No, you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that cloning is wrong. What I'm trying to say is that neither side has a compelling argument and when a technology involves the question of life itself then perhaps a less cavalier ethical approach might be considered.
Cloning of the type practiced by the South Koreans does involve the destruction of an embryo. It is identical to that which was used to clone Dolly the Sheep and involves:
"the nucleus from the cell being cloned squeezed into an empty egg and then encouraged to begin dividing. (Unlike Dolly, human embryos created in this way must be destroyed after a few days and would never be implanted.)"
This is a quote from a stem cell researcher at the National Institute for Medical Research in London. Do you still want to say that cloning != killing embryos?
Yes, it is true to say that the cells will still become part of a human being but it is different from taking a skin graft. A skin graft is not, will not and will not ever, under any circumstances become a human being. An embryo, if implanted into a host, will. I've yet to see a walking skin graft. The point about the law arguing that embryos are not people is moot as well. It reminds me of The Simpsons, "Once something is legal it's no longer immoral" and I'm not sure I'd want to base my moral philosophy on this.
I'm sorry if I'm a little bit squeamish about the use of technology that involves the destruction of what may conceivably be considered be a human being but there you go.
I tend to agree with you with regards to your first point. Certainly in terms of abortion for example. I'm prepared to submit to the moral framework of others on this because while I'm personally uneasy about it, I wouldn't presume that my viewpoint is any more valid than another. Even though on other matters it sometimes is...;o)
Your second point is the one that I'm more concerned with. Quantifying societal harm is almost impossible because everyone has different value judgements they apply but does this then mean that all ethics are relative?
As I understand it, and IANAB (I am not a biologist), implanting donor cells into an oocyte results in an embryo identical to one occurring naturally so you still need to make a differentiation. Implanted into a donor mother these embryos would develop into human beings. Would you argue that only a 'naturally grown' human deserves the respect of the law?
Well, let's assume for a minute that killing human beings is wrong. How do you then differentiate between a human being and an infant? An infant and a 8 month foetus? An 8 month foetus and a 4 month foetus? A 4 month foetus and an embryo? At what point does it become Ok to destroy "it", whatever "it" is? Because if you're claiming that cloning is right then the responsibility for moral justification lies with you.
Wow, prepare to be modded flamebait, insightful, interesting and overrated!
Seriously, there's an ethical debate to be had here which is too important to reduce to religion v science flamewars. We need some intelligent argument as to what makes cloning right because it seems to me as a vaguely agnostic liberal, it's difficult if not impossible to draw the line beyond which we deserve to have our lives protected by the law. Is there anything beyond the purely utilitarian view that this research will save x lives but cost y lives and if x is less than y then it's moral? I'm sure there must be but I'm damned if I can see it.
The BBC license fee is one of the best investments you'll ever make. Where else can you be ensured of an impartial independent information channel with consistently high quality output imparted through channels so diverse you probably haven't heard of half of them. I'm sure you'll be ecstatic when the entire gamut of television in the United Kingdom runs from the Celebrity Wrestling to Footballer's Wives. Personally I'd prefer to keep programs such as the Power of Nightmares and The Office while supporting high quality radio and fantastic web services. All for £10, or $20 a month.
Ha! A sci-fi version of the OC with this man in it?! That I'd pay to see. The only bearded, guitar playing, part troll orc lookalike member of the whole cast. Still. Realism never goes amiss.
Actually no, in recent years, at least in my country, book sales are at a record high.
It seems to be something of a myth that book reading is on a slide. Certainly book ownership has been going through the roof. Whether people are reading good books though is a different matter entirely.
Well. Precisely. Coding is hard, but not any more so than designing a building, an aircraft or an automobile. However, neither is it any less hard, so why is software engineering not accorded anything like as much respect as other disciplines? Do you see Airbus outsourcing airtcraft designs to the far east to save a few Euro's? No. Yet for some reason management always believes software can be written cheaper and quicker.
Admittedly lives don't depend on 90% of the software any of us here writes, but that isn't to say it isn't complex or demanding and requires complex, demanding testing to ensure high standards of reliability.
If those resources aren't allocated, then I'm afraid 'Shit Happens' is very definitely an excuse.
Actually, I don't know what it's like in the States, but here in the UK, authors and artists do have glitzy award shows that are televised live. Witness the Booker Prize, the Orange Prize or the Turner Prize. Maybe this just reflects differing intellectual standards or interests, but it's certainly nothing strange to us.
Personally, I feel as soon as real writers realise the power of the medium, computer games will become a respected art form in themselves distinct from more traditional modes of expression. If not, it'll be a huge disappointment.
For thousands of years people have been 'modding' their clothes, houses, faces and bodies to distinguish themselves from the herd around them. Given that, I don't think hardware is a special case. If it forms part of your image then it will be changed, adapted or co-opted to help illustrate the personbrand you are. That's just the way human nature works, so no, the plastic surgery generation is irrelevant it's the an expression of desire for status, individuality and the illusion of differentiation.
Like most other things, it's just "same old, same old".
Rapid on demand location based services springs to mind, such as detailed maps and directions. As does accessing music files remotely from your own PC. That'd be nice. Maybe more expansive travel information such as realtime traffic or flight data. I'm sure these would become more and more useful given a large hike in bandwidth.
As somone more intelligent than myself said, "if you build it, they will come.".
I tend to disagree with that argument. Obviously the need to shift troops around quickly was of importance, but IMHO the far more influential aspect was the way they governed. The export of values and language proved a far greater pacifier than the threat of force could ever be. Empires based on fear alone soon fall.
Forget all the hippy nonsense about laying down your arms and abolishing war. Forget all the hawks with their tanks and bombs. If you really want to stop war, give them free access to MTV, Coca-Cola and consumer electronics.
Ideology always crumbles in the face of consumerism.
See, I'm not sure that drug abuse is necessarily the sign of greater problems any more. I used to, but then I realised that almost every civilization that ever existed has invented several creative forms of getting wasted. Hell, even elephants and monkys have been known to get ripped to the tits on various forms of fermented sugars and berries.
If reality is so boring that even chimps can't stand it, what chance have we got?!
That's pretty unfair. You want to try working a 40/50/60 hour week with wife and kids in a hard manual job and then see how much spare time you have to make yourself well informed. Some of us simply don't have time to do this. Somehow the/. mentality seems to be that we should all be experts, all the time on everything that affects us. Unfortunatly, the world doesn't allow that and once we've made time for work, food, sleep, family and friends, there ain't a lot left to determine whose turn it is to tell media porkies. Personally I just don't believe anything of it. I know that's a bad attitude to have, but it's all I have the time or energy to do.
These things are relative. Foxbat is pretty out there, but the idea of one of those after me is a damn sight more terrifying than being told a squadron of nuclear Badgers is heading my way.
Something I've been wondering for a while, who dreams up those oddball NATO designations? How the hell do we get from 'Flanker' (SU-27), 'Badger' (TU-16) and 'Fishbed' (Mig-21) to 'Satan' 'Havoc' and 'Foxbat'?!
Did the old guys get fired for not taking it seriously enough?
Wouldn't that simply result in a different cancer? Cells replicating uncontrollably is an almost identical problem so the chances are you wouldn't be much worse off than the original problem...
You pays your money and takes your choice, I guess. Personally being killed by an army of mutant robot bugs is waaay cooler...
Slashdot Mirror
Cloning of the type practiced by the South Koreans does involve the destruction of an embryo. It is identical to that which was used to clone Dolly the Sheep and involves: This is a quote from a stem cell researcher at the National Institute for Medical Research in London. Do you still want to say that cloning != killing embryos?
Yes, it is true to say that the cells will still become part of a human being but it is different from taking a skin graft. A skin graft is not, will not and will not ever, under any circumstances become a human being. An embryo, if implanted into a host, will. I've yet to see a walking skin graft. The point about the law arguing that embryos are not people is moot as well. It reminds me of The Simpsons, "Once something is legal it's no longer immoral" and I'm not sure I'd want to base my moral philosophy on this.
I'm sorry if I'm a little bit squeamish about the use of technology that involves the destruction of what may conceivably be considered be a human being but there you go.
I tend to agree with you with regards to your first point. Certainly in terms of abortion for example. I'm prepared to submit to the moral framework of others on this because while I'm personally uneasy about it, I wouldn't presume that my viewpoint is any more valid than another. Even though on other matters it sometimes is... ;o)
Your second point is the one that I'm more concerned with. Quantifying societal harm is almost impossible because everyone has different value judgements they apply but does this then mean that all ethics are relative?
As I understand it, and IANAB (I am not a biologist), implanting donor cells into an oocyte results in an embryo identical to one occurring naturally so you still need to make a differentiation. Implanted into a donor mother these embryos would develop into human beings. Would you argue that only a 'naturally grown' human deserves the respect of the law?
Well, let's assume for a minute that killing human beings is wrong. How do you then differentiate between a human being and an infant? An infant and a 8 month foetus? An 8 month foetus and a 4 month foetus? A 4 month foetus and an embryo? At what point does it become Ok to destroy "it", whatever "it" is? Because if you're claiming that cloning is right then the responsibility for moral justification lies with you.
Wow, prepare to be modded flamebait, insightful, interesting and overrated!
Seriously, there's an ethical debate to be had here which is too important to reduce to religion v science flamewars. We need some intelligent argument as to what makes cloning right because it seems to me as a vaguely agnostic liberal, it's difficult if not impossible to draw the line beyond which we deserve to have our lives protected by the law. Is there anything beyond the purely utilitarian view that this research will save x lives but cost y lives and if x is less than y then it's moral? I'm sure there must be but I'm damned if I can see it.
Oh do be quiet troll.
The BBC license fee is one of the best investments you'll ever make. Where else can you be ensured of an impartial independent information channel with consistently high quality output imparted through channels so diverse you probably haven't heard of half of them. I'm sure you'll be ecstatic when the entire gamut of television in the United Kingdom runs from the Celebrity Wrestling to Footballer's Wives. Personally I'd prefer to keep programs such as the Power of Nightmares and The Office while supporting high quality radio and fantastic web services. All for £10, or $20 a month.
People like you amaze me.
Bleh, and the US Government doesn't subsidise Boeing? Hmmm. Ok. Guess those big fat juicy aerospace and defence contracts are won purely on merit.
Ha! A sci-fi version of the OC with this man in it?! That I'd pay to see. The only bearded, guitar playing, part troll orc lookalike member of the whole cast. Still. Realism never goes amiss.
Actually no, in recent years, at least in my country, book sales are at a record high.
It seems to be something of a myth that book reading is on a slide. Certainly book ownership has been going through the roof. Whether people are reading good books though is a different matter entirely.
Well. Precisely. Coding is hard, but not any more so than designing a building, an aircraft or an automobile. However, neither is it any less hard, so why is software engineering not accorded anything like as much respect as other disciplines? Do you see Airbus outsourcing airtcraft designs to the far east to save a few Euro's? No. Yet for some reason management always believes software can be written cheaper and quicker.
Admittedly lives don't depend on 90% of the software any of us here writes, but that isn't to say it isn't complex or demanding and requires complex, demanding testing to ensure high standards of reliability.
If those resources aren't allocated, then I'm afraid 'Shit Happens' is very definitely an excuse.
Isn't that kinda similar to what the EyeToy for the PS2 does already?
Actually, I don't know what it's like in the States, but here in the UK, authors and artists do have glitzy award shows that are televised live. Witness the Booker Prize, the Orange Prize or the Turner Prize. Maybe this just reflects differing intellectual standards or interests, but it's certainly nothing strange to us.
Personally, I feel as soon as real writers realise the power of the medium, computer games will become a respected art form in themselves distinct from more traditional modes of expression. If not, it'll be a huge disappointment.
For thousands of years people have been 'modding' their clothes, houses, faces and bodies to distinguish themselves from the herd around them. Given that, I don't think hardware is a special case. If it forms part of your image then it will be changed, adapted or co-opted to help illustrate the personbrand you are. That's just the way human nature works, so no, the plastic surgery generation is irrelevant it's the an expression of desire for status, individuality and the illusion of differentiation.
Like most other things, it's just "same old, same old".
Rapid on demand location based services springs to mind, such as detailed maps and directions. As does accessing music files remotely from your own PC. That'd be nice. Maybe more expansive travel information such as realtime traffic or flight data. I'm sure these would become more and more useful given a large hike in bandwidth.
As somone more intelligent than myself said, "if you build it, they will come.".
I tend to disagree with that argument. Obviously the need to shift troops around quickly was of importance, but IMHO the far more influential aspect was the way they governed. The export of values and language proved a far greater pacifier than the threat of force could ever be. Empires based on fear alone soon fall.
Forget all the hippy nonsense about laying down your arms and abolishing war. Forget all the hawks with their tanks and bombs. If you really want to stop war, give them free access to MTV, Coca-Cola and consumer electronics.
Ideology always crumbles in the face of consumerism.
I'd just like to direct everyone to this.
I, for one, welcome our new avian overlords.
Personally, I find HR Giger has an... ummm... interesting take on the idea of mechanistic sexuality. Did I say interesting? I meant disturbing...
Mind you he did design the Alien so I shouldn't be surprised.
See, I'm not sure that drug abuse is necessarily the sign of greater problems any more. I used to, but then I realised that almost every civilization that ever existed has invented several creative forms of getting wasted. Hell, even elephants and monkys have been known to get ripped to the tits on various forms of fermented sugars and berries.
If reality is so boring that even chimps can't stand it, what chance have we got?!
That's pretty unfair. You want to try working a 40/50/60 hour week with wife and kids in a hard manual job and then see how much spare time you have to make yourself well informed. Some of us simply don't have time to do this. Somehow the /. mentality seems to be that we should all be experts, all the time on everything that affects us. Unfortunatly, the world doesn't allow that and once we've made time for work, food, sleep, family and friends, there ain't a lot left to determine whose turn it is to tell media porkies. Personally I just don't believe anything of it. I know that's a bad attitude to have, but it's all I have the time or energy to do.
Just my 2 cents...
These things are relative. Foxbat is pretty out there, but the idea of one of those after me is a damn sight more terrifying than being told a squadron of nuclear Badgers is heading my way.
Or maybe it's the other way round, I forget...
Something I've been wondering for a while, who dreams up those oddball NATO designations? How the hell do we get from 'Flanker' (SU-27), 'Badger' (TU-16) and 'Fishbed' (Mig-21) to 'Satan' 'Havoc' and 'Foxbat'?!
Did the old guys get fired for not taking it seriously enough?
Don't suppose there's much call for a logical smart bomb that would reformat your hard disk if you hadn't logged in for a set time?
At least that way you can die happy knowing all your lesbian anal pr0n would be safely deleted upon your untimely demise...
Yeah, that's what it sounds like, but the article is a bit scant on details.
;o)
At risk of being a bit populist: (In best Jeff Goldblum voice)
"But... Life will find a way"...
And in Soviet Russia all your jokes belong to me!
Are we done now?!
Wouldn't that simply result in a different cancer? Cells replicating uncontrollably is an almost identical problem so the chances are you wouldn't be much worse off than the original problem...
You pays your money and takes your choice, I guess. Personally being killed by an army of mutant robot bugs is waaay cooler...