/?
Yes, I realize this has no relation to Science or Math, but I want /sci/'s opinion on this.

Picture, as always, is unrelated.

Breeding in traits is less important to me than breeding out genetic disorders, like colorblindness, Huntington's disease, Tay Sachs, and black people.

I mean, sickle cell anemia. Right. Sickle cells.

>Supporting manhattan beach project implies singularity nerd wanking
>laughinggirls.jpg

>>2249160
That depends on the environments we encounter. You propose ridding ourselves of genes and DNA, but I can't think of a better way to modify living things than the convenient modular system that DNA provides us. Even if natural selection is worthless - no death, no selection - genetic engineering is still a great boon.