And if you're really interested, look into the whole genre of 'Wisdom Literature' [0] in the Ancient Near East. It's a super interesting genre, and was fairly widespread.
Have you considered an alternative world view? While it's true that we experience nothing while we die, there are good reasons to believe that that this life we have on Earth isn't accurately explained by purely materialistic means.
Most people think of heaven when it comes to the Bible's view of life after death, but it speaks more about a resurrection from the dead for the vast majority of people who die, to live forever on a paradise Earth.
There is something in us that makes us yearn for more than the short lives we have now (hardly anybody would choose to die if they had good health under normal circumstances), so these do resonate with us more than a purely materialistic world view, which has ostensibly left people with lack of contentment and sense of purpose.
It's a real danger that we'll have to deal with on a sociological level soon. Atheism is on the rise. I'm not versed in atheism as it occurs in countries other than in the US, but it seems like we'll see new types of problems that are not immediately apparent. That's the double-edged sword of rationalism. Truth and reason above all... But it's vital to remember that we're squishy and mushy and spiritual and emotional beings. It seems like it will be a lot of fun to be involved in media as it comes to deal with that shift more and more. What stories make the most sense, while still holding truth at the center? What do people need?
I'm reminded of the prototypical Alan Watts lectures. He might be out of fashion at the moment, but maybe his work will one day again be a little flicker in the cave for us to reach for, down the line.
What do you mean by success here? Depending on your definition, I think there are times where the answer is yes. There are clear analogs to the trolley problem in public policy every day.
The answer we have generally come to is based on a psudo kantian interpretation of causality. One innocent can die due to inaction, but you can't actively kill one to save many.
We don't allow nonconsentual body snachers to harvest one person to save many. Alternatively we may allocate finite funds to save several lives instead of a single life. We may also choose not to spend the money to save a life
> Its not even a full clue, it's a 'possible clue'.
Sure. I said it elsewhere in another thread, but I think the bridge from physics to chemistry, while quite fantastic, is a lot easier to swallow than the bridge from chemistry to biology. I think everyone mostly agrees that this is a harder chasm to cross because of the sheer complexity of the cell.
At the root of it, the article suggests that the nature of the lipid layer could help catalyze the sort of reactions needed to (apparently?) insert RNA in a cell, or at least to get it to stick to the cell. But it's not clear at all that there's any real smoke here. G-quadruplex is an interesting, apparently naturally-occurring, molecule; are there others?
One other question that confuses me a little about this, too—and again, all I have are ignorant questions: wouldn't we see some heritage of these changes in cells? We have two broad classes of them (prokaryotes and eukaryotes), but are there antecedents that would give a sense of the evolutionary history of the cell? If the lipid layer is involved in somehow attracting and/or inserting RNA into a protocell, what kind of evidence would we see in cells today? Is it reasonable to suppose that we'd have some kind of biomarkers in the cell proper to show its changing complexity?
I suppose the answer to this is no--we shouldn't necessarily expect it. But at the same time, it seems like protocells as I've imagined are infrastructure more than they are a scaffold. Maybe that assumption is wrong; but if it is, the picture is muddier than ever: if the scaffold disappears without a trace, it leaves you in the awkward position of always hypothesizing without ever getting to how the building was made in the first place.
The G-quadruplex is not a molecule, it is a specific assembly of either molecules or structures within a single molecule
Something you need to understand for these long chain molecules is that they can fold in, around, and on themselves being held together by numerous weak molecular interactions. Proteins and DNA/RNA behave this way
TIL--thanks a bunch! I've been glad to see some related threads come up on HN lately on this issue, and it's been a fruitful source of (hopefully) intelligent distraction.
I'm honestly taken aback by how middle of the road you are about that situation.
In what world is it a good thing that instead of accepting an offer to provide a needed service that you're in the business of, you refuse the offer and sue/lobby the requester into submission out of spite.
I didnt say I liked that Comcast was allowed to lobby to block EPB. But EPB won and they also won customer appeal.
If you read what I said, Comcast, having received billions from the government to build fiber optic networks that they never built, should be under advanced scrutiny, perhaps forced to keep their internet providing monies separate from their TV cable system monies.
I'm not convinced that he's not being raked over the coals just for finding and executing a legal way to extort insurance companies for more money than they want to spend.
