Skip Nav

Ordering Essay Online: A Complete Guide

Our Writing Service At A Glance

❶Whenever I type one here in a comment, it gets replaced by one of these terrible yellow things:

Sample of Admission Essay on Biology

Ms Wong's new books for O level Biology!
Who Buys Essays Online
WE WORK WITH THE BEST ACADEMIC WRITERS

Please e-mail Our WebMaster. Here you will find resources to help you teach biology at the high school level. The password access to the Vault has been updated for , so your old password will not work. Please follow these directions to gain access for the year. Most of my AP lectures are supported by Powerpoint presentations.

Some of my Regents lectures are supported by Powerpoint presentations. If you are not familiar, Regents is a 10th grade very simplified introduction to Biology, that is limited by a state-wide exam. I have just started to upload these, so please check back if you need. According to the story, it dented but did not break. Tiberius asked if the glassmaker had told the secret of unbreakable glass to anyone else.

He feared that the new material would reduce the value of gold and silver. Reports of this incident have no doubt been embellished over the years. There are stories in India about the designers of the taj being put to death. I think these might be rumours, not sure of the historical veracity.

Legal landscape shapes around what people want to do, so if you throw a good enough invention on the market, politicians will have no choice but to adapt laws to accomodate it. And at this point, our technology has outraced our coordination so much that the latter is often the bottleneck, and what appears to be technological progress is often just coordination. It was about a decade between when DVDs were first invented until when they became the dominant medium for movies, because everyone was afraid of backing the next Betamax.

And sometimes it may simply be that people see no other way of combating a problem. Of course, a relevant question is whether doing a rain dance is, in fact, better than doing nothing. It can be way better than doing nothing. Seriously, can you imagine how many man-hours it must take to implement new educational standards in every school in the nation only to repeat the process every five years? Not sure if serious. Agree with description of the mechanism, disagree with it being a good thing.

Neurotypicals are the ones who are unlikely to see through the ruse. And after a certain threshold, pumping resources into projects tends to lead to diminishing returns.

Sometimes it can even do some good, AIDS awareness may not be a cure for the disease, but it did manage to reduce the rates of transmission. An effective social response to a problem needs to keep its objectives realistic and concrete. Yes, dancing can raise awareness of a problem, but it can also become an out-of-control meme that crowds out awareness of other problems if its too good at spreading. Breast cancer awareness can become a kind of cancer itself. Not all social interventions are rain dances; many have real effects.

My first thought as well. People seem to enjoy enforcing their moral rules on everyone around them. Hah, those stupid right-wing people, grossed out by anything different to them.

In this specific instance. Actually, I think it might even be more psychologically accurate to say that it is a utilitarian value, albeit not one that you or I probably weight as strongly.

If the state government is implementing leftist policies, they argue for local control. Do you think everyone should accept evolution? Do you think that belief in creationism should be made criminal? We have a lot of ways to punish behavior if enough people agree that it should be forbidden — shunning, shaming, subtle discrimination.

To use your example, I have no problem with encouraging a social stigma that keeps creationists from being biology teachers. I mean, people manage anti-Cancer research funding all the time. A lot of them even seem to be the same sort of extremely cushy job, except you say that Cancer is bad and ask for donations instead of saying Drugs are bad and asking for a paycheck.

Thus it looks to me like a contingent outcome that depended on events after the war. No, slate star codex is in fact suggesting eugenics. See The Worst Argument in the World. After all, if the Bad Gene poor are muddying up the gene pool with their wanton unlicensed reproduction, then surely we need to raise the average of all that is good and smart by having lots more smart babies that will grow up to be smart people? Do you want tomorrow to be the province of the idiots and useless mouths?

Indeed, if Scott is opposed to Moloch, then his plan to remove pregnancies due to impulsiveness if misguided. His plan, meanwhile, would strongly select for a desire to have kids for the sake of having kids. With no famines and much less getting-murdered-for-not-being-in-a-powerful-enough-coalition than in our ancestral environment, propensity to reproduce becomes the overriding selective factor.

Now, that takes the form of anti-progressivism, and lack of planning ability. To prevent that, we need instead to somehow decouple number of children from the desire to have children. For instance, the people who routinely get themselves screened for being a carrier for Tay-Sachs disease are a demographic who have an extremely strong historical reason to be worried about Nazi-style dysgenics, and yet, eugenics is exactly what they are doing whenever a couple of them, on learning that they are both carriers, decide to refrain from having children together, or break off their relationship and seek other, non-carrier partners.

The Nazis thought they were practising eugenics. From their point of view, they were improving the gene pool: People will disagree on which types of eugenics are good and which are bad. We need a better way of referring to the method. That more clearly indicates the salient differences between the two, and also avoids coding our own values into the name. That seems a little disingenuous, Deisach. Formalized discrimination against Jews began as early as , almost immediately after the Nazis came to power.

After the putsch , as early as the trial, they wrapped it up in ethnic nationalism as a better sell. Most Germans were sold that, which lead in due course to the original anti-Semitism. Indeed, many observers thought at the time that Hitler had gotten over his earlier attitude on Jews.

Of course, not everyone will agree exactly with this formulation. I think the word is just so. This does not seem to have borne out in real life, where many people in very bad situations want to have those kids. Another answer is that it provides an ever increasing mandate for money and power.

Bureaucracy is set up to try to solve social cause of a problem, fails to solve problem, claims that it needs more resources and power to solve problem, repeat ad infinitum. Anyway, like a lot of his ideas once you hear it you see it everywhere. All they want to do is destroy evil. Regardless of the problem, they want to hunt down and destroy the social evils which are responsible for it.

Meanwhile the poor kids would be a lot better at math if they all took a 3 cent multivitamin every morning. And that makes Scott sad.

This may especially apply to low status people— note that high status people keep themselves physically comfortable, which tends to make it easier to behave well. Lead causing crime is inconvenient for both left and right-wingers. It means that there was a physical cause of crime and low intelligence which was correlated with race. On the other hand, the amount of exposure to lead was related to racism— in Chicago, at least, housing projects were placed near the expressway.

I doubt this was a conspiracy to poison people, but it was putting them in the noisier, smellier environment. The lead observation has been very useful in bringing Left and relative Right together for environmental justice, when it is pointed out to the Right that bad environmental policy increases crime.

In fact, pretty much every slum area is wholly owned by the left, and has been for over a generation. What happens there is entirely a result of leftist plans, intentional or not. Environmentally poor area are occupied by the poor because they have lower market value, and the poor have less wealth to bid for good housing.

Hey, who mentioned race? Land near expressways will be cheap whether developed privately or by the state. Ok, so, society is fixed and biology is mutable. And society is heavily biased toward fixing problems through social rather than biological change. Nah, we just need to figure out what biological adjustments are needed to get society to bias the opposite direction. Then the next generation of contrarian rational bloggers will write about how changing society is easier than changing biology, and no one will listen to them either.

And just to be pedantic, trying to get pregnant has an explicit goal of adjusting gene frequencies on a very small scale, so clearly we have some social tolerance for the idea: No, people are freaked out if you say you want to have children to increase the frequency of your genes in the population.

You can donate to a sperm bank because you want to have children, wanting to have children is ok. You just have to be hypocritical about what it actually means and what the source of the desire is. I think that would be a far more common motivation than gene-frequency-increasing. At least in the uk, pretty much all sperm banks are free. She sees it as a compliment, but other people indeed generally FTFO when they hear it. CRACK, down to the very name, appears to me to have the purpose of generating controversy, not eugenics.

I have always thought that the choice of sterilization over long-term birth control was a pretty obvious sign of this, but wikipedia says that not only do they offer birth control, but that 10 years ago they dropped their policy of offering more money for sterilization. So maybe it is for real. Still, it is a tiny organization that only pays out twice as much money to addicts as to its director. It does seem to be expanding, now treating people per year.

Also, from the Wikipedia article:. You could argue that a lot of their [clients? I agree with Suntzu. Getting pregnant does seem to be an exception. I think the implication of such objection is that drug addicts make bad judgments and do things not in their best interests when they need money for drugs, and that sterilizing them in exchange for money takes advantage of their bad judgment. Eugenic sterilization that only works against people with bad judgment sounds like the most elegantly self-managing way you could go about it.

FAS Fetal Alcohol Syndrome causes problems with impulse control and intelligence, which means that women with FAS are more likely to drink heavily when pregnant. Does anyone know whether this connection is sound? On the object level, removing pollutants, giving better nutrition to children, etc — are very popular ideas on the Left.

Ashkenazi Jewish couples routinely get tested for genetic diseases e. Premarital beta-thalassaemia screening is apparently mandatory in Cyprus, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Palestine, although I believe in Cyprus it is only mandated by the orthodox church who apparently also approve of abortion in these cases.

I think most people are opposed to contraception as a means of manipulating the gene pool, even if they are not especially religious. Remember the outgroup homogeneity bias. Many religious concerns regarding contraception are different just between one subfaction of the same religion to the next: Protestants have no issue with condoms but may have ideological issues regarding contragestives, while the Catholic dogma against the contraceptive pill is significantly less strong than that against condom use.

Opposition to eugenics is likewise complicated. To have a quick and dramatic effect on recessive traits, you need to not only test the entire populace, but sterilize or limit to non-standard fertilization or do a lot of genetic testing and abortion on fetuses for a large portion of that population that has no overt signs of illness or defect.

The angle of protecting the poor from the costs of childrearing is quite salable. For another example, if you replaced the Estate Tax assessed based on how much the decedent passes on with a graduate inheritance tax assessed based on how much the inheritor receives , you could create a strong tax incentive for the rich to have multiple children, and no one would even suspect you of eugenics.

In general anything focused on reducing taxes will incentivize those who pay taxes and not those who do not, so we just need to make kids tax deductible… oh wait. Better thought, make parents legally and financially culpable for their kids illegal misdeeds. A child is caught with drugs? Parents have to be drug tested. Paint a picture of some innocent kid who got into drugs due to his junkie mom, so if you oppose testing you are placing a kid back in a dangerous crack house environment.

People who like drugs want to keep doing drugs, and while I am not sure their time horizon is long enough that they would have fewer kids, there could be a benefit of getting kids out of the houses where parents are afraid they may be drug tested.

Conservatives think all social problems are caused by bad upbringing and a toxic cultural environment. And then there is the Voldemort view, The-View-That-Must-Not-Be-Named, which claims that social problems are caused by biological factors, either environmental lead, iodine, etc… or genetic. Malnutrition would fall under that too, and everyone agrees that malnutrition is a shitty thing. Disease and parasites too, and exposure to radiation, and exposure to alcohol and drugs in utero, etc.

Therefore people who are mostly concerned by making their faction win hint: Though now I think about it, having opponents to a cause gets it a lot more attention.

Best example would be vaccines. On the other hand, claiming a noncontroversial position for your side is beneficial. Well, we have laws about lead and iodine — how did that happen if the view is too terrible to be named?

Clearly some ideas have snuck into at least one major political party. As far as I know, we have no laws about iodine: Not all salt products bother iodizing apparently gourmet salts and seasalts often have no or low iodine levels now , and in conjunction with the War on Salt, means a good chunk of pregnant women are deficient in surveys.

There is a small regulation that uniodized salt must be labeled with a warning: Do you have a source for that? I had not seen this link when I posted my previous comment, but I had seen a discussion of salt that has the disclaimer despite containing natural iodine. Still, not much of a law: I believe this is because physiological solutions lack drama. Physiological solutions take a long time, and they may involve writing off the current generation and just helping their children. And physiological solutions involve making things better for low status people, and then ceasing to be involved in changing their lives.

A factor that probably contributes to making abstract interventions around morality and education etc. Another appropriate framework is locus of control. One of the saddest things things to me about the evolution of the black civil rights movement has been the abandonment of positive action. Black Panthers had libraries, reading rooms, free meals, etc.

People talked about the importance of black businesses and building up capital in the community. I seem not to hear about these things anymore. Is it simply that oppression mongering is now so powerful that to suggest a means of improvement is seen as disdaining those who do not succeed? Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. I imagine if they had stuck with self improvement goals they would eventually have dropped the militancy. Too bad it went the other way. The fact that MLK has been canonized and Malcolm X has been relegated to a sidelight is exemplary of the general triumph of evil over good in the outcome of the civil rights movement.

I do strongly believe it to be deficient, delusional and in underestimation of the implications of just what Malcolm eventually came to stand for. This is me trying to fight people while not automatically being like the worst possible kind of SJ person.

I am still horrible at it. The Right does traditionally believe that human nature is largely fixed, but not that behavior cannot be changed through proper incentives, instruction, religion, upbringing. The right thinks that the structures and institutions that have proven to be a civilizing force should not be torn down when a flaw is found. Now, that said, I think you are making a strong point that low-hanging fruit of unmet biological deficiencies offer intelligent means of improving at least at the margins.

Progressivism and conservatism both have their biases, but progressivism seems to me to be more powerful, both for good and for harm. Hospital A uses common knowledge without updating on new evidence. The right is low-variance, low risk. The left is higher risk, with a proportionately higher payoff when done well. In the s the Warren court made law enforcement impossible so crime exploded.

Now crime is climbing back up but progressives simply lie about it. Progressives paid people who are biologically adapted to living in a low paternal and generally parental investment environment to have children. Shockingly, they had lots of children — sometimes even outside the proscribed age ranges. Of course, progressives love to have low IQ clients so the overall scores are dropping. I rarely agree with Steve Johnson, but this sort of content-free insult is not necessary or kind in any sense.

You should be better than this. If we assume murder rates are correlated with rates of other violent crime, we are probably in a relative golden era of law and order. See in the chart how murder rates are now nearly the lowest in a century? Clearly those statistics are lies promulgated by the Cathedral.

That just shows how deep the conspiracy runs. Do any hospitals actually report their counts of bullet holes? I was going to mention that the NRx response is that medicine has gotten better and people are more violent than ever, but Steve Johnson got there first.

On the other hand, if the cops were messing with the stats—which is definitely happening; c. They do not show this ; the money graph is Figure 1, but they all pretty much follow the same shape.

Firstly, according to neorxs, the US is the heartland of progressivism and Europe are its vassal states, and secondly, Europe has a conspicuous lack of a certain more-violent-than-average minority. A helpful tip courtesy of Steve Sailer: You can do your part to raise the rationality water line by calling this out whenever you see it, which is at least daily. Funny, I usually see the Left accused of having reduced birth rates below replacement by pushing contraception and undermining marriage which provided incentives to reproduce.

People continued eating burgers and steak? My bet is subsidized corn, wheat and soy along with dirt cheep vegetable oils , not granola-eating hippies. Every progressive initiative has someone making money off of it because of human nature. Ancel Keys makes up the lipid hypothesis through the worst imaginable data cherry picking. Scientific grants then follow if you can come up with proof for what everyone knows — low fat good. Then the opportunists come in.

Progressives are increasing the birth rate of the underclass by subsidizing their reproduction, and reducing the birth rate of the middle class through mechanisms such as the ones you describe. Which is a problem, because the middle class produces wealth, and the underclass consumes wealth. Progressives seem to favor expanding access to birth control and abortion, and ensuring that working people have paid parental leave. These would seem to have the opposite effects from the ones you suggest.

No, in fact if anything the lipid hypothesis led to more animal deaths as people found it even more convenient to slaughter billions of chickens for their lean, lean breast meat. Changing your weight is extremely difficult. Even for people who can afford to order healthy food for every meal. And who live in houeseholds without much temptation. I myself am not at all fat but I am chubbier than I want to be. And have been trying to lose weight for about 3 years without any success.

Of course the scientific studies on how many people lose weight long term on diets are very convincing evidence weight loss is hard, but I am not expecting people to have read those.

On the other hand though treatment of gays is a major issue. And it seems to be getting solved through purely social means at a pretty fast rate. Maybe beliefs are easier to change socially than behaviors? It may be that anti-gay social behaviors are arbitrary, or have become so as the broader system evolves. Problems of excess fat storage on the human body fall solidly into the latter category.

The fact is that when external circumstances facilitate calorie restriction, people lose weight. I guess they are just privileged? Any study done outside of the lab e. Such studies can fundamentally NOT measure whether one can choose to lose weight, all they can measure is whether one does choose to do so.

I think this is almost right. But the better implicit choice-description is more likely: And then you realise that the long-term benefits are doubtful; if the current options only allow you to lose weight at great personal cost, keeping the low weight will probably have the same great personal cost.

Perhaps more controversially, the costs of a conventional diet can be higher than the gains. The National Weight Control Registry findings show that people who have sustainably lost a lot of weight typically exercise for an hour each day, weigh themselves once a week, and maintain a low-calorie diet for the rest of their lives. That point on exercise is not really reasonable for most people. Especially anybody enthusiastic about radical life-extension, because it IS our best current life-extension technology.

How does that work? To lose weight, you need to consume fewer calories than you use. To keep the low weight you need to consume the same amount of calories that you use.

I would think that the former is harder than the latter. Moderate obesity BMI reduces life expectancy by about 3 years. Comparing a miraculous mortality cure to a gain of years seems unfair.

Eating fewer calories than you burn is a large cost paid for a short period. Eating the same amount of calories than you burn is a small cost paid for the rest of your life.

Do you regularly count calories and ensure that you are eating at a decifict? Or is your problem that you lack the willpower to do this? This might be a dumb question but I always wonder this when people talk about being unable to lose weight.

I should have been clear on that. It is the later case, when I follow on fairly restricted diets I do lose weight Though I am lucky I can afford to eat sushi and such as a component of a diet. The issue is I find it extraordinarily difficult to follow a diet. Despite the fact that my weight makes me very upset objectively its not that bad but it feels terrible to me.

If I wake up in the middle of the night it is incredibly hard for me not to eat something unhealthy. And f there is nothing unhealthy I will just gorge on anything I can find. This just made the problem worse. Also when I eat sufficiently little food to lose weight I feel very hungry. My opinion is that the willpower I need to be at the weight I want long term is just too extreme. I will have to hope I can remain cute despite being chubby. External motivation might help a bit.

There is evidence for this sort of thing. Why does it have to be something unhealthy? Or just because the unhealthy thing happens to be the easiest to find? The strategy could be to find something relatively harmless and tasty enough, and make stock of it for the midnight raids.

I recently always keep a lot of vegetables in my fridge, and add some ingredients for taste spice, a slice of cheese. Without the cheese, it would be even better in theory, but I would be more tempted to choose something more tasty. My tips for not gaining more weight are:. Keeping lots of fruit easily available as a substitute for sugary snacks. I often make big pots of stew, with tons of vegetables and smaller amounts of meat, fat and carbs. Trying to stop eating when I feel full.

It feels like it would be much easier for most people than trying to lose weight. So I suppose willpower vs other factors might matter in terms of obesity treatments.

Non-Asian fat people get shamed all the time. My experience with attempted calorie restriction is that I end up sleeping quite a bit more like 10 hours a night vs my usual , which presumably means slower metabolism negating much of the benefit, and is anyway not an acceptable side effect long-term.

Are you sure this is about calories? Perhaps you could try calorie restriction using some other kind of food than what you usually use when doing calorie restriction. How does it work? Student places an order. Writers make their offers.

Student hires a writer. The writer gets to work. You can order from us the following. Our website works with the best professional writers in the field. You can find an assistant for any academic task on Studybay!

Best prices for academic papers! Best writers All writers. PowerPoint Presentation , Other.

Select type of work

Main Topics

Privacy Policy

Ms Wong's BIology Essay book compiles challenging higher order thinking model essay answers to help students cope with Paper 2 section of the O level Biology exam. Retailing at POPULAR for $! O Level Biology Mastering Structured Question teaches students answering strategies to help students better answer the structured section component of Paper 2.

Privacy FAQs

Admissions Essay for Biology Course For the past two terms I have studied at the Central New Hampshire University and did everything I could to both excel in.

About Our Ads

Help me in my essay. We understand that students, both in high school and college, have loads of different subjects on their curriculum that is why we have a . Switch from academic level to Bachelor. This ensures a paper of a higher quality because a Bachelor level has stricter requirements of writing.

Cookie Info

SpeedyPaper Is Your No.1 Essay Help Solution. Everyone needs help from time to time, and overworked students most of all. When you are stuck on your research, when your part-time job leaves you with no time and energy, when your social life sucks, SpeedyPaper will be there for you. Have no time nor desire to write your college papers? Apply for essay help at our legit, professional writing service. Have your paper written by the best expert in .