Election 2010 - Con/Lib Government

[chairdriver]

I actually think wind turbines look quite pretty, when they're minimalistically white and plastique, or have a stunning design.

 

Adds, to a ridiculous degree:

 

 

I'm so for green energy - there seems to be no con. Even if the pros are very small, I'd still prefer.

Edited April 30, 2010 by chairdriver

[ipaul]

So today was interesting, we had the prospective candidates for Tynemouth have a debate in the college library.

The Labour person, though bolshy, was by farthe best. His answers got repetitive but were fairly good. I might well have voted for him based on this, but I'm sure he voted for Iraq, so I can't.

 

The Lib Dem guy was sadly absent, as apparently he could not make it on short notice.

 

The UKIP woman was just unbelievably weird. I know you really shouldn't judge on appearances but I would defy anyone not to have done so in this case. It was very difficult to hear her as well.

 

The Green candidate was the sort of typical, well meaning hippie person but with a somewhat tenuous grasp of reality.

 

The Tory candidate was quite like David Cameron, she just avoided properly answering questions and didn't give much indication to what she might do for the area.

 

Leaving the debate I thought if these people can get to high places in politics, I know I can

Edited April 30, 2010 by ipaul

[The fish]

Shit man you're right. Why don't you ring up those top scientists who have been studying it most of their life and tell them of their mistake. The world will thank you for it.

 

This is why I love you, dude.

[Emasher]

But again, you can, and they often have done. A democracy doesn't mean the public gets to veto every single law...if such was the case, society would be screwed. Sometimes, as is the case with the smoking ban, laws that benefit people greatly (despite the fact that a huge proportion of people didn't want it, or at least in certain regions the opposition would have bested support) can be implemented by listening to healthcare professionals and projected statistics.

 

Which is very, very wise. It's also like how abortions are illegal past a certain timepoint; again, protecting the unborn.

 

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. First of all, you simply cannot stop people from getting pregnant on their own. The government doesn't have the resources to stop this. No government does. Think about what you're saying for a moment.

 

My point wasn't at all about democracy being about every single person voting on every single issue. It was about the fact that MPs are supposed to represent their riding and choose what's best for their riding by spending time there and finding out what needs to be done. The British system isn't a true democracy in practice because only the people who's opinions are the same as their MP get any say in anything.

[Sheikah]

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. First of all, you simply cannot stop people from getting pregnant on their own. The government doesn't have the resources to stop this. No government does. Think about what you're saying for a moment.

 

Never said that. What I'm saying is, that for people who are confirmed be seriously at risk / 100% likely of passing life-debilitating diseases (for instance, two partners with recessive traits) should (once technology has been advanced) be lawfully obliged to be screened. And when it's possible (in future), these mutations corrected. Failing to do so would invoke complications associated with breaking other laws.

 

It might sound harsh, but this is the only way to easily eliminate several genetic diseases. You might think this is an incredibly authoratitive and invasive stance, but it's really no skin off anybody's nose. And the benefits of such a system; prevention of serious genetic diseases, clearly outweighs the negative.

[Raining_again]

You'd think people in their right mind would be banging the door down to get that sorta thing done for a happy healthy child..?

 

If I had the opportunity (if i was to have kids) i'd probably PAY to get it done if the technology was there.

[Emasher]

I want to make it clear that I agree with what you propose. Its a very good idea to better society. My question is though, how exactly do you propose such a law would be enforced?

[Ashley]

Hmm its kind of a nice idea in the ideal ("everyone will be healthy" etc) but in reality not so much. Look at those damn Nazis. It becomes problematic when someone has to decide what is deemed "ill/wrong" and what isn't. Someone may think that parents who would pass on a life-threatening disease shouldn't have children, but then you're not only controlling what people can do but also preventing a life from occurring. Who has the right to say whose life is more 'valid' than someone else's just because they have something that is defined as an illness?

 

I'm probably not explaining/arguing it correctly but eugenics is never clean.

[Sheikah]

Hmm its kind of a nice idea in the ideal ("everyone will be healthy" etc) but in reality not so much. Look at those damn Nazis. It becomes problematic when someone has to decide what is deemed "ill/wrong" and what isn't. Someone may think that parents who would pass on a life-threatening disease shouldn't have children, but then you're not only controlling what people can do but also preventing a life from occurring.

 

You're not preventing it from occuring, you're preventing and therefore correcting the genetic abnormality so it's born healthy. Which is pretty much the opposite of taking the life; rather, it's giving the child a real life.

 

Myself, I'd say it's pretty obvious what constitutes genetic disease versus selecting for characteristics such as blonde hair and blue eyes. But alas, the typical ignorant public response would be to compare any such thing to the Nazis. It's just like how the public think that GM food is bad for us; put simply, they're morons and important decisions like these should be left solely to healthcare professionals.

[Ashley]

You're not preventing it from occuring, you're preventing the genetic abnormality so it's born healthy. Which is pretty much the opposite of taking the life; rather, it's giving the child a real life.

 

Myself, I'd say it's pretty obvious what constitutes genetic disease versus selecting for characteristics such as blonde hair and blue eyes. But alas, the typical ignorant public response would be to compare any such thing to the Nazis. It's just like how the public think that GM food is bad for us; put simply, they're morons and important decisions like these should be left solely to healthcare professionals.

 

Well the Nazis were looking to do more than just make people with blonde hair and blue eyes. They were eliminating what they deemed undesirable characteristics and its kind of similar in this if you consider it from another angle - we're playing God. Deciding on what should be eliminated. Yes it may sound ridiculous - "lets keep diseases!" - but the act, not the result is the bigger issue (IMO) that will come from this.

 

And again, you're stating that a 'real life' is only a healthy one. I'm pretty sure people from an emancipatory disability view point would be strongly contested to what is being proposed.

[Sheikah]

Well the Nazis were looking to do more than just make people with blonde hair and blue eyes. They were eliminating what they deemed undesirable characteristics

 

Undesirable characteristics and disease...there's a monumental difference. Which is one of many reasons as to why the Nazis were so loathed.

and its kind of similar in this if you consider it from another angle - we're playing God.

 

Actually, we're not, because god doesn't exist. And if he does, I'd like you to prove it. :p

 

By the same logic, doctors are playing god each time they save the life of a patient

 

 

 

And again, you're stating that a 'real life' is only a healthy one. I'm pretty sure people from an emancipatory disability view point would be strongly contested to what is being proposed.

Whatever way you mince your words, having a serious genetic disease is never preferable to being free of the disease. What we're talking about is in most cases correcting a few DNA base pairs in single cells prior to division to produce all the cells of the body. People continue to alter their DNA negatively with carcinogenic substances such as those in cigarettes, yet should we willingly alter DNA for the better we're brandished with all sorts of names. Silly world.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Sheikah

[Ashley]

Undesirable characteristics and disease...there's a monumental difference. Which is one of many reasons as to why the Nazis were so loathed.

 

Actually, we're not, because god doesn't exist. And if he does, I'd like you to prove it. :p

 

By the same logic, doctors are playing god each time they save the life of a patient

 

Whatever way you mince your words, having a serious genetic disease is never preferable to being free of the disease.

 

Playing god is a term, rather than an actual activity. God is free from the religious implications in this particular usage :p And I know you were being somewhat flippant with the doctors point but you're kind of proving mine too. Jehovah Witnesses, for example, don't accept blood transfusions because they don't deem it right due to their beliefs. In their eyes (I would presume, obviously not being one/all of them I can't say with absolute certainty) doctors are trying to play God but by going against his will.

 

But these undesirable characteristics were seen as diseases to the Nazis, which is what I was trying to get at. The classic example; homosexuality. The Nazis weren't just crazy evil people, they had justifications (in their eyes) as to why they were doing what they were doing. Which is what makes them even more menacing/scary but thats a side point.

 

What I was trying to propose is just a different angle. You may think that everyone would be happy to be free of 'diseases' (and I can certainly see why) but you can't speak for everyone. This world is made up of billions of different viewpoints, and they will never all agree. Which is where 'schemes' (for lack of a better word) like this will ultimately flounder.

 

Its well intentioned, I'm not denying that. But I can't see it being universally accepted on anything other than an ideological level.

 

(plus then theres the inevitable knock-on effects and issues such as if it was introduced it would be costly, then it becomes a case of the healthy wealthy and the poorly poor.)

Edited April 30, 2010 by Ashley

[gaggle64]

If we're all quite done herding the innocent onto cattle trains, I see the papers are coming out with their sponsorships. The Times (and presumably the rest of the Murdoch press now they have a better lead) comes out for the Conservatives while The Guardian (again, shockingly) backs the Liberal Democrats. Tomorrow I'm fulling expecting the Pope to come out as Catholic.

[Ashley]

Isn't it so bloody obvious who supports what anyway? Do they need to 'come out'?

[Sheikah]

Playing god is a term, rather than an actual activity. God is free from the religious implications in this particular usage :p

Without any implications of God existing, the phrase has no meaning. Some people believe modifying DNA to be a sin against something our 'maker' created.

 

And I know you were being somewhat flippant with the doctors point

It was a 'never been so sure in my life', 100%, categorical straight response. Doctors intervene and save life, except they don't alter the genetic code. Instead they alter other biological matter (usually tissue); what's the fucking difference?

 

but you're kind of proving mine too. Jehovah Witnesses, for example, don't accept blood transfusions because they don't deem it right due to their beliefs. In their eyes (I would presume, obviously not being one/all of them I can't say with absolute certainty) doctors are trying to play God but by going against his will.

 

We can thank lady luck herself that we don't go to Jehova's Witnesses for medical advice on how to treat patients, then. As in, the way we treat people in society completely bypasses their beliefs.

 

But these undesirable characteristics were seen as diseases to the Nazis, which is what I was trying to get at.

 

I think we've hit a slight roadblock until you differentiate genetic disease and a characteristic. Homosexuality is not, and never has been, a genetic disease. Not only does it never impede the ability for a person to live a normal, healthy life, it's not even (almost certainly) a genetic disease.

 

The causes of genetic diseases are often attributed to problems during alignment of chromosomes during gamete formation or mutations in the starting genetic material post fertilisation. The diseases I'm referring to are definitely diseases; you've decided that some people may consider such diseases affectionately but this really is nonsense.

 

 

You may think that everyone would be happy to be free of 'diseases' (and I can certainly see why) but you can't speak for everyone.

 

That is...silly. Really. For millenia we have attempted to combat disease, and have even successfully wiped out Smallpox. Therefore, not only can we choose to wipe out disease for everone; we have actually done it.

 

Its well intentioned, I'm not denying that. But I can't see it being universally accepted on anything other than an ideological level.

 

We have gone from a religious society to a now mostly secular one. In time, support for religion can only dwindle further; undoubtedly the largest sect of resistance towards this area of research. It seems entirely plausible that something like this will eventually be implemented.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Sheikah

[Ashley]

What I was ultimately trying to do, putting aside the whole content of the argument, was to show that PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT and surprisingly they have DIFFERENT OPINIONS. That was it really, just to try and show that this will be contested. Just like EVERYTHING is contested by someone, somewhere. You seem to disregard opinions if they don't agree with your own, made patently clear by your JW comment. And to be fair they have developed bloodless surgery techniques so they're not some crazy cult with wacky ideas, they are trying to develop within their beliefs. You may not agree with them, but you shouldn't write them off as being nothing more than that island in The Wicker Man as you seem to have.

 

And again; homosexuality was defined as a disease. Hell it was only about 50 years ago people were being put into electro-shock therapy in this country to try and rid themselves of homosexuality because it was seen as wrong. Yes, homosexuality is not a genetic disease (or any kind of disease), I know that. But that doesn't mean historically (and even contemporarily in some places) it isn't seen as a disease.

 

Would I like to see the world free of genetic diseases? Absolutely! Can I see it happening as clear cut and easily as you seem to be proposing? No fucking way. That is my (other) ultimate point.

 

And in fact religious support has gone up in recent decades.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Ashley

[Sheikah]

What I was ultimately trying to do, putting aside the whole content of the argument, was to show that PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT and surprisingly they have DIFFERENT OPINIONS. That was it really, just to try and show that this will be contested. Just like EVERYTHING is contested by someone, somewhere. You seem to disregard opinions if they don't agree with your own, made patently clear by your JW comment. And to be fair they have developed bloodless surgery techniques so they're not some crazy cult with wacky ideas, they are trying to develop within their beliefs. You may not agree with them, but you shouldn't write them off as being nothing more than that island in The Wicker Man as you seem to have.

 

Your tone is that of an irritable old woman. Nevertheless, opinion should not be a factor when combating a disease. I could have coined my own religion where we all showed disproval over modern medicine and human intervention; and my dreams would have been utterly shattered when they wiped out smallpox (assuming I had been around at the time).

 

The important thing is, and here's the kicker - some people's opinions aren't meant to be considered in order for advancement (and I don't mean the evil kind; I mean the advances in modern medicine kind) - and no, especially not Jehova's Witnesses.

 

And in fact religious support has gone up in recent decades.

 

Woah, woah, woah. Spin doctor alert. I think you know full well that I am referring to the fact that the vast majority of the world was religious centuries ago, and now many developed countries are either largely secular or contain considerable numbers of atheists. Support for religions will no doubt decrease in terms of percentages (rather than figures, as populations continue to increase).

 

 

And again; homosexuality was defined as a disease.

 

It could be defined as a car, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is, the genetic diseases of today are diseases. We have biological methods to illustrate gene mutations and people have reconstructed the diseases in animals. There's absolutely no question. And the diseases I would hope to be wiped out are the ones that affect people to the extent that they are mentally disabled or suffer long-term, painful symptoms that could have been (oh so) very easily nipped in the bud before it ever became an issue.

 

Yes, due to sheer ignorance and lack of any real understanding at the time, homosexuality was considered a disease. But that's completely bypassing the fact that the Nazi's were wrong (as were others at the time) in definining a disease, yet we are beyond any reasonable doubt, correct.

 

 

 

Would I like to see the world free of genetic diseases? Absolutely! Can I see it happening as clear cut and easily as you seem to be proposing? No fucking way. That is my (other) ultimate point.

 

Again, it will take an extremely long time, but it seems entirely possible. Consider how our society has changed in a thousand years; it's only likely to change a hell of a lot more in another thousand.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Sheikah

[Raining_again]

If we keep modifying genetics we'll all end up with a similar genetic make-up, which means one day we could all get a disease/virus/whatever, then be completely wiped out! Yay human destruction!

[Sheikah]

If we keep modifying genetics we'll all end up with a similar genetic make-up, which means one day we could all get a disease/virus/whatever, then be completely wiped out! Yay human destruction!

XD ......:p

[Ashley]

Your tone is that of an irritable old woman. Nevertheless, opinion should not be a factor when combating a disease. I could have coined my own religion where we all showed disproval over modern medicine and human intervention; and my dreams would have been utterly shattered when they wiped out smallpox (assuming I had been around at the time).

 

The important thing is, and here's the kicker - some people's opinions aren't meant to be considered in order for advancement (and I don't mean the evil kind; I mean the advances in modern medicine kind) - and no, especially not Jehova's Witnesses.

 

It could be defined as a car, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is, the genetic diseases of today are diseases. We have biological methods to illustrate gene mutations and people have reconstructed the diseases in animals. There's absolutely no question.

 

Yes, due to sheer ignorance and lack of any real understanding at the time, homosexuality was considered a disease. But that's completely bypassing the fact that the Nazi's were wrong (as were others at the time) in definining a disease, yet we are beyond any reasonable doubt, correct.

 

Again, it will take an extremely long time, but it seems entirely possible. Consider how our society has changed in a thousand years; it's only likely to change a hell of a lot more in another thousand.

 

The joys of the internet. I assure you if you could read my actual tone its more slightly hungover male than irritated old lady.

 

But there's a huge fucking difference between making your own wacky cult and one of the biggest religions in the world (presumably it would be mostly Catholics against such things, and hell maybe even other religions but I'm not going to pretend to know enough about other religions to say one way or other). Again we come to the point; should religious opinions shape the adoption of scientific advancement (as opposed to the scientific discovery)? Perhaps not. But institutions aren't isolated. We may be more secularised than we used to be, but we're never going to be completely secularised. Religion is, to some people, far too important to just be written off (at this point I've forgotten where I was going with this so I'll just leave that there).

 

There seems to be a linguistic relativity issue here. I can see where you're coming from but please try and consider this; these diseases are diseases because we define them as such. They fit our dictionary definitions that we have written and as such they are, to us, diseases. But what if they were not? What if you defined them differently? What if you defined them as a part of life, an "act of God" as they say (I don't care if you're so Atheist you make Dawkins look like the Pope at this point, I'm talking from a societal stance) in which people just have these challenges they have to face. They may be horrible things to have to face and yes probably everybody would want without, but surely you can see that people of strong faiths will believe that it is God's apparent will/plan for this particular person and it is AGAINST God's will to try and prevent them from happening because it happens for a reason. You may not agree, you may think its the most batshit crazy approach to life ever, but you at least understand these ideas exist yes? Please...

 

(I think the problem here is again, semantics. "Disease" is such a loaded term anyway, that goes beyond mere medical definitions which could be why we're having trouble 'connecting')

 

Yes its possible to consider it could happen, we wouldn't have Gattaca without the possibility of consideration. But then it could go completely the other way, we could become a more religious society. Nobody knows the future.

 

Except you apparently it seems

Edited April 30, 2010 by Ashley

[Sheikah]

The joys of the internet. I assure you if you could read my actual tone its more slightly hungover male than irritated old lady.

 

But there's a huge fucking difference between making your own wacky cult and one of the biggest religions in the world (presumably it would be mostly Catholics against such things, and hell maybe even other religions but I'm not going to pretend to know enough about other religions to say one way or other).

 

I'd say the biggest difference is about two thousand years.

 

Again we come to the point; should religious opinions shape the adoption of scientific advancement (as opposed to the scientific discovery)? Perhaps not. But institutions aren't isolated. We may be more secularised than we used to be, but we're never going to be completely secularised. Religion is, to some people, far too important to just be written off (at this point I've forgotten where I was going with this so I'll just leave that there).

 

Perhaps not, but reduced to the extent that this would be allowed? Entirely possible. It would also depend on changing attitudes of people towards genetic research, so they don't all grow up to be ignorant (it's badz!!).

 

There seems to be a linguistic relativity issue here. I can see where you're coming from but please try and consider this; these diseases are diseases because we define them as such. They fit our dictionary definitions that we have written and as such they are, to us, diseases. But what if they were not? What if you defined them differently? What if you defined them as a part of life, an "act of God" as they say (I don't care if you're so Atheist you make Dawkins look like the Pope at this point, I'm talking from a societal stance) in which people just have these challenges they have to face. They may be horrible things to have to face and yes probably everybody would want without, but surely you can see that people of strong faiths will believe that it is God's apparent will/plan for this particular person and it is AGAINST God's will to try and prevent them from happening because it happens for a reason.

 

Really? An act of god? We can reconstruct these genetic conditions; hell, often we know exactly why a condition has transpired. Yet, in this day and age, must we really allow children to be born with serious problems due to the stumbling block of god? It's incredibly selfish for religious people, typically perfectly healthy (at least without genetic abnormalities) to have their say on why it's wrong. I'm guessing if you ask people with serious genetic abnormalities if they would have liked to have been born without their condition they'd say HELL yeah. It's those people that such a system would benefit.

 

Ash, I want you to tell me right now what people are doing to their DNA when they smoke cigarettes. You and I know the answer, really. But I just want to hear it. And yes; many of the people doing it hold religions that do not condone genetic research. It's all a load of hypocritical, festering bollocks. We can freely fuck around with a DNA, so long as we don't know exactly which base pairs we're screwing with. That's much better than altering DNA to save lives of children. Yeey.

 

 

Except you apparently it seems

 

If there's a nuclear fallout, or an asteroid collision...possibly. Otherwise, I don't see us going back the other way.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Sheikah

[Ashley]

I'd say the biggest difference is about two thousand years.

 

Perhaps not, but reduced to the extent that this would be allowed? Entirely possible. It would also depend on changing attitudes of people towards genetic research, so they don't all grow up to be ignorant (it's badz!!).

 

Really? An act of god? We can reconstruct these genetic conditions; hell, often we know exactly why a condition has transpired. Yet, in this day and age, must we really allow children to be born with serious problems due to the stumbling block of god? It's incredibly selfish for religious people, typically perfectly healthy (at least without genetic abnormalities) to have their say on why it's wrong. I'm guessing if you ask people with serious genetic abnormalities if they would have liked to have been born without their condition they'd say HELL yeah. It's those people that such a system would benefit.

 

Ash, I want you to tell me right now what people are doing to their DNA when they smoke cigarettes. You and I know the answer, really. But I just want to hear it. And yes; many of the people doing it hold religions that do not condone genetic research. It's all a load of hypocritical, festering bollocks. We can freely fuck around with a DNA, so long as we don't know exactly which base pairs we're screwing with. That's much better than altering DNA to save lives of children. Yeey.

 

If there's a nuclear fallout, or an asteroid collision...possibly. Otherwise, I don't see us going back the other way.

 

And Catholicism wasn't spawned by some joke on an Internet forum I'd guess...

 

Have you not ever heard of people WITH a disease turning to God to explain it? It may seem illogical to you, but there are plenty of people who seek solace in God when they face adversity.

 

Once again, I'm not arguing that people wouldn't like to be what can be defined as healthy but there's much more to it than that.

 

And while we're throwing out crazy hypothetical ideas about the future of the human race, what if Raining was onto something? What if we eliminated all genetic diseases and other issues cropped up? Could there not be a sense of inevitability to the whole thing? Again, crazy hypothetical to chew on.

 

But choosing to fuck up your individual body is different from completely changing the human race.

 

And again semantics; you're arguing that it would save the lives of children. Life is, by definition, not death. Ergo even if born with a terminal disease they still have a life (its just shorter/generally shitter). I'll accept "improve the quality of life of children" in the future

[Sheikah]

And while we're throwing out crazy hypothetical ideas about the future of the human race, what if Raining was onto something? What if we eliminated all genetic diseases and other issues cropped up? Could there not be a sense of inevitability to the whole thing? Again, crazy hypothetical to chew on.

 

That wouldn't be possible. You're basically correcting a limited number of mutations in any particular disease, and since we know how most genes should be sequenced anyway (human genome project) you know what to correct. It's not a case of correcting a mutation to result in the generation of inbred stocks of human beings.

 

But choosing to fuck up your individual body is different from completely changing the human race.

 

People are changing the human race. Themselves. These people then go on to give birth, passing on their DNA.

 

Obviously you would only be removing genetic mutations in a fraction of children being born in this case, but we continue to tamper with 'god's template' every time people smoke. So the whole 'we're tampering with his work' line you often hear is sheer bollocks. Happening on a daily basis, by the very hypocrites who object to it.

 

And again semantics; you're arguing that it would save the lives of children. Life is, by definition, not death. Ergo even if born with a terminal disease they still have a life (its just shorter/generally shitter). I'll accept "improve the quality of life of children" in the future

 

Life as in living; doing what many are unable to due to illness, but would probably love to try. Not life as in having a beating heart.

[Raining_again]

there's many bad points as well as good when you have a debilitating illness

 

compassion, understanding, not taking what precious things you can do for granted..

 

p.s it wont matter when....cow....flu (lol) kills us all because we have the same genetics.

[Nicktendo]

So... I've heard there's an election or something.