Judge Halts Human-Embryonic Stem Cell Research

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes.

For one, it was done within a precise set of political purposes and two, the discovery eventually became a political conflict as there were already people living in North America.

Dam, ok everybody time to pack!!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

do you have any thoughts of your own or are you just (insert philosopher) wrote this and (insert philospher) said that?

Seriously I enjoy reading your point of view but I would actually just like to read YOUR point of view once in awhile.

Hey we all get it...YOU ARE SMART!!!!

I have a point of view, but nothing exists out of nothing. I have to learn from something, right?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

do you have any thoughts of your own or are you just (insert philosopher) wrote this and (insert philospher) said that?

Seriously I enjoy reading your point of view but I would actually just like to read YOUR point of view once in awhile.

Hey we all get it...YOU ARE SMART!!!!

Actually, I'm not certain about that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Actually, I'm not certain about that.

I'm certainly not.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by peter12

How many kids in America go without breakfast on a daily basis?

Probably less than those that dream of one day being a scientist or astronaut.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes.

For one, it was done within a precise set of political purposes and two, the discovery eventually became a political conflict as there were already people living in North America.

The spirit of exploration is a fundamental human quality, and one of the keys to our success.

The moon landing was done within a precise set of political purposes too, and who is to say we won't have conflicts with beings already living in space? The underlying spirit is the same - the desire to see what is on the other side.

[I think this thread got derailed on a different tangent if mods want to seperate it]

Studying other planets is very important in understanding our own beautiful world. Venus is an example of run-away green house gases. Mars may be an example of a collapsed ecosystem. These lessons are important to our survival on our home planet.

[peter12]

The spirit of exploration is a fundamental human quality, and one of the keys to our success.

That's a postulate of the secular faith. Human exploration has come with a lot of things which threaten our "success;" environmental degradation, warfare, massive inequality.

The moon landing was done within a precise set of political purposes too, and who is to say we won't have conflicts with beings already living in space? The underlying spirit is the same - the desire to see what is on the other side.

[I think this thread got derailed on a different tangent if mods want to seperate it]

The race to space was tied to national pride and spirit, but the actual exploration of space has had little to do with that.

Studying other planets is very important in understanding our own beautiful world. Venus is an example of run-away green house gases. Mars may be an example of a collapsed ecosystem. These lessons are important to our survival on our home planet.

I didn't say anything about astronomy.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm certainly not.

I convince myself of my own stupidity at least 14 times a day

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by peter12

I personally question the need for the space program. It's extremely costly, dangerous, and awful for the environment. Surprisingly useless to us as a species too. Why do we feel the need, this last half-century, to escape this beautiful earth?

This is the problem with grad students these days. They don't know anything outside their microscopic thesis world. This is coming from one (now formerly) grad student to another.

What has space done for the advancement of society? Let's say... half.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

This is the problem with grad students these days. They don't know anything outside their microscopic thesis world. This is coming from one (now formerly) grad student to another.

What has space done for the advancement of society? Let's say... half.

Well, one thing your graduate program didn't teach you was critical reading skills because the tone of my posts was NOT "what did space travel ever do for me?" it was commenting on the fruitless and nihilist pursuit of founding other colonies in space which is utopia of many who support the space program. I know it's helped drive alot of technological development over the past 50 years. I am totally aware of its assistance in diverse fields from robotics to agriculture. My point still is that that advancement comes at a steep price that many do not acknowledge.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

That's a postulate of the secular faith. .

How so? I don't see how this in an exclusively secular postulate. Mythology is full of tales of human exploration (ex. Exodus, Norse Sagas), and cautionary tales too (ex. Icarus).

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, one thing your graduate program didn't teach you was critical reading skills because the tone of my posts was NOT "what did space travel ever do for me?" it was commenting on the fruitless and nihilist pursuit of founding other colonies in space which is utopia of many who support the space program. I know it's helped drive alot of technological development over the past 50 years. I am totally aware of its assistance in diverse fields from robotics to agriculture. My point still is that that advancement comes at a steep price that many do not acknowledge.

What is the steep price.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Thor

What is the steep price.

1/2 penny per American.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Reaper

1/2 penny per American.

Americans already own $44,000/person for their deficit. I don't think you want to try and justify 'cost' to them anymore.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Azure

Americans already own $44,000/person for their deficit. I don't think you want to try and justify 'cost' to them anymore.

Without a doubt, I think too much money is spent by NASA / US Labs. But to say that nothing comes out of their research or from exploration of space is downright stupid.

If the government doesn't sponsor cutting edge research, technology advancement would stop. The days of Bell labs putting a bunch of PhD's into a small dark room and telling them not to come out until they find something new are over.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, one thing your graduate program didn't teach you was critical reading skills because the tone of my posts was NOT "what did space travel ever do for me?" it was commenting on the fruitless and nihilist pursuit of founding other colonies in space which is utopia of many who support the space program.

You are only speaking of an unspecified segment of those who support the space program. How many, and who are these folks, and why is this a "fruitless" pursuit? You seem to have a very established sense of human purpose; otherwise, I fail to see how you could insist so arbitrarily on what constitutes a "nihilist" or "utopian" vision.

Originally Posted by peter12

I know it's helped drive alot of technological development over the past 50 years. I am totally aware of its assistance in diverse fields from robotics to agriculture. My point still is that that advancement comes at a steep price that many do not acknowledge.

I will reiterate the insistence of the above posters: what is the "steep price"?

Furthermore, I have noticed that in a lot of your posts, you seem to put a great deal of priority upon "acknowledgement". In this case, technological frontiers are to be frowned upon unless there is some sort of universal recognition of some unspecified cost that you continue to allude to. I have mentioned this before, but in the first place, it is extremely presumptuous and pretentious of you to assume that such decisions are made without a consideration of costs and benefits. What you ought to recognize is that your own perspective of "cost" is quite plausibly not shared by everyone: what you think science should be doing is not necessarily what science should be doing. Secondly, whether one chooses to "acknowledge" costs doesn't necessarily result in a higher virtue. Why would it?

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I would greatly appreciate some clarification both on why "acknowledgement" is so critical, and how it will improve scientific pursuits; and what the supposed high cost is that all of us among the unenlightened are missing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Without a doubt, I think too much money is spent by NASA / US Labs. But to say that nothing comes out of their research or from exploration of space is downright stupid.

If the government doesn't sponsor cutting edge research, technology advancement would stop. The days of Bell labs putting a bunch of PhD's into a small dark room and telling them not to come out until they find something new are over.

Without a doubt NASA has come up with some amazing research.

I just think American priorities are a bit messed up. Spending billions or should I say trillions on social programs, when in fact they should be reformed, made more efficient, and then use leftover money to figure out how you can better prohibit some of the more draining costs on society.

NASA budget is being cut, not because they aren't coming up with results, but because the US has to cut something, and it seems like research/science get cut in favor of bloated welfare programs.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

Without a doubt NASA has come up with some amazing research.

I just think American priorities are a bit messed up. Spending billions or should I say trillions on social programs, when in fact they should be reformed, made more efficient, and then use leftover money to figure out how you can better prohibit some of the more draining costs on society.

NASA budget is being cut, not because they aren't coming up with results, but because the US has to cut something, and it seems like research/science get cut in favor of bloated welfare programs.

Actually research and science were massive recipients through the Reinvestment Act, particularly in the area of energy.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Without a doubt NASA has come up with some amazing research.

I just think American priorities are a bit messed up. Spending billions or should I say trillions on social programs, when in fact they should be reformed, made more efficient, and then use leftover money to figure out how you can better prohibit some of the more draining costs on society.

NASA budget is being cut, not because they aren't coming up with results, but because the US has to cut something, and it seems like research/science get cut in favor of bloated welfare programs.

lol Nasa is a nickel/dime organization compared to the military. Go cut there.

You can't reform the US healthcare system it needs to be utterly dismantled and to start from scratch. But that won't happen, because Americans go ballistic at the hint of something socialist (communism to them) even if they enjoy many many socialist institutions and benefits.

[Textcritic]

By way of clarification, it would be helpful if peter12 would concede to answer the questions I raised within the context of the discussion, which is the ethical issues with embryonic stem cell research. I've perused your responses in this thread, and this is what I have come up with:

Originally Posted by peter12

Good news. This stuff creeps the heck out of me, regardless of the so-called possible treatments that could emerge. No human harvesting please.

You began with a claim of personal discomfort, and have equated the results of this research with "human harvesting". This is probably something that needs to be addressed in more detail, as AC, Thor, troutman and others have pointed out that this characterization is erroneous. Please clarify.

Originally Posted by peter12

...The so-called treatments are only hoped for possibilities with very little tangible and hard evidence to support them. To get to a stage where any treatments appear we will have to totalize the human body, utilizing "spare parts" of unused embryos for the fuel to run this particular scientific project with little purpose.

I disagree that such a project is without purpose. Furthermore, your claim that this results in "the totalization of the human body" is not well defined. What does this mean, and why is it to be avoided?

Originally Posted by peter12

...In regards to the sick and dying, this is the everlasting presence of nature in our lives. We are better spent caring and loving for the sick than pursuing utopian pipe dreams that erode our humanity.

You have again made a values claim and projected it as an axiom. You have not yet established that the science is fruitless or that the results are utopian, and have also failed to demonstrate why we are better off "caring and loving for the sick". What does this mean, anyways?

Originally Posted by peter12

As I said, the intangible is what it does to the human body. It industrializes human reproductive tissue. Something that I find abhorrent regardless of its utilitarian purpose.

How so? And so what? Why is "reproductive tissue" more sacred than other components of the human body?

As usual, you have presented us with a lot of rhetoric, reduced the opposing view to broad stereotypes, failed to clearly define a number of very important terms that you have introduced, and rendered a number of your own personal values as axiomatic.