Anti Fungal Dietkaufmann

Lokarri thesis is usually based on with which I disagree. Regarding his latest initiative , it is based on: 1) The requirement for political parties (PSOE and interest) in the implementation of a dialogue process "will culminate in a political agreement to improve the coexistence of Basque society. " It also calls for a referendum in the Basque society to express their will, 2) The requirement of an end to ETA violence and any violation of human rights that make possible a peace process and to allow the Basque society to decide that consultation with complete freedom.

things first:

1) not require the State to its violations of human rights, civil and policy in relation to the Basque conflict, as it is required (and rightly) to ETA . I think it is necessary to check that, apart from the killings and threats from ETA, also by the state there are still other forms of violence serious enough to require her disappearance. I am referring, of course, to torture. Requiring only a party to any violation of human rights, while hiding the other party violates also suffers from a worrying lack of objectivity and even suspicious.

2) do not see how the unilateral end to ETA violence can lead to a peace process . In any case we would ETA to surrender and thus would not be needed any process of dialogue or negotiation, and certainly not peace as violence from the other party would still be present.

3) Lokarri requires a "process of dialogue that would lead to a political agreement to improve the coexistence of the Basque society", but does not at all who has to reach that agreement and how to improve the coexistence of Basque society . Lokarri's thesis is too open, so that it can be a simple political agreement between the PSOE and PNV culminating in a mere statutory reform with greater powers to the Basque Government, leaving intact the knots conflict (territoriality and self-determination). I think it is essential that agreement is also present the nationalist left, and if you agree with me Lokarri should specify in their approach. On the other hand, believe that the end of this agreement should not be "to improve the coexistence of the Basque society", but finally achieve minimum democratic standards that demands this, that all political projects are possible if they get enough support democracy and full respect for all human rights, civil and political rights.

4) Finally, Lokarri see your "consultation" more like an end than as a means . I think the end of any Basque type of process (call it "peace", "dialog", "negotiation" or as we like, words are not important) must be respect for all human rights, civil and political (and therefore all political projects), than for the Basque people to rule in a query about which know everything: their time, their purpose, their terms ...

On the other hand, perform a search in the current conditions (with outlawed political parties, with the threat of ETA violence and this, with hundreds of political prisoners in prisons, with the threat of torture and detention always present, with censored media, etc.). not only undesirable, but it is undemocratic. Would be as valid as any referendum held in a dictatorial system. To query the Basque policy is necessary that it has complete freedom to act, and today is not because that freedom is violated by both sides: ETA and the State.

Lokarri Supporting this initiative is an error because he confuses the problem and conflict, and could serve certain political purposes that currently go brewing in the kitchens of the PSOE and PNV. Perhaps Lokarri collaboration in that sense there is a conscious strategy at all, but is the least important thing is that it is absurd and distracts us from the real issues we must address if we find a solution to the Basque conflict.

The Demand For A Product Of Cologates

Critics of the prison system Multiverse

is curious to see how after thousands of years of civilization there are still some systems or human institutions remain essentially unchanged, however much we advance in other fields such as social science, politics or technology. One example is the prison system. For thousands of years, humans have resorted to prisons to eliminate crime, and although the details have changed the essence of the system remains unchanged. Perhaps the reason

last of that permanence is a widespread feeling that prisons are inevitable. But no human institution is inevitable if it is not really justified its existence. Asked if prisons were really necessary response can only be answered before another more immediate question: Is it useful to the prison system?

In this sense, the usefulness of the prison system is primarily determined by three functions: punitive (to punish the guilty), preventive (to deter citizens from committing crimes) and rehabilitation (to reintegrate the prisoner in our society and prevent re- offending):

1) rehabilitation function. To what extent are rehabilitated people passing by a prison? Do most are rehabilitated or otherwise reoffend after their stay in it? It is difficult to understand how a prison environment, consisting of all sex offenders, can help a person to forget the crime. It seems more logical, however, that the "university of crime" foster new relationships between criminals and learning new forms of crime. Is it an exaggeration to say that the prison actually encourages crime, and therefore is counterproductive?

2) Function preventive. It is more than arguable that prisons are an effective crime deterrent system. If we look at the crimes of blood, most are passionate and therefore irrational, and it is unlikely that a person acting irrationally stop to weigh rationally the consequences that lead to the realization of his act.

As regards other crimes, the vast majority are due to poverty or marginalization (theft, drug trafficking, etc..), Ie either to sheer survival or to the environment, two factors much more likely to weigh on the performance of a person that the threat of future punishment. In this context, a preventive measure certainly more effective would be to eliminate pockets of poverty and marginalization of our societies.

3) punitive function. Certainly the prison is a harsh punishment for the offender, but there is little point that beyond the simple satisfaction of a primal instinct for revenge. And aside from the no use of that function, we must consider other points of ethical and moral, is it lawful deprivation of liberty of a human being? Will there come a day when the right to liberty is considered a human right as fundamental as the right to life, and therefore the State can not even threaten him?

We must also take into account that the deprivation of liberty of a human being not only punish the man, but all of its surroundings. What happens to the family of a convict? Why is condemned to that family to give your loved one? What will happen to those who may depend sentimental, or economically material condemned as a parent, a spouse or a child? We are talking about a tragedy that transcends the punishment to a single fault to affect several innocent. Is it ethical therefore uphold the punitive function of prison?

Another issue we must add to the above is the immense social injustice filters leading to the jail. I am referring to the judicial system suffer from the system millions in fines to bail, to the lack of free legal defense (which means that the best lawyers are also the most expensive). This is clearly designed to punish the offender poor and rich return the offender unpunished, which makes the whole judicial system in general and prison in particularities, something very wicked and unjust.

be alleged that the reason that the prison system remains unchanged over the centuries, despite being unfair, counterproductive, useless and ethically questionable, is none other than the absence a realistic and viable alternative to it. But the truth is that humanity has not made any serious effort to rethink the system, perhaps because the criminals are the last human beings that anyone would worry. Either way I think the time has come to open a serious debate, calm and reflective about the prison system to remove and replace it with another (or others, since the problem we are dealing with is wide and therefore requires more than one solution) more useful, fair and humane.

Shelly Martinez And Jewel Denyle

evolutionary theory lost

"Another theoretical physicist Lee Smolin has developed a tempting Darwinian version of the multiverse theory, including both serial and parallel elements. Smolin's idea, outlined in The Life of the Cosmos, depends on the theory of universes were born child of the parent universe, not in a Big Crunch fully protected, but more localized black holes. Smolin adds a form of inheritance: the fundamental constants of a universe versions child are slightly "mutated" from his father's constant. Inheritance is the fundamental ingredient of Darwinian natural selection, and the rest of the Smolin theory flows naturally. Those universes that have what it takes to "survive" and "play" come to predominate in the multiverse. "What makes failure "includes long enough to reproduce. Given the fact that reproduction takes place in black holes, universes selected should have what it takes to generate black holes. This capability involves several other properties. For example, the trend matter to condense into clouds and then into stars is a prerequisite to generate black holes. Also, the stars are, as we have seen, precursor chemical is an interesting development, and hence to life. Thus, as Smolin suggests, has been a Darwinian natural selection of universes in the multiverse, indirectly favoring the evolution of fertility and indirectly black hole production of life. Not all physicists are enthusiastic about the idea of \u200b\u200bSmolin, although it is said that the physicist, Nobel winner Murray Gell-Mann said, "Smolin? Is this young with these crazy ideas? Can not be wrong ". A naughty biologist might like to know if some other physicists are in need of improvement Darwinian consciousness. "

In this excerpt from The God Delusion ( recently spoke of the great Richard Dawkins ) We are talking about a revolutionary scientific theory, mixing consistently in the top two branches of physics as diverse as cosmology and Darwinian theory natural selection. The process used for that Lee Smolin, and that Dawkins may not entirely satisfy explain, is simple:

1) Just as the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, the theory of "Big Crunch" predicts that the expansion of space-time due to that end being slowed by the force of gravity and all matter in the Cosmos will be gathered and compressed into a single point or "singularity." This instability may suffer so that they would have to expand again by another Big Bang, and perpetuating the Universe in a sequence ("infinite?) Expansion-contraction: Big Bangs followed by Big Crunches, which in turn provoke new Big Bangs.

2) According to this theory, it is logical to think that the Big Crunch not only causes the death of a universe, but also the birth of a new one. There would, therefore, a "child universe" born of a "parent universe."

3) But we know it "small Crunches" that exist in our universe, in the center of many galaxies is black holes. These are created when the immense gravity of a supermassive star comes to a collapse of the fabric of space-time into a singularity similar to that formed at the time of a Big Crunch, but a much smaller scale. Black holes would then be a Big Crunch in miniature.

4) According to Smolin's theory, the same way that a Big Crunch creates a new universe, black holes could perhaps do the same. Perhaps there is only one Big Crunch, but many, and these black holes. If the whole universe devoured by black holes ended, multiple and unstable singularities that would be established following the collapse (massive black holes) would lead to the formation of multiple expansions (Big Bangs), and therefore of new universes. We thus find a multiverse that is reproduced and multiplied, so as you would like a living organism.

5) The law of probability tells us that the new universes created from the "parent universe" could have very different characteristics, and in fact the possibilities are endless, but only a universe that has black holes could grow again. Thus the black hole becomes the "reproductive" universes contained in the multiverse, and any universe in which events do not occur as black holes would be doomed to extinction, and vice versa: a universe that has Black holes have many chances to reproduce.

6) But a universe that has black holes is quite different from one that does not possess. If black holes exist, it is because there are stars and they occur because the cosmological constant universe (the gravitational force, for example) are what you have in our universe. Sufficient a slight variation in the values \u200b\u200bof these constants for our universe was very different, but Smollin believe that the values \u200b\u200bof the constants of the "child universes" are similar or very similar to the "parent universe." We thus obtain a form of "inheritance", and that slight margin of error allowed in the values \u200b\u200bof "child universe" with respect to the "parent universe" would be the equivalent of a "mutation." Both factors (inheritance and mutation) are what make evolution possible, which means that would eventually dominate the Multiverse universes with black holes.

7) On the other hand, the existence of stars (which make the existence of black holes) also implies the existence of complex chemicals (formed only in the stellar core), which allow the existence of complex chemical interactions to turn give rise to life, and after intelligent life. This suggests that the existence of black holes in a universe more than likely the existence of intelligent beings within it. Therefore, the evolution of the multiverse would be at various levels.

All this is summarized in that we could live in a multiverse that is subject the same factors that living things: reproduction, multiplication, heredity, mutation and evolution, and therefore is an "agency" is born, grows, multiplies and evolves. Would live within a cell belonging to a cosmic being very similar to a living being, or at least subject to similar laws. In fact, that cosmic evolution would have reached the point where it arises in a mind capable of understanding, or at least trying. Not only have achieved the degree of "living organism", but also of "intelligent living organism."

is true that Smolin's theory is purely speculative and lacks any evidence for it. But it is an important theory is wrong but because it opens our minds to new concepts and potential future discoveries. On the other hand, if only the core of Smolin's theory have any credibility and the world also suffer some kind of cosmic evolution based on natural laws, this would have obvious implications, not only in science but also religion: just as that natural selection applied to living beings made unnecessary the concept of a Creator to explain the great complexity of them, the same law applied to the Cosmos could also explain the great complexity of this without any external factor to it.