Slashdot Mirror
The President, The State of the Union, and Genetics
At last night's State of the Union, the president said "Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research, human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments, creating human-animal hybrids, and buying, selling or patenting human embryos."
Jamie happened onto a link today which humorously and insightfully
addresses this bit from the speech. It's worth your time. Relatedly segphault writes "Ars Technica has an interesting look at scientific research and technology proposals included in Bush's State of the Union address."
Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research [...] creating human-animal hybrids
Bush wants to be the last of his species?
Trolling is a art,
Mr. Bush, you're breaking my balls here. You're breaking my balls...
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Ok, here's one from kindergarten: Actions speak louder than words.
Ok, I'm fairly certain that I can find a lot of evidence revealing how many leaders of academia actually feel about George W. Bush. And there's a lot of documentation on his actual actions regarding science and research in the nation.
Harvard's Howard Gardner calls Bush's science adviser a "prostitute." And we all remember the Scientists and Engineers for Change organization compromised of sixty Nobel scientists and Tech Leaders. I'll let you guess out their stance on bush. Don't forget their open letter to the American people stating, " President Bush and his administration are compromising our future."
Remember, he only said he supports it. Let's see some actual actions to follow that up.
And if you have time to read up on Bush's actions in the science community, take a look at the Politics and Science in the Bush Administration. I find it hilarious that anyone could expect me to swallow Bush's "scientific research and technology proposals" when his actions are no more proposals than death knells.
Indeed, it seems the hardest issue regarding science that Bush is struggling with is how to silence it.
My work here is dung.
I think my favorite part of the entire speech was when Bush was discussing social security and mentioned how legislation for it had not been passed in congress last year, and the entire side of Democrats stood up and applauded.
"Could you put that in a memo entitled, SHIT I ALREADY KNOW!" - Sarge
I usually watch the Address, but I skipped last night. Did he invent any new words?
I think that last bit was just pandering to the far-right religious wack-jobs. They got him into office, and he's been neglecting their hot issues:
- preventing gays from mayying and ruining the institution of marriage (now >50% divorce rate!)
- Keeping Freedom safe from Terrorists
Blar.
Why not just do like Bush's original science proposal, and send him to Mars. Maybe the WMDs are hidden there - there's no sign of them on this planet ...
Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit... creating human-animal hybrids
I suspect that Bush is pissed because this all hits just a little too close to home.
When you have nothing left to burn you must set yourself on fire
creating human-animal hybrids
Wiretaps, schwiretaps, HE'S GOING TO BAN FURRIES.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
creating human-animal hybrids
Or maybe not...?
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
Its not an article about the state of the union... its straight out poking fun of it. Granted, I know that slashdot is biased (far from), but don't be surprised to see pudge (editor and slashdot code guy) come in and start fighting back.
Me? I won't claim a side, just put on my asbestos suit and enjoy my charred marshmallow.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
You mean nobody's doing their job to prosecute him yet for the illegal wiretaps, let alone all the rampant corruption and cronyism? Fuck this, wake me up when someone does some real good work in DC...
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Yeah, and Bush also wants to go to Mars.
Just cause he says it, doesn't mean it'll happen.
Too many Republicans oppose is extremist views on science. And those that don't will someday get a disease that has a potential cure in hybrid/cloning studies, and will then oppose the agenda.
Not panicked, yet.
This won't be the first warning sign. Once RvW starts to bend, THEN it is time to panic.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
The President said "egregious"? I don't buy it...
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
...but I find it rather hypocritical when many slashbots trash corporations for creating genetically modified foods yet they see absolutely no problem creating genetically modified people. Either genetic modification is OK or it isn't, do we really need decisions made on the basis of how much you hate someone?
...but half the population of the United States supports him.
I really don't care what he thinks or says, he has only three more years to FSCK things up. What scares me is that approximately half the voting public agrees with him and could get someone just like him, or worse, in office.
I don't see anything slowing the Religious Right. I thought they were a temporary fad back in the 1980s, but they are still here and growing more powerful. Just think about Intelligent Design and how far it got before it was slapped down.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
My work here is dung.
One would hope that Bush's statements on scientific advances prove that he is not anti-science, no more than pro-lifers are anti-women. It is silly (though convenient) to label someone with whom you disagree as evil - it doesn't make sense that any President would actively work to thwart something like scientific progress in general. It DOES make sense that a President would try to do what's best for the country, and that is where the disagreement lies.
Rather than saying "I am for progress and Bush is against it because I am Good and he is Bad", try to understand why his position is what it is - you just might discover that there are intelligent arguments on all sides of the table.
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
While I doubt that the President's intent is to stop the manufacture of human insulin, I can't help but notice that legislators are historically bad at crafting good legislation on complex scientific subjects. Here's hoping the whole human-animal hybrid thing has the legs of the "stop steroids in baseball" and "manned mission to Mars" schticks he's thrown out in past State of the Union addresses...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I heard the applause too! It felt like a great disturbance in my retirement plan, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
"Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses"
Prohibit his parents from having any sex? I am afriad it is too late...
Put aside your hatred of Bush and judge on the merits. No, I don't agree with the position but it is a defendable position ethically. And there is a lot there I can agree with.
A ban on the "buying, selling or patenting human embryos" should be fairly universally acceptable, especially the bit about no patenting here amongst the slashdot hordes.
A ban on "creating human-animal hybrids" is more debatable but we damn sure better get a line drawn somewhere and we better do it fast or science is going to race out ahead of ethics and make one hell of a mess for someone to clean up.
And that leaves his call for a ban on "human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments" which is where most of slashdot parts company. Fine, lets have it out in Congress, again so some boundraries can be drawn up. And you liberals had better actually pass a bill this time because if you leave it to the courts like you did with abortion you will really get burned because of the shift in the Supremes. So lets actually debate it and come to a political decision we might all be able to live with this time.
Personally I'd like to see medical science be able to use some super advanced cloning tech to make me new spare parts from my own DNA so I wouldn't take immune supression drugs for life if I ever needed a transplant. But I don't really like the thought of creating and killing millions/billions of things that are/maybe/might be/could have been/sorta/etc humans to get there. I suspect a lot of folks are caught in that halfway position.
Democrat delenda est
Inconceivable!
A human embryo does not have a brain. Nor does it have a functional nervous system. Therefore it can neither think nor feel. Therefore, experimentation on them involves no suffering or loss of freedom (for the embryo).
An embryo is not a person, and only qualifies as 'human' by virtue of the DNA it contains. So, please tell me, why is this morally wrong?
If it is because this aspect of science should remain under God's jurisdiction, then I must insist that God has harmed us by not disclosing this information. We need it to fight the diseases which God allows to plague us, and to heal injuries that God allows to happen to us. This information qualifies as critical, need-to-know information, and if God won't give it to us, then we have no choice but to figure it out for ourselves.
Besides, "Thou shalt not use embryos in scientific experiments" isn't in the Bible anywhere. I read it cover to cover. It's not there.
So, again I ask, why is this *morally* wrong?
Maybe you guys disagree with Bush's proposal. But HOW would you change it? What would you remove?
Is it valid to sell or buy a human embryo? To clone embryos? To make human-animal hybrids?
As with all controversial issues, it's not possible to please everybody. So I'd like to ask slashdot what parts they agree and disagree with, and why.
I wish Bush had said something about going to Mars in this speech. The applause on that would have been deafening!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
china enjoyed a heyday of invention: paper, fireworks, pasta, etc., while europe languished
later, before columbus, a chinese explorer, chen ho, was said to have discovered america... chinese officials burned his boats when he got back. were it not for this governmental backwardness, perhaps i would not be living in new york city with it's famous chinatown, perhaps i would be living in new szechuan city with it's famous europetown
after that ignomity, china continued to languish while europeans made massive strides in exploration and scientific discovery and invention, culminating in china's humiliation in the 1800s at the hands of european powers (the opium wars and the concession of hong kong, for example)
so obviously, with such backwards, luddite, anti-scientific thinking now on the lips of the west's most powerful leader, it seems we have a signal that it is china's turn once again (along with korea and japan) to pick up the reigns and lead humanity in the next era of scientific discovery and space exploration, while the west drowns itself in religious fundamentalist simplemindedness
maybe some centuries/ decades from now, the west will be humiliated by the east's wealth and knowledge, and be encouraged to pick up the reigns again, but for now, i see a changing of the guard in the world today in terms of scientific leadership and discovery
the east is beginnig to eclipse the west
and, as an american, that such idiocy and ignorance should be on the us president's lips, i am only deeply ashamed
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Don't forget that for every scientific, ones and zeros, logical, "scientific truth is the only answer" person out there, there's several thousand religious people who don't like science. How so many people can believe in something that has no proof, no explanation and no evidence baffles me, but they're welcome to their opinion. Until I'm proven wrong, however, I'm sticking with the evidence to the contrary.
No matter what you believe, things have really turned against the scientific community lately. The religious people out there now have enough people in power to push what they want through for quite some time to come. I guarantee it's not going to be the US who finishes solving the stem cell puzzle. Putting another conservative judge on the supreme court didn't help either.
On the other hand, there's this. Every time I get mad at people and wish they'd listen to reason, I remember what the communist states did to suppress religion, and how it didn't work. Replacing someone's core beliefs with unquestioning loyalty to the state is obviously the wrong way to go forward. You need an open society to prevent collapse. However, how do you move society forward while letting those who hold progress back believe what they want?
I will be very very glad when someone else is elected, so I don't have to hear all those "Bush is an idiot" jokes. It's even worse outside the U.S., where there aren't any Republican fundamentalists, so almost everybody makes "Bush is an idiot" jokes.
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits and paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans get Iraq oil profits, and American citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?
Where's the /. photoshop section?
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
I mean, if you look at the far-right Christian view of genetic engineering and biological science... and you look at the far-left enviornmentalist view of genetic engineering and biological science... they are nearly identical. So why do the far-left and the far-right stop the pretending and just admit they are the same thing? All of you people crying about GWB on Slashdot should be quiet, because you know if Greenpeace said the same thing you would be agreeing 100%!
Unfortunatly for those of us who aren't ludites about genetic engineering and such, there is no powerful politcal force to turn to.
The truth in your argument reminds me of most of the rest of the anti-Busy retoric.
If you can give me a clear and concise argument of something Bush does bad, why he thinks it is good, and why you think it is bad please do so.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
My friend, I was in the food service industry for over four years of my young adult life. It has been ingrained into me to be able to tolerate some of the worst forms of human communication.
... well, I'd rather not go through with that again ...
To those who think they break me through mere text, I welcome their assault. To those who have a glass of merlot and a full plate of prime rib to throw into my chest
My work here is dung.
Heh. It'll work. Seems like the poor and hyper-religious peoples love to crap out babies. The current tax code encourages this. What future jobs are there for people who dismiss any science they can't comprehend with a 12th-grade or lower education? Not many I would say.
So we encourage the most ignorant and dependent segment of our society to breed. Why would that be? Because children indoctrinated at birth to a world-view have a very tough time dislodging that world-view.
It's good for religion, it's good for nationalism. It's good for blind following.
I guess I don't have a real answer for you. I guess we scientific types will have to outperform the religious peoples. They have advantage in numbers with their breeding practices, but we can still favor quality over quantity.
Blar.
And I was so looking forward to having my very own cat-woman.
I'm against GM food but I'm all for genetically modifying humnity. The human race is so pathetic that we need to improve ourselves anyway we can.
And, I'd be more than happy to volunteer to be the poster boy for the reasons to GM humans.
Most people don't realize that those who back Bush have exactly zero interest in Social Security.
The "Social Security" plans are designed to get amateur stock investors into the stock market, where the professionals, who back the plan, can take the amateur's money.
My dreams of my own harem of catgirls, ruined!
*sob*
And when/if the rights of one person supercede the rights of another person.
... but humans *are* animals.
I think what Bush was trying to say is there's a fine line between doing genetic research that's good for society. And doing genetic research that's destructive to society because it has a possibilty of cheapening life.
Think about the implications of both scenarios for a min. In one way we find amazing life saving drugs, and in another we become slaves because life doesn't matter anymore. Yes, that is extreme in both ways but look at the way most people here are reacting to his speech.
Problem is I don't trust all scientists enough to let them do unlimited research. I also don't trust congress to lay down sane laws that govern the science research. Mainly because who knows what is right or wrong in this situation? The science behind genetics is still relatively new. It should not be strictly goverened by heavy handed laws that are laid out without some serious considerations of thier implications.
Garden varieties have been bred, but the breeders don't sue you if they find some of your heirloom tomatoes were polinated with their 'custom' breed. The GM douche-bags do. Their shit could pollute an entire country's selection of a species...and it's perfectly legal for them to demand payment. That's MY issue.
Besides, subverting the usual selection mechanisms, and breeding only a limited number of generations, and restricting interaction with the 'real world' means that many issues in these GM crops could go un-noticed. They could take years to become apparant...and by then...how hard will it be to start over with the 'original' strains? Hopefully someone will keep them going...as long as they don't get polluted by the 'copywritten' GM strains....and then the grower gets sued.
Blar.
Don't talk about ideas! He might ban them.
Genetic research (as most subjects that arise) shouldn't even be in the domain of the federal government. The government shouldn't criminalize the activity, nor should it fund it. When you use tax dollars to fund a controversial topic such as this, you are forcing some people to pay for an activity they don't agree with. (Genetic research doesn't seem immoral to me, but forcing others to fund it for me sure does!)
The answer? Don't criminalize it, but don't fund it. Let the free market take over; if there's enough demand for this sort of research (and oh boy is there), it will happen one way or another.
All to often, government becomes the first source we turn to for fixing our problems. Look for other methods before we ask the guns of government to force others to do it our way.
Ummm. I am of Baptist upbringing, and I don't buy into that Rapture index stuff/mularkey. I'm pretty sure there's quite a few here that don't. You might wanna read my post history, and not generalize.
Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
Slashdot is so far to the left. What does this have to do with anything? Science? I think not...
This just makes me wonder how many people vote for the right, but then get embryo transplants when they can't have a kid. I mean, that IS an experiement, becuase you do not know if it will work. *sigh* (I voted nader or something like that ;) )
Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research [...] creating human-animal hybrids
he's only worried about EGREGIOUS abuses of human-animal hybrids, and i believe an egregious is half egret, half religious person (egre-gious)
so i support the president's narrow, case-specifc take on this issue, it makes sense, because we don't want a bible-thumping skinny bird strutting around now do we?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Telltale Games: Bone, Sam and Max
I knew in the late 90s that there was going to be no Social Security left over for me. The old fuckers wouldn't give up a little to help the future. The Baby Boomers are going to bankrupt the system, and all that money you paid in is GONE.
Unless some magical economic upswing and a trade deficit reversal occur.
Blar.
I hope in the future the U.S. has a president who knows how to speak his own language: Bushisms.
Because "person" is a subject term, but almost everyone will believe that THEIR definition is "objective" and why won't the rest of you see plain logic? :)
I like toasted marshmallows.
You have no proof backing up the point that it is not self aware. Bacteria does not have a nervous system, but its self aware. Many lifeforms do not have a nervous system and they are self aware. While the nature of this specific lifeform is debateable, its a fact that they are alive in the same way fungus and trees are alive. All life should be respected, this means if it is not absolutely neccessary, then we should do no harm.
I don't see why cloning is neccessary, especially human cloning. Designer babies I can agree with, stem cell research I can agree with, cloning I'm against. There is no logical explaination for cloning. Why do we want to populate the earth with clones? That's insane.
The eggs you buy at Safeway are chicken embryos. The worst you're getting is a high cholesterol count.
Q1. something Bush does bad?
A1. He lies. To everyone. Including himself.
Q2. Why he thinks it is good?
A2: He must think he's good at it, because he keeps on doing it.
Q3. Why you think it is bad? ...
A3: WMDs, Iraq, the deficit, wiretapping
When half the congress gives high-fives over ensuring the Social Security Program will run out of funds in the future because no-one wants to touch it now, you know it's time to look out for yourself and fully invest in a 401k and other retirement programs.
This is the fault of both parties, as there has been years and years of inaction with both Republican and Democratic parties equally lethargic on the issue (Bush had little support even from Republicans on that issue). Just like trying to stop a train you have to think a little ahead and no-one is doing that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
What he just proposed amounts to the banning of all human stem cell research in this country. This is a step back from even his previous allowance of certain stem cell lines.
Even more than that, the broad outlines if implemented specifically will outlaw virtually all human genetic research. Transgenic animals have enabled us to examine human disease conditions in detail, and methods of treatment.
This is typical pandering to the right-wing of his party, without consideration of either the ethical, legal, and even moral implications of his broad-based statement. I predict that over the next few weeks we'll see a host of officials on talk shows doing the "What he really meant was ..."
I'm still reading through the trancript. I try not to watch it live - I get too annoyed with the scripted "standing ovation" moments.
I have to admit wondering about his new energy program - I mean, really, wasn't it over 30 years ago that yet another Republican president promised the same thing?
The Union of South Africa is never refered to as the USA.
You have an international audience, quit staring in the bleeding mirror all day FCS!a djectve.html
PS: Because I know you forgot what an adjective is:
http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/
Ohhh! Pay Dirt! A pair of half-eaten choco-pants!
I think this country should stop electing people like GWB who take such fundamentalist concepts so close to heart. Maybe we would be better off with an Agnostic or an Atheist president.
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument." - William G. McAdoo
> Once RvW starts to bend, THEN it is time to panic.
Panic? You like killing babies? If RvW changes, it will be millions of unborn babies REJOICING.
Your post in the EFF thread was naively emotional, arrogant, and makes a host of assumptions about humanity and American society without providing any coherent line of reasoning. You'll always get people who "will stop at nothing to attack their opposition" if you keep making their job so easy.
Sure, it's nitpicking... Right... Thats why he has the lowest approval rating of any president other than Nixon. Because he is doing so well.... You do not have to be "radical" or even a "liberal" to think bush sucks, and will continue to suck. And this has everything to do with science. Will we get funding for ACTUAL science? Or Junk science - like oil company funded research that claims global warming is not happening? Will his cleaner domestic energy sources be real - or is he just saying that? Has he lied about things in the past? Should we trust him now? Is genetic engineering to cure MS wrong? Or is some genetic engineering OK and others wrong? Where is the line? What constitutes an experiment? Technically - life is an experiment. State of the union addresses are simply taxpayer funded campaign speeches.
My grandfather didn't think Social Security would be there for him. It is. My father did not think that Social Security would be there for him. It probably will be. For those of us who are farther away from retirement, Social Security will be there for us EVEN IF the baby boomers bankrupt the system. It's an extremely popular political program and Congress will do whatever they need to in order to keep it going in some form. Will they wait too long to fix any problems? Certainly. That's a given. It'll be a big, ugly, expensive mess with long term consequences, but at the end of the day we'll get our checks because there is no political future for the politicians who let Social Security die while they're in office. Count on it as a primary source of interest after retirement? Of course not, but it'll be something.
Remember RFC 873!
cloning for research purposes will just relocate to the country that permits it.
Just ask all the scientists who actually use it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I was really concerned about the "...creating or implanting embryos for experiments..." part of the speach. This sounds like an attempt to ban embryonic stem cell research (or at least to stop some of it.)
There's no such thing as a stupid question, but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
And that hasn't stopped us from experimenting on them.
Bush is just afraid if we get used to the human hybrids we'll start demanding the car hybrids and take money away from the oil companies. Now I bet if they were proposing creating humans that run on gasoline, his response would be very different.
The eugenics war?
Kirk: "KAHHHHHHNNNNNNNN'
Guns are for wimps... Use a crossbow.. this way you can pin them to their chair when you go postal.
If Roe vs. Wade gets overturned, it just goes back to the states, where citizens can actually VOTE on it.
Hmm, democracy in action. Who can be against that?
You applaud the mess that is Social Security and applaud its continued path towards catastrophe and appluad those opposed to fixing it? What a fuckhead.
The "Union of South Africa" is never referred to as the "USA" because for the last 45 years, it has been referred to as the "RSA." ...just sayin'...
The rates of various nations are available.
The point is, that these fundamentalist nutters claim the USA to be a "Christian Nation" when they push to have their specific religious rules codified in secular law. This high divorce rate...one divorce for every two marriages in recent years...goes strongly against this claim.
And besides, the Founding Fathers were Deists...not Christians!
Blar.
Why isn't anyone mentioning his call to research alternative forms of energy
I was shocked to hear that the federal government has already, in the past 5 years, spent $10 Billion on alternative energy research. That's $10,000,000,000.00 and what do we have to show for our investment. NOTHING! And he wants to invest more!?!?!?!?
Even my staunchly republican wife turned and said, "I bet that would have been better spent on a contest, like that space thingy." She was referring to X-Prize and she was right!
I agree...no politician would let it lapse. So the big question is, who's going to be picking up the tab? You can fix anything if you throw enough money at it...but where is that money going to come from? Punitive taxes? Subjugating some other nation? Man, I dunno...but it's not gonna be good.
Blar.
Agnostic, maybe, but how can you make the assumption that an atheist would be any less fundamentalist in his/her beliefs? In my opinion, the trick is not finding someone with or without faith, but finding someone who can recoginize when their faith, or lack thereof, is driving their decisions.
faking their research ;-P
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Obviously God does not want us to mess with genes or embryos. Even though I have no religous documentation to back this up, it's what I think, so let's just go with it, okay?
PS: That whole "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" thing doesn't apply to fighting for natural resources or the march of freedom. Uh, because that's also what I think. Ain't it amazing how often God agrees with me?
Opposing human cloning, selling of human embreyos, and creation of human/animal hybrids is not extreme.
Cloning of entire humans is not extreme, but theres a lot of people who'd love to be able to replace a finger, or an ear, or get a skin graft after a burn... banning ALL THAT starts to get extreme.
Selling embryos -- ok, yeah, i think all of us find it repugnent when capitalism meets medicine...whether its fetuses or kidneys or even simply being denied the cure to your disease because the 90 cent pills you need are being charged at $2000 a dose (to cover 'research', 'development', 'shareholder profits', and 'litigation & insurance expenses'). Most of us will concede that the drug corps -need- to cover r&d, legal, and still lookout for the shareholder... but its still 'evil' to let a person die over few pills where the incremental cost of *those* pills was under a dollar.
And the creation of animal human hybrids? Again, sure rejecting the creation of the habitants of the Island of Doctor Moreau isn't 'extreme'. But what if you needed a new heart and they could grow the cloned your own heart inside a pig host, along with a supply of your own blood to use in the transplant operation? It would give you a heart that wouldn't be rejected, solve blood supply issues, and may neatly dodge the issue of cloning full on 'human beings' for organ harvesting.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
"God, schmod -- I want my monkey man!"
Bush only wants to go to Mars because, "It looked really cool in that Total Recall documentary."
Thank goodness this apolitical article was posted as science. Yep. News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters. Unfortunately, it doesn't really make sense to filter Slashdot for Science (unlike Politics (and the associated "wisdom" of the intellectual elite)). That's where most of the interesting topics come in.
Hmm, democracy in action. Who can be against that?
Anyone who doesn't hold a majority opinion on something would be against that. In terms of RVW, the majority seems to support it across the nation. In popular vote, it might lose in a few fundamentalist states like Utah, Oklahoma, and Kansas. While you've got them at the polls, you might as well have them pass some referendums against Hip Hop music & videos being broadcast on public airwaves and prohibitions on homosexuals walking within 1000 feet of an elementary school. Hey, it's democracy. Will of the people in action...
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
from chimpanzee-a to chimpanzee-W
President Bush jumped from topic to topic. "Coretta King died. Iran is bad. No more monkeymen!" I kept waiting to hear about the mission to Mars for humanity or at least to go back to the moon again.
I found that while the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia looked like a smarmy man and had some difficulty in reading the teleprompter he had a definite message behind his thoughts. While I am normally unimpressed by the rebuttal by the minority party, I paid attention to what he said because if nothing else he was not shouting sound bites at random.
I agree, the Social Security moment was a highlight, if for no other reason than to see G. W. get a little upset.
--Chag
Once RvW starts to bend, THEN it is time to panic.
Not a troll, a serious question: Why? Why is Roe v. Wade so important? That is, why do you think it's more important than any other issue?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I was just Googling for the same information, and it seems that the CDC agrees with you (page 5, table 3).
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Make up lots of objective goals and make the prize awards really big because you can afford to since you're paying for results rather than mere proposals to achieve results.
Making the real achievers of objective goals rich beyond their wildest dreams will lead to far more effective R&D spending of those dollars than will handing them over to life-time bureaucrats.
PS: A big problem is exemplified by a USA Today article about prize awards for technical achievement
Why is it that no one can see how much of an obscene mockery this use of the term "grand challenge" is?The fact that no one understands the difference between awarding a prize for achieving X vs awarding a grant for a proposal for achieving X is illustrative of why technology policy fails miserably generation after generation.
Seastead this.
" Human life is a gift from our Creator - and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale. " Infertile females are given ovulation inducing drugs and made to produce a lot of ova and each of them are fertilized and stored at very low temperatures, so that that if one in-vitro fertilization attempt fails, they do not have to go through the whole process again, rather just implant the fertilized ovum again. Once this female has her child / children and needs no more children, these embryos are stored forever. These should be used to do stem cell research. by doing that you do not devalue the embryo, nor kill a human life. They should be allowed to be sold or at least made available for stem cell research. I see know point in " Human life is a gift from our Creator - and that gift should never be discarded, devalued, or put up for sale. "
Where human begins and ends is a fairly small subset of the genes which many animals share.
this was just a silly example please don't parse the technical issues ... I put as much thought into this as Bush ... well maybe a little more.
Thank you Mr. Hannity, that will be all.
Athiests will never betray the concept of the seperation of Church and State. Athiests will never make policy based on the precepts of a particular faith. Athiests will never favour the moral code of one small group over their multitude of neighbours because they attend the same church. An atheist believes life is very precious because when you die, it's over. Some religious fundies are a little freer with human life because the afterlife is so much better if you're good, and if it isn't you deserved it anyway.
Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of medical research, human cloning in all its forms, creating or implanting embryos for experiments,
Dad: The mill's closed! There's no more work. We're destitute.
Dad: Come in, my little loves. I've got no option but to sell you all for scientific experiments.
Dad: Blame the Catholic church for not letting me wear one of those little rubber things. Oh, they've done some wonderful things in their time. They preserved the might and majesty, the mystery of the Church of Rome, and the sanctity of the sacraments, the indivisible oneness of the Trinity, but if they'd let me wear one of those little rubber things on the end of my cock, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
Yeah, and Bush also wants to go to Mars.
Ok so if we all chip in do you think we'll have enough to send him on a 1 way trip?
See, Jews, despite what the palestinians would have you think, DO have fully developed brains.
Wether the subject can feel pain or not is irrelevant. We're talking about self-awareness. An embryo does not have a brain. It can not think. It is not self aware. It is no more human than your sperm, so by your logic we could argue that you commit genocide every time you masturbate. I'd love to see Bush run on THAT platform.
Tonight I ask you to pass legislation to prohibit the most egregious abuses of the human hands....committing mass-murder through self-pleasuring.
M-A-R-S... Mars bitches. And remember no gays settling down.
"Ok, here's one from kindergarten: Actions speak louder than words."
Seems that's wrong. People seem to be more than happy with Bush.
It's funny, Bush is a flip-flopper... feel free to do some homework on that one... but because he called Kerry one, people wouldn't buy that he was one.
The pot CAN call the kettle black, after all.
Don't know what's happening, but one thing is certain: Rove is a masterful manipulator.
Once more, with feeling:
Slashdotters don't all think alike.
http://n8o.r30.net/doku.php/unityfallacy
Which means it will drag the entire nation down with it. It is the, well - one of the, albatross(es) around the neck of the US Gov.
If you don't know what that means - Idiom: Albatross around your neck
Another analogy would be:
It is the gold that they refuse to let go as they sink ever deeper.
you are not thinking and feeling, either. In such a case, does that mean I am not taking your freedoms when I put a bullet in your brain?
Potential matters. When you are sleeping or unconcious, you do not have sufficient intellect to earn rights. What gives you rights is the fact that you will wake up and be an intelligent being. When this is not the case (for example, Terry Shiavo), we correctly deem that the hunk of meat that was an intelligent being no longer has rights, and should be cared for as per that person's wishes and contracts.
The "potential matters" principle is the only one that is consistent across a wide-range of situations. Here are some others: Imagine you had a real AI, sufficiently intelligent to deserve rights, living on your cellphone. If the batteries ran out, could you then destroy the phone? Does it make sense to say "I can't destroy the phone when the batteries are charged, but I can when they are empty"? Or how about this. What if humans started their lives as catapillars, then became butterflies, and then, after a second larvae stage became babies. Could we kill the butterflies? What if the situation ran backwards, and it went human-butterly-catapillar, followed by a spore stage that created new humans. Could we then kill the butterflies?
Another problem with your logic is that humans do not become intelligent enough to deserve rights until well after birth, unless you put the bar so low as many animals have rights. So now, you either are stuck with arresting people for manslaughter when they run over a cat and putting Fido on trial for killing a rabbit, or permitting infanticide. Which do you prefer?
Al-Qaeda from reproducing.
Sincerely,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.
So you all can prepare to welcome your "100 years scientifically ahead of USA" European overlords!
The president says we should ban cloning in *all its forms*! Let's start by banning the oldest form of cloning -- identical twins!
Because obviously a human with the same genetic makeup has the same soul, thus leading to one clone never knowing if they're "real" or not! (Or is it a soulless evil, husk? I'm never quite sure what the Luddites believe.)
Sorry, but you are calling out for an intellectual discussion in the middle of a karma-whoring feeding frenzy.. this is no time for rational debate.
That was my whole point. I got tired of hearing that Bush is anti-science just because he happens to hate cloning. (FYI: I hate both cloning AND Bush). But cloning is not the only way to get stem cells, and research on non-embryonic stem cells is STILL in its infancy.
So I just wanted to shut everyone up and ask them to throw the first stone. Actually I hoped some pro-choicer would speak up, but I guess there was no one around. In any case, i'm satisfied.
I think RvW is a good metric for fundamentalist influence. The only people that vehemently oppose it are the staunch Christian bloc. Everyone else could pretty much care less. Yeah, when you stuff a picture of a baby in front of a soccermom's face, she may change her mind for the pollster, but in general, most people are OK with it being legal. When the nutjob thumpers start changing policy, that's what they will go after first, or maybe mandatory prayer in school or Creationism in science class. If you see either one of those warnings signs making their way to congress (state or federal), be afraid.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Best of all, after you are done you can make bacon to clog up your new heart. Now that is efficient.
Ahhh youth.
Democracy sucks and would be a complete failure without a Congress to temper it, aka, Republic. (Just look at California and the idiots who voted for Prop 13 in the 70s. Yes, property taxes were kept way, way low, promoting sprawl, but the schools are the worst in the country, and revenues are trying up everywhere as corporations move away due to rising taxes to fix the huge one-time upset.)
If you think democracy is so great, consider what the landscape of the US would look like if there were no federal laws and every locality was ruled by what the people of that community consider decent and proper.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
"the east is beginnig to eclipse the west"
Are you kidding?
Nature just published an article that touches on what you say in your post. I don't think you have a solid grasp of what is ACTUALLY happening. Take a look...
This article seems to suggest that, not only are you wrong, but the countries you cite (China, India and "the east") are actually at the BOTTOM of the scales in terms of scientific output. Now, you can argue that it's an American publication/study (and you may have a point) -- but I think you make my point by doing so. By any measure, American scientific output is at the top of the charts. And by any measure, "the east" trails behind by a wide margin.
I'm not saying that there isn't progress by the East. There is. But there is a loooooong way to go before their output "eclipses" the US in terms of scientific research and production.
Ah yes, what a witty and intellectual reply Mr. Daschle.
I think RvW is a good metric for fundamentalist influence. The only people that vehemently oppose it are the staunch Christian bloc.
Uh-huh. So it's impossible for someone to vehemently oppose abortion for any reason other than "fundamentalism"?
It sounds like you're saying "If you disagree with me on abortion, you're one of THEM!" I thought only fundamentalists (or Sith) had such worldviews, and that enlightened liberals were beyond such pedestrian, black-and-white, delusions?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Here's another one: Money Talks.
.....The biggest increase in NSF's FY05 budget goes to its Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account, which receives a 37.6-percent increase, bringing its funding level to $213.2 million in 2004.
The NSF's budget has increased every year during the Bush administration. From 2001-2003, for example, the NSF granted more money to more researchers every year. Last year's budget proposed by Bush, according to the ACS included similar increases:
The FY05 administration request for NSF is $5.7 billion, a 3-percent increase or $167 million over the FY04 budget.....a 4.7-percent increase for the NSF Research & Related Activities account.
The FY05 NSF increases would bring the average annual research grant award size to approximately $142,000, up $3,000 over FY04. Average annual grant duration would continue to be 3 years.
Oh yeah, and the NIH budget doubled[pdf] from 1999 to 2003. For several of those years, a man named George W. Bush was president.
"You should read the Bible more carefully."
With all due respect, not everyone believes and follows the Bible. Say what you will about the people who don't, but why should all human morality be based on religious scripture that not everyone adheres to?
I know my argument here is cliche, but seriously. I'm not a Christian. Personally, I don't believe in souls. I consider myself an agnostic. So, why, then, should what I believe be based upon the Bible?
I'm sorry if this sounds like flaming. That is not my intent at all. I'm not saying I'm for abortion (and I'm not going to say I'm against it. My position on it is irrelevent to this point). But I'm not going to accept any rationale for the legality or illegality of abortion if it is based merely on religious tones. The laws of the land should be based on science, rationale, and concrete evidence. Religious law is fine for some, but it has no place in matters that concern those who don't follow it.
"If you kill the embryo, it will float in space until it finds you and haunt you for the rest of your life."
And this part baffles me. What part of the Bible discusses men being haunted by the souls of fetuses?
Its all over now, we have a winner http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&wo rd1=george+w.+bush&word2=genetics/
o rd1=monica&word2=melissa/
and this can help choose which sister to date as well http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&w
---Excuse the bad English, I'm American---
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." -- H. L. Mencken
This past December I got modbombed after making my usual points. The fascists game the Slashdot moderation system just like their Republican representatives in government game the rest of the system. I'll probably get hit again now. Of course that can't stop me.
--
make install -not war
Some people like to argue that the current administration is actually increasing funding for research, something in the order of billions of dollars. True, missions like the one to Mars, which may not be feasible, do get more attention. Now, let me illustrate what effect the actual decrease of funding in nuclear research has on science. Last year, Dr. Christoph Leemann, Director of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (JLab) sent a clear message (read it!) to all staff and users at JLab. This is alarming! For most people outside the scientific community it is probably hard to imagine what the loss of 45 jobs at JLab means. The situation at other labs, such as the Brookhaven National Laboratory is very similar, if not worse. Let me assure you that this cut has serious consequences for a lot of people at many research labs and universities in the US. We will see how this changes education in the US.
There is more information available at the APS Public Affairs web site.
You bring up very good points. I wish Bush's speech writers would have talked to you instead of whatever religious zealot they took notes from.
Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
I'm a type 1 diabetic. I have given up on a cure in my lifetime because of the fundamentalist rants that have changed the research culture that was, once, 18 months from a cure for type 1 diabetes. We will now never see a cure in my lifetime.
The reasoning of these fundamentalists is this: abortion is endangered, so it must be said to lead to something good. Therefore, they claim that embryonic stem cells are a cure-all. These fundamentalists find it trivial to ignore the fact that EVERY human who ever received an injection of embryonic stem cells had terminal cancer 18 months later resulting from the injection. These fundamentalists also find it trivial to ignore the miracle cures arising from adult (e.g., bone marrow & cord blood) stem cells.
Who are there fundamentalists? I would like to indict, on capital charges:
(1) The American News Media, who talk about cures from "stem cells" when they mean adult stem cells, and then talk about a ban on research using "stem cells" when they mean embryonic stem cells. They know the difference, but they lie and kill diabetics.
(2) The American Congress, who take about cures from "stem cells" when they mean adult stem cells, and then talk about a ban on research using "stem cells" when they mean embryonic stem cells. They know the difference, but they lie and kill diabetics.
(3) The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, which is run by genocidal left-wing nuts. They monopolized all research money intended to find a cure for type 1 diabetes, and now refuse to let one dime go to finding any possible cure that does not involve the known-fatal embryonic stem cells. They know better, but they lie and kill diabetics.
Andy Out!
That's actually not true, for several reasons.
Firstly, most Americans don't vote, so it's hard to say whether they really agree with him.
Secondly, if you take the small number who voted for Bush, and actually ask them for their opinions on various issues, you find out something interesting: Bush supporters disagree with him on many major issues.
So the interesting question is: since most Bush voters are in favor of abortion, against the war in Iraq, in favor of reducing the deficit, and so on, why do they vote for Bush?
The answer is simple. It's also the single most important thing to understand about US politics, in my view. Here it is:
That's what the Democrats keep getting horribly, horribly wrong. They picked John Kerry, who nobody particularly liked as a person, even in his own party--a guy with the personality of a sack of wet sand, who spoke like a schoolteacher. They picked Al Gore, of the robotic demeanour and irritated sighs, and teamed him with Lieberman in case his displayed personality wasn't already enough to repel voters. They'll probably pick Hillary Clinton too.
What's even more odd is that once he had lost, Al Gore suddenly started displaying a personality and a sense of humor. So apparently the powers that control the DNC have this idea that pressing candidates into acting "presidential" (i.e. dull as all hell) is a good thing.
Meanwhile, the Republicans field a guy who has learned to convincingly fake a friendly Texas accent, and act dumber than he is. (e.g. the recent clowning when he couldn't get a door open.) It doesn't matter that he's from the exact same educated upper-class background as Kerry; he's learned to put on a persona that seems friendly and likeable to average people, and that's why he got elected.
Note that I'm not saying this is a good thing. It's actually pretty awful, because the best outcome is likely to be that White House policy is effectively random over time, depending on what the beliefs are of the guy who randomly happens to have the nicest personality. The worst possible outcome, of course, is that someone appears who is a raving fascist, but is a master showman who can appear to be a likeable man of the people. We all know how that turns out.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I respect your desire to not read the Bible or be a Christian. The Bible
is the basis for moral choices (right and wrong) for Christians.
What is the basis for your moral choices ?
It may be there for us, but it will be coming out of children's and grandchildren's paychecks. If I offered to write my father a check for $100 every week, there's no way in hell he'd take it. But every week, that's exactly what Social Security does.
By your line of reasoning, this weekend I'm going to watch the Steelers-Seahawks experiment. One question: If the Superbowl is an experiment, what is the hypothesis?
welcome our human-animal hybrid masters.
[When you are unconcious] you are not thinking and feeling, either. In such a case, does that mean I am not taking your freedoms when I put a bullet in your brain?
The original poster was very specific in stating that the embryo lacks a brain (in fact, lacks any brain cells).
An unconscious adult has a fully-formed brain. Also, this brain is alive and functioning (only specific parts of it go dormant when unconscious). So it seems the difference between these two cases is quite significant.
Potential matters
I suppose, then, that every sperm is sacred?
humans do not become intelligent enough to deserve rights
The OP didn't state anything about intelligence, but rather, only focused on the presence of an appropriately-structured brain. You seemed to have missed that critical point.
So now, you either are stuck with arresting people for manslaughter when they run over a cat and putting Fido on trial for killing a rabbit, or permitting infanticide.
Hardly. Nothing in the original post presents this dilema. However, the weird mis-statements you have made about the original post may present this problem.
ever prove their theories they "discovered" during a brainstorming session?
...
My neighbor (one of the guys in the article who's web-savvy) wants to know
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Can someone explain why cloning seems to be viewed as an unethical practice?
I know that with current technology cloning has more potential to go wrong than right (they go through 50-60 embryos until they manage the procedure), but assuming that gets fixed, what's the _ethical_ problem with doing it?
After all, the cloned child would not be your copy, but more like a twin born many years after you.
Dejan
I Stoled it. Because it's so awesome. If you want it back I require a bajillion dollars.
Signed,
Guy who stoled your Sig.
"Oh yeah, and the NIH budget doubled[pdf] from 1999 to 2003. For several of those years, a man named George W. Bush was president."
Since Bush was in 2000-2003, with 2003 - 2000 = 3, several is the wrong word to use:
"several(a): (used with count nouns) of an indefinite number more than 2 or 3 but not many; "several letters came in the mail"; "several people were injured in the accident" "
Thanks.
Oh, you might also mention how the US budget defecit went from 0 to a number much larger.
The US military budget also increased.
In general, Bush has spent more on everything than previous more frugal presidents.
Indeed, he has also raised spending on the military and pork by a higher percentage than things like social programs. I can't remember the exact number, but over 60% of US government spending is spent directly or indirectly on the US military. The NSF gets something like 1%.
And, let's also think about this, "human cloning in all its forms" includes cloned organs for people needing organ transplants. I hope your heart works 100%; I myself have a leaky heart valve, and would rather have a cloned one with the defect cured rather than a pig's heart valve inserted into me (plus the anti-rejection drugs this entails).
Try not to dress up a wolf in sheep's clothing!!
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
My moral choices are based on what I feel is the best thing for myself and my fellow human beings at the time. Sure, sometimes I make a bad decision. But so far I haven't killed anyone, and I've done quite a bit in my life to better the lives of people I'll never met. The Bible isn't needed in order to have decent moral judgement.
In fact, since I think chucking rocks at gay people until they die is a bad thing, I'd go so far as to say that my system of morals is superior to the Bible's.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
I make them up as I go.
It's just as arbitrary as the x-tian method.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Actually, what Social Security does is you put $100 into an envelope every week but some government bureaucrat slips $20 out of it before it gets to you dad, so he only gets eighty bucks.
Analogously to criminal law, I use a standard which, mathematically, is probably somewhere between 2% and .1%. It does not matter which number you choose within that range, however. Why? Because a sperm has far, far less than a 1/1000 chance. So does an egg or a skin cell. However, a fertilized egg falls well on the other side (about 30% at fertilization, much higher a few days later after implantation). Therefore, where exactly we draw the line is rather irrelevant, as it is clear that before fertilization we are far to one side, and after fertilization we are far to the other.
I would say the same standard applies at the end of life. If Shiavo had a 10% chance of recovering, killing her would have been wrong, don't you agree? But the fact was that her chances of recovering were vanishingly small. That is why pulling the plug was ethical. Now, if a fertilized egg has a 30% chance of surviving, why would we also not grant it rights?
Yes, you can carry the "potential" argument to extemes. One could claim the lint in my belly-button has rights, because there are probably sufficient atoms to spontaneously rearrange into a zygote. But clearly, the probability of this is trivially small. Therefore we can safely discount it.
As a final point, I also believe in granting the benefit of the doubt. This is an important manner with lives literally hanging in the balance. We should error on the side of protecting life.
My moral decisions are based solely on my own experiences. I'll give you an example.
I like good things. I like it when people do good things for me. When I do something that one would be considered "nice" by one, that person is far more likely to do the same for me. Ergo, it is better to do nice things unto others, as they are more likely to do the same unto you.
I admit that this example is extremely basic (as often what one would consider "nice" can be seen as "evil" by others.). But I don't really have the time nor the inclincation to write a document a few hundred pages long, describing my beliefs on morality in pain-staking detail.
If we get right down to it, it's extremely hard to even DEFINE morality. What seperates good from evil, or are such ideas man-made? I find it unlikely that anyone will ever discover a 100% answer to that question (And I doubt there even is an answer). Thus, I will try to summarize the basis of my moral choices as such:
I try to do that which will, in both the long and the short term, benefit myself and society as a whole the most. Rarely do my actions completely reflect this, as I am human and, therefore, am fallible. However, I try to learn from these inefficiencies and inaccuracies, so that my future actions may be of a greater use to society.
Again, such a design is not perfect. And my actions often clash with the designs of others, thinking that their designs are more useful than mine. But such is the erroneous nature of humanity. We're not perfect, but we should try our damndest to be so.
I apologize if that was hard to follow, but it's always difficult to summarize my beliefs. I do not pretend to be perfect, nor do I pretend to be perfectly moral, but I try to help. That is the basis of my personal philosophy. I do what I do because I believe it in my human mind, not because someone else tells me to.
No, no.
Your missing the point, I'm not talking about a position on abortion, I'm talking about a position on laws regarding choice.
There is a HUGE difference.
And there is no gray area.
There's no position, secular or religious, that can argue a woman's rights to her body are less important than a microscopic drop of unconscious, totipotent DNA. No way around it. You can only win this argument by invoking God.
You can hate abortion all day long, I don't care, but as soon as you pass a law forcing me to have a baby or go to jail, fvck you.
Of course, you can pick ANY argument and say I'm being fundamentalist. Let me show you:
"I believe gravity does not exist. Claiming it does means you're discounting centuries of Yogi who have mastered mind over body Yogic Flying. To assert Gravity definitely exists and not accept any other positions makes you the same as a radical fundamentalist!"
See how easy it is to be a dick?
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
I can hypothesize all sorts of beings without a brain or nervous system that I would consider to have rights. An AI, for example.
.1 and 2%. Sperm, skin cells and mud all have the hypothetical potential to be humans - but are extremely unlikely to ever be so.
See my post below about potential. I use a "reasonable doubt" standard, falling somewhere between
A dead person has brain structure. So does a cat. So does a late-term fetus. On the other hand, many as-yet-unknown extraterrestrials or AIs may very well not have a "brain structure" but be perfectly intelligent. I hardly see how "brain structure" has any relationship to rights.
You are addicted to Slashdot.
Athiests will never betray the concept of the seperation of Church and State.
What if they force people not to practice religion?
Athiests will never make policy based on the precepts of a particular faith.
Not all Atheists are rational. They just don't believe in God. An Atheist could believe that ghost pirates are real and he enacts legislation based on stopping ghost pirates from invading.
Athiests will never favour the moral code of one small group over their multitude of neighbours because they attend the same church.
So whose moral code do they favour, then? That of the majority? Is that better? If "fundies" favour miniority morals, then why are they elected by the majority?
An atheist believes life is very precious because when you die, it's over.
Not necessarily. Atheists might believe life sucks because there is no God. All being an Atheist means is you don't believe in God.
Some religious fundies are a little freer with human life because the afterlife is so much better if you're good, and if it isn't you deserved it anyway.
Sure, some are. Don't put them in power, please. But don't discriminate against religious people because some of their members give them a bad name.
Then fine, follow W. Cloning and stem cells and scientific research that goes against religious teachings is going to happen one way or another. If it doesn't happen in America because our administration and population is hell-bent on staying out of hell, then it'll just happen elsewhere. However, when the American populace is dying from genetic diseases and is watching its best and brightest go overseas where they can actually do some research, remember that this is what you wanted. You can't stand in the way of scientific progress, you can only accept it and find a way to deal with it. We're going to be left in the dust if we keep using religion to justify our research decisions.
You seem to believe that a person is part of this "society", and therefore has rights. Why? Who decides? Who or what gets included? My "talk of rights" means little to a six year old, too. Are they not part of society? What about a two-year-old? An infant?
I agree with you on one point - the boundry line of intelligence is the ability to conciously respect the rights of others. However, it is clear that we repect of the rights of humans (infants, the deranged, the senile) who cannot accomplish this goal. Why?
Your last line is particularly dangerous. At one time, the rights of slaves were not recognized by all societies. The rights of women are still not respected by many. How does that diminish the argument in favor of granting rights by expanding "society" to include such individuals?
The expansion of the concept of "society" has been a long-running trend. History tends not to look favorably upon those who argued for its limitations. Do you think in 500 years, there will be abortions? Neither do I.
see E. L. Doctorow's essay on Bush. Doesn't really matter what he says (Bush). It's completely Orwellian anyway. We torture under the auspices of the Department of Love, didn't you hear? I think Bush as sociopath may explain my gut instant dislike even hate for this person. The smirk. The constant litany of lies. I find it just amazing we have sunk so low as to have leadership like this. Damn shame. Used to be an amazing place, America.
By E.L. Doctorow
The Unfeeling President
But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man.
He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.
But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be.
They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life . . . they come to his desk as a political liability, which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.
How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice.
He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.
Yet this president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing -- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends.
A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the president who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the 40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills - it is amazing for how many people in this country this president does not feel.
But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest 1 percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the quality of air in coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half benefits for overtime because this is
Yeah, about those approval ratings, try finding a poll that has equal weighting of Democrats and Republicans. You'll be hardpressed to do so...
See my post below about potential.
Why should potential matter at all? Yes, and embryo can, and very likely will, become a thinking, feeling being. No argument. However, until it has done its growing, it is NOT a thinking, feeling being. Nor has an embryo ever been a thinking, feeling being (that is also significant, since things would be quite different if we were trying to justify research by taking a thinking, feeling being and stopping its thoughts and feelings...but we are not doing that here). In the real, objective, here-and-now world an embryo is JUST a lump of living genetic material.
Maybe if you could convince me that the future is a real physical place, and that by stopping an embryo from growing we are really killing someone who lives in that place, maybe then I would agree with you. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that time works that way, nor does it seem likley. The future HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, and as such the potential future of this thoughtless, feelingless lump of genetic material is not significant.
I hardly see how "brain structure" has any relationship to rights.
Very well, I shall explain it to you.
We allocate rights to thinking, feeling persons. It is a scientific fact that humans do their thinking and feeling with their brains. It is also a scientific fact that embryos do not think, nor do they feel (at least they don't have any more feeling than a plant). Therefore, no brain = no think/feel, whereas brain = think/feel. Therefore, no brain (not a missing or damaged brain, but "no brain and never was a brain") = no rights.
If we meet aliens who clearly think and feel and yet who do not have brains, then we will have to come up with a new definition of "person" that applies to the alien's physiology. These can be two distinct definitions, one for the aliens, and one for the humans. When deciding when it is ok to experiment on alien genetic material, we will use the alien's definition, and when deciding when it is ok to experiment on human genetic material, we will use the human's definition. Until that happens, however, the issue is moot.
This applies just as well to A.I. When a thinking, feeling AI is built, we will address its issues. Until then, we can stick with what we really know about real humans.
Lastly, the issue of dogs and cats. Yes, they are thinking/feeling beings and we do experiments on them all the time. I guess that suggests that our moral position on when it is ok to do experiments is *lax* (as opposed to "strict"). It gives us even more room to experiment. If you want to maintain that we should not do experiments on them (because of their fully-developed thinking/feeling brains), then do so. This is no way contradicts the position that it is ok to experiment on nonthinking/nonfeeling embryos.
I believe that covers it. Any other questions?
Athiests will never betray the concept of the seperation of Church and State.
What if they force people not to practice religion?
Err... that'd be betraying the concept of the seperation of Church and State? I'm not sure how you'd force people to not practice religion anyways... though you can squash public displays. At any rate, the idea is that the State doesn't take it's direction from the Church.
Athiests will never make policy based on the precepts of a particular faith.
Not all Atheists are rational. They just don't believe in God. An Atheist could believe that ghost pirates are real and he enacts legislation based on stopping ghost pirates from invading.
Well, I'd argue that said athiest believes in ghost pirates and as such has faith (because I've never, ever heard of anyone providing credible proof of their existence) and as such, isn't much of an athiest.
Athiests will never favour the moral code of one small group over their multitude of neighbours because they attend the same church.
So whose moral code do they favour, then? That of the majority? Is that better? If "fundies" favour miniority morals, then why are they elected by the majority?
Choosing morals based on considered thought is better than, "Because the priest said so last Sunday".
An atheist believes life is very precious because when you die, it's over.
Not necessarily. Atheists might believe life sucks because there is no God. All being an Atheist means is you don't believe in God.
Possibly true. However, I'd certainly be willing to argue that those athiests are unlikely to be the kind of dynamic individual who wants to lead the county. They're more likely to dress all in black and hang around with anarchists.
Some religious fundies are a little freer with human life because the afterlife is so much better if you're good, and if it isn't you deserved it anyway.
Sure, some are. Don't put them in power, please. But don't discriminate against religious people because some of their members give them a bad name.
ALL religious people take their orders from their sky-dwelling invisible friend, sometimes as those orders are interpreted by a professional assistant to the invisible friend. Since I can't speak with this invisible friend and ask him to confirm his orders, I'd rather not have anyone acting on his authority have authority over me, thank you very much.
Pretty nutty idea given that humans ARE, in fact, animals.
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
So much for my clone having gills.
hypothesis = There will be a winner in the superbowl. Don't bother.
"The NSF's budget has increased every year during the Bush administration."
That's a totally meaningless statement. The NSF budget has increased almost every year since its inception, regardless of presidential administration.
"Oh yeah, and the NIH budget doubled[pdf] from 1999 to 2003. For several of those years, a man named George W. Bush was president."
Yeah, that's nice. Bush also added an entirely new research arm to the NIH (bioterrorism), capped NIH budget growth to 2.5% in 2004 and 2005, and is proposing a nearly 30% cut in NIH funding in 2006. He's a real friend to the sciences. But, hey...at least he dramatically increased funding for weapons development! Yay!
Seriously...you have to be either stupid or willfully ignorant to think that George Bush has done anything to help the sciences. And IAAS, so I know what I'm talking about.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
I'm an atheist, but some of your claims are too enthusiastic. The officially atheist USSR had very little respect for individual human lives.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Time again for one of my "Practically It's not Flamebait" soapbox discussions.
Has anyone ever notice that there is not a single governement on this planet soley based on scientific fact? Every government on this planet is based (even those of athiest view points) is based on morals and religous belief. Even if such a government existed, our government would probably react like this.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Bah! I've been reading Richard K. Morgan's newest, "Woken Furies", and I have to admit the idea of having a body with genetically-engineered gecko grips in the fingers and toes has enormous appeal. Shame on Bush for denying us biological enhancements in our future bodies!
"If you look carefully, you'll find that 3 is "more than 2 or 3". "
3 > 3?
No. Perhaps you should review your basic math 110 inequalities.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
why hold back science? Bush can't stop it, just let it go do its thing.
Bush must have watched the island. This isn't what we want to do. We don't want to create strange creatures to do experiments on. Just lay off. It will happen. Don't let the bible or your parents cloud your mind.
studing Social Security, at most it will need minor adjustments.
However, those people aren't quoted and kept out of the light.
People who do not study it use the following logic to determine it will fail:
"It's obvious it can't work."
Noe numbers, no in depth look. Most american believe it is failing(wrongfully) but have no idea how it works, the checks and balances and the fact it is so complicated people can actual have a carrier specializing in it.
It's like when people see a couple of government workers fixing a water pipe and say "What a waste of money, that road was perfectly fine."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
They applauded because Bush's proposals to "fix" social security were terrible and no one wanted them except the investement firms and big business who would get to play with all the money. They applauded because they actually managed to stop some small part of the Bush agenda (albiet a small part).
Yet the demographic timebomb that will distroy Social Security as we know it continues to tick, and the democrats offer no alternatives. Credit President Bush with meeting the problem head on. In the end the solution must contain elements of his proposal. Social Security will become the anti-poverty program it was originally intended to be and not a national socialist retirement program. The democrats defend the indefensable, and they take pleasure in it. How petty their agenda has become.
an ill wind that blows no good
First, I would like to point out that you are also "just a lump of living genetic material". I hope you do not feel diminished by that. I still respect your rights either way.
It is obvious that a first-trimester fetus does not feel or think in any meaningful sense. However, it will, in all likelyhood. Is this sufficient basis for rights? If we limit ourselves to "real world" scenarios, the closest analogies would be people who are sleeping, unconcious, and in comas. Do these people have rights? Apparently there is wide agreement that they do. Yet they are not thinking or intelligent in any meaningful sense, especially the latter two groups. Why do these groups have rights? There is one difference, of course, between these groups and fetuses. The unconcious people not only will be intelligent but also have been intelligent. Does this make a difference? Why?
One ethical system I particularly like is to imagine that we all do have souls, and are sitting around in a committee before we are born and our bodies are selected. What rules would we choose, if we had no idea who we were going to be? Would we choose a system of rules that allowed a 25% chance we would be killed before we ever got out of the womb, even if it did make life better for the lucky 75%? I doubt it. One of the problems we face in the "real world", of course, is that it is that winning 75% that are calling the shots. Is this ethical?
You seem to be caught up on "thinking and feeling". Tonight, when you are asleep, I could flood your room with carbon monoxide. You would never feel a thing. Is this OK? If not, why not? As for animals, they indeed "think and feel"; however, they do not do so at a level which I consider worthy of rights. More critically, they never will.
You should not limit yourself to "real world" situations. Hypotheticals can be quite enlightening. With respect to AI, you had better get used to answering these questions. They are coming quickly enough.
it should be legal to do tests on them. bottom line.
imagine the gains? we can learn to restore the sick, bring back extinct animals of the world. not to mention learn so much more about ourselves. the more we learn about ourselves the more we know of our moral obligations in this world.
measure up your pros and cons
Sadly I'm out of mod points, myself.
... I am waiting for the 'modified' vs 'non' versions of the olympics
"Oooooh that's gotta hurt! there goes his kneecap, Joe!" "Yes Ted, but remember the 2010 ruling: there's no penalty if they get it replaced in the twenty second time limit."
-Magdalene --"there are 10 types of people in the world, those who read binary, and those who don't"
This science will be followed in other countries, and when their research provides benefits or other cures for malignant diseases or genetics, Americans will predictably be hypocrites and use the research for themselves and their families.
= 9J =
Your grandfather didn't think Social Security would be there for him. It is.
Your father did not think that Social Security would be there for him. It probably will be.
You think Social Security will be there for you even if it's just a little.
From this I think you should reach different conclusions than you do in your post. You should not expect Social Security to be there for you at all.
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
... and spells doom for all otakus wishing for a real catgirl.
I think you've summed it up nicely. The ethical equation isn't "this thing must die so I can live". It's "this thing, and lots of others like it, must die so that someone in the future may be able to live a while longer".
If the benefits could be laid out directly, and the cost quantified, it would be easier.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
There's a wider variety of opinion on Slashdot than virtually any other webforum I've frequented.
That said, there is a HUGE difference between the genetically modified crops industry and genetic medical research. Very very very few slashdotters oppose GM crops in principle. Only a science-fearing luddite would be against such a thing. HOWEVER, if you take a good look at what's happened with companies like Monsanto, you'll see why many slashdotters are against GM food companies. Monsanto makes GM seeds, farmer A plants them, next door farmer B's fields get contaminated with GM seeds deposited by animals, Monsanto successfully sues farmer B for patent infringment. I think a lot of geeks around here are against patenting genes, especially the ones who are against computer code patents. Few here object to Bush's stance against patenting human embryos. Short-term (e.g. 14 years or less) copyright, sure, but patenting code, be it genetic or computer, is just messed up. On top of this, Monsanto has developed GM seeds with terminator genes and while they have yet to put these seeds on the market, it could lead to many small-time farmers being put out of business in addition to rising food prices. It might even affect the evironment quite drastically if cross-pollinated plants turn out to be sterile or stunted.
A lot of geeks here loved it when Bush made the declaration that we were going to Mars (though they were very rightly skeptical.) A lot of geeks here love corporations like Apple, Novel, Red Hat, even IBM. I'm all for fighting groupthink, but that doesn't mean exaggerating or inventing groupthink where none exists.
Stop modding this shit up! It's just not true.
It's not as simple as you say, and disregarding all those that oppose you as fundamentalist or that it is "so simple" is insulting and prevents you from understanding other people. For example, one could oppose abortion on pragmatic grounds. For example, one could accept that fewer unwanted children should be born, but believes that legal abortion increases the unintended pregnancy rate by lowering the perceived cost of unprotected sex. One could also oppose abortion because they feel that the social costs of legalized abortion outway the social benefits. One could also oppose abortion because from a truly Lockean Social Contract (Declaration of Independence has many rip-offs from Locke's Second Tristise), believe in a limited state (your rights end where mine begin), and believe that once formed as a human being, the unborn human has a right to life that cannot be "choiced" away.
Notice I made three arguments without invoking G-d that would all allow one to have a completely secular opposition to abortion.
Yet you stated, "There's no position, secular or religious, that can argue a woman's rights to her body are less important than a microscopic drop of unconscious, totipotent DNA. No way around it. You can only win this argument by invoking God."
One of the biggest risks to civil discourse in this country, on both sides, has been watch SO MANY major issues devolve into name calling.
I'm not going to get into an abortion debate, and my views on the criminalization of abortion or a constitutional choice to privacy in the affairs on ones body are none of your business. However, your assertion that there are no views on the opposing side other than your strawman is dangerous. There is a reason that support for abortion has dropped in recent polls from 67% to around 55% in the past 8 years... and I'll give you a hint, it isn't 33% of America being fundamentalist Christians growing to 45%... but the sheer shrillness of abortion rights supporters in their demonization of their opponents have certainly helped increase it.
Once upon a time, in the late 90s, the voices defending abortion were reasonable and the voices opposing them were religious nut-jobs. Well, 8 years later, the voices on the left scream about abortion as though it was the ONLY thing that mattered to Americans, pro-choice rallies involve increasingly nutty people with T-shirts that say "it's a nice day, I think I'll have an abortion," and pretty soon, people say a pox on both your houses.
Hilary Clinton seems to be the only pro-choice politician that realizes that celebrating abortions (as certain NARAL spokespeople have, suggesting that each abortion brings 1-2 voters permanently into their camp for having their life saved) makes people uncomfortable. Sure there is a "pro-abortion" group that celebrates abortions, but I assume that they are 5% of the population. There is also the militant "anti-abortion" crew that believes abortion = murder and supports clinic bombing, etc... but I assume that they are also small.
But there is a LARGE middle group that realizes that banning abortions would be problematic to say the least, is sympathetic to a single, poor woman that became pregnant and can't afford motherhood, but isn't thrilled with either the glamorization of abortion OR some of the comments. For example, look at your description of a future human life... To any parent or expecting parent, they remember those ultra-sound pictures, and you just characterized their child (or future child) as having been "a microscopic drop of unconscious, totipotent DNA," which isn't very nice.
There are legit arguments on both sides, and it isn't a comfortable issue for people on ANY side... but the more those on the "Pro-Life" crowd seem like reasonable church-going people, and those on the "Pro-choice" side seem like raving lunatics, the more the public will turn against abortion rights... And once the anti-abortion wing becomes the majority, the litmus test on judges will become even less tenable than before, and you'll see right-wing court appointees that make Roberts and Alito seem light communist hippies...
A ban on "creating human-animal hybrids" is more debatable but we damn sure better get a line drawn somewhere and we better do it fast or science is going to race out ahead of ethics and make one hell of a mess for someone to clean up.
... and both average and median wealth and health worldwide are at the highest points in history.
... Slashdot has a word for this: FUD. It has been predicted ten thousand times and has never materialized.
... that's the only effect).
... well, frankly the people in that time will simply adapt and learn to live in that world. As we always have. In 2150, this debate will look like the 1850 debate over blood transfusions.
I call bullshit.
In 1985, genetic engineering would create monster hybrids. Real life: some GM crops have cross-pollination problems, but insulin and other GenE drugs save millions from painful early death or disability.
In 1980, VHS would give everyone private access to porn. The resulting moral oblivion would destroy worker productivity. Real life: a billion people a day look at porn on the net now
In 1975, IVF was going to create soulless babies and violate the sanctity of the womb. Real life: 50k couples/year can have happy, healthy children.
In 1960, nuclear power would turn the whole world into a toxic wasteland with mutated, deformed babies. Today: a few accidents, and storage is a political football, but billions have power and birth defects are down. Power in the winter saves lives, lots of them.
In 1930, The zipper would allow unfettered rapid access to self abuse, with the same effects predicted as for porn in 1980. Today - do you feel like undoing leather trouser laces just to take a leak?
In 1850, the blood transfusion violated the sanctity of the body. Putting one person's essence into another would create a soulless monstrosity. Today: No, really, that's what religious conservatives said at the time. I'm not kidding.
In 1800, The automatic loom would put everyone out of work and impoversh the world. Today: people from countries that underwent the industrial revolution - even the 'poor' - have A/C, TV, and automobiles, and work 8 or 10 hour service jobs instead of 16-hour manufacturing shifts. Very few factory workers die anymore.
This is an OLD freaking song and dance. Every technology or field of science is faced with fearmongers who predict the moral devastation that will result. And while accidents and evil doubtless happen and occasionally use technology as an instrument, no field of science or technology has ever killed or harmed more people than it has saved. Caution is warranted. Care is warranted. "science racing ahead of ethics and creating a hell of a mess"
We are talking about using one or a few human genes in other animals to determine their biochemistry. Blocking this will only mean that we will be buying our biotechnology from China in 25 years (period
But frankly, if down the road some technology created actual intelligent hybrids
The sky is NOT falling. And it isn't gonna.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Don't take what he said so personally; he's not saying everyone is an idiot in the United States. And, he's honest in what he's saying. People outside the U.S. are amazed that Reagan, Bush, and Bush again could get votes.
I got on a bus in Munich, Germany, during Reagan's first administration. Even though I know no German, I needed some information from the bus driver. I pointed to a paper on which was written the name of where I wanted to go. The bus driver was friendly, and obviously got the idea, that he should tell me where to get off the bus. Then somehow he communicated to me that he wanted to know my country. Somehow I communicated to him that I was from the United States.
Then, so loudly that everyone on the bus could hear, he shouted "Reagan [something in German] GROSS BANDIT". Clearly he thought that no one on the bus would disagree with him. Unlike most people in the U.S., I know something of the activities of the U.S. government, so I agreed. I sat next to him, and he was very friendly. He stopped the bus and pointed to where I should walk.
The fact is, the reputation of the U.S. is worsening because most U.S. citizens live in a fantasy world and don't want to know that their government is corrupt.
Becoming angry about a reality is not a successful strategy. Almost everyone I've met outside the U.S. realizes that U.S. citizens should be judged personally, and not for the foolishness and ignorance of most of them.
-
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits and paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans get Iraq oil profits, and American citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?
Basically, Bush's proposal, while horribly explained, wasn't what you described at all. It WASN'T supported by Wall Street, Wall Street HATED the idea of being forced into managing accounts for a government program managing $1000-$5000 accounts. Wall Street "fat cats" don't like to handle less than $100,000, although recently they seem more willing to handle 10k-25k to get people in the door. A government regulated investment program basically allowing them to offer low-fee balanced mutual funds isn't terribly interesting to them.
:)
Bush's proposal was straight out, we cut social security to a realistic figure. The personal savings accounts that he pushed HAD nothing to do with solvency.
The idea, hatched from think tanks was: 1) cut future benefits to bring the program to solvency. 2) offer people something in return for accepting the bitter medicine, and 3) keep the government from owning private industry and becoming a fascist regime...
Clinton proposed investing Social Security in the market, and the Republicans justifiably screamed from an ideological point. The notion of the government taking tax money and investing in private enterprise would make the government "pick winners and losers" in the market, warping the capital markets. The idea of the better rate of return seems to make sense, instead of realizing that buying shares in companies gives you a say in how they run... and even if the government didn't vote their shares, it would warp capital markets. More capital chasing the same amount of business (and pulling it out of the economy via taxes and shoving into a government account is a straight transfer), would increase demand for stock through government policy, which would increase prices, which by definition lowers the expected rate of future returns. Essentially, any government backed investment program does, to some extent, create a government required economic advantage to being an American publicly traded company (cheaper access to capital), which warps markets.
Also, the program ISN'T solvent... Sure the "trust fund" is there, but it basically is a transfer payment. When the government stops taking the social security surplus and has a social security deficit (paying back the debt as it is redeemed), then the government needs to either raise revenues (taxes) or cut spending, or increase borrowing to cover that short fall. Since the government deficit ignores the surplus taken from social security, there isn't even political pressure to not expect that money. The change from 16 workers/retiree to 2.4 works/retiree is problematic, and will require a MASSIVE change in how the program works, or else a revolt of younger workers who can't outvote the retirees/near-retirees... it'll be a disaster.
The private accounts were always meant to be optional, and would HAVE to be. Making them mandatory (although, eventually you could have a mandatory investment into treasury bonds, which would be effectively the same thing as social security but without letting the government play accounting games) would defeat the purpose because of the objection to warping markets.
The idea was, cut benefits, but let workers opt out. Assuming that they earn a better return, matching historical market returns, then they will end up with "about as much money," maybe a bit more, than the current system calls for while eliminating the current problem of social security going into the red. Basically, private accounts were not part of solvency, but would improve the government balance sheet (not actually kept or reported) by reducing future liabilities. The whole idea of retirement accounts was for every dollar you put in, you would lose the future value of the dollar in benefits down the road. So in the long-term, it was a balance sheet neutral operation, but hurt government cash flows (more borrowing now because cash flow from social security would drop) in the short term.
It was terribly confusing, but most neo-conservative economic ideas are...
If embryos have rights, I do not feel it matters at all either how the embryo came about nor where it is currently located. Something's rights are dependant on what it is and what it will become, given the opportunity to do so. For any being that due to circumstance has a low probability of becoming intelligent, but as that entity, in the right circumstances, as a high probability, I would still grant the being rights (as well as feel under a moral obligation to help rescue it).
For example, if I found a wounded man in the middle of the desert, I would find the following logic objectionable:
This man is unconcious. Furthermore, his probability of survival, without my aid, is virtually nil. Therefore, he has no rights and I may kill, rape, or rob him as I please.
Instead, I would see a moral obligation to help this person, if there was any way that I could reasonably expect to do so.
This is analogous to an embryo in a jar. It is what it is. However, under current circumstance, it has a low probability of survival (and note that unlike the man in the desert, is assuredly in this situation of no fault of its own). Yet it is clearly possible for this embryo to be rescued, and given a high chance of survival. Therefore we should do so. Better yet, we should not put embryos in such situations in the first place. Fortunately, IVF procedures are getting much better about producing fewer "excess" embryos. With the right technological and political pressure, this can be driven to zero.
Can you believe it? I got modded down to -1 for this, even though Jay Leno and David Letterman have been making "Bush is stupid" jokes several times a week for years:
I will be very very glad when someone else is elected, so I don't have to hear all those "Bush is an idiot" jokes. It's even worse outside the U.S., where there aren't any Republican fundamentalists, so almost everybody makes "Bush is an idiot" jokes.
--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits and paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans get Iraq oil profits, and American citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?
> OwnedByTwoCats wasn't making a logical argument
I'd agree there, but you seem to be attempting to, and yet you appear to fall into the same vapidity.
> Anti-abortionists are opposed to the recognition of the fundamental human right of self determination and control of one's medical affairs for women
No, "they" just believe that the right of self-determination vests a bit earlier than you do. I.E. while that pre-sentient homo sapien organism is a much smaller and less viable clump of cells than its mother is.
> Many anti-war people, while they may not be opposed to particular individual soldiers, are, in general, opposed to the institution of soldiering: that is to say, they are anti-military
You changed the definition of the word "solider" on him. You might want to learn more about the word "amphiboly" and why it's illogical. It's very common in rhetoric.
> Unlike the anti-abortion crowd, the pro-abortion crowd, in general, supports life in other situations that do not conflict with the fundamental human right to controls one's medical affairs
This is only true if you believe that they all fit some anti-evolution, pro-fundamentalism, anti-science, pro-war, conservative stereotype you now use to divide the world into "us" and "them" so that you don't have to deal with those ideas which make you uncomfortable.
For the record, I can name at least one person who opposes killing *anyone* whether it be for criminal acts or whether it is merely because they are unwanted. Their beliefs don't fit into tiny boxes, either. I'd mention the others who went about terminating "undesirables" but I'd rather not go on such a tangent.
> This isn't a matter of logic or rhetoric
Indeed. These are vapid labels we use to create an "identity" (which scarcely be called that, being so far removed from actual individuality) from the ultimately meaningless approval or disapproval of society. Inherent in your post is that one should reason from the population to the individual who must necessarily be a hypocrite because some of their beliefs corrolate with incompatible ones, irrespective of how many individuals actually hold incompatible beliefs and utterly ignorant of any nuance in their belief that might not so easily fit into the little boxes of "pro-X" or "anti-Y."
I will not swallow one line of reasoning merely because the "only" alternative is more even abhorrent. I will swallow neither. The "left" and "right" have become like teams, wherein if one is on one side they become a "traitor" (perhaps in a very real sense, given some of the US laws) should they adopt a view contrary to the team they "should" belong to, or especially if the wrong team comes to power.
As long as you believe things merely because your "team" does, you have no mind of your own. The fact that your characterization of your ideological opponents are blatant caricatures without any form of subtlety does not speak well on this point.
I like how easily you conflated "capitalism" with state-created problems like huge legal expenses and government granted monopolies on medication.
Incidentally, no, I don't everyone finds its repugnant to buy a kidney... I think everyone except for someone who needs a kidney and was told they aren't worthy of it finds it repugnant.
something that came out of that guys mouth ?
he sounds a lot like my 88 year old grandmother that has alzhiemers.
Seriously can any follow him ?
"Hey, I was Manimal! You saying you want a piece of me, W?"
Consider healthcare. Both said all the lovely things about caring for the American people. Both don't give a damn. Bush supports insurance companies. Kerry supports trial lawyers.
:-(
Well. As a suffering human, which jerk will screw me over the worst?
I don't really care about the insurance companies. Their costs may go up or down. They pass that on to me because I'll pick the insurance company that looks like the best deal. I could live with high-cost high-payout insurance or low-cost low-payout insurance.
I do really care about the trial lawyers, in a very negative way. They are to a great extent responsible for excess medical tests and intervention. For example, Caesarean births were uncommon until some asshole lawyer made a career out of getting massive jury awards from doctors that didn't perform the risky procedure and ended up with a damaged baby. (the jury is a sucker for a damaged baby, and they don't really consider all the Caesarean-related risks) Medical insurance is expensive in part because doctors are paying insanely high malpractice insurance, again because of the damn trial lawyers.
OK, so I vote Bush while trying not to vomit.
It's like that on a lot of other issues too.
And doing genetic research that's destructive to society because it has a possibilty of cheapening life.
... and that of their children ... and their pets ... and their plants.
... too much death, especially since now we have computer graphics to pick up some of the slack.
"possibility of cheapening life". That's rich.
150 years ago in the US most people worked 16-hour grueling manufacturing shifts. Workers died and were mutilated on the job regularly, including children, and society was generally pretty callous to all this. The average lifespan wasn't a whole lot more than half of today's.
Even 50 years ago death was far more common, and the world wars killed a number of people that's almost incomprehensible.
Today, a few coal miners dying is national news, instead of a regular occurrence. People live 85+ years, and spend increasingly large amounts of their income protecting their health
A developed nation losing 2000 people in a war is big news - and sparks a national debate. Not so long ago, that was peanuts.
Most nations have eliminated capital punishment. All but a handful have eliminated it for minors and the mentally ill. Nations spend buckets of money on their citizens' lifespans and health. In fact, developed nations spend more on that than on anything else.
Scientists and educators are progressively more careful and less wasteful about using animals in research and education. Even the venerable frog dissection is nearly eliminated in schools these days
No, we're not cheapening life, or even risking that. On the contrary, we're clinging to it with tenacity and desperation more every year.
Even 'moral values' issues like abortion are only becoming issues the last few decades because life has actually started to become a precious thing. 100 years ago people didn't spend much more time thinking about abortion than they did about animal testing.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
EVERY human who ever received an injection of embryonic stem cells had terminal cancer 18 months later resulting from the injection.
There's a bold statement of fact. Reference, please?
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
I don't want to get into a quote war, so I'll just number these. If you're interested, reply. If not, no hard feelings :-)
(1) I'm not sure if you meant otherwise, but the State forcing people not to practice Religion IS a violation of the separation of church and state. It goes both ways. It just so happens the church is currently exercising more control over the state now. And it is indeed possible to stop someone from practicing a religion. Shut down their churches, make initiatives to murder people that do, etc.
(2) If the atheist in question believes in ghost pirates, but does not believe them to be god-like, then they are still an atheist. An atheist is not one without faith. I think everyone has SOME degree of faith. How do you know the sky won't turn green tomorrow? Yes, there's prior evidence, but there has to be SOME degree of faith there to believe it completely.
(3) There's no saying an Atheist will actually consider something rationally. They may think "Well, making THIS law benefits me so I'll do it." This is no different than a fundie making a law "because the priest said so." Or maybe the ghost-pirate told them to.
(4) Black-clad anarchist Atheists could indeed run for President. Maybe they want to "fuck shit up" or something. I mean, it's possible. In any case, that was only an example.
(5) NOT all religious people take their orders from some magical old man in the sky. That's just not true. You can study religious texts and try to understand the morals they teach.
In any case, the thrust of my argument is that there are many kinds of Atheists and religious people. Furthermore, your definition of "Atheist" seems to be someone completely rational and without undue influence.
Frankly, I'd be more comfortable with an agnostic in power. All the same that you said applies, but they have no stated view. Thoughts?
No big. We'll just buy what we need from China.
... I can't have my five-assed monkey?
Oh, great, you've cleared up the meaning of that one objectively defined term by defining it with two subjective ones (sentient, intelligent). Thanks, that helps a lot.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
RvW is toast once Alito gets a crack at it on the supreme court.
what obligation would we have to protect them? Could we improve the 1/3000 success rate? Should we? At what cost? How much of a difference would there be between "not saving" and actually "killing" them? Would "accidental" killings be permissable? I don't think those are easy questions.
Note than in this case, we are right near the edge of the odds that I consider "reasonable". If the butterfly's chances were 1/100, I would definitely object to killing them, particularly intentionally or with willful disregard, as well as call for their active protection. On the other extreme, if the odds were one tens of millions, there is little we should do beyond avoiding deliberate slaughter.
I had not thought of that - people with 401k's obviously have all the money we will need to pay for people who never saved - easy enough to sqeeze money from by raising the rates you are taxed at as your withdrawl money. Scary.
So yeah, the Roth is perfect since there's no more tax to be had from it.
So kids - Roth and 401k!! Don't delay, start today!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The parent is right - no brain, no nerves. period. There's no fucking soul you goddamned idiots (that use tortured mouse healing as long as it will save your ass when you need it).
I have encountered a lot of different approaches to this question. "Potential matters" is the only one that I find consistent - by which I mean it does not lead me to conclusions that I am highly convinced are false.
As for "past matters", I agree that having a "past" is an additional consideration in favor of rights, but I find it neither necessary nor sufficient. The latter is more obvious. Terry Shaivo had a past, but no future. Most people agreed that she no longer had full rights. As for the former, I would offer the following hypothetical: If chickens were extremely intelligent (a big if, I know), could we still eat eggs? I would say no, and would fully support the armed chicken insurrection.
As for your AI question, I would say it occurs when the code is executed. Why? Because I believe there is another criteria for rights which I have not yet discussed - uniqueness. When talking about meat machines, this generally is not an issue as even identical twins are unique due to differences in other elements of their biochemistry. However, uniqueness is important for issues such as AI or borg/hive style hypothetical entities. Upon execution of an AI, it will begin to change, and therefore become unique and become worthy of rights.
Yes, we do have some sort of sliding scale for animal rights, which is based most irrationally on how cute and fuzzy they are. I am not particularly proud of these ethics. I do not believe animals have any rights, and we should use them as we see fit. In general, our interests align so this is not as bad as it sounds. Of course, we should not harm or torture them for no purpose. With respect to infants, yes, they are on the sliding scale, too. The question is when do they slide past the most important right of all - the right to their very life.
The choice of who has what rights when cannot be left to the choice of another (in this case, obviously biased) individual. On the contrary, this is one of the most important debates we must make as a society.
It would be a scary world where the whim of one person had the power to veto or discard the rights of another.
are falling rapidly and generally well below replacement rates. Europe and many east-Asian countries are already under severe demographic stress due to the lack of children. Japan is already in population decline! It will not be long before this becomes a big issue in the states as well.
I didn't conflate capitalism with anything. Capitalism is an anathema to medical care all on its own. Even setting the legal and monopolistic issues aside.
When pure ideal capitalism meets medicine it results in blackmail. Capitalism at its heart seeks to set prices to maximize profits, and exact just as much from consumers as they are willing to pay.
If they could get away with it, medicine would operate like used car salesmen, the price would not be posted, if you asked it would be "make me an offer". And the gamemanship to determine what the maximum you will pay for the car will ensue.
Except in the case of medicine that simply amounts finding out what you *have*. Because if the consumer walks away from the table he's chosen death. And if the consumer walks away with any assets left they were a missed opportunity for the salesman, because if he'd held out for them -- he'd have gotten them too.
Sure there's a few out there who would choose death over insolvency in order to leave something for their children etc, but most people when offered even the chance at life will go for it, at any price.
--
2nd nobody tells a person in need of a kidney they aren't "worthy" of having one.
I'd like to politely suggest learning about statistics and how polls are supposed to work when used scientifically rather than to bend statistics for your own agenda. :)
"1) Your time spent on this calculation could have been spent in gainful employment."
Actually, I am at work. It's a slow day and I have lots of time. I can only read so many research articles in a day. But you do have a greater point. If I could find a way to donate this time to something more valuable, I would. However, I find value, both personal and for humanity, in making such posts and having these important discussions. For your information, most of my charity dollars go to exactly what you described.
"2) We live in a world that has exploded into a population of over 6 billion."
Birth rates are falling like a rock. Population will level off soon and then begin to fall. Most industrialized nations are facing a severe economic disaster if they don't get their birthrates up. The US is the best off of the bunch, fortunately, which is why you don't hear about it so much.
"Already we have more people than could be sustained at the current American's standard of living."
Technology will improve, drastically, long before that happens.
"We are already gearing up for big fights over remaining resources of energy (oil)"
We won't be burning oil in fifty years.
with other resources (potable water) to come. Unchecked, unrestrained growth will lead either to famine or war, and probably both.
Water is not an issue. Energy is. If you have energy, you have fresh water. People have been predicting the environmental apocalypse for decades. They have been wrong every time.
"b) a myopic focus on saving lives of local kids is inefficient, non-pragmatic, nationalist and borderline racist -- why so much time spent on saving an American embryo when that energy could save 100's of kids in Sudan?"
Let's follow that logic. All American social programs should be undone and the money spent in the third world. I am for it. Are you? Given that the government is going to take my money, it at least should spend it where it is needed most.
I am interested in why you think it is expensive to save local children. The ones I am currently talking about cost nothing to "save" - we are actually spending time and money to kill them.
You backed your position based on an episode of Star Trek.
You should think about that.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
And who I choose to help or how? In any case, I am not a hypocrite. There is no standard to which I hold anyone else that I do not hold myself to. Indeed, I hold myself to much more stringent standards. I would help the dying man in the desert and would expect you to do likewise. However, I never said that I expected you nor anyone else to make all possible positive sum trades, now did I?
I find it amusing that genetically-modified plants, food and other animals are perfectly ok, but the administration draws the line at humans? It seems very inconsistent. Then again, we're talking about... oh, nevermind. Maybe this GM people thing might cut into profits from the diet, plastic surgery and healthcare industries? We wouldn't want that.
I would have replied if not for the fact that I actually support Bush (and the policies for the most part) :S :)
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
to make pig to grow human organ or human hormone like insulin. Banning all art of chimera make a great progress like this moot. Either the president was advancing an agenda against such progress (which is bad in itself) or he was making an uninformed pandering to its conservative base, thinking such banning is without consequence. Both direction are pretty bad ethically IMO.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The WMDs in question had already expired. Nerve gas dosn't keep indefinitely under less-than-ideal storage conditions. As for Saddam's guy saying they still had them, he said it in exchange for $$$$, LOTS OF $$$$. And it WAS only the US that wasy saying they had them - everyone else was saying it wasn't the case. Thats why nobody wanted to invade - there was ZERO credible evidence, and everyone else in the world knew it, and that Bush was a brain-damaged cokehead/alcoholic whose opinions couldn't be trusted. Or don't you think that other countries don't have shrinks on hand to make evaluations of the heads of state of foreign countries and deliver their appraisments? Bush is THE biggest threat to world peace, and people were saying that well before the invasion of Iraq.
Guess you didn't hear that even with the changes Bush mentioned in his speech, imports are expected to stay at current levels OR INCREASE through to 2025 and beyond. His "cutbacks" are BS. But then again, so is pretty much everything he's said since "winning" that first election.
The biggest pork barrel project is Bush's war. He did this because (1) he has an inferiority complex (okay - he does't - he really IS inferior to his predecessors), and (2) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Follow the cash.
Over the last 3 years he has continually "expanded" what he claims are his rights to tapping, as more and more stuff leaked. Until it leaked, he said it was less than 1,800 intercepts, not the millions we now know.
You've been paying too much attention to US media. Try some of the international stuff. The self-censorship in the USA is just as bad as anything China is making google do.
> You backed your position based on an episode of Star Trek.
No, I originally wrote "Please don't kill me" and of course an image of a Horta popped into my head and I just knew I had to go for the gag. And yes I do have all of the original episodes on DVD, in the two episode per DVD editions, but no I have never attended a convention in costume. This is slashdot after all and not serious debate.
Democrat delenda est
OR.... you're placing $100 of your own money into a secure vault which you will collect when you turn 65 (or whatever). The issue of Social Security is always viewed as "I GOTTA GIV UP MAH DAMN MONEY TO SOMEONE ELSE?" and never "The government is taking my money and holding it so I don't blow it foolhardily in between now and when I am old". Obviously the money paid in now is being spent on current retirees, but it's not like you won't get checks yourself when you retire. It's too convinient to pose the issue of Social Security as a loaded question if you are opposed to it.
The USSR were only officially atheists because the Bolsheviks didn't want anyone else competing with them for power. Think about it: If people thank *GOD* for good things, then they won't be thanking the Glorious Revolution! We can't have that, now can we Comrade?
People will do some pretty crazy things in the name of/out of devotion to religion. So totalitarian dictatorships have two choices WRT God: Convince people that God's on their side, or 'convice' them that God doesn't exist (so they'll do crazy shit in the name of the State instead).
If we ban human-animal hybrids, does this make us more or less likely to find Osama bin Laden?
Lovely priorities, really.
The only thing I've learned is that furries pose a bigger threat to America than terrorists. -_-
[o]_O
Given all the Chinese (and other asian countries) don't really have these "religious fundamentalist" problem, it would not be long before United States given up its biomed brain powers to all these countries. Just make sure all your Americans don't blame outsourcing and globalization to the downfall this time.
"actually, you're nice hypothetical question given by social economists is interesting because it depends on how much risk you are willing to take."
Yes, there is a certain level of reward that I would also make this gamble on - but it is quite large. How much would I have to pay you, right now, to take a 1/4 chance of dying? Logically, it would be at least a reward that provided a 33% increase in your future happiness. This is a pretty large reward. I do not think abortion makes the surviving humans 1/3 happier. I am not even sure it makes us much happier at all.
"a big hole in your argument is that unconscious, sleeping, or even people in many types of comas are thinking individuals. There are been people who remember things said to them in the room while in a coma. Dreams are instances of enhanced brain activity(and I've gotten an idea from one or two). unconscious people are in that same realm"
I agree that sleeping and unconcious people are having all sorts of brain activity, and that people in comas occasionally remember something. However, people in such situations are not intelligent in a manner that indicates rights. Can an unconcious person, for example, be "responsible"? Even if an unconcious person were to be held "responsible" for an action they committed while unconcious, we would normally assign the blame to what they did or did not do in preparation for this event.
There are few scenarios which I believe killing another human being (or other intelligent being) is justified. They all involve the same logic - that the killing will save more lives than it will take. War can be one of these situations. Self-defense is another. Unfortunately, there are still things worth fighting for.
Approximately the same standard we use in law. Clearly, it is unjust to punish an innocent person. Clearly, it is unjust to not punish the guilty. Unfortunately, there is a trade off, and we set the error rate somewhere in this area.
With abortion, the numbers are not really much of an issue, for two reasons: first, before conception, the numbers are way to one side. After conception, they are way to the other. There is no mucking around in the grey area. Second, conception brings about a fundamental change in the entity, physically and morally. After this point, it is all grey and slippery slope. Any lines are arbitrarily drawn in the sand.
Ok. An embryo is not a voter and until it is, I do not agree with splitting my political representation with one.
Not all opinions are equal. For instance, the opinion that people with mindsets like yours get to be the arbiters of what is sentient/worthwhile life and what is not pompous and infantile.
It's to be expected since people who follow your line of reasoning like circular patterns.
In short, I hope your god gives you up to the ironic experience of acquiring a debilitating illness that this type of research is working to cure. Perhaps then you will find some merit in working for the greater good instead of bronze-age logic of "a big dude in the clouds says so."
Fact is we don't know if an embryo is a human or not. It depends on how you define human. And about it being morally wrong or not, it also depends on your views and your moral standards. But I see an easy solution to all this trouble. Allow for the creation (and experimentation of any kind) of embryos that have been created from genetically modified material so they cannot possibly become human beings. For example, by modifying a few genes you can create DNA that won't develop a neo cortex. Or even that won't develop a brain. That way, any objections about embryos being humans are eliminated. The scientific community has the freedom to do the needed experiments that could save lives, and those that think an embryo or anything with the potential to become a full human being has rights are assured that no human or potential human is harmed. Yes, some will see the view of labs creating brainless zombies as terrifying, but those are easier to debate preconceptions based on too many bad movies, whereas the discussion of the humanity and rights of embryos will never end, since it's based on the deep beliefs of different parts of the society.
"We should error on the side of protecting life."
Whose life?
It has been pointed out before that the sheer drop in crime rates beginning in the 1990's is attributable in large part to the drop in the segment of the population most likely to commit violent crime. I.e., a considerable majority of the abortions permitted by Roe v. Wade prevented the births of future killers.
Whose life is more worth protecting?
How about quality of life? Should we err more on the side of protecting life even if the quality of it will be drastically lower for the mother, and thus necessarily for the would-be child, who will grow up to be an adult with considerably less to be happy about than a parent who is actually *prepared* to properly administer the life of another human being?
Do we err on the side of protecting "life", no matter how ill-formed, or do we prevent misery of actual lives by cutting short those that are merely potential?
Or, to go back to the Declaration:
Which right is more unalienable? The right to life, or the right to the pursuit of happiness?
I don't know the answer, but I note that the Declaration spoke of the rights of *men*. Not *potential*men*.
I suppose a religious person would point out that God's word comes first; but since they never entertain the possibility that they might be wrong about their God person -- because they never scrutinize the logic of supposing, without question, the notion that something that cannot be shown to exist outside the imagination must be assumed to have ultimate authority -- such a point is negligible. "God's word" must not even exist in the order of considerations until the issuer of "the word" shows that it has the common decency to *show up*. After all, it's a basic standard of behavior we expect from humans; why should an ostensibly omnipotent and morally good being be held to less account when it would obviously hold itself to much more?
It's nice that the Christians all decided to have the same mega-club where they've all decided on the same imaginary friend, and I suppose it's not quite their fault that they can't distinguish between *imagination* and *matter*, but it really only hurts society as a whole to allow them to go on generating policies based on the predications derived from their mental illness.
While we will cure many of these diseases, doing so by using a method which requires sacrificing other humans is both immoral and unnecessary. There are lots of alternatives to and variations of stem-cell research that are unquestionably moral. There is no need to take the low road when we can take the high road to the same place, in about the same time. For example, it was recently demonstrated that we can pluck single cells from embryos (thereby not killing them) and use those to establish stem cell lines. There are still some technical and moral issues here but they are not insurmountable. The basic trick is that we have to wait long enough that the removed cell could not (under normal circumstances) develop on its own into a child, but not so late as to have too much differentiation and no possibility of establish stem-cell growth.
I can understand why people are upset about embryos being aborted (kind of) but why can't we just make it so the doctor has to ask the mother before they can harvest the embryo for stem cells? In my mind, it's no different than organ donation. It may be a difficult question to ask but I'm sure many people would be willing to try to turn a negative thing into a positive. I'm sure many would be opposed to it and that's fine too. If you're truly opposed to it, then you shouldn't use any of the medical breakthroughs that science creates from stem cells but stop trying to ruin it for the rest of us. How many of us reading this right now are going to suffer from alzheimers or parkinson's or even a spinal cord injury in our lifetimes?
Cloning is another thing that I think has been villainized over the years. Obviously, in the future, I'm sure cloning could be used for evil purposes (our own government will probably be behind it) but there is also potential to help people too. Cloning can lead to other breakthroughs in genetics than could end suffering due to genetic conditions. I really wish this country would stop being so scared of science and embrace it. I don't know about anybody else but I'm sick of having the views of the ignorant shoved down my throat by this president.
I have slaughtered a number of animals over the years. I do not consider it cruel at all. Why? Because I compare it to reality. If I were a deer, I would want to die by a hunter's gun. The alternatives generally consist of some combination of starving, disease, and getting eaten alive. I'd prefer the bullet.
I guess I am not sure what you mean by cruel. Do you mean "causing physical pain and/or mental anguish"? In that case, I do not think cruel is synonomous with either unjust or immoral. If I poisoned you in your sleep to night, would that be cruel? You would never know what you were missing and would not feel a thing. Wouldn't this be an example of immoral but not cruel?
I love how your blog claims "socially adjusted" when you enter a discussion with the word "fucking". You are an interesting exercise in irony.
Why are women any more likely to be able to decide the ethics of human life than men? Actually, you could make the reverse argument - they have more self-interest in the matter than men, and therefore their opinion is more likely to be biased in their own favor.
The irony of it all is that usually when science goes amok, it is in the form of new, terrible weapons. Chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, biological weapons. And funny, the only talk I remember from Bush about new weapons is how we need to make some new, "bunker-busting" bombs(which sound like the latest laughable WORMS weapon, hehe, but is of course actually just a way of saying "nuclear bombs that we will use".) And when science doesn't threaten our lives as new weapons, it does so as some kind of new, environmental hazzard/pollutant. Again, the only words I seem to hear from this President on THAT is "self-regulation" and "more study needed." At least that is one bit of science we are allowed to study, I guess.
I am a theist who believes that it would be morally wrong to force my beliefs on others, or to prefer members or practices of my own faith were I in government. I actually think that God would not want that, that it would be 'sin'. Some of the most oppressive regimes around in the world today (and throughout history) are atheist, think about China, Lenin, Stalin, Mao. The point I'm making is not that atheists are evil (we have a lot of evil people that claimed to be theists also), but that your stated position re theism/atheism is not relevant to whether you will try to force your beliefs on others through laws or violence, or to whether you will mess up the separation of Church and State, it is other personal beliefs that determine this. Both theists and atheists should be looking for humility in their leaders. People need to vote for humble leaders rather than leaders that share their own particualar beliefs.
off the backs of younger workers who are paying a STEEP percentage of their income
You don't know the meaning of STEEP. I pay about 70% of my income in taxes. It all depends on how you count naturally. But 30% income tax, + 20% state tax(and it's progressive so the more you earn, the more you pay), + 25% vat, + misc taxes on other goods such as petrol makes it really expensive around here.
In general, I think treating animals well is similar to good samaratanism - something we should expect of other people, shun them if they fail to do, but not enforce by law. I definitely do not consider animals on the same level as humans, though I do support voluntary efforts to improve the conditions of farm animals, especially hogs and chickens. Cows generally have it a bit better.
Unfortunately, there seems to be two extremes in this matter. First, there is the "do it cheap crowd" with only minimal standards enforced by law. Second is the whacky enviro left, which while pushing for decent standards for animal treatment, lumps it with all sorts of anti-science such as pathological fears of chemicals or anything "unnatural". This drives up the price too much. People like me, who would be willing to pay a bit more for meat raised humanely, are stuck either conceding the cruel practices or pay double to endulge someone else's irrationality. I have a couple of friends who are PETA types and I have tried to convince them that there are lots of people like me who could be swayed by voluntary standards, but these friends tend to be all or nothing types.
As for hunting, I simply consider it part of proper game management. It is a complete falsehood to believe that nature is in some sort of "balance" or is optimal without human interference. This is especially false given that we have dramatically reduced predator populations, causing animals such as deer and rabbits to wreak havoc. Excepting a few idiots, most hunters I know are very knowledgable about the game they hunt and care deeply about the population's health and habitat.
"You do not have to be "radical" or even a "liberal"; to think bush sucks, and will continue to suck. And this has everything to do with science. Will we get funding for ACTUAL science? Or Junk science - like oil company funded research that claims global warming is not happening? Will his cleaner domestic energy sources be real - or is he just saying that? Has he lied about things in the past? Should we trust him now?"
Trust... No.. Bush's promise to "Break the Addiction" was broken in less than twenty four hours.
"What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels COULD displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.
But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are."
So what are the two breakthroughs Bush referred to? Sounds like he had something specific in mind.
I think the issue is where does life begin? How and where you draw the line? Is it a person at 8 months because it can survive outside the womb? Is it a person when neuron start to grow? One thing that is interesting to me is how a persons desires dictate the state of the "fetus" life. ie couple wants a child very badly, when the child is aborted naturally they have lost a child to them, As opposed to a mother who does not what to be pregnant, it is just a part of her body that she can do whatever she wants to with.
From just minimal research, a majority 80% of RU486 instances the egg is fertilized and the drug does not allow the egg to implant in the uterus wall, the other 20% prohibits fertilization.
Since I am posting so late this will probably get lost in the masses of slashdot but I said my piece
"If you like Battlestar Galactica, you're probably a huge nerd." -Stephen Colbert
"Bold Statement" WTF!?!?!
At one time, saying the Earth was round could have been claimed to be a "Bold Statement" but not today. Ditto for the fact that everyone treated with embryonic stem cells receives a death sentence. If you don't know this, you must be a goat-fucking backward Neanderthal.
Let me guess...you believe that in the beginning, there was nothing...and then it exploded. You believe this without being able to recreate it in a lab, and without the theory being consistent with itself. You believe this, despite it being 20 years out of date in the scientific community. And you believe that anyone who (like me) refuses to accept an explanation if you cannot recreate the chain of events in a lab must be ignorant of "science" - how am I doing?
I guess that you cannot differentiate between the fact that when I drop something in my lab it will very likely fall down (we call this gravity) and the total fantasy that we "know" that the "law of gravity" applies everywhere in the universe. We have not tested this on even 0.1% of the planets in our own galaxy. WTF makes someone think it will hold in another galaxy? If you have not been there to test it, don't believe it.
Andy Out!
Your [sic] missing the point, I'm not talking about a position on abortion, I'm talking about a position on laws regarding choice.
No, you said specifically "abortion", like it was the end-all, be-all. You also sound like one of those people who believes in abortion-on-demand, all the way up until the ninth month. If you don't believe abortions should be permitted in the ninth month, then you agree that, at some point, the developing child's right to life outweighs the mother's right to choice. The entire debate centers on where that line is.
Of course, if you believe it should be ok to abort a fetus that is 100% viable outside the womb, then you're definitely in the fringe along with NARAL and like-minded groups. Despite what the Ninth Circus believes, almost every poll I've seen says most Americans want limits on abortion. Like I said, they just disagree on what those limits should be.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Whoever meta-mods this, please mark the moderation on my above post as 'unfair'. It was not Informative, the event never happened! I completely made it up. Do you honestly think the majority leader of the House would shout something like that? He might have said it to the guy next to him, but there's no way any seasoned politician is going to make that big of a fool of himself (except, of course, former Rep. Jim "Beam Me Up, Scotty!" Traficant).
Try to tell a joke, and look what happens. Jeez.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Now I'll never get that Cat-girl sex slave I've been wanting!
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Sorry, it had to be said.
Were I collecting Social Security today (instead of, say, 40 years from now...hell, who am I kidding, IF I can collect at all the bar'll be up to 75 or 80 by then), I would've give up a dime. And do you know why? Because I KNOW that money will be wasted on some stupid politician's stupid scheme to screw the American people. I know for damned sure it won't go into SS to help future retirees, that's for damned sure, so why would I give it up?
It's not being destroyed by fundamentalism, it's being destroyed by out of control greed.
People are borrowing and not saving because that's what they HAVE to do. Come on, open you eyes to what's going on. It's not just manufacturing that's going overseas, now it's science and technology. The thousands of new jobs created your local politician brags about? Serving hotdogs at the casino or something. You have to read between the lines because the media is either incapable (stupid) or unwilling (deceptive) to say it.
And, yet, the motherfuckers who're destroying their employees' ability to earn continually raise prices on everything. Then the government (controlled by this same group of asshats) swings in and raises your taxes every year, say, to pay for a retirement you'll never collect. People are being SQUEEZED! So, surprise surprise, they're going to extremes to make ends meet.
When you're being squeezed this hard just to keep your head above water, saving's out of the question. I'm lucky, I do have money I can put aside. But, when your savings acocunt pays out less than 1% against 3% inflation, that's financial suicide. It's funny, every single time some pundit whines about the decreasing rate of savings, there's NEVER a corresponding graph showing the freefall of interest rates (on bank accounts, not loans, those have no trouble shooting up and up and up).
President Bush and Congress could've saved alot of effort by saving "we're still crooks, now bend over and take some more" and letting us get back to whatever TV was pre-empted.
I've been railing aginst the invasion since before it began. I support immediate pull-out of all US troops. I never gave a shit about Iraq...never thought the terrorists were there, never thought it had WMDs, never cared about its people. Well, I cared, but invading and deposing Saddam to put up a theocracy wouldn't cause enough good to ballance out the evil of the invasion.
Blar.
Wow.
Have you done zero research on any of this? If you don't understand the difference between pluripotent and multipotent stem cells I would suggest you not comment on this debate. I make this assumption since you don't have the basic understanding of the limitations inherent in the usage of multipotent stem cells. This isn't my area of expertise, but it obviously is not your's either.
There is research currently available that says adult stem cells will not be able to be used in curing type I diabetes. You can ignore that if you like, but I suggest you do some research on it before you jump to conclusions. These modes of resarch are not mutually exclusive and no one is suggesting that all research should be stopped on one avenue to expand another. Nothing is conclusive, and that's why we need to keep researching.
You seem to have latched onto what has been researched for more than 40 years compared to what has had hampered research over less than a decade. I'd suggest dropping that bias.
That's scary.
That was a nice red herring thrown directly ad hominem.
Gravity is a theory that is currently under dispute on some small scales with matters such as dark matter. You are right that more testing is needed, but that is completely outside the realm of what you are arguging. More testing is needed on embryonic stem cells as well. You are suggesting we not accept things then in the same breath suggesting that we accept things. I hope you can see that.
I won't address the straw man, but I felt like showing you your logical flaw with that statement about gravity.
That's scary.
How about you stop with the name calling and logical fallacies and just provide a source? The grandparent poster has apparently never heard that injections of embryonic stem cells have killed every subject via cancer in 18 months, and neither have I. I'd be willing to bet there are lots of other people reading this who haven't heard it, either.
At first I was willing to listen to your argument if you'd have provided some sources, but now I'm pretty sure you're just trolling.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
But, hey...at least he dramatically increased funding for weapons development!
... wait for it ... scientists and engineers :)
Yeah, where 95+% of the employees are
[I am a rocket scientist, I know what I'm talking about]
- Half of the voting public agrees with him. This is completely true. Note the word "voting" They preferred Bush to the undead automoton known as John Kerry.
- Just because they preferred Bush doesn't mean they agree with every bullet point on the list. When you only have several choices, you WON'T agree on every bullet point. DUH. Same would hold true for every candidate. 50M+ voters will have varying opinions...
Not quite right. For a naitive English speaker, the phrase "3 is more than 2 or 3" parses to 3 > (2 OR 3), the other option being (3 > 2) OR 3, which I agree is TRUE. Booelean distribution is a little tricky: [(3 > 2) OR (3 > 3)] != [3 > (2 OR 3)]. Distributing inequality requires that you to negate the Boolean operator, so you actually get [3 > (2 OR 3)] = [(3 > 2) AND (3 > 3)]. Since (3 > 3) = FALSE, the AND statement fails, making the value of the whole statement FALSE.
This is why my wife occassionally has trouble with Google: Boolean algebra is not obvious or trivial.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
"An atheist believes life is very precious..."
I don't. So much for ridiculous generalizations.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
If anyone here thinks my statement is wrong - then sort through all the cases of human trials of stem cell therapies, and find me ONE patient who was alive and did not have cancer 18 months after a treatment with embryonic stem cells. I've got $20 (paid by PayPal) for the first person to post a link to a case study with such an example.
Andy Out!
Which once again shows absolute ignorance of the way an actual free market works. You should be lauded for staying on message, if nothing else.
If capitalism truly worked this way every human being outside of eastern europe who isn't wealthy would've starved to death long ago... and the reason the medical industry couldn't get away with this sort of pricing (outside of the realm of government granted monopolies) is much the same reason as when you go to a farmer's market and ask "how much for these carrots?" he doesn't say "how much've you got?" An all-too-conveniently forgotten thing we like to call competition.
Because it's not just "what the patient is able to pay" that is an upper limit on what you can charge, it's "what would the competition charge him?". We don't have anything but a passing resemblence to a free market system here when it comes to medicine, but if my doctor started charging me $500 for an office call, I'm not going to start wringing my hands and planning my funeral (and wishing that some price-fixing scheme would save me), I start looking for another doctor.
Oh, and second... yes, they do tell patients they aren't worthy of a kidney, or whatever organ they might need, all the time. Oh, sure, they say it nicer... tell the 70-year-old woman she's "too high a risk" (read: too old) to get that kidney, tell the recovering alcoholic that his history of drinking makes him "inelligible" for a new liver. However you want to phrase it, you're telling these people the same thing: you're dying, we could save you, but we don't want to.
But hey, at least they didn't cheapen letting this person die by bringing money into it, right?
http://www.humananimalhybrid.net/
You make your comments from a personal perspective. Hosever, if you look at hhe idea of atheism from a historical context of atheistic run states your comment whould look like this:
Atheists will not allow the practice of religion and will kill you if you talk about religion too loud. Atheists will proclaim the atheist faith as the only faith. Atheists will always favor those who are antagonistic to religion and religious people, providing military support to supress those who are religious, regardless of the size of the religious population. An atheist believes that the life of other people has no value because there are no eternal consequences for what you do to them. If you can gain personal advantage throught the subjugation and decimation of other people, so be it. This applies doubly for anyone stupid enough to express personal choice in favor of religion.
The sword cuts both ways. You can shine the sun on yourself and spin like Rove all you want, but it dosent change the fact that the historical record for atheists in power is horrible. It is almost as bad as theistic run states. We just need to give it time though, as atheism as a state requirement is relatively new to the political landscape.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Of course it doesn't say, "Thou shalt not use embryos in scientific experiments," because such scientific experiments were not in existence over the time period that the canonical Bible was written. However there are principles found in the Bible that lead the reader to the conclusion that doing so would be against God's (The Creator of Life's) view of life.
God views the embryo as something precious. Psalms 139:13-16 says "You [Jehovah] kept me screened off in the belly of my mother...Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing."
Also, when the Mosaic law was instituted, it covered injury of an unborn child. Exodus 21:22,23 says, "In case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul." The original Hebrew text that was used here didn't apply to the mother, it refered to an accident against the mother or child.
So whatever personal views you may hold are entirely up to you and your conscience. However, the Bible does contain the principals necessary to see just how God views an embryo.
Prove it.
Very very very few slashdotters oppose GM crops in principle. Only a science-fearing luddite would be against such a thing. HOWEVER, if you take a good look at what's happened with companies like Monsanto, you'll see why many slashdotters are against GM food companies.
Yes, the IP issues with GM crops can get ugly. My big objection, however, is with what the crops are being modified to do. Roundup-Ready (tm) crops designed to survive more pesticides result in more pollution (because more pesticide is used), and have the potential for serious weed problems if pesticide resistant strains from different companies cross.
The promise of genetically modified crops was supposed to be food that tasted better, had better ripening behavior, grew bigger, and was naturally immune to some pests, so *less* pesticide could be used. As long as we're careful, I completely that kind of work, frankenfood or not.
I concede I'm oversimplifying, but not as much as you seem to think.
What would the competition charge him?
Nearly the same. Almost all he has. *Everyone* knows that this guy will pay that, there's really no reason for anyone to charge much less than that amount.
The supply and demand curves don't work properly for (life/death) medicine.
The demand side of medical procedures is invariate with no substitutable product. A person who needs a triple bypass needs a triple bypass. He will not consume more of them or less of them based on price. He will not get a kidney transplant if that's cheaper this week. Meanwhile people who don't need them will not buy them at any price.
The supply side doesn't really have to adapt. Sure if some rogue like Dr. Nick [simpsons] started showing up and doing discount surgery it could force a market response... but that's not an ideal capitalism because Dr. Nick isn't maximizing his profits.
The farmer's at a farmers market are in a vastly different position. They are acutely aware that their produce is deteriorating daily, and if the price of carrots is collectively sky high people will just buy celery or yams or whatever that week/month/year.
--
As to the elderly being passed on kidney transplants: Good point. Although I'm curious whether its really the limited supply of kidneys that's responsible for the elderly being passed over. (After all, the risk of dying from the surgery is non-trivial. If we had an extra kidney would the doctors recommend she risk the operation? I'm not so sure they would.) The liver scenario you present I'm not familiar with, and can't comment on.
Stop modding this shit up! It's just not true.
By completely and utterly failing to see the sarcasm in my post, you have demonstrated a key Slashdot stereotype, and thus your argument that Slashdotters are not stereotyped clones soars like a lead balloon.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Dude, you're the one making the wild statements. It's your job to back them up, not their job to prove you wrong. Go troll elsewhere if you don't have any reliable facts.
Oh, I see: you're a dick.
Go suck your Faux News Channel, Bible Boy, it'll be OK, Rush is there for you... those scary atheist homosexual abortion homicide bomber terrorists are on the run.
Please call up whoever taught you there was no need to know when to use a semicolon or comma instead of a period. Tell them that they were wrong. It will get your point across better if you use correct punctuation. Then tell them that if they think you're really going to worry about it in a slashdot post, they are an idiot; and not in a good way. Or they just like complaining, in which case, happy to help.
You forgot an adjective. Good atheists are much like you describe, and I, a Christian, respect and admire them.
:)
Bad atheists try to get as much as they can out of this world because its all they have. Or promulgate their worldview as the One True Belief system, because its obviously backed by Logic, pure and simple. The Office of Inquiry and the Soviet Secret Police are so similar you have to squint to tell them apart.
That said, I'd rather have a man be a good Atheist than a horrible Christian. My personal heresy is that such a choice brings a man closer to salvation, anyways, but I'm weird.
I have a counterexamples to present, and that's the medications whose patents have expired and are now available from generic drug makers. As soon as the state stops forbidding competition from making the comparable medication the price plummets. It's not unusual for a drug to go from $20-$25 a pill to $0.75 or less in a matter of days. But the medication is not any less effective now that the patent has expired, which leads me to believe that the artificial limitation of suppliers, and not the inelastic demand is what was inflating the price.
--
I'm sure there are cases of people who can't risk surgery (which doesn't make much sense to me in cases where not getting the surgery is fatal), but there are always waiting lists for organs, and I know for a fact that there are people who are operable and who are denied a spot on those lists because of age or other "secondary conditions".
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823:
"One day the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in the United States will tear down the artificial scaffolding of Christianity. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
And Adams, Hancock, and Hammilton were Federalists. Their party was initially opposed to the bill of rights and advocated the consentration of power with the federal government (as opposed to the consentration of power with the states that we see today). Which party do you think laid the seeds that became the most "American"?
Our early country was guided by democratic-republican principles and agriarian values. The leader of the democratic-republicans was clearly opposed to a religious centered government. There are several other great early leaders who were opposed to government-religious interaction. This includes James Monroe (the author of our constitution) and Ben Franklin (prominent scientist and publisher) along with many others.
America was clearly founded on a secular governmental policy. The founders knew the danger of mixing religion with government. The evidence is as easily retrievable as the 1st Amendment in the bill of rights (opposed by the federalists but ratified by the rest of the American people). Get over it.
In general, drastic changes in policy are not a good idea. With respect to abortion, I would advocate slowly tightening the restrictions as we slowly convince people that it is wrong. The fraction of people opposed to abortion is growing. Indeed, only 40% of people believe most abortions to be moral. Only in the exceptional cases (rape, mother's health, diseased fetus, etc do majorities support abortion (around 80%). Most studies conflate these two and find that majorities support abortion rights, even though most people are against 99% of abortions.
As for women's rights, there is no disagreement so what is there to discuss? I am quite sure that I am likely to grant women more rights than you. However, if the fetus is a person, its rights win. No one, whether male for female, has the right to kill an innocent person. If the fetus is not a person, then it is clearly a woman and her rights vs a hunk of meat, and she wins. In short, people disagree about the fetus. They do not disagree about women. I generally feel that if people start talking about the woman's rights, it is because they tire of being forced to argue that a living human being is property that has fewer rights than a farm animal. Therefore, they switch to arguing a point where they are correct, but virtually no one disagrees.
If they are anything like me, and from my experience they are, they believe that those who volunteer to defend our country should be honored. It's an incredibly brave and selfless thing to put yourself in that position. And part of honoring those of you who make that choice is putting you in harm's way only when it's absolutely neccessary to defend the interests of the United States. I wouldn't claim that all soldiers don't like the war -- though I think it's equally silly to claim that all soldiers think it was a great idea to flatten Iraq to stop Saddam from harboring terrorists^W^Wbuilding a nuclear weapon^W^W^W^Wusing WMDs^W^Woppressing his people.
Cthulhu loves you.
we live in that world already. the aclu is sueing the nsa over it, and the eff is sueing at&t over it.
"The choice of who has what rights when cannot be left to the choice of another (in this case, obviously biased) individual."
my bias is for quality of life. not life as an absolute, because as many of us are aware life can be a living hell, but for life as life worth living. i do not believe in or condone the idea of saving every life simply because it is - i hold to a rather utilitarian view. i don't believe that lives should be saved in order to preserve life with no regard to the life being preserved. peter singer has written eloquently and well on the topic of allowing severely and unrecoverably handicapped babies to die as an alternative to the shade of life that they would inhabit if kept alive artificially. as you might imagine, i am also in favor of the right to die.
every life is sacred, necessary, valuable and important. not every life should be preserved. these statements are not contradictions. they merely expose the fact that the questions involved are difficult and worthy of serious consideration, free from knee-jerk responses. a reliance solely on statistics does not qualify as serious consideration in my book; rather, it qualifies as a circumvention of thought. certainly it can add to the discussion, but it is a facade disguising a lack of position based in anything meaningful.
in other words, i have far more respect for the religious fundamentalists with whom i disagree quite strongly than i do for you... because they at least base their views in an actual position which derives from their beliefs and the situation. you, on the other hand, disguise your beliefs in a "pure" science, one that is meaningless without assumptions.
what do you *really* think?
{ searchcue:!)@(#* }
A majority of Christian beliefs are pagan, and the early church even had a theory to explain the similarities called "diabolical mimicry." They claim that the devil knew what the life of Christ would be like, so he "pre-created" mythical ideals that would be extraordinarily similar, such as the son of god dying for man's sins and the immaculate conception. More recently, that same church did away with the theory of limbo in order to make Catholicism more palatable to Asians and Africans, where infant mortality rates remain high.
I have mentioned all this to explain why spending time pouring over documents in ancient languages which have nearly no value to modern life is not something at the top of my list. While you squabble about who won't learn entire languages to better understand the obvious truth, people are being killed. The lie of divine justice placates the majority of Americans about our role in the slaughter of tens of thousands of "others," and I find it morally reprehensible. If there is a God, he stopped interfering with our world a long time ago. Amazingly, every single supernatural event ever reported has been little more than hearsay. I think I'm not the only one who, in a world chock full of devices that seem to accurately record our reality, sees the obvious reason for that.
"Water is not an issue. Energy is. If you have energy, you have fresh water. People have been predicting the environmental apocalypse for decades. They have been wrong every time." Water *is* an issue. Energy is a big factor in that issue, but the issue is not reducible simply to energy alone. The other part is the stupid part though. People have been predicting big environmental trouble for decades, it's true. (I'm intentionally ignoring the word "apocalypse" since it's both loaded and would not be used by a serious person except to garner attention.) People have also been predicting AI and novel forms of propulsion in space. We're seeing the bleeding edge of some of this now. Just because something predicted has not come to pass does not mean it never will. Which is better: to disregard warnings completely as frivolous or fear-mongering, or to seriously evaluate them and consider the stakes and potential remedies involved? The environment we live in is an extremely high-stakes situation, and the actions we can take to minimize potential damage are comparatively cheap and easy. Even if the investment is wasted, the investment is worth it. Think of it as a rather attractively priced insurance policy. The cost of saving the lives you're discussing is the cost of continuing those lives. That cost is enormous *per life*. It's completely disingenuous to claim that it's free.
"conception brings about a fundamental change in the entity, physically and morally"
Sorry, conception brings about only a fundamental physical change. The moral change is entirely within your view of the physical situation. In other words, the ethical situation depends on *your* view of the physical situation - it is not inherent to the "entity". This is a common mistake that makes reasonable debate of ethical/moral issues extremely difficult. (I define "reasonable debate" as debate in which there is a possibility that some party involved will be convinced away from the starting position in any degree.)
I don't disagree that a monopoly ending due to a patent expiration would lower prices. But an 'ideal capitalism' wouldn't have those. Inelastic demand leads to increased prices because the market 'knows' that increasing the price has no effect on unit sales and thus leads to greater profits.
Coupling inelastic demand with the end of a state supported monopoly, and then ending that monopoly doesn't really serve as a counter example to the theory, merely a more complicated situation in which prices can drop despite inelastic demand.
Finally, in many (most?) pill cases, the demand really isn't that inelastic. Doctor's are often selecting between several competing prescriptions. If several prescriptions appear equally effective Doctor's will choose cheaper avenues to lower the burden on patients (at least those without suitable insurance). Such that once a patent expires, the demand for a generic affordable version will bounce up.
See... again you're completely forgetting that the market isn't a single entity with a single interest. Company A may well wish to charge more, but if they do, Company B may see this as an opportunity to take their market share. I don't know where you're getting this concept of "ideal capitalism", but in any truly free market, any company with a huge profit margin is going to find itself inundated with competition in short order.
Let's be realistic and learn from history.
Personally I'm not in favour of abortion, I'm not religious but I really don't like the idea. However I'm also a father of one and soon two, and I know now that taking care of kids requires time, dedication, love and money. They definitely grow on you but it helps wanting them in the first place.
If a woman falls pregnant due to some mistake, e.g. a leaky condom or an uncaring partner and doesn't want the extreme troubles to care for unwanted kids, if only during the 9 months of the pregnancy, then I support her right to have an abortion early in the pregnancy. Why is that ?
Most people who voice their anti-abortion views don't know what carrying an unwanted child means. It's way more than just annoying. Those who recommend adoption as a substitute are not being realistic. Falling pregnant for a young poor girl can devastate her life. It is not unlikely that she will seek any avenue, both legal and illegal, to get rid of the foetus if she really wants to. For all sorts of reasons I'd rather that the abortion be safe and legal.
The whole idea about safe and legal abortion in the first trimester is that by week 12 or so, the future mother definitely knows she's pregnant, has had time to make her mind about whether she wants the baby or not, and most likely very few people have noticed she might be pregnant. It's not about whether the foetus is alive, conscious or whatever.
All these people with high and lofty ideas about "the right of the foetus supercedes that of the mother exactly at such and such moment" are never left with dealing with the consequences of their decisions.
At the end of the day, if abortion becomes illegal, someone must deal with the consequences of pregnant women dying at backstreet abortionist like they've done since the dawn of time ; someone must take good care of the unwanted kids that do get born. I observe that through history it's never the churches with the moral high ground, the state with the means and the law on their side or the men responsible who foot the financial and emotional bill. It always falls on the mother, and that's not fair.
Let those unthinking ones who say she has to pay because she was stupid be very thankful that their own next stupid mistake doesn't carry a lifelong penalty.
Why should I start worrying about the Bush administration just because the Supreem Court decides that it doesn't get to make up 'rights' that are not mentioned in the constitution? RoevWade was a extreme abuse of power, the Supreme Court is the branch of the government that analyses laws and how they relate to specific situations. They are not meant to be a second legislature. If you think that the liberty to abortion should be recognized, then it is a matter for the legislature to decide.
If you think my characterization of your statement as "bold" was unfair, that's fine.
Either way, I'm merely asking you to back up a statement of fact with a reference. It's not something I have ever heard anywhere else. Which does not mean it does not exist, it might mean I have simply never before encountered the relevant literature.
In which case, if it is a fact, you would be doing me a favor by pointing me towards a documented source so that I may learn of it.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Here's a more complete explanation:
The "Social Security" plans are designed to get amateur stock investors into the stock market, where the professionals, who back the plan, can take the amateur's money.
To make money in the stock market, it is necessary to find buyers at a higher price than was paid. The social security plan would insure that there were many new, inexperienced buyers.
"The demand to 'restrict' technology is the demand to restrict man's mind. It is nature--i.e., reality--that makes both these goals impossible to achieve.
Technology can be destroyed, and the mind can be paralyzed, but neither can be restricted."
-Rand
I choose a slightly different interpretation of all this:
If God didn't want us to make animal-human hybrids, we wouldn't be able to.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
If you look at what embryonic stem cell development has already discovered you'll find huge value in it. Stopping funding for embryonic stem cell development because adult stem cells are further due to being a more mature area of research is quite short sighted. That's not up for debate and your argument of it not being mature is a moot point. It's known that there has been little success with embryonic stem cells as it applies to actual cures. But the research stemming from that has the potential to be much greater than other avenues.
Since you're a diabetic, wouldn't you want what is most likely to be the cure? Why tell someone that they can't get funding for their theory on embryonic stem cells being able to develop a cure for type 1 diabetes and force them to either find a way to do it with adult or to just pick something else. That's what being narrow minded does. Stifle research.
That's scary.
the real issue is being missed here. for religious people, GOD decides when life starts. therefore, they respect the process that leads to human life as though it is life because didn't tell us when life actually starts from the only perspective that matters - HIS.
now, i'm not defending george bush here. when i see him, i see something in stark contrast to what i actually read in the scriptures about jesus.
as a general point, though, i think it needs to be mentioned.
if god doesn't exist, then this argument is valid, yet, ultimately, it is for us to define when life begins through our regular processes. after all, nobody can tell us we are wrong, right?