Commercial "Science"

[SuSa]

What is this about wiping out 90-95% of the world's population to improve humanity?

That's nonsense. If that was really a solution, then it wouldn't be OUR job to do that.

That is of course, if you believed in a power that is larger then humans.

We currently run the world, I do not believe in anyone above us. So it falls upon ourselves.

EDIT:
After I finish up GANTZ I'll make a blog so we can all argue against me.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

I'll get mah laptop.

Speaking of the advertisements, I agree with everyone here. I don't care much about them. They always delay my favorite cartoon starring that purple puppy in my avatar.

 

[El Nino]

When I read the title, I thought this blog was gonna be about something else entirely.

I don't think those examples are science fails. They're more like language ambiguities.

Whether viruses are classified as living or not is irrelevant to the makers of Lysol. They claim that their product renders viruses inactive. In common speech, people say "kill" when it comes to deactivating inanimate objects, as in, "Kill the lights." Of course, the manufacturers might have actually meant "kill," taking viruses to be living things, but that definition of "life" is only relevant to theoretical science, not to the applied technology. Arguing about it is like arguing semantics.

Also, "energy" means something different in the scientific field than it does in common speech, in which "energy" is synonymous with "fuel." In the commercial, they would say "energy" rather than "fuel" because "energy" is more of a well known buzzword. The point of a commercial is to get information out there; to do this, you have to use language that people understand. And, yes, there are multiple definitions for the same word, such that "energy" means different things in different contexts.

"Life" means something different to a biologist than it does to someone else. "Need" means nothing to an economist, but it is used in common speech.

When I used to tell people what my job was, they didn't know what "lab technician" meant. So I just said, "Chemist," and they understood. My job title was never actually "chemist," but it got the point across.

As for the skin treatment commercial, maybe they meant that it penetrates seven out of eight layers. But I wouldn't be surprised if they just got it wrong.

So, there. I nitpick your nitpick. Because I can.

You'd think after tens of thousands of years, we'd stop killing each other. =D

The ecologists have an explanation for that. And it ain't pretty.

I disagree, the world was a good place.

Until humans came along and ****ed everything up.

I was under the impression that life was always brutish and short ever since the first proteins combined into amino acids in the primordial ocean of early Earth. Life, on this planet, has never had it easy.

But when I've got personal **** going down, and somebody says I don't have the right to complain because children in Africa are dying of AIDS, or starving children in China would kill for the half-eaten burger I just threw away, it just makes me mad.

Actually, I would kill for your half-eaten burger. Could you, like, FedEx it to me?

The only problem I have with that argument is that some people who use it seem to think that the rest of the world is full of starving children in dire need of charity from the industrialized nations. But I think that people, anywhere in the world, are much more resilient than that. Starving kids and sick kids anywhere aren't waiting for your half-eaten burger; they're out working and trying to take care of themselves and their families.

On the other hand, perspective helps you choose the right words, even when you're just b*tching and whining about something trivial.

 

[skyjordan17]

I think you're main problem is that you're watching TV. Corporations make money when stupid people become convinced that they need whatever product said company is selling.

And BTW, isn't the whole "Social Darwinism" thing a little fascist?

 

[Cherry64]

I think you're main problem is that you're watching TV. Corporations make money when stupid people become convinced that they need whatever product said company is selling.

And BTW, isn't the whole "Social Darwinism" thing a little fascist?

Horribly so, Meet SuSa isn't he lovely

the sad messed up thing is, in our current worlds state, our best bet for survival is his plan. Our natural resources are diminishing faster than any anticipated, not a good thing as our population still grows.

I hear from a friend of mine (excuse the information if it's not correct) we have too many people for the earth to sustain. simply put we do not have enough resources to sustain the current population. He said in 10 years we are all screwed. natural resources will be gone unless we cut our population down to like 5 mil or something. thing is? how do we do that? also how would we keep our population alive? I've pondered this and have come up with a few answers

 

[Technodeath]

5 mil? that's a tiny bit too low dont you think?

 

[El Nino]

I hear from a friend of mine (excuse the information if it's not correct) we have too many people for the earth to sustain. simply put we do not have enough resources to sustain the current population. He said in 10 years we are all screwed. natural resources will be gone unless we cut our population down to like 5 mil or something. thing is? how do we do that? also how would we keep our population alive? I've pondered this and have come up with a few answers

I've heard that one many times. It's a common misunderstanding of facts that are not intuitive.

If we have too many people for the earth to sustain, how the h*ll are we all still here?

An ecosystem can sustain as many as it can sustain. When its limitations have been exceeded, the population will start to decline. It won't be pretty, but that's the reality.

What is also a reality is that if a population is still increasing (like the human population), that means the ecosystem has not maxed out yet on the number that it can sustain.

We don't need to cut down on our population; the planet will do that for us.

The problem is that we don't want the planet to do it for us because it's been doing that to us for thousands of years and it has always sucked. Very, very, VERY badly. So, it's in our best interest to work towards ecologically sustainable systems. It's difficult because it involves altering how we've previously handled technology, society, politics, economics, resource use and distribution, and population growth.

I don't know if we'll ever get there, but it's worth a shot.

Edit:

Also first statement is correct. I think it'd be best for humanity if we wiped out 90-95% of our population. Would people agree with me?

Probably not. Probably because that method of thinking is flawed. It's a reaction, not a solution.

I feel that I should point out that the most populated regions of the world are NOT the areas that consume the most resources per capita. There is one country in the world right now that contains 5-6% of the world's population, but it consumes 25% of the top 9 or 11 most widely traded commodities, things like oil, precious minerals and corn. If anything, applying your line of reasoning, SuSa, eliminating this 5-6% of the population, rather than the 90-95%, would be more efficient for freeing up more resources for the rest of the world. This 5-6%, after all, are the top consumers of natural resources per capita. And 5-6% is smaller than 90-95%, which makes a plan of elimination easier to carry out.

 

[Teran]

No, you have the right to complain about your own personal issues, but they are complaining about the grand scheme of things, when those truly ****ed by the world differ with their opinion. Its like rich white people listening to the blues.

Who's complaining?

Life's great. Having a less optimistic view on things doesn't mean you're complainings, it means you lower your expectations in life, and thus, are inherently happier because you're not constantly upset that you haven't reached this unachievable target.

Also, the fact of the matter is, I don't care about the senator with a tank shell in his left testicle, nor the little chld dying of starvation and AIDS. Who cares about the relativity between the situations of westerners and those in these circumstances? Sure they might be "happier" despite this, but they also live in vastly different societal circumstances.

Western society places a lot of mental and psychological pressures on its people, and last I heard, emotions were controlled by the brain. It doesn't matter if Kekeli Adeleye is unable to move because his muscles have atrophied so badly, because if I'm unhappy, I have every right to be. I'm unhappy for a reason, there is a root cause, I wouldn't be unhappy for no reason at all, that would be absurd.

But no, think of the children in Africa, I'm sure you do every day, and send them well wishing prayers.

 

[CRASHiC]

Teran, SuSa was talking about Genocide on people he doesn't feel worthy. If that's not unnecessary complaining, I don't know what is.

 

[Teran]

Sounds like a certain someone...

 

[TigerWoods]

When I read the title, I thought this blog was gonna be about something else entirely.

I don't think those examples are science fails. They're more like language ambiguities.

Whether viruses are classified as living or not is irrelevant to the makers of Lysol. They claim that their product renders viruses inactive. In common speech, people say "kill" when it comes to deactivating inanimate objects, as in, "Kill the lights." Of course, the manufacturers might have actually meant "kill," taking viruses to be living things, but that definition of "life" is only relevant to theoretical science, not to the applied technology. Arguing about it is like arguing semantics.

Also, "energy" means something different in the scientific field than it does in common speech, in which "energy" is synonymous with "fuel." In the commercial, they would say "energy" rather than "fuel" because "energy" is more of a well known buzzword. The point of a commercial is to get information out there; to do this, you have to use language that people understand. And, yes, there are multiple definitions for the same word, such that "energy" means different things in different contexts.

"Life" means something different to a biologist than it does to someone else. "Need" means nothing to an economist, but it is used in common speech.

When I used to tell people what my job was, they didn't know what "lab technician" meant. So I just said, "Chemist," and they understood. My job title was never actually "chemist," but it got the point across.

As for the skin treatment commercial, maybe they meant that it penetrates seven out of eight layers. But I wouldn't be surprised if they just got it wrong.

So, there. I nitpick your nitpick. Because I can.

Nickpick of your nitpick of my nitpick:

I do understand your point, but I stand by my belief that education and correctness is important. Maybe it is just because I'm a stickler for that...

If a company has done clinical trials to prove that its product can render the flu virus harmless, then I believe it should state exactly that. Scientists are concrete on the fact the viruses are not considered life forms, and Webster agrees too. I don't think it would be relevant only to theoretical science, since the product itself is proving its use. Why perpetuate misinformation, where you could take 2-3 minutes to explain the facts. Lol. I'm just a big stickler on these things that EVERYONE with an elementary education should know.

I stand by my rant.

 

[SuSa]

Sounds like a certain someone...

Compared to what I think would be good for the world, Hitler is nothing.

@El Nino
Who is to say that some, if not all of that 5-6% wouldn't be wiped out?

@CRASHiC
Who says anything is necessary complaining? Or do you base that off of other your morals and sense of beliefs?

 

[El Nino]

@El Nino
Who is to say that some, if not all of that 5-6% wouldn't be wiped out?

"Save the world. Kill yourself."

 

[SuSa]

I've thought of that before to be honest.

But how about the flipside.

"Save the world. Kill everyone."

 

[El Nino]

But...it just doesn't have the same catch to it.

"Save the world. Let's all jump off bridges."

That one doesn't sound as nice either. >:

 

[Mewter]

I have an idea for a commercial:

"Are you tired of carrying water around?"
"Yes! Yes I am! It's such a hassle!"
"Would you like a lighter, more efficient way to bring water into space?"
"Yes! Yes!"
"Introducing: Dehydrated water! Just add water to achieve results!"​

:D
/tries to lighten mood with unoriginal joke

 

[TigerWoods]

I bet you at least 9/10 of the waiters I'd ask in a restaurant wouldn't know what to do if I asked for a glass of dihydrogen monoxide.

 

[Teran]

I bet you at least 9/10 of the waiters I'd ask in a restaurant wouldn't know what to do if I asked for a glass of dihydrogen monoxide.

I think it's because most restaurants don't serve distilled and deionised water. Lol.

/geek

 

[Jin Kazama]

Tiger, that's not because people are stupid, they just didn't remember it from chemistry in high school, which only a few have had (or still have for that matter). Don't expect everyone to be a scientist and get mad when information is simplified (in other words, wrong) for the 'common' people.

Also, I wouldn't know what you would want either.

 

[TigerWoods]

Tiger, that's not because people are stupid, they just didn't remember it from chemistry in high school, which only a few have had (or still have for that matter). Don't expect everyone to be a scientist and get mad when information is simplified (in other words, wrong) for the 'common' people.

Also, I wouldn't know what you would want either.

My comment was more of a joke... lol.

None the less, I do think the molecular formula of water(H20) is well known.

Anyway... I'm not expecting everyone to be able to name me the second law of thermodynamics. I also expect things to be simplified for the public, as it should be. HOWEVER, I don't agree with bending definitions for the hell of it, since it causes some confusion and misinformation.

My view is that if you are lucky enough to be able to receive an education, you should use your privilege to the best of your ability. Education is one of the better things this world has got to offer.