But if you are interested, I would start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biophoton

Are there any mentions in the literature of whether bacteria emit these biophotons? More specifically, the sorts of bacteria found in the gut?

Yeah I know TBH but I’m un7used to making apologies for confusing [see that seven above?] for any ying/yang thing I can’t type horizontal. Still TBH I’m never sure I’ve managed to steg you “Happy Birthday” and all that.

We “Friends” TBH?

Yes, JK, we definitely friends. No clue about the rest of your comment, however. No biggie …

I can confuse TBH pretty easy …

That’s not sayin’ much, JK …

Anyway, Re: Ketchup flowing smoothly, what will that do to anticipation?

Yeah. Yeah and yes. Difficult for a non-Arkie to get a good grip with this link Malcolm – but I’m figurin’ if anybody can see what the deal is… well.

I can confuse TBH pretty easy – but not you Malcolm. I’m figurin’ you can see through all this – and it ain’t all FOX News:

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/AR/39376/82938/en/summary.html

We’re already there. Which pill would you like?

We’re heading into Matrix territory.

I only see two ways that can happen: either you exterminate the brains that holds Side B’s memes (which is really just approach 1), or Side A’s memes replace the memes in Side B’s brains.

But if brains are hardware, and memes are software, it may not be the case that all software runs equally well on all hardware.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/tag/telemedicine/

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/04/darpa-humanoid-robots/

I think that you and I might agree that containment isn’t a practical answer: Islamism isn’t something one can simply cordon off or ghettoize.

No? It isn’t as if the West has bothered to try. I make no brief for ghettoization, which does nobody any good at all — but whatever the opposite of “cordoning off” is, that’s what we’ve been doing. The problem is that any attempt at effective containment would involve discrimination, which of course is considered by Western elites to be completely beyond the pale — far worse than cultural surrender and collapse. (“As horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”)

Personally, I find dialogue more constructive in the spirit of “speak softly, but carry a big stick.” There’s always going to be a need for a background threat of violence to keep dialogue going, but I have more faith in the long-term efficacy of approach (2), above, than in approach (1).

I agree with you of course that approach 1) is unpalatable, but I must point out in passing that in the long term it can be very efficacious indeed. (Been bothered by any Carthaginians lately?)

I agree with you also that any dialogue with one’s foes is helped along by carrying a big stick, and by encouraging your interlocutor to believe that you are willing to use it.

Approach 2) is obviously preferable — destroy the opponent’s memes with your own — but that is precisely the advantage of highly developed religious memeplexes: they have have impressive, often impervious defenses, and furthermore they create exactly the sort of group confidence and cohesion that gives them the edge over self-doubting, morally relativistic secular societies. (Not to mention the differential effect of modern, secular, Westernized meme-inculcation on fertility rates.)

So in answer to your question “Do you have a non-genocidal solution in mind that doesn’t involve either dialogue or containment?” I’ll have to say that no, I don’t. (And I’ll repeat that I am certainly NOT advocating violent disaggregation here, though history shows that that’s usually what you get when peaceful approaches fail to pry apart incompatible human groups.) But dialogue doesn’t seem to accomplish anything at all — it merely creates the illusion of purposeful activity, while providing useful cover for the more determined side.

There are two principal ways to end a cycle of violence:

(1) Side A violently exterminates Side B — no more problems. This might be the called Heinleinian Solution (Starship Troopers: violence has solved more problems in history than any other means). There’s plenty of historical precedent for this.

(2) Side A’s memes exterminate Side B’s memes. There’s also plenty of historical precedent for this. Christianity’s most violent tendencies have been gentled with time, thanks to the influence of Enlightenment values, scientific skepticism, the free exchange of ideas in democratic societies, etc.

I think that you and I might agree that containment isn’t a practical answer: Islamism isn’t something one can simply cordon off or ghettoize. At the same time, what are the alternatives? Exterminate all Muslims? If one can stomach genocide, then hey: have fun! Personally, I find dialogue more constructive in the spirit of “speak softly, but carry a big stick.” There’s always going to be a need for a background threat of violence to keep dialogue going, but I have more faith in the long-term efficacy of approach (2), above, than in approach (1).

Do you have a non-genocidal solution in mind that doesn’t involve either dialogue or containment? What’s the Malcolmian Doctrine?

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

I’ve been taking 10meq of potassium once a day for years now. Guess why I need it? The BP pills lower my Potassium level! Just can’t win.