Not lame at all ... you're entitled to your opinions and beliefs.

Might I ask what political principle is involved?

At some point in time after the exhibits started gaining popularity the source of the bodies was questioned. The director / spokesperson / whomever replied with dodgy answers but assured that the sources were credible.

Fastfoward a couple of years and the same people are finally revealing that they had to stop doing business with..... (drumroll please) - China because the bodies may have belonged to prisoners. Aren't they humanitarian?! What social responsibility they preserve!

I don't buy it - I feel they knew.

Now, this guy is supposed to be an artist. However, none of this behavior is at all congruent with the that of the historical role of artists in history. Is he really 'providing an educational encounter' or an enlightening experience? Perhaps it is just sensationalism further corroding our numbed perception and further objectifying life as a commodity.

You are an artist, what do you think?

I have to agree with you. Plus that $hit is just plain creepy!

I gotta get an outfit like that made out of beef jerky and wear it to the next PETA gtg!!

If they were people who donated their bodies to science, it's acceptable. Other than that, if bodies were obtained through prisons, I guess there's a number of issues that could be discussed. Is this a way that the "bad seeds" of society can make a positive impact? Is this any better than the story behind Da Vinci's anatomical drawings?

I do think there is sensationalism in the presentation, but I think there is something to be learned from the exhibit, just like there are things to learn from watching an autopsy. The fact that some of the bodies are posed is where the controversy comes in, but the poses help show what a body in action looks like underneath.

Anatomy is fascinating and much easier to understand when seen in person vs. in a book. These exhibits are like "super" CAT scans.

good call, Chad.

If it weren't for those scientists who ignored the limitations, where would we be now?

in Leo's case, I must say, that at least his workings took place in a holy place and considering the religious climate of the time (searching for the soul - someone thought it was the pituitary gland or the amygdala!), I would bet that he truly believed he was involved in a divine cooperation.

Perhaps it was those 'prisoners' ' final or or only contribution to society. I often question China, perhaps stereotypically, and their laws and wouldn't be surprised though if those prisoners were just minor offenders / farmers / dissidents who had some bad luck.

I think I would have a problem with it if there were an outcry from families of the "specimens" used.

IMO this is a little different than the ignored limitations of say Josef Mengele at Auschwitz. Anything I've ever heard about the horrors that were done to those people can't justify the advances they afforded. I can't understand handling the advancement of science and medicine with a war mentality (few for the benefit of many).

ditto.

And another good question:

What are the limits of discovery with a conscious mentality? So many of our current luxuries are due to the science afforded by war... plywood!!!!

I think that the only acceptable experiments would have to be legitimately approved by the person being experimented on. They would have to be completely aware of all procedures that would be performed ahead of time.

There are some incredible advancements that have been made with mapping the brain that wouldn't be possible without a completely conscious subject ... skull cap off, probes in the brain and asking them questions.:eek:

A different area of discussion ... where is the line that shouldn't be crossed morally? An example would be stem cell research. I personally don't have a problem with the research, just how they get the material. Cord blood is an acceptable source IMO. I can't get behind anything involving an actual fetus, aborted, lab created, accidental death, etc. For me, it comes back to respecting the individual.

This thread hit a "10" on the weird $hit-0 meter......Oh yeah.. The brief looks more like..well, A vag!na....Aka "no package"... Aka "nut cracker"...Oh my.......:eek::rolleyes::eek:

This is what I meant; although the other interpretation is pretty imaginative.... `:>) (have you seen the russian dog-head experiment on u-tube?)

That line for me is very fuzzy. While I'm certainly not religious in the conventional way, the idea of the spirit cannot be denied.
The trends of science and modernization typically make commodities out of living things. From the scientific view, everything is a resource..? Whatever information, despite its implications, that can be gathered is 'progress'.

..and yet the question remains: "where are we going?"

I enjoyed the detour we took for me to arrive at your original thought.:o:D

After watching the dog head video, I was left thinking "where does the soul reside?". I wasn't bothered by any of the experiments until the head. I guess The brain and head seems like the logical spot due to at least an appearance of consciousness. Freaky.

I remember reading how experiments were conducted with convicted criminals who agreed to blink or try to do other tasks after beheading. The article stated that people responded up to 2 minutes IIRC. One of the accounts was of a guy who was in a car accident with a friend. His friend was decapitated and he watched the head appear to gasp for air with a panicked expression while looking around and at him. The head kept looking around until it slowly relaxed and the eyes went dim.

As far as "where are we going?" ... I can't personally say. I want to say not in a good direction, BUT if I ask myself, "what if the knowledge gained in these questionable ways, benefitted me or a loved one?" I can't remain as convicted.

In a perfect situation, I'd prefer that the knowledge was obtained in a moral way so I wouldn't have to deal with the moral issues of benefitting from it.

I guess I'm just selfish.

Pictures?

The bodies exhibit is amazing, definitely see it if you get the chance.

I am certainly not against science, and I certainly understand the moral issue. What absolutely enrages me is the modern ideology that man can control nature, it is so so pervasive. It is in everything we do.
If there is one terrible thing that comes to my mind when I see those videos, it how information like this gives man the false sense of stewardship over nature - or dominator, governor and the like.
Maybe I'm part hippy... I just think this 'habit' of ours it very much the core of the world's 'problems' that we identify as 'important' today.

thats what animals do.