In the movie, "Idiocracy", actor Luke Wilson plays the role of an Average-IQ Joe ("Joe Bauers") who is transported into a future where every American is so dumb (or brain washed by political dogma) that Joe turns out to be the smartest man in America.
How dumb are they all?
So dumb that they don't know to irrigate their crops with "isolated" (pure) water.
They all believe, due to repeated brain washing, that a drink called "Brawndo" (a spin on Gatorade) has to be used for everything (including feeding their crops) because ...
because "it's got electrolytes".
They have no clue what these electrolytes are and why they are "good". This taken on pure faith.
On June 13th 2013, America sunk deeper toward its inevitable collission with an "Idiocracy" future thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court decision on patenting of "genes".
At least one of the Justices (Scalia) admits he has no idea what an "isolated gene" is; but in his being one of the "Supremes", one of the isolated deities who rule America, he must agree that the thing he fails to understand is nonetheless not patent "eligible". Scalia wrote (in concurrence):
"[Admittedly, I don't grasp the] fine details of molecular biology. [Even though] I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief [it] suffices for me to affirm [their idiocracies], having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical [...IDENTICAL...] to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; ..."
Welcome to Idiocracy USA --we got electoral college "lytes"
At least a few sites get it on how "sketchy" the Supremes are in their science:
(1) The Supreme Court’s Sketchy Science
(2) Supreme Court bungles the science in DNA patent decision
(3) Supreme Court Gets ... Science Wrong
(4) Errors in Supreme Court Decision
(5) On "Junk Science" --Wiki
(6) The art of the metaphor (See also Metaphor & Policy in Patent Landmines-stan)
No. The anti-patent Justices are wrong !
They are 101% sure the chemicals are
I ♦ D ♦ E ♦ N ♦ T ♦ I ♦ C ♦ A ♦ L
But the chemicals are not "identical".
One has posi-traction ...
No not positraction. Sorry. Too much "My Cousin Vinny".
But if Marissa Tormei had been a biochemist,
she could have explained to the Justices about molecules,
about electron wave functions,
about protein folding,
about what "identical" really means.