/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5531069]

>global warming
>lel

[Anonymous No.5531083]

>i do not understand the current climate and consequences thereof
>lel
Every field.

[Anonymous No.5531096]

The planet Earth is possibly the most beautiful planet humans will ever lay eyes upon. Its biodiversity is unparalleled, and all the creatures, from the lowest to the highest, are invaluable because of how fragile they are.

Human industry was never conceived with the idea of maintaining balance and harmony with nature; more along the lines of enslaving the natural world to our will. Yet people will support for no other reason fundamentally than it will allow them to dirty the planet even more, guilt free. This makes me rage. They were born into middle-class protestant suburbs and they don't have an appreciation of the real, natural world outside of their incredibly sheltered lives; they only demand convenience, television, and SUVs.

I'm not saying give up technology or convenience; but we absolutely need as top priority a paradigm shift in how our industry influences our ecosystem. We need it desperately, because every species brought to extinction slightly subtracts from the monumental beauty of the planet.

[Anonymous No.5531112]

lmfao

[Anonymous No.5531111]

>>5531096
>prefers magic over science, lets let the nature gods protect us

fuck no, we need industry to survive

[Anonymous No.5531115]

>>5531111
what the hell are you talking about.
of course we need industry; but we need industry that doesn't do irreparable damage of any sort to Earth's ecosystems.

[Anonymous No.5531122]

>>5531096
Or you know we could just stop having kids, and take control of our evolution, but MUH FREEDOMS.

[Anonymous No.5531123]

>>5531115
i agree
as far as we know the only life in the universe exists in the 6 mile blue band outside your window
when I hear some randroid fag go on about muh jerbs muh capital muh sweat of muh brow, i literally want to gouge their eyes out. one of these days I will.

[Anonymous No.5531125]

>>5531115
Humans are irreparable damage to the Earth's ecosystems.

[Anonymous No.5531130]

>>5531122
the negative evolution were going under, with retarded/genetically disabled (even little things like glasses/heart problems add up) being the ones having kids, will definitely cause us some problems further down the line

as much as 500 years ago anyone with bad eyesight would be ridiculed and kept out of the gene pool, nowadays a lkarge majority of people need glasses before old age

its a definite progression, but.. were not about to do anything about it, theres a baby in america born blind/mute/deaf and partially paralysed just crying in pain permanently, but the parents sued the courts to force them to keep it alive

having kids is just... what we do , and will always do

[Anonymous No.5531134]

>>5531130
WTF are you talking about.
wat does this have to do with clean industry.

[Anonymous No.5531135]

>>5531134
i was replying to the linked person, it is not a hard concept to understand

[Anonymous No.5531137]

>>5531130
I meant more curtail having kids till we get things under control.

[Anonymous No.5531156]

>>5531069
>thinks the image argues against climate change
>doesn't comprehend the fact that precisely because we know the atmospheric and thermal history of the planet we can estimate how much the current temperature deviates from the normal trajectory due to human action
Besides, the most recent data point in your graph is 575 million years ago. How you use that to draw any sort of conclusion about the current climate dynamics is beyond me.

>>5531130
>negative evolution
You idiot, you don't understand evolution. Retards like you think that natural selection has anything to with physical fitness. Biological fitness is a measure of relative contribution to the gene-pool. If certain phenotypes are enabled to propagate their genes, that doesn't make the population less fit or remove the effect of natural selection on the population. It only increases the fitness of those particular phenotpyes. Developing medical technologies shift selective pressures, but that doesn't mean that none remain. If anything, it will increase genetic diversity within our species, which is a good thing for the species as a whole because it increases our adaptive flexibility. More genetic diversity = more variance in traits.

[Anonymous No.5531187]

>>5531156
i did not imply negative evolution like its some sort of negative number thats a retarded idea

but in the current climate EVERYONE survives and has kids, theres no natural selection, all the defects are pouring into the system, but yeah, diversity will help in the future maybe

[Anonymous No.5531189]

>>5531187
>theres no natural selection
See, this is why you're such an idiot. There IS natural selection, but you are confused as to what natural selection is.

>all the defects are pouring into the system
In evolutionary biology, there's no such thing as a deficit. Only traits traits which aid or hamper reproduction. What determines the fitness of an individual is how much they are able to reproduce, given their phenotype, and - this is the important part - given the environment. If a particular trait would have stopped an organism from reproducing ten thousand years ago, but it doesn't anymore today, that means the fitness of individuals with that trait went up. That doesn't mean, however, that there is no more natural selection. Like I said, it only means that selection pressures have changed.

[Anonymous No.5531193]

>>5531130
>as much as 500 years ago anyone with bad eyesight would be ridiculed and kept out of the gene pool

500 year ago most people didn't know how to read, and to not be able to do agricultural work your eyesight have to be truly abysmal.

But for those that could read 500 years ago, they'd probably get glasses if their eyesight was bad (which have been around since the 13th century in the nose worn version, and earlier in the form of reading stones).


So the next time you want to post your made up verison of the world, go to /lit/ and label it as fiction.

[Anonymous No.5531210]

>>5531083
>>5531096
>>5531115
>>5531123

>the environmentalists' hypocrisy
>lets keep all species from going extinct because industry is causing unnatural extinction.
>disregards adaption,natural selection.
>keeping things from going extinct is in itself unnatural
>they cannot see into this arrogance
>this is why environmentalists never win debates; they are incompetent.

bonus: All the while they enjoy the benefits of industry, and want us to take them seriously.

lelelele I shiggity diggity too I guess hehehe

[Anonymous No.5531224]

>>5531210
So remind us again then why acid rain, traffic pollution or killing everything in the oceans etc is good for us?

>im too busy being edgy XD

[Anonymous No.5531228]

>>5531210
>destroy earths ecosystem
>"it's natural"

[Anonymous No.5531232]

>>5531069
Carbon taxes are what they,the proverbial THEM, will use to control literally every facet of your life involving energy usage. (And what part of your life doesn't?) Global warming is the manufactured crisis intended to do just that.
And parrots are parrots.

[Anonymous No.5531237]

>>5531228
>20% increase in CO2
>OMG THE EARTH IS DESTROYED!
You still wonder why no one takes you seriously?

[Anonymous No.5531235]

>>5531232
>they,the proverbial THEM

[Anonymous No.5531247]

>>5531237
>believes enviromentalists believe a 20% increase in co2 destroys the earth
damn i just cut myself on your edge

[Anonymous No.5531264]

"Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by2012"

wattsupwiththat.com

[Anonymous No.5531269]

>>5531228
>>5531224

one thing I love about destroying environmentalists, is using historical thinking, as I am about to do now.

our co2 concentration is about ppm, compared to the luscious, bio diverse climate of the Jurassic period, which was 1800 ppm. that's over 3 times the concentration now.

>but... but... carbonic acid!

the weakest acid, ever, can be removed from solution by simple surface tension (shaking your pepsi bottle).

time to grow up. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html


>humans destroy ecosystem

> completely disregards natures vigorous thrashes of violence: disease, mass extinction, quasars,black holes... need I go on?

environmentalists will forever lose. lol.

[Anonymous No.5531270]

>>5531269
*about 350 ppm

[Anonymous No.5531275]

>>5531270
http://co2now.org/

395 ppm already.

[Anonymous No.5531280]

>>5531232
Right, there is a globally coordinated conspiracy going on, that was started at the end of the 19th century when it was first published about. This discussion that started within the scientific community, and stayed there for a long time before politicians were even warned about it, was all orchestrated by a select few, of course, who meant to dominate the world with carbon taxes more than a hundred years later.

Fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.5531279]

>>5531269
>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Leave it to geologists to try to cast doubt over simple physical ideas they don't fully understand, global warming is real get over it and it doesn't refer to your 'hurr dur natural cycles'.

[Anonymous No.5531288]

>>5531269
>our co2 concentration is about ppm, compared to the luscious, bio diverse climate of the Jurassic period, which was 1800 ppm. that's over 3 times the concentration now.
You do understand the salient fact that this is not the period in which mankind evolved, right? Do you even get how ecosystems work? The fact that there have been periods of higher CO2 concentrations in geological history are completely fucking irrelevant, since humans were not around then. Society as we know it today would not function in the climate of the Jurassic because we are not adapted to that climate.

[Anonymous No.5531289]

>>5531269
>completely disregards natures vigorous thrashes of violence: disease, mass extinction, quasars,black holes... need I go on?
how is this even an argument? Clearly shows your lack of comprehension of the subject discussed

[Anonymous No.5531307]

>>5531279
>>5531289

>failure to come up with a counterargument, resorts to adhominem, and contradiction.

>>5531288
>humans were alive during the ice age, where it was 180ppm.


Angry tears? Love em.

[Anonymous No.5531313]

>>5531307
>they're using big words and logic, I gotta hurry and use the "u mad" meme
In vain.

[Anonymous No.5531320]

>>5531280
>Right, there is a globally coordinated conspiracy going on, that was started at the end of the 19th century when it was first published about.
Yes. It's only ridiculous to you because you have not formed a conception of how or why a group of people such as a particular family might work together as a singular entity spanning multiple generations towards a singular goal. Because life happened on Earth first, whoever wins the Earth, wins.

[Anonymous No.5531318]

>>5531307
>humans were alive during the ice age, where it was 180ppm.
Does that mean that we could survive with the <span class="math">current[/spoiler] population numbers? Then why are you sitting in your cozy apartment rather than living on the fucking north pole wrapped in a bear skin while fending off polar bears? Human society is complacent. Adaptation doesn't come without cost. And by cost I mean severe economic cost as well as cost in human lives.
>Angry tears? Love em.
Try making an argument rather than sticking to green text and empty rhetorics.

[Anonymous No.5531319]

>>5531189
And the fact you are arrogant and wrong makes you the biggest idiot of all. You memorized your biology classes like a good boy but you don't see the big picture, the rules of the game have changed. Having a poor eyesight or a weak heart doesn't make you more adapted to your environment, it is a part of your environment that is adapting itself for you. And the more you allow organisms with deficits (traits that would hamper reproduction were humans to live outside society) to reproduce, the more the environment (read other humans) has to adapt itself for them.
We are applying a constraint so that the usually unfit is able to reproduce. Unfit in the sense that if things go wrong sometime in the not-so-near future, some global catastrophe, the humans left then will be unfit for hunting or resisting diseases among other things, because there won't be no more the infrastructure present for humans to apply that constraint. And then all your bullshit talk about natural selection evolutionary biology will be void.

[Anonymous No.5531321]

>>5531111
When the whole planet gets fucked up I guess there won't be technological advance.

[Anonymous No.5531329]

>>5531313

I'll bring up more points when you fools come up with a counterargument.

[Anonymous No.5531341]

>>5531319
Sigh. You just don't get it. Let me be clear and repeat myself one more time. <span class="math">{\bf Fitness~by~definition~is~dependent~on~the~local~environment.}[/spoiler] Saying shit like
>usually unfit
isn't helping your case because it shows you don't know a goddamn thing about evolution. Whether an individual would bu unfit in another environment is completely fucking irrelevant to the survival of the species, because we're not IN a different environment. Suppose though that, hypothetically, a major catastrophe were to take place that knocks out all medical care. The fact that we have people with different phenotypes that are not suited to the new environment doesn't have any consequences for those that are. Like I said earlier, there is no such thing as a deficit when it comes to traits. For instance, a trait which you would consider to be 'bad' might prove useful in a different environment. Treating people for sickle cell anemia for instance isn't a bad thing, because this deficit also happens to make people resistant to malaria. So should medicare completely fall away, then I'm still glad we have people like that around because they will keep the species going if malaria were to suddenly become a global problem. The point here is that even though a particular trait might seem to reduce fitness, it can be beneficial if the environment changes.
> all your bullshit talk about natural selection evolutionary biology
If I were a less well composed man I'd be annoyed at how unbelievably goddamn dumb you are.

[Anonymous No.5531343]

>>5531329
I just did you moron.
-> >>5531318

[Anonymous No.5531354]

>>5531318
>why aren't you living in the north pole

idk about you, but I was born down here. I wonder why people in alaska and greenland stay way up there in the cold! Hmm such a mystery.

I guess I should like, move to the congo and all since its warmer.

I guess we aren't allowed in space since its like,you know, cold up there, right?

Since, like

You know...

We aren't capable of adapting to things...

No such thing as heaters..

I mean you know...

>fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.5531360]

>>5531354
Way to miss the fucking point. How about you respond to:
>Adaptation doesn't come without cost. And by cost I mean severe economic cost as well as cost in human lives.

>We aren't capable of adapting to things...
You honestly don't get the difference between adaptation of individuals to the local environment, and societal adaptation or adaptation in the biological sense?

[Anonymous No.5531383]

>Adaptation doesn't come without cost. And by cost I mean severe economic cost as well as cost in human lives

>implying that some things are free/ costless

No shit you blockhead its going to cost you some money to buy adaptive clothing (coats), or some resources to make them.

> You honestly don't get the difference between adaptation of individuals to the local environment, and societal adaptation or adaptation in the biological sense?

The very fact that we are here on this rock floating in space is proof that we have either adapted, or accepted different aspects of our environment.An organism that doesn't adapt for colder weather will most likely die.

Amd social adaptation? Really? Hurrr I've never changed my personality when I'm with my friends!

You can't be this retarded.

Are you a woman?

[Anonymous No.5531393]

>>5531341
You are the one who doesn't get it and fails to grasp simple concepts by sticking to what you have memorized and not thinking for yourself. Appealing to ad hominem constantly doesn't help your case either. I will give you an extreme example, maybe that will help you.

Say we have a technology that allows people who suffer from some sort of genetic blindness to see. We don't have that yet but we're getting there. Now these blind people who used to not reproduce do reproduce. And the more they reproduce, the more they spread their phenotype across the species. Now this example is going to get a little bit extreme, but this is just to aid in your comprehension. I hope you will agree that IF EVERYONE BECOMES FUCKING BLIND AND THERE IS NO MORE MEDICAL CARE THEN EVERYONE IS GOING TO DIE. This is because the ability to see is a trait useful in the vast majority of environments where life can prosper, NOT JUST YOUR FUCKING LOCAL ENVIRONMENT. And so by allowing usually unfit organisms to reproduce, that is ORGANISMS THAT WOULD BE UNADAPTED TO MOST ENVIRONMENTS, you are making sure that if the environment changes, your species will go extinct.

[Anonymous No.5531399]

>>5531383
> its going to cost you some money to buy adaptive clothing (coats), or some resources to make them.
>Amd social adaptation? Really?
Holy fucking shit, you really don't get the difference. And apparently you can't read either, because I said <span class="math">societal[/spoiler] adaptation, not <span class="math">social[/spoiler] adaptation. As in, a societal dynamics adapting to changing climate. Societal factors such as infrastructure management, disaster relief financing, etc. And you have the nerve to call me retarded when you fail to grasp such a simple fucking point?

I'm not talking about <span class="math">individuals[/spoiler] adapting you fucking moron. I'm talking about economic costs for SOCIETIES, that come with changing climate. Multi-generation costs that are undesirable, and are to be avoided because they halts progress. You cannot really think that a changing climate is going to be without consequence for our economy, can you? How much did the last major hurricane in the US cost, for instance? With climate change, these disasters will increase in frequency and severity, to which we - as a society and as a species - can of course adapt, but not without economic costs.

[Anonymous No.5531442]

>>5531393
Goddammit. I'll stay patient here, and we'll go over it one more time. First, I get what your point is. I honestly get what you are trying to say. I do know, however, that it is wrong. You, on the other hand, don't seem to get that I understand your point, and therefore you fail to see mine.

Let's break it down in simple words, so you can understand. I'm going to point out a critical fault in your argument, that stems from you not understanding evolution.

>IF EVERYONE BECOMES FUCKING BLIND
There's the problem. Right there. Why? I'll emphasize by using caps, because you seem to like it. Here goes. THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE OF GENETIC DIVERSITY. There is too much fucking gene flow between populations to make everyone express the same goddamn phenotype. You're not really suggesting that because we now treat people with genetic huntingtons, to name just an example, everyone on earth inevitably will end up with huntingtons, are you?

For some reason you seem to think that increasing the number of different genes in a population (i.e. increasing diversity) will lead to a dominance of those genes (i.e reducing diversity). It should be obvious that this is wrong.

>sticking to what you have memorized and not thinking for yourself
Stop it. You're the one who can't seem to grasp basic fucking logic here.

[Anonymous No.5531454]

>>5531399
>implying our climate is the only safe climate.

Dense,very dense.

Right now we have the technological capability to live in outer space. We have the technological capability to live on the moon,or mars. Those are very different climates. And both of them would be Profitable to our current climate. IMAGINE HOW VALUABLE THEY WILL BE TO AN ECONOMICALLY DEPRIVED SOCIETY.

Costs are relative, when you compare them to profits. Higher CO2 would mean larger plant life, and warmer climate. So, subsequently, we would have more produce and spend less on heaters.


The point is, you fail to make any solid points that can withstand common sense. We will adapt, as we always have. Whatever it takes to survive, we will do that. IF YOU THINK WARMER WEATHER IS GOING TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO OUR SPECIES THEN YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.

[Anonymous No.5531471]

>>5531454
>Right now we have the technological capability to live in outer space. We have the technological capability to live on the moon,or mars.
Individuals can live in space or on the moon for a very limited amount of time.
We do not have the technology to maintain entire societies outside of Earth for extended periods of time.

[Anonymous No.5531483]

>>5531471

We actually can.

[Anonymous No.5531506]

>>5531483
Why would we want to though? Not much up there until we get good at space mining

[Anonymous No.5531514]

>>5531454
>implying our climate is the only safe climate.
Let me stop you right there. I did not imply that at all, which you would realize if you weren't such a goddamn moron. This climate - not necessarily the only one we could survive in - is however the climate that we are used to. Deviating from that is undesirable for reasons mentioned (and ignored completely by you) earlier.

>So, subsequently, we would have more produce and spend less on heaters.
The idiocy is staggering. Spending less on heaters. Holy fuck. Do you realize that not everyone heats their home? That some people actually cool it down and shit?

>We will adapt, as we always have.
Yeah, I know. That's missing the point. Again.

[Anonymous No.5531517]

>>5531442
I wonder why I stated twice that I was giving you an extreme example, maybe I should have emphasized that, an EXTREME EXAMPLE, as in exaggerated, to aid in your comprehension, which despite you affirming it doesn't seem complete yet.

Of course not everyone is going to become blind if we make it possible for all blind people to reproduce. But it is fair to say that if our environment changes and there is no more an infrastructure for medical care, then it is highly likely that in this new environment a species that will survive must have a basic set of traits : ability to see/hear/smell, to feel touching/heat/pain, internal organs that can function properly without the assistance of an external machine and so on. If however you allow people who have a deficiency in any of these traits to reproduce, on the long run you will end up with a vast majority of the population missing one or more of these crucial traits. You fail to see that while we are increasing diversity, we are also increasing the preponderance of these genes.

[Anonymous No.5531522]

>>5531506
Rare elements, helium 3, it would also be the frontier to future planetairy bases. Almost Everything would become cheaper, and the amount of technological improvement would probabbly jump to about 300% more.

Our species would be spread all over the solar system instead of just one basket.

[Anonymous No.5531529]

>>5531454
Hint he is arguing that climate cahnge will cost us more than preventing it, hence we should try to prevent it.

Just pointing this out, becasue you clearly lack the reading comprehension and/or are a massive autist.

[Anonymous No.5531538]

>>5531522
Definitely a good reason to go to space, although currently the R&D costs are very high so its going to be a while until it becomes a reality. Until stuff on earth gets to be extremely expensive it probably won't happen

[Anonymous No.5531575]

>>5531514
It costs less to cool a home. Not everything is proportional, silly.

>deviating from that is underirable
Opinion

Lots of christians deviated from their comfortable beliefs.

And ---> not addressing the more produce.

You still fail to come up with a valid counterargument. Hence, environentalists cannot win debates because they are incompetent.


Also,
>adaptation is not the point
You fucking idiot its the root of the entire debate.

Helloooo? Anybody in there??? *looking at your skull* anybody awake in there???

So tell me, are you people going to complain about "polluting space" when the time comes?

[Anonymous No.5531585]

>>5531517
>You fail to see that while we are increasing diversity, we are also increasing the preponderance of these genes.
No, I don't and I never denied this. All I'm saying is that the above statement is logically inconsistent with the below statement.
>on the long run you will end up with a vast majority of the population missing one or more of these crucial traits

In the upper statement you're saying we're increasing diversity. In the statement below that one, you're claiming the exact opposite, to wit, reduced diversity. You're saying that increasing genetic diversity will result in phenotypic homogeneity. Increasing the number of different genes in a population will ALLWAYS result in a wider range of traits. You see what I'm getting at there or should I explain it once more?

[Anonymous No.5531591]

>>5531517
Why would you present an "extreme" example if you aren't willing to defend it? If it works to your advantage its a valid reference, but once the other guy debunked it you seem to want to sweep it under the rug as invalid.

[Anonymous No.5531599]

>>5531529
And you know that it will cost us more for a fact?

You don't think that it may benefit us? Hence more vegitation. Hence more food.hence, cheaper food.hence less starvation.hence less poverty.

You really think that. Climate like in the jurrasic period will *cost* us?

If anything its profitable.

[Anonymous No.5531601]

>>5531575
I see the problem here. You think I'm an environmentalist, and so you have decided already that I have no arguments. Which is why you chose to ignore them, and replace them with what you THINK I'm saying. Honestly, trying to argue with you is pointless because you really cannot seem to get simple and concise arguments. You miss the fucking point again and again, and then claim victory. Fuck, if I were to debate you in real life I'd have a hard time not bashing in your goddamn skull for being too stupid. I really wonder how you ended up on the science board.

[Anonymous No.5531623]

Lol you fucking suck at debating you just crumpled to the floor crying like a little bitch.

>id fuck you up in real life

Man, my fucking stomach hurts from laughing.

[Anonymous No.5531628]

>>5531599
What about deserts expanding, extreme weather, lack or rain and overabundance of rain?

What about sea level rising by lets say 5m, can you even imagine how much that would cost to lets say new york? I'm willing to bet that even that is enough to pay for some greenhouses to get that increase in vegitation you are looking for.

What about millions of niggers fleeing from their shitholes that canät support the population to the areas of increased food (canada north europe and russia for example)

Sure thing i would be entirely fine with little warmer climate here in north europe but countries like italy, spain, usa, china and india will suffer immensly.

[Anonymous No.5531631]

>>5531623
There's no point in continuing a moot discussion now is there? You consistently fail to see the arguments. I'm not going to waist my time with you then, because it's like trying to play chess with a monkey. The monkey won't get when I win.

[Anonymous No.5531637]

>>5531599
>extreme weather phenomena are good for us
Turn off FOX, the bozo rays seem to be affecting your brain.

[Anonymous No.5531649]

>>5531599
>Hence more vegitation. Hence more food.hence, cheaper food.hence less starvation.hence less poverty.
That's beyond retarded. Have a little read here and you'll see why:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

[Anonymous No.5531651]

>>5531628
And then gods hand will come down from the sky and tickle my balls.

I can pull facts out of my ass too

[Anonymous No.5531657]

>>5531651
You think the economic consequences of climate change haven't been estimated? There's a 600 page cost-benefit analysis produced by the IPCC. Read it before you say stupid shit like this.

[Anonymous No.5531681]

>>5531585
Yea I realized something was wrong when I posted it, homogeneity would only end up happening if they constantly made more babies. Looks like you're right on that one, but that doesn't make you less of an ass. At least I suppose you now agree that the fitness in another environment is not completely irrelevant to the survival of the species.

[Anonymous No.5531709]

>>5531681
>Yea I realized something was wrong when I posted it,
Well, at leas we're getting somewhere.
>homogeneity would only end up happening if they constantly made more babies.
Not only that, but they would have to make babies with each other exclusively (inbreeding to express recessive genes) or else the genotype won't translate to phenotype, but also, everyone else would have to <span class="math">stop[/spoiler] reproducing.

>the fitness in another environment is not completely irrelevant to the survival of the species.
What I've been saying all along is that the fitness in another environment is hard to predict, and thus, genetic diversity will only be beneficial because it ensures adaptive flexibility. That's the point where we differ, and the point you fail to see. You think that keeping these phenotypes will be bad for the species if environmental circumstances change, and I think quite the opposite. In fact, many different phenotypes will increase the chances that there is one that will thrive, should environmental circumstances change (the sickle cell anemia example).

[Anonymous No.5531722]

>>5531591
The extreme, exaggerated example was "if you allow people with a certain trait to reproduce, everyone will end up with that trait". What I explained then was that if you allow people with certain traits to reproduce, in the end most will have one or more of these traits. This is the unexaggerated version, so contrary to what you are saying I did defend my example. However I was mistaken.

[Anonymous No.5531730]

>>5531657
Liberal jewish propaganda zionist bullshit, I don't need to read that.

[Anonymous No.5531733]

>>5531730
I accept your surrender.

[Anonymous No.5531738]

>>5531730
yeah nice argument bro
>Lol you fucking suck at debating you just crumpled to the floor crying like a little bitch.

[Anonymous No.5531768]

>>5531733
>>5531738
>>5531657

Engineering your own victory, samefag?

[Anonymous No.5531771]

>>5531768
Rather a third party. I wish we had poster IDs here.

[Anonymous No.5531778]

>>5531768
>Engineering your own victory, samefag?
Nope, you're doing it all for me.

[Anonymous No.5531792]

>>5531319
>not believing in biology class but rather his own perspective
Why leave /x/?
>by what you have just wrote it is greatly implied that you wanna get rid of these people with deficiencies even if they are very little (glasses, alergies)
Because the world is run by people who are physically perfect and genocide is always the answer
> resorts to insults when /sci/ is clearly not /b/ to prove his point
No thats how you dont prove your point

[Anonymous No.5531797]

>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.5531807]

>>5531709
>You think that keeping these phenotypes will be bad for the species if environmental circumstances change

Now I don't think anymore it will be bad for the species, I just think it will be bad for the fraction of the population keeping that phenotype. Diversity increases the chances that a part of the population will thrive, I agree with that, and I also get the sickle cell anemia example, but no matter what I can't see how for instance genetic deafness could thrive in a different environment over those who have the ability to hear...unless we find out that these deaf people are the only ones immune to a new killer virus. That seems a bit far-fetched but alright, I get the point.

[Anonymous No.5531815]

>>5531792
>Why leave /x/?
Not from /x/
>Because the world is run by people who are physically perfect and genocide is always the answer
I never said nor implied that
>No thats how you dont prove your point
I'm not the one who resorted to insults in the first place.

Please try again

[Anonymous No.5531834]

>>5531807
>Now I don't think anymore it will be bad for the species, I just think it will be bad for the fraction of the population keeping that phenotype. Diversity increases the chances that a part of the population will thrive, I agree with that, and I also get the sickle cell anemia example
Great, now we're really getting somewhere. It seems you've nuanced you're original point quite substantially, which I can appreciate.
> but no matter what I can't see how for instance genetic deafness could thrive in a different environment over those who have the ability to hear...unless we find out that these deaf people are the only ones immune to a new killer virus.
What's important to remember is that the reproductive advantage people with these genotypes <span class="math">might[/spoiler] have, is not necessarily apparent judging by their current phenotype. I think it's safe to assume that being deaf will not offer a person any type of particular advantage, but what is a real possibility is that the genetic cause of this trait is associated with traits that are more subtle and not immediately obvious. For instance, it could be that these people are deaf because they produce an enzyme which selectively degrades the stereocilia of cochlear hair cells, but it also happens to degrade the flagella of dangerous bacteria (which are very similar in molecular structure to stereocilia) making them disease resistant.

[Anonymous No.5531884]

>>5531834
Alright then. I can also appreciate you stopped insulting me before I started agreeing with you. By the way I'm not the guy you were responding to in the first place, I only joined in at >>5531319

[Anonymous No.5531893]

>>5531884
It seems that all matters of disagreement have been resolved, and so this day wasn't a complete waste.

Good times.

[Anonymous No.5532533]

I hope all of you get a horrible sick feeling in your stomachs when 20 years have passed and you end up having to pay out the nose for food and water because Anthropocentric Climate Change fucked the biosphere so badly.

[Anonymous No.5532537]

>mfw I'm studying combustion
>this thread

lel

[Anonymous No.5532547]

>>5531210
Protecting individual species becuase muh pandas is fucking stupid, sure, but you're actually trying to justify ecosystem destruction? What do you think an ecosystem is, some animal anarchist paradise designed by "libuhrul enviornmentalists"? No, you fucking child, it's where you get your food and resources.

I wish we had Teddy Roosevelt back.

[Anonymous No.5532588]

>>5532537
oh god i LEL'd

[Anonymous No.5532596]

stop bumping this shit

[Anonymous No.5532598]

>>5532537