Summary of Saudi Arabia - Yahoo! Finance
"net transfers out of Saudi Arabia are among the largest in the world--some US$15 billion per year or about nine percent of GDP" http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/sa.html
Daily Times - Site Edition
"According to Youssef Ibrahim, a senior fellow at the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, Saudis have pulled out at least 200 billion dollars from the United States in recent months, the paper said." http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=stor y_22-8-2002_pg1_3
How does one measure scientific consensus on this issue? Has there been a slashdot Y/N poll?
It is absurd to say definitively that good science cannot be the consensus.
Sure science can get stuck in a rut (eg. Newtonian mechanics) But in the whole, they are a building block to the next level of understanding/discovery.
eg. Despite Newton's mistakes, I think we all agree universally (consensus) that gravity does exist - and that the earth is not flat? etc
Weapon of Mass Deception What the Pentagon doesn't want us to know about depleted uranium
"Over the past 15 years, the Pentagon has become increasingly dependent on DU weapons and armor. The 1991 Gulf War was the first major conflict in which DU weaponry and armor was used. Almost 320 tons-an amount equal to the weight of five Abrams battle tanks-were fired in the Iraqi desert. About 10 tons of DU munitions were used in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia in the '90s. DU weaponry was reportedly used in Afghanistan in 2001 as well, but reliable estimates are not yet available." http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/WeaponMas sDecepton_DU.html
Death By Slow Burn - How America Nukes Its Own Troops
"DU munitions are classified by a United Nations resolution as illegal weapons of mass destruction. Their use breaches all international laws, treaties and conventions forbidding poisoned weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering." http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Death_by_slow_burn _050302.htm
Good point. Another overlooked option: Engage in the process, devise more attainable goals and say "here, we'll sign something more like this". In that way, diffusing arguments (disingenuous or not) about intent. Other countries throughout the world can hardly be blamed for questioning any other country's motives. Any nation can do much worse than to attempt improving public opinion of it's motives, at home and abroad. We all want a safer world. Countries who simply blow off the protocol itself may miss its advantages at some point in the future.
May it also be noted that much of public opinion on matters such as these is sourced from mainstream media who seem to have written off the 'protocol' without much representation of the process undertaken to be where we are today - with a supposedly spurious document on the table.
I simply point out that doing nothing, and having done nothing to steer it towards more acceptable goals, is possibly more harmful on myriad other levels to non-signatories over time. Many documents are signed and agreed to, only to be reneged upon years later, when everyone has forgotten about it. It would not be the first time any government signed something that turned out to be, in effect , unacheivable. That's not acceptable, so in the face of that, perhaps it is best not to sign it.
That brings us back to the question: What's the penalty for not trying in the first place? Engagement and leadership in determining acceptable levels of action etc - would have been a better path surely. Damned now if US do, or don't. What's the penalty for either signing or not?
That brings us back to myriad 'bad will' type outcomes. It's just a document, it may just be buried over time in the media.. so maybe it means nothing at all? Or maybe, over time, it will bug people in other countries who have signed, that the US decided it was too hard for them to comply, leading to all sorts of less satisfactory results, than merely failing to reach Kyoto targets on emmissions etc.
Signing and trying to reach targets and failing, may be better than saying 'we can't do it' and not signing - on all sorts of unrelated levels. Besides never say never. Think of the great Apollo mission that saw a man walking on the moon. Plenty of people said that couldn't be done.. but technology saw it happen. This is about technology making possible something seen as impossible. The U.S., of all countries, should be able to develop a way to meet targets with new tech etc.
There are energy alternatives - not just nuclear. With Kyoto comes the prestige of exceeding its targets for any scientist(s) or country(s) who does so.. much credo in that - like Nobel prizes for energy sustainability. Why not for heaven's sake?
And YES I believe there will be many signatory countries doing more than they would have done - as will non-signatories of course. It's about more than targets per se, and I think that because of the protocol, we can expect to see more serious efforts worldwide at improving delivery of energy to meet mankind's demand. Anything that accellerates this improvement should be welcomed, not frowned upon.. like I said above, why did non-signatories walk from the table early saying we can't do it - rather than stating 'here are our targets' for a protocol that's more doable.. maybe everyone would have signed that instead?
But the answer instead was 'we can't do it'.. well then we have lost face on the issue. No way around that. People do then ask 'why?'.
'coz we don't want to? Would make life too miserable? That's weak, not strong.
We seem to always have enough $'s for jet fuel, and the Pres is an oil-man.. 'rest of world' asks pertinent questions.
what's the penalty for not meeting the "legal requirements"?
The question should be
What's the penalty for NOT trying in the first place?
Seriously, when the rest of the world is showing such good will - and it's not "time will tell" shotfeel - it's just another lost opportunity for U.S. to engage with the rest-of-the-world on another issue of major heartbreak potential.
Is not goot. Time will mark it's passing, but it can't tell. The new Aussie media Baron Rupert Murdoch media machine will not have it and they will be sure you and your grandchildren will never know why those 'funny people' outside died all those horrible deaths.. nothing to do with GW or WMD's or anything else sexed up enough for consumption in the tabloids. Ben Franklin (no less) said "a people willing to give up freedom for the sake of security deserves neither".
BenFrankly, I look forward to seeing more of THAT spirit from U.S. as would many of the 90%+ or the rest of the world's population. India has 350Million middle class residents - who are doing your IT. China has more upwardly mobile yuppies and billionaires than the U.S. ever had.. evidence that what?? Well, some may suggest it's the beginning of the end of relying on U.S. and allies for guidance on anything important.. while U.S. and allies lie, cover-up and also waste trillion$ on Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, wmd, own citizens.. and who's next?? U.S. is borrowing billions from India - I remember some unkind/.ers saying unkind things about India not being able to feed it's own starving people a while ago - some said "how dare THEY have a space program!!" Now you - U.S. are borrowing exhorbitant amounts from their middle class - you will be their 'call centre' soon - if they don't outsource that to a less arrogant cultural community. Relevance has more to do with 'relevance' than bombing people in history's big scheme.
You don't make friends bombing people - no matter what your "hawks" tell the president. I'm sure not many U.S. citizens would realise that the U.S. has bombed more than 60 countries in the last century?
Oh everyone bows on the tv, but the schemes behind the scenes is the risk you take - be ready then with your missiles and you better be certain you can protect us all - countrymen and allies from the folly you risk us all to.
Global warming is another failed opportunity for the U.S. to show that it CARES about something outside its patently ideologically impenetrable walls.
This world must stop thinking of everything being either pro or anti-U.S. Including troll feeders.
Imagine things as they are. Also the U.S. must stop imagining they are the world's 'supermen' still - it sets a bad example for other countries like Australia.
The other 90%+ of the world population will appreciate this. Pacific Island nations are in a panic because sea levels are already rising - many islands will disappear in mere decades regardless of U.S. superman goodwill actions like signing one protocol.
Often supermen make mistakes. History attests to this. And btw I have seen little mention of 'carbon trading' credits in these posts. The U.S. and the other 3 (that's a total of only three) countries in the whole world risk missing out on perhaps billions/trillions in eventual annual credits/trades etc.. first time in history that the U.S. is IGNORANT of a new and innovative market? What's going on with that?
I thought DarkSarin made a good point - except that the U.S. and the other few countries not willing to sign the protocol all recently HEARTILLY voted for leaders who explicitly anunciated their idiological HATRED of such "mumbo" as global warming - and to this day are the only few countries who try to kid their populations into accepting that they are not cruel - it's the rest of the world who are mad.
I remind everyone reading this thread that the other 90% of the world's population has a memory for such short shrift. Even as we magniloquently sit and pace about the place extemporaneously flouting our relative economical advantage.
Why do tewworwists hate us? I don't know, but let's spend trillions making war instead of peace whilst we try to blot out everything else we so readily anathematise, unseen outside our own front doors.
Brilliant way forward into the future superman. btw I thought only cryptonite could hurt superman - but it seems that even DarkSarin suggests that you can't be too harsh with supermen in the U.S. in that
"It will NEVER persuade an American that you are right if you sit around (or walk around--your preference) telling them how ignorant, arrogant, and selfish they are"
Perhaps then NOTHING will help? Therefore it's ALL OVER. U.S. doesn't like being catchized for being ignorant - yet the world suffers? What kind of superpower lets their new-found powerbase rot?
It amazes me that so much seems to be considered and written from some un-named/un-manned insider's point of view. Someone who knows more than you.
And, anyone dissenting is popularly labelled an imbecile for noting and scientifically accounting the melting of ice-floats and rising water-levels.
Global warming effects everyone in the world - whether it is man-made or not.
Yet somehow we hear again and again that it's the 'un-developed' world who are to blame for GW and almost everything else for that matter.
The Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, who has refused to sign, (on behalf of the gulled dupes in that population), claims that Australia is in the 'best performing 4 countries in the world' as far as reducing greenhouse gas emitions goes (prove him wrong if you can) and he did so publicly in that country's parliament as recently as 16-Feb-2005.. BUT refuses to sign?? wtfit?
So Australia is like one of the best, but doesn't sign. That's not like them - I thought they loved to go for the Oscars and the Gold medals??? If Aust is sooooo good at reducing GHG then why not sign???
There are some 4 nations buggerizing about - US and Aust are two.. others are Lichtenstein and Monaco. Another case of what's right and wrong? After all, there are the hundreds of the other countries in the world for those who kind of just errr forget that factoid.
You're either with us or against us? Please. This is another example of why the "rest-of-world" (more than 90% of its population) will begin (as haters of human rights abuses) to turn against the torturing U.S. (regardless of terrorist activity, and in some cases applauding it - against 'infidel U.S. troublemakers') and the U.S.'s allies as "THEIR" economies pick up while ours decline (our markets evaporate as other nations develop their own free trade arrangements which won't rely on U.S. demands). What will we all do?? Accuse them ALL of being "Anti-American?" Hey let's build even MORE tanks and missiles and depleted uranium shells.. Oh, sorry, that's what they're all pissed off about and... China/N.Korea/Syria/Iran/India/Pakistan/etc etc etc etc etc etc.. is already doing??
BHP, an Aust, and now Aust/U.S company sells everyone, including China,/N.Korea/Syria/Iran/India/Pakistan/etc etc etc, the raw (Aust) resources? What will Aust allies like U.S. have to say about that? G.W.Bush has more than just G.W. on his plate. Aust is as Poland was to Germany in 1930's.. plus if anybody didn't already know - G.W.Bush's grandfather 'Poppy' financed Nazi activity (Thiesse) in those days. Geeze, history doesn't repeat? - I thought Poland was Nazi Germany's best friend too until the 'big push'.
Wake up - anyone who can't yet see it. The evidence has been around for longer than you can afford to fix it.
Took an act of congress or such to call for "dealing with the enemy" provisions to stop him from selling and shipping coal/steele to Adolf. FACT. No moaning pls. Look it up yourselves - try phoning CBS.
Religion can do as much to damage any debate as zealotry - of any kind. I proffer the following for discourse: An naturaly (or otherwise produced) human embryo as per this discussion (oft' described as a mass of skin cells etc etc) is nothing if not a replication of dna sequences in an, as yet, indescipherable scattered adjoined pattern of parent genomes. Do we feign to know anything more than this vague assertion about what IS or IS NOT human life? Especially since in this day and age, we are no less capable of extinguishing it en-masse by proxy of techie drones and long-range missiles etc. We humans DO have a problem with learning about LIFE. We seem to have less touble in executing DEATH. Experiment? Sure, if law says okay. But is the law moral? No. Is moral argument therfore restricted to religion? Of course not. So is it Ethics that decides? (if you don't know the diff don't bother trolling) Far from dictating any 'one decision' ethics are often overlooked in this and many debates facing us all in the west, and therefore humankind by extention. Everything 'UP FOR DEBATE' is either "good" or "bad" - "black" or "white" - "with us" or "against us" etc. We can have ALL the zygotes we want to make into facile, white-bread, bird-dog morons we can devise as some kind of excuse for producing a veritable "super-mankind" but ANY world-class scientist would attest that we are simultaneously hosing our humanity down the drain if we imagine that we NOW know what we are doing. Caution in all things. This is not a religious monologue.
Slashdot Mirror
Hope no Saudi investors saw your comment..
r y_22-8-2002_pg1_3
Summary of Saudi Arabia - Yahoo! Finance
"net transfers out of Saudi Arabia are among the largest in the world--some US$15 billion per year or about nine percent of GDP"
http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/sa.html
Daily Times - Site Edition
"According to Youssef Ibrahim, a senior fellow at the US-based Council on Foreign Relations, Saudis have pulled out at least 200 billion dollars from the United States in recent months, the paper said."
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=sto
How does one measure scientific consensus on this issue? Has there been a slashdot Y/N poll?
It is absurd to say definitively that good science cannot be the consensus.
Sure science can get stuck in a rut (eg. Newtonian mechanics) But in the whole, they are a building block to the next level of understanding/discovery.
eg. Despite Newton's mistakes, I think we all agree universally (consensus) that gravity does exist - and that the earth is not flat? etc
Where on earth did we get the notion that nuclear warfare has not been used since WWII?
s sDecepton_DU.html
i d_p/10/opt/read_e/id_s/148.html
n _050302.htm
Iraq & Our Energy Future - Depleted Uranium Use in Iraq
"During the first Gulf War in 1991, weapons containing depleted Uranium were used for the first time in combat."
http://www.uwec.edu/grossmzc/anderkel.html
Weapon of Mass Deception What the Pentagon doesn't want us to know about depleted uranium "Over the past 15 years, the Pentagon has become increasingly dependent on DU weapons and armor. The 1991 Gulf War was the first major conflict in which DU weaponry and armor was used. Almost 320 tons-an amount equal to the weight of five Abrams battle tanks-were fired in the Iraqi desert. About 10 tons of DU munitions were used in Kosovo and the former Yugoslavia in the '90s. DU weaponry was reportedly used in Afghanistan in 2001 as well, but reliable estimates are not yet available."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Health/WeaponMa
WAR CRIME! - U.S Use of Depleted Uranium -"More Deadly than Gas" "When this war ends, George Bush will have caused the poisoning of hundreds of thousands more humans than he said Saddam Hussein poisoned."
http://www.stopthenato.org/m/zit/id_ses/a5cf1047/
Death By Slow Burn - How America Nukes Its Own Troops "DU munitions are classified by a United Nations resolution as illegal weapons of mass destruction. Their use breaches all international laws, treaties and conventions forbidding poisoned weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering."
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Death_by_slow_bur
Good point. Another overlooked option: Engage in the process, devise more attainable goals and say "here, we'll sign something more like this". In that way, diffusing arguments (disingenuous or not) about intent. Other countries throughout the world can hardly be blamed for questioning any other country's motives. Any nation can do much worse than to attempt improving public opinion of it's motives, at home and abroad. We all want a safer world. Countries who simply blow off the protocol itself may miss its advantages at some point in the future.
May it also be noted that much of public opinion on matters such as these is sourced from mainstream media who seem to have written off the 'protocol' without much representation of the process undertaken to be where we are today - with a supposedly spurious document on the table.
I simply point out that doing nothing, and having done nothing to steer it towards more acceptable goals, is possibly more harmful on myriad other levels to non-signatories over time. Many documents are signed and agreed to, only to be reneged upon years later, when everyone has forgotten about it. It would not be the first time any government signed something that turned out to be, in effect , unacheivable. That's not acceptable, so in the face of that, perhaps it is best not to sign it.
That brings us back to the question: What's the penalty for not trying in the first place? Engagement and leadership in determining acceptable levels of action etc - would have been a better path surely. Damned now if US do, or don't. What's the penalty for either signing or not?
That brings us back to myriad 'bad will' type outcomes. It's just a document, it may just be buried over time in the media.. so maybe it means nothing at all? Or maybe, over time, it will bug people in other countries who have signed, that the US decided it was too hard for them to comply, leading to all sorts of less satisfactory results, than merely failing to reach Kyoto targets on emmissions etc.
Signing and trying to reach targets and failing, may be better than saying 'we can't do it' and not signing - on all sorts of unrelated levels. Besides never say never. Think of the great Apollo mission that saw a man walking on the moon. Plenty of people said that couldn't be done.. but technology saw it happen. This is about technology making possible something seen as impossible. The U.S., of all countries, should be able to develop a way to meet targets with new tech etc.
There are energy alternatives - not just nuclear. With Kyoto comes the prestige of exceeding its targets for any scientist(s) or country(s) who does so.. much credo in that - like Nobel prizes for energy sustainability. Why not for heaven's sake?
And YES I believe there will be many signatory countries doing more than they would have done - as will non-signatories of course. It's about more than targets per se, and I think that because of the protocol, we can expect to see more serious efforts worldwide at improving delivery of energy to meet mankind's demand. Anything that accellerates this improvement should be welcomed, not frowned upon.. like I said above, why did non-signatories walk from the table early saying we can't do it - rather than stating 'here are our targets' for a protocol that's more doable.. maybe everyone would have signed that instead?
But the answer instead was 'we can't do it'.. well then we have lost face on the issue. No way around that. People do then ask 'why?'.
'coz we don't want to? Would make life too miserable? That's weak, not strong.
We seem to always have enough $'s for jet fuel, and the Pres is an oil-man.. 'rest of world' asks pertinent questions.
Square one again?
shotfeel (235240) asked:
/.ers saying unkind things about India not being able to feed it's own starving people a while ago - some said "how dare THEY have a space program!!" Now you - U.S. are borrowing exhorbitant amounts from their middle class - you will be their 'call centre' soon - if they don't outsource that to a less arrogant cultural community. Relevance has more to do with 'relevance' than bombing people in history's big scheme.
what's the penalty for not meeting the "legal requirements"?
The question should be
What's the penalty for NOT trying in the first place?
Seriously, when the rest of the world is showing such good will - and it's not "time will tell" shotfeel - it's just another lost opportunity for U.S. to engage with the rest-of-the-world on another issue of major heartbreak potential.
Is not goot. Time will mark it's passing, but it can't tell. The new Aussie media Baron Rupert Murdoch media machine will not have it and they will be sure you and your grandchildren will never know why those 'funny people' outside died all those horrible deaths.. nothing to do with GW or WMD's or anything else sexed up enough for consumption in the tabloids. Ben Franklin (no less) said "a people willing to give up freedom for the sake of security deserves neither".
BenFrankly, I look forward to seeing more of THAT spirit from U.S. as would many of the 90%+ or the rest of the world's population. India has 350Million middle class residents - who are doing your IT. China has more upwardly mobile yuppies and billionaires than the U.S. ever had.. evidence that what?? Well, some may suggest it's the beginning of the end of relying on U.S. and allies for guidance on anything important.. while U.S. and allies lie, cover-up and also waste trillion$ on Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, wmd, own citizens.. and who's next?? U.S. is borrowing billions from India - I remember some unkind
You don't make friends bombing people - no matter what your "hawks" tell the president. I'm sure not many U.S. citizens would realise that the U.S. has bombed more than 60 countries in the last century?
Oh everyone bows on the tv, but the schemes behind the scenes is the risk you take - be ready then with your missiles and you better be certain you can protect us all - countrymen and allies from the folly you risk us all to.
Global warming is another failed opportunity for the U.S. to show that it CARES about something outside its patently ideologically impenetrable walls.
This world must stop thinking of everything being either pro or anti-U.S. Including troll feeders.
Imagine things as they are. Also the U.S. must stop imagining they are the world's 'supermen' still - it sets a bad example for other countries like Australia.
The other 90%+ of the world population will appreciate this. Pacific Island nations are in a panic because sea levels are already rising - many islands will disappear in mere decades regardless of U.S. superman goodwill actions like signing one protocol.
Often supermen make mistakes. History attests to this. And btw I have seen little mention of 'carbon trading' credits in these posts. The U.S. and the other 3 (that's a total of only three) countries in the whole world risk missing out on perhaps billions/trillions in eventual annual credits/trades etc.. first time in history that the U.S. is IGNORANT of a new and innovative market? What's going on with that?
I thought DarkSarin made a good point - except that the U.S. and the other few countries not willing to sign the protocol all recently HEARTILLY voted for leaders who explicitly anunciated their idiological HATRED of such "mumbo" as global warming - and to this day are the only few countries who try to kid their populations into accepting that they are not cruel - it's the rest of the world who are mad.
I remind everyone reading this thread that the other 90% of the world's population has a memory for such short shrift. Even as we magniloquently sit and pace about the place extemporaneously flouting our relative economical advantage.
Why do tewworwists hate us? I don't know, but let's spend trillions making war instead of peace whilst we try to blot out everything else we so readily anathematise, unseen outside our own front doors.
Brilliant way forward into the future superman. btw I thought only cryptonite could hurt superman - but it seems that even DarkSarin suggests that you can't be too harsh with supermen in the U.S. in that
"It will NEVER persuade an American that you are right if you sit around (or walk around--your preference) telling them how ignorant, arrogant, and selfish they are"
Perhaps then NOTHING will help? Therefore it's ALL OVER. U.S. doesn't like being catchized for being ignorant - yet the world suffers? What kind of superpower lets their new-found powerbase rot?
Let them eat cake?
It amazes me that so much seems to be considered and written from some un-named/un-manned insider's point of view. Someone who knows more than you. And, anyone dissenting is popularly labelled an imbecile for noting and scientifically accounting the melting of ice-floats and rising water-levels.
... China/N.Korea/Syria/Iran/India/Pakistan/etc etc etc etc etc etc.. is already doing??
Global warming effects everyone in the world - whether it is man-made or not.
Yet somehow we hear again and again that it's the 'un-developed' world who are to blame for GW and almost everything else for that matter.
The Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, who has refused to sign, (on behalf of the gulled dupes in that population), claims that Australia is in the 'best performing 4 countries in the world' as far as reducing greenhouse gas emitions goes (prove him wrong if you can) and he did so publicly in that country's parliament as recently as 16-Feb-2005.. BUT refuses to sign?? wtfit?
So Australia is like one of the best, but doesn't sign. That's not like them - I thought they loved to go for the Oscars and the Gold medals??? If Aust is sooooo good at reducing GHG then why not sign???
There are some 4 nations buggerizing about - US and Aust are two.. others are Lichtenstein and Monaco. Another case of what's right and wrong? After all, there are the hundreds of the other countries in the world for those who kind of just errr forget that factoid.
You're either with us or against us? Please. This is another example of why the "rest-of-world" (more than 90% of its population) will begin (as haters of human rights abuses) to turn against the torturing U.S. (regardless of terrorist activity, and in some cases applauding it - against 'infidel U.S. troublemakers') and the U.S.'s allies as "THEIR" economies pick up while ours decline (our markets evaporate as other nations develop their own free trade arrangements which won't rely on U.S. demands). What will we all do?? Accuse them ALL of being "Anti-American?" Hey let's build even MORE tanks and missiles and depleted uranium shells.. Oh, sorry, that's what they're all pissed off about and
BHP, an Aust, and now Aust/U.S company sells everyone, including China,/N.Korea/Syria/Iran/India/Pakistan/etc etc etc, the raw (Aust) resources? What will Aust allies like U.S. have to say about that? G.W.Bush has more than just G.W. on his plate. Aust is as Poland was to Germany in 1930's.. plus if anybody didn't already know - G.W.Bush's grandfather 'Poppy' financed Nazi activity (Thiesse) in those days. Geeze, history doesn't repeat? - I thought Poland was Nazi Germany's best friend too until the 'big push'.
Wake up - anyone who can't yet see it. The evidence has been around for longer than you can afford to fix it. Took an act of congress or such to call for "dealing with the enemy" provisions to stop him from selling and shipping coal/steele to Adolf. FACT. No moaning pls. Look it up yourselves - try phoning CBS.
Religion can do as much to damage any debate as zealotry - of any kind. I proffer the following for discourse: An naturaly (or otherwise produced) human embryo as per this discussion (oft' described as a mass of skin cells etc etc) is nothing if not a replication of dna sequences in an, as yet, indescipherable scattered adjoined pattern of parent genomes. Do we feign to know anything more than this vague assertion about what IS or IS NOT human life? Especially since in this day and age, we are no less capable of extinguishing it en-masse by proxy of techie drones and long-range missiles etc. We humans DO have a problem with learning about LIFE. We seem to have less touble in executing DEATH. Experiment? Sure, if law says okay. But is the law moral? No. Is moral argument therfore restricted to religion? Of course not. So is it Ethics that decides? (if you don't know the diff don't bother trolling) Far from dictating any 'one decision' ethics are often overlooked in this and many debates facing us all in the west, and therefore humankind by extention. Everything 'UP FOR DEBATE' is either "good" or "bad" - "black" or "white" - "with us" or "against us" etc. We can have ALL the zygotes we want to make into facile, white-bread, bird-dog morons we can devise as some kind of excuse for producing a veritable "super-mankind" but ANY world-class scientist would attest that we are simultaneously hosing our humanity down the drain if we imagine that we NOW know what we are doing. Caution in all things. This is not a religious monologue.