12 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisBut most politicians have never been politics students.
> Politics students do write essays on ethics, off course they do, how do you write laws on abortion without ethics?
The people who write laws on abortion are usually doing so at the behest of their voters, and quite often do not take ethics into account. Some such law makers are far more interested in what their religion has to say than ethics.
12 Mar 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadAbortion / birth control is one area where scientists usually have better reasoning then religion. But when you get into the territory of designer babies, which is possible . A few religious ethics can be good.
But most politicians have never been politics students.
The people who write laws on abortion are usually doing so at the behest of their voters, and quite often do not take ethics into account. Some such law makers are far more interested in what their religion has to say than ethics.
12 Mar 13
4 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
Abortion / birth control is one area where scientists usually have better reasoning then religion. But when you get into the territory of designer babies, which is possible . A few religious ethics can be good.
A few religious ethics can be good
-but are just as likely to be bad. Why 'religious' ethics in particular? why not ethics based entirely on compassion and a sense of fairness instead? I am absolutely certain that ethics based on compassion alone rather than religious belief or some other superstition or any other irrational belief would by far make the best ethics. Religion does nothing for true morality (i.e. morality based on compassion).
12 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisDefinitely not! Religious ethics would get it wrong.
But when you get into the territory of designer babies, which is possible . A few religious ethics can be good.
If you look at parts of the world where people are already deciding the sex of their baby, they are predominantly favoring male children resulting in a serious imbalance in sex ratios. This is largely cultural, but religion often exacerbates and maintains cultural problems such as sex discrimination.
In this whole thread you have yet to give any justification whatsoever for promoting religious ethics and instead have resorted to simply repeating the claim over and over.
13 Mar 13
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadWho would you trust... a scientist getting paid to make a designer baby to say its ok ... hey maybe u could make 10,000.
Definitely not! Religious ethics would get it wrong.
If you look at parts of the world where people are already deciding the sex of their baby, they are predominantly favoring male children resulting in a serious imbalance in sex ratios. This is largely cultural, but religion often exacerbates and maintains cultural problems such as sex discrimination.
...[text shortened]... romoting religious ethics and instead have resorted to simply repeating the claim over and over.
My case for religious morals is they have stood the test of time, through conflict for 1500+ years. Interestingly do you ever read about ejyptian or roman morality, no because those societies collapsed. They might be old fashioned but they are a necessary influence on what its 'moral' for science to do, or more often what not to do. Also re creationists, its easy and cheap to take shots at christians for being a bit ignorant of science. But its very hard to do that with muslims, without whom there would have been no scientific renaissance, possibly no newton.
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisI certainly would not trust the local Mullah.
Who would you trust... a scientist getting paid to make a designer baby to say its ok ... hey maybe u could make 10,000.
My case for religious morals is they have stood the test of time, through conflict for 1500+ years.
In what way have they 'stood the test of time'? Do you mean that because religions are still here despite all the wars and conflict they have caused? What sort of a case is that?
Interestingly do you ever read about ejyptian or roman morality, no because those societies collapsed.
Yet thier societies had religions too.
They might be old fashioned but they are a necessary influence on what its 'moral' for science to do, or more often what not to do.
No, they most definitely are not a necessary influence.
Also re creationists, its easy and cheap to take shots at christians for being a bit ignorant of science. But its very hard to do that with muslims, without whom there would have been no scientific renaissance, possibly no newton.
Actually many Muslims are ignorant of science too. There are Muslim creationists too. And no, they are not 'cheap shots', they are genuine issues with the way religion, especially creationism, systematically and deliberately attempts to suppress science because it is seen as a threat to the religion.
13 Mar 13
11 edits
Originally posted by e4chris
Who would you trust... a scientist getting paid to make a designer baby to say its ok ... hey maybe u could make 10,000.
My case for religious morals is they have stood the test of time, through conflict for 1500+ years. Interestingly do you ever read about ejyptian or roman morality, no because those societies collapsed. They might be old fashioned bu ith muslims, without whom there would have been no scientific renaissance, possibly no newton.
a scientist getting paid to make a designer baby to say its ok ...
Do scientists get “paid to make a designer baby to say its ok”? -as least for now, I don't think that happens often!!!
Incidentally, making all babies 'designer babies', obviously providing there are some sensible rules and safe safeguards mainly to stop some very stupid people making harmful decisions on what characteristics such a baby should have, would be an excellent means of making the next generation free of genetic diseases and have all their genetic cards stacked on there side for both high intelligence, compassion (which research has shown is partly innate and thus, logically, must be partly genetic although upbringing and environment also has an effect) and good health. I wish I was once such a designer baby!
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by humyYou do realize the scientists come up with some technology and then the marketing people will sell it, whatever IT is? Scientists are working on cloning, for instance, cloning that sheep Dolly and so forth, recently making further progress along those lines. It will probably be not to many years before they can confidently clone people, and when I say that I mean the body parts, perhaps a full person but not the memories of the person being cloned, it would be a brand new person who would grow up and be like an identical twin but would not have the same life experiences and so forth.a scientist getting paid to make a designer baby to say its ok ...
Do scientists get “paid to make a designer baby to say its ok”? -as least for now, I don't think that happens often!!!
Incidentally, making all babies 'designer babies', obviously providing there are some sensible rules and safe safeguards mainly to stop some very st ...[text shortened]... and environment also has an effect) and good health. I wish I was once such a designer baby!
But when such a technology is developed and you can be assured scientists will pursue that avenue, they have been doing so for decades, then the ethics part will be taken over by marketing and ethics will go out the window.
Granny wants a clone of her dead daughter, pay the man $50,000 or whatever and one is grown, assuming you can get a good dna sample.
Reproduce a Neantertal? Sure, we reverse engineer one, and we only charge $30,000.
See what I mean?
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI just watched a good TED talk on de-exctinction
Scientists are working on cloning, for instance, cloning that sheep Dolly and so forth, recently making further progress along those lines.
....then the ethics part will be taken over by marketing and ethics will go out the window.
The ethics of having babies has always been out the window. Generally we grant people the right to have children regardless of whether they can support them, whether they will be born with inherited genetic diseases, or whether they will be born with birth defects due to environmental factors.
13 Mar 13
5 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseArr yes, I agree. But that's why I cautiously inserted:
You do realize the scientists come up with some technology and then the marketing people will sell it, whatever IT is? Scientists are working on cloning, for instance, cloning that sheep Dolly and so forth, recently making further progress along those lines. It will probably be not to many years before they can confidently clone people, and when I say that ...[text shortened]... uce a Neantertal? Sure, we reverse engineer one, and we only charge $30,000.
See what I mean?
" obviously providing there are some sensible rules and safe safeguards mainly to stop some very stupid people making harmful decisions on what characteristics such a baby should have"
-its to make sure ethics is NOT legally simply thrown out of the window regardless of whether people really want ethics or not and regardless of the money motive.
Just for starters, I think there should be a law against trying to clone a dead person just because a grieving relative wants this for I would guess the reasoning behind making such a clone would typically be horrendously irrational with the grieving relative having the delusion that doing this will bring back the dead person.
There will also have to be a law against choosing the sex of your child unless for medical reasons or at least there must be carefully constructed laws restricting the way people can choose the sex of their child to make sure that not more than half of all babies are born male.
14 Mar 13
Originally posted by humyI am not convinced. We don't put any real restrictions on people having children in general. Why should the rules change just because the baby is a clone? People have children for all sorts of stupid reasons, including wanting to replace dead people. This happens regardless of cloning.
Just for starters, I think there should be a law against trying to clone a dead person just because a grieving relative wants this for I would guess the reasoning behind making such a clone would typically be horrendously irrational with the grieving relative having the delusion that doing this will bring back the dead person.
We have already run into this problem when it comes to various fertility treatments and artificial insemination. Suddenly it becomes the doctors choice as to whether you are a fit parent to have a child, yet fertile couples have the freedom to have all the children they want!
I think the only valid argument when it comes to cloned babys is when it is known that the child will have a serious disability. I also think that if this rule is applied, then it should apply equally to couples who have baby's the natural way.
17 Mar 13
3 edits
Originally posted by KewpieHe wore a fez 🙂 There are arguments to say that you would not of had Newton without Islamic Scholars from about 100 - 200 years before that. My understanding is there key exports were optics and algebra - which is named after one of them, there isn't a muslim claim to discovering gravity at that time to my knowledge. But most of his work on optics had been done 100 years prior by muslims, and there equitment and logic filtered up through europe sparking our 'renaissance' I read that in my 'Introducing Mohammed' book which is not at all definative but thats what it said. Also going back to the original point - so yes creationists can make very good scientists.
I didn't realise Newton was a Muslim ...
For me one big place i find god lacking in Science is Drugs, I studied chemistry.. badly but it struck me that attempts to turn that subject into life saving drugs were pathetic. big pharma companies just do antidepressants. academics do nothing whilst moaning at the drug companies for doing nothing... That was the impression i got.
18 Mar 13
Originally posted by e4chrisI think you'll find that a lot of those Islamic scholars were more like 600-800 years earlier than Newton. Alhazen, the optics chap, lived from 965 to 1040. The algebra chap, al-Kwarizmi (after whom algorithms are named, one of his book titles is the origin of the word algebra), lived around the year 800. The work of Islamic science continued but Europe seems to have lost contact with it after the crusader states were finally destroyed. This led to independent but almost simultaneous discoveries in optics, mathematics and other fields in Europe and the middle east.
He wore a fez 🙂 There are arguments to say that you would not of had Newton without Islamic Scholars from about 100 - 200 years before that. My understanding is there key exports were optics and algebra - which is named after one of them, there isn't a muslim claim to discovering gravity at that time to my knowledge. But most of his work on optics had b ...[text shortened]... ng whilst moaning at the drug companies for doing nothing... That was the impression i got.