So, just out of curiosity, you don't see it as possible that anyone could have a rational, non-religious objection to the harvesting of embryos for medical research?
Please present one. I would be happy to discuss it.
And while we're on the subject, is their any reason the many breakthroughs in non-embryonic stem cell research don't get as much coverage as projects like this one?
Are you honestly saying that at some point human life is dead and "reborn" in the womb?
No. I am saying that the moment at which an embryo, or a cluster of cells, should be considered a person having rights cannot be determined experimentally. It is a matter of opinion.
You and I both; for example, were the same human being we were at the moment of conception as we are now. ..
This is your opinion.
. . . there simply is no other explantion that fits within the bounds of data on the subject.
Please present these data for our edification.
I am hardly a religious nut, and am a stalwart supporter of all human's rights to live.
Is a sperm a human being? Is an embryo? How about an adult stem cell? A toenail clipping?
My point is precisely that this is a matter of opinion.
Does that make me part of your vast christian right conspiracy?
Science is a process of proposition and experimentation. We test our hypotheses in carefully controlled ways in order to discover how closely they approximate reality, keeping those that meet muster until closer approximations are found; discarding, or refining, the rest. Therefore, the claims relating to UFOs and ancient atronauts are not on an equal footing with, for example, Newton's claims about gravity. This explains why such spurious claims hold no sway over public policy.
In the case of religion, no such testing is possible. Conclusions of a religious character are articles of faith, or simply matters of opinion, and vary widely from person to person. Therefore, all of these conclusions are on an equal footing with one another. Except, of course, in the minds of religious zealots who often disagree violently.
The question then arises as to which religious beliefs should be permitted to inform public policy. Should we base our social welfare policy on the hindu idea that any of us may be reborn into a lower social stratum? Should we take after the Zoroastrians, and prepare our nation for an ultimate battle between good and evil?
The ingenious people who crafted our constitution, cognizant of perils of theocracy, decided that such questions, as they may govern personal behavior, should be left up to individuals to decide. The Constitution contains no reference to god or religion aside from a single phrase stating that the government shall neither establish religion, nor prohibit its free exercise. The exclusion of religious doctrine from the sphere of public policy is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. If you defend it when it is inconvenient, you will cherish it when it shelters you.
Well, Jerry Falwell has an interesting hypothesis as to the cause of the recent terrorist attacks on America.
If Mr. Falwell is to be believed, we need not search baggage at airports, perform background checks on persons visiting the country, or take any other precaution apart from banning the ACLU, abortion and paganism; restoring prayer in school, et cetera, et cetera. We need not examine the ways in which our thirst for oil distorts our relations with the Arab peoples. We have only to join Mr. Falwell's cult, and pray. And, he most certainly was not joking when he said as much (follow the link).
This incident illustrates perfectly why we should not permit religion any role in the regulation of our polity.
Please enumerate for our edification the metaphysical arguments having no basis in theology whose proof would preclude the ethical pursuit stem cell research.
The only issue is whether life begins at conception. If it does, then experiments on a living, unique, human entity is wrong. If it doesn't, then it's not morally wrong.
But, the point at which life begins cannot be determined objectively; therefore, this must be a theological debate.
The position of the Christian Right rests upon the notion of a cluster of cells having a soul. I do not believe in the existence of souls, in any case. I find abhorrent the idea that such notions should influence policy formation in our secular republic.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
When the managers of the Catholic Church conspire to protect pedophiles in their own midst, and then claims to have moral authority in the matter of stem cells (or any other matter), I call that hypocrisy.
Stem cells should be treated with the same respect as anything else human, because they could be part of a human.
According to what theology? This is not an objective fact, it is a judgement call.
This debate is about neither religion nor ethics, but about whether the government should be permitted to impose the religious views of a few extremists on the rest of us. This is a debate about separation of church and state.
OK, I admit that this was a troll. I probably should have presented a reasoned argument instead. I am just so dusgusted with the hypocracy of the religious right in this country that I sometimes fly off half-cocked.
I suppose that we will just buy our engineered tissue products from the Europeans and the Japanese (quite a bit of this research going on in India, too). But, it's a shame that this research isn't taking place here simply because a minority of religious extremists have the president in their pocket.
When they do *create* that single-celled organism, will they have proven evolution?
The manufacture of a de novo organism by human beings will simply provide further demonstration that divine influence is not necessary to explain the origin of life on earth.
Notice the key word there - "created." In essence, those scientists will be "god," and if anything, they will have disproven evolution.
The point here is not that these scientists are god(s), but that the existence of a god is not a prerequisite for the existence of life.
People seem to have the mindset that creationism = religion, and that anyone who argues creation rather than evolution is a religious zealot. I think its safe to say most aren't; I certainly am not. Creation science has nothing to do with religion.
What language would you use to characterize a person who clings to a notion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
There are numerous groups working toward the synthesis of de novo single-celled organisms. I can't wait to hear the creationist-back-pedalling when they meet your three above-stated criteria. What will you resort to then?
I just took a look at the wri material. It was very specific.
Excerpt:
3. In challenging a WWF analysis that found nearly 2/3 of the world's original forests, dating to the pre-agricultural period (defined as 6000 BC), had at one time been cut, Lomborg's text at p.16 counters that "most sources estimate about 20%." Here Lomborg has confused net loss of forest cover (his figure) with loss of original forest (WWF's figure). Even so, sources in Lomborg's footnote 103 do not support the proposition for which he cites them. The first, a 1993 college textbook by Andrew Goudie, indeed gives a figure of 20% net loss in forest cover since pre-agricultural times, although its author provides no reference or authority for this number. The second source, by Michael Williams, is stated in the footnote as giving the (amazingly) low figure of 7.5 percent loss, but a review of the source itself reveals that Lomborg has misread 7,449 thousand square kilometers as though it were a percent. And the last two sources, which give figures of 19% and 20%, are for recent 300 and 140 year periods only, and thus on their face do not purport to measure forest loss during the entire 8,000 year period for which Lomborg cites them. To the contrary, these two sources cover only tiny fractions (less than 4% and 2%, respectively) of the relevant time period, and even so each registers roughly 20% loss of forest.
Except that Jaguar is ford now. Will MS eventually acquire Apple for the same reasons?
Re:Can't begin until AI happens
on
True Names
·
· Score: 1
While your observations on AI are certainly on the mark, I have to think that simply having a computer sufficiently powerful to model a running human brain is a prerequisite for discovering how to build an AI. Maybe we haven't been able to pull it off yet (at least partly) for lack of this infrastructure. Things might move along pretty quickly once we have a computer powerful enough to run a realtime simulation of a working brain.
It's not quite there yet. But, look how far we've
come in terms of usabality in just the past two
years or so! The desktop Linux wave is gathering
momentum. Give it another year or two, and we'll
have it wired.
I owe about half a mill on my current house. The main thing I get for my money is adjacency to people who are well off and well educated like me. I enjoy interacting with the people in my locale. And, the whole community is designed for people like us, with lots of cool book stores, eateries with interesting food, offbeat movie theaters and places to buy cool stuff. We keep the place clean, preserve open spaces and enjoy an outstanding quality of life here. And, best of all, we don't have to deal with those bible thumping idiots from the Red areas.
The point I'm making is that the Romans might have carried out a very different foreign policy had they imagined their demise, even realized that it was possible, at the time of their peak. For various reasons, they were unable to maintain the situation of disparity indefinitely. When the end came, centuries of resentment boiled up all around and devoured them.
The parallels with our own empire are inexact, to say the least. Still, I think that this history has some relevance for us.
I have often wondered whether, when Rome was at her peak, her citizens ever paused to imagine, perhaps between distractions at the Colloseum, that their peerless, unassailable empire was about to be overrun by hoards of barbarians from the outlying provinces. The Dark Ages, which soon followed, were frighteningly reminiscent of the world envisioned by islamist fundamentalists. Just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Please present one. I would be happy to discuss it.
I haven't observed this.
No. I am saying that the moment at which an embryo, or a cluster of cells, should be considered a person having rights cannot be determined experimentally. It is a matter of opinion.
This is your opinion.
Please present these data for our edification.
Is a sperm a human being? Is an embryo? How about an adult stem cell? A toenail clipping?
My point is precisely that this is a matter of opinion.
Your words, not mine.
In the case of religion, no such testing is possible. Conclusions of a religious character are articles of faith, or simply matters of opinion, and vary widely from person to person. Therefore, all of these conclusions are on an equal footing with one another. Except, of course, in the minds of religious zealots who often disagree violently.
The question then arises as to which religious beliefs should be permitted to inform public policy. Should we base our social welfare policy on the hindu idea that any of us may be reborn into a lower social stratum? Should we take after the Zoroastrians, and prepare our nation for an ultimate battle between good and evil?
The ingenious people who crafted our constitution, cognizant of perils of theocracy, decided that such questions, as they may govern personal behavior, should be left up to individuals to decide. The Constitution contains no reference to god or religion aside from a single phrase stating that the government shall neither establish religion, nor prohibit its free exercise. The exclusion of religious doctrine from the sphere of public policy is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. If you defend it when it is inconvenient, you will cherish it when it shelters you.
;)
If Mr. Falwell is to be believed, we need not search baggage at airports, perform background checks on persons visiting the country, or take any other precaution apart from banning the ACLU, abortion and paganism; restoring prayer in school, et cetera, et cetera. We need not examine the ways in which our thirst for oil distorts our relations with the Arab peoples. We have only to join Mr. Falwell's cult, and pray. And, he most certainly was not joking when he said as much (follow the link).
This incident illustrates perfectly why we should not permit religion any role in the regulation of our polity.
Please enumerate for our edification the metaphysical arguments having no basis in theology whose proof would preclude the ethical pursuit stem cell research.
But, the point at which life begins cannot be determined objectively; therefore, this must be a theological debate.
The position of the Christian Right rests upon the notion of a cluster of cells having a soul. I do not believe in the existence of souls, in any case. I find abhorrent the idea that such notions should influence policy formation in our secular republic.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Nerd pride!
This debate is about neither religion nor ethics, but about whether the government should be permitted to impose the religious views of a few extremists on the rest of us. This is a debate about separation of church and state.
I suppose that we will just buy our engineered tissue products from the Europeans and the Japanese (quite a bit of this research going on in India, too). But, it's a shame that this research isn't taking place here simply because a minority of religious extremists have the president in their pocket.
Trying to cure parkinson's desaease and heart disease. If only they had stuck to molesting boys!
Every cell is sacred
Every cell is great
If a cell gets wasted
God gets quite irate
Start here
The manufacture of a de novo organism by human beings will simply provide further demonstration that divine influence is not necessary to explain the origin of life on earth.
The point here is not that these scientists are god(s), but that the existence of a god is not a prerequisite for the existence of life.
What language would you use to characterize a person who clings to a notion despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
There are numerous groups working toward the synthesis of de novo single-celled organisms. I can't wait to hear the creationist-back-pedalling when they meet your three above-stated criteria. What will you resort to then?
'ifs' or 'ands'! Just fix the please function of it, Sun!
Sheesh!
College that I have went to. Now no time for learn
grammar. It has to be!
By the time I have done enough reading to post an informed reply, this story will no doubt be archived. Great topic, though!
Excerpt:
Except that Jaguar is ford now. Will MS eventually acquire Apple for the same reasons?
Thoughts?
It's not quite there yet. But, look how far we've
come in terms of usabality in just the past two
years or so! The desktop Linux wave is gathering
momentum. Give it another year or two, and we'll
have it wired.
I owe about half a mill on my current house. The main thing I get for my money is adjacency to people who are well off and well educated like me. I enjoy interacting with the people in my locale. And, the whole community is designed for people like us, with lots of cool book stores, eateries with interesting food, offbeat movie theaters and places to buy cool stuff. We keep the place clean, preserve open spaces and enjoy an outstanding quality of life here. And, best of all, we don't have to deal with those bible thumping idiots from the Red areas.
The parallels with our own empire are inexact, to say the least. Still, I think that this history has some relevance for us.
I have often wondered whether, when Rome was at her peak, her citizens ever paused to imagine, perhaps between distractions at the Colloseum, that their peerless, unassailable empire was about to be overrun by hoards of barbarians from the outlying provinces. The Dark Ages, which soon followed, were frighteningly reminiscent of the world envisioned by islamist fundamentalists. Just a thought.
It would be great to build a Linux cluster of these