Heartland

ho hum... brave new world or too much medlling

reduced female birth one would have thought (knowing peer pressure attributed to keeping the family name going)

i'm really not into any of the proposals, but might be swung if you can convince me

I thought Brave New World featured too much meddling. Can you give us alternative choices?

meddling.

as a species we cannot be trusted to use this prior knowledge responsibly. or morally. or ethically.

andymackem wrote:I thought Brave New World featured too much meddling. Can you give us alternative choices?

1. no crime, no war. of course to get there would be one mother of a battle (still we'll have robots for that kinda stuff)

2. you an epsilon, providing all my alpha needs

3. massively reduced national health service; no more special cases to drain the coffers. people don't get sick, they malfunction

4. same for education, no need, there is no history and everything is pretaught anyway (soz to all the teachers, who might now actually have to work for a living)

5. no more fretting over longevity, keeping an eye on the old folks, it's entirely predictable when people are going to expire

5. lashings of drugs, just so we don't have to think, and therefore, presumably, get bored


now i come to think of it, i can't really see any negative aspects; i retract my original statement

No alarms and no surprises.

Sounds like heaven.

But the devil still has the best tunes.

andymackem wrote:But the devil still has the best tunes.

and the Nazis the best tunics'.

bang bang!

a few links

http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article ... 35,00.html

http://www.fertility-docs.com/fertility_gender.phtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3990134/


something evil this way comes

Jessica Grace, born 15 March 2005 at the LGI - hope she goes some way to address the balance.

One Very Happy, Proud Daddy

as a species we cannot be trusted to use this prior knowledge responsibly. or morally. or ethically.

Whose morals and ethics, though?

nodubmanshouts wrote:

as a species we cannot be trusted to use this prior knowledge responsibly. or morally. or ethically.

Whose morals and ethics, though?

THE morals and ethics. the ones that neccessarily come with being a member of the human race. the stuff that we all know and feel, and that is really just common sense, even though The Church seem to think you need it beating into you with 12 tablets of stone...

general stuff like not being cruel to other living beings, treating other people fairly and in a manner you would be happy for them to treat you, etc etc

Well, the second paragraph are most certainly my morals and ethics (and I hope everyone elses too, though sadly they're not), but do they apply to sexing your child?

Is it fair to the un-conceived child not to remove a genetic disease if you have the ability to do so?

nodubmanshouts wrote:Well, the second paragraph are most certainly my morals and ethics (and I hope everyone elses too, though sadly they're not), but do they apply to sexing your child?

Is it fair to the un-conceived child not to remove a genetic disease if you have the ability to do so?

i guess what i am trying to say is that we are an inherently selfish species who cannot be trusted to make an informed and educated judgement based on the needs of the society at large.

witness the entire "'me' culture" that we currently have, which though no-one has actually said it is little more than an extension of the capitalist, "greed is good", self-centered society of the 80s

we as a culture ("westerners") do things and make decisions based purely on our own selfish motives with little or no consideration for the bigger picture, that being the survival of our environs & habitat, the promotion of ethically "sound" values, etc etc

IMHO the technology that would allow the "sexing" of unborn kids would be abused and would f**k up the natural demographic balance of society.

But isn't one of the principles we hold dear that of personal freedom and freedom of choice.

Doesn't this merely extend freedom of choice and thus conform with these exalted principles?

Or are the liberals worried that people won't make the 'right' choices for that agenda?

Quiff Boy wrote:

nodubmanshouts wrote:Well, the second paragraph are most certainly my morals and ethics (and I hope everyone elses too, though sadly they're not), but do they apply to sexing your child?

Is it fair to the un-conceived child not to remove a genetic disease if you have the ability to do so?

i guess what i am trying to say is that we are an inherently selfish species who cannot be trusted to make an informed and educated judgement based on the needs of the society at large.

witness the entire "'me' culture" that we currently have, which though no-one has actually said it is little more than an extension of the capitalist, "greed is good", self-centered society of the 80s

we as a culture ("westerners") do things and make decisions based purely on our own selfish motives with little or no consideration for the bigger picture, that being the survival of our environs & habitat, the promotion of ethically "sound" values, etc etc

IMHO the technology that would allow the "sexing" of unborn kids would be abused and would f**k up the natural demographic balance of society.

I couldn't agree with you more.
This whole designer baby thing really makes me angry. Kids are becoming more and more of an accessory. You just have to watch the million and one, "We can't control our kids because, we both work really hard and my career is far more important to me. Stuff it, the nursery can take care of them...... s**t. My kids don't know me" programmes that are trotted out these days.

I really don't know why some people bother.

Mrs RicheyJames wrote:I really don't know why some people bother.

I agree with that

andymackem wrote:But isn't one of the principles we hold dear that of personal freedom and freedom of choice.

Doesn't this merely extend freedom of choice and thus conform with these exalted principles?

Or are the liberals worried that people won't make the 'right' choices for that agenda?

But I also agree with that.

There are circumstances in which I think choosing the sex of a child is justifiable on medical grounds; haemophilia-gene-carrying parents for one.

Two things that bother me about the "man shouldn't tamper with nature" argument:
*) The argument presupposes that human beings are in some way separate, apart from nature, that we are not natural. And that is egocentric bullsh*t of the purest form.
*) What the f*ck do people think the whole of our species' past is other than "tampering with nature"? Humans have been rearranging the environment for our own benefit since someone first put an edge on a piece of flint.

This is not to say that there shouldn't be ethical constraints on the use of this technology, obviously; but a knee-jerk reaction calling for a complete stop to the technology isn't the answer.

Almost any new technology (especially surrounding human birth and death) is labelled as "playing God" and met with storms of protest, only to be accepted as normal within a couple of decades.

markfiend wrote:Two things that bother me about the "man shouldn't tamper with nature" argument:
*) The argument presupposes that human beings are in some way separate, apart from nature, that we are not natural. And that is egocentric bullsh*t of the purest form.

i disagree. surely its more like saying "we are a part of nature, and are governed by it."

lets face it, if nature decided it didnt want mankind on the planet it would only take about 20 minutes for it do wipe us out...

its a respect thing. and sadly western society has little or no respect for it.

markfiend wrote:*) What the f*ck do people think the whole of our species' past is other than "tampering with nature"? Humans have been rearranging the environment for our own benefit since someone first put an edge on a piece of flint.

but it comes down to respect again.

rearranging is one thing, abusing is another. which is why the planet is so f*cked now...

markfiend wrote:only to be accepted as normal within a couple of decades.

but is that due to what people would term moral decline? or moral turpitude (always wanted to get that word in! ) ?

andymackem wrote:Or are the liberals worried that people won't make the 'right' choices for that agenda?

no idea what The Liberals think. whoever they are.

personally i'm worried because people generally tend towards being s**t, and are more often than not selfish, unscrupulous, uncaring, unfeeling, and most importantly unthinking, bastards.

and as such, you are correct. no i would not trust their agenda. not because it clashes with mine but because it is notin the best interest of our culture, our species and our planet.

probably

Quiff Boy wrote:

markfiend wrote:*) What the f*ck do people think the whole of our species' past is other than "tampering with nature"? Humans have been rearranging the environment for our own benefit since someone first put an edge on a piece of flint.

but it comes down to respect again.

rearranging is one thing, abusing is another. which is why the planet is so f*cked now...

But the march of 'civilisation' is the movement away from nature. As soon as we started smearing a few daubs of creatures on the walls of our caves we were setting ourselves apart.

How far does respect have to go? How fundamentalist shall we make it? Should we be saving the resources and energy that enables me to access this forum? There's no need for me to be here, so let's take it off-line Environmentally friendly hacking - it's the future.

quiff boy wrote:but is that due to what people would term moral decline? or moral turpitude (always wanted to get that word in! ) ?

Does a change in values automatically mean a loosening of morals? You're not going to start inflicting Leviticus on me, are you? Perhaps it comes back to a view that as far as possible people should have the freedom of choice I mentioned before.

Quiff Boy wrote:

andymackem wrote:Or are the liberals worried that people won't make the 'right' choices for that agenda?

no idea what The Liberals think. whoever they are.

personally i'm worried because people generally tend towards being s**t, and are more often than not selfish, unscrupulous, uncaring, unfeeling, and most importantly unthinking, bastards.

and as such, you are correct. no i would not trust their agenda. not because it clashes with mine but because it is notin the best interest of our culture, our species and our planet.

probably

Sorry, can't resist sticking a liberal (lower case, btw) lable on these debates. Puerile, I know.

But if the majority view is not in what you judge to be the best interests of our culture, species and planet, is that not democracy in action? But I'm sorry you've become acquainted with such a sorry bunch. I don't think we're all that bad, to be honest. In spite of everything.

no, you're not all bad. its just that the majority are, and in particular the ones with the power and influence to actually do any good...

leviticus? i wasnt saying i particularly agreed with that train of thought, merely that it was one possible retort. and it did give me the chance to say "turpitude"

civilisation v nature? i suppose it depends on how you define "civilisation" and what you expect from it. me, i expect better. whats wrong with trying to live in harmony as best we can with it?

Quiff Boy wrote:rearranging is one thing, abusing is another. which is why the planet is so f*cked now...

Well I would agree that f*cking up the planet is "a bad thing" in that we have to live here; but that's based more on a utilitarian view of morality than on any "moral absolutes".

Quiff Boy wrote:

markfiend wrote:only to be accepted as normal within a couple of decades.

but is that due to what people would term moral decline? or moral turpitude (always wanted to get that word in! ) ?

Well I was thinking of IVF / "test tube babies"; do you think it's moral decline that this is now an accepted, indeed an every-day medical procedure?

Quiff Boy wrote:...not because it clashes with mine but because it is notin the best interest of our culture, our species and our planet.

probably

You seem (again) to be arguing from a utilitarian morality here. I think we have largely a difference of emphasis rather than a real disagreement here.
-------
On the larger question of morality in general, I prefer a combination of the "social contract" theory of morality and moral utilitarianism. In that "morality" is the set of "rules" we, as social animals, have formed to produce workable ways of living together; and that produce the greatest good (or least harm) for the species as a whole.

I am distrustful of any idea of "moral absolutes". An absolute morality can be utterly arbitrary. As an example, there is a Jewish Rabbi (whose name escapes me) who believes that, in the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, where Abraham was ordered by God to sacrifice his son (only to be stopped at the last minute), Abraham would have been morally obliged to kill his son if that had been God's will.

This kind of thinking leads us to a situation in which people can be led to believe that it is morally acceptable to fly an aeroplane into an office building because it is "God's will".

*EDIT* Blimey, an hour to type this up? That's what happens when your boss walks in half-way through posting

"utilitarian morality"

never thought of it that way but yeah, the glove kinda fits i guess

certainly more than "moral absolutes"

and i have no objection to the "social contract" school of thinking either - it has a hell of a lot going for it IMO.

its like you say - its more a difference of emphasis. i suppose its just i think it should all come packaged with a mutual respect of nature for nature's sake. its precisely the lack of any species-defined ego (as mentioned in an earlier post) that i wish mankind had.

Quiff Boy wrote:... i think it should all come packaged with a mutual respect of nature for nature's sake. its precisely the lack of any species-defined ego (as mentioned in an earlier post) that i wish mankind had.

With a bit of discussion, our differences evaporate

and

markfiend wrote:Well I was thinking of IVF / "test tube babies"; do you think it's moral decline that this is now an accepted, indeed an every-day medical procedure?

not sure where i stand on that one.

on the one hand i think the planet is over crowded and as such we are endangering our species and threatening earth's ability to sustain us (utilitarian morality again? ), ergo maybe, just maybe, we should really be mucking about trying to write nature's wrongs and artificially generate pregancies (what people with faith would call "playing god" i guess)

but on the other hand i am aware of how dangerously close to eugenics that could be construed as, and also how cold & unsympathetic that is

its a very emotive issue and not something i've ever been through, and its not something you can rationalise either. i suppose what it boils down to is i really dont know where i stand, and i'm not "qualified" to comment

markfiend wrote:

Quiff Boy wrote:... i think it should all come packaged with a mutual respect of nature for nature's sake. its precisely the lack of any species-defined ego (as mentioned in an earlier post) that i wish mankind had.

With a bit of discussion, our differences evaporate

is that what is meant by "playing nice" then?

Quiff Boy wrote:

no, you're not all bad. its just that the majority are, and in particular the ones with the power and influence to actually do any good...

leviticus? i wasnt saying i particularly agreed with that train of thought, merely that it was one possible retort. and it did give me the chance to say "turpitude"

civilisation v nature? i suppose it depends on how you define "civilisation" and what you expect from it. me, i expect better. whats wrong with trying to live in harmony as best we can with it?

You're not all bad? Are you something seperate, then? I've long had my suspicions

Can't be bothered with moral decline right now. Might come back to it later with a detailed defence of racism or something, but lack the energy at the moment.

Civilisation v nature: nothing wrong with trying to live in harmony, but how much of what you enjoy doing on a daily basis is out of kilter with that.

Nature doesn't allow for large-scale daily commuting (especially not via resource-consuming mechanics), nor does it encourage jetting off to Berlin or Prague for a weekend of cheap beer and clubbing unless you happen to be a migrating albatross.

It arguably doesn't allow for consumption of fossil fuels to power our computers, CD players and favourite venues.

It's a question of how far you want to go, but personally I'm happy to stay quite a long way from nature because it's rather less interesting than my selfish planet-destroying hobbies.

andymackem wrote:I'm happy to stay quite a long way from nature because it's rather less interesting than my selfish planet-destroying hobbies.

Well yeah. Who'd volunteer to swap places with a stone-age nomad?