Your assumption that a fertilized egg is a human being is ridiculous. Who told you that a fertilized egg is a human being? Whoever did that, knew squat about human biology. And you think you are a medical doctor?
As for your poetic reference to the Faustian bargain, well, I don't know what soul is, so I don't know what mythological mumbo-jumbo you are talking about. As for morals, my morals are superior to most of the Bible book club members.
There is no assumption just fact. Human life begins at sperm-egg fusion this is an uncontested scientific and objective conclusion. Furthermore it it’s a conclusion reached independently of any ethical or religious view of human life. Development and growth is a continuous process but your attempt to argue that early human life has no value is logically flawed. Your “personhood” criteria a stage where you feel young human beings are suddenly deserving of being extended basic human rights is utterly arbitrary. You have deliberately avoided defining it because you know it’s arbitrary and that there is no solid scientific grounds for making such a distinction. Life begins at conception. In regards to your claim of moral superiority... Well let’s just say we I think you are doing a good job showing us all what your morals really are. I thought we were talking about human beings? Human beings are not magically made at conception/fertilization. It is a long process to get from a fertilized egg to a human being. A fertilized egg is not a human being. It can become one, but it is not at conception/fertilization. I am not sure a fertilized egg on a petri dish qualifies as human life. As for fetuses being somehow independent human life, well, they are part of a woman, so technically it is a woman life we are talking about. At some point, the viability stage, you have to separate the two and say you have two human beings. But at fertilization, on a petri dish? You are just irrational. |
|
|
|
What evil is there in stem cell research? I fail to see any.
You are equivocating fertilizing eggs and then disposing of them with murder. Murdering a human being and not implanting a fertilized egg is not the same thing, IMHO.
You got carried away with your moral superiority complex.
Stem cell research is far from evil. It solves many medical conditions. If you believe in God as I am sure you do, you have to admit that this technology solves many issues that God created. Inborn blindness and deafness come to mind.
How can you say that finding new cures is evil is beyond me? Forbidding this technology is evil, IMHO.
We are not talking about rounding up children and killing them. That is what you are implying.
A fertilized egg is simply the first stage of a new human life. Killing it, allowing it to die, or not preparing for it to live before fertilization, is murder. Stem cell research from stem cells extracted from bone marrow is totally acceptable. Killing an embryo from day one on out to adulthood is murder, even to get the stem cells and the good they might do. Stem cell research isn't evil. Killing people is evil, even if it's less than a second from when they were conceived that they are murdered.  Not really. You just arbitrarily decided it is so. If I showed you both pig and human fertilized eggs, you would not know the difference. http://www.fofweb.com/Electronic_Images/onfiles/SciAniAnat1-14c.gifHere is an article about what is coming down the pipe. It is not as simple as you (and CoinCube) think. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/opinion-should-human-animal-chimeras-be-granted-personhood-36664Just hold out your hand and show me "pig and human fertilized eggs" therein. Ah, hold it in the light a little more. Ah, move your hand to the right... no, to the left. You almost had me there. There isn't really anything in your hand, is there? If science is too ignorant or weak to see the epigenetic markers that make the distinctions between the various eggs of the creatures, AND the way the epigenetic markers get there, what do we do? Kill the human because we can't tell that it is human? Or raise the pig for bacon? And you talk about God weeding out wicked people. You show that you are one of the wicked people. Repent while you have time. Just wait until someone in your family gets a genetic disorder causing them to lose eyesight or hearing. You will sing to a different tune. Wicked ones? You are a joke. Are babies born with open spines the wicked ones? How about kids who are blind at birth? Some weeding out. Sentencing these people to lifelong suffering is evil. Blocking research that can help them is evil. No, the wicked ones are the murderers, who would use any excuse to do their murdering, even the excuse that murdering several over here will save several over there. You don't seem to realize that the murderers are doing their murdering so that they can make money. Your unwillingness to recognize this simple fact leads me to believe that you just might be an abortion doctor. But even if you are not, since you agree with them - the abortion doctors - you are a murder by implication... self-implication. Letting a fertilized egg die is not murder. As for abortion, fetuses do not have rights, women do have rights. I think abortions should be free and allowed to around 8-10 weeks. There is nothing wrong with removing a little wart growing on the uterus wall. When that wart becomes a viable child, I do have a problem with killing that child. If it is between a woman's life and the baby, I would say a woman should be saved, not the baby. What you guys are proposing is that fertilized human eggs should have a legal 'person' status. That is just ridiculous. A fertilized egg is just a bunch of cells on a petri dish. Murder? You guys are irrational. |
|
|
|
PS. Working with fertilized eggs and extracting stem cells in the process is not causing harm, it is helping people.
I see so if I kill you before you have developed enough to know you are being killed it’s all good as long as I use your parts to help others? You have fully embraced the modern narrative of death. It is sad that you cannot understand that knowledge gained at such a price is a Faustian bargain. If you kill a fertilized egg that could eventually become me, assuming you could find a suitable uterus and successfully transfer the egg, you will be killing an egg not me. Personhood comes much, much later. Even at birth, you are not you. You become you as your brain develops. It is not an on/off but a continuous process. If you take your brain and somehow duplicate it in another body, after 20 years, the two of 'you' would not be 'you'. You will be you but the other 'you' will become some other guy. Your assumption that a fertilized egg is a human being is ridiculous. Who told you that a fertilized egg is a human being? Whoever did that, knew squat about human biology. And you think you are a medical doctor? As for your poetic reference to the Faustian bargain, well, I don't know what soul is, so I don't know what mythological mumbo-jumbo you are talking about. As for morals, my morals are superior to most of the Bible book club members.  So which website will CoinCube find next to convince himself that he is right? |
|
|
|
What evil is there in stem cell research? I fail to see any.
You are equivocating fertilizing eggs and then disposing of them with murder. Murdering a human being and not implanting a fertilized egg is not the same thing, IMHO.
You got carried away with your moral superiority complex.
Stem cell research is far from evil. It solves many medical conditions. If you believe in God as I am sure you do, you have to admit that this technology solves many issues that God created. Inborn blindness and deafness come to mind.
How can you say that finding new cures is evil is beyond me? Forbidding this technology is evil, IMHO.
We are not talking about rounding up children and killing them. That is what you are implying.
A fertilized egg is simply the first stage of a new human life. Killing it, allowing it to die, or not preparing for it to live before fertilization, is murder. Stem cell research from stem cells extracted from bone marrow is totally acceptable. Killing an embryo from day one on out to adulthood is murder, even to get the stem cells and the good they might do. Stem cell research isn't evil. Killing people is evil, even if it's less than a second from when they were conceived that they are murdered. Not really. You just arbitrarily decided it is so. If I showed you both pig and human fertilized eggs, you would not know the difference. http://www.fofweb.com/Electronic_Images/onfiles/SciAniAnat1-14c.gifHere is an article about what is coming down the pipe. It is not as simple as you (and CoinCube) think. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/opinion-should-human-animal-chimeras-be-granted-personhood-36664Just hold out your hand and show me "pig and human fertilized eggs" therein. Ah, hold it in the light a little more. Ah, move your hand to the right... no, to the left. You almost had me there. There isn't really anything in your hand, is there? If science is too ignorant or weak to see the epigenetic markers that make the distinctions between the various eggs of the creatures, AND the way the epigenetic markers get there, what do we do? Kill the human because we can't tell that it is human? Or raise the pig for bacon? And you talk about God weeding out wicked people. You show that you are one of the wicked people. Repent while you have time. Just wait until someone in your family gets a genetic disorder causing them to lose eyesight or hearing. You will sing to a different tune. Wicked ones? You are a joke. Are babies born with open spines the wicked ones? How about kids who are blind at birth? Some weeding out. Sentencing these people to lifelong suffering is evil. Blocking research that can help them is evil. |
|
|
|
Not really. You just arbitrarily decided it is so. If I showed you both pig and human fertilized eggs, you would not know the difference.
That does not change anything. Yes you cannot visually distinguish a human embryo from an animal one but so what one is a human at the beginning of its life the other is an animal. Why do you seek to dehumanize a substantial portion of your fellow human beings? Earlier you stated this was your moral code? - if the action causes harm, it is immoral
I am curious how you decided that killing someone does not count as harming them? Or is your stated moral code only for show something that rolls easily off of the tongue but is designed to be casually set aside when it becomes inconvenient? Easy. A fertilized egg is not "someone". Once you get the CNS working, then you can talk about a human being. Until then is just a bunch of cells. Just like a poured foundation is not a house. Seed in the ground is not a plant. The fertilized egg does not feel, the nervous system is not there. I am not trying to dehumanize human beings. A fertilized egg is not a human being. Maybe you should start with the definition of a human being before you accuse me of harming human beings. If you think a fertilized egg is a human being, you are simply mistaken because a human being is way more complicated. PS. Working with fertilized eggs and extracting stem cells in the process is not causing harm, it is helping people. |
|
|
|
What evil is there in stem cell research? I fail to see any.
You are equivocating fertilizing eggs and then disposing of them with murder. Murdering a human being and not implanting a fertilized egg is not the same thing, IMHO.
You got carried away with your moral superiority complex.
Stem cell research is far from evil. It solves many medical conditions. If you believe in God as I am sure you do, you have to admit that this technology solves many issues that God created. Inborn blindness and deafness come to mind.
How can you say that finding new cures is evil is beyond me? Forbidding this technology is evil, IMHO.
We are not talking about rounding up children and killing them. That is what you are implying.
A fertilized egg is simply the first stage of a new human life. Killing it, allowing it to die, or not preparing for it to live before fertilization, is murder. Stem cell research from stem cells extracted from bone marrow is totally acceptable. Killing an embryo from day one on out to adulthood is murder, even to get the stem cells and the good they might do. Stem cell research isn't evil. Killing people is evil, even if it's less than a second from when they were conceived that they are murdered. Not really. You just arbitrarily decided it is so. If I showed you both pig and human fertilized eggs, you would not know the difference.  Here is an article about what is coming down the pipe. It is not as simple as you (and CoinCube) think. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/opinion-should-human-animal-chimeras-be-granted-personhood-36664 |
|
|
|
The nazi model infiltrated our society more than we can think, lot of nazi have been recruted in scientific position after ww2.
The only parallel I see between Nazi Germany and Western democracies is patriotism, fervent nationalism, "Make XXX Great Again", etc. This does not bode well for humanity. Most scientists are not nationalists, most support internationalism. Name one scientist who is a nationalist. Read "Mein Kampf" before you open your mouth on the "nazi model". Whatever that means. Hitler was a German nationalist, first and foremost. Its much deeper than that, the nationalism is just a media to reel people in, mein kempf is propaganda , the Real ideology is Henry Ford, productivism and profits over human values. No sacrifice is too high to get an industrial one up over other nation etc After ww2, the nazi went CIA, swarmed to south america, middle east, Afganistan etc to concoct civil wars and coup to promote "industrial développement" by exploiting ressources and people to build their Ford topia global. Now its to the point most people think being scientist is building the next cellphone Who will make the next top company, originally science is studying things and building axiomatic reasoning. A person who thinks scientists are building cell phones does not understand what scientists do. And that is the crux of the problem. Lack of education. You are reading too much into Huxley's "Brave New World". Although, I admit it is a good book. It does make you think about the society we live in. Its not from brave new world, even if this story is also about that. Mein kempf is propaganda, the persons who write propaganda know its a lie , a forgery and a fraud. If you read the propaganda and think its what the people who write it think, you dont understand how propaganda works. Even the nationalist leagues were funded by the big industrials, To reel the working class in, but its not the essence of the ideology. Propaganda? Did you read the book? Read the book not what others say about this book. Hitler would be a socialist, maybe even a communist. He hated what his father did for a living. He was not a very bright anarchist, a very religious man, and foremost a nationalist; from the get-go. Failed at anything he tried academically. His parents died early on in his life, he was uprooted from his bourgeois social standing. It is an autobiography, written between 1923-1925, in the same genre as Trotsky's My Life. BTW, if Hitler would only listen to his father, study in school and get a government job like the rest of his bourgeois friends, we would not have WWII and atrocities that came with it. Read both books. Nationalism, religious or social class supremacy is evil. The worse form of tribalism there is. Most wars start because of one of them. |
|
|
|
The nazi model infiltrated our society more than we can think, lot of nazi have been recruted in scientific position after ww2.
The only parallel I see between Nazi Germany and Western democracies is patriotism, fervent nationalism, "Make XXX Great Again", etc. This does not bode well for humanity. Most scientists are not nationalists, most support internationalism. Name one scientist who is a nationalist. Read "Mein Kampf" before you open your mouth on the "nazi model". Whatever that means. Hitler was a German nationalist, first and foremost. Its much deeper than that, the nationalism is just a media to reel people in, mein kempf is propaganda , the Real ideology is Henry Ford, productivism and profits over human values. No sacrifice is too high to get an industrial one up over other nation etc After ww2, the nazi went CIA, swarmed to south america, middle east, Afganistan etc to concoct civil wars and coup to promote "industrial développement" by exploiting ressources and people to build their Ford topia global. Now its to the point most people think being scientist is building the next cellphone Who will make the next top company, originally science is studying things and building axiomatic reasoning. A person who thinks scientists are building cell phones does not understand what scientists do. And that is the crux of the problem. Lack of education. You are reading too much into Huxley's "Brave New World". Although, I admit it is a good book. It does make you think about the society we live in. |
|
|
|
Oh, ok, I understand your logical error now. You equate a fertilized egg with a fully grown child. That is simply not true.
Mind I remind you that CNS starts to develop around 5-6 weeks, not at the conception.
Using your logic, in vitro fertilization clinics are committing genocide because they dispose of thousands of fertilized eggs every day.
And you call socialist nationalists radicals.
I think you are radical, anti-science extremist and do not even know it.
A fertilized egg is not a human being. It has the potential of becoming one, but physically it is not what you think it is.
Well then we have isolated the point of our difference. I am not opposed to science but I am opposed to evil and the science of human experimentation unfortunately has a sordid history. Not everything that can be done is worth consideration. The fertility industry is full of misdeeds. Do you know where all of those extra embryos come from that they tear apart to get new human embryonic stem cells? It’s all about money. It is expensive to artificially fertilize and implant a single fertilized egg so those of us in medicine give women drugs and get 8-10 all at once and fertilize them all. Then we implant several of them them intending to suction out and abort one or two if they all succeed a process thats euphemistically described as selective reduction because twins and triplets are often undesired. The rest of the extra embryos are then frozen perhaps for later use but often they end up in the trash or occasionally on the scientists petri dish to be torn apart and experimented upon. A sane and moral society would at most allow only a single egg to be fertilized and implanted at a time respecting the sanctity of the life that was created. However, that would be costly. It would require more doctors visits and more attempts for success. Patient costs would be higher and most importantly doctors profits would be lower. Why do it our modern society says. Why let few dead embryos stand in the way of money and power over nature. Create them and grind them up for science and study. You accuse me of being a radical, anti-science extremist. I deny the charge. I in turn accuse you of supporting great evil which you will shrug off because you don’t believe in objective good and evil.We will never agree but it is useful to highlight our differences so others reading can understand this issue better. What evil is there in stem cell research? I fail to see any. You are equivocating fertilizing eggs and then disposing of them with murder. Murdering a human being and not implanting a fertilized egg is not the same thing, IMHO. You got carried away with your moral superiority complex. Stem cell research is far from evil. It solves many medical conditions. If you believe in God as I am sure you do, you have to admit that this technology solves many issues that God created. Inborn blindness and deafness come to mind. How can you say that finding new cures is evil is beyond me? Forbidding this technology is evil, IMHO. We are not talking about rounding up children and killing them. That is what you are implying. |
|
|
|
Hmm, so in your opinion, a fertilized egg is a human being?
Yes Oh, ok, I understand your logical error now. You equate a fertilized egg with a fully grown child. That is simply not true. May I remind you that CNS starts to develop around 5-6 weeks, not at the conception. Using your logic, in vitro fertilization clinics are committing genocide because they kill and dispose of thousands of fertilized eggs (human beings) every day. And you call socialist nationalists radicals. I think you are radical, anti-science extremist and do not even know it. A fertilized egg is not a human being. It has the potential of becoming one, but physically it is not what you think it is. |
|
|
|
That is not what I asked. Let me try again.
Is a fertilized egg a human, like you and me, or the children that were experimented on by the Nazis?
When do you consider an embryo to be a person?
Your very question highlights your bias. You are attempting to seperate humanity into two groups the ones who you feel are the “real humans” which you are calling “persons” deserving of human rights and “others” whom you presumably feel can be owned, sold, killed, or experimented upon as one would a lifeless object. It’s a common error. Slavers have used it throughout history to justify the kidnapping and enslavement of the weak. Nazis used it to to justify mass starvation of the “inferior” Russians. We use it today to justify the killing of the unborn. There is no “person” catagory. There are just human beings at various stages of growth and development young and old. Hmm, so in your opinion, a fertilized egg is a human being? |
|
|
|
Oh, so you think a fertilized egg... is a human?
...
Fascinating.
Yes. It is a human life in its most fragile form and long before the onset of consciousness but a human life nevertheless and deserving of the respect and sanctity that designation entails. Its not complicated really. A Scientific View of When Life Beginshttps://lozierinstitute.org/a-scientific-view-of-when-life-begins/That human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested, objective, based on the universally accepted scientific method of distinguishing different cell types from each other and on ample scientific evidence (thousands of independent, peer-reviewed publications). Moreover, it is entirely independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. Indeed, this definition does not directly address the central ethical question surrounding the embryo: What value ought society place on human life at the earliest stages of development? A neutral examination of the evidence merely establishes the onset of a new human life at a scientifically well-defined “moment of conception,” a conclusion that unequivocally indicates that human embryos from the one-cell stage forward are indeed living individuals of the human species; i.e., human beings.
That is not what I asked. Let me try again. Is a fertilized egg a human, like you and me, or the children that were experimented on by the Nazis? When do you consider an embryo to be a person? |
|
|
|
The nazi model infiltrated our society more than we can think, lot of nazi have been recruted in scientific position after ww2.
The only parallel I see between Nazi Germany and Western democracies is patriotism, fervent nationalism, "Make XXX Great Again", etc. This does not bode well for humanity. Most scientists are not nationalists, most support internationalism. Name one scientist who is a nationalist. Read "Mein Kampf" before you open your mouth on the "nazi model". Whatever that means. Hitler was a German nationalist, first and foremost. |
|
|
|
Because both involve something monstrous that is justified by dehumanizing and reducing the victim to the level of mere object.
With stem cell research the experimentation and dissection is justified by claiming the embro is not a real human life. With Nazi experimentation the medical experimentation was justified because the victims were not true valuable humans just Untermensch sub-man or subhumans. Their loss benefited the Übermensch with scientific knowledge and thus their sacrifice was justified for the greater good.
Its the same logical error in both cases.
As I said earlier there is something particularly monstrous about creating human life. Deciding its no longer wanted or needed for some convenience or economic reason and then instead of nurturing that life into birth and adulthood choosing to kill and experiment on it for knowledge and profit.
Why do you think stem cells or pre-implantation embryos are the victims? Didn't I just make that clear? Scientifically human life begins at conception. The only way to justify ending it with the goal of promoting scientific advancement is to dehumanize the early stages of that life and then claim it has no value. Such dehumanization is a category error witnessed in its most extreme form in the Nazi experimentation but also prevalent in modern research on human embryos. Oh, so you think a fertilized egg in the pre-implantation stage is a human? And you think that doing research on stem cells is equivalent to doing medical experiments on humans? Fascinating. Are a bunch of eggs and sperm on a petri dish humans as well? So I am guessing disposing of fertilized eggs constitutes genocide in your book, right? Unbelievable. |
|
|
|
Why do you compare the medical experimentation done by Germans during WWII to stem cell research?
Talk about false equivalence.
Hint: stem cell research
Because both involve something monstrous that is justified by dehumanizing and reducing the victim to the level of mere object. With stem cell research the experimentation and dissection is justified by claiming the embro is not a real human life. With Nazi experimentation the medical experimentation was justified because the victims were not true valuable humans just Untermensch sub-man or subhumans. Their loss benefited the Übermensch with scientific knowledge and thus their sacrifice was justified for the greater good. Its the same logical error in both cases. As I said earlier there is something particularly monstrous about creating human life. Deciding its no longer wanted or needed for some convenience or economic reason and then instead of nurturing that life into birth and adulthood choosing to kill and experiment on it for knowledge and profit. Why do you think stem cells or pre-implantation embryos are the victims? |
|
|
|
Religion is not about astronomy or supposed to give a description of the material world.
The geocentric model come from aristotle more than the bible as far as i know, and ironically he was more the science Guy of the team.
The relationship between catholic church and aristotle and natural science is complex.
But its hard to say that catholic church was anti science by supporting the aristotle model because its the closest to science you could get at this time.
Science still cant explain life and consciousness either.
Most great scientist and philosopher were religious too.
They had no choice. Einstein riemann or newton had the choice. And even the others like liebniz, descartes etc Even if you look where algebra comes from, its also grounded in theology. Sure. Do you even know how education was conducted a few hundred years ago? Did you read Descartes? I did. Basically, his philosophy comes down to this: God exists because we intuitively know he exists. LOL. https://www.amazon.com/Philosophical-Writings-Wordsworth-Classics-Literature/dp/B0075M9KOI/ref=sr_1_7He is apologizing for questioning the Catholic doctrines almost on every single page. It is like he is writing to appease the censors and not to have his head separated from his neck. But in the end, he was poisoned anyway. I would love to talk to him today. It would be fun to pick his brain without being afraid of what the Catholic Church might say. |
|
|
|
I don't think finding a cure for deafness or blindness is monstrous.
That would entirely depend on that way one goes about finding the cure for deafness or blindness. If you don't understand that you should ponder this issue more. Eva Kor, survivor of Nazi medical experiments at Auschwitz, dies at 85https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/eva-kor-survivor-of-nazi-medical-experiments-at-auschwitz-dies-at-85/2019/07/12/96118c2e-a35a-11e9-b732-41a79c2551bf_story.htmlEva Kor was 10 years old when she arrived at Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp in Poland where 1.1 million people, nearly all of them Jews, perished in the Holocaust. On the selection platform, her mother held on tightly to Eva and her twin sister, Miriam...
“Twins?” an SS guard called out. “Twins?”
“Is that good,” Mrs. Kor remembered her mother inquiring, if her daughters are twins? The guard said yes, and the sisters were taken away. They would never see their mother or the rest of their family again.
Eva and Miriam were among 1,500 sets of twins subjected to medical experiments by the infamous Nazi doctor Josef Mengele. Fewer than 200 of those victims are thought to have lived.
The medical experiments conducted there and at other Nazi camps had three purposes, according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum: to improve medical treatment for German troops, to test new medical procedures and drugs, and to confirm Nazi views of the supremacy of the Aryan race.
Victims were subjected to extreme altitudes and temperatures, injected with pathogens and sterilized. They endured bone-grafting procedures and injections in their eyes to change their eye color. Many victims were permanently disfigured, sickened or weakened. Many more died.
“Everything in the world was done to me that would have killed me,” Mrs. Kor said years later in an interview, “and here I am alive.”
She recalled being stripped of her clothes and tied down by her arms as she endured repeated examinations lasting as long as eight hours. From one arm, her tormentors took blood. “They wanted to know how much blood a person can lose and still live,” Mrs. Kor said. In the other arm, she received injections, sometimes five at a time.
Once, she said, the experiments brought on a dangerously high fever.
“I was trembling,” Mrs. Kor told ABC News in 1999. “My arms and my legs were swollen, huge size,” with red patches. Mengele examined her, she said, and pronounced that she had two weeks to live.
Her sister, Miriam, sustained kidney damage so severe that her kidneys stopped growing; in 1987, Mrs. Kor donated a kidney to her.
Ms. Kor was an amazing woman and the entire article linked above is worth reading. For brevity's sake I quoted only a small portion. Why do you compare the medical experimentation done by Germans during WWII to stem cell research? Talk about false equivalence. Hint: stem cell research |
|
|
|
There are very good reasons to oppose stem cell research in its current form. https://stemcells.nih.gov/info/Regenerative_Medicine/2006Chapter1.htm" Currently, there are nearly 400,000 IVF-produced embryos in frozen storage in the United States alone,4 most of which will be used to treat infertility, but some of which (~2.8%) are destined to be discarded. IVF-produced embryos that would otherwise have been discarded were the sources of the human ES cell lines derived prior to President Bush's policy decision of August 2001. These human ES cell lines are now currently eligible for federal funding."There is something particularly monstrous about creating human life. Deciding its no longer wanted or needed for some convenience or economic reason and then instead of nurturing that life into birth and adulthood choosing to kill and experiment on it for knowledge and profit. We don't need to become monsters to discover scientific answers. The same discoveries can be made in other ways. Sure it would probably take longer to figure it out indirectly but we are clever and could eventually accomplish it if that was our goal. Were we were wise we would listen to religious on this issue and be very cautious seeking global common ground before inching forward slowly. Instead we race ahead with typical human stupidity. One Year Later, Mystery Surrounds China’s Gene-Edited Babieshttps://time.com/5741069/he-jiankui-china-scientist-gene-edited-babies/Chinese scientist He Jiankui shocked the world by claiming he had helped make the first gene-edited babies. One year later, mystery surrounds his fate as well as theirs. He has not been seen publicly since January, his work has not been published and nothing is known about the health of the babies.
...
Since then, many people have called for regulations or a moratorium on similar work
...
“Nothing has changed,” said Dr. Kiran Musunuru, a University of Pennsylvania geneticist who just published a book about gene editing and the CRISPR babies case. “I think we’re farther from governing this” now than a year ago, said Hurlbut
...
Chinese officials have seized the remaining edited embryos and He’s lab records. “He caused unintended consequences in these twins,” Musunuru said of the gene editing. “We don’t know if it’s harming the kids.”
I don't think finding a cure for deafness or blindness is monstrous. |
|
|
|
Religion is not about astronomy or supposed to give a description of the material world.
The geocentric model come from aristotle more than the bible as far as i know, and ironically he was more the science Guy of the team.
The relationship between catholic church and aristotle and natural science is complex.
But its hard to say that catholic church was anti science by supporting the aristotle model because its the closest to science you could get at this time.
Science still cant explain life and consciousness either.
Most great scientist and philosopher were religious too.
They had no choice. |
|
|
|
What has religion accomplished in the last 100 years? Diddly-squat.
And we have destroyed 90% of our ecosystem and lost social cohesion, with two world war and a cold war, plus Hiroshima and all,but at least we have xannax and know how many rings there is on saturn and how many forces there is in the universe. If you don't like progress, go live in Afganistan. You will get all the social cohesion you so desperately desire. You are correct af-newbie when you stated that the vast majority of humanity is ignorant. The most dangerous manifestation of that ignorance is our insane and ill conceived push for power and technological supremacy. As a species we constantly ask can it be done? A wiser species would ask should it be done? Our willingness to use violence on our fellows in the form of war coupled with the power technological supremacy provides makes the current human trajectory both unchangeable and tenuous at best. It does not take a genius to see that our society is in very deep trouble an out of control train running out of tracks. It is insanity to work so hard to make this possible: "Slaughterbots" | Presented by ALTEROr this: New Robot Makes Soldiers Obsolete (Bosstown Dynamics)And those things are just the beginnings of what we are on the verge of unleashing on ourselves in our blind search of power without wisdom. The Amish essentially have it right on this issue. We should be far far more selective and thoughtful with regards to our technology and technological advancement. Sadly the rest of humanity not only fails to understand their wisdom they often mocks them for it. This Is How And Why The Amish Live Off The Gridhttps://www.makeuseof.com/tag/this-is-how-and-why-the-amish-live-off-the-grid/Amish are wrong on many things, including their abuse of women and children. Their insistence on freezing their communities in the 1850s is hilarious and tragic at the same time. Trust me, you don't want to live off-grid. I tried it. You will break your back just to prove a point to yourself that you can do it. Not to mention you will drop a shitload of money to set it up. Completely worthless exercise. I agree with you that we have to be careful when adopting new technology. However, we have no choice. The Luddite position or religious refusal is just silly. We have to find a way to live with technological progress, be left behind or in the worse case be replaced by it. Progress will happen whether we like it or not. Science originally is not even about achieving things, or doing company or building technology. Science is about knowledge and understanding the rules of the universe, and not only thermodynamic and how many watt you can get from 1l of gas, and how much profits you can make out of it. And from the moment you are in this demarch of understanding law of universe, it require the proto thesis that the universe has law, that are constant and eternal, and that it obey To reason, which is in alignement with theology. Technology can only bring real progress if it contain an humanist dimension to it, like in the platonic sense of percieving knowledge through the good like we percieve object through the Sun. Like the noble truth in budhism. Otherwise it just become a tool to satisfy greed and ego, putting material needs above everything else, leading To a form of self destruction. Religion is not opposed To knowledge or science in itself, on the contrary, the logos as the basis of rational thinking is a concept from theology, only in the measure that its taken in the Matrix of greed and ego, destroying eco system and exploiting children To build some technology as cheap as possible To make a maximum of profits in wall street. But its not really what science is about originally. The relation between mathematics and physics is purely coincidental, and only hold if you believe the universe is ordered and follow reason, otherwise physics is a delusion like any other, with its lot of dogma used to justify the privilege of a ruling elite like the bad side of institutional religion, and no axiomatic grounding as a rational discipline. They even put a shiva statue in front of the CERN, it show that scientific progress and religion are not fundementally opposed. I guess you never heard of stem cell research being vehemently opposed by the US religious leaders. https://www.pewforum.org/2008/07/17/stem-cell-research-at-the-crossroads-of-religion-and-politics/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5398703/Religion has always been threatened by science as its theological foundations are being destroyed by science. First, it was the flat Earth model, then Earth was in the center of the universe, then Earth was 6000 years old, then humans were created by God from dirt, etc. Religious nonsense after nonsense being invalidated by science. Religion was always opposing science. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
