Mawd

W/r/t specism or racial control ism wondering how you guys feel about conservation issues such as active pest control of invasive species. For example possums, cats, rabbits, and the like are often cuddly looking animals that many people around the world enjoy. However in case of a place like New Zealand all wild or semi wild versions of the above simply all have to die to protect endemic species of the region be they plant or animal. But the method of mass culling is not usually just via breaking their necks by trapping; it's by a rather nasty but environmentally dissoluble poison called 1080. Or in the case of rabbits a haemotoxin which attacks like it suggests the animal's blood. To suggest any type of method for a fellow man is certainly inhumane. To suggest the use of it for these NZ populations is speciest no? Yet they're the best methods of controlling hundreds of square kilometres of dense bush, plains, forest, and scrubland that we have to protect a natural ecosystem. As a speciest (?) when one gets to this point it's easy to adopt this position for domestic animals. I don't want them to be tortured, but i certainly know farmers and abotoirs can practice mistreatment that crosses firmly into torture. But I see little to no ecosystem advantage of their presence beyond animal byproducts or as I mentioned before the trampling and rejuvenation of bush mats. So I'd rather see the practice phased out than abandoned in its entirety because those animals do not belong in this environment. But another thing I've also mentioned is that animal byproducts are currently still required for the diagnosis of plant pathogens which is crucial for any plant industry. Or my other mention that agriculture still relies on animal cruelty both to identify viruses and to manage against pest animal infestations. It's quite costly to simply fence out an animal from an area; a mouse can fit through a hole the size of a wedding ring. Maybe this thought process is alien, or does not concern the average joe (simply another unfashionable question of the ills of modern society and thus pointless and distracting to mention in a discussion like this). But it's how I've been trained to think.

As someone likely to be engaged in 'homosexual intercourse' I find the subject of my previous quoted sentence to be entirely replaceable. It might also be time for us to remember that generally a person's notion of disgust can relate to their personal conservative or liberal values.I don't think I would be opposed to soylent green depending on things like necessity, utility, and palate. However at risk of derailing this topic I would say that the difference between eating people and men having sex with men (or WwW) is that sex is an act which can fulfill emotional and even physical needs while choosing to eat humans is an action emerging from choice of diet. Humans particularly have a wider subset of things to eat to satisfy eating or dieting needs. Whereas the subset available to satisfy sexual needs is typically much smaller. Expression of human sexuality is for consenting adults considered something of a human right in modern society, one I would dare claim is more closely guarded (or at least should be) than the right to decide what to eat. P.s I don't think I'm comfortable with how clinically detached that term is. There's no onus on others not to use it but one of my personal goals this year is to find a term for same sex that feels as natural as simply saying sex does. It should be easy to simply say 'sex' but apparently there are times when distinctions must be made. Like when someone wants to raise a talking point between two actions commonly held as immoral.

On the subject of human meat for human consumption. As I understand it it's an especially taboo action because of a higher likelihood of disease transmission; not just for any cultural squeamishness. Of course in a modern society you would probably have the tools and training to mitigate possibly all of those risks. This isn't supposed to mean too much w/r/t this thread but you can interpret the beginning of humanity's agricultural age as the beginning of the Holocene extinction event. Though of course certain megafauna would have died out before the rise of agriculture.

Speaking of wacky Japanese movies I think it's time to finally watch this. I just need to find the damn thing first.

I'm enjoying James Blake's latest album.

I remember reading/hearing somewhere (maybe here?) a major critique of the alien franchise is that the further you go along the less real the characters are. This might've been on a Thumbs podcast I really can't remember but basically the first Alien film has regular people in it. The successors have 2D cutouts and caricatures. I'm kinda in two minds over James Cameron's additions, mostly because I grew up with all of it. I watched the films in order but 11 year old me far preferred the dumb Aliens action movie. For a while I didn't have much to do with the movies but I did have a whole lot to do with the Dark Horse comic books which were full of scary alien hives, Queens, single monster stories, predator, and even Judge Dredd cross overs. Plus that rts style PS2 game and 2001's AVP 2 for PC. So I'm kind of spoilt by the EU. If I'd watched the films as they came out I might have been bummed out by the lessening of the mystery. But I'm not too sure; after all I did enjoy parts of Prometheus. Seeing how flattered those words make me feel I will co-sign this statement.

I don't know a distinct answer. But what I do know is that whenever I think about this kind of issue it's these things that run through my mind. Plus I think these add variety to the discussion in a pretty hearty way. If you guys take to this stuff I might go over my old ecology and botany papers to see what a freshened memory can also add. I don't really wish to read the entire thread right now but personally I don't have a problem with eating meat. I do have a problem with inhumane treatment of animals. Which obviously does go into the dish I eat especially I suspect if I buy cheaper meats which I do by choice and economic necessity. I've eaten vegan dishes, I have no problem doing so. In fact I positively love many of the ones I tried which were often Indian in temperament. But I suppose I don't really have a problem with the death of an animal if it makes ecological sense. I'm not trying to make the argument that if animal consumption stopped then many of the staple animals would be left without a solid economic reason to care or mis-care for them by humans. Although I would draw attention to it. I'll also draw attention to the idea that many highly specialised products come from animals including ingredients used in biochemistry, serology is the field I have the most (not a lot) of experience with. For those that don't know serology is a big part of the agricultural business as plant crops have to be routinely tested for viruses. Another use of animals in and of themselves is possibly in prevention of erosion. Now I don't know a whole lot of this either but the idea is that they trample the dead plant mats which opens up new spaces for growth to take hold of thereby preventing the soil from cracking and life from choked out of the soil. I can't really talk about ecological effects of animals without talking about the masses of CO2 being released through their belching and such. I couldn't not talk about transport costs in terms of oil for animals, feed, equipment, and plants, although from what I understand one of the biggest oil costs besides transport and storage of meat and vege produce is fertilizer. Most feed in NZ is grass based but I hear other countries largely use things like corn. Another problem with horizontal farming, particularly crop growing is that more fertilizer is required because of course a soil only retains its nutrients for so long and only replenishes those after many hundreds if not thousands of years. Because of this in addition to fertilizer land clearing is often necessary when the market for crops opens up further which can end up with reduced biodiversity as virgin lands are re-purposed for agriculture. The other part of agriculture is pesticide which does often directly result in the mass killing of animals, particularly rodents, lagomorphs, birds, and of course insects (these things can be prevented humanely but not everyone is convinced to take that route). The last thing I want to draw attention to with agriculture is that when you change the plant makeup of a biosphere you also change the insect makeup which can be heavily detrimental to both the land and the producer's economic interests. I don't know much about hydroponics so I'll leave that off the table for now. Edit: So I guess with all I've said the question I wrestle with isn't 'is it wrong?' or 'Is it doable?' But 'Is not eating meat a better use of Ecosystem Services?'. I think that's the question I'd really like to see a discussion about.

I heard that too. I actually held off on seeing it for the same reason. But after a while my memory of the article faded, the trailer seemed good enough and my partner really wanted to see it. I don't remember the article too well but it had something to do with the portrayal of his sexuality and the relationship between that and the central plot. On its own it's a fine film but nothing in film is ever truly divorced from context; least of all a biopic. During xmas I stayed with a cousin of mine who has a Staffordshire Bull Terrier cross. He's extremely friendly aggressively so and would certainly horrify most non-dog people (and/or you) as he bounds over to play with them. He's ah set to lose some of his more aggressive qualities after problems with roaming and dog fighting though so he's not going to be as much of a worry. It's funny though, the first day of my stay he went out for a few hours (their property is ready to be fenced but out of a family of three builders no-one has done it yet which annoys my cousin a hell of a lot) and ended up playing on the nearby beach with a random frenchman; the second day he was restrained by a member of the public, whisked away by the local council and returned with a $30 fine.

Resurrection is perfectly fine junk food entertainment and Alien 3 gets marks for trying to recapture the bunch of people with nothing to use vs monster paradigm the first one did so well. Three is not my perfect alien film by far but I think it deserves more credit than it got for re-establishing the series' grimness. Aliens was in parts a grim film but I think the action ended up overriding a lot of the horror; it was still tense but power loaders and nukes kinda ruined that by the end. Aliens Resurrection however was a theme park ride. Still it's interesting to hear about the filming of the underwater scene, the basketball shot, or seeing the alien queen's den which was pretty enough to win a technical lighting award.

On the subject of Ghost in the Shell adaptations I hear there is already a miniseries out which is trying to be more faithful to the manga for better or worse (I wouldn't know). Also along with a live action Hollywood film in the works there is a new Ghost in the Shell movie coming from the same team that did the miniseries. Personally I prefer the first movies because I like the art style more. Plus well I've only seen some sections of the tv show but the city in the films feels more canon to me; more fitting with the plot. I think the chase scene after the garbage truck, the main song from the score playing while the camera works through slice of life sections of the city, and the final scene with the tank are some of my favourite moments in film.

The Imitation game was enjoyable.

I remember reading about some societies around ancient Mesopotamia having equal representation of Women on their city councils as well as rights to land ownership and divorce. The same source did describe that sadly it didn't last. As for Ancient Greece a classics teacher of mine once described the region as being home originally to matriarchal societies that were overthrown by more expansion focused aggressors. Who were then overthrown by more violent cultures. As he described it, when these cultures settled they took on some of the more peaceful traits.

Yeah I know what you mean, I'm far more tempted to go into a movie at least with a view of the trailer and then often after reading some words on what the movie is trying to do. Like hearing that Selma is a civil rights movie that goes beyond what Hollywood biopics typically do is what would get me to see it. Or seeing a movie like Control by Anton Corbijn and knowing that unlike other biopics say, Walk The Line it doesn't have a typical three act structure. It can just as much damage my interest in a film. I put off seeing Interstellar at the theatre -something I later learned my boyfriend specifically wanted to do- because of conversations I'd read about the film particularly with how it handles emotional content and its ending. (plus I haven't been a fan of Nolan for some time, he comes up with interesting situations and proceeds to explain the crap out of them, add to that his usual problems with emotions, and female characters.) It can be pretty fun to go into a film blind and it's something my partner does really well; he often finds cool-but-broken films that I wouldn't think twice about. But it's mostly about how we watch movies I think, he goes in for the experience and soaks it up while half the time I'm trying to 'read' the film (unless it's one of the big dumb movies like the comic book films or Pacific Rim). We both like what we do but it can be hard to agree what to watch sometimes.

I'm really sexcited for those movies particularly Foxcatcher and Birdman. Also I feel you on distribution. It's so frustrating hearing about awesome movies I need to see and knowing that they won't come out in NZ for another 2-3 months. It's pretty hard to stay blind going into those kinds of movies too. In fact, question time. How often do you guys see a movie without any info to what it is? Last time I did that it was The Drop with James Gandolfini and Tom Hardy. I found it to be a pretty solid form of an older slow burn Hollywood film you don't see much any more. I'm not sure if I'd have seen it I I knew about it but it was pretty good all the same.

BGOAT for me is depending on mood. Some times I am very likely to declare for Dwarf Fortress, others I think of the games I played while younger like the Spyro series for how 'video games' it is. I could even say Final Fantasy X for how much it resonated with my then tween self or how much of a touchstone it is for console gamers of my generation. But I realise now that ultimately my best game is formed not just by the game itself but by the context around it. So I have to say Natural Selection 2, a game that can be very frustrating. When conditions are met, it becomes a delicious soup of challenge, personal skill, team strategy, and communication. Beyond getting better at a game where the greatest challenge is other people the joy of this game is who I happen to be playing with. For a game I've played a year I have an awful lot of nostalgia for it. From once regular players who always colour the matches with their personalities to my first forays into competitive gaming I have a lot of positive memories for personal reasons I can barely describe. When I think of the other games I've played they don't give me the same breadth of memory even when they're of similar circumstances. The only game that might be similar is Nosgoth but that's still in closed beta so I'll have to wait and see. Sorry if this is a bit too tangential. I think maybe the 'best' requirement of a BGOAT is that if you were to forget about video games for years what would be the one game your mind would return to. Also to steal from the Indiana Jones topic if I had to name a best tv show I'd call it The Venture Bros because it manages to start out with the pulp feel of Indie and Johnny Quest genre tropes while also being all post modern and self aware about it and unafraid to expand on token characters and turn them into core aspects of an internal mythos.

I had a similar email from my Dad recently. My advice is don't go back; there's likely nothing to salvage except a fresh feeling of frustration and hurt.

Hah yeah that was pretty neat. I checked out another song of his and the comp is so delightfully mad. It kind of reminds me of early Battles minus the vocals.

So The Babadook was super creepy. I think it definitely lives up to expectations. I don't think its the type of movie that will make you check under your bed. But it can threaten to stifle you under a darkly oppressive air of dread.

Its been some months but I am or was fairly sure that in an episode with other physicists he spoke briefly about how he was a few years into a BsC before dropping out. But maybe they were talking about someone else.

The pedantry is fine. I have no idea on the finer points of the BBC as I have never been a part of Britain. Same for the pop band fact; although I suppose I may have heard about it on the show.

BBC 4's The Infinite Monkey Cage anyone? It's a really special science podcast that features a physicist, and a person who almost became a physicist but decided mid dissertation that a life of comedy was more enriching. Anyway each episode they invite at least one comedian and one scientist along to discuss questions surrounding science and science communication like 'Is irrationality genetic?', 'Can science save us?', 'Are humans uniquely unique?' and other such goodies. srsly check it out it's great : D

I agree that it's a super interesting concept but I'd just like to say that it's been some time since I looked at it and I'd have to look through my old lab book (just finished browsing through my old lecture slides) to be certain. As it stands the hemispheres of our brain being unconnected until recently was heavily passed around as fact in class but I've lost the ability to verify it. In other news I read a random news story today and learned that one of the most amazing people I've ever known died today in a speeding and possibly alcohol related car accident. She will be remembered by the state as the first road death of the year but her friends will always remember her as the impossibly bubbly girl who was always the most fun person to be around. This feels dorky to note but it's only the second death I've ever felt outside my family ties; part of me is starting to cry but I'm reminding myself that such an awesome person's death shouldn't be marked by sadness but with a celebration of her amazing life.

See I think those are both a step backward because religion and spirituality are two exclusive concepts and from what you're suggesting I would be using a word that wholly excludes religion explicitly while trying to read between lines or explain to people that it means that I reject spirituality as well. At this point I wonder if Rationalist is really such a bad choice. It may be a loaded concept in that if one were to declare one as such they may be expected to strive more-often for rational behaviour. But not everyone that declares themselves religious or spiritualist become the most strident of followers. However I guess I could warm to the usage of secular although in most contexts that I'm familiar with it it's used merely to separate the influence of a religious institution than to state that an individual does not believe in them. I'd throw out the usage of skeptic for the reasons Bolegium described. On the concept of spiritual experiences I'd agree with Nachimir in that our brains are wired to appreciate events that have been labelled spiritual by default previously. Growing up I was brought up with my mother's families belief system which was fostered with the help of a new age philosophical institution which runs several primary schools around the world as well as taking adult classes. They taught scripture (from most dominant religions), classical philosophy, and new age philosophers such as Eckhart Tolle. What they were trying to say was that the hindu concept of the Atman was prevalent throughout all things, all religions, and was also every one of us. Anyway because of this I was brought up in a context where at least once a week I spent my evening reflecting on spiritual matters or asking myself what is truth, beauty (etc.) and meditating. Looking back I think those experiences and reflections are valuable but a spiritual context is not necessary for obtaining meaningful value from them. Its been a while since I studied this but from what I remember parts of the human brain were only recently connected (for our evolutionary timescale). What the suspected implication of this was that messages from one side of the brain might be interpreted as messages from another being namely a God who spoke to everyone.

In that case is there a commonly found word for both a non belief in gods and spirituality?'Rationalist' feels just a bit too snobby for me to use consistently. I mean it feels rational to not believe in either of those things but I'm hardly a consistently rational person. Edit: oh are you calling non-religious the alternative word? I don't exactly know the entemology there but to me 'non-religious' leaves the door open to spirituality. I guess I'll have to look into it.

I got the feeling she was wearing the suit to blend in or operate something. But maybe it was going for more Alien Resurrection styled madness. For the record Alien 3 is great and resurrection isn't half bad. But still seeing Hicks and Ripley together I was strongly reminded of the DARK HORSE comics. I'd love to see an Alien movie that picked up their plot lines like the cults that sprang up or the designer drugs made from Queen jelly. Looking back, for me the best part of the Alien series were those comics.