Well, thanks for the correction. I wasn't aware of it not being a legislation.
But still - I find it ironic that the government bans federal funds to something beneficial that several people disagree with, while they go ahead and wage wars (with similar moral and ethical consequences) against the wishes of several people who disagree with that:)
I'm just venting out, that's all. But it does bother me.
Hmm, sure, could look it up. I'm not entirely sure if it's the current administration's policy or a legislation, but I remember reading about it as being the latter.
He said the Motion Picture Association of America estimates that 2.6 billion songs, movies and software programs are illegally distributed over the Internet every month.
Hah! I'm sure that puts it at a much higher number than what I put up there.
Hmm, cost of 2.6 billion movie downloads? $260 billion
Cost of 1 nuke? $50 billion
Watching the US Nuke a country for RIAA? Priceless!
Funny, we do not think about saving 70 and odd cells while killing other life for our survival - namely food. The only reason this becomes a big issue is because the cells happen to be human.
Btw, you must surely know that for such research, they just use a few cells off embryos that would be destroyed otherwise, right?
Somehow I find that ironic. There are very few who share your beliefs - while I do understand and respect your point of view, the fact remains that the legislation behind this is largely stayed by right-wing politics rather than any laudable ethical reasons.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia seems to suggest otherwise.
An understanding of the controversies, if it is even possible, requires attention not only to the politics of religious organizations but to those of academic philosophy. Before Galileo had trouble with the Jesuits and before the Dominican friar Caccini denounced him from the pulpit, his employer heard him accused of contradicting Scripture by a professor of philosophy, Cosimo Boscaglia, who was neither a theologian nor a priest. The first to defend Galileo was a Benedictine abbot, Benedetto Castelli, who was also a professor of mathematics and a former student of Galileo's. It was this exchange that led Galileo to write the Letter to Grand Duchess Christina. (Castelli remained Galileo's friend, visiting him at Arcetri near the end of Galileo's life, after months of effort to get permission from the Inquisition to do so.)
.........
However, real power lay with the Church, and Galileo's arguments were most fiercely fought on the religious level. The late nineteenth and early twentieth century historian Andrew Dickson White wrote from an anti-clerical perspective:
.........
On June 22, 1633, the Inquisition held the final hearing on Galileo, who was then 69 years old and pleaded for mercy, pointing to his "regrettable state of physical unwellness". Threatening him with torture, imprisonment, and death on the stake, the show trial forced Galileo to "abjure, curse and detest" his work and to promise to denounce others who held his prior viewpoint. Galileo did everything the church requested him to do, following (so far as we can tell) the plea bargain of two months earlier. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
.........
That the threat of torture and death Galileo was facing was a real one had been proven by the church in the earlier trial against Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 1600 for holding a naturalistic view of the Universe.
.........
In 1992, 359 years after the Galileo trial, Pope John Paul II issued an apology, lifting the edict of Inquisition against Galileo: "Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions." After the release of this report, the Pope said further that "... Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard [the relation of scientific and Biblical truths] than the theologians who opposed him."
Anything may have been the cause, but the fact remains that the Church made a man of science withdraw his science and did not have the magnanitmity to accept that they were wrong.
And the Pope could not still give up - the presence of the Creator indeed. I hope the creator shoves him and the rest like him into the deepest chasms of hell for violating the sanctity of science and men of science.
Science does not care about religion. It cares about religious people hindering its progress by bringing in stupid legislations (such as those that ban cloning, stem-cell research ad infinitum). However, religion seems bothered about science - right from the days of persecution of non-believers.
I did not blame religion for all of the world's problems, but I will (rightly) blame it for stifling scientific progress. Maybe not all of it, but a significant chunk of it. Look at the fools today who're trying to convince schools to teach Creation - that in itself says a lot.
Like it or not, the Crusades _were_ a religious phenomenon. So was the Inquisition. As is today's problem of Islamic Fundamentalism.
And as far as Hitler goes, I invoke Godwin's law. You lose.
If you said faith, I'll agree. Faith is a _personal_ belief. Religion is an organized following of that belief. Believing in Christ is a personal act of faith, while Christianity is an organized attempt at spreading and maintaining that faith. Both are quite different.
Let us consider a religion, say Christianity. What all has it opposed thus far? Stifled Galileo for suggesting that the Earth is not the center of the Universe. Opposing Darwin's theories of evolution. Opposition to new research, such as this one.
I could go on and on, but the fact remains that while science seeks the truth, religion claims to have the truth. The two may be mutually inclusive - I do not know (I'm agnostic btw, to answer your question). Religion has systematically strived to prove that science is somehow harming faith and is wrong in some sense or the other. Persecution of scientific thinkers during middle ages comes to mind.
Where does it say that in order to be scientific you have to renounce any belief in any religion?
Religion is organized faith, and tends to oppose anything that would affect the spread of that faith. Religion sometimes construes science to be that opponent, but not always.
Faith does not require you to renounce your beiefs to be scientific. Religion not only requires, it also necessiates simply because of the way it works.
And it would be a scary precedent. If it's N Korea today, why couldn't it be China tomorrow?
And you would be harming whatever little percentage of people who use the Internet in N Korea, in the process. Besides, the Internet would be a source of access to the people of that country.
We all know how well sanctions work, right? It wouldn't make a difference. They're just trying to rake up a noise to garner attention.
Better that they say they'd hack into networks rather than say they'd launch a nuclear offensive.
"This is probably more boasting than a real threat. In the past we have seen similar claims from the Taiwanese and the East Timorese," said Hyppönen.
Heh. Probably yet another of those notice us! notice us! type publicity stunt by N Korea.
And even if they do hack into an odd website or two, people will start to take notice and will act on it. It's far easier to secure your networks than launch an offensive on N Korea.
These guys just need to be ignored while they jump around their cages trying to garner attention.
Because unfortunately, we live in a world where they are the majority and we are the minority.
Just go out there and suggest this to people across the world, immaterial of where they're from. They'll imaging babies being killed, as the original poster portrayed them to be.
I suppose you have not had to deal with convincing religious folks on science. I have. It's simply not possible.
And guess what? The government is not going to change its policy because of what a bunch of scientists believe. They care about the masses - and when they feel that this is wrong, for all practical intents and purposes, it is wrong.
They have the right to speak, but they don't have the right to be heard.
Look around you - see those new laws forbidding stem cell research, cloning and what not? They were brought into place because those who did not have the right to be heard, as you put it, were heard.
And unfortunately, they are the ones who are heard louder than you or me.
Seems more like a religious question, with the concept of soul and what not. I'll probably be modded down for this, but who cares. Religion has _always_ been the reason why science and progress has been withheld. Right from the days when religion could not accept the fact that science could know more or be right, religion has always hindered science.
It really pisses me off.
The link you gave suggests that it would be a real real long time before we see any useful results. Which would mean that we would have to start working on it as soon as we can. And what are we doing? We're busy drafting up new laws and policies that do not allow this so that a cross-section of religious voter-base who believe in a voice in the sky can be pacified.
Why?
So much science could happen. There is so much that we could do. Sometimes, I just feel that religion is the root-cause of all evil and all stupidity in this world.
Current law prohibits the use of federal funds to make human embryonic stem cells, and in August 2001 President George W Bush said scientists could work only on a few already existing cell lines, using federal funds....
The Bush Administration argues that people who oppose experimenting on human embryos should not have their tax dollars used in such research, but it is silent on what privately funded groups can do.
I guess they had to satisfy their right-wing supporters without openly cutting off research - that would have brought up serious opposition.
I'm well aware of the fact that these are not fully grown embryos and they are embryos from fertility clinics that may probably be destroyed if they are not used for some purpose or the other (which is why the have even the anti-abortionists supporting their research).
My point was merely to put across to the original poster my ideas - embryos may not be fully grown or humans to you or me - but they are to several people. It's easy for us to say that they are just bags of several cells, it's hard for those bound by values different than ours to consider so.
I was putting across his point of view, nothing more - it's obvious that in your view, you do not consider them "life" - but there are several that do. For them, killing an embryo is akin to killing a life.
There is a fundamental difference. They're doing the latter and not the former.
The government policy against the latter is only that it cannot be federally funded (since it uses the tax money from people who may oppose it, or so the claims go).
They plan to use technology similar to that used by South Korean scientists, who announced in February they had cloned a human embryo as a source of valuable stem cells.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, thanks for the correction. I wasn't aware of it not being a legislation.
:)
But still - I find it ironic that the government bans federal funds to something beneficial that several people disagree with, while they go ahead and wage wars (with similar moral and ethical consequences) against the wishes of several people who disagree with that
I'm just venting out, that's all. But it does bother me.
Hmm, sure, could look it up. I'm not entirely sure if it's the current administration's policy or a legislation, but I remember reading about it as being the latter.
Man, she seems simply awesome!
She swam the Antarctic in 25 minutes? I do not think any amount of preparation can really prepare you for that.
A lot of it probably has to do with her own body's physiology rather than anything else. Incredible neverthless.
Ah, thank you.
That was indeed the one I was talking about.
Stupidity?
We're also waging a very very extremely harsh war on intelligence.
Give it a little more time, and our collective IQ shall degrade to that of a kelp.
Please excuse the noise we'd make while we are at it, it's all just a part of the process.
Legislation preventing federal funds being used for embryonic stem cell research.
And oh, I was wrong about the figures.
He said the Motion Picture Association of America estimates that 2.6 billion songs, movies and software programs are illegally distributed over the Internet every month.
Hah! I'm sure that puts it at a much higher number than what I put up there.
Hmm, cost of 2.6 billion movie downloads? $260 billion
Cost of 1 nuke? $50 billion
Watching the US Nuke a country for RIAA? Priceless!
RIAA estimates that $2.6 billion worth of revenues are lost and the like through file-sharing - so what are they going to do about it?
Sue a kid in China or India for it? Unlikely, I think.
Funny, we do not think about saving 70 and odd cells while killing other life for our survival - namely food. The only reason this becomes a big issue is because the cells happen to be human.
Btw, you must surely know that for such research, they just use a few cells off embryos that would be destroyed otherwise, right?
Somehow I find that ironic. There are very few who share your beliefs - while I do understand and respect your point of view, the fact remains that the legislation behind this is largely stayed by right-wing politics rather than any laudable ethical reasons.
Ah, watch that karma burn.
You do realize that there is a difference between a full grown man with sentience and 70 and odd pieces of cells, right?
They are not people - they are mere masses of cells. There is a fundamental difference.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia seems to suggest otherwise.
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
... ... ...
An understanding of the controversies, if it is even possible, requires attention not only to the politics of religious organizations but to those of academic philosophy. Before Galileo had trouble with the Jesuits and before the Dominican friar Caccini denounced him from the pulpit, his employer heard him accused of contradicting Scripture by a professor of philosophy, Cosimo Boscaglia, who was neither a theologian nor a priest. The first to defend Galileo was a Benedictine abbot, Benedetto Castelli, who was also a professor of mathematics and a former student of Galileo's. It was this exchange that led Galileo to write the Letter to Grand Duchess Christina. (Castelli remained Galileo's friend, visiting him at Arcetri near the end of Galileo's life, after months of effort to get permission from the Inquisition to do so.)
However, real power lay with the Church, and Galileo's arguments were most fiercely fought on the religious level. The late nineteenth and early twentieth century historian Andrew Dickson White wrote from an anti-clerical perspective:
On June 22, 1633, the Inquisition held the final hearing on Galileo, who was then 69 years old and pleaded for mercy, pointing to his "regrettable state of physical unwellness". Threatening him with torture, imprisonment, and death on the stake, the show trial forced Galileo to "abjure, curse and detest" his work and to promise to denounce others who held his prior viewpoint. Galileo did everything the church requested him to do, following (so far as we can tell) the plea bargain of two months earlier. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
That the threat of torture and death Galileo was facing was a real one had been proven by the church in the earlier trial against Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 1600 for holding a naturalistic view of the Universe.
In 1992, 359 years after the Galileo trial, Pope John Paul II issued an apology, lifting the edict of Inquisition against Galileo: "Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions." After the release of this report, the Pope said further that "... Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard [the relation of scientific and Biblical truths] than the theologians who opposed him."
Anything may have been the cause, but the fact remains that the Church made a man of science withdraw his science and did not have the magnanitmity to accept that they were wrong.
And the Pope could not still give up - the presence of the Creator indeed. I hope the creator shoves him and the rest like him into the deepest chasms of hell for violating the sanctity of science and men of science.
And oh, forgot to add this.
Science does not care about religion. It cares about religious people hindering its progress by bringing in stupid legislations (such as those that ban cloning, stem-cell research ad infinitum). However, religion seems bothered about science - right from the days of persecution of non-believers.
I did not blame religion for all of the world's problems, but I will (rightly) blame it for stifling scientific progress. Maybe not all of it, but a significant chunk of it. Look at the fools today who're trying to convince schools to teach Creation - that in itself says a lot.
Like it or not, the Crusades _were_ a religious phenomenon. So was the Inquisition. As is today's problem of Islamic Fundamentalism.
And as far as Hitler goes, I invoke Godwin's law. You lose.
I'll still stick to my original argument.
If you said faith, I'll agree. Faith is a _personal_ belief. Religion is an organized following of that belief. Believing in Christ is a personal act of faith, while Christianity is an organized attempt at spreading and maintaining that faith. Both are quite different.
Let us consider a religion, say Christianity. What all has it opposed thus far? Stifled Galileo for suggesting that the Earth is not the center of the Universe. Opposing Darwin's theories of evolution. Opposition to new research, such as this one.
I could go on and on, but the fact remains that while science seeks the truth, religion claims to have the truth. The two may be mutually inclusive - I do not know (I'm agnostic btw, to answer your question). Religion has systematically strived to prove that science is somehow harming faith and is wrong in some sense or the other. Persecution of scientific thinkers during middle ages comes to mind.
Where does it say that in order to be scientific you have to renounce any belief in any religion?
Religion is organized faith, and tends to oppose anything that would affect the spread of that faith. Religion sometimes construes science to be that opponent, but not always.
Faith does not require you to renounce your beiefs to be scientific. Religion not only requires, it also necessiates simply because of the way it works.
Because we are not them.
And it would be a scary precedent. If it's N Korea today, why couldn't it be China tomorrow?
And you would be harming whatever little percentage of people who use the Internet in N Korea, in the process. Besides, the Internet would be a source of access to the people of that country.
We all know how well sanctions work, right? It wouldn't make a difference. They're just trying to rake up a noise to garner attention.
Better that they say they'd hack into networks rather than say they'd launch a nuclear offensive.
From the article -
"This is probably more boasting than a real threat. In the past we have seen similar claims from the Taiwanese and the East Timorese," said Hyppönen.
Heh. Probably yet another of those notice us! notice us! type publicity stunt by N Korea.
And even if they do hack into an odd website or two, people will start to take notice and will act on it. It's far easier to secure your networks than launch an offensive on N Korea.
These guys just need to be ignored while they jump around their cages trying to garner attention.
Couldn't agree with you more. Read my other post in this article on this.
Btw, neat sig.
Insightful?
Informative might be a stretch, but I can take it.
But insightful that the mods do not have a sense of humour?
Nothing is funnier than someone cursing the mods to an early death by praying to God in an article on stem-cell research to prolong life.
Hmmm, I'm at a loss for words.
Because unfortunately, we live in a world where they are the majority and we are the minority.
Just go out there and suggest this to people across the world, immaterial of where they're from. They'll imaging babies being killed, as the original poster portrayed them to be.
I suppose you have not had to deal with convincing religious folks on science. I have. It's simply not possible.
And guess what? The government is not going to change its policy because of what a bunch of scientists believe. They care about the masses - and when they feel that this is wrong, for all practical intents and purposes, it is wrong.
They have the right to speak, but they don't have the right to be heard.
Look around you - see those new laws forbidding stem cell research, cloning and what not? They were brought into place because those who did not have the right to be heard, as you put it, were heard.
And unfortunately, they are the ones who are heard louder than you or me.
Great comment, thanks.
;)
Except for that one last virus analogy
It's a big moral question.
Seems more like a religious question, with the concept of soul and what not. I'll probably be modded down for this, but who cares. Religion has _always_ been the reason why science and progress has been withheld. Right from the days when religion could not accept the fact that science could know more or be right, religion has always hindered science.
It really pisses me off.
The link you gave suggests that it would be a real real long time before we see any useful results. Which would mean that we would have to start working on it as soon as we can. And what are we doing? We're busy drafting up new laws and policies that do not allow this so that a cross-section of religious voter-base who believe in a voice in the sky can be pacified.
Why?
So much science could happen. There is so much that we could do. Sometimes, I just feel that religion is the root-cause of all evil and all stupidity in this world.
This is the Bush administration's policy.
...
I'll quote from the NZ Herald article -
Current law prohibits the use of federal funds to make human embryonic stem cells, and in August 2001 President George W Bush said scientists could work only on a few already existing cell lines, using federal funds.
The Bush Administration argues that people who oppose experimenting on human embryos should not have their tax dollars used in such research, but it is silent on what privately funded groups can do.
I guess they had to satisfy their right-wing supporters without openly cutting off research - that would have brought up serious opposition.
I'm well aware of the fact that these are not fully grown embryos and they are embryos from fertility clinics that may probably be destroyed if they are not used for some purpose or the other (which is why the have even the anti-abortionists supporting their research).
My point was merely to put across to the original poster my ideas - embryos may not be fully grown or humans to you or me - but they are to several people. It's easy for us to say that they are just bags of several cells, it's hard for those bound by values different than ours to consider so.
I was putting across his point of view, nothing more - it's obvious that in your view, you do not consider them "life" - but there are several that do. For them, killing an embryo is akin to killing a life.
Cloning humans is. Cloning embryos is not.
There is a fundamental difference. They're doing the latter and not the former.
The government policy against the latter is only that it cannot be federally funded (since it uses the tax money from people who may oppose it, or so the claims go).
They plan to use technology similar to that used by South Korean scientists, who announced in February they had cloned a human embryo as a source of valuable stem cells.
So, yes. They're using similar research.