Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Malum Prohibitum, May 21, 2007.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/stor ... 55,00.html
http://news.scotsman.com/international. ... 2434192005
we are not God. As much as I'd love to be able to see in the dark like a cat or reginerate like a starfish (ok maybe not quite like that but you get the idea...) I don't think this is a good place to be playing.
Really? Why? Assuming they limit the cell development (as stated in the article) what do you see wrong with this research?
the potential federal funding part is what i have a problem with...
Because it's a stepping stone.
What's wrong with limiting magazine capacities? Stepping stone...
Let them do this and next they'll want to let it go longer, then longer, till one day we got minotaurs running around....
Does this mean that in a few years I'll haev to put the factory stock back on my Hi-Point Carbine, so that it looks like a "Planet Of The Apes" gun again?
The government thinks they are.
Perhaps they will want to do so. That doesn't mean the laws or rules must be changed.
I'm all for advancements in science. This just seems like a slippery slope though.
+1 & rofl.
Even if it's limited here the work done in the US can & will be expanded upon outside of the US. I'd just as soon we not be contributing to some Chinese super soldier. Or anything else that comes about from cross breeding animals & humans.
Call me old fashioned or ignorant or whatever but
Does that include a better immune system? Anti-cancer agents & gene therapy? Regeneration or repair of spinal tissue? New skin for burn victims? A new heart for a little girl or boy? Livers, lungs, on and on and on... All because of a few cells in a dish or an egg that someone might misuse?
You know, I think you're right. This does sound like the beginning of a gun ban, you and I just see it from different sides.
Science for the win.
You have a valid point & I certainly understand it, but you have to keep in mind my personal perspective that there are far too many people in the world today anyway. I'm not a big fan of prolonging the average life span of the human race to 100, 110 or more. And, again call me odd or whatever, but I believe that sometimes some people aren't meant to live (and I'm not just talking about the idiot that kicks in one of our doors at 2am expecting an easy haul...)
Guess it's just one of those things where I think the benifits are not justification for the potential abuses/perversions of the knowledge. Oppenheimer regretted what his research made possible. What are the leaders in this branch of science going to regret 50 years from now?...
But the use of his team's creation saved hundreds of thousands of US soldiers, sailors, and marines lives. I'd say turning some Japanese into crispy critters was a fair trade off. Besides...if they didn't want to get nuked they shouldn't have started something they couldn't finish.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with Oppie.
It certainly ended the war & saved US soldiers.
+100 for us.
Just making the point between what he was originally thinking & then what ended up happening with his work.
is all great in theory now but what might it mean 25 - 50 years from now. What might this be used for that today's scientists aren't imagining?
To defend my position a bit further (although I'll grant it's a weak point it's mine & I like it ) with the nuclear theory analogy, you could argue that we wanted a bomb to defend ourselves against an attack from an enemy force - Japan in this case - that threatened our entire way of life as a nation.
This kind of hybrid gene research isn't something that's going to "save us from an enemy". It has the potential to save some lives in the world, but we don't have any epidemic (Right now. Who knows what super bird flu we humans will eventually cook up killing 98% of us & have zombies roaming the world in search of brains to eat) that is threatening the existence of our way of life and needs a cure. Cancel and burn victims and everything else is bad but I also see it as the way life goes. You live & you die. Some people live longer than others. Sometimes lives are cut tragically short. I personally believe that there is a purpose behind it all and that things happen for a good reason no matter how hard it is to see or accept that reason.
Now, being the horrible debater that I am I'll point out my own difficulty. I believe that God wants things in a natural way - that whole you live & die etc etc thing - but I believe that God made us smart enough to do things for ourselves that aren't exactly natural. I'm pretty sure you can't go pick anything that will function the same way a Z-pack does for a bad case of the flu. I chalk that up to God giving us enough brains to figure things out. So why is this different I ask myself? And I'm not sure that I can explain it but I think it is. I guess maybe I feel that if the good Lord had wanted human and turtles to be able to "combine" he would have made it possible for it to happen in nature. I don't know. I guess I'm rambling. I suppose I'll just have to fall back on my prior statement in that, to me,
I cannot argue with the fact that there is great potential for misuse. It's there, like it or not. Unfortunately, everything on this great Earth has the potential for misuse. From the Cane Toad to the dinner fork.
Potential misuse is the very reason the grabbers want guns to be banned.
Absolutes suck, don't they?
I'd say AIDS is an epidempic, if not already at pandemic proportions.
And that is fine. Just don't use your god to tell others how to live. Decisions that affect others are not solely your to make.
I'm stuck in a Robin Cook novel!