Senior Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Neutral

About tuco

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1026 profile views
  1. Syria's War Nearing Resolution?

    Syria: Will the world be even more dangerous, cruel, unjust? http://www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/1/1158/syria-will-the-world-be-even-more-dangerous-cruel-unjust ---- But there is a red line, folks, and we are good guys! To paraphrase a classic, to deceive oneself is the most common deception.
  2. True Meaning of Life

    Why <insert anything>? is problematic.
  3. Designer baby's poll

    First of all, the thread is incorrectly in "Genetics" because its an ethical issue. Secondly, I was on topic correctly and tactfully noting the above fact. Thirdly, I do not understand what "getting undies in a twist" means but somehow I do not think it means "pointing out the obvious".
  4. Designer baby's poll

    And its all yours. Bye
  5. Designer baby's poll

    OK, it has nothing to do with genetically altering humans. Good catch. Now, how is picking the gender of a baby different from I dunno picking the height of a baby? Because one is genetic altering and the other one is not. Well, I do not think the issue here is whether an action is either gene altering action or not, I do not think people care about the mechanics in general, but about making choices. How does it matter whether we are able to identify and pick male or female embryo or identify and pick embryo short or tall growth potential? How it's done is pretty much irrelevant in my opinion. What is relevant is the ability to make such choice or not. This is the ethical choice, the rest is technological matter. btw over here parents cannot choose the gender unless for the reasons you stated because it's against the law.
  6. Designer baby's poll

    I know it exists, that is why I mentioned it, unlike much much larger scale. Indeed, its sometimes done for the stated reason. But it's not done because the parents want it and I can imagine some parents wanting it. In similar fashion, like some parents would like to have a girl/boy, some could wish to have their baby to be pre-disposed for arts or sports. So in my eyes, it's not about should or should not, but where is the line?
  7. Designer baby's poll

    The problem in Gattaca was not that one was modified and the other was not, but discrimination based on such modification. Our societies have a long way to go, new ethics, laws and approaches will need to be realized, implemented and developed, but unless the technology will be relatively easy to control/hard to obtain - like nuclear technology for example - which from what I know about it it is not, I just do not see how could we prevent other people from using it. Of course, there will be some limits on what will be acceptable and whatnot but OP did not specify them. The devil is in details. edit: and indeed, eliminating certain traits, aggressivity for example in order to reduce violent crimes, can have unforeseen and even undesirable consequences, however, by allowing genetic engineering we are not necessarily eliminating certain trait from the gene pool.
  8. Designer baby's poll

    In the west .. the law, the communists had committees like committees deciding who can have an abortion and who cannot. Since the OP did not specify, outside of much much larger scale, what kind of modification we talk about, we can talk about any. I will talk about the ability of parents to chose the gender of their baby. Let's say it will not be allowed in the west but will be allowed elsewhere. I can also imagine parents traveling to where it's allowed. Then I can image pressure to change the law and law being changed simply because if there will be demand, there will be supply and it's the people, not committees who have the power to change the laws.
  9. Designer baby's poll

    I think its inevitable so it's not a matter of ought to. Once the tech will be here, for much much larger scale, who is going to stop people from using it? Perhaps we should ban it like nuclear weapons .. oh wait!
  10. Predicting Evolution?

    I do not think what you wrote is on another level, but rather the opposite. From the article: Limitations come from the environment. To say, for example, that we have 5 fingers on each hand by a chance is stretching the meaning of "by a chance". Two notes: Since we can influence our environment in a significant way, can we say that we can influence our evolution? Does this "predictability", as talked about in the article, implies that alien species evolving in a similar environment to ours, would evolve in a similar way?
  11. Two opinions I do not necessarily agree with: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf THE MYTH OF A SUPERHUMAN AI - https://www.wired.com/2017/04/the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai/ Let me just note that I do not really understand the question:
  12. A question about American politics

    What is, old argument? Regarding "democratization"". I think its one of those concepts that make sense on theoretical and not too sophisticated level but fail to be supported by data and have unintended consequences due to complexity of the issues it's trying to solve. Kind of like communism.
  13. A question about American politics

    In my eyes, the Bush Doctrine sheds some light on "democratization" and conservative views the OP was mentioning. As the wiki puts it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#Natan_Sharansky
  14. A question about American politics

    Citation needed for "the world community". It had no mandate of the UN Security Council. Other than that. Achievement, to end the conflict, of the intervention, is highly questionable, so is calling the intervention, killing civilians in the process, "humanitarian". Regarding US foreign policy, in my view, such policy is self-serving in the first place. Not saying there is anything wrong with it being self-serving, but it's important to recognize it when evaluating it in the global context. So if the US administration will believe that for example, an action will get some points at home it's more likely to execute it than if it was unpopular. In similar fashion, if the US administration will believe that an action will serve any strategic goal of the US, it's more likely to execute it than if it would not serve any. And this is regardless of consequences of such action at the point of impact. For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine