Can we have a discussion, in spite of Katz?
on
Planet Gattaca
·
· Score: 1
That's an understatement. Finding the formula for life would dwarf almost any previous scientific achievement that comes to mind, not to mention knocking conventional religion and theology on their antiquated behinds. What is a theologian supposed to tell some kid who can read the recipe for human life? If we can make it, doesn't that raise certain ultimate questions?
Could someone explain to me how this knocks anyone on their antiquated behinds? I guess it provides another smidgen of evidence for evolution...I hardly think that's necessary at this point (and I don't think anyone here wants to debate it). But does Katz mean to say that by mapping the human genome we disprove the existence of the human soul? I sincerely hope he's refering to something more logical than that. I'm simply at a loss for words trying to understand what on earth he is refering to. What ultimate question is he referring to?
But where is this debate supposed to occur? In Threads on Slashdot? In the United States Congress, whose idea of technological debate is requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in schools? Or in the American media, still stuck on hacking and cracking, e-commerce, or whether or not Johnny will sneak onto the Playboy website?
I really don't think the proposals regarding the Ten Commandments were intended to have anything to do with technological debate.
Why do you call for a public debate and discussion on a technological issue(that seems to be the only positive statement regarding the issue in this whole essay), then procede to mock such discussion when it occurs?
And why put this discussion in the hands of scientists and members of organized religion -- the latter probably responsible for more hatred, bloodshed and cruelty than any other single force in human history?
I suspect you've confused religion with socialism, given the tens(hundreds?) of millions slaughtered by Stalin and Mao alone.
Dr. Venter has only to log onto the discussion that will follow this column to get a realistic dose of just how likely it is that a rational, coherent public discussion of "scientists-playing-God" will take place.
Or he could just read your article, and see why such discussion never takes place here. I actually agree with most of what you wrote here, but the way you keep taking all these random off-topic snipes at religion and democracy really destroys your credibility.
My views on the subject? Well, I agree that it's inevitable (or I'm willing to assume that for discussion). I have to say, cloning doesn't really frighten me all that much. Parents will have more control over the genotype of the childrent they have. I don't really think this will result in more uniformity in the children we see--who wants to have children that look just like everyone else's children? I certainly don't. Do you? And I don't think everyone will want to have shallow, obedient children either--if there were any danger of parents thinking ahead to the inconvenience that children present, I imagine there wouldn't be too many children born at all!
The prospects of some central authority having complete control over the genotype of the entire country kind of scares me, for obvious reasons, but I think as long as control of the genes of offspring is placed in as many hands as possible, diversity, for all social purposes, will be assured.
Genetic testing (like Gattaca) worries me a bit more, I suppose, but I've babbled enough for one post.
>Based on legal precedent, there are definite >activities or behaviors that we can classify as >"illegal" in the sense that they violate >someone's rights (discrimination, for >example).
While I agree with the general claim, I'm not sure about your example--wasn't discrimation made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or something similiar?
I don't imagine the courts were too quick to recognize a right to force someone to hire you or do business with you before then. Not that I'm any kinda legal scholar or anything.
>somehow thinking the UN owes *it* a debt of >gratitude.
Well, we HAVE paid them a hell of lot of cash over the years. As an American, I *DO* think the UN owes me a debt of gratitude for my tax dollars. But regardless, I sure as hell don't owe them another dime.
Look past what you're encouraged to see
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
It is not hard to see that official attention is paid to an atrocity in direct proportion to the social status of its victims, and usually, its (immediate) perpetrators. [....] Uncaring parents and teasing by classmates notwithstanding, these two kids had a lot of advantages over most. If the sickness of our society is beginning to get to them, how many more vulnerable people does it destroy?
But is that not the point of all the official attention? They shouldn't have gone bad--but they did. Why?
Not patently ludicrous...
on
Why Kids Kill
·
· Score: 1
Tanks, helicopters, etc. are good for obliterating people. They're not very good at CONTROLLING them. If you want to control an openly hostile populace, you'll need soldiers on the ground.
>Well, I thought that the most appropriate rebuttal would be to quote from the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Rights. So here goes.
Hmm. Yes, this is just the thing to stop school killings. A huge world government of 6-7 billiuon people to second guess the every action of a parent towards their child.
>There. I think that did it pretty well. And yes, I know that these are ideals, and that the US has a poor track record with them. But that's not the point.
I'm sure we have a better track record than most of the nations in the United Nations General Assembly. Not that any standard with the word "United Nations" in it is worth upholding, mind you.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an understatement. Finding the formula for life would dwarf almost any previous scientific achievement that comes to mind, not to mention knocking conventional religion and theology on their antiquated behinds. What is a theologian supposed to tell some kid who can read the recipe for human life? If we can make it, doesn't that raise certain ultimate questions?
Could someone explain to me how this knocks anyone on their antiquated behinds? I guess it provides another smidgen of evidence for evolution...I hardly think that's necessary at this point (and I don't think anyone here wants to debate it). But does Katz mean to say that by mapping the human genome we disprove the existence of the human soul? I sincerely hope he's refering to something more logical than that. I'm simply at a loss for words trying to understand what on earth he is refering to. What ultimate question is he referring to?
But where is this debate supposed to occur? In Threads on Slashdot? In the United States Congress, whose idea of technological debate is requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in schools? Or in the American media, still stuck on hacking and cracking, e-commerce, or whether or not Johnny will sneak onto the Playboy website?
I really don't think the proposals regarding the Ten Commandments were intended to have anything to do with technological debate.
Why do you call for a public debate and discussion on a technological issue(that seems to be the only positive statement regarding the issue in this whole essay), then procede to mock such discussion when it occurs?
And why put this discussion in the hands of scientists and members of organized religion -- the latter probably responsible for more hatred, bloodshed and cruelty than any other single force in human history?
I suspect you've confused religion with socialism, given the tens(hundreds?) of millions slaughtered by Stalin and Mao alone.
Dr. Venter has only to log onto the discussion that will follow this column to get a realistic dose of just how likely it is that a rational, coherent public discussion of "scientists-playing-God" will take place.
Or he could just read your article, and see why such discussion never takes place here. I actually agree with most of what you wrote here, but the way you keep taking all these random off-topic snipes at religion and democracy really destroys your credibility.
My views on the subject? Well, I agree that it's inevitable (or I'm willing to assume that for discussion). I have to say, cloning doesn't really frighten me all that much. Parents will have more control over the genotype of the childrent they have. I don't really think this will result in more uniformity in the children we see--who wants to have children that look just like everyone else's children? I certainly don't. Do you? And I don't think everyone will want to have shallow, obedient children either--if there were any danger of parents thinking ahead to the inconvenience that children present, I imagine there wouldn't be too many children born at all!
The prospects of some central authority having complete control over the genotype of the entire country kind of scares me, for obvious reasons, but I think as long as control of the genes of offspring is placed in as many hands as possible, diversity, for all social purposes, will be assured.
Genetic testing (like Gattaca) worries me a bit more, I suppose, but I've babbled enough for one post.
>Based on legal precedent, there are definite
>activities or behaviors that we can classify as
>"illegal" in the sense that they violate >someone's rights (discrimination, for >example).
While I agree with the general claim, I'm not sure about your example--wasn't discrimation made illegal by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or something similiar?
I don't imagine the courts were too quick to recognize a right to force someone to hire you or do business with you before then. Not that I'm any kinda legal scholar or anything.
>somehow thinking the UN owes *it* a debt of >gratitude.
Well, we HAVE paid them a hell of lot of cash over the years. As an American, I *DO* think the UN owes me a debt of gratitude for my tax dollars. But regardless, I sure as hell don't owe them another dime.
It is not hard to see that official attention is paid to an atrocity in direct proportion to the social status of its victims, and usually, its (immediate) perpetrators. [....] Uncaring parents and teasing by classmates notwithstanding, these two kids had a lot of advantages over most. If
the sickness of our society is beginning to get to them, how many more vulnerable people does it destroy?
But is that not the point of all the official attention? They shouldn't have gone bad--but they did. Why?
Tanks, helicopters, etc. are good for obliterating people. They're not very good at CONTROLLING them. If you want to control an openly hostile populace, you'll need soldiers on the ground.
>Well, I thought that the most appropriate rebuttal would be to quote from the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Rights. So here goes.
Hmm. Yes, this is just the thing to stop school killings. A huge world government of 6-7 billiuon people to second guess the every action of a parent towards their child.
>There. I think that did it pretty well. And yes, I know that these are ideals, and that the US has a poor track record with them. But that's not the point.
I'm sure we have a better track record than most of the nations in the United Nations General Assembly. Not that any standard with the word "United Nations" in it is worth upholding, mind you.
You move.