[Sandwich]

I cannot believe this, yet I have no choice. It's true, and it's scaring the piss out of me. Read this.

Has anyone heard about this bioethics crap first-hand?

[Stryke 9]

Meh. People say silly things about science all the time. In a very strict sense, they're probably about right, but then again, the same could be said about eugenics- doesn't make it a good idea.

Something tells me that neither interviewer nor interviewee is entirely objective on the matter, though. I'd be more interested to hear what someone who DIDN'T hate this strain of thought with a burning passion had to say. There's more than a touch of anti-intellectualism in the interview, among other things- he just barely skirts saying we should rise up in arms, kill all of the academics, and burn the colleges as sources of some kind of Hitlerian evil. And he really doesn't make sense, through most of it.

[heretic]

It is based on his idea that a newborn infant is not a person. Because a person, according to Peter Singer, is an entity who is self-aware over time.

I'm sorry to say, but an Infant is self aware. they can recognize people, and communicate as well.

[Stryke 9]

So can a dog. So can a chicken. So can any complex organism. I think they're going for that "idiotic" sense of "people" where people are somehow higher beings.

[heretic]

the only thing is humans' defining evolutionary factor is abstract thought. All animals are self aware, and can love/hate/feel emotion, but other than dolphins, apes, and domestic animals, I don't know of any other species that have been known to have an imagination.

[Stryke 9]

I really doubt there's any evidence of that at all on either side, and I've seen a fair share of people who lacked logical capacities entirely (and I'm not just talking about 'being a ****head on politics' lacking).

Interesting to note that he considers animals and people moral equals, while saying that it's wrong to kill animals and perfectly okay to kill human infants... now, maybe if he thought humans were INFERIOR that'd make sense...

[CP5670]

Man, this has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever seen.

Yes. The bioethics movement is moving us towards a duty to die. The reason I start by talking about philosophies is because this is what undergirds the very horrible policies that I will describe in a moment. You and I would think, I believe, that being human is something unique and special in the world. According to the bioethics ideology, that isn't so, because we are mere biological life. There is nothing special about being human. Therefore, the bioethicists -- not every bioethicist, but the primary movers and shakers in the movement -- have determined we have to distinguish what makes human life -- or any life -- special. And they have come up with a conclusion, which is truly harmful and discriminatory.

This is such a pile of BS. First he says that there is nothing special that makes a human, and that I fully agree with (and this is in contrast to all matter, not just living organisms), and right after that he is trying to give ways to "make" the human special somehow. Not only stupid and futile, but blatantly contradictory to what was being said earlier. Also, a human has whatever "rights" he or she can uphold; beyond that, there are no rights.

It's not whether a human being matters, but whether you are a "person." So there are some humans who are persons, and all persons would have what you and I call human rights. But the human non-persons do not have human rights.

This bit sounds like it came straight from Bush...

He wrote a book back in the '70s called "Animal Liberation," and the premise behind it is that humans and animals have equal inherent moral worth. Therefore, we can't use animals in animal research and things of that sort. /s]

I suppose then we cannot use, say, water in research as well, because it has "equal inherent worth."

[Stryke 9]

For some reason, I'm reminded strongly of Ayn Rand...

Anyway. Hey, wouldn't it be cool to have actual disposable people? Think of the possibilities- you could buy a human, use it once, then just throw it away!!! No more crappy permanent humans for me, that are supposed to last a lifetime but start to break down after only 50 years! No siree, from now on, it's disposable humans all the way!

[CP5670]

Disposable people are fine if there is some advantage there (and not some crap like "duty to die" ), but the things stated in that article are absurdly ridiculous...

[Stryke 9]

I think there HAS to be a bit of a slant in there. These guys are waaay too dogmatic to actually be honestly reporting their opponents' views- see my first post. For all that he reliably reports here, "bioethics" could very well be about communicating with Santa Claus and the Martians. I really DO wanna see what the "bioethicists" REALLY have to say.

But really- think of all the USES disposable people would have!

[CP5670]

Yeah, that is true as well; the guy asking the questions did seem pretty biased in favor of one side.

If disposable people are somehow cheaper to manufacture and/or do their work better, then I can see some reason to have them around, but not for a "duty to die."

[Carl]

this would defeat the entire purpose of medical practice.

[Galemp]

I kind of doubt the objectivity of the interviewer here...

Q: I'm absolutely flummoxed that people could even waste a moment listening to that jerk Singer.

[Stryke 9]

Dude- I'm not talking about "duty to die". I'm talking break out one of those little chemistry labs, resequence human DNA for a lifespan of maybe a couple weeks (not counting adolescence and childhood, which'd have to be accelerated to about a ten-minute span).

[Bobboau]

while I generaly agree with the sentament there, questions like

Q: That guy is a wacko!

show that this sin't exactly a fair look at the situation

[vyper]

I'm thinking Nazi-ism here.

[Knight Templar]

this would defeat the entire purpose of medical practice.

Natural selection anyone?


*runs*

[CODEDOG ND]

These kind of people are pretty damn stupid.  They say one thing, then contradict themselves.  And we call these people "smart"?!?!?!  Go figure....

And I have an chemistry equation for the animal rights bullsh*t.

Grass + Cow ---> Me

[Alikchi]

Let's go kill all cannibals because they're cannibals!

[IceFire]

This is massively inane.  If they think they are saving the world by limiting population growth, lets consider this.  Beyond that, I can't think of a reason to start believing diferently...

Population growth in Canada (and soon to be in the United States as well) is now in the negative percentages.  North America and to a large extent, Europe (where some countries are already declining and others are only marginally growing) are essentially in a time of population decline.  The only reason popluations are still growing is due to imigration.  Where are our massive populations then?  In countries that are not as well developed....places where infant mortality rates are high and food is scarce.  We need to focus on doing something about those populations, try and establish more self suficient food sources for them....because it benefits us all (and the planet).

Never never let philosophers directly control political policy change.  They are too idealistic and too narrow minded (by necessity) to do something that would benefit and appeal to the masses.  Especially when nobody can agree on anything...moderation is where its at.