Is that even thing?

Being pro gun to me is like bring pro shoe. Guns are tools like shoes and doors.

The question is more of how should we use guns.

Which is an issue of ethics which is more abstract than politics.

As someone involved in genetics, ethical discussions of viral weapons is more interesting to me. Like should we weapons small pox.

Yes, says the person who worked for the CDC and works in Microbial Genomics.

Guns are tools used by people, so the issue is one of how people should use guns more so than the gun itself, but whatever.

Currently, my research is more about defense.

The stuff I work with is a lot scarier than guns, so guns don't interests me too much because guns have a limited, local scope.

Like you can only kill who is in your area. It doesn't spread geometrically. The limit is the local people.

Again, it's my field... Guns are outside my field. How virulent pathogens are is in my field, so politics regarding genetic research is more relevant to me.

And I'm likelier to get sick than be shot.

So, what do I think of gun? Don't care so long as I'm not being shot at.

Your chances of dyinf from a pathogen are WAAAAAAAAY higher than being shot.

The flu can randomly be lethal and people get it all the time.

Yes, because viruses can cause subtle damage to tissues of organs. Like a cold could turn into heart failure.

Humans have historically been killed by disease at higher levels than by guns are swords.

Cold and flu viruses can turn serious and lethal real quick

You know bacteria and viruses can do what is called horizontal gene transference, right. That is fancy speak to say they can swap parts among themselves and change virulence.

Staph bacteria and e coli love to do this.

How do you get a staph infection?

The bacteria is on your skin.

Basically, yea, a nasty staph infection can take you out.

That makes no sense, but whatever.

So would it not make more sense for you to be pro medicine than say pro gun lol

Your chances of needing a gun are lower than you being sick, so, mathematically, politics concerning the spread of diseases would me more relevant

So, we are going with trends over reason. Got it.

No, in interests. Basically, you can mathematically state a person randomly meeting a mugger, robber, or gunman shooting up a place is drastically lower than randomly running into a lethal pathogen.

So in level of interests, including discussion time, it is more logical to allocate time and interest to discussing medical issues since it is more relevant, objectively.

Got it, you like guns, but how might your life end?

With a gun? Doubt it.

You're human, right. So you will die, right?

Do you think it will be by a gun?

So, do you want to live as long as you can?

So, how might guns help you live longer if they likely won't be a factor in your death?

Do you like guns over not dying from heart issues?

Again, which do you like more. Guns or not dying?

So, doesn't that imply you should look at health related policies AND THEN gun related policies?

Bingo

Again, that's like being pro shoe. The issue is how we should construct healthcare.

As a scientist, I find what common people think annoying.

So?

Average people aren't that educated, so they make dumb decisions and then die early.

Honestly, I'm sort of pro creating social incentives for people to not have kids, because those of less intelligence will be driven towards the cash or tax credit pay off and thus will reproduce less.

I'm not for eugenics just because of the fact genetics are dynamical and you can't target what people will have what sort of child precisely.

Other than that, I'm for it.

Population problems are due to dumb humans creating economic systems that scale with populations when ecosystems have finite carrying capacity.

Basically, when you need to cut back on people, you can't because your economy will start to suffer. But if you don't, people suffer due to decreased fitness,

I'm pro genetically engineering smart people who out compete dumb ones.

...What?

I work in Genomics.

What does that matter? Intelligence is an abstraction of which are genetic and epigenetic factors. The hard to predict parts are the epigenetics.

Why do we need to clone? We just need to modify the corresponding histone.

CRISPR is great for gene editing especially cas 9

I think most politicians and people are dumb, so the whole thing is an annoyance.

That's where I stand on politics.

It's the part that makes humans survive...

This is why I dislike average people... They say really wrong things.

@JeffDog , I am a Biologist.

@laurentia , what is the purpose of emotion?

Emotions are not novel, they serve a purpose.

What is that purpose?

What's that purpose?

How did they help us survive?

Snakes reproduce but don't love.

Why do humans?

Yes, like mammals.

Snakes are solitary. They don't raise their young.

Yes, and humans love AND sexually reproduce, so the purpose of love is more abstract than sex.

@JeffDog , I work in Genomics.

Not quite. Language is an evolution of the need of a social species where logic is abstractly built on language m

So, logic is more a consequence of humans becoming social.

Humans can't think of logic or math without thinking abstractly, first.

Yes, but what does it do?

Emotion correspond to motivation. You know, you eat because your hungry. So emotions motivate decisions, but it doesn't lead to good decisions in itself.

So humans being emotional simply means humans are prompted to do.

Large parts of emotional wiring share things with sensations.

Like if i punch you, it hurts.

If you're feelings are hurt, it, well, hurts.

So all you're really saying is humans feel sensations. That's it.

No.

You're familiar with Boltzman entropy?

Basically, energy from the sun hits the Earth in unequal ways. Well, just like how warm water cools, that heat dissipated.

If you take warm water, you have little order, but if you freeze it, you have order that forms the solid of ice.

The order of life is created from energy from geological vents and the sun dissipating where replication is a good way to do so.

Basically, life replicates because it is acting as entropy on the environment.

Single celled organisms came to be because of energy dissipation and hydrophobic and hydrophilic molecular interaction.

Emotions are waaaaaaay more abstract.

When you eat and shit, the shit is in a more disordered state. You built order in yourself but made the universe more disordered.

You know how oil and water don't mix. Something like that is how life came to be.

Basically, something got energy, the energy spread out, created order, and the most convenient way for it to spread is by life eating stuff

All the energy of your body likely came from the sun.

Life is nothing more than a really good solar powered engine.

I love mathematical elegance, and the math behind life is gorgeous.

Emotions are only slightly caused by neurons.

Is cortisol a neuron?

How about adrenaline?

Testosterone?

Affect and caused by are different.

And, I'm citing hormones.