the sexual orientation of fruit flies - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-03-2005, 07:44 PM   #31
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Oh please, the needless Nazi comparisons add nothing to the conversation, this has nothing to do with creating a master race to rule over the rest.
'Cuse the hell outta me for having an opinion about people who advocate 'genetic engineering', but that is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. And why is it so bad to have this brought up? Any discussion of genetic engineering should eventually touch on this subject.

That's what they used to think; that they were just trying to give their children the best advantage.


Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

No, I do not think that people are going to stop having sex...
Good, a little bit of realism anyway.
__________________

__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:45 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:16 AM
Quote:
That's what they used to think; that they were just trying to give their children the best advantage.
They were trying to exterminate everybody who didn't fit a mould, that is not giving your children an advantage, thats genocide.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:49 PM   #33
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
[B]It is (generally) wrong to have a system that prevents certain people from reproducing.
I'm not inclined to agree with that statement.

It begs a lot of questions along the lines of "What is right?", "What is wrong?", etc, etc.

At this point in history, it happens to be unpopular to argue for social darwinism, granted, but it is not necessarily the case that ideas of social darwinism are fundamentally wrong. I would argue that it is conceivable to envisage scenarios whereby social darwinism could become a necessity.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:52 PM   #34
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:16 AM
If I said outright that it was wrong to prevent certain people from reproducing then I would be advocating things like incest; the child born from which has a higher risk of genetic disorders.

Social Darwinism; which applies natural selection as the reason for poverty and class is wrong. Can you show me a rich gene and a poor gene?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:53 PM   #35
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Go back before that, to the beginning of the eugenics movement, and you will find that people, at first, were just trying to find the most optimum mate for themselves, and produce the most advantaged children.

Out of this grew the idea of a superman, a master race, those who breeding were more fit and perfect and deserving.

And out of the say practices grew the idea that some people were unfit, undesirable.

In this country, one out growth of eugenics was the 'legal' sterilization of the mentally and emotionally defective, as well as, in Canada, the occasional incedent of Native American women being the unwilling subjects of tubal ligation.
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:57 PM   #36
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Social Darwinism; which applies natural selection as the reason for poverty and class is wrong. Can you show me a rich gene and a poor gene?
As I mentioned earlier on, we already have an economic system whereby dynastic wealth protects its rights and its wealth, and will do practically anything to protect its wealth and economic advantages.

In reality, social darwinism already is a reality and has been for centuries, and accordingly I see absolutely nothing immoral or wrong in arguing for different types of social darwinism, other than those based purely on economic power.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 07:58 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:16 AM
And those were violations of the right of the individual, it says a lot more about the political ideologies of the eugenics movement than the principle of altering the genetics of an individual to reduce risks of disease and possibly improve ability.

Not to mention how utterly crude and unscientific the "theories" of that movement was; it is nothing compared to the understanding that we have today or the technology that could be used in say fifty years.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 08:03 PM   #38
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
And those were violations of the right of the individual, it says a lot more about the political ideologies of the eugenics movement than the principle of altering the genetics of an individual to reduce risks of disease and possibly improve ability.

Not to mention how utterly crude and unscientific the "theories" of that movement was; it is nothing compared to the understanding that we have today or the technology that could be used in say fifty years.
And what we know today will be less than nothing as compared to what we will know in fifty years. As crude as the theories of that era were, so will be those of this era in the future. And those of the future era will be in a time beyond that.

Are we supposed to start experimenting on our unborn children based on the information we have now just because it is more information than we used to have?

You ... and your children ... first.
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 08:10 PM   #39
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:16 AM
No, the technology is not at a stage where we could say improve the visible spectrum of the eye by 5%. That is speculation, the degree to which alteration could be made is speculation.

No you are not supposed to just go nuts and experiment on your children right now; because you really cant, or in the future just because you can.

If the technology reaches a stage where it is safe and widespread and the ethical dillemas are layed out and worked through, a strict code over what can and cannot be done. When that has occured, then parents should be able to give their unborn children the opportunity. If they choose to and probably if they can afford too.

Our understanding of genetics and molecular biology have advanced significantly since the 19th Century. Today unlike then we actually have an understanding of what is going on inside the cells and that provides a framework for investigation, not just guesses and pseudoscience that lacked rigorous method and theory.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 08:21 PM   #40
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 12:16 PM
So, of course, it will be only rich people who get to play god.

As opposed to the poor, undesirable masses....

Gotcha....



here's a quote for you:
"The rich stay healthy,
And the sick stay poor."
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 08:23 PM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:16 AM
I think that that is the probable scenario, the technology is available to the wealthy because they are the only ones that can afford it. I am not saying that it is the right thing or that it isn't unfair, it's just the way that it is and probably will be.

Of course I could just say that this will benefit everybody overnight and will create an egalitarian unified humanity, but that would be be naive.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-03-2005, 09:13 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
But you forget that they hate the sin and not the sinner.
And I hate fundies' religion, not them.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-04-2005, 02:09 AM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 07:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Oh please, the needless Nazi comparisons add nothing to the conversation, this has nothing to do with creating a master race to rule over the rest. That is like me saying that if you advocate a national healthcare service then you will want to recreate the killing fields because that line of thinking leads to communism.

No, I do not think that people are going to stop having sex, but I think that some when they choose to have kids would be willing to give their child every possible advantage.
Generally I agree. The question is not whether we should make this gene programming technique available, but when it will become reality. Even though I think it is wrong, Science and curiosity have often weakened ethics.

If I ever get children, they have all the possibilities to become what they want to be - gay or straight, small or tall, thin or fat, smoker or not. It´s their life, so it´s their decision. People who are pro-life also should, theoretically, be against changing the genes.

I would also think it´s too dangerous to manipulate the brain of my child. Parents who want to "program" their child are bad parents in my opinion, because they have no respect for their children´s independency and freedom. Every boy has the right to be gay, so to say.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 06-04-2005, 08:12 AM   #44
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 12:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by echo0001
Go back before that, to the beginning of the eugenics movement, and you will find that people, at first, were just trying to find the most optimum mate for themselves, and produce the most advantaged children.

Out of this grew the idea of a superman, a master race, those who breeding were more fit and perfect and deserving.

And out of the say practices grew the idea that some people were unfit, undesirable.

In this country, one out growth of eugenics was the 'legal' sterilization of the mentally and emotionally defective, as well as, in Canada, the occasional incedent of Native American women being the unwilling subjects of tubal ligation.
I agree with you 100 %. Genetic engineering would eventually lead to Aryanism of some sort.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-05-2005, 04:45 PM   #45
New Yorker
 
sallycinnamon78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,977
Local Time: 06:16 PM
Re: Re: Re: the sexual orientation of fruit flies

Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase


boom tish
Sorry - our University union nights were MUCH worse!

Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
Fruit flies are instruments of the devil and promote an anti-Biblical agenda. They must not be allowed near our youth.
ROFLMFAO!!!

I'm not used to this place yet. I'm sure I'll soon be tearing my hair out, debating in a civilised manner, and then throwing my toys out of the pram with the best of you. JOKING... *runs away*

*Returns*
Right. So Let's get to it...

Quote:
Religion itself may be the strong retrograde force but by potential a religious fundamentalist can be just as intelligent as you or I.
This may well be going backwards, and I do understand that it is not the main point at all, but as it has been brought up, I'd like to know... 'intelligence', in what sense, and by which definition? IQ? Behaviourism? How are you measuring this? Bias affects people's beliefs, of course, and therefore their actions, but does this necessarily reflect their raw intelligence?

Not an enormous point, but I'm curious as to how we judge someone to be more or less intelligent than ourselves. So I'd appreciate it if someone would clarify the context for me before I enter the ring. Thanks.
__________________

__________________
sallycinnamon78 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com