According to news Finland wants to expand genetic manipulation, while EU is generally reluctant in such matters (i have no idea how true this is and whether or not their policy in general reflects such a stand or is it just more noise, i would bet the latter).
The objections offered against genetic manipulation in the media are generally very very weak, and i believe, for a purpose (usually they come from Christian organizations who say things like 'playing God' which only serves as to annoy the majority of people who are anti-christian). So as to provide a controlled opposition and to give the appearance that there is genuine debate on the matter and every side is taken into account and they are not going about it willy-nilly.
My objection to the whole matter is complete and will accept no compromises. i suggest that altering one gene in a single plant will destroy the balance of nature. Actually, i do not suggest it, but maintain that any argument against this is made with eyes and ears and nose closed. It is obvious.
People will only start arguing against it once they have come to the conclusion that they would somehow benefit from genetic manipulation. Well, some benefits are better left unreaped. Just like many people have moral objections to usurping from other people, why do people have no scruples from usurping from other species, and nature? Under the pretense of superiority, measured by standards created by those who deem themselves superior!
Either accept that Might is Right, or stop the pretense. Has not evil won battles against good? Has not crime won battles against law? If you do believe Might is Right, then accept no such concept as 'crime'. If you do accept the concept of 'crime', then accept that Might is NOT Right.
i will also forever maintain that to take one single spider into a laboratory for testing is a CRIME of horrenduous magnitude. Anything "gained" from such acts is criminal loot.
Fire at will.
PS: Just in case someone has trouble applying abstractions to real life. The most often used excuse for GM is the idea of relieving world's hunger. However, this argument falls short immediately when considers that what is causing world's hunger is NOT the lack of GM, but poor distribution of humans, wealth and food. Now you think this can be rectified with GM? Well, if you have trouble understanding my argument about CRIME, then understand that this would merely touch the sympton and leave the real sickness uncorrected.
Some people also like to confuse the issue by saying things like 'there are no easy answers and sometimes the lesser evil blach blach...' but this is the way to total moral degradation. Personal gain, even if it is so-called humanity's personal gain, over right and wrong.
Also consider what ABSOLUTE EVIL can be created by means of GM. You think it would not happen?
Do you really believe the inventor of nuclear bomb thought it wouldn't be used that way? Do you? Don't be naive.
NO to genetic manipulation of any kind
-
itnAklipse
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: 09 Jun 2003, 08:12
- Location: set adrift
- Contact:
we've got beer and we've got fuel
-
markfiend
- goriller of form 3b
- Posts: 21181
- Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
- Location: st custards
- Contact:
Evolution works by random mutation plus selection.
Genetic modification merely makes the "random mutations" part a little more directed. There is always a chance that a "natural" plant (they're usually plants) could mutate to be exactly the same as a GM plant. DNA is DNA after all.
How do you think humanity has come up with the strains of wheat, corn, and for that matter everything we eat? Selective breeding is as much genetic manipulation as directly editing DNA.
Genetic modification merely makes the "random mutations" part a little more directed. There is always a chance that a "natural" plant (they're usually plants) could mutate to be exactly the same as a GM plant. DNA is DNA after all.
How do you think humanity has come up with the strains of wheat, corn, and for that matter everything we eat? Selective breeding is as much genetic manipulation as directly editing DNA.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
—Bertrand Russell
-
itnAklipse
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: 09 Jun 2003, 08:12
- Location: set adrift
- Contact:
Do you think i'm in favour of selective breeding? i'm not, however i am not as directly opposed to it, though i suppose i am but i don't consider an ultimate evil against which i must rise to the barricades.
However, it is not the same at all to what i'm talking about at any rate. In GM you as a rule produce controlled mutations which would not have occured by breeding. And i would also suggest that through breeding the mutations that happen are always diverse, keeping the balance to some extent, whereas in GM you change one gene to your own liking, destroying the balance. It's very simple.
What i don't quite understand why you want to distract the issue to sidelines and not say anything about the real issue at hand?
Now that you mention it, a couple of months ago a friend of mine had baked bread from wheat that is very expensive because it's not one of those products of selective breading but wild wheat.
Which do you suppose tasted better? Bread made from artificially selected breeds of wheat or the wild one?
Suffice to say the bread was of exceptional quality and i ate quite a lot of it without getting stomach problems which i would normally get from eating a good quantity of bread.
(Though it must be added that actually i think they have done more than just breeding to the wheat we are normally subjected to).
i would also welcome wine from France produced from wild strains of Cabernet & Merlot etc., if they still exist, and not these selected strains they use.
What it comes to natural mutations, i see them as quite different as to mutations induced by, for example, radiations, which was the old style of hit'n'miss GM if someone doesn't happen to know...i didn't know that until couple of months ago. You see, it's as sickening as, taking a grain, subjecting it to radiation, and seeing if there would be improvements, such as 10% increase in size and stuff like that.
What they do these days, has very little to do with natural genetic mutations, and more to do with simply altering a single gene controlledly.
Funnily enough, i don't at all support controlled mutation over that induced by radiation.
Like there's this japanese scientist who created rice that contains vitamin...A? Rice doesn't normally have it, and people with solely rice-based diets tend to get blind at old age because of lack of it, so he produced such a thing and lamented later on that "why haven't people started using it? it's such a good improvement..." Well i applaud those with rice-based diets who didn't succumb to such evil. The problem they have is not the lack of genetically altered rice, but monotonuous diet that doesn't have enough nutrition.
However, it is not the same at all to what i'm talking about at any rate. In GM you as a rule produce controlled mutations which would not have occured by breeding. And i would also suggest that through breeding the mutations that happen are always diverse, keeping the balance to some extent, whereas in GM you change one gene to your own liking, destroying the balance. It's very simple.
What i don't quite understand why you want to distract the issue to sidelines and not say anything about the real issue at hand?
Now that you mention it, a couple of months ago a friend of mine had baked bread from wheat that is very expensive because it's not one of those products of selective breading but wild wheat.
Which do you suppose tasted better? Bread made from artificially selected breeds of wheat or the wild one?
Suffice to say the bread was of exceptional quality and i ate quite a lot of it without getting stomach problems which i would normally get from eating a good quantity of bread.
(Though it must be added that actually i think they have done more than just breeding to the wheat we are normally subjected to).
i would also welcome wine from France produced from wild strains of Cabernet & Merlot etc., if they still exist, and not these selected strains they use.
What it comes to natural mutations, i see them as quite different as to mutations induced by, for example, radiations, which was the old style of hit'n'miss GM if someone doesn't happen to know...i didn't know that until couple of months ago. You see, it's as sickening as, taking a grain, subjecting it to radiation, and seeing if there would be improvements, such as 10% increase in size and stuff like that.
What they do these days, has very little to do with natural genetic mutations, and more to do with simply altering a single gene controlledly.
Funnily enough, i don't at all support controlled mutation over that induced by radiation.
Like there's this japanese scientist who created rice that contains vitamin...A? Rice doesn't normally have it, and people with solely rice-based diets tend to get blind at old age because of lack of it, so he produced such a thing and lamented later on that "why haven't people started using it? it's such a good improvement..." Well i applaud those with rice-based diets who didn't succumb to such evil. The problem they have is not the lack of genetically altered rice, but monotonuous diet that doesn't have enough nutrition.
Last edited by itnAklipse on 12 Jan 2007, 12:51, edited 1 time in total.
we've got beer and we've got fuel
-
markfiend
- goriller of form 3b
- Posts: 21181
- Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
- Location: st custards
- Contact:
Good luck feeding the whole world on wild wheat.
I don't know why I'm bothering, but...
And in case you're thinking "mutations = bad" I have some news for you: Your DNA has between 90 and 100 mutations compared to that of your parents.
I don't know why I'm bothering, but...
Well they're not. Hint: a large proportion of natural mutations are caused by natural radiation.itnAklipse wrote:What it comes to natural mutations, i see them as quite different as to mutations induced by, for example, radiations,
And how is that different to taking a mutant that naturally has a 10% increase in size and growing it?itnAklipse wrote: which was the old style of hit'n'miss GM if someone doesn't happen to know...i didn't know that until couple of months ago. You see, it's as sickening as, taking a grain, subjecting it to radiation, and seeing if there would be improvements, such as 10% increase in size and stuff like that.
That's true. So there's a much lower risk of accidentally getting (for example) something poisonous because your mutant has changed another gene as well as the size gene.itnAklipse wrote:What they do these days, has very little to do with natural genetic mutations, and more to do with simply altering a single gene controlledly.
And in case you're thinking "mutations = bad" I have some news for you: Your DNA has between 90 and 100 mutations compared to that of your parents.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
—Bertrand Russell
-
itnAklipse
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: 09 Jun 2003, 08:12
- Location: set adrift
- Contact:
i dont know why i bother, either. So i won't.
i never said mutations are bad. Sigh.
i never said mutations are bad. Sigh.
Last edited by itnAklipse on 12 Jan 2007, 12:53, edited 1 time in total.
we've got beer and we've got fuel
-
delirium23
- Road Kill
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 10 Jan 2007, 12:35
Genetic manipulation wrong? of course not consider what ABSOLUTE GOOD can be created by means of GM. If you cannot see this you must have closed eyes and mouth and nose and be very niave and not understand anything I say and you are also wrong. And you just cant see it and you have no morals and by morals I'm not talking about anything you can understand in your lives of wild and wanton abandonment in Cities and other places that are against nature. and any way if we get realy good at genetic manipulation we could make big spiders with human hands and the could kill all the jews and help us clone Saddam Hussain, because he was a just and wise man blah blah blah blah.itnAklipse wrote:According to news Finland wants to expand genetic manipulation, while EU is generally reluctant in such matters (i have no idea how true this is and whether or not their policy in general reflects such a stand or is it just more noise, i would bet the latter).
The objections offered against genetic manipulation in the media are generally very very weak, and i believe, for a purpose (usually they come from Christian organizations who say things like 'playing God' which only serves as to annoy the majority of people who are anti-christian). So as to provide a controlled opposition and to give the appearance that there is genuine debate on the matter and every side is taken into account and they are not going about it willy-nilly.
My objection to the whole matter is complete and will accept no compromises. i suggest that altering one gene in a single plant will destroy the balance of nature. Actually, i do not suggest it, but maintain that any argument against this is made with eyes and ears and nose closed. It is obvious.
People will only start arguing against it once they have come to the conclusion that they would somehow benefit from genetic manipulation. Well, some benefits are better left unreaped. Just like many people have moral objections to usurping from other people, why do people have no scruples from usurping from other species, and nature? Under the pretense of superiority, measured by standards created by those who deem themselves superior!
Either accept that Might is Right, or stop the pretense. Has not evil won battles against good? Has not crime won battles against law? If you do believe Might is Right, then accept no such concept as 'crime'. If you do accept the concept of 'crime', then accept that Might is NOT Right.
i will also forever maintain that to take one single spider into a laboratory for testing is a CRIME of horrenduous magnitude. Anything "gained" from such acts is criminal loot.
Fire at will.
PS: Just in case someone has trouble applying abstractions to real life. The most often used excuse for GM is the idea of relieving world's hunger. However, this argument falls short immediately when considers that what is causing world's hunger is NOT the lack of GM, but poor distribution of humans, wealth and food. Now you think this can be rectified with GM? Well, if you have trouble understanding my argument about CRIME, then understand that this would merely touch the sympton and leave the real sickness uncorrected.
Some people also like to confuse the issue by saying things like 'there are no easy answers and sometimes the lesser evil blach blach...' but this is the way to total moral degradation. Personal gain, even if it is so-called humanity's personal gain, over right and wrong.
Also consider what ABSOLUTE EVIL can be created by means of GM. You think it would not happen?
Do you really believe the inventor of nuclear bomb thought it wouldn't be used that way? Do you? Don't be naive.
-
itnAklipse
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: 09 Jun 2003, 08:12
- Location: set adrift
- Contact:
i've said what i've said, now i will not open this thread again. If anyone has anything to say which they think might interest me, i suggest PM.
we've got beer and we've got fuel
-
streamline
- Slight Overbomber
- Posts: 1664
- Joined: 26 Oct 2005, 09:09
- Location: Right Next Door To Hell...
Coffee/monitor momentdelirium23 wrote: Genetic manipulation wrong? of course not consider what ABSOLUTE GOOD can be created by means of GM. If you cannot see this you must have closed eyes and mouth and nose and be very niave and not understand anything I say and you are also wrong. And you just cant see it and you have no morals and by morals I'm not talking about anything you can understand in your lives of wild and wanton abandonment in Cities and other places that are against nature. and any way if we get realy good at genetic manipulation we could make big spiders with human hands and the could kill all the jews and help us clone Saddam Hussain, because he was a just and wise man blah blah blah blah.
________________________________________
I trust you trust in me to mistrust you
I trust you trust in me to mistrust you
-
boudicca
- Sister Midnight
- Posts: 7427
- Joined: 15 Sep 2004, 16:15
- Location: embrace the margin
- Contact:
I think that's wise.itnAklipse wrote:i've said what i've said, now i will not open this thread again. If anyone has anything to say which they think might interest me, i suggest PM.
You start from a conclusion, not a standpoint.
This renders genuine debate impossible.
There's a man with a mullet going mad with a mallet in Millets
-
more-sedatives-pls
- Gonzoid Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 304
- Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 17:23
- Location: Leuven, Belgium
well... the vast-scale production of crops (take eg the central USA as the 'barn of the world') also drastically influences the natural equilibrium of the world - even without GM. And think of all the emissions we 'need' to be able to lead the life we're leading now - over the top of what this world can handle.
GM crops are not merely modified to produce more edible substance; they are generally sterile and thus should not affect 'the rest' too much through cross-pollination and the lots (although this isn't 100 percent I'll admit), AND they are also modified as to be able to resist several diseases and pests (ergo less pesticides, funghicides etc that really fcuk up the world).
So according to me, yes, they can help.
BUT
as itnAklipse pointed out, the real problem lies in the incorrect distribution of both crops and humans over the world. Considering eg my homeland, the ever pretty Belgium: we have one of the highest population densities in the world (but are not considered overpopulated because our economy can handle it (thanks to the exploitation of eg Africa)). And there are more pigs than humans (although when driving through Flander's fields, don't ever bet on seeing one), leading to a gigantic dung situation. Not much farming going on here - but the soil quality is excellent..... go figure.
GM seems to be a band aid to me, allowing us to maintain the current way of life. African countries can of course BUY these GM seeds in order to have better harvests, but the'll HAVE to keep buying them year after year after year as they are sterile. Again more money for the West, hooray!
GM crops are not merely modified to produce more edible substance; they are generally sterile and thus should not affect 'the rest' too much through cross-pollination and the lots (although this isn't 100 percent I'll admit), AND they are also modified as to be able to resist several diseases and pests (ergo less pesticides, funghicides etc that really fcuk up the world).
So according to me, yes, they can help.
BUT
as itnAklipse pointed out, the real problem lies in the incorrect distribution of both crops and humans over the world. Considering eg my homeland, the ever pretty Belgium: we have one of the highest population densities in the world (but are not considered overpopulated because our economy can handle it (thanks to the exploitation of eg Africa)). And there are more pigs than humans (although when driving through Flander's fields, don't ever bet on seeing one), leading to a gigantic dung situation. Not much farming going on here - but the soil quality is excellent..... go figure.
GM seems to be a band aid to me, allowing us to maintain the current way of life. African countries can of course BUY these GM seeds in order to have better harvests, but the'll HAVE to keep buying them year after year after year as they are sterile. Again more money for the West, hooray!
Immodium for the people
-
markfiend
- goriller of form 3b
- Posts: 21181
- Joined: 11 Nov 2003, 10:55
- Location: st custards
- Contact:
I disagree with your premise...itnAklipse wrote:i never said mutations are bad. Sigh.
...that there's any qualitative difference between "natural" mutations and GM-induced ones.itnAklipse wrote:However, it is not the same at all to what i'm talking about at any rate. In GM you as a rule produce controlled mutations which would not have occured by breeding. And i would also suggest that through breeding the mutations that happen are always diverse, keeping the balance to some extent, whereas in GM you change one gene to your own liking, destroying the balance. It's very simple.
What i don't quite understand why you want to distract the issue to sidelines and not say anything about the real issue at hand?
For example, one might have thought it impossible for bacteria to mutate naturally (i.e. without human genetic modification) to digest manufacturing by-products of nylon, a man-made chemical which has only existed since 1935, yet there are such bacteria.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
—Bertrand Russell
—Bertrand Russell
-
weebleswobble
- Underneath the Rock
- Posts: 5875
- Joined: 09 Feb 2006, 06:57
- Location: The Bat-Milk Cave
- Contact:
Heartland Mafia say schnerf?
‎"We will wear some very loud shirts. We will wear some very wrong trousers."
-
Izzy HaveMercy
- The Worlds Greatest Living Belgian
- Posts: 8844
- Joined: 29 Jan 2002, 00:00
- Location: Long Dark Forties
- Contact:
The Heartland Bulldog of s**t and Spam removal says * whine? *
And gives a happy *yelp!* to Claire for pointing out the sheer wasting of time by resident hot-head itnAklipse again.
Any given time you start a thread I hope you want to start a discussion, but you effectively start AND end a monologue.
IZ.
And gives a happy *yelp!* to Claire for pointing out the sheer wasting of time by resident hot-head itnAklipse again.
Any given time you start a thread I hope you want to start a discussion, but you effectively start AND end a monologue.
IZ.
So should I PM him to tell him that according to his "no compromises whatsoever" approach my brother should have died? Cos genetic research sure did save his life.boudicca wrote:I think that's wise.itnAklipse wrote:i've said what i've said, now i will not open this thread again. If anyone has anything to say which they think might interest me, i suggest PM.
You start from a conclusion, not a standpoint.
This renders genuine debate impossible.
If I told them once, I told them a hundred times to put 'Spinal Tap' first and 'Puppet Show' last.
-
Izzy HaveMercy
- The Worlds Greatest Living Belgian
- Posts: 8844
- Joined: 29 Jan 2002, 00:00
- Location: Long Dark Forties
- Contact:
I woulnae bother, but just to be clear:mh wrote:So should I PM him to tell him that according to his "no compromises whatsoever" approach my brother should have died? Cos genetic research sure did save his life.boudicca wrote:I think that's wise.itnAklipse wrote:i've said what i've said, now i will not open this thread again. If anyone has anything to say which they think might interest me, i suggest PM.
You start from a conclusion, not a standpoint.
This renders genuine debate impossible.
itnAklipse talks about Genetic Modification and Manipulation, you talk about Genetic Research...
Which was all over the news again yesterday and today, because one of the genetic Missing Links of this world used his veto in the matter...
I'm not sure what to think about manipulation (cuts both sides etc), but genetic research is allowed IMO.
IZ.
Good point man, and I did knee-jerk there. Sensitive topic 'n' all.Izzy HaveMercy wrote:I woulnae bother, but just to be clear:mh wrote:So should I PM him to tell him that according to his "no compromises whatsoever" approach my brother should have died? Cos genetic research sure did save his life.boudicca wrote: I think that's wise.
You start from a conclusion, not a standpoint.
This renders genuine debate impossible.
itnAklipse talks about Genetic Modification and Manipulation, you talk about Genetic Research...
Which was all over the news again yesterday and today, because one of the genetic Missing Links of this world used his veto in the matter...
I'm not sure what to think about manipulation (cuts both sides etc), but genetic research is allowed IMO.
IZ.
I'm with you on the "cuts both sides" bit, major bigtime.
If I told them once, I told them a hundred times to put 'Spinal Tap' first and 'Puppet Show' last.
-
MadameButterfly
- HL's mystical safekeeper
- Posts: 6938
- Joined: 12 Jul 2005, 09:29
- Location: in my own galaxy
I'm confused is itnAklipse a girl or a boy or both?
it's all about circles and spirals
that ongoing eternity
that ongoing eternity
-
christophe
- Overbomber
- Posts: 3527
- Joined: 17 Jan 2004, 09:42
- Location: Grinderstreet
dunno.MadameButterfly wrote:I'm confused is itnAklipse a girl or a boy or both?
its a shame he/she is gone and will never ever come back (hint)again.
he/she was rather funny
Another Shade of You.
-
more-sedatives-pls
- Gonzoid Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 304
- Joined: 15 Feb 2006, 17:23
- Location: Leuven, Belgium
Nuts !
Immodium for the people
-
MadameButterfly
- HL's mystical safekeeper
- Posts: 6938
- Joined: 12 Jul 2005, 09:29
- Location: in my own galaxy
Oh dear mental images....must resist....
@ christophe ~ dunno about gone although there are twists in the knickers...
Yeah I'm having quite a giggle meself.
@ christophe ~ dunno about gone although there are twists in the knickers...
Yeah I'm having quite a giggle meself.
it's all about circles and spirals
that ongoing eternity
that ongoing eternity
-
EmeraldSignal
- Amphetamine Filth
- Posts: 122
- Joined: 07 May 2003, 21:49
- Contact:
I thought the balance of nature was already destroyed and we're all headed for Armageddon!!!!!!itnAklipse wrote:............. i suggest that altering one gene in a single plant will destroy the balance of nature..........
-
MadameButterfly
- HL's mystical safekeeper
- Posts: 6938
- Joined: 12 Jul 2005, 09:29
- Location: in my own galaxy
nature lives
nature breathes
nature gone
so are we
nature breathes
nature gone
so are we
it's all about circles and spirals
that ongoing eternity
that ongoing eternity
-
sultan2075
- Overbomber
- Posts: 2361
- Joined: 04 Mar 2005, 19:17
- Location: Washington, D. C.
- Contact:
There are arguments that can be made for it, and there are arguments that can be made against it (very good ones that I'm sympathetic to, which would take up a lot of time and space to make, so I will refrain from doing so). itnAklipse hasn't really made much of an argument against it, at least not to my ears. There seems to be a lot of assertion, but little justification.
Genetic modification of living things is, unfortunately, an inevitability; it is a Pandora's box that is in the process of opening, and we have no hope of closing it. It presents opportunity, and it presents dangers. The dangers are immense, and we ought not to underestimate them; the same can be said of the benefits. The question, then, isn't if such projects should be allowed, but what their limitations ought to be, and it is here that the Western world is faced with a problem. As the tendency toward mechanistic or positivist understandings of the world increases (i.e., man is just a machine, man is completely knowable in terms of the physical, etc) at the expense of a serious encounter with moral questions (an encounter made all the more unlikely due the prevalence of moral relativism) and thus the possiblity of philosophic knowledge as well as scientific knowledge, the liklihood that the West will undertake the serious discussions that this issue must entail decreases. There is a dangerous tendency to think that scientific answers and scientific methods can govern all aspects of life, but they cannot--physics can tell you how to build both an atom bomb and a nuclear power plant, but physics as such cannot tell you which of them ought to be built. By reducing moral standards to mere opinions or "values" we run the risk--as a civilization--of losing the capacity to seriously ask whether or not we should, as a society, do something just because we can. Regardless of where one stands on the abortion issue, the fact that--at least here in America--there is still a debate about it signifies that we, as a people, still take moral questions seriously (regardless of the zealotry on both sides, there are also serious people on both sides of the issue). The technology of genetic manipulation is inevitable, the question is one of how it will be used, and for what purposes and under what limitations. As long as the positivistic claim (that the only truths are the truths of physical science) is prevalent, the sort of serious discucssion that is necessary is precluded; at best you will simply have fundamentalist partisans of each positions shrilly proclaiming their bumper-sticker slogans.
Genetic modification of living things is, unfortunately, an inevitability; it is a Pandora's box that is in the process of opening, and we have no hope of closing it. It presents opportunity, and it presents dangers. The dangers are immense, and we ought not to underestimate them; the same can be said of the benefits. The question, then, isn't if such projects should be allowed, but what their limitations ought to be, and it is here that the Western world is faced with a problem. As the tendency toward mechanistic or positivist understandings of the world increases (i.e., man is just a machine, man is completely knowable in terms of the physical, etc) at the expense of a serious encounter with moral questions (an encounter made all the more unlikely due the prevalence of moral relativism) and thus the possiblity of philosophic knowledge as well as scientific knowledge, the liklihood that the West will undertake the serious discussions that this issue must entail decreases. There is a dangerous tendency to think that scientific answers and scientific methods can govern all aspects of life, but they cannot--physics can tell you how to build both an atom bomb and a nuclear power plant, but physics as such cannot tell you which of them ought to be built. By reducing moral standards to mere opinions or "values" we run the risk--as a civilization--of losing the capacity to seriously ask whether or not we should, as a society, do something just because we can. Regardless of where one stands on the abortion issue, the fact that--at least here in America--there is still a debate about it signifies that we, as a people, still take moral questions seriously (regardless of the zealotry on both sides, there are also serious people on both sides of the issue). The technology of genetic manipulation is inevitable, the question is one of how it will be used, and for what purposes and under what limitations. As long as the positivistic claim (that the only truths are the truths of physical science) is prevalent, the sort of serious discucssion that is necessary is precluded; at best you will simply have fundamentalist partisans of each positions shrilly proclaiming their bumper-sticker slogans.
--
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside.
-
robertzombie
- Overbomber
- Posts: 4380
- Joined: 05 Sep 2005, 12:49
- Location: London
What's the point in starting a thread and then leaving as soon as people disagree with you?itnAklipse wrote:i've said what i've said, now i will not open this thread again. If anyone has anything to say which they think might interest me, i suggest PM.
mm
-
paint it black
- Black, black, black & even blacker
- Posts: 4963
- Joined: 11 Jul 2002, 01:00
i'm sure it's just one of jouni's cunning little experiments on the lab rats' of heartland; either that or he's eaten his wife at a blackmass and has no one to nag himrobertzombie wrote:What's the point in starting a thread and then leaving as soon as people disagree with you?itnAklipse wrote:i've said what i've said, now i will not open this thread again. If anyone has anything to say which they think might interest me, i suggest PM.
mm
Last edited by paint it black on 12 Jan 2007, 22:58, edited 1 time in total.