Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

next hubble image

As part of celebration of 2009 the year of Astronomy, NASA is letting people to decide where the Hubble Telescope should point next. There are 6 options for people to vote before march, 1st.

They've done something like this back in sometime around 2001 ... if my memory serves me right.  But I do remember the winner, it was Horsehead Nebula. As the result of that, Hubble produced an astonishingly detailed photograph.

BTW, for those who are interested, I recommend you to put this site in your RSS reader.

Emissions Trading Scheme review now calling submissions

My position on climate change is that it is happening, and it is not as some said, "just a recovery from the little ice age" - human activities are at least partially responsible. There are uncertainties on how worse it would be, but there should be no doubt that it is happening.

So I feel very unease to talk about a "balance" between combating climate change and accommodate economic growth.  Environment, the global weather system is still something that we don't fully understand how it works and when it will strike, yet it is so closely connected with  the future well beings of  mankind. Nature should be something that every one of us respect, not something that you can do "trade and exchange" or mess up with. Our survival solely depend on environment, not economic development.

For this review, any significant change that denies the existence of the climate change will send a wrong message to the world(yes, I'm talking about Rodney Hide). This looks unlikely for now, but there are still chances for surprises in the final select committee report, for example, extracted from the terms of references:

• identify the central/benchmark projections which are being used as the motivation for international agreements to combat climate change; and consider the uncertainties and risks surrounding these projections
• consider the timing of introduction of any New Zealand measures, with particular reference to the outcome of the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting, the position of the United States, and the timetable for decisions and their implementation of the Australian government

Well, what you say? The submissions close on February 13 - it's shorter than usual, but hey, at least they didn't sneak it through the system before the Christmas.

Emm....

Somebody just forwarded me this:

Bad guys really do get the most girls - New Scientist

However, there is a down side of it. Bad guys attract more girls, but it is very difficult to have a long term relationship.

Just little bit of my thoughts.

From evolutionary standpoint I think short relationship is a good thing. If you still remember your sixth form biology, you should be able to recall that all living organisms have only one sole purpose: to pass on the genes.

Short terms can produce a lot offspring.

However, that only applies to the prehistoric society.

In a modern society like the one we got here, more children means more responsibility to the father, thus requiring a lot of energy from the father side to raise those children. However, Men are pretty good at escaping from responsibilities, so that might be OK.

But if a father cannot invest enough resource to his children, they are more likely to fail in this very competitive society.

Now those children have two options: be evil just like their father did, or the genes cease to pass on from there.

I think the first scenario happens more in our society.

Compare with that, good guy  have enough energy and resource to invest on his children, make his children strong and can withstand the competition, thus has a higher chance to pass the genes on.

From genetic point of view, the competition between the good and bad guys is more like a tie, there's no right or wrong strategy for this. It's just a choice between produce very few offspring and help them survive, or many offspring but let the nature(society) to select who survive.

So be good or bad? Your choice.

But based on my common sense, I prefer the "good guy" strategy. Produce offspring requires a lot of energy too:), especially for the mother side, if only a very small fraction of offspring produced can survive, it is not sensible to produce them at a large quantity.

Nah, I haven't been touching my biology book for years, the comments above are just for fun, don't take it seriously.

shocked

I am absolutely shocked to see ban on sex selective fertilisation is recommened by the Bioethics Council, a ministerial advisory committee to be loosen.

Whether this happens in mother's womb, or in vitro fertilisation, the practice is highly unethical, and very wrong to allow people playing god, unless it is necessary treat a genetic disorder or disease.

What fundamentally wrong about this, is that all the reasoning for this recommendation is based on the assumption that a child is the property of his/her parents so parents have the right to choose between a boy or girl, just as the freedom of choice people exercised in clothing colours when they are shopping around.

It doesn't take a moment to realise that this is very wrong.

If every one wants to exercise the freedom of choice, then the unborn babies are also human being, they also should have the right to choose whether he/she wants to be born as the child of such parents, or choose not to be born.

But babies cannot speak. So at end of the day it's the group who cannot stand for themselves suffer.

Apart from ethical issues, this will also create gender imbalance in our population.

One of the reasoning the bioethical council used to justify this selective fertilisation is that parents who had three boys or girls should have the right to have a opposite sex baby.

I have serious question on those councillors' professionalism in this field. Yes that is the fact, but the larger fact is that if I got three boys, it is very likely that a family somewhere else in New Zealand also got three girls, thus maintaining an overall natural balance.

If every one who got three boys or girls go for sex selective fertilisation, the gender balance would not become a problem. But the problem is, not everyone will act in this selfish way.

This issue has to be consulted properly, not just a report or 700 people's opinion.  Any rush on rule changes will cost us our country's future.

Sex selective fertilisation should only be allowed if it is for the well-being of the child, not parents.