EPT
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 416
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
| ||
|
Archeon
3271 Posts
On March 22 2016 07:44 oneofthem wrote: my thinking on how best to speed up development in the past tends towards trying to make the idea survivable in a community. there is some risk of you dying to imperial intrigue and whatnot if you just tried to influence a monarch. it can be a fairly isolated community with some nearby resources such as natural petroleum. your community armed with even rudimentary industrial concepts would be the model that would displace the ancients. ancient greece looks decent as a starting place. probably try to save athens like someone suggested, then call out plato as a metaphysics obsessed noob and talk with aristotle about making science better. the delphic oracles, definitely need some exploring. Honestly my target would be Christianity. I'd probably look into the Q source and rewrite it, make technological progress something desirable in the bible. Maybe put my chemical knowledge in Jesus mouth. As long as you don't stop the pretty inevitable fall of the Roman Empire giving the Greeks knowledge still means loss of it for the next 1500 years and potentially loss of it all (who knows if the sources of your knowledge survive, let alone if they can decipher whatever rests they have). Until the fall of the empire technological progress was good, but with the fall of the Roman empire and the control of religion over science and rewriting knowledge to fit the dogma we hit dead ends pretty fast. If the monasteries were researching facilities instead of preserving facilities, who knows where we could be now. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On March 23 2016 00:40 Blackfeather wrote: Honestly my target would be Christianity. I'd probably look into the Q source and rewrite it, make technological progress something desirable in the bible. Maybe put my chemical knowledge in Jesus mouth. As long as you don't stop the pretty inevitable fall of the Roman Empire giving the Greeks knowledge still means loss of it for the next 1500 years and potentially loss of it all (who knows if the sources of your knowledge survive, let alone if they can decipher whatever rests they have). Until the fall of the empire technological progress was good, but with the fall of the Roman empire and the control of religion over science and rewriting knowledge to fit the dogma we hit dead ends pretty fast. If the monasteries were researching facilities instead of preserving facilities, who knows where we could be now. Such Eurocentrism I don't even. Blame the Catholic Church for the lack of medieval spaceships in India and China too? On March 21 2016 23:29 SoSexy wrote: Everyone on TL is either a professional theologian or a six-figures enterpreneur... It wouldn't surprise me to find out those are more common professions among competitive gamers. I realize you were kidding, but hey, it applies to me at least. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11935 Posts
This is out of a totally unrepresentative survey of tabletop RPG nerds here in munich. | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
is this american education at work or just drunk writing? pregnancy can occur when a sperm encounters a fertile egg that was ovulated from the ovary... if the person has semen creating testicles and an ovary ovulating fertile eggs.. (which is impossible) then yes edit: clarified the necessity but not sufficientness | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On March 24 2016 04:56 puerk wrote: you are not serious are you?... is this american education at work or just drunk writing? pregnancy occurs when a sperm encounters a fertile egg that was ovulated from the ovary... if the person has semen creating testicles and an ovary ovulating fertile eggs.. (which is impossible) then yes Technically having both functioning testicles and functioning ovaries is not sufficient because it doesn't guarantee that sperm and egg will encounter. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
@OtherWorld, i think my writing implied necessary conditions, not sufficient ones | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On March 24 2016 05:34 puerk wrote: you are right and i am sorry, i was just perplexed, as this should be known to everyone? shouldn't it? @OtherWorld, i think my writing implied necessary conditions, not sufficient ones Sidebar, from my memory of health class in a well funded, public, American middle school, this was in 2003 or 2004 mind you, there wasn't exactly a unit going in depth on hermaphrodites. My school which had a pretty decent program for health class in that we weren't taught abstinence only and covered a lot of material beyond, "sex is only for marriage," they probably mentioned what it meant but didn't dive into the specifics of reproduction as pertains to that particular group. Wasn't a hot topic for anonymous questions, because as a 13/14 year old straight boy, you're probably more interested in what boobs feel like or sex period than hermaphrodites. That was my experience at least. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
+ Show Spoiler +  | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On March 24 2016 06:10 farvacola wrote: "sex period" without a comma sounds pretty funky. You must have been a weird kid. + Show Spoiler + I am a pretty odd duck | ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46237 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On March 24 2016 08:05 Epishade wrote: If a person impregnated themself, would the child have birth defects or stuff because it's like sleeping with a cousin then, but it's yourself so it's even worse? Yes. I think most people have rare damaging germline variant that are recessive, which isn't a problem as long as the other allele is functional. Problem is if your partner has the same damaging allele (also heterozygous), then the child has a one in four to be homozygous in the damaging variant, which is bad. Your cousin has a fair chance of sharing damaging variants with you (inherited from your grandparent), which is why it's a bad idea. Obviously, you share all damaging variant with yourself, and if both the egg and the sperm gets the variant, the fertilised egg is in trouble. So "go fuck yourself" is overall bad advice. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46237 Posts
On March 24 2016 10:57 Cascade wrote: Yes. I think most people have rare damaging germline variant that are recessive, which isn't a problem as long as the other allele is functional. Problem is if your partner has the same damaging allele (also heterozygous), then the child has a one in four to be homozygous in the damaging variant, which is bad. Your cousin has a fair chance of sharing damaging variants with you (inherited from your grandparent), which is why it's a bad idea. Obviously, you share all damaging variant with yourself, and if both the egg and the sperm gets the variant, the fertilised egg is in trouble. So "go fuck yourself" is overall bad advice. Only if pregnancy is at risk... otherwise, it's just self-sex/ masturbation  | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18387 Posts
On March 24 2016 09:13 JimmiC wrote: It should basically be a clone unless there is some sort of mutation No. That's not how meiosis works. While it's asexual reproduction, when bacteria do that, they use mitosis, not meiosis. During meiosis there is a significant amount of crossover happening (hence why siblings can be so different from each other despite having the same parents). So while technically it will have all the same DNA, the order in which it is all put together could be quite significantly changed. This could lead to two recessive genes being combined to cause crippling mutations (or just blond hair). The chance of receiving two harmful recessive genes would be about the same as when two siblings have a baby (significantly higher than between two strangers, but far lower than most people think: incest is a serious problem if it keeps occurring throughout generations; not so much if it happens sporadically) | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On March 24 2016 13:07 Acrofales wrote: No. That's not how meiosis works. While it's asexual reproduction, when bacteria do that, they use mitosis, not meiosis. During meiosis there is a significant amount of crossover happening (hence why siblings can be so different from each other despite having the same parents). So while technically it will have all the same DNA, the order in which it is all put together could be quite significantly changed. This could lead to two recessive genes being combined to cause crippling mutations (or just blond hair). The chance of receiving two harmful recessive genes would be about the same as when two siblings have a baby (significantly higher than between two strangers, but far lower than most people think: incest is a serious problem if it keeps occurring throughout generations; not so much if it happens sporadically) Agree. I'll just do the calculation for the fun of it. For a rare variant to become homozygous through siblings, it is a 1/16: first siblings get it, second sibling get it, baby get it from sibling 1, baby get it from sibling 2. On the other hand you draw from both parents, so twice as many potential rare variants. Selfsex is a straight 1/4. So twice as likely to get harmful recessive mutations homozygoused though selfsex. Pretty close. If you are not related for 10 generations, it is very unlikely that you share harmful variants, and it depends more on how heterogeneous the population is. | ||
| ||
