No doubt i'll be corrected if i'm wrong but isn't X-Windows older than the M$ Windows Family ? If this is the case surely M$ have no grounds for a case (or if they do then they've established precedent for one hell of a counter suit.)
As far as i am aware Catholic & Orthodox Christianity concede that animals have some form of animating spirit. (This dates back to about the 1200's but has not been formally repealed) . Its just souls animals lack according to Christianity, Islam & Judiasim(sp?). Most of the prehistoric, pagan, historic, spiritual or eastern religions allow animals equivalent soul / spirit / animating force to humans. Hence Japan a predominatly Shinto or Bhuddist country would have less religious problems with mixed human - animal genetics.
as an advanced society, do we really wish to combine our gene pool with that of an animal?
I am given to understand that genetically we are between 92% - 98% identical to any given animals. so the question appears a little redundant. However based on this knowledge and the argument only humans have souls it is possible to conclude the remaining 2% contains the elusive "soul gene". As the content of this 2% varies a little with race, features, genetic disease assuming all of it was required would brand a large portion of the population "souless". Having detected the soul gene we could the procede to whole new areas, detect if that psychopath is really a "souless
monster", breed a (religiously justifiable) slave race, make heaven bound housepets and check up politicians. Think of the possibilitys !
Hence in order to reassure all relavent religions I propose a joint biological / theological working group to isolate the soul gene so cloning and so forth can procede in a religiously acceptable fashion.
Its just a pity philosophy & ethics isn't as easy to pin down as religion.
what's the point?
Same point as any sport, a collection of people want to take part in it because they thinks its fun / want to win it / want the money and it is sufficiently interesting to the general / public media it becomes popular. People who disagree will play by different rules. Take rugby league vs rugby union for example, the same game with slightly different rules (mainly on the degree of overt vs covert violence) each has its supporters both are fun.
"Professional runner joe blogs trains 30+ hours a week , this is unfairly putting pressure on me as i don't want to train as much."
Sorry but some people want to win more than other people and that kind of thing always shows through, its what the idea of competition is all about after all.
Its why people take drugs now and continue to do so.
I will however conceed some type of league / rating system should be considered and humbly propose the following.
1. James T. Kirk Pie Eaters League -No training.
2. Ye Olde traditionalists -No Chemicals.
3. Marvel Power Pills League. - Guess what ?
4. University Challenge - Genetics V Cybernetics.
Does that appeal to your sense of fairness ? If it's fair for modified humans to run, then why shouldn't someone make a mature, concious decision, to have an engine and wheels build in?
If they want to and can find someone willing to compete I still don't see a problem. They've already paid for there advantage in all sorts of interesting physical and psychological ways
Cyberlimpics 2020 , watch people become distored freaks for your entertainment.... hang on we have that already.
Excuse me, do you think children choose there own genetics with normal human reproduction ? Quite evidently they do not. They are born with a variant of there parental DNA and so already have certain areas in which they are more naturally adapted or deficient dependant on the combination of the parental DNA. Well admitedly these traits may be far less than any intentional DNA alterations they are still there and apparent.
As for giving a kid a chance to form their own opinion about a skill or trait they'd like to enhance this a just matter of good parenting. Plus ask yourself if your parents could have choosen you a 200 year lifespan, great fitness without exercise and astonishing basketball ability would you object ?
If you look back the original artical talks about genetic treatements to grown adult athletes. Its not a question of "human dignity" its a question of free will and free experession. If someone makes a mature concious descision to have some form of gene therapy to make them a great runner whats the problem ?
By the same token if a intelligent lifeform is deliberatly engineered for running with no choice of its own then forced to be an athlete this is clearly ethically dubious. Of course it can be argued that no one gets to decide what there good at or how the look. Therefore banning the creation of genetically altered humans would be the ethical equal of forbiding people with genetic problems (eg. poor vision) from breeding without genetic correction of there children.
I will personally admit to being in favor of modifications / variants of humanity as long as we can avoid the whole mediveval slavery thing. As for human rights it is the resposability of any decent goverment and individual to give such rights to anyone or anything capable of asking for them.
Nice fundermentalist rant, no really at least you actually went to the trouble of quoting sources
(biased sources but what the hell).
However a few key points you left out
1.
Samhain is decended from celtic practices which occured a very very long time ago (~ 4BC and
earlier). While this may not sound that bad bear in mind the celts had a extensive oral
history and did not leave written records so anything we know about them ammounts pretty much to
hearsay, rumor and propoganda.
2.
Sacrafice (Human and otherwise)
While i admit this probably did occur (the romans at least generally disapproved of human
sacrafice in religious rituals) the context is important. Most early cultures lacked a seperation
between church and state so sacrafices where often a type of criminal punishment. Likewise
volantory sacrafice can be veiwed in a similar vein to martyrdom and other such religius
practices. As for animal sacrafice theres little differance between sacraficing it to a god or
sacraficing it to your stomach.
3. Modern Vs Ancient Religion.
Religions change constantly bits fall in and out of style, things get made up. Most modern pagan
celtic movements have as little similarity with their origins as modern protestantism, evangelism
or catholisim has with early christianity.
(before responding to this do a quick search on Gnostics, the Nicine Creed (possible sp),or the
Apocrypha. There interesting isn't it)
Hope this wan't to much flamebait but I felt htis needed a decent response.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt i'll be corrected if i'm wrong but isn't X-Windows older than the M$ Windows Family ? If this is the case surely M$ have no grounds for a case (or if they do then they've established precedent for one hell of a counter suit.)
As far as i am aware Catholic & Orthodox Christianity concede that animals have some form of animating spirit. (This dates back to about the 1200's but has not been formally repealed) . Its just souls animals lack according to Christianity, Islam & Judiasim(sp?). Most of the prehistoric, pagan, historic, spiritual or eastern religions allow animals equivalent soul / spirit / animating force to humans. Hence Japan a predominatly Shinto or Bhuddist country would have less religious problems with mixed human - animal genetics.
as an advanced society, do we really wish to combine our gene pool with that of an animal? I am given to understand that genetically we are between 92% - 98% identical to any given animals. so the question appears a little redundant. However based on this knowledge and the argument only humans have souls it is possible to conclude the remaining 2% contains the elusive "soul gene". As the content of this 2% varies a little with race, features, genetic disease assuming all of it was required would brand a large portion of the population "souless". Having detected the soul gene we could the procede to whole new areas, detect if that psychopath is really a "souless monster", breed a (religiously justifiable) slave race, make heaven bound housepets and check up politicians. Think of the possibilitys !
Hence in order to reassure all relavent religions I propose a joint biological / theological working group to isolate the soul gene so cloning and so forth can procede in a religiously acceptable fashion.
Its just a pity philosophy & ethics isn't as easy to pin down as religion.
what's the point? Same point as any sport, a collection of people want to take part in it because they thinks its fun / want to win it / want the money and it is sufficiently interesting to the general / public media it becomes popular. People who disagree will play by different rules. Take rugby league vs rugby union for example, the same game with slightly different rules (mainly on the degree of overt vs covert violence) each has its supporters both are fun.
"Professional runner joe blogs trains 30+ hours a week , this is unfairly putting pressure on me as i don't want to train as much."
Sorry but some people want to win more than other people and that kind of thing always shows through, its what the idea of competition is all about after all. Its why people take drugs now and continue to do so.
I will however conceed some type of league / rating system should be considered and humbly propose the following.1. James T. Kirk Pie Eaters League -No training.
2. Ye Olde traditionalists -No Chemicals.
3. Marvel Power Pills League. - Guess what ?
4. University Challenge - Genetics V Cybernetics.
Does that appeal to your sense of fairness ? If it's fair for modified humans to run, then why shouldn't someone make a mature, concious decision, to have an engine and wheels build in? If they want to and can find someone willing to compete I still don't see a problem. They've already paid for there advantage in all sorts of interesting physical and psychological ways
Cyberlimpics 2020 , watch people become distored freaks for your entertainment .... hang on we have that already.
Excuse me, do you think children choose there own genetics with normal human reproduction ? Quite evidently they do not. They are born with a variant of there parental DNA and so already have certain areas in which they are more naturally adapted or deficient dependant on the combination of the parental DNA. Well admitedly these traits may be far less than any intentional DNA alterations they are still there and apparent.
As for giving a kid a chance to form their own opinion about a skill or trait they'd like to enhance this a just matter of good parenting. Plus ask yourself if your parents could have choosen you a 200 year lifespan, great fitness without exercise and astonishing basketball ability would you object ?
If you look back the original artical talks about genetic treatements to grown adult athletes. Its not a question of "human dignity" its a question of free will and free experession. If someone makes a mature concious descision to have some form of gene therapy to make them a great runner whats the problem ?
By the same token if a intelligent lifeform is deliberatly engineered for running with no choice of its own then forced to be an athlete this is clearly ethically dubious. Of course it can be argued that no one gets to decide what there good at or how the look. Therefore banning the creation of genetically altered humans would be the ethical equal of forbiding people with genetic problems (eg. poor vision) from breeding without genetic correction of there children.
I will personally admit to being in favor of modifications / variants of humanity as long as we can avoid the whole mediveval slavery thing. As for human rights it is the resposability of any decent goverment and individual to give such rights to anyone or anything capable of asking for them.
Nice fundermentalist rant, no really at least you actually went to the trouble of quoting sources (biased sources but what the hell). However a few key points you left out 1. Samhain is decended from celtic practices which occured a very very long time ago (~ 4BC and earlier). While this may not sound that bad bear in mind the celts had a extensive oral history and did not leave written records so anything we know about them ammounts pretty much to hearsay, rumor and propoganda. 2. Sacrafice (Human and otherwise) While i admit this probably did occur (the romans at least generally disapproved of human sacrafice in religious rituals) the context is important. Most early cultures lacked a seperation between church and state so sacrafices where often a type of criminal punishment. Likewise volantory sacrafice can be veiwed in a similar vein to martyrdom and other such religius practices. As for animal sacrafice theres little differance between sacraficing it to a god or sacraficing it to your stomach. 3. Modern Vs Ancient Religion. Religions change constantly bits fall in and out of style, things get made up. Most modern pagan celtic movements have as little similarity with their origins as modern protestantism, evangelism or catholisim has with early christianity. (before responding to this do a quick search on Gnostics, the Nicine Creed (possible sp) ,or the
Apocrypha. There interesting isn't it)
Hope this wan't to much flamebait but I felt htis needed a decent response.