I had never thought of the consequences of the creation of a "Gay-B-Gone" pill, but you are right. There would be many who claim this to be a divine happening from God/Allah, via Jesus/Mohammad...

I just think that it's not implausable that science will eventually work out exactly what makes a person gay, bi or straight. I mean, look how much else science has worked out medically. Some people even see possibilities that one day a human will be able to live forever. I hope this is not the case, but would never say never.

Cainanite, it makes sense that your sexual feelings towards men and women never developed further after childhood due to your syndrome that hit you at about 12 (Kawasaki I think it is called). But that is not the most important thing anyhoo. The romantic feelings are.

Your life experience would be as good an argument as any towards nature over nurture in regards sexuality, given the 'red neck' nature of the community you grew up in. Nobody in their right mind could ever CHOOSE to be anything other then hetrosexual.

HAHA - so for me to be even thinking of things like this means that I am not in my right mind

With the medical industry and money issue, I agree that it's a big problem. If everyone was cured from any disease than there would be no more industry, so creating a continual dependency for medication for consumers is essential. Creating a wonder drug of which one swallow cures someones cancer or aids doesn't exactly bode well for pharmaceutical companies.

Could their motto be, "One swallow does not make our summer".

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:32 pm I had never thought of the consequences of the creation of a "Gay-B-Gone" pill, but you are right. There would be many who claim this to be a divine happening from God/Allah, via Jesus/Mohammad...

I just think that it's not implausable that science will eventually work out exactly what makes a person gay, bi or straight. I mean, look how much else science has worked out medically. Some people even see possibilities that one day a human will be able to live forever. I hope this is not the case, but would never say never.

Cainanite, it makes sense that your sexual feelings towards men and women never developed further after childhood due to your syndrome that hit you at about 12 (Kawasaki I think it is called). But that is not the most important thing anyhoo. The romantic feelings are.

Your life experience would be as good an argument as any towards nature over nurture in regards sexuality, given the 'red neck' nature of the community you grew up in. Nobody in their right mind could ever CHOOSE to be anything other then hetrosexual.

HAHA - so for me to be even thinking of things like this means that I am not in my right mind

With the medical industry and money issue, I agree that it's a big problem. If everyone was cured from any disease than there would be no more industry, so creating a continual dependency for medication for consumers is essential. Creating a wonder drug of which one swallow cures someones cancer or aids doesn't exactly bode well for pharmaceutical companies.

Could their motto be, "One swallow does not make our summer".

Actually I do beleive cellular imortality or eradication of the hayflick limit that cells posses is completely possible within this century.

all thats needed is to purge free radicals from system, regrow stem cells and elongate the telomeres safely coupled with a low carb, low caloric diet. Oh yeah and gene therapy , nano technology and synthetic technoroganic replacements

If not forever, humans will live on for 300-500 yrs max.

Techno-organic wise it would be possible to create artificial limbs, nervous system all from a base that isnt carbon based

(they recently created a organism in a lab that was arsenic based, not carbon based)

And lets not remember folks computing isnt going to reach a limit with silicon. components such as the memristor (created in the 70's since it couldnt be implemented till now) and surface mounted components are tackling the limitations of pcb design by going 3d.

Furthermore with the advancement of physics(thank you higgs bosn and neg below absolute temps)

quantum computing will make reality of replacing brain parts or maye even complete transfer of the human mind.

Einstein :

"creativity is contaguios"

and

"imagination is more important than knowledge"

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:32 pm Your life experience would be as good an argument as any towards nature over nurture in regards sexuality, given the 'red neck' nature of the community you grew up in. Nobody in their right mind could ever CHOOSE to be anything other then hetrosexual.

Given the culture or society, I might agree with you, but if it comes to people in general, why would anyone choose to be anything but bisexual? Why limit one's choice of sexual partners to half the human race?

Of course, I don't think we choose. I do think that choosing nature or nurture is too simple a choice. It can be one or the other or a combination of both. Some ancient societies embraced homosexuality, and too many people in those societies engaged in it to believe that the primary influence wasn't nurture.

Perhaps, it is nurture, our society and culture, that precludes homosexuality. I would suspect that, with a more accepting view of homosexual relationships, more people would choose to be bisexual. Few, or none, of us are at one extreme on the continuum of sexuality. We're somewhere along the line between homosexual and heterosexual, most of us probably closer to one end or the other, but still feeling some attraction for either sex.

I'm in agreement with Slammr's idea that it can be a combination of both. As with most "this vs. that" questions, I believe that to some extent both options are true. I think it is human nature to insist that when there are two seemingly antithetical options out there, only one or the other can be true. When it comes to our makeup (including sexual orientation), I have always believed in genetic predispositions and environmental triggers. Unless both are present, the makeup of an individual will not be what it is.

I have never understood the idea that if there is no natural cause of homosexuality, it must be a choice. The way I see it, it could be possible to be nutured into being gay and not be able to change it. If there are environmental circumstances beyond one's control that lead one to be gay, how is that a chioce?

Along with the belief that if homsexuality is nurture-based it is a choice comes the idea that if homosexuality is nurture-based it is morally wrong. How does homosexuality being caused by nurture make it any less morally acceptable than if it were caused by nature?

Rather than worrying so much about what causes a person to be gay, I think the focus ought to be on helping people understand that if someone is gay, that is simply who they are, and there is nothing wrong with a person being him or herself.

I'm thinking sarcasm, yes.

Me, sarcastic?

Foxytaur, I'm sorry that I can't keep up with you in conversation with anything much medical/science related. I just don't have the brain power for that!

Hayflick limit? What there is one? Before you find your needle I guess

I think that a complete transfer of the human mind is scary, or an erasing of our memories. Perhaps some people would want some past removed, but for me I don't want to change my mind at all in a medicall sense, only in the natural way that other humans influence/change me. Our past is what makes us unique, what makes us who we are in the present. I don't wish to live a world where you can go into a doctors clinic and say, "I wasn't happy with how last weekend went, please remove it".

That would not be a life.

300-500 years is a long time to be around too. Probably too long.

Slammr, I agree that in general, it would be logical to be bi, if one could choose. That way you get the full menu

But I think you know what I mean, that negativity towards being gay in society would preclude most people from choosing that.

Plix, I don't agree that being gay can be caused by too much mothering, or encouragement with wearing female clothing, or whatever. But I do agree with this:

plix (imported) wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:13 pm Rather than worrying so much about what causes a person to be gay, I think the focus ought to be on helping people understand that if someone is gay, that is simply who they are, and there is nothing wrong with a person being him or herself.

As I'm pretty sure that all on the EA do. My interest in the "cause" is simply due to a desire to look outside the square in my own life and look into other possibilities; that due to my personal failure with females at the moment.

Sorry for coming late to this thread. Definitely, it´s nature. A lot of scientist try to discover whatever makes people gay, bi, or straight. I know I was born gay, but due to the pressure of my family I had to repress it. I started to feel atraction towards men when I was 14 years old, when I developed a crush on a teacher of mine. Suddenly I started to

fantasize with him, I had plenty of wet dreams about him. I truly got confused, and latter tried to get straight, only to fail. Finally I decided I was gay and acepted it. My parents had nothing to do with it. Definitely nature.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=m3qqUy880dQ

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:14 am Foxytaur, I'm sorry that I can't keep up with you in conversation with anything much medical/science related. I just don't have the brain power for that!

Hayflick limit? What there is one? Before you find your needle I guess

I think that a complete transfer of the human mind is scary, or an erasing of our memories. Perhaps some people would want some past removed, but for me I don't want to change my mind at all in a medicall sense, only in the natural way that other humans influence/change me. Our past is what makes us unique, what makes us who we are in the present. I don't wish to live a world where you can go into a doctors clinic and say, "I wasn't happy with how last weekend went, please remove it".

That would not be a life.

300-500 years is a long time to be around too. Probably too long.

Slammr, I agree that in general, it would be logical to be bi, if one could choose. That way you get the full menu

But I think you know what I mean, that negativity towards being gay in society would preclude most people from choosing that.

Plix, I don't agree that being gay can be caused by too much mothering, or encouragement with wearing female clothing, or whatever. But I do agree with this:

plix (imported) wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:13 pm Rather than worrying so much about what causes a person to be gay, I think the focus ought to be on helping people understand that if someone is gay, that is simply who they are, and there is nothing

loveableleopardy (imported) wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:14 am wrong with a person being him or herself.

As I'm pretty sure that all on the EA do. My interest in the "cause" is simply due to a desire to look outside the square in my own life and look into other possibilities; that du

e to my personal failure with females at the moment.

We die bc it is programmed in our cells to begin with. A cell can only undergo a limited amt of divisions

An unhealthy person and with poor genetics undergoes the 50 divisions per cell much more rapidly . Imagine a 9 month cellular lifespan?...... That is around 450 months/ 12 months = 37 yrs.

Would you look at that!!!!.....The avg age people died during the middle ages due to natural causes cuz really people back then were very very unsanitary and ate too much.

The hayflick limit is the max extent to which are cells no longer didvide. afterwards, the cell divides seldomly if any at all.

As cells die, the human body ages, ages and ages till we die.

We can slow the mechanism of our cell divisions but it is within my firm belief that we will tackle the aging problem this century.

Our DNA has protective caps on its tip when its condensed in it's chromatid format that slowly dissapear as we age. Sorta like a pencil erasor progressively rubbing its way on a surface till no more rubberized material is left.

When our DNA is exposed , we start getting serious diseases and mutagenic cancers.

NB = Im sorry I cant get the link working, till i get a new laptop ill have to settle with this piece of shit tablet. ugh

I think i got it to work plz check if it works.

So you believe that in fifty years time, a seventy year old person could have the physicalness of say a thirty-five year old? Is this kinda what you envisage? Perhaps a situation where you don't consider going into an 'old' folks home until you're at least 120?

I wonder if we would have to consider something like extended length of schooling if our normal lives became at least double what they are now? I am not sure that people would only be interested in doubling the time spent working!

The biggest issue this raises though is one of the worlds population. We are already over-populated. Extending the lives greatly of humans would only make this worse me thinks.

Thanks for the link. It does work, but my youtube is very slow. Also I had this crazy incident the other night where I was doing bad stuff online, my laptop froze, I couldn't get 'sound' to stop, and then somehow I deleted whatever sound system I have one here So I am soundless for now, but kinda happy with that.

P.S. I am not very technologically advanced and have little idea of how to use a computer. I need to live a LOT longer to catch up

People need to stop making fucking babies anyways, store their sperm and eggs when they are in their early 20's.

If you cant keep a baby, dont make them in the first place.

We need to exert better control with the rate of reproduction and what better way than with really really healthy populace of young elderly who have the relentless experience in a world that is dying by the min.

I view old people as a huge asset, not a burden.

Elderly folk have the experience to show youngling the right way of doing things and this eases the transition from incompetant to competant.

Unfortunately society today is highly industrialized and is prescriptively moving too fast.

With the elderly dropping like flies. What do you do when a surge of young populace lacks the compitence of their forefathers?

Overpopulation has always been a problem of the young and "incompetant".

Inorder for overpopulation to work in a highly paced society

Boomer(during their youth yrs) ------> need to spawn larger GenX

GenX(during youth yrs) -------> need to spawn larger Gen Y

This isn't very environemnetally sound in the long run + model "wasnt" exactly followed.

Todays boomers were the result of the previous generation procreating and making too many children.

Theres a lot of unequal age distribution today with more elderly leaning on the properly trained zone.

the same work can be delivered without the need for a large mass produced amt of people

Just prolong the lifespan of the older generations and theres no need to remove them from circulation. This eases the welcome of newer generations.Theres more time to train Gen X and GenY. Theres also less Boomer turn over rate when it comes time to retire.

therefore less social security disparity.

Theres now a higher distribution of properly trained young adults paying for your (ideal Boomer) social security and health

But this will all fail id the incompetant young adults start fucking irresponsibly and making babies when its not economically feasible.

NB = Population control,Life extension, moving away from the current industrial model, education(not an obedience only model for example theory only exams lacking practicality and hands on experince) are critical for a more prosperous society

Heck I plan on not having babies. I'll be sterile soon and you know good I'll feel glad about it:D

Sometimes I wonder if nature introduced gay and trans annimals for the purpose of attaining a balance of sort at controlling population.

For example only the alpha wolf is permitted to screw with the female wolf when shes in seasonal heat. The rest of males, at least some of them, get it on with their pack mates.

The difference with us humans is that we are much more complex beings with the ability to reason yet we marginalize and discriminate each another into different categories, different stigmas.

This human constructed (not naturally induced) social system has overuled for a long time over our natural instincts. And theres a possibility that we as humans may have deviated from our natural mechanism at controlling population.

When we challenge nature, we take a flip in the wrong direction

History has always proven that despite our intellectual minds, we are truly stupid

Being LGBT has to be natures mechanism , at the gene level, to control population.

Theres soo many gays and lesbians around in the world in very unhealthy hetero and sour relationships with possibly unwanted kids at that too.