text:
- Obey No1kinobe
- Sydney
- Australia
This conversation is closed.
Should blasphemy be outlawed by the UN?
Some Islamic countries are pushing for ''international legal regulations against attacks on what people deem sacred''
Essentially this is making protection from blasphemy a human right. Making it a right not to be offended by someone critiquing or mocking your religious views.
Essentially, if you hold genital mutilation of children sacred or any other harmful religious belief sacred it is proposed to make it illegal to condemn this.
I hope Australia does not sign this.
What a clash of values. What a clash of civilisations. Western enlightenment values versus medieval religion.
I suggest most human rights are human constructs that are granted rather than intrinsic. They aim t improve the human condition. Also none are absolute. The most difficult ethical issues often involve a clash of rights or values. Freedom of religion to lock up women versus equal rights and freedom of movement. Freedom of speech versus slander and liable.
I support individual freedom of religion up to the point it harms other people or when people try and force their religious taboos on others who do not believe. If there is a secular argument in parallel fair enough.
I suggest the world is better off allowing blasphemy, allowing religion and theocracies to be criticised or mocked. While I don't see the point of mindless provocative put downs, religion should not be off limits.
Perhaps the trickiest aspect is where the comments have a rascist aspect to them.
Isn't it interesting how freedom from religious insult is now being positioned by some alongside the right to life, freedom from slavery (what if slavery is sanctioned by your religion?), freedom from torture, equality before the law.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief (not in some religions),
Freedom of opinion and expression - not if this gets up.
What do you think
William Kuch
Sep 29 2012: No, it should not be outlawed. John Locke was right. We are all given inherent rights as individuals which cannot be taken away. These rights are also in some sense responsibilities. Freedom of thought, that is how God made us. He gave us our unique individual brains and expects us to make wise decisions while here on this Earth.
- +5
God (or whatever higher power you may believe in) gives us the ability to decide what we are doing, and this is why we are responsible for our actions. Free speech goes along with that freedom of thought. The freedom of thought cannot be removed by surgery or any other means. We have personal responsibility for our actions and it is precisely because that is how God made us.
To outlaw speech is ridiculous. People try to offend me everyday and I can simply ignore them. What cannot be ignored is a man with a holy book in one hand and an AK47 in the other.
Whether you believe in God or not, it is certainly the case that John Locke is essentially correct that we are born as free thinking beings, that this gift is inherent to our very being as organisms, cannot be revoked, and that it implies a lot of personal responsibility.
I am sorry for those who may be offended by various statements that are made by careless people. That is the nature of the world in which we live. One must decide if it is so important that it is worth dieing for, or whether it can simply be ignored.
Sep 30 2012: Thanks William.Sep 26 2012: Blasphemy is freedom of speech. Outlawing it is a gross violation of fundamental human rights.
Say what you need to say; as long as you are ready for the wages of your words.
Sep 26 2012: Agree.
Peter Law
Sep 26 2012: Hi Obey.
- +4
I'm with you on this one. We're going to end up with an utter mess if every individual has his own file of 'human rights' granted to him/her regardless of the effects on the rest of society. If your god isn't big enough to handle a bit of criticism, then you've got the wrong god. At the moment we are in danger of allowing the threat of terrorism to get this sort of nonsense through; that is the top of a very slippery slope.
Sep 27 2012: Thanks peter.
Also like your comment - if your god.......
I guess it is peple taking offence.Oct 2 2012: Moving forward in positive direction, I suggest the UN categorically make forced-religion criminal. How can anyone tell a fellow person that because of this or that including being at a particular jurisdiction one must follow this or that religion and cannot practice another or even NONE??!!
Oct 3 2012: Hi Philip, I find religious indoctrination of children sad.
I'm not sure if the answer is to try and outlaw it.
Death for apostasy is against the UN Human rights and I support that.Oct 2 2012: This is not a matter of opinions or popular vote. it is unfortunate that the notion of individual rights is so badly understood and therefore so poorly defended. Rights are not a matter of public opinion.
The right to free speech derives its meaning from the fundamental right to life--inextricably. The universal human right to life implies that we have the right to act in furtherance of our survival, unhindered by anyone else's coercion. It means we are owners of our lives and can choose to dispose of ourselves or work towards survival and flourishing.
Since humans live in a material world, all actions taken to further our survival is taken materially in this actual world. Which means, we have the right to free actions that fall within the purview of our pursuit of the right to life (realize that all humans have this, hence, encroaching on another person's range of free actions is a violation of that person's rights).
This is the right to liberty -- the right to freely pursue actions.
Free speech is a constituent of free actions or free expressions. It can be as basic to our survival as saying: "I need food, I am starving" to as distant from survival and closer to intellectual self-actualization and flourishing as saying: "I don't think Muhammad was a good man; in fact, he was a pedophile to have consummated a marriage with a 9 yr old."
Now, since only *actions* can carry the weight of force, not speech, all speech is necessarily protected by the right to liberty in the service of right to life--so long as this speech-act does not violate the rights to life, liberty, and property of someone else.
(Crying fire in a theater is a violation of the property rights of the theater owner, a misuse of his premises in a way that jeopardizes his property, his wealth, and his earning potential--not to mention the right to life and liberty of the movie-goers.)
There's much more to this theory of universal human rights from natural law. Please read Ayn Rand.
Oct 3 2012: Hi Jerry, thanks for the well thought out comment.
I agree we should not overreact and undermine a right just because some are offended and react violently.
However, I suggest human rights are human constructs and are not absolute and we need to be able to argue the benefits of these and where the limits are and why.
I suggest considering what any number gods divinely command without secular benefits as part of the mix is very dangerousOct 2 2012: If your diety needs the protections of our Courts then it should have to appear in person to answer the charges against it.
Oct 2 2012: I completely agree: if Allah has a problem with me blaspheming against him then he can come down here and tell me so himself. If he can't be bothered to do that then I can't be bothered to care whether he even exists or not.
Jeff Cable
Oct 2 2012: Thank you for a thought provoking question, Obey. Mere mortals will regard this nonsense as utterly unsustainable. The author, Salman Rushdie, was pilloried by the supporters of Islam. A fatwa calling for his death was issued (what an exemplar for an all-loving Allah!) and sadly this fatwa has been reiterated again recently; with hardly any comment being passed in our media.
- +2
So let me see if I have this right... Islam states this: don't say anything offensive about Islam and if you do, it is right (and just?) that the supporters of the Islamic belief system seek to kill you because that is the will of Allah.
The UN have no business giving any support to the people who claim that Islam is a valid religious belief. There is no proof that any belief relates to a true and only one god. The brutality portrayed by religious extremists (of any flavour) is a shocking testimony to this question of which deity is the approved god to which we should (implied) all pay obeisance.
The superstition and subterfuge inherent in all religious belief systems leaves me incredulous. If people find comfort in their personal religious fervour, I have no problem with that. The second it impinges on my ability to live my life in peace and harmony with my neighbours, it is a step too far. Belief has no business being encapsulated and enshrined in law.
The UN was not a body for which I have ever had the chance to lobby or vote for; nor do I have any say as to who inhabits its halls and offices. I do not recognise it as a legislative body with the concomitant powers to legislate for me and my life... WITHIN ANY SPHERE OF MY EXISTENCE!
Oct 3 2012: Thanks very much Jeff.
I agree that offensive speech is no excuse for violence. That violence should be condemned more than words.
In practice it may be a balancing act because why we might think most or all religions are man made superstition people hold these beliefs firmly as part of their identity. I don't think we should provoke for no reason, but we should never bow down to religious oppression. We should be free to offend, even if we don't pointlessly provoke.
Sean Hassett
Oct 2 2012: On the contrary, the UN should promote blasphemy.Sep 30 2012: Religion is personal, so it should matter what others say about an individuals beliefs. And, we must remember that these are nothing more than beliefs. There is no evidence that any god(s) exist.
- +2
That being said, what would happen if tens of thousands of people posted videos and cartoons lampooning religion's that violently protested such acts, and even threaten death to the individuals that dare to do such things. Can a religion hate everyone?
Perhaps this is the answer. Backing down in the face on such threats will only allow them to continue and to go stronger.
JFA Meys
Sep 28 2012: Actually, it would make an interesting case to outlaw blasphemy. Muslims aren't allowed to say anymore that Jesus was no son of God. Jews are not allowed to say anymore that the Saviour should still come. Christians can't deny any more that Mohamed was a real prophet. Neither three of these can state that Hindus worship false Gods.
- +2
So a consequent ban on blasphemy would practically lead to a ban on at least the three big monotheist religions: Jewism, Christianity and Islam. All three claim that they are the only true believers, and all others worship false Gods. Looking upon it that way, outlawing blasphemy suddenly becomes a rather attractive idea to heighten our chances for world peace :-)
On a serious note though, the whole idea of outlawing blasphemy is close to the definition of hypocrisy. The people yelling the loudest for this, are exactly those that show the least tolerance towards other religions. You can't have it both ways, but many people still try...
Sep 30 2012: I wonder how that would play out.
I guess many Muslims are happy not to criticise other religions if it meant protecting their own.
In the recent violent Sydney Muslim extremist protests they went out of their way to criticise Christians and offend others supporting beheadings and pointing out our dead are in hell while theirs are in paradise. Hypocritical.Sep 28 2012: let me rephrase the question this way:
what should be higher on UN's "what to ban" list?
A, blasphemy
B, stoning
Sep 30 2012: C. Genital mutilation
D. Killing homosexuals
E. killing witches
F. Killing people who work on Saturday
G. Killing obnoxious children
H. Killing newly married wives who not virgins
I. Genocide of other tribes living on the land your god has promised to your tribe
J. Slavery endorsed by scripture
H. Treating women as chattelSep 27 2012: Blashphemy should be out lawed for sure that's my feelings.....but who is UN to do that?
What UN did so far other than just taking care of interests of BIG BOSSES?
Agree with @ Justin Elkin about use of "common sense" (seems very uncommon though).
Sep 30 2012: Hi salim, a contrary voice at last.
Why do you think blasphemy should be outlawed? Why should religious sensibilities outweigh freedom of speech?
Are you not worried about the possible outcomes. No terrible acts such as killing aposites or genital mutilation could be criticised if they were positioned as part of religious beliefs. Theocratic governments could be protected from criticism.
Sep 30 2012: Hi Obey
I consider Religion to be a private matter at individual level.....so there shouldn't be any such law at country or state level which has all sorts of people with different belief system and it should be inclusive to the diversity
While I honor one's belief, my argument to someone who is favoring "Blashfemy" is that, if someone has done something so wrong against GOD let HIM take the revenge for that.
On the other hand , in the name of "FREEDOM of SPEECH" I wholeheartedly condemn all hate speeches and intensional attacks on others belief system.
Honor Killing , Genital Mutilation etc as far I know & feel is part of cultural practicee , which also should be stopped in this era...
Sep 30 2012: Hi Salim.
A hypothetical so I can understand where you're coming from: if your neighbor mocked your religion/prophet and so on, and was stoned to death by an angry mob would you be satisfied with that and understand that your neighbor received justice for his blasphemy? This is to ignore laws and such, just a question about how you personally would feel about that situation.
Do you wish, for the sake of the greater good (billions of people living today), that your leaders would do more to live by the motto 'live and let live' whereby they allow HIM to take care of the business of retribution; and at the same time Muslims are allowed to practice the virtue of tolerance? Or, help me better understand, is it that if your leaders and Islamic people in general, don't react to perceived 'blasphemies' than those who fail to react are in violation of Islamic principles and their souls are than at risk???Oct 1 2012: Hi Eric
My feeling is loud and clear which is below...
When my feeling is against the law like "Balshphemy", in no way I can tolerate such act of "stoning" by angry mob as you described......nor I can support someone mocking intensionally with others feelings and belief. That's why in my first post here I had my agreement what @ Justin Elkin commented about.
I am not sure whom you are thinking to be "My Leaders" ?
Barry Palmer
Sep 26 2012: "what people deem sacred"
- +2
So if enough people deem an image of a nude woman sacred, then people of other religions cannot attack or insult or demean that image. If enough people consider beer sacred, then other people cannot attack or insult or demean the drinking of beer. People who want to restrict freedom of speech had better be careful; they might get what they want.
Sep 26 2012: Agree. What is deemed sacred is vague and could go any way leaving us all silent.Sep 26 2012: I like your savred examples.Sep 26 2012: There is actually another important issue here, you fail to mention, the distortion of language.
In the middle east, they teach their children that "freedom of religion", means freedom from jest and criticism. That is not what freedom of religion means. If you believe a different religion than someone else, you are going to critique, and make fun of them occasionally, some will attempt conversion... This is perfectly natural and acceptable behavior.
Freedom of religion, means that a religious belief, can not be forced on the population. To force an atheist not to laugh at religions, is not freedom of religion, it is an institutional oppression of atheism. "Freedom of Religion" is not an institutional oppression, and jailing of atheists... and we cannot let the definitions of these words be co opted, because Christian zealots want to change them, just as much as Muslim zealots.
Freedom of religion, is the right to blasphemy, and it set free the scientific revolution. There is no coherent argument against it, and we can no longer afford to pretend that there is. People who believe in censorship, are children, whether it's the UN, the US, Iran, or Israel.
Sep 27 2012: Interesting how words can be twisted to different meanings
Agree freedom of religion does not mean absolute freedom for any thing religious inspired.
It is a balancing act.
Thanks davidSep 30 2012: Hi David. Someone who thinks! Rare even at TED.Oct 3 2012: Perhaps part of the response is pointing out how freedom of expression provides more benefits even if some offence than outlawing blasphemy.Oct 2 2012: In a word no... Why would the UN enforce a policy to prevent Blasphemy? Seriously, the Flying Spaghetti monster is a recognized religion. Anyone with 10 bucks and a few moments of time can create a religion.
There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity, several Islam offshoots and interpretations, ultimately once you make Blasphemy illegal, anyone can start a religion, and basically outlaw any and all speech of any kind.
It would require the UN to recognize only one religion, and treat insult of that religion as illegal, while ignoring all the rest (of the crazies). The fact this is even considered a legitimate idea makes me sad for the human species as a whole.
Look at the countries that do have Blasphemy laws. What a joke, neighbor turning on neighbor to use the law to punish them, even if they never said anything. This would be a huge turn for the worse for the world, and humans as a whole.
Oct 3 2012: I agree Allen.
I guess the non religious fundamentalists may agree in principle its not great to use freedom of speech to humiliate, but if offence is the bar, well that is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm offended by holocaust denial, but suggest more speech is a better response is the best response to most bad speech.
Some humiliation and offence is worth it in my view to maintain the benefits of optimum freedom of speech.Oct 2 2012: This post made me wonder whether there is, or could be, some kind of 'stacking' system in human rights. Kind of like rules in CSS, or layers in Photoshop.
For those not knowing what I mean, a rule in CSS is valid unless a rule later in the document overrules it.
Of course, laws work like this to an extent. If a new law is written that contradicts an old one, the new one is followed.
But it seems like people either ignore this fact, or don't understand, especially when talking about things like free speech. Why do laws or rules have to be so absolute? What's wrong with saying "Everybody has the right to free speech, UNLESS they are offending somebody."
I think the key is in defining when a person has a right to be offended. It's probably impossible for both parties (the offender & offended) to take *every* possible action to stop the offence being taken, but what if we judged these things by how much the 2 parties have done to avoid offence being taken? For example, if a vegetarian walks into a Butcher's and is offended by the sight of raw meat, the vegetarian has clearly not done very much to avoid being offended. However, if a person knowingly shows up to that vegetarian's house with a basket of meat, that person must surely take the blame for any offence.
Maybe this is already how the law is judged, I don't know. I just think following these principles solves a lot of debate.
Oct 3 2012: Interesting concept Sanjay.
My view is humans identify and bestow "human rights and responsibilities"
These rights are not intrinsic, but ideally work to improve the human condition and reduce suffering.
I dnt think any are absolute and different rights will clash. Freedom of religion shopuld not mean freedom to kill others who do not follow your religious taboos.
This is the sort of issue that deserves deep consideration as you suggest.
Comment deleted
kazem safari
Oct 2 2012: Gentlemen gentlemen, please, i somehow agree with all you but i think there many limitations to the extent of knowledge of someone like you who has lived in a modern society with freedom of speech and religion. you are not seeing the whole picture, do you?. i think, with all due respect many of you do not understand who is really behind the face of this individual or society you are dealing with. i lived my entire life around these people who hold some sacred ideas about prophet mohammad, god, and emams and etc. most of these people have been kept apart from the rest of the world by their government and regimes. they have been fed by their local clargymen and were somehow deceived and mislead by what they've been told, i can not describe here the whole process of how their government have been able to do such a thing or why these people are acting in this strange way, due to lack of time and energy. neverthelese you can't blame everything on their shortcoming and lack of understanding of this modern world because they've been kept in isolation from the rest of civilization. Comon you don't think they've been born this way do you?. i'm using this metaphor to make my point clear " after the problem is solved the answer seems quite obvious to everyone." and the relatedness of this phrase to my point is because you've been raised in a society who's rules of the game ( your expectation from others, civil rights, the extend of freedom which has been given to you, and etc) all of them has been made clear to you, build in to you from the start, that's because they seem so obvious to you now that you've become a grown up. in order to understand these parts of the world you have live their standards try to understand them from their perspective and the most and extremely difficult part is trying to come with some innovative ideas of yours about how to really help them try to understand modern standards of living cause otherwise you're just gonna make everything worst.Oct 2 2012: @ Ezra Masri,
- +2
Sorry Ezra, but you are wrong when you say that truth is relative. For example: the proposition "there is a book on the table in front of me" is either true or false depending on the physical state of being the world is in at the time the proposition is uttered. If I am in my office and proposition is true then it remains true for a person just entering my office. To suppose that a proposition can be both true and false at the same time for different people is utter nonsense.
More on topic for this discussion: banning blasphemy is essentially trying to outlaw giving verbal offence. It is a direct violation of free speech rights. It is outright kowtowing to dictators and theocratic regimes to even consider such a ridiculous proposition. The very idea that one may not speak in such a way that offends another person is a dictate of politeness, not a dictate of morality. It is a valuable life lesson to learn that not everyone thinks as you do, and that many find your deeply held beliefs to be not only wrong, but laughable. I see no reason not to extend such a lesson to any person.Oct 3 2012: Making a distinction and making it illegal is very different. Anyone can tall you that the inoccence of the Muslims is in bad taste but only the fanatics will tell you that it's should be banned. Additionally, you claim that he companies that operate in theocratic regimes should self censor, I turn that around and tell you that if the theocracies want to accept the progress of the Internet then they have to accept the unpleasant side of it ( unrestrained satire). Finally anyone who is offended can avoid watching what offends them.
Dan F
Oct 1 2012: As an atheist I do not subscribe to any religion. The idea of a supernatural being is something too mystical for me. So that makes my views on the subject of any such religion as blasphemous, despite my civil behavior.
- +1
Beyond that I find some religions are even crazier than others. The differences between these rigid faith based belief systems begets blasphemous expression. This may in turn result in terrorism. These faithful and sensitive types are not going to change in their way of operating no matter how much prayer, or meditation is offered for world peace.
Blasphemy should not be outlawed anywhere, let alone by edict from the the UN. Besides doesn't the UN have enough problems?
I do believe people should be free to believe what they choose, but they get the baggage too!
Mark Smed
Sep 30 2012: An individual's rights to express himself should never be limited. Society cannot police individual thought, only action. If you don't like someone because of their ideas, you should be able to express that, no matter how offensive other people find it. The liability comes when groups put forward ideas to represent a position. There are a lot of people who have strong beliefs that we as individuals agree with. A single racist or fear monger is a single voice among many. A group of racists or fear mongers can promote their ideas to manipulate public opinion over the lone voice of opposition. Care must be taken when we organize into units - and the responsibility and liability of that is fully accountable to the individual members. What should really be discusssed is how much is your responsibility when you support an idea that harms another group or individual.
- +1
John Dunbar
Sep 30 2012: I think we have to take into consideration the mindset of an individual who has his religion insulted halfway around the world and reacts by wanting to murder and riot in the streets. This has its roots in a couple of things, first you have to have so little pleasure in your life that you use the slightest of insults as a scapegoat to riot and run amok. I posit this is due to just terrible living conditions and immense poverty. The other is fundamental islam, make any argument you want, if you believe the Koran is the word of God literally(im an agnostic atheist, so its not just the koran literally its any religion) this is going to make for some very terrible consequences. So i think we need to be understanding that this kind of psychopathic reaction to criticism is not just rooted in religion, but also rooted in having loads of repressed anger due to various reasons.
- +1
To answer your question obey, I think it would be an incredible step backwards if we were to suspend free speech in regards to religion, if we do this where does it stop, whats next? Next thing it will be blasphemy to speak poorly about governments and political systems. Isn't this initiative just propping up Islamic law inadvertently because if i'm not mistaken blasphemy in Islam is considered worthy of death in some cases. This is saying, lets make it illegal because we can't help but want to murder you if you speak poorly of our prophet. What an absurd and childish notion.... This will never fly, I would consider moving out of the U.S. if we adopted this.Sep 30 2012: Just another small step in the relentless path back to the 14th century with Islam carrying the banner this time...but this time its with nuclear weapons.
I can't think of a worse position for the UN to take or the rest of the world to allowSep 30 2012: I think the concept of "blasphemy" assumes a universal observance of certain religious rules drawn up by specific people. Thus, there is no such universality of any religion--not in the same way that all humans would agree, independently, on basic Human Rights. I think that is the test. And for that reason, this is not an issue for the UN, or the UNDHR.
Both the offense and response of the latest act of "blasphemy" come from a deep impractical lack of sense of community. And I daresay, in many cases, lack of education for appropriate levels of public expression. The star-treatment of these losers doesn't help. The killing of others, innocent others, especially, is deeply out of control and THAT needs prosecution. The irony there, in terms of "true blasphemy" is ridiculous. But we all know it's interpretive to begin with.
The vast majority of people neither care to offend others nor feel the need to "retaliate" in such a brutal fashion. Most other offensive stuff in life gets routinely ignored, and these should too. This is what needs to be happen in a pluralistic society. However, I imagine the two sides are just going to be hoisting bigger and bigger ballsacks on to the table. Don't we have a global economy to fix?Sep 29 2012: Stopping blasphemy via UN would not be a game changer, it may even increase the gap between the communities.
The more fundamental problem is that the attachment towards ones religion and not listening to the outside world. Every religion has an extent of extremism. The extent of which it is executed puts the society at unease. May be one can think this problem as a mere lack of understanding the reality on either sides. There could be a solution which can only be achieved by trust from either sides.
Having said this, in my opinion, any council/UN are no where near solving these issues. History had repeatedly taught that by force/power one can only lead to change in a policy of the government but not the people within. Lets put our efforts in regaining trust among us, so that we listen each other with some peace of mind(not with ears) and respect each other for a better world.
Sep 30 2012: I think you are onto something.
If we worked out the political and economic issues we might make more progress.
To me the call for blasphemy is almost like a deliberate effort to highlight that we don't share the same values or that the un is subject to the infidels. Which is kind of true.
The security council voted to give half of Palestine to the Jews. Stupid.
There are no Muslim nations permanent members of the security council. Which I'm not sure is a bad thing. It might make a flawed group worse.Sep 26 2012: Nothing is universally sacred except the expression of the individual. It is a shame that persons are so arrogant they must devalue a sacred construct to support their own religion.
Ken brown
Sep 26 2012: Regardless, America will not back down,they can't,neither can the rest of them,we won't and neither will Aus,if they do then they can demand more,i have seen this over here in nz in other situations.
- +1
Sep 26 2012: Hi Ken, what have you seen in NZ?
Sep 27 2012: It's hard for me to say this but i have to take it from an observers point of view as i'm just as invested in it as any other kiwi is,so i will try to keep it short and as exact as i can,my people has been agitating for recognition for the last century and has been in negotiations since the late 80's for settlement which some of my tribes have taken not realizing that it is a double edged sword,so when issues that has come up in the last decade that affected our view of our country through our eye's, we protested and did walks from one end of the country to the capital,what was important to us was not important to the rest of the country,these protests were a waste of time(Well one wasn't but i won't go into it) it only works once effectively but every time it is used again only points to a rambling of a large group of people in an highly agitated state,so the government had to stand it's ground like a rock being pounded by heavy surf,if the government gave in during these outbursts then my more militant cousins could have agitated for more.This of course is just the emotional wave that calms down eventually and then the negotiations get back on track as they always have.
What i see happening with what Islam wants is similar but not the same,as they are a group of different nationalities and ethnic races that want to impose a law upon/within another set of different countries to suit themselves as a distinct separate group of humans.
My countries problems are nothing compared to what they want and we are only interested in what we think is important to nz and it has nothing to do with religion.
Sep 28 2012: Ken, have you ever written a conversation specifically about the culture clashes between the Kiwi, and the majority in NZ?
I think the more subtle and peaceful clash of cultures, may actually provide a nice backdrop for some of the more acute problems faced in the world today, and it seems like something you're passionate about. Simply because of it's small population, I'm sure very few people are even familiar with what the Kiwi people really want.
I'd be fascinated to read about it... Just a thought.Sep 29 2012: I can't David,it would be totally biased and there are fellow Kiwi's here on TED, it would be disrespectful to my fellow countrymen and to us it looks like a whinning drawl but at home where i'm at now it's "Have at thee" because it's home where it matters, even online,though we may sound separate we are actually one,there is only 4 million of us on two little islands at the bottom of the world,one learns to accept each other though we may grumble,if anything what we are going through is the pain of mergence where one day we will have resonance and our little human murmuration will take flight from a land of flightless birds and join our big brother Australia when that ostrich takes to the air, if they ever get their heads out of the sand and go republic then we will follow.he he
Oh by the way the term Kiwi means everybody from Nz like that of the Aussies,i've been agitating amongst my friends to change our national icon "The Kiwi" to the purple swamp hen which we call "The Pukeko" if you see one of those birds running you can't help but fall over laughing,they are endearing but i haven't got any good feedback lol.
Sep 30 2012: Hi ken I guess you are referring to protests by various Maori groups on various issues. Always complicated where an indigenous people's have been done over by another group.
My understanding is Maoris became British citizens with the treaty of waitangi, but the Brits took land etc anyway. I guess the Maori fared better than aboriginal australians who only got the vote in the 1960's. Also the native Americans got done over. But not much consolation.
Actually it seems the law of the jungle for most of human history.
Chinese still going over tibetans. This group versus that group everywhere.
Anyway it makes things complex now.
At least equal rights under the law would be good. But even these can be racist like crack cocaine hving harser penlties versus coke.
How do different cultures live together? Seems a challenge.Sep 30 2012: Yeah Obey,that's why i won't go into it,we had it a lot better than others but in saying so the current situation is just the pain of mergence,if you look at nz's government you will see a damn good mix of representation,militant corporate junkies,christians,nutty greenies,gays and i'm hoping to see our asians and indians start to get interested,we're only half the population of Sydney but it's progressive though financially poor and resource poor,have the sydney newspapers had any articles on Kim Dotcom? and how our PM took a gamble and apologised to him for this governments USELESS intelligence departments handling of his arrest requested by the FBI,he was a full citizen and under our laws a citizen may not be placed under surveillance unless it is related to criminal behaviour.We're angry,all of us,they allowed a foriegn power to make demands upon our soil,though i'm a 65% supporter of this party in power now that doesn't give them the right to be cowtowed and i don't think you guys would put up with that either.
I thought in Sydney there is a large group of different cultures?We're human Obey,when you're surrounded by other cultures you just accept it,You know what,i personally believe? that racism is tied to our DNA,i can't prove it but damn it everyone goes through wrestling with it at some stage in their lives.If you come across a maori and ask him if he's full blooded and he says yes,then you know he's lying,the last full blood died last century.Oct 2 2012: Any disrespectful action against someone else should be considered as something wrong. But at the same time we must understand that criticism is part of this world. And any aspect of a religion can be analyzed or criticized in a respectful manner. If something is said about a religious character, and the argument is based on solid scientific evidence then it should not be taken as a blasphemy. And as far as i remember God said that revenge belongs to him. So its not in my hands to avenge what i consider is an offense against what i believe. Most religions speak about a final judgment where we will all face a trial for whatever we did in this life. If that its true then we will have to pay for what we did or said wrong, and If its not true and there is no final judgment maybe it will be a good thing to leave this world knowing that always tried to do what is right, according to whatever we believe in, as individuals. And that all the ones that stay in this world after we go, will remember us as good men or women that left a legacy of respect and wisdom.
Oct 3 2012: Hi Roberto.
Interesting point.
I also its not great to intend to be disrespectful. However, you can respect someone and still tell them you disagree even if this offends them. Subtle consideration here I suggest.
If I say we seem to have evolved rather than be created as homo sapiens, or that the earth is more than 6000 years old, or that at best all but one religious belief system can be completely correct so all the other thousands must be false, this may offend. People may feel disrespected, but my right to say my mind should also be respected.
Or I might say I respect people too much to pander to their religious world views, I worry for their children and mine stuck in medieval thinking.
I see you point out some suggested boundaries for offence/blasphemy. I see the point because if we can not say 2+2=4. Or that there is no evidence for the existence of adam and eve or even Abraham or Noah, these excessively cuts reasonable speech.
However, offence and what is considered sound can get very twisted to support a particular would view. And the fanatics will still disagree.
If the intent is to offend, not great, but should not be outlawed.Oct 2 2012: We cannot accept ancient belief systems, nor tolerate those that espouse them in a new world. In Pakistan, we have an adult male claiming that a child of 14 burned copies of some holy book. There is outrage about this? But not the fact that we have a pedophile preying on a child? Religion has to be put in its place... This is absolute disgrace. I don't care if it is Jehovah, Christ, Mohammed, or the great Snowy Bear. All beliefs such as these should be put in the ashes of humanity. Original Sin? There was no Adam and Eve. The earth is billioOct 1 2012: Society progresses when old archaic practices that are found to be detrimental to positive human growth and expression are excised from said Society. To defer such a natural right is to end a society and instead grow a prison.Oct 1 2012: We can not make laws of belief, only laws of certainty, for every individual holds different beliefs to others but it is the certainty of how our perceptions overlap that we may enjoy together.Sep 30 2012: I am Bahai, Moslems concider my entire religon a blasphemy
I was raised fundamentalist Baptist, we concidered Islam a blasphemy
We call Islam blasphemy they call our religion a blasphemy . I wonder, are there any precidents in history that might give a clue as to where this leads?(hint; Crusades)
Copernicus was called a blasphemer as was Galileo and countless others who were simply telling the truth
Blasphemy is anything a religous leader decides to call blasphmey and its net effect is supression of competing ideas or religions
So not only no but HELL NO!Sep 30 2012: Hindering freedom of speech would be heinous, but...
...what is the borderline between freedom of speech and slander, offense and impoliteness? One should not abuse his/hers own freedom to trample upon the beliefs of others.Sep 30 2012: I think that we shouldn't be enforcing any bans.
We should rather be promoting honorable actions and civilized debate.
If we continue to not talk but remain provoking there is no doubt in my mind that the conflicts will escalate more frequently and with more extreme concequences.
If however we start an honerable debate where everyone tries to understand the others perspective this would lead to a much more contructive world.
If however one side (or both sides) do not want this then obviously they prefer a massive war over peace... and I'd call them insane.Sep 29 2012: While I don't agree with the lawless behavior of some of our trhird world Muslim friends, I don't agree with the behavior of a Westerner who intentionally does something that would be expected to cause death or injury to innocent third parties. Isn't that like yelling "fire" in a theater? That's not allowed. This movie is unacceptable because the producers knew or should have known it will cause so many problems.
Sep 30 2012: Firstly the alledged is a Coptic Christian. A sect persecuted in Egypt by the Muslim majority. Although I don't know the motives. But he was not a Muslim.
And no it is not like yelling fire in a movie theatre. It's like yelling something offensive. And then the crowd going balalistic and burning down the theatre. But I get your point.
In this case the movie seems deliberately intended to be provocative and offend.
I for one don't think we should cowl in fear in response to this religious violence.
To compare offensive speech with murder and violence seems a little screwed up to me.
But the killers are the ones who are responsible. 100%.
The movie was bad quality and offensive. So what. The response to bad speech should be more speech.
It's almost like blaming a woman for being raped because she wore a tight dress. Sorry it may have been unwise, but the rapist is at fault.
The violence while predictable, is the fault of the fundamentalist violent rabble who have less respect for others than those that offend with only words.Sep 28 2012: A member's response who indicated blasphemy should be outlawed -- presumably on an international level? -- has received a plus-1. This interrupted my initial thought process that the question was rhetorical in nature.
I will be very interested to learn how the UN approaches this issue and how the dialogue occurs...How to actually have 'talks' with, rather than to, each side.
Perhaps some deep, meaningful analogies and metaphors would be helpful in these communications. Someone who knows the sensitive faith's tenets inside and out.
Is the challenge to reach a populace in order to re-frame or open their belief systems? Is the goal to teach these people that they cannot be lessened in any way -- physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually -- by someone else's actions or words, and to accomplish this in a peaceful manner?
Sep 30 2012: Our prime minister spoke at the un and said it was not okay to be critical of religion.
She was not speaking for me.
I may even write a letter.
The challenge is substantial. I'm not sure what the solution is. I guess if there was less religion, especially the fundamentalist type we wouldn't need to worry about having medieval religious taboos forced on us. Or just a spread of enlightened values.
Sep 30 2012: "However our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred and incitement to violence, whether these lead to attacks against members of religious minorities or diplomats, attacks against houses of worship or diplomatic missions. The perpetrators of all such violence must be brought to justice and all such incitement must be condemned. " ~australian PM julia gillard
sounded like political double-talk to me. her underlying goal was to cover all bases, perhaps, and work towards a seat on the security council, though, right?
she did also say, "Denigration of religious beliefs is never acceptable."
but I don't get the impression she weighed in on whether the UN should pass a resolution to outlaw it in anyway.
very tricky issue...seems it would be healthy for the UN to include Islamic nations, but how to find the balance with maintaining freedom of expression/religion while the vantage point of some of these nations is purely religious?Sep 27 2012: Of course not-we do not live in the middle age any more. If people act wired, you should tell them, and obvious insane cults shoult not be protected by law, instead, the society has to be protected from them.
It is really wired that there is even a debate about the "feelings" of religious people and if that needs new laws. It does not need new laws, because any law like that would be an old law.
So, if we really consider to make a law against blasphemy, we should allow burning witches at the same moment, as we are obviously think and act like in the dark past of mankind again.
Sep 29 2012: its funny how you say cults should not be protected, but all major religions started as cult that where strange and demented to the people of the timesSep 30 2012: If old superstitions were covered then so should the new superstitions.
Seriously the stories in the bible, virgin births, talking donkeys and serpents, living in whale, cutting bits of hour penis off, etc are just as weird as any current cult, unless they re prt of your cultural norms.Sep 27 2012: Should the U.N. override the Constitution of the United States? Blasphemy is not one of the exclusions under the First Amendment. In America we are free to blaspheme. Why, heck, we can even speak irreverently and profanely about the U.N. My answer to your provocative question is NO. Get the U.S. out of the U.N. Thank you!Sep 27 2012: I think exercising good old common sense and not provoking people in that way would work better than a label such as blasphemer.
Sep 30 2012: I agree Justin, mostly.
We should be able to say what we want, pretty much, including things that will offend. But why go out of your way to provoke.
Some groups are just too easily incited to violence. The response to speech you don't like should be more speech, not violence.
Sep 30 2012: Why is the UN of all things worried about this?!Sep 27 2012: The Jews had Jesus put to death for blasphemy. All indications say he was the Messiah that their prophets foretold. That being the case, they crucified the very hope they longed for by their laws. When is it going to stop?
you are right, most human rights aim to improve the human condition - but for who? For those who make the laws. They tailor them to their own advantage. It happened in religion, and it is happening in politics.
A religion that leads to spiritual experience has value. It draws people in by the results it produces. You don't have to force people into it. A religion that condemns non-believers is destructive. It draws people in by fear of what might happen to the offender. If the only way you can promote your religion is through violence and threats, than Satan is your master. We need to stand up to tyranny. I agree that no one should allow this. People should have the right to speak out against human injustice whether it is based on religion or not.
The early Catholic church condemned the gnostic christians for heresy. The same church condemned witches as consorting with the devil. Evidence clearly shows that it was all based on lies. Genetic mutilation does not provide any benefit to the victim. It is used to control. I believe in religion, including the Satanic part. And the Satanic part seems to be gaining ground.
You have raised a good point. No one should sign this.
Sep 30 2012: Hi Roy, thanks for the comment.
I agree with the bulk of your comment.
I think that some Jews would point out biblical inconsistencies that indicate Jesus was not the messiah even though the Christians had every opportunity to make up stuff so that it seemed Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, they failed under closer analysis.
It seems rather arbitrary to me how orthodoxy is determined in most religions.Sep 26 2012: The UN was developed to solve international problems. It was not developed to address religious issues. I think instead of outlawing blasphemy, they should just outlaw all discussion of religion period. Kinda like the US public school system. How many people discuss religion and blasphemy in the workplace? It is so inappropriate in this setting.
Sep 30 2012: Hi Linda the un human rights declaration mentions freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Which seems fine to me. If they just stuck to this I agree that would be fine.
Just some want to outlaw criticism of religious beliefs. Which I disagree with.
The un does not push ny particular religion and seems as secular as us government is supposed to be.Sep 26 2012: "Essentially, if you hold genital mutilation of children sacred or any other harmful religious belief sacred it is proposed to make it illegal to condemn this."
You just answered your own question: of course blasphemy should not be outlawed, it would be a return to the dark ages.
"I hope Australia does not sign this."
It won't, this is like the fifth time the Islamic countries try to do this (apparently they've already eliminated hunger, poverty, HIV, malaria and TBC, climate change, solved the energy problem and ensured equal rights for all), each time they were defeated in the UN by free countries. Even if they get a majority it would still be non-binding because there's no way even one of the five permanent security council members would vote for it.


text:
- Philipp Böing
- London
- United Kingdom
Founder: Darwin Toolbox, SynBioSoc / UCL iGEM organizer, University College London
This conversation is closed.
Should Synthetic Organisms be released to clean plastic pollution from the ocean?
The Problem: Microplastic pollution in the ocean.
Proposed Solution: Engineered Organisms that can collect the pollution into recyclable pieces. (the science behind this: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/igem2012 )
A video explanation: http://youtu.be/rEDLg03teOk
Should Synthetic Organisms be released to clean plastic pollution from the ocean? Is synthetic biology the only solution to plastic pollution? Can we anticipate and prevent any negative repercussions? Do the potential risks outweigh the benefits? Who could profit from this? Who calls the shots?
Jul 12 2012: A cost benefit analysis is required based on experiments done in large aquariums with current simulation. It is an absolute necessity to make sure these organisms have very little chance, through mutation, by the selective pressure of a lack of plastic, to adapt their biology to consume a different food source that may result in competition with other species.
- +2
The problem with this is: Small organisms don't live long so removing their reproductive capability may result in faliure to remove plastic. Keeping a reproductive capability may remove more plastic but as small organisms have short generation times there is increased probability of evolutionary adaptation to a new food source. Perfecting a balanced organism that exists somewhere in the midst of this dichotomy will be very difficult indeed.
Mike Schultz
Jul 18 2012: I say No they should not because if this world falls to far onto technology and synthetic things to take care of our responsibilities we will become lazy people take wall-e for example yes i know it is only a cartoon movie made for kids but don't you think the resin it is a kids movie is because the kids of today are the leaders of tomorrow and it shows a valid point if we rely on other things to do our everyday task we will become lazy and do nothing all day
- +1
Aja B.
Jul 15 2012: There was an in-depth piece on Craig Venter's synthetic creatures in the NYTmag last month: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/magazine/craig-venters-bugs-might-save-the-world.html
- +1
The author seems pretty biased in favor of Venter, but I still found it an interesting (and frightening) read. It doesn't really sound like there's any "if" about it... these guys are just going to do it and see what happens.
gale kooser
Jul 15 2012: No! Too many variables. The oceans seas, lakes, & waterways of the world have taken a huge hit from humans & other means must be created to clean up this mess. The creatures, that call water home, are struggling to adapt or die out in the process. Humans have used the waters as their personal trash heap for centuries & the solution is NOT adding more to the mix but cleaning up the mess with a more thought out solution.
- +1
Barry Palmer
Jul 13 2012: No to Synthetic Organisms. Yes to robots. Big robots, not nanobots. Solar powered drones moving through the ocean that can serve many purposes, data collection and garbage collection in particular.
- +1
(It would be impossible to test the effect of nanobots on all of the species in the oceans; we haven't discovered all of them yet.)
Jul 13 2012: You would need a lot of big robots. Solar powered always sounds nice, but you need a lot of rare materials to produce them and i don't think that solar modules produce enough energy unless we can copy the efficiency of photosynthesis...like in an synthetic organism. So robots may sound more familiar today (this has not always been the case) but could actually do more harm than an synthetic organism.Jul 16 2012: that will actually destroy coral reefs in the process, another reason we cant even go to clean up the bottom of the ocean floor, these plastic bags are entagled in the reefs, any pulling will damage them. were screwed basically.
Lejan .
Jul 13 2012: Only if you know all 100% of the consequences. So, knowing, not guessing!
- +1
Jul 13 2012: That would be nice but is not going to happen. With every new technology there is always some kind of uncertainty (who thought of Chlorofluorocarbon or the housing bubble). Today in SynBio uncertainty is very big but it will get smaller.The question is if that is enough.
Lejan .
Jul 13 2012: Sebatsian, exactly!
- 0
And for the risk of this magnitude I would not choose this technology for the described problem.
Sebastian R.
Jul 12 2012: Synthetic organisms can do some things we can't do in an other way and for some jobs like your project you would have to release them into the wild. Today this is not legal and this is fine, because we don't understand the technology well enough. Today the risks are very low but so are the benefits. This might change in the future, but until then, SynBio has to proof itself a lot in the lab and under safe conditions. We have to develop preventions mechanisms like predicting potential unintended reactions (this can and has to be done, in IT Security they don't test just if it works but also if it does something which was not intended under very rare circumstances), create a self controlling community which is aware of the risks and can act just in case, develop mechanisms to "remove" "buggy" organisms from our environment, talk to people who live in the environment we want to release GMOs and research how synthetic organisms combine with natural organisms. If we cannot do those kind of things I don't think it is responsible to release the organisms in the environment. But if we wait long enough the environmental problems will become so big that anybody with a solution will be a hero. Until then, we should have done our homework.
- +1
Somehow your project reminds me of Wall-E :DJul 18 2012: If you can then organ-ize another organism to find the first organisms and kill them by eating THEM - and then commit suicide immediately by turning into pure H20 - I am for it. Until then - stop freaking around!Jul 18 2012: No, no and no. It could create a much bigger problem and wipe out all the existing marine life. I say make the environment number one. No environment equals no people. The rest of the important issues are secondary.Jul 18 2012: Certainly not! By reason of the complexity of the systems involved, the comparatively trivial level of our understanding, the potential scale of the fall out and the infallible law of unintended consequences.
How did such large quantities of plastic become deposited in the seas in the first place? By our certain knowledge that no great harm would come of it!
I would rather trust nature to take care of the problem in its own manner in its own time, even if it takes 10,000 years - that is a mere blip. The most important role we can play is to stop adding to the problems nature must contend with. The clear lesson is not to be so disregarding of things we don't understand.Jul 18 2012: One problem with using living microbes for human purposes is evolution. There is no possible safeguard against random changes to genes, and this will result in consequences that are unpredictable and possibly very harmful. This same risk is ever present, with billions of species of wild microbes that might evolve into something harmful. But humans have no control and no responsibility for wild microbes. For designed microbes, the person releasing them has full responsibility for the consequences. Since no one could guarantee that they could reverse the harmful effects of a designed microbe, it is irresponsible and wrong to release them. (Does the word wrong still have a place in debates of public issues?)
I like Debra Smith's solution; go out there and pick it up; we need the jobs. Then when we calculate the cost of cleaning up all that plastic we can add it to the price of future plastic products. Plastic sales will plummet.
Zaz Tao
Jul 18 2012: NO!!!!!!!! Absolutely, positively not!
- 0
Get out there and understand every molecule of the world's oceans before you loose a single microbe from your lab!
Ecosystems are inordinately complex and I bet you don't even know all the details of the microbes you're playing with. Let's be honest here, you've tweaked a gene here and a gene there in some 'coli's and Roseobacters, right?
Build an E. coli from scratch first, model every last amino acid, be able to count every phospholipid, ion, even the water molecules! Then be able to list every epigenetic change possible in Escherichia Coli that can be triggered environmentally, or by the little bugger's own whim, etc. Not necessary to memorize, but at least have the entirety of organic chemistry modeled in some ridiculously powerful supercomputer. Be able to map the location of every single entity over half a kilodalton in the all the oceans, whether it can wiggle or not. (Should keep ya busy a while eh?)
Then you can play god with the Pacific.Jul 18 2012: It appears to me that you are focused on the waste of energy and not the use of energy, remember we humans are extremely in efficient machines, our maintenance requirements exceed our out put under the best of conditions by a ration of six to one, more often it is 15 to one or more.
Energy is what keeps living things going or being alive regardless it's source. On this globe called earth we have energy captured from the sun either concurrent with it use or as fossil sources and from spiting or combining elements, fusion and fission. Wind, water, bio fuels and direct capture of the suns rays are all solar based, but are energy. Only one of them can be transformed in to something resembling plastic. Even the plastic you suggest as a substitute was made only through the application of energy. The value of any object is nothing more than the energy the purchaser is willing to offer. Money is a storage device for the ability to command energy. When we spend money we are offering energy or buying the energy it took to bring the item being purchased to where we purchase the item.
Jul 18 2012: I'm just postulating that at some stage it will be cheaper to gather flotsam from the oceans as a source of plastic than find more oil. The number is irrelevent. Releasing the organisms described in the question would destroy a resource.Jul 18 2012: Waste is nothing more than a resource out of place. The suggestion that when oil is $1000 US per barrel fails to recognize that the energy in the barrel of oil remains constant and the only thing that changes is the inflated dollar, if it remains the standard currency, number we assign to getting the barrel. The net energy to produce any given product can be changed by innovation.
I am reminded on the solution the operators of one solid wast incinerator adopted to solve the problem they were having with plastic containers. The plastic containers fouled and clogged the feed mechanism.They pulled them out of the trash feed to the incinerator for several months and then fed them all at once to the grates. Well plastics are high energy elements and the grates were melted putting the incinerator out of service for several months. Be careful how you recover a waste where it may be.
Jul 18 2012: I was assuming that by the time oil is that expensive its value as a monomer source would have stopped us using it as a fuel. We have alternative energy sources (impractical as they may be) but there is no alternative source for the carbon chains we all rely on every day to plastic up our lives.Jul 16 2012: I got a great solution stop using plastics! Even if this organism breaks it down with out side effects, if we do not stop plastic making at its source it will be futile. Also may I add people like to throw away garbage no matter what you tell them. How do we stop that, we could also change the source to a bio-degradable version.Jul 16 2012: This is too big a problem for a debate: practical trials are the only way to make progress. Debates never end...Jul 16 2012: Hi, I am one of the members of this iGEM team. Here's some added information about our project that we would like your opinion on. In order to prevent horizontal gene transfer, we are engineering a system of "kill switch" genes into our cells. In effect, if the cells lose their engineered plasmids to wild type cells, this triggers they system, killing the cells, and preventing the introduced genes from entering the environment.
Separately, we have an exonuclease system that will degenerate any extracellular DNA, preventing genes from being released into the environment after cell death.
What other kinds of safeguards do you think are necessary if such a system is actually put into place?
Jul 16 2012: I am a biomedical science graduate. Although what you are saying has been proven, i still believe there is still a chance of gene recombination that could result in the deactivation kill switch'. I am fine with the use of GEM organisms in the lab and in treating patients. but I am very reluctant of their use in a large eco system such as the ocean. If anything goes wrong, it cannot be easily corrected.
I think the best solution is to educate people about the use of plastic and promote recycling. And as Charles suggested, the best solution is to stop the production and use of plastic.
Jul 18 2012: "[...] there is still a chance of gene recombination that could result in the deactivation [of the] kill switch[es]'"
You sum it up perfectly, Oyeronke. The foreseeable is quite finite and obviously non-inclusive of the unforeseeable.Jul 16 2012: When oil reaches $1000 a barrel the flotsam of the oceans will be mined to reclaim the valuable plasic. Today's rubbish is next centuries gold (and vice versa)Jul 14 2012: Yes, synthetic biology is part of the future, we must give it a chance, it's a cheap way to solve very costly problems.Jul 13 2012: No robots.Jul 13 2012: While it's not the only solution, it's one of the most difficult. Synthetic implies you're talking about creating life from scratch. If that's not the case and you mean genetic engineering, then it seems plausible. If the organisms are given no way to reproduce, and are left to eat away their only food source, with bodies non-toxic to the ecosystem, then there's no harm. That's too many big "if"s, though. I think that nanobots would be a better investment than genetically altered bacteria that eats waste. That's just for things like oil spills that are not a constant threat. If you ask me, we should clean the air by taking a better look at our inefficient cattle industry. The price of good steak would go way down (yay!). And the water waste could be analyzed for traces of elements that could be reused as fuel. But if you're talking about microscopic organisms to clean up pollution, I'd give it a no. To difficult to control. Bacteria don't have the option of a kill switch and can transmit viruses (unlike nanobots). They are also harder to control and clean up themselves because they are biological.
Jul 14 2012: Synthetic biology has already begun and engineers have already created some bacteria life from scratch, it's not hard to test these organisms efficiency in controlled area and they can be made for almost any purpose, specific purposes like clearing plastic waste or even toxic waste, oil spills, or whatever the application.
Perhaps in a few decades we will have whole cities and buildings that will grow instead of being constructed. These buildings will be synthetic life forms, they might sustain from human waste and provide for most of our needs, combined with robotic and AI, synthetic biology will make the world much more natural and harmonious than without.
Jul 16 2012: AI? Thats light years away for a Type 0 Civilization. If we had AI now the robots would rebel against its masters cause they would realize we are the problem makers on this planet! LOL Think about it if you programmed them to create harmony on the planet what you think would really happen?Jul 16 2012: Just to clarify, synthetic biology does not necessitate "creating life from scratch". Synthetic biology as a field aims to create functions and systems not found naturally. This includes (for example) introducing genes for fluorescent proteins into E.Coli, which is a form of genetic engineering that has been done for quite a while now.
The main difference in synthetic biology is that it focuses on establishing tools to do so in a standardised way, allowing different labs to design gene constructs that are compatible with each other.
Within the scope of the iGEM competition we are a part of, this includes finding 'useful' genes, isolating them for transformation into microbial cells such as E.Coli, and submitting these new gene constructs to a centralised registry so that future teams can utilise the genetic constructs we have made.Jul 12 2012: Or, you cold just strap fine tuned filters to boats and drag them along.Jul 12 2012: I think that to do that would simply result in replacing one problem with another.My view is that 'bio-engineering' and 'genetic-engineering' endeavours do not, and cannot fullty take into account the impact to the bio-sphere that introducing the product(s) of these efforts into it may have in the long run. Our planet is a vastly complex system of life forms, atmospheric patterns, oceanic currents and geological activity that we can barely understand. Introducing man-made life forms into this complexity can and likely will have some form of negative impact that will offset the natural cycles, and I think that every time we do so, we take a huge gamble with the Earth's systems that sustain us.
So, no, I believe that introducing synthetic organisms to clean-up our garbage in the oceans is a wrong approach. In the end, human muscle power and machinery is always the better solutioin.Jul 12 2012: Yes, without qualification people should go out into the oceans, peferably on boats and collect all the junk we are responsible for loosing. Those who make plastic bottles should be in the lead boats. I suggest we grab that guy from the caribbean (origninally from England I think ) who turned plastic debris into an island of his own. I think we should play a reverse game of Survivor to populate it.
Oh, that was not what you meant by synthetic life?
In fact, I was wrong - the man I rerferred to above is from Germany. Here is alink which discusses his use of plastic bottles to create a home island and his philosphy.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Test ID: F10IS
Coagulation Factor X Inhibitor Screen, Plasma
Useful For Suggests clinical disorders or settings where the test may be helpful
Detection and quantitation of inhibitor to coagulation factor X
Clinical Information Discusses physiology, pathophysiology, and general clinical aspects, as they relate to a laboratory test
Coagulation factor inhibitors arise in patients who are congenitally deficient in a specific factor in response to factor replacement therapy, or can occur spontaneously without known cause or in response to a variety of medical conditions including the postpartum state, immunologic disorders, certain antibiotic therapies, some malignancies, and old age.
Inhibitors of factor VIII coagulant activity are the most commonly occurring of the specific factor inhibitors.
Reference Values Describes reference intervals and additional information for interpretation of test results. May include intervals based on age and sex when appropriate. Intervals are Mayo-derived, unless otherwise designated. If an interpretive report is provided, the reference value field will state this.
Adults: 70-150%
Normal, full-term newborn infants or healthy premature infants may have decreased levels (> or =15-20%) which may not reach adult levels for > or =180 days postnatal.*
*See Pediatric Hemostasis References in Coagulation Studies in Special Instructions.
Interpretation Provides information to assist in interpretation of the test results
Normally, there is no inhibitor, ie, negative.
If the screening assays indicate the presence of an inhibitor, it will be quantitated and reported in Bethesda (or equivalent) units.
Cautions Discusses conditions that may cause diagnostic confusion, including improper specimen collection and handling, inappropriate test selection, and interfering substances
If the presence or type of inhibitor is unknown, LUPPR / Lupus Anticoagulant Profile should be ordered, except for screening studies in patients with known hemophilia A or B.
Occasionally, a potent lupus-like anticoagulant may cause false-positive testing for a specific factor inhibitor (eg, factor VIII or IX); see preceding Caution statement.
Not useful for the detection of a lupus-like circulating anticoagulant inhibitor or other inhibitors not specific for coagulation factors.
Not useful for the detection of a nonspecific circulating anticoagulant.
Clinical Reference Provides recommendations for further in-depth reading of a clinical nature
1. Feinstein DI: Acquired inhibitors of blood coagulation. In Hematology: Basic Principles and Practice. Edited by R Hoffman, EJ Benz Jr, SJ Shattil, et al. New York, NY, Livingstone Press, 1991, pp 1380-1394
2. Kasper CK: Treatment of factor VIII inhibitors. Prog Hemost Thromb 1989;9:57-86


text:
First Known Use: 14th century
verb re·venge \ri-ˈvenj\
Definition of REVENGE
transitive verb
: to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree
: to inflict injury in return for <revenge an insult>
— re·veng·er noun
See revenge defined for kids
Examples of REVENGE
- <a man who took matters into his own hands and revenged the death of his brother>
Origin of REVENGE
Middle English, from Anglo-French revenger, revengier, from re- + venger to avenge — more at vengeance
Rhymes with REVENGE
: the act of doing something to hurt someone because that person did something that hurt you
: the act of defeating an opponent who has defeated you in the past
Full Definition of REVENGE
: a desire for revenge <motivated by revenge>
: an act or instance of retaliating in order to get even <plotted her revenge>
: an opportunity for getting satisfaction <sought revenge through a rematch>
Examples of REVENGE
- She swore that she would have her revenge.
- She wants revenge against her enemies.
- The bombing was in revenge for the assassination of their leader.
- The team is seeking revenge for the loss earlier in the season.
Origin of REVENGE
Middle French revenge, revenche, from revengier, revenchier to revenge
First Known Use: circa 1547
Related to REVENGE
- Synonyms
- payback, reprisal, requital, retaliation, retribution, vengeance
REVENGER Defined for Kids
verb re·venge \ri-ˈvenj\
Definition of REVENGE for Kids
: to cause harm or injury in return for <He'll revenge the insult.>
Definition of REVENGE for Kids
: an act or instance of causing harm or injury in return for a wrong <… she would be instrumental in helping the rat work his revenge. — Kate DiCamillo, The Tale of Despereaux>
: a desire to cause harm or injury in return for a wrong <She was motivated by revenge.>
: a chance for getting satisfaction <The team sought revenge through a rematch.>
Learn More About REVENGE
Next Word in the Dictionary: revengefulPrevious Word in the Dictionary: revendicationAll Words Near: revenge
Seen & Heard
What made you want to look up revenge? Please tell us where you read or heard it (including the quote, if possible).


text:
Black Hills SD > Devils Tower > Climber's Log
Devils Tower Climber's Log
[ Sign the Climber's Log ]
|Up I Go
|04/04/15 Via Durrance Route
|Posted Apr 13, 2015 2:58 pm
|Several trips.
|Good campsites and great climbing every time I've been there.
|Posted Nov 9, 2013 11:41 am
|Fun and challenging
Date Climbed: Jul 19, 2013
|July 19 and 20.
Walt Bailey, New Wave, and Assembly Line
|Posted Jul 29, 2013 11:12 pm
|Love the Tower
|Some stout climbs! great stuff
|Posted Jul 27, 2013 8:54 pm
|Love the tower
|Live 45 minutes from the tower...love it!
|Posted May 12, 2013 4:21 pm
|Ummm good
Date Climbed: Sep 26, 2012
|Can't get enough of the Tower. Durrance is a crap shoot, but Walt Bailey, Soler, El Cracko, McCarthy's West, and Assembly Line is soooo good!
|Posted Apr 15, 2013 9:17 am
|durrance route
Date Climbed: Aug 8, 2012
|climbed the durrance route with A.J., led P1, P2 and P6. the route took 15 hours as we were stuck behind a group of three, two of whom shouldn't have been on the tower, that wouldn't let us past. the climbing was great, but 2 hr naps in between pitches is an experience i don't need to go through again.
|Posted Mar 20, 2013 11:18 pm
|Tie-Dye Mike
|Memorial Birthday Climb
Date Climbed: May 26, 2012
|Climbed El Crack Diablo. First day's attempt unsuccessful cause of clouds. Second day we were successful, Good strong route and climb overall.
|Posted Dec 2, 2012 8:57 pm
Date Climbed: Aug 27, 2011
|This was my second lead climb ever. It was AWSOME! Met Frank Sanders near the top. He was kind enough to share some water with me. Thanks Frank! I have since climbed both the Soler and TAD routes on the tower.
|Posted Sep 29, 2012 6:50 pm
|Devils Tower Wyoming
Date Climbed: May 22, 2004
|Was to young to climb, Someday will conquer this monument
|Posted Aug 18, 2012 1:04 am
Date Climbed: Aug 9, 2012
|Climbed Durrance Route. Led all pitches. Lots of off-width.
|Posted Aug 12, 2012 2:04 pm
|Two times
|Posted Aug 7, 2012 3:39 pm
|el cracko diablo, teachers lounge and new wave. 5-8, 5.10 and 5.10
|Posted Oct 10, 2011 11:32 pm
Date Climbed: Jul 5, 2011
|We climbed El Cracko Diablo. Fun climb, begining of the first pitch was alittle blocky but then good hand the rest of the way especially the second pitch. Good to touch the top with my future wife!
|Posted Jul 12, 2011 4:33 pm
|first time to the tower
Date Climbed: May 27, 2011
|glad to have made it out there. The weather was good for two days and then the rain came and sent us home. climbed the durrance route and patent pending.(only went to the teachers lounge on p&p)
|Posted Jun 7, 2011 8:49 pm
|devels tower
Date Climbed: Aug 9, 2005
|durrance route to the top
|Posted Jan 14, 2011 3:44 pm
Date Climbed: Oct 14, 2010
|The perfect day.
|Posted Oct 19, 2010 7:36 pm
Date Climbed: Aug 16, 2010
|Interesting. 90% offwidth... but a classic
|Posted Aug 17, 2010 1:11 pm
|Durrance. Rap in rain and lightning
Date Climbed: Aug 9, 2010
|Did Durrance with friends Patrick and Aleya. Little "greasy" in spots but can't complain cause it's a classic climb. Realization of a 6-year dream. Been wanting to climb since a visit with my Dad in 2004.
Started at a little after 7am. 5-6 climbers ahead of us that passed us rapping down, otherwise saw no one else on the Tower.
Ran into trouble coming down, as winds howled and rain fell and lightning flashed. Also had to contend with rope-eating cracks, and twisted, wet ropes. Felt like a rock star as we waded through tourists at the bottom. It was the first day of the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally.
|Posted Aug 12, 2010 10:24 pm
|Falcon Closure Lifted
Date Climbed: Jun 25, 2010
News Release
June 25, 2010 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 2010-10
Devils Tower National Monument Lifts Current Prairie Falcon Climbing Route Closure
To protect prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) nesting sites, the National Park Service (NPS) temporarily closed climbing routes along the west face of Devils Tower beginning April 20, 2010. This closure is an annual event established under the monument's 1995 Climbing Management Plan, with authority from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. NPS professionals have been surveying the Tower to determine the presence or absence of nesting prairie falcons. To date, the surveys documented early nesting behavior by the falcons but lately no activity has been observed around the nest site. Under authority of the park Superintendent and in consultation with biologists from the National Park Service Intermountain Regional Office, park climbing rangers and resource management staff climbed to the site to determine if it was currently being utilized by the falcons. Observations indicate that the nest site has been abandoned. The falcons have since been observed flying around the Tower but have not been exhibiting behavior consistent with nesting or tending young. Because no falcon nesting activity has been observed, the prairie falcon nesting closures currently in effect will be removed on Saturday, June 26, thus opening these areas to normal recreational climbing activities. The areas to be reopened include climbing routes on the west face between and including the "Vulture" and "Abject Cathexis" (routes #154-176 in the Devils Tower climbing handbook) as well as the "Tulgey Wood" and "El Matador" rappel routes.
NPS professionals will continue to survey the Tower to determine the presence or absence of nesting prairie falcons, and climbing and rappel route closures may change in the future based on the location and behavior of nesting falcons. Any areas closed due to nesting falcons will remain closed until young falcons fledge, generally between July 15 and August 1. Updated information on climbing access can be obtained at the climber registration office, the park climbing kiosk, or at the park visitor center or administration building.
These annual closures are implemented not only for the protection of the birds, but also for the protection of climbers, as prairie falcons are known to defensively dive in order to protect their nests. Prairie falcons are extremely protective of their nests and are easily driven from an area. The presence of climbers near or above falcon nests is distressing to parent birds; too much disturbance from climbing activities may cause falcons to abandon eggs or chicks.
|Posted Jun 25, 2010 2:44 pm


text:
Academic research could be strengthened by thinking more and doing less.
Music Lessons Benefit Babies
May 11, 2012|
One year olds smile more and communicate better if they participate in interactive music classes with their parents.
May 11, 2012|
One year olds smile more and communicate better if they participate in interactive music classes with their parents.
May 1, 2012|
In Chapter 12, "The Opium Fields," author Marc Lewis recounts one night spent in the brain chemistry-bending grip of opium addiction.
May 1, 2012
Meet some of the people featured in the April 2012 issue of The Scientist.
May 1, 2012|
Being an ex-drug-addict turned neuroscientist brings a unique insight into the physiological and phenomenological realities of addiction.
May 1, 2012|
A completely colorblind musician and painter perceives the world in a new way with help from technology.
April 26, 2012|
A population of neurons in pigeon brains encodes direction, intensity, and polarity of the Earth's magnetic field.
April 23, 2012|
Progenitor cells discovered in the brain's small blood vessels have the capacity to differentiate into neurons and other tissue types.
April 18, 2012|
A new system decodes brain signals from the motor cortex of monkeys and translates them into basic arm movements, despite temporary paralysis.
April 16, 2012|
Researchers weaken the memories of drug use in recovering addicts.
April 12, 2012|
Baboons are able to distinguish printed English words from nonsense sequences of letters—the first step in the reading process.


text:
|Men's Golf » News » Schedule » Roster » Coaches » Statistics
Former ETSU signee Rory McIlroy wins 111th U.S. Open with ETSU alum Fitzgerald as caddie
Monday, June 20, 2011
BETHESDA, Md. (June 19, 2011) �" Former ETSU golf signee Rory McIlroy put together one of the most impressive performances in U.S. Open history as he set numerous records in earning the wire-to-wire victory at the 111th U.S. Open Championship at Congressional, just outside of the nation's capital on Sunday evening.
McIlroy, who signed to play golf at ETSU in 2004, finished the tournament with a record score of 16-under par on the par-71 layout, defeating the next closest finisher by eight shots. It was McIlroy's first major victory of his young career and just his second victory in America (Won the 2010 Wells Fargo Championship in Charlotte).
The 22-year-old McIlroy from Northern Ireland became the first player in the 111-year history of the U.S. Open to reach 13-under par, while his 36-hole score of 131, his 54-hole total of 199, and his 72-hole total of 268 were all U.S. Open records.
The ETSU interest started when two Buccaneer players, Cian McNamara and Gareth Shaw, suggested to ETSU head coach Fred Warren to take a look at McIlroy.
After Warren traveled to Ireland to watch McIlroy play, he knew that McIlroy was going to be something special and knew he wanted him to play for the Bucs. After an enjoyable visit to Johnson City and ETSU, McIlroy signed a letter-of-intent to attend ETSU.
It was the spring before enrolling at ETSU that McIlroy really became noticed on the golf course after a number of impressive amateur tournament finishes. That is when McIlroy began to rethink his decision to play collegiate golf. Instead of attending ETSU, McIlroy notified Coach Warren that he was not going to be coming to school, but instead remaining in Ireland to compete in some of the top amateur events in the world.
Following a very successful amateur career, McIlroy decided to turn pro in late 2007. After earning his first professional victory at the Dubai Desert Classic in 2009, McIlroy earned his first victory in the United States in 2010 at the Wells Fargo Championship in Charlotte. Earlier this season, he had a 54-hole lead at The Masters, but struggled on the final day as Charl Schwartzel eventually won the title. However, McIlroy regrouped to put together one of the most impressive performances ever witnessed in major championship history this weekend at the U.S. Open, becoming an instant hit with fans all across the world.
McIlroy was not the only ETSU connection that had a part in the victory; however, as his caddie J.P. Fitzgerald graduated from ETSU, while also playing golf for the Bucs. Fitzgerald was an all-conference performer for the Bucs during the 1989 season.
After finishing up at ETSU, Fitzgerald was recruited to caddie for his friend and fellow Irishman Paul McGinley. In fact, he helped McGinley read the match clinching putt in the European's victory over the United States in the 2002 Ryder Cup.
Fitzgerald has since caddied for multiple tour winner and fellow Irishman Darren Clarke as well as one of the top golfers in the world at the time, Ernie Els.
The 22-year-old McIlroy from Northern Ireland became the first player in the 111-year history of the U.S. Open to reach 13-under par, while his 36-hole score of 131, his 54-hole total of 199, and his 72-hole total of 268 were all U.S. Open records.
British Amateur News
To cap off the impressive week for golfers with ETSU connections, former Buccaneer Michael Stewart finished as the runner-up at the famed and prestigious British Amateur Championship. Stewart was narrowly defeated by Bryden Macpherson in the 36-hole final on Saturday afternoon. With the victory, McPherson earns an exemption into next month's British Open Championship and next season's Masters Championship.
Stewart played for the Bucs during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 seasons before leaving school to return home and concentrate solely on golf. Stewart won the individual title at the 2009 Atlantic Sun Championship, while also earning A-Sun Freshman of the Year honors that same season. He also earned a spot on the all-conference team in both 2009 and 2010.
Men's Golf Archives
2010-11 Men's Golf


text:
The Dealer
This film revolves around a young guy who grew up in a poor family, in a struggle to overcome his poor origins goes from being a casino bookie to a drug dealer after meeting the love of his life a charming dancer. When the chips fall he has to flee the country or face the consequences.
Cast: Khaled el Nabawy, Ahmed El Sakka, Khaled ElNabawy, Mai Slim, Ahmed ElSakka
Produced by:
Directed by: Ahmed Saleh
Written by: Medhat ElAdl
Running time: 1hr 40min
Opens: Jul 30, 2010 Limited
|Theaters for Today
Pick a day
on this day.


text:
I guess we can add left tackle to the Dolphins list of needs now, or right tackle if Jonathan Martin is moved to the left. So the question is how much does Long's injury affect the offseason and, specifically, the draft? As is stands, we all know the Dolphins need that physical presence at wide receiver and also someone who can take the top off a defense. It could be two players or one guy who can do both. We need a pass rusher opposite Cam Wake, maybe even two guys who can harass the qb on a consistent basis. We need a shutdown corner and at least one zone blocking guard. And the team needs a tight end who can stretch the defense and possibly a safety. Linebacking depth is also an issue.
With all the needs the team has it seems the best player available in each round would serve Miami well. But, the team has to be able to protect Ryan Tannehill and get him some weapons. Does this draft now become primarily offensive and what right tackles could be had in the 2nd/3rd/4th rounds who could start immediately and be at least solid? Are we now looking offensive line earlier than anticipated?


text:
Bring your wall alive with the dynamic, action-packed work of the great Ernie Barnes, and inspire yourself to new heights! This amazing motivational poster features Barnes' legendary work of hockey art, "Slap Shot", and an inspirational message sure to lead you on to greatness. A truly amazing print, and a rare design you'll likely NEVER find anywhere else! An online exclusive from The Sports Poster Warehouse.
Product Specifications:


text:
Charlie Rose: The WeekSeries Website »
Episode Guide »
Charlie Rose highlights conversations with the past week's guests from his nightly program.
Charlie Rose Interviews Khaled MeshaalJuly 25, 2014July 18, 2014July 11, 2014June 27, 2014June 20, 2014June, 13, 2014June 6, 2014May 30, 2014May 23, 2014May 16, 2014May 9, 2014May 2, 2014April 25, 2014April 18, 2014April 11, 2014April 4, 2014March 28, 2014March 21, 2014March 14, 2014March 7, 2014
Vermont PBS educates, informs, entertains and inspires Vermonters to be lifelong learners and engaged in their community.
Our weekly email newsletter highlighting upcoming shows and important station news. Sign up today!
Original series, specials, documentaries and web shows produced by Vermont PBS
Vermont PBS donors talk about why they love and support us!
Holly is on a mission to get to know more Vermonters, what inspires them, what makes them tick, and to learn how Vermont PBS can better serve. Watch the video...
Learn about our second HD broadcast service offering alternative programming and more content from local and regional producers.
- PBS Kids - many videos and games for children!
- Educator Resources - for teachers and parents.
- PLUM Landing - help your kids explore our planet!
Our staff say why they support Vermont PBS!
Download the New PBS Video App now available on both Android and iOS platforms
Vermont PBS Announces First Recipient of Public Media Ambassador Award
Support UsSustainer's Circle
Thank You Gifts
Backstage Club
Ways to Give
Matching Gifts
Planned Giving
Corporate Support
CommunityEvent Calendar
Community Cinema
Kids & Family
Britcom Club
Next Avenue
Vermont PBS & You
Educator Resources
Above the Fold
PBS Kids Writers Contest
About UsOverview
Media Services
Visit us in person
Board of Directors
Public Information
Community Council
PTAQ (Quebec)


text:
"Customer service is priority #1 at Rocky Mountain ATV/MC. We value our customers and strive to be the best shopping experience- when you buy from us, you are buying lifetime service."
-Dan Thomas, CEO and Founder
We take pride in offering no hassle returns. In the event of a return, please call, email or chat with us to receive a solution to the problem. For apparel that doesn't fit quite right, Click here to see our Fit Guaranteed Program.
We will stand behind all products we sell with regards to manufacturing defects in workmanship and material. Most products are limited to the manufacturer's warranty. However, we will do everything in our power to take care of the problem.
Live chat: Click here
(Leave email if after hours)
Call us: 1 800 336-5437
7am-7pm Mon-Fri 8am-4pm Sat (Mountain Standard Time)
Each review submitted enters you into a $100 gift card monthly drawing, and a $500 gift card quarterly drawing!
Comments On Aug 26, 2014:these goggles are comfy and they look grate and there durable love them will buy again!!!
Was this review helpful?
Comments On May 25, 2014:I havent used many different goggles, but im happy as could be with this product. Fits great and looks awesome.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Apr 29, 2014:I absolutely love my goggles. They're extremely comfortable. It's almost as if I don't have them on. I would recommend them to anyone looking for a new pair or even a spare. Added bonus- The color is awesome!!! Definitely fits my style. :)
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Nov 22, 2013:I like these goggles, they fit my face well and have held up pretty good
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Jul 21, 2013:nice clear lenses strap is starting to frey though however they are now nearly 6 months old
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Nov 29, 2012:Decent goggle for the money but fog up an awful lot
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Sep 22, 2012:Comfortable, good quality and stylish. Great alternative if you don't want to spend a ton on goggles. I'd buy again.
Was this review helpful?
Comments On Aug 06, 2012:Smaller frame, great colour. Would buy again.
Was this review helpful?


text:
Admit it, you envy Kim Kardashian for her gorgeous skin, makeup and overall glammed up look on the red carpet. What if we told you we found her secret weapon?
Makeup artist to the stars, Mario Dedivanovic is giving Hollyscoop the low down on how he gives Kim that radiant red carpet glow--as well as some other amazing beauty tips. Read on beauty lovers...
What kind of lashes do you use on your clients to give them a dramatic look?
Mario: "I use different kinds of lashes - both strips and individuals. It really depends on the look I'm going for. I love the Ardell brand of false lashes. MAC individual lashes are a favorite too and often times I make my own design using strips or individuals - I glue pieces together or cut into them to get my desired look."
What foundation or concealer do you use under your clients eyes to give that radiant look?
Mario: "Under the eyes, I use concealer. If the area is very dark, I'll use a cream concealer first like Laura Mercier's secret camouflage and follow with a liquid concealer on top. I love the new liquid high definition concealer from Smashbox cosmetics.
How can us regular folks get that gorgeous red carpet glow on our skin?
Mario: "Very easily actually! I created the perfect highlighter for Giella Cosmetics called Eye M Glam. It gives a sheer golden glow to the skin and you can use it anywhere on the face or body. I always apply some to the cheekbones, bridge of nose, inner corner of eyes and on the collarbones. I literally can't work without it - it makes my clients look so polished and radiant. Eye M Glam is sold at www.giella.com.
What one key product do you use on your clients to help flatter their skin?
Mario: "I would definitely say the Eye M Glam highlighter. I use it on everyone and anyone because it flatters the skin with a youthful glow."
How do you make sure your make up doesn't melt off during a night out on the town?
Mario: "Try using a primer first because it will help makeup to last longer. For longer lasting makeup, its important to powder the skin after foundation. Powder will hold everything in place."
Are there any products you use before to make sure your make up stays in place?
Mario: "Not really. I just always set makeup with powder to keep everything in place. Sometimes I will spray Fix + by MAC over everything to help set the makeup. If a client has dry skin, I spray The Mist by La Mer all over face after makeup is complete. It adds moisture and sort of wakes up the skin."
Are there any products that you use to get rid of shine?
Mario: "There are different products and/or techniques for this. Sometimes I start off with a anti-shine cream on the T-zone. This absorbs the oils and leaves the skin with a matte finish. Oil blotting tissues are also amazing. Use them throughout the day or night to absorb oils without messing with the makeup."
For more beauty secrets from Mario, check out his blog blog.makeupbymario.com or email us questions at email@example.com and we'll get you guys the beauty scoop!


text:
Now we're email buddies!
You have chosen to receive our #NAMED_LISTS# newsletters at #EMAIL_ADDRESS#. You will receive an e-mail shortly confirming your subscription. So excited to have you!
Refinery 29
Please upgrade your browser for the best Refinery29 experience. Read more.
Picking the perfect holiday gifts for all the men in your life is no easy feat. Shopping for brothers, boyfriends, and best guy pals can be full of mystery — which can lead to some regrettably generic buys at the last minute (socks and a tie, anyone?).
But, here at R29, we know the men we hold near and dear deserve some truly personal, thoughtful presents. So, to make the gifting game a little easier, we've created a one-of-a-kind guide tailored to D.C.'s archetypal men — the political wonks, the artsy types, the passionate sports fans, and everyone in between. All you have to do is figure out where the fella in question best fits in — and he will, we promise! — and you're guaranteed to find a present as cool and special as he is. After all, everybody appreciates a killer gift.


text:
Mission Enduracool™ Instant Cooling Body Towel - 27" x 55"
Made from a proprietary performance fabric to keep you cool.
High performance fabric stays cool for hours.
- When wet, cools instantly to 30° F below average body temperature
- UPF 50 protection from the sun
- Lightweight, chemical-free fabric feels comfortable against the skin
- Absorbs sweat when dry
- Reusable and machine washable
- Dimensions: 27" x 55"
- This towel is exclusive to Brookstone!
The Mission Enduracool Instant Cooling Body Towel is made from a proprietary performance fabric that instantly cools when soaked with water, wrung out, and then snapped in the air to activate the cooling properties. The high-performance, multi-yarn fiber absorbs moisture and perspiration into the fabric core, where the unique fiber construction circulates water molecules and regulates the rate of evaporation for a prolonged cooling effect.
Engineered for all sports, and for all athletes.
Use during competition to cool down on your neck, head or other hot zones. Enduracool™ ensures an instant cooling effect against the skin for hours, without feeling wet. And when the towel's not wet, it wipes away water and sweat, so you can stay dry during training and competition.
Get the towel designed to enhance performance in training and competition. Order your Mission EnduraCool™ Towel from Brookstone today.
Mission Enduracool™ Instant Cooling Body Towel - 27" x 55"
Reviewed by 1 customer
- Attractive Design
- Durable
- Keeps Me Cool
Best Uses
- Gifts
- Outdoors
Comments about Mission Enduracool™ Instant Cooling Body Towel - 27" x 55":
Does what it's supposed to do!
- I Am A:
- Family Young Kids
Shopping Cart


text:
Manchester City have completed the signing of Spanish international striker Alvaro Negredo from Sevilla.
Norwich City have made room on their roster for new forward signings by loaning under-performing Ricky van Wolfswinkle to Real Betis for a season.
Mesut Ozil failed to travel to Tyneside last weekend for the third time in his Arsenal career after picking up an injury in training.
Tottenham expect to know the full extent of the foot injury suffered by Mousa Dembele within 24 hours after the midfielder was taken off against Everton at White Hart Lane.
Real Madrid and Manchester United have reportedly agreed on a deal for goalkeeper David de Gea.
Southampton forward Emmanuel Mayuka leaves the club after disappointing three years.
Jack Grealish missed Aston Villa's week four match with an ankle injury.
Amid rumors of a potential move to Norwich City, Jon Walters has reportedly asked out at the Britannia.
Tim Sherwood has remained hopeful that Adama Traore and Jack Grealish will be available for week five.
West Brom have signed goalkeeper Anders Lindegaards on a two-year-old.
Bologna have signed Sunderland midfielder Emmanuele Giaccherini.
Disappointing forward Brown Ideye has departed West Brom a year after he arrived having provided very little in-between.