Like.. Bill Gates?.........

__________________
Matt (SD,CA)

1984 300SD.. White/Chrome Bunts..Green

1997 2500 Dodge Ram 5.9 Cummins 12 Valve 36 PSI of Boost = 400+hp & 800+tQ .. ..Greenspeed

2004 Dodge Ram 2500 4x4 Quad Cab Cummins 5.9 H.O "596hp/1225tq" 6 spd. Man. Leather Heated seats/Loaded..Flame Red....GREENSPEED

Global warming...Doing my part, Smokin da hippies..

Fight the good fight!......

Finishing college isn't a sure path to wealth, nor is its lack a sure detriment. But there is a strong correlation. There are notable counterexamples, such as Gates. But that's one man among many.

Note that he was in the right place at the right time, to buy CPM/86 very cheap, rework it slightly and sell it to IBM for a whole lot of money. He didn't create anything new with this transaction, but rather used knowledge that Digital Resource (the prior owner of CPM/86) lacked at the time.

Hold that thought........

__________________
Matt (SD,CA)

1984 300SD.. White/Chrome Bunts..Green

1997 2500 Dodge Ram 5.9 Cummins 12 Valve 36 PSI of Boost = 400+hp & 800+tQ .. ..Greenspeed

2004 Dodge Ram 2500 4x4 Quad Cab Cummins 5.9 H.O "596hp/1225tq" 6 spd. Man. Leather Heated seats/Loaded..Flame Red....GREENSPEED

Global warming...Doing my part, Smokin da hippies..

Fight the good fight!......

Holding to thoughts won't make you rich. You have to expose them to the right people.

A rich man I am............

__________________
Matt (SD,CA)

1984 300SD.. White/Chrome Bunts..Green

1997 2500 Dodge Ram 5.9 Cummins 12 Valve 36 PSI of Boost = 400+hp & 800+tQ .. ..Greenspeed

2004 Dodge Ram 2500 4x4 Quad Cab Cummins 5.9 H.O "596hp/1225tq" 6 spd. Man. Leather Heated seats/Loaded..Flame Red....GREENSPEED

Global warming...Doing my part, Smokin da hippies..

Fight the good fight!......

The Mystique of Genetic Correctness

by
Kurt Jacobsen




The advent of Dolly the cloned sheep in 1996 – RIP in 2003 - left many an onlooker feeling both celebrative and uneasy.1 With irrepressibly manic ingenuity the biologicalsciences are dissolving our supposedly fuddy-duddy moral boundaries so that many scientists find themselves in debates they really would rather avoid as to the wisdom of playing cavalierly with recombinant DNA. If one believes the giddy news headlines, however, resistance is useless. Genetic engineering inexorably erodes old norms and instead gives us (whoever "us" is) "the power to impose our own invented norms" - norms which arise worryingly from within the scientific culture itself.2 As a process of acquiring knowledge and manipulating nature, science is lodged snugly inside the encompassing realm of production-for-profit, and so scientific activities ought to be examined in the context of social processes, even if it should not - pace Alan Sokal - be reduced to them.3 In an economic system intent on commodifying everything in its path, there is ample cause for public concern about the foibles of bio-engineering.

Scientists, despite what fables say, usually conform to the reigning values in the comfy milieus in which they usually grow up. The average nuclear physicist or molecular biologist is as likely to equate their self-interest or personal creed with the common interest of the whole community as is a cunning televangelist or used car salesmen. So the greatest care is needed when wielding tentative scientific findings and one is well-advised to err on the side of generosity when it comes to rushing to verdicts about human development because these judgments are self-fulfilling in their consequences.

One must step back at least a century to appreciate what is unfolding. The Victorians took a hearty pride in looking hard facts about evolution in their hairy faces, which especially to Punch-subscribing British observers, looked indecently Irish. It was not clear at the time whether Greeks, Italians or Jews were full members of the white - or human - race either. Even British South Africans, understandably piqued, imagined that rebellious Boers were not quite "white" enough.4 Not even pre-Israel (Yishuv) Zionists were averse to eugenics to churn out the ‘perfect’ Jews the Nazis elsewhere were intent on eliminating.5 The social upshot of the most impeccable research was that groups deemed low on the social scale were designated biological problems foremost and then - to the extent they posed a threat or nuisance - social problems too. While humanity, after Darwin, (mostly) managed to digest the news of its wayward descent from apes rather than radiant angels, some groups, as always, were deemed less descended.

Biological value tends to coincide neatly with class and/or racial "worth" because avowedly superior groups do most of the observing, analyzing and recording. This convenient concordance yielded a tenacious legacy of determinist explanation. Its’ biological rendition is a stringently reductionist view "in which the arrows of causality run from genes to humans and from humans to humanity."6 How human beings think, feel and behave is dictated by genetic structure so completely that nothing intervening between that structure and action makes any real difference. That’s the underlying doctrine. In the early 20th century statistician Karl Pearson, for example, discerned via an impressive array of calculations with high degrees of significance that "the influence of environment was not one-fifth that of heredity" and that "it was man who makes the environment, and not the environment which makes the man."7 That was that.

Are we witnessing the resurgence of the scientifically intoxicating project of biological "improvement"? Eugenics was a prim social engineer's dream of honing people to a state of perfection resembling nothing so much as engineers themselves (or how they would like to see themselves). Scientists and/or a sensationalist media routinely announce discoveries of genetic causes for phenomena as infinitely complex and disparate as homosexuality, shyness, homelessness, schizophrenia, manic-depression, autism - and perhaps someday even for the gall or gullibility to advance such extravagant claims. Only a century ago scientists with no less reliable evidence proclaimed the unearthing of single gene explanations for thalassophilia ("urge for sea-faring"), drapetomania ("irrational urge by slaves to run off"), Jewish facial expressions, "shiftlessness" and chicken stealing.8 On reflection, there are very sound reasons not to consign public policy to scientists, their employers, or politicians to whom those employers dish out lavish campaign contributions.

Genetics research raises nasty little critter issues that can scurry effortlessly over, under and around every specialist’s boundaries. No scientist qua scientist can or should instruct us as to whether we should clone living creatures, retrieve sperm from comatose men, treat genetic materials as corporate property or fix insurance premiums according to fallible gene testing results. Identifying hereditary disease – or, for that matter, how hereditary a hereditary disease is - is a tough task that also poses the thorniest moral issues. Behold "designer children." A Harris Survey a decade ago indicates 40% of American parents, with the best - and most obsessive intentions - in the world, happily will embrace genetic engineering if it can craft their little treasures into sharper, slicker competitors. (What's genetically wrong with the other 60% of parental slackers, hmm?) It is possible to find out in the 11th week of pregnancy what sex the child is and to abort the flawed product if you don't like what you learn. This is practically a “traditional” practice today in India (despite laws against sex selection) and China as a daughter-preventer, but middle class Americans and Europeans are more progressive and humane than that, aren’t they?

Parallels between ye olde eugenics and thoroughly modern genetics are, even at a glance, far stronger than scientists care to acknowledge. A cultural amnesia about the sordid history of eugenics is cultivated with the greatest of ease in commercial societies that prize short-term, amoral, expeditious thinking. Why indeed are our elites always so tempted to assume humanity is "hard-wired" for every imaginable trait? The answer lies in a far from solely biological predisposition to gain power and, no less important, a desire, which owes more to laziness than to Richard Dawkins’ selfish genes, to shirk responsibility for one's actions and the welfare of others (so long as it is convenient for oneself).9


Raw Eugenics

In the late 19th century USA a declining middle class birth rate coincided with mass migrations northward of recently freed blacks and the unseemly inpouring of especially Eastern and Southern Europeans. These alien influxes, as they always do, annoyed the locals. In 1913 arch-eugenicist Henry Goddard sternly advised US authorities that of the tired huddled masses pouring through Ellis Island: 83% of the Jews, 80% of Hungarians, 79% of Italians (especially Southerners) and 87% of Russians indubitably were feeble-minded. Maybe it was the environment.

The "wrong" people were breeding. There were plenty of ‘lowlife’ immigrants already around to do the dirty work. No more need apply. In The Clone Age Lori Andrews interviewed numerous Americans who expressed the same opinion, lamenting sparse 1.8 reproduction rates and the falling sperm counts among comfortably situated natives.) Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge freely invoked eugenical tracts in public forums. Eugenics, after all, promised to transfer political conflicts into a serene biological realm where impartial "science" held sway. All policy decisions flowed from this ineluctable truth. This contorted quasi-utopian trend was part of a middle-class movement aiming to fashion an "administrative state," a state whose socially refined exponents intended that their expertise would displace cruder conflicts based on class, race, and gender.10

In Britain Francis Galton published Hereditary Genius (1869) which stated flatly that genius was inherited and that elites everywhere were ‘elected’ by providential nature. That being clearly the case, the obvious objective then was to upgrade the racial "stock" via a judicious blend of negative measures (to discourage the "unfit" from reproducing) and positive ones (to encourage those who were ordained "fit" to breed).11 People were viewed pretty much like poultry or fruit flies, except that certain specimens, unfortunately, could cast ballots.

More at: http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_6.1-2/jacobsen.htm

I've been following your discussion over the last few days. It's been dwelling in the back of my head as I run new electric wiring in the garage and install a new range in the kitchen. As a biologist, or at least one with a higher degree in biology, I am completely comfortable with life beginning at conception. Human life that it; of course animals like cows and pigs also begin at conception but we're discussing humans. In any case, it is a life and should be afforded the protections as such.

Your article raises new questions and helps direct thinking on previous questions. I find the argument "...must provide a moral value to society..." as a criteria whether or not to abort completely non sequiter. Rather than provide a moral argument this provides a moral excuse for a course of action that is obviously already supported and desired for reasons other than logic or prima facia evidence. The reasoning is very much before the horse, so to speak, and in stark contrast to what the RCC has propounded for eons. The RCC has perhaps changed the criteria it uses over time to prohibit abortion. What has remained constant throughout the history of the RCC is the value it places on life. Over time that tenet has remained constant. In fact I admire the institutions ability to adapt what science is telling us, i.e. life begins at conception, and act according to it's constant core beliefs as it has done (without change) throughout it's history.

The historical study of eugenics is a very interesting one indeed. At the time it was prevalent it was considered scientific consensus. Sound familiar? It seemed that most of the consenting scientists felt that it would be impossible for a Mozart to be bourne (yes, both biologically and raised) of an immigrant class. I see some of this thinking in the current immigration debate. More apropos to this discussion however is the the tendency for eugenicists to dictate what worth a person was to society. And thus whether that person should live or die. This is the logical conclusion of the above mentioned argument before the cart. Who decides? Obviously philosophy and ethics teachers - until someone who is more popular comes along and questions the worth of these folks to society. I'm thinking Pol Pot and others...

The genetic engineering aspect of the article you posted raises completely new questions. We are heading in a direction that is brand new. We have no history or precedence to guide us to "what is right". Scientifically we posit that humans are human because of human DNA. Morally we posit that a foetus (Latin for "little child") and that which is before has human potential that "we" are not stupid or arrogant enough to quantify at the point of conception. Additionally it possesses human DNA. Where do we go when/if we mix animal with human DNA? I don't have the answer to that and it's a good thing since it doesn't yet exist. But it will. I remember reading stories by Asimov about the very thing. And the Turing Test to quantify intelligence comes to mind. This is where the moral and ethical issues arise. The other seems fairly straightforward.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Has the right wing view of abortion gone totally loony?

Odd, my view on it doesn’t change no matter what side of the plane I’m sitting on.


(I know....what an A-H.... wont happen again......well....maybe...)

Time to go fly south.
You'll be free of us for 4 days!!
Have a great weekend/week all !!

__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !

Eugenics may have a sordid history but it also has a less sordid history. The Oneida community practiced eugenics. I don't think there's any evidence it's practices were racist. They were trying to breed spiritually superior people. A whole generation of deliberately bred children came into existence. They weren't directly manipulating genes but since everyone in the commune was a potential if not actual sexual partner of everyone else in the commune, their deliberate choice of genetic combinations was pretty wide.
From what I have read, the children turned out pretty well, living happy, productive lives.
I think some commune members were disappointed they were not considered spiritually virtuous enough to breed.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

I don't think the fact that the fetus is a human life solves any moral problems. The degree that one has rights, is correlated with an increase in human development. We don't give driver's licenses to six year olds. We only give full human rights to 21yr olds. So the question still remains, even if the fetus is considered a human life, is a human living in the body of another human, entitled to the same rights as a human not living in another human's body. We don't normally think that adult humans have the right to use another human's body in order to survive. Should fetuses be any different?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

What do you mean by this exactly?

The first thing that comes to mind is donated organs, so yes, humans do use other human bodies to survive.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

In this country we consider it murder to deliberately kill a baby once it has passed through the birth canal or is delivered by caesarian. We consider it murder to deliberately kill of facilitate the death of a human being who is physically or mentally incapacitated. Ask Kevorkian. (On the other hand, euthanasia is gaining support in this country). I think these general prohibitions are based on the precept that "... all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This is so ingrained in our national psyche that to contravene it seems so repellant that it has reached the status of a social taboo -- in general we don't question it.

Exactly! A human right should not be confused with some other "right" such as to drive a car or vote. All life is valuable. To set a level of a persons right to life as commensurate with age is ridiculous. Using this logic the criteria for being allowed to live and thus contribute to society is "age +1".

It's interesting reading some of the research that comes out of countries which regularly practice euthanasia. What I find most horrifying is a growing segment of the "deciders" in these countries that are making the decision to euthanise without the knowledge of the one to be euthanised. Of course, this is also a logical and expected outcome of legal assisted suicide. There seem to be no shortage of people who know better than you do what's best for you. Even when you're old and sick or not even born yet.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Yes, that's partly what I meant. If one person has a kidney that will keep another person alive, we don't require that the person give the kidney to the other person, even if it means the death of the other person. A person can freely give their kidney to another person, but the State doesn't coerce anyone to do it. Even a mother is not coerced to give a kidney to a child.

The situation is analagous in many ways to pregnancy. The State does not coerce women to get pregnant, the fetus depends for its life on the body of the mother. Should the State coerce the mother to continue letting the fetus use the mother's body if the mother does not want her body to be used?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

The right to vote is not is not a human right?
My point was that rights are not absolute things that pop into existence in a single moment. Likewise, the 'right to life' does not pop into existence in a single moment.
The underlying issue is not whether we have a right to life, but whether we have a right to be brought into existence at all. Did we have a right to demand that our mothers bring us into existence? In my view, we did not. Our mother's decision to create us was gratuitous, or could have been gratuitous. As long as a mother is free to decide to create us or not, and we are totally dependent on our mother's body and will for existence, it seems reasonable to conclude that the mother can change her mind and rescind the decision.
I realize that one dominant school of thought disagrees with my view of the decision to reproduce being gratuitous. It thinks that the freedom of that decision is lost if a woman decides to have sex. The act of intercourse for them always involves the implicit acceptance of reproduction. They think that once your mother had sex (freely or otherwise), you had a right to demand that she bring you into existence. 'Existence on Demand' you might call it.
I disagree. I think it is totally acceptable to engage in sex, while at the same time willing not to reproduce. Men have done this for centuries and I think it is polite to offer the same opportunity to women. So I conclude contraception is ok and that unwilled pregnancies can be morally aborted by a woman since there is no duty to get pregnant to begin with.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13