There is an argument for deciding more sensibly what is covered by trademarks and what is covered by copyright, and for limited trademarks in certain situations.
How many is a bunch? Are we talking five? Fifty? Five hundred? And how do you produce any sort of viable community intentionally, as opposed to growing one organically?
Except that the neanderthal might be, essentially, physically disfigured (possibly disabled, if they really can't thrive in warmer climates), mentally disabled, and raised as an experimental animal (fucked up household if I ever heard of one).
Not biology, "evolutionary biology," which is the "science" of "figuring out" the evolutionary causes of current traits.
The problem being that we don't have nearly enough data or a complete enough model of how evolution works on a macro scale for such theories to be tested with any sort of rigor.
And the overwhelming majority of it is "studies" used to "prove" things about human sexuality on a vast scale. Usually incredibly sexist things, such as "gentlemen prefer blondes." Or, you know, the ever popular "It's natural for men to have a harem, and for women to want one man."
So mod me troll all you want; it's not going to make that sort of thing valid science. There's a reason it only shows up in Discover and its ilk, and not in respectable journals.
It was something like being able to stand up for a long period of time. I think it supposed that this made it easier to make tools, extended the distance they could see when resting, and allowed them to walk longer distances or something.
Sorry, it's been literally years since I read whatever this was.
Except that interbreeding between populations isn't generally that one sided, and you're assuming modern standards of beauty for an unknown and radically different society.
See how people thought large breasts were ugly and peasantish in Victorian England.
As for the rest, though, thank you. Very interesting.
I believe the rationale was actually that it allowed humans to stand still for longer periods of time, and also to walk for longer distances.
Again, I make no claims for validity here; in fact, I rather doubt that this is the real reason. But little things like that do affect species survival.
My real point is that it's not a white/black, strong/smart dichotomy. It's a complex system.
It's not the attractiveness that's at issue; it's the "being raised as a test subject, and then distinct in some way from all of humanity."
Also, there's no guarantee that they could pass for human. From my trans friends, I know how hard it is to disguise the fairly minor differences in facial shape between the sexes. Now, multiply that times about 20, because their skulls are actually radically differently shaped.
They would be raised in a human culture... as an outsider, and with a substantially different biology.
There's nurture over nature, and then there's "it's a different species."
And even if its biology was so close to ours that no functional differences appeared, it would be fascinating to talk to someone with that much of an outsider perspective based on how they (necessarily) interacted with our society.
I guess my point is that reducing the opponent's position to a simplified logic proposition isn't actually helpful in understanding how they think or in convincing them.
You can think that a fertilized egg being lost is sad or tragic without it being sinful cruelty.
You can even, for example, think that a naturally lost egg is God's will, while intentional birth control is wrong.
And your whole argument assumes that the church is arguing primarily from a framework that takes into account biology, as opposed to, say, one based on the idea that morality is established by a very old book and the traditions of the church.
I'm not disagreeing that the argument that any loss of a fertilized egg is murder is stupid. But by and large, that's not the argument being made, at least not by the Catholic church. It's like the pro-life "You want mandatory abortions" argument; it's not addressing an actual, extant position, it's sideways to what the opposition is actually thinking.
Exactly. Which is why parent's bear analogy doesn't work.
The other reason being that survival of a species is a hugely complex thing, with many potential factors. I remember reading one thing (although it may have been science fiction) suggesting that our ability to lock our knees is what let us survive while the neanderthals died.
Except that the term "life" in this context is fuzzy and unscientific.
In the sense of this being the beginning of a biological process, well, sure. But what most people mean when they say "Life begins at conception" is that "A fertilized egg is human being." Well, it is in some contexts, and isn't in others. Just as a tadpole is a frog in terms of species, but isn't a frog in terms of stages of development.
Even ignoring that, your argument is flawed. Because couldn't you argue that a human life starts with the production of eggs in the female? Granted, they aren't fertilized yet; but they're still living cells, with the potential to mature into an embryo.
Totally with you on the "intent to kill." Miscarriage is manslaughter at most.
From what I understand, the Catholic doctrine on the subject is that sex not intended for procreation is sinful in and of itself. Basically, birth control makes married sex sinful; it's a separate issue from abortion, weirdly enough.
Dear pro-lifer. You are fundamentally uninformed about how birth control works.
Please note that birth control prevents fertilization from ever occuring, and "morning after" pills do not "chemically burn" the fertilized egg either.
Cloning is not magical powers. The clone will be born as a baby, grow up to adulthood over time. Any neanderthal culture is long gone; it would have to be raised either as an animal or a human being. Assuming that we're not being monsters here (not the only possibility, but the one I'm going to go with), let's assume that we want the neanderthal to do well, and to be treated according to its mental ability.
So we're left with a few possibilities.
Case 1: It has sub-human intellect to the point where it is satisfied/only capable of the animal level of mental function. This is the easy one; we can treat it like a zoo animal, with only the moral considerations usually involved with such. Physical evidence says this is pretty unlikely, but we don't really know.
Case 2:It's capable of the lower levels of human functionality. Say, somewhere between Forest Gump and a chimpanzee. Well, in this case, we have an intelligent being, who is a ward of the state, and who is unlike any other being on earth. It has no family, and potentially no human rights. It's entirely subject to the whims of its creators, or to the vagaries of laws that don't cover it. And who is it going to play with as a child? What is it going to do when it's older? How much experimentation is legally and morally allowable? What if it's below the legal threshold of mental function for consent, but is undeniably intelligent?
So, huge minefield there. Awesome.
Case 3: The Neanderthal is as smart as we are.
Fuck. We have all the problems of Case 2, and more. We just made a person that is, by definition, part of the world's smallest and loneliest minority. He or she will never be able to live a remotely normal or fulfilling life. Furthermore, he's coming into the world with ready-made enemies in those opposed to cloning.
I'm genuinely conflicted about this. If someone went ahead and cloned a neanderthal, I would want to talk to him/her more than anything else in the world. Talking to an intelligent being that's not human... that would be an amazing thing.
But seriously... I can't see any way that this could really be morally ok.
Slashdot Mirror
There is an argument for deciding more sensibly what is covered by trademarks and what is covered by copyright, and for limited trademarks in certain situations.
Helpless people on subway trains
Scream to God, as he puts liens on their assets to cover the cost of legal proceedings!
GODZILLA!
How many is a bunch? Are we talking five? Fifty? Five hundred? And how do you produce any sort of viable community intentionally, as opposed to growing one organically?
Just saying, it's a complex problem.
Except that the neanderthal might be, essentially, physically disfigured (possibly disabled, if they really can't thrive in warmer climates), mentally disabled, and raised as an experimental animal (fucked up household if I ever heard of one).
Not biology, "evolutionary biology," which is the "science" of "figuring out" the evolutionary causes of current traits.
The problem being that we don't have nearly enough data or a complete enough model of how evolution works on a macro scale for such theories to be tested with any sort of rigor.
And the overwhelming majority of it is "studies" used to "prove" things about human sexuality on a vast scale. Usually incredibly sexist things, such as "gentlemen prefer blondes." Or, you know, the ever popular "It's natural for men to have a harem, and for women to want one man."
So mod me troll all you want; it's not going to make that sort of thing valid science. There's a reason it only shows up in Discover and its ilk, and not in respectable journals.
It was something like being able to stand up for a long period of time. I think it supposed that this made it easier to make tools, extended the distance they could see when resting, and allowed them to walk longer distances or something.
Sorry, it's been literally years since I read whatever this was.
Because he or she would be raised by scientists.
A chimp is capable of taking care of himself in an environment that is suited to him. But it's not like he could hold down a job.
Likewise, if neanderthals, say, lacked the mental capacity to handle complex language skills, he'd basically be unable to function in human society.
Except that interbreeding between populations isn't generally that one sided, and you're assuming modern standards of beauty for an unknown and radically different society.
See how people thought large breasts were ugly and peasantish in Victorian England.
As for the rest, though, thank you. Very interesting.
I believe the rationale was actually that it allowed humans to stand still for longer periods of time, and also to walk for longer distances.
Again, I make no claims for validity here; in fact, I rather doubt that this is the real reason. But little things like that do affect species survival.
My real point is that it's not a white/black, strong/smart dichotomy. It's a complex system.
I had understood it to mean "homo sapiens sapiens."
Regardless of scientific meaning, I'm pretty sure I'm my meaning is clear.
It's not the attractiveness that's at issue; it's the "being raised as a test subject, and then distinct in some way from all of humanity."
Also, there's no guarantee that they could pass for human. From my trans friends, I know how hard it is to disguise the fairly minor differences in facial shape between the sexes. Now, multiply that times about 20, because their skulls are actually radically differently shaped.
They would be raised in a human culture... as an outsider, and with a substantially different biology.
There's nurture over nature, and then there's "it's a different species."
And even if its biology was so close to ours that no functional differences appeared, it would be fascinating to talk to someone with that much of an outsider perspective based on how they (necessarily) interacted with our society.
Except that, last time I read about it, evidence pointed towards Neanderthal man being more tribally/herd focused than even humanity.
What's your guess based on, if you don't mind my asking?
Indeed. I had the Jasper Fforde neanderthals in my head the whole time.
I mean, I don't know how we can offer them a fair shake in this world.
Unless, of course, they take off as a celebrity, and become the new Paleolithic Paris Hilton. But that's a bit of a long shot to shoot for.
Would their new fighting technique be unstoppable?
Or would they possess REAL ULTIMATE POWER!!1!?
The world may (hopefully) never know.
I guess my point is that reducing the opponent's position to a simplified logic proposition isn't actually helpful in understanding how they think or in convincing them.
You can think that a fertilized egg being lost is sad or tragic without it being sinful cruelty.
You can even, for example, think that a naturally lost egg is God's will, while intentional birth control is wrong.
And your whole argument assumes that the church is arguing primarily from a framework that takes into account biology, as opposed to, say, one based on the idea that morality is established by a very old book and the traditions of the church.
I'm not disagreeing that the argument that any loss of a fertilized egg is murder is stupid. But by and large, that's not the argument being made, at least not by the Catholic church. It's like the pro-life "You want mandatory abortions" argument; it's not addressing an actual, extant position, it's sideways to what the opposition is actually thinking.
Exactly. Which is why parent's bear analogy doesn't work.
The other reason being that survival of a species is a hugely complex thing, with many potential factors. I remember reading one thing (although it may have been science fiction) suggesting that our ability to lock our knees is what let us survive while the neanderthals died.
Except that the term "life" in this context is fuzzy and unscientific.
In the sense of this being the beginning of a biological process, well, sure. But what most people mean when they say "Life begins at conception" is that "A fertilized egg is human being." Well, it is in some contexts, and isn't in others. Just as a tadpole is a frog in terms of species, but isn't a frog in terms of stages of development.
Even ignoring that, your argument is flawed. Because couldn't you argue that a human life starts with the production of eggs in the female? Granted, they aren't fertilized yet; but they're still living cells, with the potential to mature into an embryo.
Totally with you on the "intent to kill." Miscarriage is manslaughter at most.
From what I understand, the Catholic doctrine on the subject is that sex not intended for procreation is sinful in and of itself. Basically, birth control makes married sex sinful; it's a separate issue from abortion, weirdly enough.
Dear pro-lifer. You are fundamentally uninformed about how birth control works.
Please note that birth control prevents fertilization from ever occuring, and "morning after" pills do not "chemically burn" the fertilized egg either.
Very good point. To take it a little farther:
Cloning is not magical powers. The clone will be born as a baby, grow up to adulthood over time. Any neanderthal culture is long gone; it would have to be raised either as an animal or a human being. Assuming that we're not being monsters here (not the only possibility, but the one I'm going to go with), let's assume that we want the neanderthal to do well, and to be treated according to its mental ability.
So we're left with a few possibilities.
Case 1: It has sub-human intellect to the point where it is satisfied/only capable of the animal level of mental function. This is the easy one; we can treat it like a zoo animal, with only the moral considerations usually involved with such. Physical evidence says this is pretty unlikely, but we don't really know.
Case 2:It's capable of the lower levels of human functionality. Say, somewhere between Forest Gump and a chimpanzee. Well, in this case, we have an intelligent being, who is a ward of the state, and who is unlike any other being on earth. It has no family, and potentially no human rights. It's entirely subject to the whims of its creators, or to the vagaries of laws that don't cover it. And who is it going to play with as a child? What is it going to do when it's older? How much experimentation is legally and morally allowable? What if it's below the legal threshold of mental function for consent, but is undeniably intelligent?
So, huge minefield there. Awesome.
Case 3: The Neanderthal is as smart as we are.
Fuck. We have all the problems of Case 2, and more. We just made a person that is, by definition, part of the world's smallest and loneliest minority. He or she will never be able to live a remotely normal or fulfilling life. Furthermore, he's coming into the world with ready-made enemies in those opposed to cloning.
I'm genuinely conflicted about this. If someone went ahead and cloned a neanderthal, I would want to talk to him/her more than anything else in the world. Talking to an intelligent being that's not human... that would be an amazing thing.
But seriously... I can't see any way that this could really be morally ok.
Is your sig intentionally in TCL?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they bigger than us?
(I can't believe I'm sinking to this level)
It also might depend on just how huge that issue really is. Wink, nudge.
I am speaking of penises .