Re: [DIYbio] Re: Political work: DIYbio vs. "alternative 'medicine'"

I don't see the sexist remarks the same way you do. Looks like a jovial and sarcastic statement but you internalize it however you wish. Granted, I'm equally lost on that whole fox v rabbit argument. But lets just talk about trump for a laugh... but wait, he's real. that's what makes it funny. that bull shit pervades at such HIGH levels.

So you're saying just because the modern field of biology is such that its maybe what, a few hundred years old we're going to throw the baby out with the bath water and say all of the standing knowledge that has yet to be transposed into modern vernacular is mute simply because its still at the status of  "alternative" because we haven't had a medical revolution in the greater scope of things since penicillin (or rather, haven't put the same money towards solutions other than bandaids)? why not syphon that money into a group that would allow for a greater standardization of science terms to find a happy medium, or offer the money to transpose old trad. medicine texts into modern science terms since they seem to have no credibility unless filed with the right semantics. I agree with you that we need to push the scope of biotech further, but it also sounds like that process (as its perpetrated by yourself and Ryan) only pursues the efforts promising great financial return. thats not revolutionary in any sense. shit, the other night we looked at member payments for CCL and for such an esteemed member of the DIY/biotech community, ryan hadn't paid the $80/mo. once.

Unfortunately for us both, the current model will never allow for trad. medicine scripts to be transposed in a timely fashion because there is no immediate financial gain or incentive towards that end. Shit man, there are individual researchers that were able to cure their cancer with CBD treatments 20 years ago and only now is science catching up (i.e. one company you're accelerator seeded a few years ago if I recall correctly). So by your methodology, we might very well have cures or treatments to such horrid diseases, but because it counters the established equation of funding = non- controversial (unless coupled with pre-existing pro-movements) + scientific terminology + high capital return potential. I mean, if you wanna keep throwing money at big biotech thats great, but if you're actually trying to revolutionize science maybe you could convince some of the money people to provide more to the hacker spaces that are filled with nerds looking for a bit of financial backing for their time to do such things as, accelerate biotech on the ground level.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 2:28:41 PM UTC-7, Cathal (Phone) wrote:

So, watch some telly, decide women are thoughtless automata that mate with the nearest red bottomed ape, call it self-evident, and in turn call that wild supposition "Science". Got it.

Seriously, I'm out. This would be hilarious if the people being insulted were fictional. Enjoy the remains of what started out as a serious conversation, I guess.

On 5 April 2016 22:16:55 IST, Jonathan Cline <jcl...@ieee.org> wrote:

Ha, this is great, laugh of the day, the first web search hit on this item:
"Whole Foods' $6 Asparagus Water Is Just Water With Three Stalks of Asparagus in It"

The operator denied the product existed. Eventually she transferred the call to a gentleman in the produce department who did not want to give his name. He explained that the product was new, "We've had them on the shelf for the last few days." When asked how the item is made, he said, "It's water, and we sort of cut asparagus stalks down so they're shorter, and put them into the container." When Eater asked what it was for, there was a long pause before he said, "Well, it's... to drink." He elaborated, "The nutrients from the asparagus do transfer into the water."  As a point of comparison, Whole Foods has whole bundles of asparagus on sale for about $5.

I do like cucumber water though.  It seems to "do something," especially on a hot day.  Self sliced, not bought for many dollars off the shelf. Hah!


On 4/5/16 2:09 PM, Cathal (Phone) wrote:

More like "Guy makes bullshit [censored] statement, and when called out shouts 'Science, but I won't cite it!'". At that point I stop listening, yes.

Cathal, I won't cite, for many reasons mostly time and depth, but the conclusions are rather straightforwardly seen for those not living in a bubble.  If you call it by that term, then I suggest a basic review of evolution or a casual view of the Discovery Channel.

## Jonathan Cline  ## jcl...@ieee.org  ## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223  ########################    

On 4/5/16 2:03 PM, Nico Bouchard wrote:

Lol. So whole foods can sell $8 asparagus water and simply because it's experiential and non-observed information (no reference article or it's such a ubiquitously experienced thing there's no need to provide that info unless you're being incredibly anally retentive) it didn't exist at all. Let's actually not pay attention to the well designed bull shit on our shelves and only use our brain power to disprove 10,000 year old experiential knowledge because it doesn't conform to the way we choose to empirically label the world so we can more easily manipulate it or understand it from a position of non-interconnectivity. 

How anti science and anti enlightening that perspective is, to discredit a differing perspective on knowledge simply because it doesn't follow you're perfered model of reasoning.

So Cathal, you wanna accelerate bioscience but you're not willing to accept a differing perspective on the complexities of life unless it conforms to your chosen vernacular? That's what it's sounding like. Following that trajectory doesn't sound like we're gonna have much of an internal revolution. False mission statements sure look good on a home page though.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2016, Cathal (Phone) <cathal...@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:

> (no I won't give refs).

Nuff said, move on everyone.

On 5 April 2016 20:23:48 IST, Jonathan Cline <jcline@ieee.org> wrote:

It is a controversial theme because it is threatening.  Science, though (no I won't give refs).   Can't bear the idea that scammers win?  Stores sell "baby water" for two cents more than both drinking water and distilled water (nice non-threatening pink label, too).  What's that about?  Is that a commercially backed version of "alternative medicine"?  Could be highly entertaining to try to convince a new father or mother with the "baby water" product in their shopping cart that it is a worse product choice (because it funds the producer as well as 2 cents more for no benefits) than the generic product.

## Jonathan Cline  ## jcline@ieee.org  ## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223  ########################    

On 4/5/16 11:20 AM, Jonathan BISSON wrote:

I'm not sure whether I have a problem with your view of women, food  chains, mating behavior here, or your teleological evolutionary  explanations, or maybe just all of that together.    

 

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.