Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Alex_Krycek last won the day on July 27

Alex_Krycek had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

21 Nice

1 Follower

About Alex_Krycek

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Psychology, Archaeology

Recent Profile Visitors

1435 profile views
  1. Interesting development relating to this subject: "Pig to human heart transplants 'possible within three years'. Hopefully this will have a big positive impact on those with organ failure / dysfunction. Quick Summary: Adapted pig hearts could be transplanted into patients within three years, according to a report citing the surgeon who pioneered heart transplantation in the UK. The anatomy and physiology of a pig’s heart is similar to that of a human’s, so they are used as models for developing new treatments. Hopes for a successful heart attack treatment were raised in May after a genetic therapy showed promise in pigs. Considerable obstacles remain, however, before the genetic therapy can be tested on human heart attack patients. Most of the treated pigs died after the treatment because the microRNA-199 continued to be expressed in an uncontrolled way. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/19/pig-to-human-heart-transplants-possible-within-three-years-terence-english
  2. The point was that ethical considerations given to any particular species shouldn't be wholly dependent on how developed that organism is from an evolutionary standpoint. I say "wholly" because obviously we have to draw the line somewhere - insects, for example. We can't all be Jains and worry about stepping on an ant.
  3. Is verbal ability and the use of language the only relevant metric to measure intelligence? Seems quite self serving and limited to our own species. I would argue that intelligence exists along a spectrum which includes moment to moment awareness, emotion, sensory ability, imagination, and above all the capacity to experience pain. If an alien species arrived and concluded that because humanity does not possess telepathic abilities, we are are therefore unintelligent, would it give them ethical license to confine us and treat us as they saw fit? Just a thought experiment. Perhaps we're not so intelligent after all then, if we can't even enjoy the day.
  4. In my view it's about having a certain understanding of pain that different animals experience, and taking steps to mitigate or protect them against inhumane treatment. It's about having a higher respect for different forms of life, even so called "lower" forms of life such as plants, which we now know behave in remarkable and seemingly intelligent ways. Demise is one thing - everything dies - but imprisoning an animal from birth until death while subjecting it to inhumane treatment is different. That's where a code of ethics needs to play a role.
  5. From my perspective the ethical implications hinge on this point: whether the goal will be to grow custom organs independently using stem cells (acceptable) or if the organs will be taken from fully developed hybrid organisms after the organism has reached maturity. If the latter approach is taken, then there would be animal rights implications, especially if the experimentation impacts the cognitive development of the species (i.e. if the cognition of the species is at a certain level of general intelligence, higher than a monkey but below that of a human).
  6. Interesting development in the experimentation of human / primate genetic hybrids in China. The research is being conducted by Juan Carlos Izpisúa Belmonte of the Salk Institute in California. The purported aim of the experiments is to cultivate human/monkey chimeras which can generate human organs: The idea behind the research is to fashion animals that possess organs, like a kidney or liver, made up entirely of human cells. Such animals could be used as sources of organs for transplantation. Their objective is to create “human-animal chimeras,” in this case monkey embryos to which human cells are added. Izpisúa Belmonte tried making human-animal chimeras previously by adding human cells to pig embryos, but the human cells didn’t take hold effectively. What are your thoughts? Should this type of research be sanctioned in western nations (US, UK, Europe, etc)? Or should it be prohibited for ethical reasons? SOURCE: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614052/scientists-are-making-human-monkey-hybrids-in-china/ The original story was reported by El Pais: https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/07/30/ciencia/1564512111_936966.html
  7. That's what I thought you would say. Do you also think that eligible Canadian citizens should receive elderly benefits? It depends what your priorities are, and how intelligently the program is structured. In the US, we could provide free public college quite easily by knocking 50 billion USD off the Defense budget. It would be a more productive long term investment as well. What I find interesting is that conservatives in places like Canada, France, the UK etc, are still considerably to the left of American right wingers, and yet they still espouse the same deep seated fears about expanding new social programs (in our discussion free public college). An American right winger would fight tooth and nail against the healthcare system you wouldn't give up, despite it being "far from perfect". It seems to be a deficiency of sociological imagination - the person can't imagine a solution on such a massive scale working properly in a productive way, and sees only the negative impact. Yet, when that solution has already been implemented by others (such as universal healthcare), they're quite happy to take advantage of it, and integrate the system deeply into their own lives, such that it becomes almost indispensable to them. However, if that system were not already in place, they would revert to the position of the American conservative, and once again be dead set against it, for the aforementioned reasons.
  8. Can you answer my question, please, before we go any further? What is so unrealistic about asking for universal healthcare? You're from Canada, or at least you live there. Would you be willing to trade your healthcare system for the system in the United States? Yes or no.
  9. Sanders Yang Gabbard Warren All worthy candidates. I'm curious to know what you feel is "unrealistic" about having universal healthcare, considering that every other developed nation on the Earth has it figured out? What's unrealistic is slashing taxes yet again for the wealthiest Americans, giving 750 billion USD to the Defense Industry every year, perpetuating forever wars, and maintaining a healthcare system that isn't the slightest bit interested in helping people, but rather wants to extort patients financially until they're on the brink of ruin. What's "unrealistic" is expecting the status quo to somehow improve the lives of average Americans without making substantive change. Cost only matters to right wingers when the proposed programs benefit average Americans. Rand Paul's vote to stop the 9/11 First Responders healthcare bill was a perfect example. If a bill benefits the elite or major corporations - fiscal responsibility goes right out the window. If a bill actually helps people, it's scrapped, to the frantic cry of: "How are we going to pay for it?" How are we going to pay for it?" It's an obvious sham at this point. There's more than enough money to do most of what the progressive candidates want to do - the right wing just doesn't want to do it, preferring to serve their donors instead.
  10. Your analysis is too vague to have a substantive discussion. Further I don't think it's accurate when it comes to 2020. If we look the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidate hopefuls, for example, so far the strategy has been to offer detailed policy proposals that will move America in a positive economic/social direction: ending the forever wars, expanding healthcare coverage, re-balancing the tax burden to provide additional revenue, rebuilding infrastructure, etc. The overall strategy of these candidates (with the exception of Biden) has been to offer a vision that is better than Trump's, not merely attack and denounce him.
  11. Is it related to family?
  12. I agree with this statement. I'm still a little unsure about the circumstances in which the OP is operating, but if you are dealing with a schoolyard bully, then the rules of engagement are different: 1.) If you're under-age (a minor), you're unlikely to face any legal consequences for fighting this person. (Unless you seriously injure him, that is) 2.) Unlike in the real world, where you can simply avoid the person and negate him/her from your existence, in a school environment you are forced to co-mingle daily with the aggressor in the same environment. This puts you in the unfortunate situation of feeling trapped. 3.) If a person is harassed in the "real world", as an adult he/she can report the aggressor to the police and get a restraining order, while in school the teacher will supposedly look out for you. But let's be honest - secondary school is like prison: the teacher can't help you all the time and telling the teacher only increases the bully's rage. So what are your options? 1.) Ignore the bully. This is the unrealistic standard that parents foist upon their children, as if bullies have any ethical standards. In my view this approach doesn't work. Bullies see your indifference as weak passivity and an invitation to continue their harassment. 2.) Engage the bully. This is highly effective in my experience. I was bullied for a while in high school by this sick kid named Trevor. Everyday in class he would insult me and my family repeatedly in the most despicable manner. Then one day he started physically hitting me. I ended up punching him in the face a couple of times and then put him in a headlock until the teacher came and broke up the fight. He didn't bother me again. It's a cliché, but bullies are weak cowards. They only respond to force. Fighting a bully works. 3.) Coalition Formation. If you know of other kids who are bullied, you could potentially recruit them into a group with a shared objective (similar to zapatos' experience). Attack the bully together - strength in numbers. 4.) Learn to Fight. If there is a boxing gym or martial arts dojo in your community, then this is an excellent resource for you. Tell the instructors at the gym or dojo about why you are joining. Be 100% honest. Tell them a bully is making your life a living hell and you want to learn to defend yourself. They will immediately understand your situation and offer you advice. If you can make friends with a boxing coach or MMA instructor and participate in formal training it will help significantly I think. This guy has some decent advice:
  13. What Dems are you referring to? Be more specific.
  14. Perhaps some grassroots elements on the far left (such as Antifa) - but not in Congress. I'm referring to elected Republican officials, those who have the power to vote on legislation. These are people who seem completely ignorant of the law and are detached from reality. To state that elected Democrats are in any way equal to them is a false equivalence.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.