Octopus and squid are not living!

http://groups.google.fi/group/talk.origins/msg/7c87d35f9dade985?&hl=en

The Bible is full of contradictions and questionable precepts. To humor its' supporters even with tounge in cheek questions and debate lends it a credibility it does not merit. The Bible is mythology, not science, and there is no room for compromise in that. To attempt to reconcile the two is to take away the credibility and impartiality of the Scientific Process.

Toren,

It did say that "octopus and squid could be considered non-living". Not that they were dead. I agree with cletusthebold. God said that he created everything in 7 days (if I remember correctly). Do you also not believe in dinosaurs then? Animals evolved into what they are now. The bible is myth, and it depends on what you believe. I do not think that it means that octopus and squid literally do not have a pulse, a heartbeat, or any life in their body. It is probably in some way shape or form, symbolic. Just saying what I believe. If you want to believe that octopus and squid are dead, far be it from me to stop you.

Brock Fluharty

Uh oh, Toren, methinks certain folk here missed out on your sardonic sense of humor!:lol:

Hey, I know we're talking standard-order cephalopods here, but what of the deity that can be both dead and dreaming at the same time? Does it count as living or dead? Of course, there's an entire forum devoted to that guy...:cthulhu:

what of the deity that can be both dead anddreaming at the same time? ... :cthulhu:

8-) Well-said, Erich. The only logical answer to all that other stuff. :bugout:

I wouldn't go so far as to say the 'bible' is myth, and don't believe we should be having this conversation online.

Amen Dr. Steve, Amen!!!

Sorry, didn't mean to rile anyone. Just thought it was interesting!

So now the sea is filled with hordes of zombie cephs. remember you've got to take out the brain.

It might be ok to have the conversation online, but it should be on the supporters' forum if it is.

...And even then religious debates tend to go on in circles since even the most persuasive argument isn't enough to sway a person's model of the world. I know a lot of other forums have been through this up and down and have at long last chosen to delete religious or political threads. Being new to the supporters' forum I'm unaware if TONMO has been through this :)

Dan

for what it's worth, I don't see this as any more or less offensive and off-topic than http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4621 and http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6215 Although some people have gotten wound up about both these threads, I think they're both examples of thought-provoking discussion, rather than name-calling and fisticuffs, and I would be disappointed if they were disallowed. I think this thread has not crossed out of of the realm of civility, but I think cletusthebold's post is close to the line, more in terms of how it's expressed than what it says... by my reading, it comes across as "this is my opinion, and if you disagree with it, you're out of line" rather than just "this is my opinion." (I suppose anyone "the bold" is inclined to come across that way on occasion, though; no hard feelings.)

It's kind of an "elephant in the living room" that there are a lot of strong opinions around here about mixing science and religion, and it is always a problem when that discussion degrades into bad feelings. I found the link Toren posted to start this thread interesting, and I'm glad I got the chance to read it, so my personal preference is that we can continue to have these discussions but make sure to keep it civil. Much of the natural history, fossils, evolution, and molecular biology discussions are, in fact, at odds with some people's religious beliefs... I think it's naive to think we can continue to discuss biology in any realistic way while tiptoeing around to avoid offending anyone.

Much of the natural history, fossils, evolution, and molecular biology discussions are, in fact, at odds with some people's religious beliefs... I think it's naive to think we can continue to discuss biology in any realistic way while tiptoeing around to avoid offending anyone.
Monty,

Thanks for writing that. If anything, I think we at TONMO tend to bend over backwards to accomodate religious beliefs. If we as a community are going to support those who argue that the Bible is truth, then we must also support those who who argue that it is myth. Fair's fair.

Right?

Clem

I would have to agree with monty on this.

And clem has a valid point. I personaly am fairly religious, and do believe what is in the bible; however i do not take it literaly, and instead look at it in a symbolic fasion. With the statement that "god created the world in 7 days" i believe that the "seven days" may have actualy been much longer :). But if you look at the history of our planet, you will se that it does progress along with each of the seven days.
As with the refrence that cephs are not living, to someone over 2000 years ago who thought that the world was flat, an alien animal like a ceph would seem almost dead to them(no visable heartbeat, cold temp. ect)

I just finished re-reading the first thread. Hooboy, that was fun. Come to think of it, this discussion does belong, but we just have to keep it respectful.

To say that cephalopods are not living things is to make a very stupid claim. I hope that we can all agree that it's stupid, regardless of how me might feel about the general truthfulness of any particular Great Big (Scary) Book. Any person who avers that their Book proves something that is so obviously wrong is not doing his or her religion much of a favour. Questioning the validity of any self-proclaimed authority is a very good and essential thing to do, and it's more than a little sad that we feel obliged to censor such discussions out of some vague fear that a few heads might explode. But I suppose that there are long-standing rules about the content of this forum. While the initial post in this thread is, I think, entirely appropriate for this forum, the imminent discussion (one I'd very much like to have) may not be. If something as important as People's Feet couldn't cut the mustard in The Octopus' Den... :roll:

Well, I for one, am all in favor of questioning authority. ( I was a terrible mother, I encouraged my kids to do likewise. Bad! Bad!)

Every time I see one of those "Question Authority!" bumper stickers, I have an urge to hold up a sign that says "Who the Hell are you to tell me to question authority?"

edit: perhaps this is too indirect: I mean to be questioning the authority of the bumper sticker.

On a similar theme:

http://www.tmcm.com/comics/tmcm060116.gif

Right now I sure wish there were a few more people who would!

it all depends on what authority you question, people who are religious minding questions the authority of science, people who are opposed to religion question religion.

I just try and get along with everyone, and shy from debate in such matters; I know that there are many religious folk online and I simply don't want them to be (unecessarily) offended by any posting herein, on an octopus website.

I sincerely believe we need more religion today - people who believe in something other than themselves, whatever they call their God - because religious folk that I know generally have more morals, and are generally better and happier people than those who are not religious. There will always be bad apples in both camps, but by and large I think there are more in the latter.

What a doosey of a topic. For once I'd have to post at odds with Steve!!

The fact that people belive in their argument makes them no more correct than their evidence allows.

By censoring topics you are favouring religion. Science isnt a viewpoint - it's a set of facts. If someone asks what fish in the Mediterranian could swallow a man whole and have him live for three days - the anwser is NONE, and to tiptoe around such topics is to do science an unjustice. (no offence Bobwonderbuns :smile: )

As for religion making nicer people I believe the exact opposite. But this is a bit off topic.

The difinition of life is very clearly different in the bible to science, and as for me
- I'm taking the red pill, I want to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.

:grin:

What a doosey of a topic. For once I'd have to post at odds with Steve!
Nobody ever need fear doing this! I just threw my few cents worth in. I just don't think it appropriate to discuss such matters here. Save it for the next TONMOcon, when you can divide yourselves up into groups, each discussing politics, religion, personalities within the ceph community, Neil Diamond likers .... and the Tintenfisch supporters (you'll probably find me over there in the Tintenfisch camp, having a great time, as I always do - wearing a turban). As an aside, when I got married I became a Hindu, unbeknownst to me, reciting Sanskrit!

Is homogenisation of thought, belief, currency and politics a good thing? We promote a global currency, politics, language and religion, but don't overlook the fact that we promote preservation of biodiversity; diversity includes biological, social, cultural and religious diversity. Let's just leave people and the environment be - we're not hurting each other, unless we start throwing stones! I have spoken to the dead; haven't you?

I'm sure that the original thread had something to do with dead octopus; we should return there.

I'm sure that the original thread had something to do with dead octopus; we should return there.

Indeed :smile:
well here's a good run down on what is generally described as living. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Defining_the_concept_of_life

People might be interested that MRS GREEN (I cant remember what each one stands for, respiration reproduction expiration ect) doesnt apply anymore because viruses werent considered living.
I think they have broadened the description because viruses are thought to come from the universal ancestor aswell.

So, I would think we can safely say an octopus can be considered alive in the scientifc sense anyway. :grin:

because religious folk that I know generally have more morals, and are generally better and happier people than those who are not religious.

:mad:
::Grits teeth::
::Bangs head against wall::
::Ducks thread::

whew

I admit to being a bit millitant on this topic. Recent events here in the US have led me to become even more so. Attempts by the fundamentalist religious movement to subvert science have born fruit. Young people are being told to ignore what they learn in school and listen to what the church has to say about Evolution and the origions of the Earth. Questioning a theory is a healthy thing. Its an important part of the process. However, preying on scientific uncertainty in an attempt to trivialise one of the foundations of Biology is inexcusable.

My referring to the Bible as a myth is my opinion. It is one that I do not state lightly. What lends the Bible credibility over the holy Koran, the Torah, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or the Greek pantheon of mythos? Holy texts depend on themselves as the base of their credibility. You can ask me what makes me think I'm right, but the answer will not be "because I say so". The religion an individual practices has more to do with Geography than personal choice. Were I born in the middle-east, chances are i'd be Muslim. Were I born in India, chances are I'd be Hindu. I was born in America, so I was raised Christian.

feel free to :tomato:

It's an interesting idea that religious folk are more moral, better, and happier than folks who are not. Start reading history. Many of the worst atrocities in the world were caused by people who were trying to impose their religion on people of different beliefs. Genocide has frequently been the result. Moral? I don't think so.

I wonder if women, poverty, oil, spices, land, gold and slavery have caused any war?

I think I'd sooner be an octopus.

All of the above, no doubt.

Religion doesn't often cause wars, but it also doesn't seem to do much to stop them. Religion is far from being a necessary and sufficient condition for morality, and I'd be so much happier if people would do the logical thing and stop trying to equate them.

religious folk that I know generally have more morals, and are generally better and happier people than those who are not religious.

My stance is, whatever works for you. If you have wear green t-shirts in order to be a decent human being, then far be it from me to say that green is a bad choice. Conversely, if your beliefs cause you to be a jerk, I'm against it.

Myself, I pride myself in being a moral atheist. I've avoided cheating on my girlfriends not because I was afraid of what would happen to me in the afterlife, but because I want to make the world that I'm currently living a nice place.

And to keep things on topic, I think the whole crux of the original article is not necessarily purporting that octopus are not alive as we CURRENTLY define it, but that the definition of "life" in the bible is X, and octopus don't have X.

because religious folk that I know generally have more morals, and are generally better and happier people than those who are not religious.

:mad:
::Grits teeth::
::Bangs head against wall::
::Ducks thread::

whew

Hey, he said religious folk that HE knows! Not most of them!

(just kidding, kids) ;)

My stance is, whatever works for you. If you have wear green t-shirts in order to be a decent human being, then far be it from me to say that green is a bad choice. Conversely, if your beliefs cause you to be a jerk, I'm against it.

Myself, I pride myself in being a moral atheist. I've avoided cheating on my girlfriends not because I was afraid of what would happen to me in the afterlife, but because I want to make the world that I'm currently living a nice place.

I'm in agreement with the above. If it works for you, go with it. If it negatively influences others (be they people, creatures, the environment), it may be necessary to reconsider.

Cheers!

What lends the Bible credibility over the holy Koran, the Torah, the Egyption Book of the Dead, or the Greek pantheon of mythos? Holy texts depend on themselves as the base of their credibility.

I've thought a lot about this recently. What's interesting is that science textbooks are also books, and unless you are going to recreate every science experiment for yourself, you do have to take certain 'tenets' of science 'on faith.' Do I know for sure that quarks exist? No, but I put faith in science (generally speaking). Now the reason I choose science over, say, Christianity or the spaghetti monster is that science just makes more sense to me.

It all reminds me of that episode of the Simspons "Lisa the Skeptic" where Moe is smashing a mammoth skeleton because it represents evolution which offends his religious beliefs. When a tusk breaks off and lands on him, he says "Oh, I'm paralyzed. I just hope medical science can cure me!"

As for "religion caused more violence" I would just like to point out that people will fight over any difference, be it religion or skin colour or land.

Okay I think I'm done. Thanks for putting up with me!

By today's scientific definition, squid, octopuses and other
invertebrate sea creatures (mollusks, cephalopods, crustaceans, etc.)
are considered living creatures. But are they biblically defined as
"living creatures"?

(sorry, just thought I'd inject a little humour!)

I was tempted to reply in kind to this thread, but I'm holding off.

I'm curious what our "benevolent dictator" Tony thinks about the appropriateness of this discussion. I think it's preferable not to censor it, and I'm debating yammering on about my opinions, confusions, recommended reading, etc, either here, in the supporters section, or perhaps just writing some stuff up on my web site and providing a link in case anyone is interested.

I also feel obligated to point out this thread:

http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5331

in which Squidman explains that he is leaving TONMO because he was offended by some people's attitudes (possibly mine; he didn't specify who bugged him enough to leave, or if it was just his perception of the "atmosphere" here or what have you).

I enjoyed having SquidMan around, and, in fact, even thought that he was a good contributor to discussions about how religion and science should interact. I was (and still am) dismayed that he was so offended that he decided to leave. Frankly, I don't know that we should change our behavior based on his actions-- I judge it fairly harshly, in that it seems like he was running away rather than defending his beliefs... I'm not going to be blackmailed into not speaking my mind by that sort of behavior, but I also would have vastly preferred a different outcome.

:yinyang: :rainbow: -- I don't use harmony and diversity smilies too much, but they seem appropriate.

I think as a unit tomno get on very well, and obviously noone is out to offend others.
Although being a site that is(I think we can all agree here) geared towards the scientific point of view due to the scientif nature of the topic, it is not surprising that many people with conservative religious beliefs would be put off.

I think both part and parcel come with looking after an octopus -if you use science prooven techniques to keep it alive, why would you not accept the eplanantion science gives as to why it was here in the first place?
(Unless of course you have a geunine scientific theory that can explain things equally or better, in which case I'd be very interested!)

You cant have your octopus, and eat it too.


I think Tony keeps out of threads like this as much as he can, and I think thats fair enough. :grin:

I have to say tonmo is amazingly troll-free. :shock: Even in the threads involving evolution the posts have been civil with a good bit of humour used on both sides. Let's be tolerant of all sides (except the people who disagree with me of course) and enjoy the debate.

I've also found Tonmo to be amazingly troll-free, with general well-balanced discussion of issues where everybody is free to bring their opinion to the table. I also was sad to see Squidman go, but don't feel this should have been expected. In fact, I was a trifle stunned to see it happen and do miss his input, but so long as the majority of us (myself sometimes included) can behave here in a mature, well-reasoned fashion, I don't think there should be too much to worry about. People with militantly-held beliefs should simply remember to be diplomatic and polite while visiting these hallowed cyber-halls. We all like to come here, after all, and everybody ought to feel welcome. So long as we're not attacking one another, I don't think this thread is necessarily anything detrimental.

deleted (it was much funnier in my head)

One comment I want to make after taking about this thread with Erich a bit last night is that we may start attracting trolls if we debate this too much. TONMO ranks pretty highly in google and the like, so if people are googling for "where are there discussions of science vs religion as it applies to biology" looking for somewhere to come and wax opinionated, we may be at risk for attracting hordes of people who want to argue about that and don't care a whit about our cephalopod fascination. I don't think we should censor our opinions on this, just keep in mind that we may have unintended impact on the intellectual ecology, and it would be a shame to bring invasive species into the TONMO ecosystem...

Religion doesn't often cause wars, but it also doesn't seem to do much to stop them. Religion is far from being a necessary and sufficient condition for morality, and I'd be so much happier if people would do the logical thing and stop trying to equate them.

This statement has been bothering me, as I kept remembering my reading of history as well as current events. While it's true that there have probably been very few wars where religion was the only causative factor, it is frequently the deciding factor. So, I made a short list:

The Crusades (a pretty obvious one)

continuing wars of religion between Catholics and Protestants from 1562-1598

The Thirty Years War (There were, of course, other issues of land and power, but the nations involved were divided along religious lines.)

The "Troubles" in Northern Ireland.

THe Balkan conflicts involving Serbia (Serbian Orthodox), Croatia, and Slovenia, (Roman Catholic) Bosnia-Herzogovina and Kosovo (Muslim)

India (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, animists) on-going, usually low level assaults that occasionally escalate, by one group against another.

Kashmir (HIndu vs. Muslim)

Sri Lanka (Hindu vs. Buddhist)

Cyprus (Greek Orthodox vs. Turkish Muslim)

Sudan (north, largely Arab/Muslim, South largely Black African and divided between Christian and animist)

Indonesia-not exactly war, but on-going religious strife between Muslims and Christians in the provinces of Ambon and Halmahera)

East Timor (Muslim vs. Roman Catholic)

Kurdistan (Muslim vs.Protestant, Chaldean Catholic, and Assyrian Orthodox Christians)

Iran and Pakistan (continuous low level strive between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims)

Uganda, Nigeria Cote d'Ivoire (various degress of violence between Muslims, Christians and animists)

In the history of the Americas, Christian aggression against the native people, to the point that some tribes were eradicated. As recently as 30-40 years ago children from some of the tribes were being forcibly removed from their families and put in Christian boarding schools where they were forbidden to speak their native languages or practice their traditional religions.

New Zealand In the 1800s strife between Maori and white New Zealanders, not originally religious in nature, but toward the end of the conflict a stong religious component entered the picture. Originally based on a desire from the ethnic Europeans to acquire Maori land. Some really complicated issues there.

Nazi Germany.....all about power, really, but scapegoating one religious group and the glorification of a Germanic/Nordic mythos to help mobilize and inspire the people.....

I could go on, but why bother? Some things never change.:sad:

deleted (it was much funnier in my head)

//pats hand
its ok I have the same problem

Nice list. :sad: I still don't see religion as being a major cause of war, but I agree that it can often make them worse. It strengthens the perception of the "otherness" of opponents, allowing them to be dehumanized and treated more brutally. It also suppresses critical thinking and removes accountability. Wars are almost always fought over land and resources. Saying that you're fighting in the name of some god typically allows you to fight harder and dirtier, and is pretty useful when you want to persuade lower-class people to do the fighting but not reap their fair share of the material gains.

:notworth: :cthulhu:

.... and do not forget the "Octopus War"

"Later, during the same year, the Peace Keepers (ECOMOG) arrived and began rescue missions. My sister and I were rescued from the bloody hands of the rebels. This unfortunately did not last long and in 1992 another deadly war broke out which was even worse than the previous. It was called the Octopus War (http://www.children-of-the-earth.org/pmv.htm) as it spread throughout most of Liberia. Countless of thousands of children lost their parents to senseless killings and everybody started to fend for them selves no matter on what side you were previously on. As the saying goes in Liberia; everyone for himself or herself, only God is for everyone."

Or the "Squid War"......

After a series of warnings, an Argentine warship began to fire at a Taiwanese squid trawler, leaving the vessel in flames. The casualties: one Taiwanese killed, one missing and five injured.

The clash was the latest round in Argentina's improbable Squid War (http://205.188.238.181/time/archive/preview/0,10987,961589,00.html), in which the Buenos Aires government, claiming control over its coastal waters to a distance of 200 miles, has been trying to clear the region of as many as 300 foreign trawlers. Over the past month, the Argentines have chased or captured fishing boats from Spain, Japan, Poland and Taiwan. The Taiwanese vessel may have been trying to escape the warship by heading toward the 150-mile-deep British exclusion zone around the Falkland Islands. Taiwan was furious. Britain, which fought Argentina to retain the Falklands in 1982, denounced the latest action as "excessive and unjustified."

.... and do not forget the "Octopus War"

"Later, during the same year, the Peace Keepers (ECOMOG) arrived and began rescue missions. My sister and I were rescued from the bloody hands of the rebels. This unfortunately did not last long and in 1992 another deadly war broke out which was even worse than the previous. It was called the Octopus War (http://www.children-of-the-earth.org/pmv.htm) as it spread throughout most of Liberia. Countless of thousands of children lost their parents to senseless killings and everybody started to fend for them selves no matter on what side you were previously on. As the saying goes in Liberia; everyone for himself or herself, only God is for everyone."


Thanks for posting that. There are probably a lot more that could be posted, and lots more we'll probably never know about. I agree with the writer's last remark. By the way, Charles Taylor was captured today (in Sierra Leone I think).

:sad: Next thing you know it will be the Squid Vs. Octopus. Why can't we all just get along:confused:

Nice list. :sad: I still don't see religion as being a major cause of war, but I agree that it can often make them worse. It strengthens the perception of the "otherness" of opponents, allowing them to be dehumanized and treated more brutally. It also suppresses critical thinking and removes accountability. Wars are almost always fought over land and resources. Saying that you're fighting in the name of some god typically allows you to fight harder and dirtier, and is pretty useful when you want to persuade lower-class people to do the fighting but not reap their fair share of the material gains.

:notworth: :cthulhu:

Typically leaders of countries that choose to go to war will exaggerate, obfuscate and prevaricate in order to convince the majority of citizens that the war is necessary for defense of the nation or it's values. Once the people have been convinced of the necessity of war it isn't very difficult to get them to accept brutality and the loss of civil liberties. Throw in uber patriotism and religion and self righteous fervor, and any hope for critical thinking and accountability is doomed.
(Sorry, I don't have any Umlauts.)

Sorry, I don't have any Umlauts.

Here ü go, dear šöŕšëŗëšš

Oh great! Now if I could just transfer them from your post to my fonts!
:mrgreen:

On most PCs, ü = Alt+129, ö = Alt +148, and ä = Alt+132.

:smile:

Really? I never knew that. Thanks, I'll try it out. :smile:

I think perhaps Monty is right. I may have waxed too opinionated. I apologise unreservedly.

....that we may have unintended impact on the intellectual ecology, and it would be a shame to bring invasive species into the TONMO ecosystem...
This is such an interesting analogy(!!), but I just want to point out one thing. We tend to think of invasives as 'biosecurity risks' (in an ecological sense), but I have some reservations. This year I have three 3rd-year students looking at the role of invasive species in marine food chains, particularly those in extensively impacted environments (i.e. any area with urban development - harbours). I have a sneaking suspicion that we will find that these invasives play a very important role in maintaining biodiversity (marine that is). It boils down (and back) to the distinction between eological and economic sustainability (an invasive can seriously impact an aquaculture venture, but at the same time, given the environment is so modified, with food chains reduced to a few strong links [rather than many weak links] they may be eaten by many other species, including those fish that recreational fisherfolk target).

We'll have an update or two as the year progresses, and I'll try and get these lot to post articles online.

I know some people have looked at this in the fossil record. This reference comes to mind.

Rode, A.L., Lieberman, B.S., 2004, Using GIS to unlock the interactions between biogeography, environment, and evolution in Middle and Late Devonian brachiopods and bivalves. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology Vol. 211 pp. 345-359

The Late Devonian was a time of profound evolutionary and environmental change associated with the Frasnian-Famennian biodiversity crisis. One way to unravel the faunal dynamics of this complex crisis is to document the spatial and temporal patterns associated with biodiversity decline. This analysis investigates the relationship between biogeography, relative sea level, and environmental changes in Laurentian brachiopod and bivalve species during the Givetian through Famennian Stages (upper Middle to terminal Devonian). Representatives from all major brachiopod and bivalve clades and paleocommunities were examined to provide a cross-faunal comparison. Species' ranges were reconstructed both spatially and temporally (at the level of conodont zones) using GIS to understand the timing and extent of species invasions and the importance of geographic range during the crisis interval. Species' geographic ranges were linked closely with both relative sea-level change and depositional environment and expanded as relative sea-level rose. In addition, times of interbasinal species invasions corresponded closely with sea-level rises that breached tectonic barriers. Species with larger geographic ranges were more resistant to extinction during the Late Devonian. This relationship is reflected partly in a general trend towards increased extinction resistance in taxa that are found farther offshore in environments that potentially included more area. For example, there is an increased survival advantage for species that inhabited the middle and outer platform environments, though not for species inhabiting the open shelf. Additionally, species whose Givetian to Frasnian history includes at least one interbasinal invasion event were more likely to survive the Late Devonian biodiversity crisis than noninvasive species; this may have relevance for our understanding of the current biodiversity crisis, given the role that invasive species are playing in mediating modern extinctions.

.....this may have relevance for our understanding of the current biodiversity crisis, given the role that invasive species are playing in mediating modern extinctions.
You ripper!!! I love this interdisciplinary stuff! We're always reinventing the wheel!

At least I can be of service to somebody else's supervisor, LOL!

I seem to recall some information as to some australian snakes evolving to be able to tolerate the toxins in the cane toad. I used to live in florida and there are invasives everywhere -- cuban tree frog, med house gekko, peacock bass, lion fish , brown basilisk, burmese pythons ...the list goes on and on. i'd love to jump 10,000 years into the future to see the new equilibrium.

The great leap forward won't be for another 20 or 30 thousand years...and then, into certain species of insects.

Ah well, I must go...meteors eat at the mind gate.