Inverted polymer solar cell efficiency sets world record

Aug 31, 2012 by Lisa Zyga feature
Inverted polymer solar cell efficiency sets world record
New organic photovoltaic solar cells with 9.2% efficiency could be on the market in 2013. Image credit: Phillips 66

(Phys.org)—For many years, researchers have strived to reach the goal of 10% efficiency for polymer-based organic photovoltaic (OPV) solar cells, a target widely considered to be the threshold for commercial applications. Now in a new study, researchers at the South China University of Technology in Guangzhou have constructed an inverted OPV that has set a new record with a certified efficiency of 9.2%, a significant improvement over the previous record-high efficiency of 8.37%. Expecting the new design to catalyze developments to the 10% target in the near future, the research team is partnering with Houston-based Phillips 66 and Solarmer, a photovoltaic company in El Monte, California, to prepare for commercialization.

"In my opinion, the 10% target is not necessary for ; 5-8% is good enough for this emerging ," Hongbin Wu, a professor at South China University of Technology, told Phys.org. "The 10% is a well-accepted figure by the organic electronic community. However, since OPVs can be produced via a very cost-effective way, lower is fine."

Although have efficiencies climbing above 20%, the researchers emphasize that OPV's low-cost production will make them competitive with the more expensive . However, the plastic-based OPVs have had to overcome another problem in order to attract : low stability that leads to short lifetimes. This problem stems in part from the cathode, which is often made of a reactive metal that easily oxidizes in air. Although encapsulating the cathode can minimize degradation, researchers have discovered that they can completely eliminate the need for this reactive metal by inverting the .

In an inverted cell, the exit the device in the opposite direction as in a normal device. This happens because the positive and negative electrodes (which absorb the negative and positive charges, respectively) are reversed. Inverting the device architecture allows researchers to make the out of a more suitable material; in this case, the researchers used indium tin oxide (ITO) modified with the polymer PFN.

The inverted device structure of the new organic photovoltaic solar cell, consisting of a photoactive layer (red) sandwiched between an anode and cathode. Image credit: He, et al. ©2012 Macmillan Publishers Limited

While inverted OPVs enjoy longer lifetimes compared to regular OPVs, they typically don't reach efficiencies as high as regular OPVs. But the current study has overturned this stereotype that inverted OPVs have inferior performance, demonstrating that OPVs can exhibit both good stability and .

To achieve this good performance, the researchers took advantage of a characteristic of inversion that is often overlooked: the ability to provide independent control of photon harvesting from the Sun's spectrum, which can lead to increased absorption of photons. The cell's photoactive layer, sandwiched between the two electrodes, absorbs incoming photons and photogenerates charge carriers. As a result of the new improvements, the photoactive layer can harvest more photons than a regular structure and therefore generate a higher electric current density of 17.2 mA/cm2, compared with 15.4 mA/cm2 for the regular device.

"The key point lies in the device structure itself," Wu said. "When the conjugated polymer PFN is used as the interlayer between the ITO substrate and photoactive layer, it can both provide ohmic contact for electron extraction and optimize photon harvest."

The higher current enables the device to achieve its record efficiency, which was certified by the Newport Technology & Application Center's Photovoltaic Lab in Long Beach, Calif.

In terms of stability, tests showed that the inverted OPVs retained 95% of their initial efficiency after 62 days, whereas the regular devices lost half their initial efficiency after 10 days.

As a bonus, the researchers also demonstrated that the design works for making semi-transparent inverted PSCs, which might be used in windows, curtains, and invisible electronic circuits.

Further, the researchers have calculated that their new design could reach the 10% target by making some reasonable improvements. By collaborating with Phillips 66 and Solarmer, they hope to bring the first OPV products to the market some time next year.

"I am confident that, at the laboratory level, an efficiency of 10% can be reached very soon," Wu said. "We continue to try our best to optimize OPV efficiency in all aspects (from a variety of materials system, device structures). When the efficiency can meet the requirement for further applications, we will conduct more in-depth investigations on stability. Also, we are carrying out research on low-cost manufacturing via ink-jet printing, roll-to-roll printing, etc."

Explore further: 'Smart' bandage emits phosphorescent glow for healing below

More information: Zhicai He, et al. "Enhanced power-conversion efficiency in polymer solar cells using an inverted device structure." Nature Photonics. DOI: 10.1038/NPHOTON.2012.190

Press release: Phillips 66, South China University of Technology, and Solarmer Energy Set a World Record in Solar Power Conversion Efficiency
http://www.phillips66.com/EN/newsroom/news_releases/2012NewsReleases/Pages/08-21-2012.aspx

Journal reference: Nature Photonics search and more info website

4.6 /5 (26 votes)

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Researchers develop powerful, silicon-based laser

Sep 29, 2014

A silicon-based laser that lases up to a record 111°C, with a threshold current density of 200 A/cm2 and an output power exceeding 100 mW at room temperature, has been demonstrated by collaborating researcher ...

Predicting landslides with light

Sep 29, 2014

Optical fiber sensors are used around the world to monitor the condition of difficult-to-access segments of infrastructure—such as the underbellies of bridges, the exterior walls of tunnels, the feet of dams, long pipelines ...

Studies in laser physics help understand rogue waves

Sep 29, 2014

(Phys.org) —University of Auckland physicist Dr Miro Erkintalo is part of an international team investigating how lasers and optical fibres can be used to understand freakishly large waves on the ocean.

User comments : 104

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
5 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2012
What about resilience against UV light? Polymers have that slight problem, because UV light causes embrittlement by gradually breaking down the molecule chains and bonds.

You need the panel itself to last well over 10 years, but uncoated plastics in direct sunlight typically crumble into pieces in just couple years because of that.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 31, 2012
China has the Global PV market in it's pocket.

America tried to compete with Solyndra, but Republicans cut and ran from the industry.

Now Americans will pay trillions to China for it's energy.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2012
What about resilience against UV light?
It really depends on the application. If these cells are very cheap then a limited lifetime (and possible recycling) could be worth it. Think about covering arable fields in winter. Would be a nice bonus income for the farmers.
Sean_W
3.1 / 5 (16) Aug 31, 2012
China has the Global PV market in it's pocket.

America tried to compete with Solyndra, but Republicans cut and ran from the industry.

Now Americans will pay trillions to China for it's energy.

Yes. If only government would have the courage to pump borrowed and taxed money into companies that manufacture things at a higher cost than other countries can, we would be sitting pretty. Then all they have to do is to keep people from buying the cheaper products by starting trade wars and Bob's your uncle, a profitable business. I wonder why no one has tried that a million times before.

The biggest problem facing alternative energy technologies is that all their supporters are Marxists. It still doesn't work. Marxism will never work. Ever.
NotParker
3.1 / 5 (19) Aug 31, 2012

America tried to compete with Solyndra, but ...


... Obamas cronies are better at taking money than actually making anything.
axemaster
5 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2012
In terms of stability, tests showed that the inverted OPVs retained 95% of their initial efficiency after 62 days, whereas the regular devices lost half their initial efficiency after 10 days.

Is it just me, or does that sound like an incredibly fast decay? So what, these things will only be good for a year or two? How is this a worthwhile tech?
sirchick
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2012
New organic photovoltaic solar cells with 9.3% efficiency

Doesn't sound too impressive?? What is the cause for slow progress in efficiency?
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 01, 2012
Doesn't sound too impressive?? What is the cause for slow progress in efficiency?
Compared to what? Development is rapid given the thirty year head start of crystalline silicon R&D.
extinct
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2012
Phillips 66 is involved? hmm... that answers this age old problem: "We will have solar energy as soon as the utility companies solve one technical problem -- how to run a sunbeam through a meter."
no doubt the Phillips crack team is hard at work even at this late hour, designing a solar cell to fail at a very specific range of time in the future. "lifetime rating 3 - 6 years: for sale. lifetime rating 200 years: keep that one on the shelf for a while"
Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 01, 2012
Sadly, Republicans like Mitt Romney have outsourced most of America's manufacturing sector and virtually all of the high tech manufacturing sector.

Was it part of the Republican "Starve the Beast" plan to bankrupt their own nation?

Or was it simply to increase Corporate profits at the expense of the American worker?

"Obamas cronies are better at taking money than actually making anything." - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2012
Very fast. Polymer decay has long been a problem with organic cells.

"Is it just me, or does that sound like an incredibly fast decay?" - axemaster

Presuming the decay rate is exponential, then it would take 2 years for the cells to have their efficiency reduced to 50 percent.

If they can improve stability by an order of magnitude then large scale systems become practical. Otherwise they will remain confined to niche uses like patio lights.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (33) Sep 01, 2012
America tried to compete with Solyndra, but Republicans cut and ran from the industry.


Non-sense, republicans had zero to do with it. Solydra went bankrupt, proving once again that the market dictates what technology will be adopted, when and where, and how much, not government idealists.

Sean_W is exactly correct.
Birger
4 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2012
The thing about high-tech startups is, for every success story you get a zillion failures. It is a high-risk business, even worse than trying to start your own restaurant :-)
Solydra was a fairly typical example.
But if no one takes risks, we will be stuck with old tech while China and other countries race ahead. BTW "Polymer decay has long been a problem with organic cells" Yes. It takes A LOT of time for a new technology to reach maturity.

Telekinetic
2.1 / 5 (19) Sep 01, 2012
@Republicans:
One can only guess that you formulated your world view years ago while sitting on your daddy's knee-
Daddy: Son, if anyone comes to you for any kind of assistance, don't give in under any circumstance! Your money is your money, and don't you forget it!
Son: No sir, I won't, sir.
At the RNC, Mitt made some weak reference to helping others that needed help, and the crowd went SILENT when they were expected to applaud! Then Mitt ridiculed the idea of saving the planet- what a pig.
eachus
5 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2012
There's a missing other shoe here. Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) is widely used in making tv, cell phone, and computer displays. Researchers are working on replacements, since Indium is not all that common, and results in significantly higher costs for displays with ITO.

The best replacement seems to be multilayer graphene oxide, if/when it can be created in large sheets. This would both increase the efficiency, and the lifetime. Choosing the right thickness reflects deep and extreme ultraviolet (DUV and EUV), that degrades the organic layers.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (33) Sep 01, 2012
@telekinetic,

You're quit clueless about conservatives. Studies have shown that conservatives are more charitable than liberals with their OWN wealth,... while liberals are more so with OTHER peoples wealth, via taxes and the government supported entitlement programs.

Conservatives recognize the OBVIOUS inefficiency and waste in government, and general incompetence, as compared to the private sector.
Telekinetic
2 / 5 (16) Sep 01, 2012
Republicans are historically lying, thieving bastards who care about nothing but enriching themselves. George W. Bush doesn't dare show his face during this election because he's political poison. Mitt Romney can't even visit Italy since he skirted paying taxes there on a multi-million dollar business deal. Republican generosity is self-serving and a tax advantage, so suckers like you, who on the bottom are racists who think welfare is the country's number one problem, continue to fall for the party line. You're selfish, transparent and ignorant, marching in step against a woman's right to abortion and a worker's right to a living wage.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (30) Sep 01, 2012
LOL, I see you've been busy constructing your cartoonish caricature of conservatives to feed your ignorance.
Telekinetic
2 / 5 (16) Sep 01, 2012
Your laughter is a nervous one in realizing that you're incapable of articulating any real response. You can't even think for yourself, let alone counter with anything of substance. While watching Mitt's followers on T.V., I never saw so many demented-looking people in one room. Ghastly!
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (31) Sep 01, 2012
Why not. Invent an absurd caricature and then supply what I was thinking upon reading your ad hominem insults. If it makes it easier for you,... conservatives eat puppies too.

What would you like me to respond to, Conservatives are racist? Demented people? Really? Inventing defects in your political opposition is clearly a sign You have no response.
geokstr
2.7 / 5 (14) Sep 01, 2012
Mitt ridiculed the idea of saving the planet- what a pig.


He did no such thing. He mocked Obama's claim that his election would cause the seas to recede and the planet to heal, definitely mockworthy. I can see why those that worship Obama and Gaia would be upset though.

Just Alinsky's Rule #5. Fun, isn't it?

I never saw so many demented-looking people in one room.


Tune in to the Democratic convention next week if you want to see real demented-lookers; Pelosi, de Lauro, Mikulski, and lots of others will be there spewing lies. There'll even be a primetime speech by a serial sexual harasser who was accused of rape and molestation and had to give up his law license for perjury, who will no doubt be condemning the Republicans for the war on wymmyn. But many prominent Democrats aren't even going; they're running away from the Lightworker. Hillary decided she needed to be halfway around the world for the convention, getting her hair done, I think.
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 01, 2012
There'll even be a primetime speech by a serial sexual harasser who was accused of rape and molestation and had to give up his law license for perjur
That's hilarious coming from the party of LEGITIMIZED RAPE and Rmoney who has made 533 verified lies so far in his campaign. Now he's pro choice again because, hey, it's a new week!
Telekinetic
2.3 / 5 (15) Sep 01, 2012
I see you only use the term "conservatives"- does that mean you're ashamed to admit that you're a Republican, or are you so far right that the Republicans don't represent you anymore. Maybe you identify with the Tea Party- the most demented of all? Try and respond to the union-busting, anti-worker Republican stance of my comment, or the anti-gun control Republicans who fear their right to shoot abortion doctors will end. How about responding to the anti-ecological Republican position that business is hurt when you put controls on the amount of crap allowed to be dumped into the atmosphere? How about the sanctimonious religious stance of the Republican Party? I thought you all were scientists on this forum. I can keep going if you'd like to be buried in your own fallacies.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2012
I didn't say that Republicans were responsible for Solyndra's bankruptcy.

China was responsible for that.

"Non-sense, republicans had zero to do with it. Solydra went bankrupt, proving once again that the market dictates what technology will be adopted" - NumenTard

Republicans are responsible for cutting and running from the support of industries like Solyndra enable the American economy to compete on the world stage.
axemaster
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 01, 2012
Well, what a crazy argument this is! I suppose I'll feed the fire then...

I think if you examined the politics in most other countries, you'd find that Democrats are pretty centrist. The Republicans have managed to become ultra conservative in the past decade or so, and at this point are largely under the control of the so-called neocons. I personally think that a dramatic proportion of the Republican politicians at this point are incredibly deluded, evidence being their rejection of climate change. The undeluded remnants are forced to play along lest they be replaced by more extreme newcomers.

Of course, the neocons are also typically ultra religious, or at least pretend to be. This leads to them having a very poor civil rights record, specifically regarding gay marriage, women's rights, and voting rights. Happily these are issues which liberals always end up winning, just as they have won with regards to slavery, women's suffrage, ending segregation in schools, and so on...
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2012
I think if you examined the politics in most other countries, you'd find that Democrats are pretty centrist.

I'd disagree here. The US democrats are, by comparison to other countries, ultra conservative. The Republicans are far crazy right wing. There's hardly a party (at least in Europe) that I would call 'on par' with the Democrats, much less 'to the right/more conservative' than them (and the Republicans are just WAY out there in right wing crazy land. There's just nothing to compare them to)
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2012
There's just nothing to compare them to)
Iran or Afghanistan may provide some illumination, with a touch of North Korea.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) Sep 02, 2012
Of course, the neocons are also typically ultra religious, or at least pretend to be.

I'm not, and know many conservatives who are agnostic or atheist as well. Blacks are very religious, but people like you never disparage them for the same. By far most democrats are religious, in fact the same religion as conservatives.

This leads to them having a very poor civil rights record, specifically regarding gay marriage, women's rights, and voting rights. Happily these are issues which liberals always end up winning, just as they have won with regards to slavery, women's suffrage, ending segregation in schools, and so on...


You've been spoon fed lies by the MSM. Republicans voting record in the Civil Rights Act ; Rep = 80% for, while only Dem = 61% for. Historically, it was the democrats who were for slavery and segragation, while republicans against. The Democrats started KKK.

http://en.wikiped...e_totals
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (30) Sep 02, 2012
,... The problem Republicans have is the MSM misrepresenting their positions. The bias became so obvious and blatant that another startup network was able to take advantage of it with a more traditional political context and now dominates the cable news networks.

-Republicans are not against gays being together in civil union. It's merely a matter of the traditional word "marriage" being defined in accord to nature. Use a different term.

-The vast majority of blacks are against gay marriage as well. Does the MSM & Huffington post tell you this fact. Do you disparage Blacks for this?

-Republicans simply want voting I.D., to prevent voting fraud, such is the importance of elections. It's extremely suspicious that anyone would be against THAT. The type of person unable or unwilling to obtain an I.D. should NOT be voting. It is the LEFT who presume blacks are not competent to do so.

http://usbacklash...slavery/
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (29) Sep 02, 2012
,... it is the democrats who are fundamentally racists in that they presume and have convinced entire generations of blacks that they are victims and can't compete on a level playing field with the rest of society and they can't subsist without the government. The result of spoon feeding these people such liberal Poison, is vastly disproportionate dependence on wealfare in the black community, catacysmic breakdown of the black family unit (stunningly 70% babies born out of wedlock!), and a culture of anti-social mentality in young black youth and a statistically high probability of a career in prison.

Republicans do not presume any such intrinsic defect, in fact they expect and promote the same standards and level playing field as for anyone else.

The democrats USED these people's history and plight against them to make them dependant for votes. The democrats have the easier path in gettings votes ,... give something to "victims groups" and ensure they stay that way.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (29) Sep 02, 2012
,... and wrt republicans and the idiotic claim that they "LEGITIMIZED RAPE", by being against abortion; This is another fraudulent liberal mush-headed argument. The vast majority of desired abortions have zero to do with rape so such arguments are purely manufactured non-sense. The far left want abortions legal right up to within a few months of birth,... purely out of convenience. The number of pregnancies resulted from rape is so minute, that it doesn't warrant discussion.

It's not complicated,... if "it" can be picked out of a line up as human, then it's a human. No one knows what or when consciousness occurs, thus such hair-splitting is not relievent.

The government is charged with protecting humans against ill caused them by other humans. In such cases the perpatrator's rights are trumpeted. Liberals are not good at logic, but are experts in misrepresenting their opponents points if view.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (28) Sep 02, 2012
I think if you examined the politics in most other countries, you'd find that Democrats are pretty centrist.

I'd disagree here. The US democrats are, by comparison to other countries, ultra conservative. The Republicans are far crazy right wing. There's hardly a party (at least in Europe) that I would call 'on par' with the Democrats, much less 'to the right/more conservative' than them (and the Republicans are just WAY out there in right wing crazy land. There's just nothing to compare them to)


You're quit clueless. There is nothing "crazy right" about today's conservatives ,... in fact traditionally the USA is a center-right country. Only reletivitity recentlly has liberalism begun bankrupting countries, and degrading societies with entitlement and the nanny state.
Pkunk_
2 / 5 (2) Sep 02, 2012
@Vendicar_Decarian said -
"Non-sense, republicans had zero to do with it. Solydra went bankrupt, proving once again that the market dictates what technology will be adopted" - NumenTard

Republicans are responsible for cutting and running from the support of industries like Solyndra enable the American economy to compete on the world stage.

I find the arguement funny since Solyndra went out of business only because it couldn't compete with the Chinese. All the american companies developed these cutting-edge solar tech with the taxpayer $$ , and now the the Chinese are buying them a dime a dozen for their patents since they can't compete.
The repugnicans are actually talking about having a trade war with China by taking them to the WTO for anti free-trade practices. But Obama seems to be doing nothing about the anti-competitive practices of the Chinese.
Job001
2 / 5 (2) Sep 02, 2012
Ignorance is pretending ones view is correct vs all others - a practical impossibility.
Republican and Democrat disinformation platforms both pretend correct superiority.
Based upon actual results, both resemble corrupt traitors and freedoms enemy.
Perhaps so, perhaps not, let's not pretend either know it all party is our friend.
Let's see both in truth as tyrannies friend and freedoms enemy.
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2012
"The number of pregnancies resulted from rape is so minute, that it doesn't warrant discussion."- Noumenon

Ordinarily, I'm not shocked by the stupidity voiced on this forum. Now I am. Todd Akin said exactly the same thing which may just blow the election for Mitt, because of that grotesque remark. The science behind pregnancy states clearly that a raped woman's fallopian tubes do not cinch up in some way to prevent pregnancy. Only ignorant yahoos like you and Akin believe that. And your distorted portrayal of abortion pegs you as religious, and proclaiming your atheism makes you a liar.

kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2012
Noumenon reminds me of that catholic priest yesterday who said molesting priests shouldn't be blamed. He believes "youngsters" are often to blame for sexual abuse by priests and that priests who are first time offenders should not be jailed for their crime.

"People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to -- a psychopath. But that's not the case. Suppose you have a man (priest) having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster -- 14, 16, 18 -- is the seducer."

Or the priest who blames a 12yo girl for sex in Sacred Heart Church at Booval.

Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Sep 02, 2012
"The number of pregnancies resulted from rape is so minute, that it doesn't warrant discussion."- Noumenon

Ordinarily, I'm not shocked by the stupidity voiced on this forum. Now I am. Todd Akin said exactly the same thing which may just blow the election for Mitt, because of that grotesque remark. The science behind pregnancy states clearly that a raped woman's fallopian tubes do not cinch up in some way to prevent pregnancy. Only ignorant yahoos like you and Akin believe that. And your distorted portrayal of abortion pegs you as religious, and proclaiming your atheism makes you a liar.



I never said anything of the sort you bonehead.

You idiot, I never said raped women can't get pregnant. I said the number of rapes that occur is minute, so it is a false issue. The vast majority of desired abortions have nothing to do with rape.

P.S. the republican who made that stupid comment has been repeatably DENOUNCED and asked to drop out by every other prominent republican.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 02, 2012
Noumenon reminds me of that catholic priest yesterday who said molesting priests shouldn't be blamed. He believes "youngsters" are often to blame for sexual abuse by priests and that priests who are first time offenders should not be jailed for their crime.

"People have this picture in their minds of a person planning to -- a psychopath. But that's not the case. Suppose you have a man (priest) having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster -- 14, 16, 18 -- is the seducer."

Or the priest who blames a 12yo girl for sex in Sacred Heart Church at Booval.



WTF are you talking about, you colossal imbecile? I remind you of this? How, when!?
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (26) Sep 02, 2012
@Telekinetic,

So in other words, you assuming and slandering twit,... the number of pregnancies as a result of rape is far less than the number of rapes, because obviously a women doesn't become pregnant everytime (irrespective of rape or not),,... so the numbe of such occurances does not warrant that as a prominent argument from the abortion supporters.

What's remarkable is that your stupidity and lack of reading comprehension even lead you to think I was lying about not believing in god. You're a perfect candidate for leftist propaganda.
kochevnik
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 02, 2012
WTF are you talking about, you colossal imbecile? I remind you of this? How, when!?
In the post above, for example. How is that legitimate rape working out for your daughters? I'm sure you think that 12yo raped by the priest doesn't have a legitimate rape claim, either.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (26) Sep 02, 2012
I see you only use the term "conservatives"- does that mean you're ashamed to admit that you're a Republican, or are you so far right that the Republicans don't represent you anymore. Maybe you identify with the Tea Party...


Because I'm not a political hack and not all republicans are true conservatives. What's important is idealology. There are 'economically conservative democrats' and 'social liberal republicans',... but I don't want to confuse you, least that interfere with you cartoonish dislike of republicans.

I'm not in anyway associated with the Tea Pary, in anycase they're not a political party and have no power. They're just protestors with a rational and legitamate point, i.e. Taxed enough already,.. no more taxes until the government is made fiscally responsible, which obviously it is not.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 02, 2012
WTF are you talking about, you colossal imbecile? I remind you of this? How, when!?
In the post above, for example. How is that legitimate rape working out for your daughters? I'm sure you think that 12yo raped by the priest doesn't have a legitimate rape claim, either.


What!?! I'm still not getting what you're talking about. YOU said republicans legitimize rape, right?,.. which is preposterous, but I assume you mean by being anti-abortion, correct? If so, then the odds of a women becoming pregnant (by anyone) is about 5% per month, multiply this by the odds of getting rapped, and you arrive at a figure too minute to rationally use rape as an argument to justify abortion for everyone else who wants it. Understand?

Teleknetic wrongly and recklessly linked my statement to the Akin dolt. I never said anything about any internal mechanism in a women that could defeat pregnancy due to rape. That is absurd.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 02, 2012
,... and I have no association with priests or the catholic church, so what is your point in mentioning them? Are you saying republicans support rapists as long as they are priests?
Telekinetic
1.4 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2012
"The numbers around the level of sex assault in the military are staggering. There is so much of this going on in the US military that women soldiers' advocacy groups have created a new term for it: military sexual trauma or MST. Last year, there were 3,158 cases of sexual assault reported within the military. The Service Women's Action Network notes that rape is always under-reported, and that a military context offers additional hurdles to rape victims: the Department of Defense, they point out, estimates that these numbers are misleading because fewer than 14% of survivors report an assault. The DoD estimates that in 2010 alone, over 19,000 sexual assaults occurred in the military." -The Guardian

You just keep digging a bigger hole for yourself, dunce.
OK, I just provided numbers JUST from the U.S. military, not including the civilian statistics. Rape is still a non-issue? So,
are all conservatives like yourself misogynists as well?
Shabs42
4.3 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
Can't we just agree that both parties are full of screw-ups who care more about being reelected and maintaining power than what is truly best for the people of the country?

If there was a party that actually practiced economic conservatism and social liberalism; I would be all over it. As it is, I really don't care too much which party is in power. They'll both screw it up, just in different ways.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 02, 2012
You just keep digging a bigger hole for yourself, dunce. OK, I just provided numbers JUST from the U.S. military, not including the civiilan statistics. Rape is still a non-issue? So, are all conservatives like yourself misogynists as well?


Where did I say that rape is a non-issue, in general? Do you have reading comprehension problems.

Pro-abortionist use rape as an argument to justify abortion. My point above is in essense, what about the remaining 99% of abortion cases? In other words, pregnancy due to rape is vastly over shadowed in numbers, by the desire of abortion out of convenience. So it is a pointless argument.

In fact strategically, republicans should just say, yea ok then, we support abortion in cases of rape and health issues, ,... then the debate would be of the remaining 90% of cases, where it should be.

I agree with you Shabs42 !!!
Telekinetic
1.7 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2012
What right do you have to legislate what a woman decides to do with her body? You have no right at all. The most vehement anti-abortion group in the world is the Catholic Church followed by other religious organizations, which proves my point that you, Noumenon, are religious, when there's no other reason to oppose abortion except to obey the laws of religion. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that you also oppose the scientific use of embryonic stem cells- more dogma issued by the Church. You're a sleazy, back-pedaling liar and as slippery as any church-going Republican out there.
kochevnik
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2012
I was going to reply, but you nailed it in place Telekinetic
sennekuyl
5 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
"The number of pregnancies resulted from rape is so minute, that it doesn't warrant discussion."- Noumenon

... Todd Akin said exactly the same thing which may just blow the election for Mitt, because of that grotesque remark. The science behind pregnancy states clearly that a raped woman's fallopian tubes do not cinch up in some way to prevent pregnancy. Only ignorant yahoos like you and Akin believe that. And your distorted portrayal of abortion pegs you as religious, and proclaiming your atheism makes you a liar.


Ahh.. I'm a progressive Australian; Noumenon didn't say that. He said the rate of pregnancies conceived by rape is very low. That means it is a ridiculous argument to use to make abortion permissible. I'm a pro-abortion and I agree. Yes rape is horrible. So is imprisoning a woman with a parasitic life-form against her will.
Now can we get back to polymer solar cells?
tarheelchief
4 / 5 (1) Sep 02, 2012
Producers in Africa and South America can hire these chemists and materials engineers.They will cut out the middle men and set about transforming the isolated villages.
The utilities,railroads,and gas producers will legally hinder the attempts in the EU,Russia,the Middle East,and the US to set up plants producing these panels.
I do wish readers would assume those holding market shares will fight,claw and sue anyone or anything which halts developing technologies.This is not party affiliated,this is capitalism and nationalized industries,and was part and parcel of Adam Smith's warnings.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 02, 2012
The most vehement anti-abortion group in the world is the Catholic Church followed by other religious organizations, which proves my point that you, Noumenon, are religious, when there's no other reason to oppose abortion except to obey the laws of religion.


The other reason is that, ummm, it is a human life being terminated, duh, and human life should be held sacred imo,.. in a non-spiritual sense, because history has shown what happens when human life is devalued.

You seem to Want me to be religious for some reason. Maybe, because a agnostic conservative isn't compatible with your cartoonist caricature of the Right.

Abortion is uncivilized and is savagery. The same group that are For abortion are against the death penalty for murderers. Mush-headed progressive liberals.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2012
"The other reason is that, ummm, it is a human life being terminated, duh, and human life should be held sacred imo,.. in a non-spiritual sense, because history has shown what happens when human life is devalued."- Noumenon

More of your blatant hypocrisy- if you valued life so much, you would realize that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy will go to any length to rid herself of it, including the real barbarism of a wire coat hanger or an unsanitary back alley abortion. Thousands of women have died with those choices. In an abortion clinic, it'll be performed without danger of infection or hemmorhage. Your phony compassion for the unborn is suspect. I still say your anti-abortion stance is of a religious nature. The necessity of a large population to fill factories with cheap labor and amass huge armies are the real reason your lying Republican leaders object to abortion. The sanctity of life- what a crock coming out of the mouths of slime who don't give a damn about the starving.
bredmond
5 / 5 (2) Sep 02, 2012
Of course, the neocons are also typically ultra religious, or at least pretend to be. This leads to them having a very poor civil rights record, specifically regarding gay marriage, women's rights, and voting rights. Happily these are issues which liberals always end up winning, just as they have won with regards to slavery, women's suffrage, ending segregation in schools, and so on...


What does gay marriage have to do with civil rights laws? And then, i also feel that you are splitting your judgement of slavery, women's suffrage, ending segregation in schools into two extremes with no middle. Those are all issues from a long time ago, and the political climate climate was much different then. It is not the same conservative.
bredmond
5 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2012
Of course, the neocons are also typically ultra religious, or at least pretend to be. This leads to them having a very poor civil rights record, specifically regarding gay marriage, women's rights, and voting rights. Happily these are issues which liberals always end up winning, just as they have won with regards to slavery, women's suffrage, ending segregation in schools, and so on...


What does gay marriage have to do with civil rights laws? And then, i also feel that you are splitting your judgement of conservatives with regards historical attitudes towards slavery, women's suffrage, ending segregation in schools into two extremes with no middle. Those are all issues from a long time ago, and the political climate climate was much different then. It is not the same conservative.
bredmond
not rated yet Sep 02, 2012
Disregard my first comment. It is not phrased well. The second is also not phrased really well, but I am sure people can understand my meaning.
despinos
not rated yet Sep 04, 2012
This is supposed to be a science web, not a politics one.
Please, stop filling it with garbage and go to a more suitable forum.
By the way, every developped country is researching OPV photovoltaics, and the differences between research teams in terms of top efficiencies achieved are around 1%...

Therefore, production costs and sales capabilities will decide who makes profits in this area, rather than the maximum efficiency of the pannel.
Shabs42
not rated yet Sep 04, 2012
What does gay marriage have to do with civil rights laws?


From www.dictionary.com

civil rights

— pl n
1. the personal rights of the individual citizen, in most countries upheld by law, as in the US
2. ( modifier ) of, relating to, or promoting equality in social, economic, and political rights
Shabs42
not rated yet Sep 04, 2012
You seem to Want me to be religious for some reason. Maybe, because a agnostic conservative isn't compatible with your cartoonist caricature of the Right.

Abortion is uncivilized and is savagery. The same group that are For abortion are against the death penalty for murderers. Mush-headed progressive liberals.


Way to make the exact same mistake. I wouldn't really consider myself a liberal except in the social sense; but I am pro abortion and pro death penalty. Not a fan of current death penalty implementation because of the time and money involved, but that's a whole other thing.
bredmond
not rated yet Sep 05, 2012
Shabs42, how does that answer my question?
PinkElephant
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2012
@bredmond,

The word "marriage" is not as "traditional" as the right-wingers would like it to be.

It is used in a whole bunch of LAWS that address issues like inheritance, taxation, property rights, child custody, medical access and caretaker rights, power of attorney, immigration and emigration, etc.

By denying two people the right to call themselves "married", you automatically deny them all the rights and privileges granted BY LAW to married couples. That is discrimination, rank and simple.

You want to separate marriage from civil unions, while avoiding discrimination? Fine: remove all mention of "marriage" from all laws. Does that sound easier than just allowing homosexuals to marry?

The argument that marriage is a purely religious concept is total BS. Atheists can marry. Buddhists can marry as easily as Christians. Moslems can marry, but according to their religion they should be allowed polygamy too (not just monogamy) -- and until recently Mormons were polygamists...
PinkElephant
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2012
@Noumenon,

Your stance on abortion is logically untenable.

You accept that some proportion of all abortions are due to rape. You also (presumably) agree that in such cases abortion is acceptable.

Let's proceed from there. If you admit that *some* elective abortions are to be allowed, then you admit that the fetus does not have the same rights as an actual human being. Otherwise, you put yourself in a position of arguing that a woman's feelings have greater value than a human life.

Therefore, you must choose, IN CASES OF PREGNANCY RESULTING FROM RAPE, whether abortion must be allowed or not. I don't care if those cases constitute only 1% of all abortions, or whatever that actual percentage happens to be.

IN THOSE CASES, shall abortion be allowed or not?

If your answer is "yes", then you must surrender your pretense that fetuses are human beings. Q.E.D.

If your answer is "no", then you oppose all abortions in all cases: admit it openly and stop dancing around the issue.
PinkElephant
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2012
ctd.
It's not complicated,... if "it" can be picked out of a line up as human, then it's a human. No one knows what or when consciousness occurs, thus such hair-splitting is not relievent.
So, dolls are human?

No, then are anencephalic infants human? (Anencephaly is a condition where the cerebral hemispheres fail to develop.) You posit "consciousness" as your criterion for humanity (with which I agree, by the way); if so, then you must agree that fully-developed, newborn anencephalic infants are not humans -- they clearly lack the hardware to run the consciousness OS.

So let's consider the fetus at the end of the 2nd trimester (25 weeks of gestation.) Even at this "late" a stage, there are yet no folds in the cerebral hemispheres. In a newborn, such a condition is called Lissencephaly; in its most severe form (the smoothest brain) it is fatal with no detectable signs of personhood over the course of the very short and medically eventful "life".
PinkElephant
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2012
ctd.

Things become murky into the third trimester, and obviously "aborting" a fetus 1 day before it would be naturally born anyway would be tantamount to murder.

But right-wingers are not content with merely banning LATE-TERM (meaning, third-trimester) abortions (which in itself, particularly when including medical exceptions, is not really all that controversial.)

Right-wingers want to ban ALL abortions, even in the second and first trimester. Here, your argument from "consciousness" simply does not apply. Consciousness is a product of the brain, and lacking adequately developed brain, consciousness is therefore out of the question.

Unless, that is, you choose to reject science and adopt religion as your basis for LEGISLATION (i.e. LAW.) Yeah, sure, you can claim that fetuses (and even blastocysts, and even fertilized eggs in a Petri dish) are human because they have "souls". But that's religion, and it has no place in the CIVIC sphere (unless you want theocracy?)
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 06, 2012
You accept that some proportion of all abortions are due to rape. You also (presumably) agree that in such cases abortion is acceptable.


Your presumption is incorrect, so your well reasoned and valid counter argument does not apply.

I think I emphasized "for strategic purposes", republicans should "just say", "yea ok then", "we support abortion in cases of rape and health issues",... iow, compromise to win the larger more statistically relevant issue of abortion out of convenience.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 06, 2012
It's not complicated,... if "it" can be picked out of a line up as human, then it's a human. No one knows what or when consciousness occurs, thus such hair-splitting is not relievent.

So, dolls are human? No, then are anencephalic infants human? (Anencephaly is a condition where the cerebral hemispheres fail to develop.) You posit "consciousness" as your criterion for humanity (with which I agree, by the way); if so, then you must agree that fully-developed, newborn anencephalic infants are not humans -- they clearly lack the hardware to run the consciousness OS.


Again, statistically, the above issue is too minute to be of valid use in a argument for abortion. Rape, health, and Anencephaly, are not why 90% of abortions will take place.

If those who support abortion wish to have a honest debate, then they should argue based on the merits of 'abortion for convenience', rather than the above statistically irrelevant hypotheticals.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 06, 2012
Right-wingers want to ban ALL abortions, even in the second and first trimester. Here, your argument from "consciousness" simply does not apply. Consciousness is a product of the brain, and lacking adequately developed brain, consciousness is therefore out of the question.


Consciousness was one criteria noted, ....that its a potential human, and appears as so, is the fundamental one, ...iow, that's its a human life striving to develop autonomously, is enough. That it cam play chess or drive a car is not relevant to being a human.

The point is to not devalue human life,... if this happens, then the next step occurs. Actually, many far left already support late term abortions.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 06, 2012
Unless, that is, you choose to reject science and adopt religion as your basis for LEGISLATION (i.e. LAW.) Yeah, sure, you can claim that fetuses (and even blastocysts, and even fertilized eggs in a Petri dish) are human because they have "souls". But that's religion, and it has no place in the CIVIC sphere (unless you want theocracy?)


You are correct here and I agree. I reject religion and "souls".

Except one point,.. science has never determined that a foetus is not human and/or is not life. In fact the opposite is obviously the case. So, no rejection of science is necessary.

That science can determine HOW developed a foetus is, is merely used by abortion supporters to place a subjective Value or Worthiness on that human life. That it can't drive a car yet, is not relevant to it being a developing human life.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 06, 2012
So let's consider the fetus at the end of the 2nd trimester (25 weeks of gestation.) Even at this "late" a stage, there are yet no folds in the cerebral hemispheres......


Zeno argued that an arrow can't be in motion by only considering a single instant in time. To me a foetus is an arrow in flight who's destination can't be argued away.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 06, 2012
The word "marriage" is not as "traditional" as the right-wingers would like it to be. It is used in a whole bunch of LAWS that address issues like inheritance, taxation, property rights, [etc]. By denying two people the right to call themselves "married", you automatically deny them all the rights and privileges granted BY LAW to married couples. That is discrimination, rank and simple.


I believe you are factually incorrect here. In fact Right-wingers have no issue with "civil unions", nor with any benefits "civil unions" would legally allow them, even if identical with marriage.

What is objected to is a redefinition of the institution of marriage,.. that is, between a man and a women in accordance with natural law. Gays wish to "normalize" their life styles in all aspects of society. Scientifically speaking they are an abnormality of nature, and thus should not be misrepresented as normal, which is their goal, even to the extent if teaching kids its normal.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (21) Sep 06, 2012
It is used in a whole bunch of LAWS...By denying two people the right to call themselves "married", you automatically deny them all the rights and privileges granted BY LAW to married couples. That is discrimination, rank and simple.
But many of those laws were configured based on the union of a man and a woman, and need to be rewritten in light of man/man or woman/woman unions. For instance divorce laws tend to favor a womans rights over a mans.

It may be easier to change civil union laws to include the supposed advantages of traditional marriage. Heck, change the name to civil marriage or something.

Either way it is lawyers and lawmakers who benefit most from these issues involving extremely small but extremely visible minorities. Lawyers and lawmakers both are under threat from AI and automation, as more and more of what they used to do can be done now without them. So we can expect to see increasing noise over murky and unanswerable issues which can keep them employed.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) Sep 06, 2012
What about resilience against UV light? Polymers have that slight problem
I do agree in full extent. The scientists are often generating abstract solutions, the practical usefulness of which is very low, because it helps them in continuation of their jobs and salaries - not the benefit of the rest of human society. They're cheating the people, who are paying them in this way. In some cases such solar cells may generate more energy when we would simply burn them in the stove. So we should define the total cost of ownership of such "records" and judge it carefully with respect to its life expectancy, installation and replacement costs and all other aspects of practical operation and recycling. The cheap solar cells from plastic which are polluting the life environment with organic residua and which must be replaced after few years due their degradation and low efficiency may become pretty costly solution for their owners at the very end.
kochevnik
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2012
What is objected to is a redefinition of the institution of marriage,.. that is, between a man and a women in accordance with natural law.
Marriage is an artificial constrict and has nothing to do with natural law. Indeed it flies in the face of natural law, where women seek to have multiple fathers to boost diversity yet source a supplicating male to support unrelated offspring.

Harems are much closer to natural law.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (25) Sep 06, 2012
What is objected to is a redefinition of the institution of marriage,.. that is, between a man and a women in accordance with natural law.
Marriage is an artificial [construct] and has nothing to do with natural law. Indeed it flies in the face of natural law, where women seek to have multiple fathers to boost diversity yet source a supplicating male to support unrelated offspring.

Harems are much closer to natural law.


Um, I didn't imply that the institution of marriage grows on a tree, of course it's a man made institution. I said "in accordance with natural law", iow, ....to produce off-spring a man and a woman are required as a matter of natural law,... i.e. two gays won't work. Take note of the context.
ValeriaT
5 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2012
Marriage is an artificial constrict and has nothing to do with natural law.
Many animals are living in pairs from good reasons - but I dunno, how this topic is related to solar cells.
PinkElephant
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2012
I said "in accordance with natural law", iow, ....to produce off-spring a man and a woman are required as a matter of natural law,... i.e. two gays won't work.
Nonsense. If marriage as "traditionally" construed in America was anywhere near "natural", we won't have such pervasive and perpetual problems with infidelity and divorce (never mind, domestic violence and child neglect.)

If the purpose of marriage is supposed to be procreation, then we should never allow marriage for infertile couples, post-menopausal women, castrated or sterile men, dwarves, etc.

When it comes to child-rearing, two gays would work just fine, when coupled with ADOPTION (you've heard of that concept, no?)

As another complicating wrinkle, beyond just gays we have bisexuals -- who might have a child at one point with an opposite-sex partner, then fall in love with and want to marry a same-sex partner.

In truth, there is no RATIONAL basis for opposing gay marriage -- there are only religious ones.
PinkElephant
1.8 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2012
Gays wish to "normalize" their life styles in all aspects of society.
Or, they simply wish to demand equal rights. At one point in not too recent past, colored folks and interracial partners wished to "normalize" their rights and choice of marriage, in an analogous fashion.
Scientifically speaking they are an abnormality of nature, and thus should not be misrepresented as normal, which is their goal, even to the extent if teaching kids its normal.
Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon. It is present in many species. In quite a number of species, it has been demonstrated to confer a selective advantage to offspring of parents who have homosexual siblings (who tend to share resources and help rear their "cousins".)

Even if you view homosexuality as disability -- do we deny the right to marry to people with Downs syndrome or to dwarves? Why should homosexuality be so specifically singled out?

It always comes back to religion, because that's where it originates.
PinkElephant
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2012
I think I emphasized "for strategic purposes", republicans should "just say", "yea ok then", "we support abortion in cases of rape and health issues",... iow, compromise to win the larger more statistically relevant issue of abortion out of convenience.
Except if you truly and honestly believed that fetuses are human beings, your argument above would be tantamount to condoning genocide in the name of political expediency. That would make you morally bankrupt. Assuming you're not, then the only conclusion is that you are simply a hypocrite: you do not really, truly believe that fetuses are human beings. You just pretend as if you believed that -- in the name of political expedience.
The point is to not devalue human life,... if this happens, then the next step occurs.
To devalue "human" life, we must be talking about a HUMAN BEING. We've now established that fetuses (and embryos) are NOT human beings. They are not PEOPLE, because they lack a sufficiently developed brain.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 06, 2012
Again, I didn't say marriage was itself natural,... I said it's DEFINED in accord with natural law,... That is to (naturally) PRODUCE a family requires a man and a women. This is inarguable. Traditionally marriage and the concept of Creating a family, requires a man & women.

Gays can't produce off spring, by law of nature. Whether a particular straight marriage results in off spring or gays adopt, is not irrelevant.
PinkElephant
1.8 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2012
Consciousness was one criteria noted, ....that its a potential human, and appears as so, is the fundamental one, ...iow, that's its a human life striving to develop autonomously, is enough.
A "potential human" is not the same thing as a "human being". A bucket of sand is not a computer chip, even if it is eventually transformed into one.

As for "develop autonomously", try and yank this "human life" out of the womb, and see how well it does autonomously. It's about as "autonomous" as my left testicle. That you would ignore to such a palpable extent, the degree to which a mother's body and nurture is vital and integral to fetal development, only goes to show how misogynistic and egotistical (never mind unscientific) your perspective truly is.

I say if we want to respect HUMAN life, then we should not demean and devalue the meaning of what it is to actually be a HUMAN BEING. We are more than mere aggregates of meat and bone. We are more than mere cattle.
PinkElephant
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2012
I said it's DEFINED in accord with natural law,... That is to (naturally) PRODUCE a family requires a man and a women.
Once again, reproduction is NOT what defines a marriage. Otherwise, childless marriages would be inconceivable.

Homosexuality is in fact far more natural than marriage (because homosexuality occurs regardless of any artificially-constructed social institutions.)

A marriage at its core, is two (or more) people choosing to live together in complete intimacy, and share all of their resources, indefinitely. Reproduction may or may not be either the consequence or a prequel to such an arrangement. The act of reproduction itself does not require marriage, and never has, as you perfectly well know.

Insofar as marriage is considered conducive to good child-rearing, I don't see why gay marriage must be excluded from consideration. A married gay couple can raise a child just as well as a married straight couple could.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 06, 2012
A "potential human" is not the same thing as a "human being". A bucket of sand is not a computer chip, even if it is eventually transformed into one.


A bucket of sand will never become a computer chip if left alone for nine months.

As for "develop autonomously", try and yank this "human life" out of the womb, and see how well it does autonomously. [..] That you would ignore to such a palpable extent, the degree to which a mother's body and nurture is vital and integral to fetal development, only goes to show how misogynistic and egotistical (never mind unscientific) your perspective truly is.


You seem desperate to misrepresent so recklessly.

By autonomously, it is clearly meant, by it's own volition. That is, if not interrupted, it's development will result in a person. The women does not have to do anything other than live. That is what I mean by 'develop autonomously'. It is a human life with its own intrinsic nature to develop into a person.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (23) Sep 06, 2012
Except if you truly and honestly believed that fetuses are human beings, your argument above would be tantamount to condoning genocide in the name of political expediency. That would make you morally bankrupt. Assuming you're not, then the only conclusion is that you are simply a hypocrite: you do not really, truly believe that fetuses are human beings. You just pretend as if you believed that -- in the name of political expedience.


We send troops into battle knowing full well that some will die, for the greater good. My stance is like wise rational, even though not entirely logically consistent as you pointed out.
PinkElephant
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2012
A bucket of sand will never become a computer chip if left alone for nine months.
Neither will an embryo, outside of a WOMB.
The women does not have to do anything other than live.
Other than eat for two, suffer morning sickness, abstain from strenuous physical activity, gain weight, acquire stretch marks, lug around a growing mass in her belly, suffer from various complications from pregnancy ranging from incontinence and hemorrhoids to organ failure, etc. -- and in the end, suffer either the agony and peril of giving birth, or go under the knife for a Caesarian. Yeah, pregnancy's a total walk in the park... when you're a male.
It is a human life with its own intrinsic nature to develop into a person.
It is a pre-human fetus with no capacity for independent life, and it is certainly not a person as you freely admit. Therefore, in prohibiting abortion we are denying PEOPLE (women) rights and sovereignty over their own bodies, in favor of THINGS that are NOT people.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 06, 2012
A marriage at its core, is two (or more) people choosing to live together in complete intimacy, and share all of their resources, indefinitely. Reproduction may or may not be either the consequence or a prequel to such an arrangement. The act of reproduction itself does not require marriage, and never has, as you perfectly well know.


Traditionally the institution of marriage, presumes the potentiality of family, thus man/women is implied in the definition. This is simply a fact of history of that institution.

Now, in 2012, gays know they can be together in civil union and receive the same benefits, however, their intent with this is to attempt to normalize homosexuality in society. Those opposed, say that homosexuality is not in fact normal, in fact it is an (statistical) abnormality of nature. This is an inarguable fact, despite your convoluted arguments to the contrary.

It's not about civil rights, its about definitions.
PinkElephant
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2012
We send troops into battle knowing full well that some will die, for the greater good.
Except here, there is absolutely NO "greater good". None. Zip. Nada. There is only harm, all around. There is harm to the woman. There is harm to society caused by unwanted children. There is NOTHING good about making abortion illegal.

And don't even try with the "slippery slope" BS. Everyone agrees that once born, a baby has full human rights. That will NEVER change. Furthermore, it is reasonable to prohibit abortions in the third trimester, except for medical reasons. There is no slippery slope to an sort of devaluation of human life, here. You devalue human life much more, and are on much more of a slippery slope, when you call homosexuals "unnatural" and their condition a "lifestyle". Now THAT is certainly a slippery slope with a proven historical track record (hint: Jews weren't the only ones sent to concentration/extermination camps by the Nazis...)
PinkElephant
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2012
Traditionally...
Traditionally, polygamy was as broadly practiced as monogamy. Traditionally, slavery was acceptable. Tradition is not a good basis for structuring modern society.
they can be together in civil union and receive the same benefits
No, not the same benefits. Check into it, and you will see. Furthermore, by far not even all states allow gays so much as to enter into civil unions.
It's not about civil rights, its about definitions.
"Separate but equal" rings no bells?

If you were gay yourself, you'd feel different. But (unless you're closeted) you are not, so try on a bit of compassion and empathy for a change.

The BS about "lifestyles"... Tell me, when you find a woman attractive and desirable, is that a rational choice for you? Do you go: huh, there's a woman, why don't I go and get infatuated with her... yeah, that's what I'm gonna go ahead and do! Nope, it just happens to you. Now imagine that instead of women, you were attracted to men.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (24) Sep 06, 2012
A bucket of sand will never become a computer chip if left alone for nine months.
Neither will an embryo, outside of a WOMB.


My point does not require the foetus to be outside the womb, nor to be easy on the women. You invented that absurdity.

The women is not required to do anything to cause the life to develop, except live as she would in any case. She is only passively effected by being pregnant, so such effects upon her does not dismiss that the life within her is developing through its own momentum, and causing those effects.

It is a pre-human fetus with no capacity for independent life, and it is certainly not a person as you freely admit


There's no "pre-human" it's either a human foetus or a kangaroo foetus. It has a obvious intrinsic capacity to develop, thus by definition, a life. It is a potential person, an actual human life.

We won't agree any way.
PinkElephant
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2012
My point does not require the foetus to be outside the womb, nor to be easy on the women.
And my point doesn't require a bucket of sand to transform into a computer chip outside of a factory.
The women is not required to do anything to cause the life to develop, except live as she would in any case.
No, being pregnant is not life-as-usual. And if the woman cares about the well-being of her eventual child, she'll be careful to take good care of herself -- eat and hydrate well, get all the necessary vitamins and nutrients, go for regular check-ups, stay away from sick people, avoid drugs and alcohol, avoid stress, get plenty of rest, etc.
such effects upon her does not dismiss that the life within her is developing through its own momentum, and causing those effects.
Pregnancy is a physiological process; so is disease. We don't object to artificial termination of disease. You've yet to present any real good to balance out the palpable evils of your prohibition regime.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (25) Sep 06, 2012
There is no slippery slope to an sort of devaluation of human life, here. You devalue human life much more, and are on much more of a slippery slope, when you call homosexuals "unnatural" and their condition a "lifestyle". Now THAT is certainly a slippery slope with a proven historical track record (hint: Jews weren't the only ones sent to concentration/extermination camps by the Nazis...)


Everyone agrees that ONCE born, a baby has full human rights.


The slippery slope is obviously in late term abortions. You said "once" born everyone agrees,... but not for one month prior to birth.

I was wondering when the holocaust would be mentioned.

Right, I'm not making valuation judgements here, so calm down. Homosexuality is factually and statistically an abnormality, a defect wrt how humans have evolved to reproduce. This is simply a fact.

I'm only saying, they should not attempt to "normalize" what clearly is not. That is what is at issue here. I don't hate.
PinkElephant
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2012
The slippery slope is obviously in late term abortions. You said "once" born everyone agrees,... but not for one month prior to birth.
Again, easily resolved by prohibiting (with medical exemptions) all elective abortions in the third trimester (which is still probably too aggressive, but here it's easy to argue that better be safe than sorry.) Which is, in fact, already the status quo last time I checked.

Prohibiting abortion in the 1st and 2nd trimesters is a wholly unjustified "cure" far worse than the perceived mirage of "disease".
a defect wrt how humans have evolved to reproduce
Again, for all we know it is not a "defect", but a beneficial mutation that confers selective advantage upon siblings -- particularly when child-rearing is prolonged and resource-intensive, and undertaken by small groups of relatives. By PRE-JUDGING it as a "defect", you exhibit PREJUDICE.
I don't hate.
"unnatural" and "lifestyle" is hate language; if you don't hate, stop spewing it.
PinkElephant
2 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2012
So far on both abortion and homosexuality, all I've seen from you are weak and ineffectual attempts to argue for positions that were never rationally constructed in the first place.

We all know where the real origins of both monogamous marriage and repression of homosexuality are to be found -- in the Abrahamic religions of the world (Judaic, Christian, Islam). We all know that religion is what drives the vast majority of the right-wingers aiming to ban abortion and repress homosexuals. It's freakishly obvious, so why don't we just stop dancing around that fact.

If you really are not yourself motivated by religion, then you really have no rational basis for taking either of the positions you've been attempting to justify. All the "arguments" you've put forth (and more) are well-known fig leaves meant to rather ineffectually distract attention from the true issue at hand: whether our society and laws should be governed by religion, or by enlightened rationality and fairness.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (18) Sep 06, 2012
women seek to have multiple fathers to boost diversity yet source a supplicating male to support unrelated offspring.
Well not just any fathers. Their perogerative is to seek the best possible donor for each and every child she wishes to bear.
Harems are much closer to natural law.
Indeed, for both men and women.

"A woman would prefer to have 1/10th of a champion rather than all ohf a mediocre man." -Oscar Wilde
pervasive and perpetual problems with infidelity and divorce
In accordance with the above observations, these are not biological problems but rather cultural problems; they weaken tribal cohesion and threaten it's ability to compete. (never mind, domestic violence and child neglect.) And despite your implications, these do not result from infidelity or divorce. 'The village raises the child'. Modern cultures are distinctly unnatural and hard on everybody. Just like the barnyard.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (20) Sep 06, 2012
The traditional def of marriage:

"The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."

-Like I say a prime source of discord in a tribe is contention over reproductive rights. A tribe which had institutions which could instill trust and cooperation among males, would tend to prevail in conflict with other tribes. And a man would be more apt to expend effort and resources to build a large family if he had confidence that the kids he was helping to support were his.

Marriage is the backbone of religion. Religion thrives on large families and trust among warriors. The surviving religions are the ones which were able to build large cohesive populations and restock their fighting forces quickly. OF COURSE anything which weakens this process would be a grave sin and a direct threat to their way of life.

Even as it now threatens our futures.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (18) Sep 06, 2012
The tribe of Israel had perhaps the most successful def of marriage. Warrior cultures with high battle attrition rates and thus an excess of women, would include provision for polygamy, to maximize recovery:

"The Covenant Code orders men who have two wives (polygynously) to not deprive the first wife of food, of clothing, nor of sexual activity; if the husband does not provide the first wife with these things, she is to be divorced, without cost to her. The Talmud interprets this as a requirement for a man to provide food and clothing to, and have sex with, each of his wives...As a polygynous society, the Israelites did not have any laws which imposed marital fidelity on men. Adulterous married women...however, were subject to the death penalty... as were their male accomplices."

-Obviously meant to maximize growth and keep women pregnant throughout their lives.

And when Utah was filled the Mormons could dispense with this useful custom.

Hey isn't this thread about solar cells?
bredmond
4 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2012
@PinkElephant

I appreciate your discussions. Rather than continue forcing the rhetoric by making simple statements like, "How is that related to civil rights", I will just simply say what it is i am feeling. I am from a place with many gays (san francisco), and i have been mostly tolerant for a while, but not particularly interested myself. Honestly, i guess it might feel good. I dont know. but the way i feel is that I have really not encountered enough scientific data on the whole subject in many ways to convince me that it is healthy. It sort of feels like the arguments are that nothing definitively says it is wrong so it must be right. I am just proposing the idea that we try to understand this phenomenon with hard data. We might as well, right? If it is a matter of civil rights, then we should save them from oppression soon. But if we can find something to indicate that they are hurting themselves by persisting with maladaptive behavior, then we should quickly save them.
PinkElephant
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2012
@bredmond,
i have been mostly tolerant for a while, but not particularly interested myself. Honestly, i guess it might feel good.
This, right there, tells me a couple of things. First, it tells me that you equate homosexuality with homosexual sex acts. Whereas the issue at hand is sexual orientation. Secondly, it tells me you don't know what sexual orientation actually means.
I have really not encountered enough scientific data on the whole subject in many ways to convince me that it is healthy.
Aside from not understanding the concept of sexual orientation, this also tells me that you really have not endeavored to educate yourself on the whole subject of human sexuality.

Fortunately, in matters of ignorance there are remedies. I'm not going here to give you an online class on human sexuality (and yes, it's an entire branch of science, many decades in the making) -- but Wikipedia is always a good start.

Look up "sexual orientation", and go from there. Bon voyage! :)
sirchick
3 / 5 (2) Sep 07, 2012
@All involved.

Can we lay off the political bullshit. Half of us are not even from USA so none of us want to read about it.

Stick to science or go else.

"
Physorg Rule clearly states:
Avoid political and religious discussions: Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, political and religious discussions are not allowed.

"

Don't you apparent "intellectual scientists" even know how to read rules ? Help us all if you guys can't.
Telekinetic
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 07, 2012
Sock-puppet alert!!! Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters1 are aroc91/orac/Karl Kognition. He leaves his grubby fingerprints wherever he goes.
Telekinetic
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2012
There's a Ghost_Busters, Ghost_Busters 1, and a Ghost_Busters 3- but no Ghost_Busters 2. It figures that he's too stupid to count to three!
kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2012
Noumenon's and RMoney's stupid economic model is ultimately DESTROYED. As I have written for years, the USA economy is driven by DEBT, not capital. Only by butt-kissing labor zionist banksters and instigating their WARS does the USA continue to operate. Here economists back up my statements:

"...instead of imposing draconian austerity – it would be much better for the economy to stop handouts to the big banks, stop getting into imperial military adventures and stop incurring unnecessary interest costs (and see this). That infuriates our conservative readers."

http://www.washin...ong.html
VendicarD
not rated yet Sep 10, 2012
So the artificial construct of marriage you argue is a part of another artificial construct you call "natural law".

Excuse me if I remain underwhelmed at your explanation.

"Again, I didn't say marriage was itself natural,... I said it's DEFINED in accord with natural law,..." - NoumenTard
voiceofreas1
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2012
I think if you examined the politics in most other countries, you'd find that Democrats are pretty centrist. The Republicans have managed to become ultra conservative in the past decade or so,

This is too much fun. A board full of physicists arguing politics. Here's a thought -- if JFK were alive today he would be a Republican. "Ask not what your country can do for you (food stamps, welfare, unrealistic technology subsidies), ask what you can do for your country (get a job!)."
Eikka
3 / 5 (2) Sep 12, 2012
I think if you examined the politics in most other countries, you'd find that Democrats are pretty centrist. The Republicans have managed to become ultra conservative in the past decade or so


I think if you examined the politics in most other western countries, especially in Europe, you'd find that they're pretty leftists with government public spending routinely at or over 50% of GDP. At that point you can't talk about a free market economy anymore, when the governments hold and use more purchasing power than the entire private sector.

In that situation, when you have to contrast between what the markets want, and what the government wants, the scales tip to doing what the government wants because they are the more profitable market segment, and since the government isn't bound by market realities, you can end up doing some pretty silly things like oh... lending to the PIIGS etc.

It's not that the republicans have gone far right, it's the world that has gone far left.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Sep 12, 2012
I think if you examined the politics in most other western countries, especially in Europe, you'd find that they're pretty leftists with government public spending routinely at or over 50% of GDP.

So...Romnia, switzerland and germany are 'leftist' and non-free market (with a government spending of 37, 32 and 43.7% of GDP respectively - with Romania currently being under the rule of the Social democratic party) and The US isn't 'leftist' and free market (with a government spending of 39.9% of GDP)?

the scales tip to doing what the government wants

Which would be true if the governments (the world over) weren't bought and sold by the big companies. Governments don't just 'happen'. They are made/put in place.