Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Great article, Damon. The human species decided centuries ago, that nature would not dictate its evolution, the shape and capacity of the species in the future. With the first rope bridges and use of concrete, the human species chose to take charge of nature, to make nature conform to the will of the human species, not the other way round.

There are notable exceptions, most of the N. American and S. American indigenous tribes, most of the African tribes, and most sects of Buddhists would not have chosen to change nature for man’s sake, but, by an large, the species has chosen to harness nature for profit, for fun, for personal gain and for the “betterment of mankind”.

In this light, there appears to be no dilemma, nor hard or tough questions to be posed. Ultimately, the only question is when? When do we get on the bandwagon, for certainly, if we don’t choose to lead this new technology of artificial evolution of the species, someone else will, and American’s for all their moral thumping by the church goers have never been able to deny themselves being first, best, and most profitable where new technology is concerned. It is our manifest destiny one might say. Yes, manifest destiny is a very appropriate term for how we will either lead the innovation in artificial evolution, or be brought kicking and screaming to the competitive table of artificial evolution.

If the human species can do a thing, it is inevitable it will do a thing where technology and innovation is concerned. We heard warnings and cries against developing nuclear weapons, then against proliferating them, then against using them, and yet, America has led the way in creating them, proliferating them, and using them. It is academic. Provided our economy will support technological innovation, that innovation will eventually be undertaken.

Wonder how the Evangelicals and the Vatican will spin it? Remember, they burned Galileo for doing this same thing. How will this affect Religion?

Aldous.

Provided our economy will support technological innovation, that innovation will eventually be undertaken.

Being at the forefront will create new jobs, too. ;)

Seriously, it looks like the stem-cell research initiative will pass in my home state of California. It’s going to keep our state at the forefront of bio-tech. Go baby!

I think the world would be a very much poorer place if man ever started to believe, as a species, that it sufficiently understood its own nature to be able to produce “superior” children through genetics. Such genetic screening could easily eliminate our Einstein’s (after all, he wasn’t very good at math) or our Beethovens (prone to deafness.) Hellen Keller would certainly be out.

Oh, and let’s not forget other traits that might be labelled genetically undesirable. “Prone to homosexuality? But we want grandkids… that will never do.”

How long would it be before fads started popping up, with everyone getting a standard model with certain features like green eyes or red hair? How long before entire generations of children would be virtually indistinguishable?

What’s the point in banning cloning if we become virtual clones of each other?

Surely humans have been selecting genetic traits in their sexual partners throughout history judging the physical and mental attributes of others.

We are predisposed to create a designer baby and now the wealth of a person will guide evolution as the richest screen the most, already the storage of umbilical cord stem cells allows parents to provide the richest stem cell source for when their children are older and could need an accidental injury repaired (for they won’t have a genetic defect).

RE: Eintsein

Hey Jarin, good remarks, though I should point out that the “Einstein was bad at math” thing is an old wives tail. Einstein was excellent at math. The confusion stems from the difference between Swiss and German school systems at the time. Germans use a grading system based on a 1-5 scale, where 1 is an A. At that time, Swiss schools used the same scale but in reverse (5 was an A). This has led to some confusion over Einstein’s grades in general, as Einstein whent to Switzerland to study.

Here’s a tasty link:
http://members.fortunecity.com/alberteinstein/e=mc2/physics/einstein_truth.htm

Kerry is the wrong person wrong election wrong man despite what the polls say Bush wins a landslide victory and guess what Bush will win in Delaware because we have a democrat governor who is totally corrupt and people can’t stand HER so DE will vote GOP

Damon:

I stand corrected on Einstein, then. I had read a version of the story where he was actually taken out of school by his mother and homeschooled and did much better at home. I’ve also read similar accounts of Edison being bad at formal schooling and being homeschooled and going on to be one of the greatest minds of his age, do you know if those are true or similarly wives tales?

From what I’ve read, Einstein did indeed do poorly in formal schooling relative to his actual intelligence, as did Edison, and other great minds. It shouldn’t surprise us that neither the best minds nor the slowest minds do poorly in a standardized situation.

As far as genetic selection, I agree with Jarin that our diversity - and sometimes weakness - is what makes us human. Any animal can select a strong, healthy mate (or friend). What should set humans apart is our respect for all members of our own species, not just our ability to overcome nature.

Selecting positive genetic traits (or de-selecting weak ones) is essentially a form of moral dictatorship of each generation over the next. Who decides what is “desirable” in a person? Wealth, raw intelligence, bodily ability, longevity, appearance? Obviously, values are passed down by society, but each generation has the potential to alter its own values and destiny, and decide (for instance) that money isn’t the only goal in life, or that looks are less important than character (that would be MLK).

If we start pre-programming our kids genetically, we’re setting up an innate value system and taking away their freedom. We’re also dangerously at risk of showing massive discrimination against those who aren’t smart, strong, and sexy, as displayed so vividly in the film Gataca.

When my wife and I were pregnant with our second kid recently, we found ourselves in a difficult situation. Most of the pregnancy pre-screening tests result in percentage chance of a newborn either being born with or developing a certain condition. Typical odds are in the neighborhood of 1:4000. We had a poor result for a Downs Syndrome test and the result was around 1:300, so our doctor advised a higher-level, more accurate and expensive test. The second test came back at about 1:170. The testing physician at this point discusses with us our options and informed us that it was around this point that couples begin considering abortion. So she recommended an even more accurate, Downs-specific, test that was actually fairly dangerous for the baby.

Although we dreaded raising a Downs child, we could not fathom risking the life of our baby for a test to verify if our kid had a 1:170 chance of developing even extremely mild Downs.

It’s at this stage in a parent’s and a Pro-lifer’s life that you extensively analyze your position on abortion and pre-screening. You are faced with the task of discovering the factors that determing the “value” of a life.

Think about that for a moment. Does a life have a higher value simply because it doesn’t have a serious medical condition or deformity? We didn’t think so. Our conclusion was that the value of our child was based on his/her mere existence. We would never love a child more if he/she were smarter, stronger, faster, more polite, didn’t use drugs, get straight A’s, made a lot of money, or survived to be 120 years old. Likewise, we wouldn’t love a child more or less if they lived only 1 week or were still-born. They would be our child. We would give them as much love as they deserved as a human being. They would have the same respectable funeral and burial as anyone else.

So, no, the “potential” of developing Downs would not decrease their value any more than being born with the most severe case of Downs syndrome. It is our job as parents of a child to give them every ounce of love and care they deserve as a human being. “Perfect” or not.

Amercan should be Voting For the New President. Not The Electoral Collage!

In Afghanistan they have a true Democracy! In Afghanistan the people are given a true choise in voting for president. In in America! We have an out dated system called a Republic!

Why do We need the Electoral Collage?

History Shows Us!

Since the electoral collage was created (4) Presidents have been appointed by the collage not the votes of the American People!.

John Quincy Adams! (R)

Rutherford B Hayes (R)

Benjamnin Harding (R)

George W. (R)

Not a single Demercrat!

Who will they appoint next?

If history is correct it will not be John Kerry?

Check out these facts! They are correct!

Lets do away with the “Republican” Controled Electoral Collage!

A real Vote!

Tom

Jarin —

I believe Beethoven’s deafness can be attributed to the lead poisoning that eventually killed him, but I agree with your point. I myself don’t see an inherent ethical problem with manipulating genes, but it seems almost certain that the technology would be abused and would leave humanity poorer. Think about it: How many children do you know, male or female, named Tyler? There must be 10 million Tylers right now. There’s nothing wrong with that, but what if all the children did have blue eyes and blond hair? Diversity through nature is necessary. People aren’t wise enough.

Uh, what’s the deal with some of the off-topic posts here?

Anyway, I share the skeptics’ view that this is an amazingly dangerous situation in terms of human morality. Shaping our environment by the use of technology, as David mentioned, is entirely different from using technology to change the genetic makeup of our species. Vital questions, ranging from the long-term effects of introducing new genetic strains to just what makes us human beings need to be answered, and desperately soon.

However, I also agree that it’s completely inevitable. No technology can be restrained by laws; even if our citizens or government vote to restrict genetic tampering, some other country will simply get the lead. Expect humanity to run into this disaster headlong, and end up over our heads very, very quickly.

I honestly think the introduction of nuclear science analogy was a good one.

For what it’s worth, it has been said that every technological advancement can have as signficant a negative impact on humanity as a positive impact. The severity of the negative impact depends on humanity’s ability to restrain and constrain.

A friend of mine likes to regularly point out that each century humans become more proficient at killing each other. The twentieth centurty produced the most deadly and efficient killing methods and machines ever. But the twentieth century was also the most enligtening time of human achievement. I’ve never heard an honest person deny that modern day is the greatest time to ever be alive.

Our forefathers chose to have an electoral college due to the feared ignorance of the voters. Hopefully we have reached the point where we can trust the voters to pick the best person suited for the job.

Such genetic screening could easily eliminate our…Beethovens…Hellen Keller

Ridiculous. Their problems had nothing to do with their talents. I’d argue they’d have been even better if they didn’t have to deal with their afflictions.

Bryan, My boy was born with a genetic heart defect and had two corrective operations before he was one year old (thank God my wife had really good healthcare coverage through her job - I had just gotten laid off from mine). If I could have had his genetic makeup changed to spare him that, I’d have done it in a heartbeat.

Hmm… No pun intended, but I can’t think of a better phrase. :)

Jarin: “How long before entire generations of children would be virtually indistinguishable?”

Hmm okay, but coming back to the facts as they stand, I know I wouldnt celebrate being ravaged by hereditary, malignant and entirely preventable (now) bowel cancer, as part of my wonderful unique snowflakeness.

“Ridiculous. Their problems had nothing to do with their talents. I’d argue they’d have been even better if they didn’t have to deal with their afflictions.”

I’d argue that they would not have been as great. Adversity breeds ingenuity. If Beethoven had not been deaf he would not have had to work nearly as hard at music. Helen Keller would have never met Anne Sullivan or developed the same pathos for the disadvantaged has she not been disadvantaged herself. Numerous professional athletes from poor backgrounds would never have been so successful if they had an alternate focus (such as school) while growing up. In a similar vein, the American accounting industry, which includes the most well-respected accounting firms in the world, would never have risen to preeminence had US companies not been required to abide by complex American accounting rules. Dealing with adversity, whether internal or external, makes entities stronger through having to compensate. On the other hand, a complete lack of adversity leads to stagnation due to the lack of need for improvement.