ITT it's stem cell research debate!
I don't see anything wrong with harvesting dead human parasites and processing them for research material. After all, cancer cell lineages have been in use for decades, so what's wrong with using some other endogenous parasite for research?
>>59
the "principle of least suffering" assumes that we are 100% sure about things that we cannot really be sure about at all.
if you start with a false assumption, you will most likely reach a false conclusion.
Why is human life, on any level, so much more sacred?
We kill and injure plants and animals by the millions daily for our own sustenance. We're not 100% sure the former don't suffer either, and we know for a fact that the latter do.
If we don't mind murdering a cow to provide a couple of hungry folks with their two all-beef patties on a sesame seed bun, why should we mind murdering an embryo to improve the lives of thousands of sick people?
> We kill and injure plants and animals by the millions daily for our own sustenance. We're not 100% sure the former don't suffer either, and we know for a fact that the latter do.
be a vegetarian because plants can't fight back!
i mean really, that's the biggest difference between broccoli and cows.
> If we don't mind murdering a cow to provide a couple of hungry folks with their two all-beef patties on a sesame seed bun, why should we mind murdering an embryo to improve the lives of thousands of sick people?
murder is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". how does that apply to killing a cow? is killing the cow unlawful?
>>62
The human life is more precious. We, as human beings, have the desire to preserve and advance our species. That involves not killing others that will help us in this goal, reproducing (SEX! SEX! SEX!), and inventing new shit to better our chances to reach our goal.
As John Stuart Mills once put it, the basis of all our actions are to bring us pleasure. If killing cows will bring me pleasure, then kill the motherfucking cow.
You see, Philosophy isn't a one-way street. It goes in all directions.
> We, as human beings, have the desire to preserve and advance our species.
This is just evolutionary drive, and is a constant across all species of all kinds. It is not a good foundation for a philosophy, as it definitely does not set us apart from anything but rocks.
No, it does not. Now you're right back to the philosophical wankery where nothing is every certain. That way lies madness - hey, you can't trust your senses anyway, so maybe somebody is feeding you a simulated world, and everytime you do NOT kill 50 fake people, 50 REAL people are killed for you.
If you want to form an ethical value system, you have to start by assuming you can make decisions, and that your knowledge is good enough to do so. You're not going to make a perfect, 100% logical system, but you don't have to, because you can't. Just making a good effort is what counts.
True, but the worst thing we could do is pretend to be sure about what a zygote actually is. We are not. I suspect that they're no more valuable than other cells in your body (i.e sperm), and our current treatment of fertility-clinic-zygotes suggest that doctors don't value them much at all. Thus SCR seems a good thing.
We can and do make decisions, and the reason that the debate -- here and elsewhere -- is so important is that the people having the debate WILL VOTE, either directly or through supporting a candidate, or by voting for referendi. Some opinions will be formed or changed by the deabtes on the internet.
>>64
Philosophy isn't about proving what makes us superior to other species. In Philosophy, it is also discussed how much we are not superior to other species. For example, the only difference between me and a worm is that I do the same thing except I do it with MUCH more sophistication. Humans, like any other animal have the same instinctive animal drives. And this poses a good philosophical question itself.
Do we really have free will? Or do we just do the bidding of our biological drives and follow a genetically pre-determined path of life?
I think you have the wrong idea of what exactly philosophy is.
As for the whole abortion debate, where the hell did these overzealous Christians ever get the idea that utilizing some cells is the same thing as murdering another person... As far as the government is concerned, my date of birth was the day my mother pushed me out of her womb. I believe the government should not have any jurisdiction for any period before that.
It is my opinion that this debate will not be settled until some prominent authority (the government) defines, once and for all, when a human being is considered to be "living." Actually, no, sorry. That will intensify the debate, much "wankery" to be expected in the future. I expect better outcomes and use of stem cell research from our friends in Europe.
> As for the whole abortion debate, where the hell did these overzealous Christians ever get the idea that utilizing some cells is the same thing as murdering another person... As far as the government is concerned, my date of birth was the day my mother pushed me out of her womb. I believe the government should not have any jurisdiction for any period before that.
what about the fact that if you murder a pregnant woman they try to charge you with murdering both the the woman and her unborn child?
>>68
Because they're contradicting sons of bitches. American law is riddled with them. I guess it just seems fair to punish a guy who murdered a pregnant woman two times over. How dare anyone murder a pregnant woman!
> I think you have the wrong idea of what exactly philosophy is.
No, I am well aware that it is about 90% pointless wankery, as you aptly demonstrate. What sets humans apart from animals is blindingly obvious to anyone except those who like to blind themselves just so they'll have more to talk about: Humans have higher congnition and abstract language. Animals do not.
> Humans have higher congnition and abstract language. Animals do not.
how could you possibly know that?
It's pretty fucking obvious, man. Pretty fucking obvious.
I'm sorry, but I don't think I can think decently of anyone who puts down Philosophy as "pointless wankery." How dense can you be?
Let us examine. Higher cognition, as opposed to what? Lower cognition of other animals? Some philosophers hold that humans are the same as other animals, except we do everything with a higher sophistication. All animals, have some degree of cognition, we just happen to have a higher degree of sophistication when it comes to cognition. So who's point are you trying to prove? Mine? That's great bro.
Also, what in hell do you mean by "abstract language." If anything human beings have a concrete and established language. A lot of people think that the establishment of a concrete language is a step forward. However, not all people think so.
Have you ever met very sensitive people who can know a lot about someone by just looking at them? You know, those people that look at someone and instantly know when they like the person or not and are correct about their intuitions? Many scientists believe that this is the way most animals communicate with themselves without having to have an actual language. Some philosophers even claim that having a language is actually a step backwards. By being stuck to verbal communication, we have deprived ourselves as humans of sensitivity. Imagine if we could communicate with each other simply through looks and body language like animals do (or so some scientists claim). Now we have a mixture of body language mixed with a concrete language, at the expense of human sensitivity.
Anyways, you'll probably dismiss all of this as "pointless wankery." But it is quite more pointless to try to argue with someone who'll refuse to learn the more finer details of human intelligence. We call that ignorance.
Thank you for so aptly demonstrating my point. How about you leave the investigation of animal intelligence to the biologists and neurologists, who actually have some kind of clue what they are talking about, and can actually produce verifable results?
Also note that I put down 90% of philosophy as pointless wankery. The remaining 10% is good stuff. Your post does not fall into the latter category.
Philosophy itself isn't "wankery". What I object to is the cogitor (see: Dune) mentality that says that none of the conclusions they come to have any impact on real-world people. They want to sit in the comfort of their homes/offices and debate very serious life-and-death issues, all in the abstract. Ideas always have a consequence, and to not consider whether the consequence is going to hurt another person, to my mind makes the whole thing nothing more than wankery.
To have a real morality, you can't be argueing about harming/killing people or neglecting them to death without at least mentally getting their side of it. It's not so much argueing "Language: Good or Bad" that bothers me. That is an abstract discussion that hurts no one, no matter what you decide. Other debates, especially in ethics, can have real consequences, and it isn't fair for such things to be decided in the abstract by people who live in self-imposed isolation from the people whose fate is being decided.
Philosophy shouldn't be a game, in many ways there is more at stake with philosophy than with science. A fashionable idea in philosophy can literally kill people, and the governments/people doing the deed will be convinced that they're doing the right thing. For reference, google Eugenics. The idea was that we could "improve" people by selecting some people as "unworthy" to breed, because they were inferior. Some even proposed that undesireable people should be killed (so as not to be a burden to society). From this came the idea of "life unworthy of life". This lead to euthanasia programs (including a rather large anti-semitic euthansia program), that killed millions and millions of people. One generation's philosophy can easily become the next generation's government policy.
> It's not so much argueing "Language: Good or Bad" that bothers me. That is an abstract discussion that hurts no one, no matter what you decide.
Au contraire, arguing that language is somehow harmful is the absolute extremes of anti-intellectualism, which is always harmful to society.
Okay, so then if a government behaves as if "Language is Bad", then what programs does it set up, and how does it harm the people? It might be irrational, and it might be anti-intellectual (neither are good), but as campared to euthanasia, bigotry of some sort, A religious rulership, etc. I don't think anti-intellectualism is all that harmful.
It might have some minor effects, but I doubt anyone will be harmed by the government encouraging nonverbal communication. Unless you're going to discribe some bizaare sci-fi horror plotline it seems highly unlikely that any government will shoot you for speaking out loud.
I'm talking about actual harm. Things that take away a man's natural human rights. Life, Liberty, and Persuit of Happiness. The right to be tried in a court instead of being shot in the back in the middle of the night. The right to not be seached arbitrarily. The right to property. Etc. Etc.
You don't have the right to live in an "intellectualist" society, nor the right to have a government change your nappies. You don't have the right to an easy life.
Anti-intellectualism leads to less funding of schools, universities and science. I should not have to explain why that is harmful. And if you want a more practical example of how anti-intellectualism kills people, observe South Africa's AIDS policies.
> Anti-intellectualism leads to less funding of schools, universities and science. I should not have to explain why that is harmful.
Actually, i think less government funding of schools and universities would be a very good thing, at least in the U.S.A. Public schools here fucking suck. If you want a decent education you have to go to a private school, and most of the good ones get absolutely no funding from the government.
And then there are the universities. "Learning? What's that? We're just in it for the money! Look at our brand new library full of japanese anime, pr0n, and computers that you can use to look at even more pr0n! Oh, you wan't books about science? Sorry, we don't have any of those. Maybe you should try that public library down the street that's falling apart and can only stay open 6 hours a week because they don't have any money."
And there's not much government funding for science because the government uses most of it's money to pay for shiny new buildings for the schools and universities.
Nice try. But you made the claim, not me. You claim that agueing that language is a bad thing kills. Show me where that's ever happened, or even how it happened
http://feeds.southafricanews.net/?rid=15f3b7e7404365e6&cat=371b1b8643d479c1&f=1
*Mbeki's government first denied that the HIV virus causes AIDS and then resisted offering HIV drugs to its people, calling them expensive and potentially dangerous.
The government bowed to public outcry in 2003 and launched a public antiretroviral (ARV) drug programme which officials now call one of the biggest in the world.
But Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang still questions ARVs and instead promotes home-grown remedies such as olive oil, beetroot and garlic. She says they boost nutrition and immune response but activists say her prescription leads to thousands of unnecessary deaths every year.
"It is the only country in Africa whose government continues to propound theories more worthy of a lunatic fringe than of a concerned and compassionate state," Lewis said on Friday.*
According to what I've found, it appears that S. Africa is actually distrubiting anti-virals at this point. The minister seems to have other opinions, which is sad. It seems that like all democracies, the S. African government is bowing to public pressure. They just need to rein in the loony fringe.
"Our public schools suck, therefore all public schools suck, therefore we should stop trying!"
This is not a valid argument.
You read all that and still didn't get the point? That the loony fringe are the anti-intellectuals? That if left alone WOULD kill people?
Your argument against this seems to be that since they were stopped, at least to some extent, and didn't get a chance to kill very many people, they don't count? Do people really have to actually die before they matter to you?
>>81
LOL @ troll.
Do you really expect anyone to fall for that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Please make the effort to actually say what you are disagreeing with, and what exact part of it is a straw man.
>>83
straw man:
> "Our public schools suck, therefore all public schools suck, therefore we should stop trying!"
straw man:
> Your argument against this seems to be that since they were stopped, at least to some extent, and didn't get a chance to kill very many people, they don't count?
Which part of this did I misrepresent?
> Actually, i think less government funding of schools and universities would be a very good thing, at least in the U.S.A. Public schools here fucking suck. If you want a decent education you have to go to a private school, and most of the good ones get absolutely no funding from the government.
For the second one, I am not even trying to refute anything, I am honestly not seeing what the argument against what I said consists of, so I am asking if that is it. If there is a strawman argument anywhere in that part, it's >>80's "You claim that agueing that language is a bad thing kills", which I did not actually claim. (In >>76, I said that a) arguing against language is an instance of anti-intellectualism, and b) anti-intellectualism in general can kill.)
I don't think you understand how a strawman argument really works.
> Which part of this did I misrepresent?
all of it. the point isn't that we should stop trying. it's that throwing more money at the problem isn't working, so we should try something else.
This isn't a situation where the only two options are "throw money at it" and "don't throw money at it". If you're looking for a strawman argument, that's one.
He did not misrepresent >>78, he misrepresented the problem of the underpeforming school system.
The problem: Schools are not working right.
>>79's straw man argument: "We fund schools and they don't work right. Our only choices are to keep funding schools that don't work, or stop funding schools."
This is incorrect, since there are many, many ways to reform the school system that do not involve cutting funding, but >>79 did not include these in his argument.
That is a straw-man argument.
And I would add that echoing back your opponents criticisms is not how you win an argument. You actually have to have some insight into the problem, and understand what you are talking about.
> >>79's straw man argument: "We fund schools and they don't work right. Our only choices are to keep funding schools that don't work, or stop funding schools."
LOL @ accusing >>79 of being a straw man argument by misquoting it.
>>79 didn't say that those are the only choices. He just said that he thinks cutting funding would be better than keeping the current level of funding.
How is cutting funding supposed to help?
So why mention something inconsequential like that then?
Unrelated: is a false dichotomy a type of strawman?
Could you please try and talk like an adult? It's hard to argue seriously with a person who says "LOL @".
And I am not misquoting. The only two alternatives he considers are keeping everything as it is, and cutting funding. There isn't a single word about any other kind of reform. This whole time I've been trying to point out that there are other options, but you just ramble on about strawmen for no good reason.
> How is cutting funding supposed to help?
How else are we supposed to motivate the people in charge of the schools to do something about the problem?
> And I am not misquoting.
Where is "We fund schools and they don't work right. Our only choices are to keep funding schools that don't work, or stop funding schools." in >>79? I'm having a hard time finding it.
> The only two alternatives he considers are keeping everything as it is, and cutting funding.
How do you know those are the only two he considers? He didn't say anything about other options. He simply said that one single option (cutting funding) would be better than another single option (keeping everything the same).
> How else are we supposed to motivate the people in charge of the schools to do something about the problem?
If you wisely look at other countries in the world, you'll note that whatever problems US education has, it's not due to the amount of money. Some OECD countries spend more per student, many spend less, but most do better.
So you've missed the source of the problem. Your proposed solution will only introduce a new set of challenges without fixing anything. This harks back to ancient healers who would often kill their patients while trying to heal them.
Do you have any evidence that cutting funds will improve the US education system?
> Where is "We fund schools and they don't work right. Our only choices are to keep funding schools that don't work, or stop funding schools." in >>79? I'm having a hard time finding it.
Paraphrasing is not misrepresenting.
>> The only two alternatives he considers are keeping everything as it is, and cutting funding.
> How do you know those are the only two he considers? He didn't say anything about other options.
You answered your own questions. If you're in a debate, you say what's on your mind. It's not your opponent's task to second-guess whatever you may be thinking in secret.
> If you wisely look at other countries in the world, you'll note that whatever problems US education has, it's not due to the amount of money.
Yes. But decreasing the amount of money would probably be very effective in convincing the people in charge (who don't think there's any problem at all with the way things are) that there actually is a problem.
You still haven't suggested how you would go about convincing these people of this fact.
> Paraphrasing is not misrepresenting.
People don't usually put quotation marks around paraphrases.
> You answered your own questions. If you're in a debate, you say what's on your mind.
Unless it's not relevant to the debate.
Right now I'm thinking about a lot of things, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with this thread.
> It's not your opponent's task to second-guess whatever you may be thinking in secret.
Then stop trying "to second-guess whatever [he] may be thinking in secret."
> But decreasing the amount of money would probably be very effective in convincing the people in charge
Probably? On what basis do you claim "probably"? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, et cetera.
> You still haven't suggested how you would go about convincing these people of this fact.
If I am powerful enough to control where money goes, I am also powerful enough to enforce other means of solving the problem. The problem is legislative in origin (how funds are allocated).
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, et cetera.
How is claiming that decreasing the amount of money you're giving to a greedy person is a very powerful motivator "extraordinary"?
> If I am powerful enough to control where money goes, I am also powerful enough to enforce other means of solving the problem.
In the state where I live, I do get to vote on whether the schools get more money or less. But I have no choice about how the schools spend that money. The idiots in the state legislature (who think tearing down perfectly good buildings and putting up shinier and more expensive (but smaller) ones will fix problems like overcrowding in classrooms) decide that.
The real problem is that they don't have enough teachers. And they keep laying off more and more teachers so they can afford to build more buildings.
> How is claiming that decreasing the amount of money you're giving to a greedy person is a very powerful motivator "extraordinary"?
That's assuming a greedy person is the root problem. That's also assuming that cutting funds will have a motivating effect on that greedy individual. Neither of those is a given.
What I find extraordinary is that despite many schools bitterly complaining how little money they have (we hear about it even overseas), reducing funding will make it better.
> The real problem is that they don't have enough teachers. And they keep laying off more and more teachers so they can afford to build more buildings.
That doesn't appear to be a problem with funding though, but rather the allocation of those funds.
> People don't usually put quotation marks around paraphrases.
You are basing your argument here on the use of punctuation. This doesn't even warrant a response, really.
> Unless it's not relevant to the debate.
How on earth was it "not relevant to the debate"? You're reaching, man.
Suggestion: ITT we talk about stem cells and start a new thread on American education in /politics/.
I think (and you may call it arrogant of me to think that the American scientific community would even support such an advance of ethical comfort with basic research) that the biggest advance in stem cell research will come from advanced proteomics. A form of "proteoconstructionism" if you will. There are unending masses of potential in polymerase substrate for producing our own proteins and perhaps even our own blastular cells. Why use viral vectors and bacterial vectors when we could mass produce our own in much more controlled environments than vats of bacterium for our insulin injections? We could directly produce our own drugs in our own bodies.
Sorry about the tangent. I hold firmly to the belief that ventures into things (as marred by the media as they are) such as producing viable stem cells is worth the risk, money, and time. Too much focus is on unification and preservation and the like. I say we need more advances in our capabilities as scientists and the capabilities those who benefit from our discoveries. If there are technicians willing to tackle something as daunting as stem cell research, I give them my blessing.
That sounds like an interesting idea.
I'd also hope that things like regrowing organs might be possible. I know they're working on growing 3D tissues, so it sounds plausable.
>>104
Do you mean growing organs in vivo? Because they can already grow some organs in vitro (they successfully transplanted a laboratory grown bladder a while back).
I think a lot of us have a slight misconception as to what the limits are on stem cell research. EMBRYONIC SC research is forbidden, however, there are many scientists in laboratories today that work with adult stem cells that are located in other areas of the body, such as the heart and bone marrow.
As for growing organs, the toughest part is finding by what mechanisms stem cells can self renew without differentiation or immortalization or transformation. This requires knowing exactly what mechanisms and growth factors are necessary. I know the genes Oct-4, Nanog, Rex1, etc. are good stem cell markers, and looking at the pathways associated with these genes can help us pinpoint the solutions.
Another really good application of this is the manipulation of stem cell differectiation in order to heal injuries that would otherwise not heal. Injection of (lots) of stem cells under the right conditions would lead to differentiation and renewal of lost tissue during injuries, etc. This is especially useful when treating older people whose body can't repair as fast or as complete as, say, a teenager.
It would also be interesting to look at germ line differentiation....although that might be a bit scary cause if we can get stem cells to turn into sperm....even when isolated from a female....men and their y chromosomes might not be needed anymore.....
>EMBRYONIC SC research is forbidden
Since when? All I know is that no government funds are going toward it (except for already established cell lines), which puts a damper on it but it's not illegal.
I believe in some countries, such as germany for instance....it is illegal for any german citizen to conduct embryonic SC research, even when outside of germany. I know germany has that rule...possibly other countries, i'm not sure. But i know it isn't legal all over the world.
it depends how you define whats a living thing, right now the law states that a baby isnt considered a person until it is fully out of the mother and still alive and breathing.
so if a pregnant woman were to be hit by a car, she survives but baby dies, the driver cant be sued for "killing" the unborn fetus as it was never a "person" to begin with...although personally i think this law is disgusting, it allows for abortion, which frankly i think does more good than harm.
anyway with that said, if you can abort, i dont see why we cant use the otherwise wasted potential life to save an existing life