👨‍🔬📖 The science forum 🔬👩‍🎓

A new science question 🎓🎓

Today I have a question and maybe you are also curious about it or have ideas about the answer:

➡️ Is it good or bad to have a winter time and a different summer time? 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

So now it is winter time and some countries have changed the clock 🕰️ with one hour. But in my country there is discussion if we should just keep one time and not changing the clock anymore twice a year. Do you think it is better to keep the difference between winter time and summer time or should we not change the clock anymore? 👨‍🎓👨‍🎓

It seemed to be for saving energy (using less light), but I am not sure that it has ever been effective and, nowadays, lightbulb are not really energy consuming compared to a lot of other things.

As Etienne mentionned, we were supposed to stop it as it kind of useless and potentially source of health problem, but the EU is such an administrative nightmare that nothing as been done in years. One of the main problem they face in their timezone choice is that winter time benefit mostly industrial countries (Germany), whereas summer time benefit mainly touristic countries (France) for instance.

As for me, I see no point in having to change the time, and both are bad for me. In France, we live in the wrong timezone since WWII when we got to adapt to the German. Thus, we have between 1 and 2 hours of difference with suntime...
In Brittany, where I come from, we are pretty much on the Westernmost part of the continent, so we go with insanity such as no sun before 8-9am in the winter, and sun until 11pm in summer. Better say that when I am in another country and see that it is dark outside at 5pm, my brain is completely lost.

Oooo i didt see that question yesterday im sorry @Yue In my country there is also a discussion about this every year and I am tired of it.

I’m tired as well. Always this confusion at the beginning, especially when I forgot and realized I actually woke up at 6 instead of 7 am 😂 Honestly I don’t really see the interest in keeping that time shift anymore. I feel this has only a fewer impact on our spending in energy. Also, if we stop it, I still don’t know what time zone I would choose (summer or winter)

I’m tired as well. Always this confusion at the beginning, especially when I forgot and realized I actually woke up at 6 instead of 7 am 😂 Honestly I don’t really see the interest in keeping that time shift anymore. I feel this has only a fewer impact on our spending in energy. Also, if we stop it, I still don’t know what time zone I would choose (summer or winter)

That's it, you get up and I don't know what time it is and my stomach growls in winter than 1 hour earlier from hunger hhhhh if we had a choice, I choose that it remains summer time then there is longer sunlight in the evening. as well as the bullshit that they say they do it for the energy, but if it gets dark 1 hour earlier at night then it already uses more energy, I don't understand the logic and I'm tired of it🤪

Thank you everybody for your comments @Etienne, @Lianshen, @Sabri_KC and @Fleurke!! We have a lot of science smarties on PPG!!!! 🧑‍🎓👩‍🎓👩‍🎓👨‍🎓 I like this forum because I can ask a bit more weird questions than in the other forums and we have to find answers! 😃

It is very interesting to read what everybody wrote. I thought it was because of the light and so you can get up an hour earlier if it is light earlier. And in the winter it is still dark longer so you wake up an hour later. So the daylight is more the same when you wake up or go outside. BUTTT i did not know it was because of the energy and that the EU wanted to make rules about it. 🙄🙄

If the EU chooses ONE time, do you think they will make it for the WHOLE EU or only stopping the difference between winter and summer time and not the different time zones in Europe? 🕰️⏰🧭⏱️⏰

A new science question 🎓🎓

Today I have a SCARY science question, but I am curious what you think:

➡️ Do you think that there will be a virus one time that can kill most people on earth? 🧬🦠🧫🧪

I dont mean the Corona discussion, because that is a difficult topic that people dont agree with each other. BUTTTT do you think that there can be a DIFFERENT virus that can perhaps kill everybody? Or will we be too quick to make a medicine for it? Or will it not happen? I hope it will not happen of course! 😛 Thank you for your science answers about this challenge!! 👨‍🎓👨‍🎓

A new science question 🎓🎓

Today I have a SCARY science question, but I am curious what you think:

➡️ Do you think that there will be a virus one time that can kill most people on earth? 🧬🦠🧫🧪

I dont mean the Corona discussion, because that is a difficult topic that people dont agree with each other. BUTTTT do you think that there can be a DIFFERENT virus that can perhaps kill everybody? Or will we be too quick to make a medicine for it? Or will it not happen? I hope it will not happen of course! 😛 Thank you for your science answers about this challenge!! 👨‍🎓👨‍🎓

Just the flu could kill people if it stayed long enough in people's organisms to be able to mutate. So yes, it would be possible for a virus to become strong enough to kill people, but I doubt there will ever be a new virus that could kill everyone seconds after penetrating people's organisms. I believe it would be more of a common virus that anyone can host and make stronger over time, like a cold, or like I said above, the flu.

A new science question 🎓🎓

Today I have a SCARY science question, but I am curious what you think:

➡️ Do you think that there will be a virus one time that can kill most people on earth? 🧬🦠🧫🧪

I dont mean the Corona discussion, because that is a difficult topic that people dont agree with each other. BUTTTT do you think that there can be a DIFFERENT virus that can perhaps kill everybody? Or will we be too quick to make a medicine for it? Or will it not happen? I hope it will not happen of course! 😛 Thank you for your science answers about this challenge!! 👨‍🎓👨‍🎓

What is scary about global warming is that frozen ice in the poles might liberate dangerous bacterias, microbes and micro-organisms that were frozen for an extremely long time, and that might cause very important damages to humanity if we don’t act on it. May Allah protect us all.

What is scary about global warming is that frozen ice in the poles might liberate dangerous bacterias, microbes and micro-organisms that were frozen for an extremely long time, and that might cause very important damages to humanity if we don’t act on it. May Allah protect us all.

The existence of viruses and bacteria in the permafrost regions is nothing new. And it's not scary either. Thousands of viruses are being discovered, but so far about 83% are bacteriophages. They infect bacteria and not humans.
What should really scare you is this: Humans, although they know better, are acting completely against stopping climate change. They are really doing everything they can to let climate change progress rapidly. In my eyes, that is suicide. That really worries me.

To come back to the actual question:
I can certainly imagine that a virus that can destroy large parts of humanity is possible. I can well imagine zoonoses. When viruses, bacteria, fungi, etc. come between animals and humans, I think it can lead to dangerous situations.
And this is another area where climate change plays a role. Because this also changes habitats for viruses etc...

A new science question 🎓🎓

Today I have a SCARY science question, but I am curious what you think:

➡️ Do you think that there will be a virus one time that can kill most people on earth? 🧬🦠🧫🧪

I dont mean the Corona discussion, because that is a difficult topic that people dont agree with each other. BUTTTT do you think that there can be a DIFFERENT virus that can perhaps kill everybody? Or will we be too quick to make a medicine for it? Or will it not happen? I hope it will not happen of course! 😛 Thank you for your science answers about this challenge!! 👨‍🎓👨‍🎓

In my opinion, it's unlikely that a virus or a bacteria just kill everyone. This is evolutionary not viable as the goal of a pathogens is to spread itself. You will notice that, over time, virus become less severe and increase their infectiosity instead. For instance, the Spanish flu killed millions of people, but the new versions of the virus are fortunately not as deadly.

Another unlikely reason for not going extinct because of a single pathogen is that we are billions. It's not as easy to kill 7 billions individuals with genetic variability as it is to kill a small isolated population. I think, in this regard, that prions would be a better candidate... And yet, the only reason I think so is because of the existence of chronic wasting disease, which decimate populationsof deers in north America and Europe. Typically, in Norway, the population of reindeers with individuals infected had to be all killed and the area has to be maintained deer free because of the risk it pose

Thank you everybody who gave reactions!! It is a SCARY topic i think!! 🙄🙄😬 I did not know about bacteria in the ice of the Northpole because i thought it was too cold for them to survive and they would be frozen and so dead i thought. And @mabah is right I think about climate change and that we need to repair that as much as possible. 🙏 It is comfortable what @Lianshen writes that it will not make people extinct. But still it can be dangerous.

A new science question 🎓🎓

Today I have a SCARY science question, but I am curious what you think:

➡️ Do you think that there will be a virus one time that can kill most people on earth? 🧬🦠🧫🧪

I dont mean the Corona discussion, because that is a difficult topic that people dont agree with each other. BUTTTT do you think that there can be a DIFFERENT virus that can perhaps kill everybody? Or will we be too quick to make a medicine for it? Or will it not happen? I hope it will not happen of course! 😛 Thank you for your science answers about this challenge!! 👨‍🎓👨‍🎓

“If all viruses suddenly disappeared, the world would be a wonderful place for about a day and a half, and then we’d all die – that’s the bottom line,” says Tony Goldberg, an epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “All the essential things they do in the world far outweigh the bad things.”

“If all viruses suddenly disappeared, the world would be a wonderful place for about a day and a half, and then we’d all die – that’s the bottom line,” says Tony Goldberg, an epidemiologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “All the essential things they do in the world far outweigh the bad things.”

So he means there are also good viruses that you need or you die? Or that everything needs to be the same also bad viruses because they are important? 🧬🦠🧫

So he means there are also good viruses that you need or you die? Or that everything needs to be the same also bad viruses because they are important? 🧬🦠🧫

Actually there is nothing like "good or bad" viruses but pathogenic or nonpathogenic viruses. The pathogenic viruses to human, might be "bad" for humanity but not for rest of the Earth. We have a certain tendency for "human-centric" existance and focus on the pathogenic ones. That's far from the law of "equilibrium" in the Earth.

You can have a look in the entire article if you are curious: The Article

Thank you very much @diogenes_cask!! I will look at the article because i had NO idea about that. And some words that you say i still dont know but i can maybe find it in the article i hope!! 🙂 But I have to read it tomorrow because i still have some homework for tomorrow i have to make 🙁

For the science forum this is a VERY interesting topic that @psysarah15 wrote in the what happened today forum!!

I copy it here:

Speaking of the movie Frankenstein, I want to talk about the original novel by Mary Shelley.

I really consider that novel one of my favorite novels because it is not just an ordinary horror story, but rather carries deep human meanings and philosophical ideas about life and ambition.

The novel tells the story of ambitious scientist Victor Frankenstein who creates a creature using parts of dead bodies. But he abandons him because of his terrifying appearance, causing the creature to suffer loneliness, rejection, and search for revenge.

What distinguishes the novel is that it raises important questions:

Does science have limits?

How can irresponsible decisions lead to disasters?

It also sheds light on feelings of loneliness and abandonment, and makes us sympathize with the “monster” despite his appearance. I love this novel because it combines horror and philosophy, and presents a story full of human feelings and conflicts.

It makes us think about the consequences of our actions and the meaning of humanity.

So we have two very difficult questions and I hope that all PPG science smarties can maybe say what they think about them:

1️⃣ Does science have limits?

2️⃣ How can irresponsible decisions lead to disasters?

I think that science has limits of what is possible or not on earth. But also what science can do now and maybe not yet in the future.

I think the creature is for me the hero because he does not deserve to be treated with loneliness and rejection. For me it is not a disaster but a living thing like a human or animal. So it deserves help!! But science also made super powerful weapons and that can also be a disaster. 🙁 And because they can make so many victims it is maybe also irresponsible but that maybe depends also on other things.

The nice post of @psysarah15 is maybe nice for this forum!! I hope that others will say what they think about the science statements!! Thank you very much!! 🙏🙏

1- Does science have limits? I assume that we are talking about "ethical limits." This question is basically a non-sequitar. First of all, we need to define "the science" accurately. In simpliest manner, science is a tool fixing the current knowledge. Logically we can't expect a tool dressed by ethics or morals. Ethics or morals are the concerns for philosophy in general, science's unique concern is nothing but methodology. On the other hand science is the cummilative knowledge confirmed by pragmatic decisions made according to "social ethos." That's why we have no sympathy for experimental Nazi doctors in the past. Science tells us what is "real", it doesn't tell us what is "true". Then we need a safe lock on this giant box. A discipline telling us what is "true." That discipline is called Epistemology.

Now, let's engage with the "Frankenstein" case in a nutshell: "The creature is the product of reason, but becomes a monster in the moral sense because it is abandoned by an "irresponsible science" that neglects the consequences of its labor." From the vantage of Rousseauean Romanticism, the monster can be seen as a specimen of natural man originally uncorrupted by the conventions of civilization. Victor, by contrast, embodies the essential corruption of highly civilized man, who uses his mind and knowledge to manipulate nature and abuses rationality in order to justify his transgressions against nature and humanity. According to scientific methodology result is "real", according to social ethos result is "unacceptable", according to epistemologic approach, result is "not true." That is why question is a non-sequitar.

For the science forum this is a VERY interesting topic that @Sarahsalah27 wrote in the what happened today forum!!

I copy it here:

So we have two very difficult questions and I hope that all PPG science smarties can maybe say what they think about them:

1️⃣ Does science have limits?

2️⃣ How can irresponsible decisions lead to disasters?

I think that science has limits of what is possible or not on earth. But also what science can do now and maybe not yet in the future.

I think the creature is for me the hero because he does not deserve to be treated with loneliness and rejection. For me it is not a disaster but a living thing like a human or animal. So it deserves help!! But science also made super powerful weapons and that can also be a disaster. 🙁 And because they can make so many victims it is maybe also irresponsible but that maybe depends also on other things.

The nice post of @Sarahsalah27 is maybe nice for this forum!! I hope that others will say what they think about the science statements!! Thank you very much!! 🙏🙏

Thank you soo much 🥰🥰❤❤ @Yue_ I want to answer both questions.

For the first question-

does science have limits?

Yes, science has limits, which are moral and human limits that prevent us from crossing what might cause harm or disaster.

In Frankenstein, Victor crosses those boundaries when he creates a creature without thinking about responsibility for it or the consequences of his action.

The result has been great tragedies, demonstrating that ignoring the limits of science can lead to devastating results

The second question:

Can irresponsible decisions lead to disasters?

Irresponsible decisions lead to disasters when their consequences are not thought through.

In Frankenstein, Victor creates a creature without taking responsibility for it, making the creature feel rejected and alone, driving him to seek revenge and cause tragedies.

The novel shows how the pursuit of knowledge or achievements without moral awareness leads to destructive results.

New questions for the Science Forum

1️⃣ If you can choose one scientific invention for yourself in the future: what would you choose? Like for example a robot that does your homework or a bed with AI and it knows how warm or cold it must be that is the best for you?

2️⃣ Ok now we live in 2050: what scientific inventions will change everything? Like now it is for example AI and earlier internet or telephones or cars. What will it be in 2050? Maybe flying cars and bikes? Or maybe a 3D food printer? 🙂