You are joking, aren't you? You've never heard of War of the Worlds? Go here and here.
HGWells book, radio show, film, and countless ripoffs.
War of the Worlds is possibly the most famous alien invasion film in history - Independance Day was a poor copy of it (I think they called it an homage).
The problem is not that nobody has thought about doing it - the problem is how.
Collating results by adoptive parents/genetic parents depends on the people themselves telling you who their "real" parents are. The usual method is to group genetic families and adoptive families sparately and compare, rather than comparing adopted children to their genetic parents. Studies that have been carried out in the former manner show there is a closer correlation between genetic parents to their children than adoptive parents to their adoptive children, but this may be effected by the adoption process itelf. Its almost impossible to give conclusive evidence without complete knowledge of the facts, but, unfortunately, due to the obvious privacy concerns, you don't always have all the facts.
Again, I'm not denying that genetics aren't a factor, I'd go further and say they're an important factor, but I think nurture is at least as important as nature.
For once, I find myself pleased with a discussion on/. That doesn't happen often.
Not much use, for say, a linguistics lecture where you're trying to learn to hear sounds that no westerner has ever been required to make. Try writing down a glottal stop or a pharyngeal fricative, and they're nothing compared to what aboriginal and African languages can throw at you.
It all seems a bit 1984 to me. Why not add a memory hole button while you are at it?
Was it eurasia or eastasia? I never can remember.
The only way to do this (if indeed it needs to be done) would be to allow editing of a post only if no-one has replied to it, and for a marker to be placed on the post that it has changed. Or you could just use the preview button.
"American" is governed by the same grammatical rules as English - you may be a little creative with your spelling from time to time, but its still English.
If you believe everything your government tells you about war, then I suggest you go here.
How? What empirical evidence is this belief based on? This is my initial question repeated. You have no such evidence since artificial wombs have never been used. To play upon unsubstantiated fears, without even defining what this 'harm' might be, is silly.
You're right, I have no evidence for this, but you have no evidence it won't harm them either. I'd rather assume that it will harm them and fix it, than assume it won't and allow the suffering to go ahead, before fixing it. The problem is that fixing it will probably require trial runs...
And you still haven't explained how the technology can be 'abused' without delving into the realm of science fiction
As far as I can see, I haven't given any arguments that require science fiction (except all of them because this technology doesn't exist yet).
But the psychological affect owes much to the process of pregnancy - it is alot easier to become attached to something that you had to invest 9 months in. The hormones produced by the pregnancy have far more positive affects than mood swings and postnatal depression - they help kick start the maternal instinct.
For the baby, actually being inside the mother for nine months accustoms him/her to the mothers unique biology, and the first few hours after birth are critical in forming the mother-baby bond. Within a few hours, babies show a preference for their mother's voice, and after a few days, a preference for their mother's native tongue (or whichever language she has used in the babies presence).
The technology will only advance through trial and error - error at the cost of a life. The research depends upon a disregard for the value of the lives of the foetus' used for testing. What happens when the research advances to later stages of development? When do you stop aborting? What do you do with the children that arise as a result of the research? Before the technology is perfected, then research will inevitably result in the termination (whether due to imperfections in the system, or intervention) of human life.
Banning this technology would harm women by reducing their choices and forcing natural pregnancy on those who want children when an alternative exists.
This technology does not provide an alternative to natural pregnancy. After insertion of the foetus into the womb, it would then be placed back into the womans body.
The technology may be furthered, and artificial wombs may be developed that could support a baby for the full 9 month term.
I agree that there are no valid ethical objections to any technology, only its applications. I do not agree that the technology is/can be beneficial only to women - an artificial womb requires no woman. Saying that it benefits women by putting them in control is no more valid than saying it is detrimental to women by giving men the power to procreate without them.
I never suggested a restriction of the technology - in fact at the end of my post I voiced my objection to a ban. I do have concerns that it may be abused though. You keep saying that banning the technology would harm women - what about the men? There are men who want children as much as women do, but their chosen partner is incapable of providing for that desire - a ban would also harm them. Making this an issue entirely about women is as bad as making an issue solely about men. My argument is not facetious. I won't patronise you by giving a definition of the word, but I don't think it means what you intended to say. Denying that this technology can be abused is shortsighted - any technology can be abused.
I would have a hard job watching Attack of the Clones one too many times, as it is not released until May, and I don't watch Dark Angel.
There are no valid religious or ethical objections to this technology. In this case (as in most others) 'religious' or 'ethical' concerns are simply a way of enforcing one's world view upon others in a fashion that disguises true intent - of making other people do what you want them to do, simply to prove that you can
This is not what (at least my) ethical concerns seek to do. I am only concerned that the child may suffer, through no fault of its own, for the lack of a natural pregnancy. I don't know about you, but someone suffering just because its convenient for someone else strikes me as unethical. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I am not opposed to this technology, far from it, I am opposed only to a denial of its possible misuses.
Is saying that "There are no valid religious or ethical objections to this technology." not imposing your view on others?
This is in no way trivial - the first few hours are critical to the formation of the mother/baby bond. Like many other animals, humans recognise their mothers voice within a few hours of birth - if teh mother isn't there, then thats not going to happen.
Sorry if I was a bit short -/. tends to do that to me:(
We were both wrong. The probability of a female child is 33% (I had originally put this and then second-guessed myself). 2 chances of a boy, and one of a girl, therefore 1/(2+1) probability of a girl.
As for the "heritability of intelligence", the jury's still out. None of the studies have provided evidence that heridity is the major factor in producing offspring who will score highly in IQ tests. At best, the relationship as been shown to be 50:50 genetics and environment. This area is plagued by misuse of data and statistics. It has been put forward that genetics is more important than environment, because IQs of related people get more similar as they get older, but the fact is that due to the nature of IQ, everybody's IQ gets more similar with age.
Yes, correlation between IQs of related people tends to be higher than unrelated, but all of these studies look at the IQ of siblings/people of the same generation - I have seen very few that compare IQ of the parent to that of the child. Assuming that because children with the same parents have IQ that correlates (at about 0.4 when reared together) does not imply that their intelligence will correlate to their parents. Genetics is not that simple. We hardly understand what intelligence is, and yet we're willing to argue genetic factors in its development. Most of these studies depend upon the definition of intelligence as "what intelligence tests measure". It is obvious that two people scoring the same on an intelligence test could do so in different ways. Application of a numerical score to this is too abitrary to allow for significant scientific study - too much information is lost. I am not an ostrich about these studies - I am a psychology student (among other subjects), and I like to think I have an open mind, but that means that I'm not going to just accept something because evidence, when interpreted in a certain way, can suggest it. Some studies have said that environment causes a "reaction" zone of up to 30 IQ points between related individuals. This doesn't seem like much, but when we realise that 30 is 2 standard deviations in the context of IQ, we realise that it is a massive difference - it could mean the difference between average and top 4 percentiles.
I do not dispute that heridity has some significance in determining IQ, but it not as important as environment.
On every proposed method of measuring intelligence, we find that it is inherited (which is to say that the intelligence of the people who contribute the genetic material is statistically significant to the intelligence of the offspring)
This assumes that a similar significance would be found if the child was raised away from their genetic parents.
Gattaca never offered a perfect child, only screening of all the possible genetic material available from each parent. That way it is the "best" child that the parents would ever have, but not perfect.
The colonisation proposal is viable, but if high speed travel does become a possibility, then we could probably then overtake the colony ship before it reached its destination, assuming we knew where to find a destination, that is. I would say you are correct in your assumption that the most difficult part of the project would be raising the children - it would seem that a lot of human parents have difficulty in this area, so a lot of research would be required before it would be remotely possible. As for the biological tank, that is basically what a woman is, as far as the foetus is concerned. It is obviously more complex than that, but if prosthetic limbs and organ transplants are ethical (and not all would say they are), then this cannot be worse. I'm pretty sure you'd only agree to eugenics if you were allowed to choose the parameters - would you agree so readily if you or your children fell into the "superfluous" category?
Those who support the theory that the population gets dumber with every generation are obviously ahead of their time. It is true that successful people tend to have less children. Success is not a measure of intelligence, and intelligence has not been shown to be hereditary.
That aside, I take exception to your unholy kernel child. I'd like to know where you got your figure of 25% for the probability of a female baby from. You obviously either have little or no understanding of genetics, or statistics, or both. The chances of Linus and (male) AC having a female child are 50%. The possible combinations are XY,XX,YY, each with a probability of 33%. YY would not produce a viable embryo, so that leaves XY and XX that will carry to term, both with equal probability. 100/2 = 50% Given the ability to insert genetic material at will into the ovum, then surely using material from the parents' own somatic cells would be preferable?
You want to see empirical evidence of harm to a child?
I have a feeling that you are painting a picture that is too black and white - not everyone who would rather see this technology suppressed (and I'm not one of them) is a mysoginist. It is the first cry of the paranoid to say that a decision has been made in order to harm or opress them. There are many who have what they see as valid religious/ethical objections to such a technology. Others merely have reservations that it must be controlled to prevent abuse, just like any powerful technology. I think that there is a danger that this development could lead to further trivialisation of parenthood. The acquisition of a child in this manner could, in some people's minds, be seen as more convenient than a natural pregnancy. I have no intrinsic objection to the technology, but to use it as a feminist, or anti-feminist tool is ludicrous.
I'll probably get flamed to hell and back for this, but... A child is not a commodity to be obtained. I think everyone will agree on this. This technology, if abused, could allow just this. It should be seen as a treatment for those who are ill, not as an easy way to have a baby for someone who, for the sake of their career would forgo a natural pregnancy. What will happen to their career when th baby is born? After 9 months are they then going to find the time away from their career to actually raise the child? Don't get me wrong, I know there are women who have full time careers, and do a superlative job of raising families - but they have invested time in bringing that child to the world. To simply provide the genetic material, and then pick the child up 9 months later would be inconceivable (no pun intended). I know that this is probably not what you are proposing, but it could very easily become just that.
Most who see pregnancy as an inconvenience, are, in my opinion, not going to allow themselves to be inconvenienced by the result of that pregnancy. I would not condone a ban of this technology, because it has some extremely positive uses, but it also carries the possibility of a cheapening of human life.
I don't think that putting a premature baby into an artificial womb would be any more feasible than putting a premature baby into a natural womb - the birth process would destroy the structure of the placenta, and if it would be possible, then it would probably be possible to prevent or reverse the premature birth without the need for an artificial womb. It may be that I'm talking rubbish, but it seems logical to me.
If you read my post, I said that the application makes the difference between good and bad. I made no comment on ethics either way.
If you think its acceptable to use the technology in the way you describe, then thats for you to decide, but suppressing technology because it might be used for evil is possibly the worst kind of censorship. It assumes far too much of the people it is supposed to be "protecting".
I don't think the kind of thing that you talk about would ever be acceptable in the world of sport - if steroids and other drugs aren't, then I doubt genetic augmentation therapy would be.
I think the point being made was that != means does not equal, whereas the meaning that is true in the sentence
larger brains != more intelligence
is "does not imply". The answer is that != can have a variety of context-defined meanings when used in human language, as opposed to where it belongs, programming language.
Possible interpretations of !=
1. is not equal to
2. does not infer/imply
3. excludes
In 1984 it was the proles (proletariat), or the common people. It wasn't made entirely clear what you had to do (or not do) to become a prole -I have a feeling you just had to be a commoner, with no political power. After all, who cares what the powerless do?
Doctors performing C-sections would prevent the parallel evolution of a larger pelvic aperture. In fact performing C-sections favours runaway headsize in infants - it removes one of the limitations. It also removes the pressure for a certain sized pelvis in women, so it would allow female pelvic size to decrease.
Slashdot Mirror
You are joking, aren't you? You've never heard of War of the Worlds? Go here and here.
HGWells book, radio show, film, and countless ripoffs. War of the Worlds is possibly the most famous alien invasion film in history - Independance Day was a poor copy of it (I think they called it an homage).
Collating results by adoptive parents/genetic parents depends on the people themselves telling you who their "real" parents are. The usual method is to group genetic families and adoptive families sparately and compare, rather than comparing adopted children to their genetic parents. Studies that have been carried out in the former manner show there is a closer correlation between genetic parents to their children than adoptive parents to their adoptive children, but this may be effected by the adoption process itelf. Its almost impossible to give conclusive evidence without complete knowledge of the facts, but, unfortunately, due to the obvious privacy concerns, you don't always have all the facts.
Again, I'm not denying that genetics aren't a factor, I'd go further and say they're an important factor, but I think nurture is at least as important as nature.
For once, I find myself pleased with a discussion on /. That doesn't happen often.
silverware Pronunciation Key (slvr-wâr) n.
Metal!=silver in case you were wondering.
Not much use, for say, a linguistics lecture where you're trying to learn to hear sounds that no westerner has ever been required to make. Try writing down a glottal stop or a pharyngeal fricative, and they're nothing compared to what aboriginal and African languages can throw at you.
It all seems a bit 1984 to me.
Why not add a memory hole button while you are at it?
Was it eurasia or eastasia? I never can remember.
The only way to do this (if indeed it needs to be done) would be to allow editing of a post only if no-one has replied to it, and for a marker to be placed on the post that it has changed. Or you could just use the preview button.
If you believe everything your government tells you about war, then I suggest you go here.
For the baby, actually being inside the mother for nine months accustoms him/her to the mothers unique biology, and the first few hours after birth are critical in forming the mother-baby bond. Within a few hours, babies show a preference for their mother's voice, and after a few days, a preference for their mother's native tongue (or whichever language she has used in the babies presence).
"AN" is the correct word here. (as in "an historic occasion", "an heuristic", "an hospital") Just one of the vagueries of the English language.
The technology will only advance through trial and error - error at the cost of a life. The research depends upon a disregard for the value of the lives of the foetus' used for testing. What happens when the research advances to later stages of development? When do you stop aborting? What do you do with the children that arise as a result of the research? Before the technology is perfected, then research will inevitably result in the termination (whether due to imperfections in the system, or intervention) of human life.
The technology may be furthered, and artificial wombs may be developed that could support a baby for the full 9 month term.
I agree that there are no valid ethical objections to any technology, only its applications.
I do not agree that the technology is/can be beneficial only to women - an artificial womb requires no woman. Saying that it benefits women by putting them in control is no more valid than saying it is detrimental to women by giving men the power to procreate without them.
I never suggested a restriction of the technology - in fact at the end of my post I voiced my objection to a ban. I do have concerns that it may be abused though.
You keep saying that banning the technology would harm women - what about the men? There are men who want children as much as women do, but their chosen partner is incapable of providing for that desire - a ban would also harm them. Making this an issue entirely about women is as bad as making an issue solely about men.
My argument is not facetious. I won't patronise you by giving a definition of the word, but I don't think it means what you intended to say.
Denying that this technology can be abused is shortsighted - any technology can be abused.
I would have a hard job watching Attack of the Clones one too many times, as it is not released until May, and I don't watch Dark Angel.
This is not what (at least my) ethical concerns seek to do. I am only concerned that the child may suffer, through no fault of its own, for the lack of a natural pregnancy. I don't know about you, but someone suffering just because its convenient for someone else strikes me as unethical. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I am not opposed to this technology, far from it, I am opposed only to a denial of its possible misuses.Is saying that "There are no valid religious or ethical objections to this technology." not imposing your view on others?
This is in no way trivial - the first few hours are critical to the formation of the mother/baby bond. Like many other animals, humans recognise their mothers voice within a few hours of birth - if teh mother isn't there, then thats not going to happen.
Is that all? Why didn't you just say? I've got one of those lying around somewhere, but I didn't think anyone would be interested.
Destroying foetus' at will to further scientific resaearch not ethically unacceptable? I think you'll find yourself in the minority there.
We were both wrong. The probability of a female child is 33% (I had originally put this and then second-guessed myself). 2 chances of a boy, and one of a girl, therefore 1/(2+1) probability of a girl.
As for the "heritability of intelligence", the jury's still out. None of the studies have provided evidence that heridity is the major factor in producing offspring who will score highly in IQ tests. At best, the relationship as been shown to be 50:50 genetics and environment. This area is plagued by misuse of data and statistics. It has been put forward that genetics is more important than environment, because IQs of related people get more similar as they get older, but the fact is that due to the nature of IQ, everybody's IQ gets more similar with age.
Yes, correlation between IQs of related people tends to be higher than unrelated, but all of these studies look at the IQ of siblings/people of the same generation - I have seen very few that compare IQ of the parent to that of the child. Assuming that because children with the same parents have IQ that correlates (at about 0.4 when reared together) does not imply that their intelligence will correlate to their parents. Genetics is not that simple.
We hardly understand what intelligence is, and yet we're willing to argue genetic factors in its development. Most of these studies depend upon the definition of intelligence as "what intelligence tests measure". It is obvious that two people scoring the same on an intelligence test could do so in different ways. Application of a numerical score to this is too abitrary to allow for significant scientific study - too much information is lost. I am not an ostrich about these studies - I am a psychology student (among other subjects), and I like to think I have an open mind, but that means that I'm not going to just accept something because evidence, when interpreted in a certain way, can suggest it.
Some studies have said that environment causes a "reaction" zone of up to 30 IQ points between related individuals. This doesn't seem like much, but when we realise that 30 is 2 standard deviations in the context of IQ, we realise that it is a massive difference - it could mean the difference between average and top 4 percentiles.
I do not dispute that heridity has some significance in determining IQ, but it not as important as environment.
This assumes that a similar significance would be found if the child was raised away from their genetic parents.Gesticulated? I'm sure there's more to it than just waving your hands about.
The colonisation proposal is viable, but if high speed travel does become a possibility, then we could probably then overtake the colony ship before it reached its destination, assuming we knew where to find a destination, that is.
I would say you are correct in your assumption that the most difficult part of the project would be raising the children - it would seem that a lot of human parents have difficulty in this area, so a lot of research would be required before it would be remotely possible.
As for the biological tank, that is basically what a woman is, as far as the foetus is concerned. It is obviously more complex than that, but if prosthetic limbs and organ transplants are ethical (and not all would say they are), then this cannot be worse.
I'm pretty sure you'd only agree to eugenics if you were allowed to choose the parameters - would you agree so readily if you or your children fell into the "superfluous" category?
That aside, I take exception to your unholy kernel child. I'd like to know where you got your figure of 25% for the probability of a female baby from. You obviously either have little or no understanding of genetics, or statistics, or both. The chances of Linus and (male) AC having a female child are 50%. The possible combinations are XY,XX,YY, each with a probability of 33%. YY would not produce a viable embryo, so that leaves XY and XX that will carry to term, both with equal probability. 100/2 = 50%
Given the ability to insert genetic material at will into the ovum, then surely using material from the parents' own somatic cells would be preferable?
But when the method of research itself is ethically unacceptable, then research should be halted.
I have a feeling that you are painting a picture that is too black and white - not everyone who would rather see this technology suppressed (and I'm not one of them) is a mysoginist. It is the first cry of the paranoid to say that a decision has been made in order to harm or opress them. There are many who have what they see as valid religious/ethical objections to such a technology.
Others merely have reservations that it must be controlled to prevent abuse, just like any powerful technology.
I think that there is a danger that this development could lead to further trivialisation of parenthood. The acquisition of a child in this manner could, in some people's minds, be seen as more convenient than a natural pregnancy.
I have no intrinsic objection to the technology, but to use it as a feminist, or anti-feminist tool is ludicrous.
I'll probably get flamed to hell and back for this, but...
A child is not a commodity to be obtained. I think everyone will agree on this. This technology, if abused, could allow just this. It should be seen as a treatment for those who are ill, not as an easy way to have a baby for someone who, for the sake of their career would forgo a natural pregnancy. What will happen to their career when th baby is born? After 9 months are they then going to find the time away from their career to actually raise the child? Don't get me wrong, I know there are women who have full time careers, and do a superlative job of raising families - but they have invested time in bringing that child to the world. To simply provide the genetic material, and then pick the child up 9 months later would be inconceivable (no pun intended). I know that this is probably not what you are proposing, but it could very easily become just that.
Most who see pregnancy as an inconvenience, are, in my opinion, not going to allow themselves to be inconvenienced by the result of that pregnancy.
I would not condone a ban of this technology, because it has some extremely positive uses, but it also carries the possibility of a cheapening of human life.
I don't think that putting a premature baby into an artificial womb would be any more feasible than putting a premature baby into a natural womb - the birth process would destroy the structure of the placenta, and if it would be possible, then it would probably be possible to prevent or reverse the premature birth without the need for an artificial womb. It may be that I'm talking rubbish, but it seems logical to me.
If you think its acceptable to use the technology in the way you describe, then thats for you to decide, but suppressing technology because it might be used for evil is possibly the worst kind of censorship. It assumes far too much of the people it is supposed to be "protecting".
I don't think the kind of thing that you talk about would ever be acceptable in the world of sport - if steroids and other drugs aren't, then I doubt genetic augmentation therapy would be.
larger brains != more intelligence
is "does not imply". The answer is that != can have a variety of context-defined meanings when used in human language, as opposed to where it belongs, programming language.
Possible interpretations of !=
1. is not equal to
2. does not infer/imply
3. excludes
In 1984 it was the proles (proletariat), or the common people. It wasn't made entirely clear what you had to do (or not do) to become a prole -I have a feeling you just had to be a commoner, with no political power. After all, who cares what the powerless do?
Doctors performing C-sections would prevent the parallel evolution of a larger pelvic aperture. In fact performing C-sections favours runaway headsize in infants - it removes one of the limitations. It also removes the pressure for a certain sized pelvis in women, so it would allow female pelvic size to decrease.