Topic: Episode #315

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There is a Dark Side of the moon, the moon is Luna, and the sun is Sol. Get over it. Instead of explaining that there is no dark side they need to explain tidal lock.

I never realized that the expression "Dark Side of the Moon" in reference to the side of the moon that cannot be seen from the Earth was mistaken by some to mean that one side of the moon was literally permanently "dark".  I guess ignorance of ignorance is one of the unfortunate side effects of having been raised scientifically literate.

[seaotter]

There is a Dark Side of the moon, the moon is Luna, and the sun is Sol. Get over it. Instead of explaining that there is no dark side they need to explain tidal lock.

I never realized that the expression "Dark Side of the Moon" in reference to the side of the moon that cannot be seen from the Earth was mistaken by some to mean that one side of the moon was literally permanently "dark".  I guess ignorance of ignorance is one of the unfortunate side effects of having been raised scientifically literate.

People think that Africa is the Dark Continent because the people that live there are black too.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

There is a Dark Side of the moon, the moon is Luna, and the sun is Sol. Get over it. Instead of explaining that there is no dark side they need to explain tidal lock.

I never realized that the expression "Dark Side of the Moon" in reference to the side of the moon that cannot be seen from the Earth was mistaken by some to mean that one side of the moon was literally permanently "dark".  I guess ignorance of ignorance is one of the unfortunate side effects of having been raised scientifically literate.

People think that Africa is the Dark Continent because the people that live there are black too.

[Chew]

There is a Dark Side of the moon, the moon is Luna, and the sun is Sol. Get over it. Instead of explaining that there is no dark side they need to explain tidal lock.

I never realized that the expression "Dark Side of the Moon" in reference to the side of the moon that cannot be seen from the Earth was mistaken by some to mean that one side of the moon was literally permanently "dark".  I guess ignorance of ignorance is one of the unfortunate side effects of having been raised scientifically literate.

People think that Africa is the Dark Continent because the people that live there are black too.

The description I always heard was it was called Dark because very little was known about it at the time. The Dark Ages weren't called that because everybody was dark.

[Jeranimal]

This is a prefectly acceptable bit of Solar System/Earth/Humano-centrism. After all we, as a species, don't really "know" any other place in the universe, or should I say The Universe. 

This is much like isolated populations that call themselves "the People" or "Human Beings", like there are no others and until they are introduced to the wider world, indeed  as a group, they may not know of any other "people."

I find it odd that my "imagine translating an alien language" is being labeled as "perfectly acceptable humano-centrism".

[quirk3k]

I hate to argue with astronomers, but they aren't in charge of names. Well, by default in most cases they are, but that's because most astronomical objects are unknown to the general public. There is a Dark Side of the moon, the moon is Luna, and the sun is Sol. Get over it. Instead of explaining that there is no dark side they need to explain tidal lock. Words change and so do names. Pink Floyd and science fiction writers have evidently more influence than astronomers, again get over it.

I agree that for consistency sake, we should use the Roman names. Terra, Terra Mater, Tellus, or Tellus Mater for the Earth. Sol or Sol Invictus for the Sun. Luna or Diana for the moon.

The problem is most people don't use those names. Ask an astronomer and the name is the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon. Ask a high school student and the answer is the Earth, the Sun and the Moon. Ask a factory worker and answer is the Earth, the Sun and the Moon. If usage is most important, then the names are the Earth, the Sun and the Moon. I dislike the inconsistency also, but there is a lot of inconsistency in English.

[Harradine]

but there is a lot of inconsistency in English.

Which is why it works so well.

[hadoque]

Is there a source for chinese medicine driving poaching? It may be a good argument against TCM.

[wormguy]

Just for the record, I believe that simultaneous hermaphroditism (having functional male and female gonads at the same time) is an exception rather than the rule among worms.  Certainly for polychaetes, individual sexes is the norm.  There are more than a few serial hermaphrodites where and organism is one sex first (often male) then becomes female.  This leads to some unusual consequences such as for Ophryotrocha (Dorvilleidae) where decerebrating (causing brain damage) a female leaves it as a functional male.

[Trinoc]

Is there a source for chinese medicine driving poaching? It may be a good argument against TCM.

Don't get me wrong .. I think a lot of TCM is rubbish as well .. but your question implies that you have already decided you're against it but don't think your real reasons are convincing, and so you are looking for other issues unrelated to its effectiveness (or lack of it) to attack it.

[Dangbh]

oops...

[hadoque]

Is there a source for chinese medicine driving poaching? It may be a good argument against TCM.

Don't get me wrong .. I think a lot of TCM is rubbish as well .. but your question implies that you have already decided you're against it but don't think your real reasons are convincing, and so you are looking for other issues unrelated to its effectiveness (or lack of it) to attack it.

I'm thinking more along the lines of an argument against "What's the harm"...

[Trinoc]

Is there a source for chinese medicine driving poaching? It may be a good argument against TCM.

Don't get me wrong .. I think a lot of TCM is rubbish as well .. but your question implies that you have already decided you're against it but don't think your real reasons are convincing, and so you are looking for other issues unrelated to its effectiveness (or lack of it) to attack it.

I'm thinking more along the lines of an argument against "What's the harm"...

OK, I guess it's reasonable for "What's the harm" to include collateral damage to the species exploited for the medicines as well as harm to the patients themselves.

[jarvis]

Sorry, I'm like a month behind in my podcast listening at the moment, so I just listened to this episode.  But I'm surprised nobody has complained here in the forum about the Science or Fiction from this episode yet.  To remind folks, the fiction was: "A new analysis indicates that the greatest threat to endangered large African mammal species is the conservation laws designed to protect them."  The panel members who thought it was science suggested unintended consequences as the means by which they could be the threat. 

Well, libertarians analysts of this problem have been arguing for many years that the poachers are one of the unintended consequences of these laws.  Specifically the prohibition on private ownership and slaughter the animals encourages crime, analogous to prohibition of alcohol, drugs, etc.  They argue that private ownership of the animals would encourage the owners to slaughter the animals sustainably, keeping in mind the health of the herd, and also to protect their investments with more resources than the governments have been willing to spend in trying to stop the poachers. 

Buffalo in this country were a similar case.  They almost went extinct back when the herds ran free.  But now you can buy buffalo burgers out in Utah (and probably elsewhere) where the animals are privately owned, despite their endangered status, and the owners slaughter them at a sustainable rate.

Now, you can certainly argue with their analysis, and I don't claim personally to be an expert on the issue.  But to claim that this SoF item is necessarily fiction strikes me as a bit harsh.  Maybe the conservation laws are the ultimate cause for the proximate cause of poaching or maybe not.  Calling it fiction seems a bit premature without more discussion, though.

Peace,
Mike

References:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Privatization_of_wildlife
http://reason.com/blog/2007/03/30/killing-animals-to-save-them
http://reason.org/files/e4f4abb2c02a1cf1ecce4d8f264594e2.pdf
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n2-1.html
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=111
http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy112.html
http://mtlp.org/jones/issues/Enviro_issue.htm