Maybe I've been a bit unclear. That may be because I'm no native writer of English.
The point I wanted to make was just "Be very, very careful if you start messing with your feelings of hunger."
Self inflicted eating disorders are no fun.
(Also, there are a lot of people with eating disorders out there. Knowledge about starving more effective can be harmful to some people.)
And just to make it clear no one in their right state of mind would start taking ECA while being at BMI 18, the bit about my BMI was just anecdotal to make my point clearer. The ... (read more)
Messing with your feelings of hunger is seriously dangerous.
Starvation leads to a massive biochemical response, among other things a excretion of endorphines, so you can get kicks from hunger. (That seems to be one of the ways anorexia works - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22036318)
So, if you want to test the ECA- theory for yourself, be very, very careful.
(I speak as a person with weak feelings of hunger which tends to forget to eat. I constantly battle against my tendency to lose weight, especially if stressed. That's no classical eating disorder ... (read more)
Because it works something like this, in a grossly oversimplified explanation:
Human genes are organized on 23 chromosomes, 2 complete sets of them, so 46 in all, with 50% being redundant.
Your DNA is fragmented in 46 stripes of neatly ordered DNA.
Information on these two sets of chromosomes aren't identical, just redundant: On one set could for example be the information to make fair hair, on the other the information for brown hair, with the carrier of those genes getting brownish hair.
If a human produces gametes (cells used for reproduction, sperm and e... (read more)
Then you are suffering strongly from the Bystander-effect.
One could translate this effect as "the warm fuzzy feeling that there are enough people around which will do the job and oneself doesn't need to bother".
The effect is very strong. So, adjust your thoughts:
The barbarians will kill you either way. There aren't enough people which care, so you yourself have to rise to do something.
(That also applies to everyday life: If you want something done, especially in a busy and people-rich environment, do it yourself.)
The point of banned goods is not that they are banned because of the hazards for the people alone who buy them but for everyone else also.
Sulphuric acid for example is easily usable as a weapon especially in concentrated form.
(It grows very hot if it touches water. And it is very acidic. So, by using a simple acid proof squirt gun one can do serious damage.)
And, that's not really all:
Suppose I could go into such a shop, proof that I'm sufficiently intelligent to handle dangerous stuff without being a danger for myself and buy
a) a PCR machine
b) a flu ... (read more)
Most of the goods you mention aren't restricted at all. I don't need any special permits to buy a PCR machine or anything necessary to run it for example.
You write "The evolutionary reasons for this are so obvious as to be worth belaboring: In the ancestral environment, politics was a matter of life and death."
Is there any evidence for that? That sounds much like the typical sort of sociobiologistic hypothesis which sounds so convincing that no one really thinks about it and just nods in agreement. So, are there any papers, experiments, mathematical models to back it up?
I would rather more suggest a hypothesis that it was (and is) very favorable for humans in terms of fitness to belong to a certa... (read more)