You are suggesting that someone really bright could spend, say, 10 years studying biology in depth, 10 years studying physics in depth, 10 years studying chemistry in depth, 10 years studying cosmology in depth, and so on.

  • 0

You are suggesting that someone really bright could spend, say, 10 years studying biology in depth, 10 years studying physics in depth, 10 years studying chemistry in depth, 10 years studying cosmology in depth, and so on.

Category : EssayWritings

After many more years we finally understood this was the DNA molecule and how each gene could specify a protein.Then we started looking at the genome and seeing how genes interacted: turning one another on and off, moving from place to place, the importance of epigenetics, the role of the environment and so on.Now people are starting to look at how whole cells and even whole organisms work together: genes generate proteins which affect other proteins which affect the organism and also affect gene expression. BBC News – The virtual cell that simulates lifeBut this requires a lot of information and is only possible because we have massive amounts of computing power. I’m always for taking a wholistic view of any problems. If I’m playing tennis or running and I see a spider or beetle crawling around my sneaker; I’ll be honest – I’ll probably squash it. Originally Posted by Thrylix Should we care about the life of an insect? From a scientific point of view, you raise good questions.My own objection stems from a respect for life. the point is that modern science divides nature into following parts: physics, chemistry, biology, space studies etc. each parts can be sub divided into many more parts. but these main 4 parts are related together, linked together to form the whole universe. science forgot to study the link between physics, chemistry, biology, space studies. it is a cobweb like this;see how each parts of nature are interrelated to each other. now you get a whole picture of the universe. modern science is quite happy with the parts and doesn’t care about the whole. Originally Posted by Harold14370 Probably not. What’s your point? Evolution is that which survives, survives.

What good is it, then?” horgan said that holistic view cannot mke any prediction. but this is not true. in holistic view we know the entire system: the connection between parts of the system. then we can predict what will happen to the entire system if we do something on just a part of system. for example: if we know our entire body: the connection between organs and workings we can predict what will happen to the body if we do something in kidney or liver or heart etc. thus we can prevent future danger beforehand. in reductionist view we cannot do this. So instead of just having a team of chemists, you can have a team of chemists plus physicists plus engineers (or cosmologists or whatever else is needed). Originally Posted by xxx200 just tell me what are the problems of holistic approach to science? Probably complexity. Or there is biomechanics. Originally Posted by Ascended Do I really need to explain this??? Oh well, the point is we should only treat others in the way we would wish to to be treated ourselves, and since we wouldn’t wish to be killed indiscriminately for merely existing then why should we kill other living creatures just because they exist.Just a side note here, if we say yes it is fine to kill insects then why just insects? what about small mammals or reptiles or larger ones, I mean how would we and should we thus draw the line? Personally, I draw the line at people because that’s our own species. Whereas taking care on your actions as an individual encourages thinking more responsibly about the ecosystem.

I’ve never had a problem stepping on bugs, ever since I was a kid, and I’ve definitely stepped on more than my fair share of the little guys.However, I’ve seen some people object to the act. If lowly viruses are able to mutate their ability to enter living cells which have developed virally impervious membranes, cetainly insects would logically be able to go even further.Thus, of the trillions of insects, good and bad, which survive constantly, a few billion killed by humans will certainly not threaten insects’ existence. In a team, you have experts but everyone learns enough of everyone else’s area so they can communicate and collaborate. It is always better to work in a team.

We should only kill out of necessity, if something more advanced was to come along that saw us the way we see bugs would we wish that to kill us just merely because we exist? Originally Posted by Thrylix Should we care about the life of an insect? No. Like punctuated equilibrium, self-organized criticality is merely a description, one of many, of the random fluctuations, the noise, permeating nature.” By the theorists’ own admissions, he said, such a model “can generate neither specific predictions about nature nor meaningful insights.

Originally Posted by xxx200 the point is that modern science divides nature into following parts: physics, chemistry, biology, space studies etc. each parts can be sub divided into many more parts. You need to look at science more holistically There are many areas (particularly in medicine and biology, but also in industrial development, ecology and many other areas) where multidisciplinary teams work to solve problems using expertise from many areas: physics, chemistry, biology, mechanical engineering, electronics, computer science, and on and on.For example, there is physical chemistry: how the physics of electrons determines the chemistry of atoms. Originally Posted by Thrylix Besides, when something is that small in size, do you really need a reason to step on it? I do not see what size has to do with it.The objections would be more along the lines of reacting to the primitive and senseless act of squashing the bug. Or neurobiology (involves chemistry, psychology, biology, computation, psychiatry, medicine, physics genetics …) it will be better to know the entire system yourself than to work in team. it will be easier to understand if you know all the parts yourself. The only reason we have been able to make the technical and scientific advances that we have is by team work and “standing on the shoulders of giants”. Have you ever done any major engineering or scientific &D?

You are suggesting that someone really bright could spend, say, 10 years studying biology in depth, 10 years studying physics in depth, 10 years studying chemistry in depth, 10 years studying cosmology in depth, and so on. Related Discussions:Why shouldn’t we be eating insectsColors of Flowering Plants and BirdsWho can give some links of ecosystem research informationintelligent design hypothesisKilling jews?Genetic conservation of the Florida pantherDo animals masturbate?First Mass ExtinctionGender divison in two opposites is greatest mistake of mankindWhich insects could benefit a Mars colony? What’s your point?

Well, that is a rather simplified view. It’s pretty much anything goes. Whether you squash one little bug will make no difference to the ecosystem- but the mentality of being careless is only reenforced by that action. Originally Posted by xxx200 therefore a scientists must know all physics, chemistry, biology and space study in order to understand nature/ universe. Originally Posted by Harold14370 Originally Posted by Ascended We should only kill out of necessity, if something more advanced was to come along that saw us the way we see bugs would we wish that to kill us just merely because we exist? Probably not. I’m 24, have a professional job, and I still tend to flatten any bug in my path. And then when they are 80 they can do some brilliant research.I don’t think it is going to work.The alternative is the model of forums like this, where people read a few popular science articles (which don’t explain any real science and which they don’t fully understand) and then make up some meaningless theory of everything that has no basis in reality.That isn’t going to work either.People are limited in what they can understand and do.

I’m considered an all-around good guy by people. It is difficult to understand a complete system. Originally Posted by xxx200 it will be better to know the entire system yourself than to work in team. it will be easier to understand if you know all the parts yourself. holistic thinking is a real phenomenon. our universe works holistically. i have created a video on the topic. here is the link: Besides, when something is that small in size, do you really need a reason to step on it? Does Godzilla care about the humans he steps on? The smell of my feet could kill these little guys.

Originally Posted by Ascended We should only kill out of necessity, if something more advanced was to come along that saw us the way we see bugs would we wish that to kill us just merely because we exist? Probably not. What’s your point? Do I really need to explain this??? Oh well, the point is we should only treat others in the way we would wish to to be treated ourselves, and since we wouldn’t wish to be killed indiscriminately for merely existing then why should we kill other living creatures just because they exist.Just a side note here, if we say yes it is fine to kill insects then why just insects? what about small mammals or reptiles or larger ones, I mean how would we and should we thus draw the line? therefore a scientists must know all physics, chemistry, biology and space study in order to understand nature/ universe. Originally Posted by Thrylix Should we care about the life of an insect?

Perhaps you should discuss this with a Jain? But if I were being honest, I wouldn’t have a second thought about demolishing a bustling anthill on the sidewalk, and like many others, I’ve done that plenty of times. What would be the logical objection? Some people say they feel pain but I can think of more painful ways to die than getting squashed instantly under the sole of a giant running shoe.

He wrote that a certain pervasive model within holistic science, self-organized criticality, for example, “is not really a theory at all. Long ago, I heard a statistic stating that if all the offspring from a single pair of mating houseflies survived, in one year the entire Earth would be covered with those offspring, to a depth of several feet!Not sure where this came from, but it did point out the fact, obviously, that something, certainly many things, controls the the number of houseflies which survive. But when you have understood the parts you can start putting them together and understand how they work together and gradually understand how the whole system works.I think science tends to work both ways: start with the system, understand what the parts are, then start putting them together to understand the system in more detail.For example, Mendel started out observing whole plants to understand the rules of inheritance and deduced the existence of some sort of genetic material. Scientists pretty much never work alone anyway. Or, more likely, work in teams with people with all the different expertise required.

I know that insects are overall important to our ecosystem, but will a few crushed ones make a difference?Should we care about the life of an insect? And if anything goes, an evolved sense of responsibility and ethics counts as “anything.”Should we care? Whether we should or not is not so much the question as whether or not it is in the essaywriterforhire.com
best interests of our species to care about the condition of ecosystems on Earth.

Do you actually have a valid reason for doing it or do you go ape-brain and just squash it simply because any bug is any other bug that might bite or sting?There are valid ethical reasons for not needlessly killing. The other point of view, obviously, is that of respect for life of any kind. jocular


Leave a Reply

Recent Comments

    Categories