Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 7/23/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 24/07/2006, at 12:01 PM, David Hobby wrote: Welcome back. I think you're missing Charlie's point. To me, his argument is that it is VERY hard to draw a clear line between things that can turn into adult humans and things that can't. I advise conceding the point, unless you just like to argue for the fun of it. : ) Precisely. May I propose that you reply: Anything produced by combining a human egg and sperm certainly counts as HUMAN. Other things might also; we'll decide about clones later. What I'm saying is human and human being is not always the same thing, and human being is not always easy to define either. Biology is mess. So is philosophy. In Robert Sawyer's *Mindscan* he postulates that when Roe v. Wade is overturned the definition of human life the Supreme Court adopts is individualization., two weeks after fertilization. Before that time the cells can be divided and two humans formed. He reasoned that the Supreme Court could not make it fertilization as that would make most Americans guilty of murder as birth control pills work by preventing fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterine wall. It would not be the attachment to the uterine wall as that would leave the status of humans born from artificial wombs in doubt, although that technology was not yet perfected. He may be assuming the Supreme Court is smarter than it is and that the religious fanatics are not as fanatical as they are. I am already hearing the arguments that birth control needs to be banned as well. -- Gary Denton OddsEnds - http://elemming.blogspot.com Easter Lemming Liberal News -http://elemming2.blogspot.com http://www.apollocon.org June 22-24, 2007 I ncompetence M oney Laundering P ropaganda E lectronic surveillance A bu Ghraib C ronyism H ad enough? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] So if individual angels are so small that nonstandard analysis is needed to deal with them, why do they make so bloody much noise bowling? Midnight hates it and ducks under the table (where he can feel sort of protected from above while still being near me) whenever thunder starts . . . --Ronn! :) Spot was hiding under the futon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
David Hobby wrote: Yes, that's the kind of thing I was thinking of. Alberto was talking about probability. Since all probabilities sum to one, that might well imply that each god got probability zero. No, there may be infinite a priori gods, but they can form a converging sequence, like 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ... BTW, in Bayesian analysis, you can even consider an improper prior, and assign to an enumerable quantity of gods the _same_ probability, and end up, after observations, with a proper probability distribution. Like this: imagine a sequence of gods labeled 1,2,... and assign to each of them the same a priori probability [this is an improper prior - there is no such distribution]. Then, let's do an experiment that will succeed for the n-th god with probability 1/2^n. If this experiment succeeds, the a posteriori probability will be the bona fide p(n) = 1/2^n. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:03 PM Sunday 7/23/2006, maru dubshinki wrote: ~maru we can clearly through a simple diagonal argument along the lines of cantor that the number of angels is uncountable, and thus the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is the same number as the number of real numbers... So if individual angels are so small that nonstandard analysis is needed to deal with them, why do they make so bloody much noise bowling? Midnight hates it and ducks under the table (where he can feel sort of protected from above while still being near me) whenever thunder starts . . . The bowling pins are 3 miles high each, silly! :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Good Lord, it's hot
John Horn wrote: We've been good until then. I have several friends who still don't have power almost a week later. And there are hundred's of thousands of others throughout the area. We were very, very lucky! I'm about 20 miles south of Dave and Nick. Because we're farther away from the bay, we're even hotter down here. Some times by as much as 10°. Miserable. The overnight lows have been setting records too. I think there have been nights that we didn't get much below 80° and of course the house doesn't cool off. In over thirty years in Ca. I've never experienced anything close to this. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
JDG said: How terribly disappointing. How anyone could consider a half-cell to be human is beyond me. Sperm and ova aren't half cells. They are whole cells. Now, here's a question. Suppose we have a fertilised human ovum in a test tube and some other human cell in another test tube, and we possess a technological method that can be used to grow the latter into a clone of the person from whom it was extracted. Should both of these cells have equal protection in the eyes of the law? After all, neither will become an adult human without some quite drastic technological intervention, but both potentially could given such intervention. If not, why not? (And we are clearly not very far at all from being able to realise this situation in a concrete way.) Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Charlie said: It's been done with other mammals, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there aren't a handful of chimeric humans out there. Apparently 8% of fraternal twins are blood chimerae because of cell exchange through a shared placenta. There are various other kinds of recorded chimerism. There are thirty or so known cases of tetragametic chimerism (i.e. one individual formed from two ova and two sperm). There are probably vastly more that have never been detected as they are externally normal (although some - such as true hermaphrodites - are more obvious). If I recall correctly, there are also cases of adults being formed of two ova and one sperm, including a boy whose bone marrow had only a mother and not a father. Here's an article on the subject originally from New Scientist: http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 3:35 AM, Richard Baker wrote: Charlie said: It's been done with other mammals, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there aren't a handful of chimeric humans out there. Apparently 8% of fraternal twins are blood chimerae because of cell exchange through a shared placenta. There are various other kinds of recorded chimerism. There are thirty or so known cases of tetragametic chimerism (i.e. one individual formed from two ova and two sperm). There are probably vastly more that have never been detected as they are externally normal (although some - such as true hermaphrodites - are more obvious). If I recall correctly, there are also cases of adults being formed of two ova and one sperm, including a boy whose bone marrow had only a mother and not a father. Here's an article on the subject originally from New Scientist: http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html I meant artificial chimeras, but that illustrates the point very nicely and I just learnt something new too. Cheers for that Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
At 08:31 AM Tuesday 7/25/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:03 PM Sunday 7/23/2006, maru dubshinki wrote: ~maru we can clearly through a simple diagonal argument along the lines of cantor that the number of angels is uncountable, and thus the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is the same number as the number of real numbers... So if individual angels are so small that nonstandard analysis is needed to deal with them, why do they make so bloody much noise bowling? Midnight hates it and ducks under the table (where he can feel sort of protected from above while still being near me) whenever thunder starts . . . The bowling pins are 3 miles high each, silly! :) So if they are that high and presumably massive enough to make the noise of thunder when they fall, how does any ball that infinitesimally small angels can lift and roll have enough energy and momentum to knock them over? It would seem that at most that the pins should tilt by infinitesimally small angles . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Good Lord, it's hot
At 10:54 AM Tuesday 7/25/2006, Horn, John wrote: It's not as hot here (St. Louis) as it was. And we have power, unlike a lot of other people here. As you probably heard, some really nasty storms rolled unexpectedly through St. Louis last Wednesday. I was at a friend's house and didn't realize how serious it was. The power at his house flickered a bunch but didn't go out for any length of time. My wife called and let me know that we had lost power at our house. The temperature on Thursday was predicted to be over 100 F so we knew we were in trouble. Wednesday night wasn't too bad temperature-wise. First thing Thursday morning, my wife got on the phone calling hotels. Though it had been reported that all the hotels within 100 miles were full, she was able to find a room. So we packed up the house and kids and headed over to the hotel. I went by the house Thursday after work to check on the cats and found the temperature, though hot in the house, wasn't as bad as I feared. Our neighbor let us know that the power came back on at about 2:00 a.m. on Friday. So we checked out of the hotel and headed back home. Another round of storms came through Friday morning but fortunately, had no effect on us. (Ironically, I had booked a different (closer) hotel for Friday night and they lost power in this second storm. Good thing we didn't need it.) We lost power again about 6:30 p.m. Friday. No storms, no idea what happened. And it stayed out until about 4:00 a.m. on Saturday morning. Fortunately, again, it wasn't too hot and we were able to stay at home. We've been good until then. I have several friends who still don't have power almost a week later. And there are hundred's of thousands of others throughout the area. We were very, very lucky! There are millions in heat-affected areas nationwide who can afford neither air conditioning at home nor to stay in a hotel. --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Look on my works, ye mighty...
...and Despair. (Shelly) Here's a quick teaser for the Collapse discussion; a summary of the prologue. Hopefully we can draw a little more interest. The above quote is from Shelly's poem Ozymandus: I met a traveler from and antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered vissage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read, Which yet survive, stampt on these lifeless things, The hand that mockt them and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: 'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!' Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away. Apparently the society that begat Ozzie's Mighty works has collapsed. But how come? Diamond defines collapse as a drastic decrease in human population size and/or political/social/economic complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time. He believes that past collapses (the Anastaazi, the Maya, Mycenean Greece, Minoan Crete, Easter Island etc.) have one thing in common; ecocide or unintended ecological suicide. This ecocide came about as a result of factors both natural and human as a result of any or all of the following reasons: deforestation and habitat destruction, soil problems, water management problems, over hunting, over fishing, effects of introduced species, human population growth and increased per capita impact. He says that when he began to plan the book he thought it would just be about environmental damage, but that he arrived at a five point framework of possible contributing factors: environmental damage, climate change, hostile neighbors, friendly trade partners and the societies response to environmental problems; the last of these proving significant in every case. Another interesting question he discusses here is the controversy surrounding the verdict that many of these societies did things to contribute to their own decline. Many indigenous people insist their ancestors were gentle and ecologically wise stewards and could never have done all those bad things He also discusses practical lessons that may be learned by studying these collapses; what made them vulnerable, what were the processes, why did they fail to see it coming and which solutions succeeded? Some societies survived potential problems and others proved fragile. He also wonders if technology has made us more or less vulnerable. That's all I've got time for right now. I'm on vacation (and away from my computer) for the next four days. I'll get started on Part 1, Modern Montana, when I return. Any suggestions on or off list are encouraged and appreciated. I'm new at this and could use the help. By the way I’m reading the trade paperback, Penguin, 2006, 575 pages. I got it for $10 at Costco. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Look on my works, ye mighty...
On 26/07/2006, at 9:23 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: That's all I've got time for right now. I'm on vacation (and away from my computer) for the next four days. I'll get started on Part 1, Modern Montana, when I return. Any suggestions on or off list are encouraged and appreciated. I'm new at this and could use the help. Good start. I'd suggest that's enough of a teaser for now. I'm going to try to get the book from the library today, failing that I'll see if they have an unloaned copy in another branch. Failing *that* I'll see if our budget stretches to a copy from a bookshop or book exchange if I'm lucky. I'll try to catch up anyway, but is the plan to go roughly a chapter a week? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: FEMA disaster for free speech
Folks, FAIR reports on FEMA's response to FAIR's earlier piece (brought to our attention by Nick) here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2926 FEMA officer James Stark denies that FEMA policies prevent members of the media from contacting residents, and goes on to say that FEMA has a responsibility to protect their privacy. It sounds to me like the Advocate reporter ran into some over-zealous guards. I found the quotes from the guards in the first piece unconvincing as evidence that there is such a policy in place. The guards simply sounded like guards: Hey, you're not supposed to be here. There may not be an anti-media policy in place, but there does seem to be a serious lack of coordination and communication of whatever policies there may be. The FAIR report also says: It seems difficult to square Stark's claim about FEMA's policy with the statement by FEMA spokesperson Rachel Rodi quoted in the Advocate: If a resident invites the media to the trailer, they have to be escorted by a FEMA representative who sits in on the interviewThat's just a policy. How likely is it that a FEMA spokesperson is misinformed about FEMA's policies on FEMA spokespersons? About 7, on a scale of 1-10, I think. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Good Lord, it's hot
On 7/25/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are millions in heat-affected areas nationwide who can afford neither air conditioning at home nor to stay in a hotel. Libraries around here have had to drag out folding chairs and tables to accomodate all the people who are escaping the heat. I've heard that shopping malls, grocery stores and other public places with A/C have been crowded. Thank goodness there are places to go... I'm sure there are millions elsewhere in the world who have nowhere to go when the weather goes crazy. And I'm sure there are people who can't get to them around here... Thirty heat-related deaths in California, they say. While Wes was in Iraq, he turned into a skinny guy (before somebody turned him into a dead guy in many small pieces). While I imagine that was partly due to stress, I'm sure part of it was the heat. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Look on my works, ye mighty...
Charlie Bell wrote: Doug Pensinger wrote: I'm on vacation (and away from my computer) for the next four days. I'll get started on Part 1, Modern Montana, when I return. I'm going to try to get the book from the library today, failing that I'll see if they have an unloaned copy in another branch. Bought my copy Sunday, but haven't started reading yet. Hopefully I can dig in this week. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very interesting ones, but indisputably human. You use that word indisputably, but doesn't the fact that a new species name has been proposed *by definition* imply that at least one person believes the HeLa to be non-human? After all, how can you propose a new species name for humanity? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/24/2006 11:05:57 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is an argument that as they are independent and an immortal cell line, that they could be considered an example of a speciation event, but all that means is that we've chosen to call them something for convenience and to distinguish them from other clumps of human cells. They are indeed human cells. Very interesting ones, but indisputably human I would think that by the standard definition of a species a cell line cannot qualify. A species is a group of individuals who can or do interbreed. I don't know how a cell culture can qualify a species. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In Robert Sawyer's *Mindscan* he postulates that when Roe v. Wade is overturned the definition of human life the Supreme Court adopts is individualization., two weeks after fertilization. [lengthy reasoning deleted] Of course, one wonders exactly where in the Constitution the Supreme Court received plenary power to decided when humanity begins. JDG - Too much to ask, maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
In a message dated 7/25/2006 12:22:50 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, it's murder to kill a twin... if they've been born. But look at the developmental mess that twinning can result in, and the ethical conundra that result. Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts, aren't they, but it's not science fiction. It's been done with other mammals, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if there aren't a handful of chimeric humans out there. Human chimeras do exist. (one of set of fraternal twins where one of the twin is partially resorbed and incorporated into the other. Sometimes this is results in a syndrome called hypermelanosis of eto. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's something else to being human, and it's to do with our minds not our bodies. Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts, aren't they, but it's not science fiction. Conjoined twins are simply a special case of identical twins. I think the debate in the States has become *so* polarised that it's difficult to explore nuance. As Dan's caricature of the pro- choice position showed. I must have missed that, but I find it hard to believe that Dan was more polarized on this issue than I. First, I don't know that 12-16 weeks is well before the time it can feel pain. It seems like there is at least some evidence that pain can be felt as early as 8 weeks... http://tinyurl.com/jd5zu Yes, and there's other evidence that suggests it's much later. I'll dig it out later if I remember (kind of busy with a wedding in just over 5 weeks). The point remains, I don't think you can say with confidence that 12- 16 weeks is before it can feel pain. You also mention that you like the 12-16 week time limit because it is long enough that the mother has time to act. Out of curiosity, why is this a consideration? Because not everyone believes the same things I do. And because the law allows for abortions, so we must both allow them without prohibitive restriction, but regulate them carefully. There's no good answer, only a compromise that does least harm to the adult we already have. The law once allowed slavery too, and once not everyone believed the same things that you do. This logic does not appear to be consistent to me. a newborn baby is a human being, and the last trimester or so is close enough that it makes no odds. At the other end, a zygote isn't. Nor is a blastocyst. 4 weeks, still no. But it's then on we go fuzzy. There's no line. Just a grey area. Kind of makes it weird for someone to be in a limbo area where one might or might not have a right to life... kind of like being Schroedinger's cat. Seems like an awkward way to be basing human rights if you ask me. Personally, I would want to err on the side of safety - if the entity *might* be human, then give it rights, rather than make the mistake of denying it rights, only to realize it later. Could leave us or our descendants with a lot of mental anguish in the future JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For one thing, does Iraq not producing WMD also mean that Iraq had no stockpiles of WMD? Does it also mean that Iraq was not retaining to capacity to restart WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted? Yes, Nick, it is complex. I couldn't disagree more. To me, no WMDs means no WMDs. Suffice to say, I don't think most people see the Iraq situation so simplistically. Our leaders are responsible to tell us the truth about all things, but most of all when they're putting our troops in harm's way, visiting death and destruction on another people. It doesn't matter if their intent was the very best, there's nothing complex about making statements that turn out to be wrong. Call it an exaggeration,but it's not just a different point of view, it's wrong. False. Untrue. For all your posturing, the word mistake somehow never entered your lexicon. Or are you seriously suggesting that Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Blair, Aznar, et al. honestly believed that Iraq did not have WMD's? Your question was, shall we say, complex? You said, Chapter VII That was my point. The truth of the matter is the polls are funny things. Pollsters have long known that simply changing the order of questions in a poll can produce different results. Another of my favorite examples is that if you were to take a poll today, and asked only one question For whose electors did you vote in the 2004 Presidential election? you would probably get a percentage for George W. Bush that differed from the actual number by significantly more than the margin of error. In this case, if you asked a poll about facts that are unfavorable to the case for war with Iraq, you would get a result that would suggest that Democrats are more informed about the facts in the case for war than Republicans. On the other hand, if you ran a poll about facts (such as the one in my example) that are favorable to the case for war with Iraq, you would get a result that would suggest that Republicans are more informed about the facts in the case for war than Democrats. And, um, if you agree that they had disarmed, though not in public, then don't you agree that our leaders told us things that weren't true in order to justify this war? And I suppose that John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore *also* told us those thing in order to justify the war too, huh Nick? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 11:30 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very interesting ones, but indisputably human. You use that word indisputably, but doesn't the fact that a new species name has been proposed *by definition* imply that at least one person believes the HeLa to be non-human? No. It means that one person believes that the modifications in the HeLa cell line mean that it is a self-contained breeding group, and could therefore be considered a species. In fact, a new genus. A new class of unicellular life that has evolved from humans. It's an interesting viewpoint, and the reasoning is correct from a certain perspective, but it really isn't that important - the entire concept of species itself is highly mutable and applied differently under different circumstances. Different criteria are used depending on circumstance, and bacteria, plants, fungi, protists and animals all have slightly different applications. It's back to the whole blurry red-purple-blue thing. It's easy to tell a cat from a day. But a chihuahua from a great dane? If all other dogs ceased to exist, they'd be considered two species, as they're separate breeding groups... After all, how can you propose a new species name for humanity? Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step, if they form a separate breeding group from baseline humans. Species change and branch and fade. That's how it is. We're not any different, nor are we subjected to different biological or physical laws to any other animal. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would think that by the standard definition of a species a cell line cannot qualify. A species is a group of individuals who can or do interbreed. I don't know how a cell culture can qualify a species. They're free living (on culture plates...) partially motile cells which reproduce by binary fission. They form a distinct group, and they breed true, without the telomere shortening that ends most cell lines. They're aggressive and robust. That's why it was proposed that they could constitute a species. I don't agree with it, but I understand the reasoning. I'll make it clear that there is only really one scientist who seriously proposes the species concept of HeLa. And he's not me. :) Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
SciFi Channel sinks to all new low.
It's with a heavy heart that I must report the SciFi Channel has sunk to a new all time low. I can only guess that SciFi Channel felt as if they had to do one worse than Tremors: The Series, and Scare Tactics. [Deep sigh here] As I type this, the SciFi Channel is showing professional wrestling. Gary Who just doesn't have the heart to create a witty closing line after this traumatic event. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/25/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I couldn't disagree more. To me, no WMDs means no WMDs. Suffice to say, I don't think most people see the Iraq situation so simplistically. Aw, c'mon John. We weren't talking about the Iraq situation, which is anything but simple. We were talking about perceptions, denial and public decision-making. I wasn't even suggesting that all that as a whole is simple. I was saying that there are simple factual matters. ... the word mistake somehow never entered your lexicon. Or are you seriously suggesting that Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Blair, Aznar, et al. honestly believed that Iraq did not have WMD's? Does it matter, really? Like some 2,500 other U.S. families who have darn good emotional reasons to find someone to blame, I'm tempted to question their motives and so forth. Perhaps I'm crazy not to. But I don't think it matters, as they were responsible to tell us the truth. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they believed they were doing the right thing. But they failed, horribly. I believe that focusing on responsibility, rather than blame, is the peaceful path. Really, who cares why they led us to war on false premises? They are responsible for their mistakes. And I suppose that John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore *also* told us those thing in order to justify the war too, huh Nick? Does it have to be about partisanship? Can't it just be wrong, no matter who's doing it? And they are part of the leadership of the nation, so they are responsible, too. So am I... and you. It's our country, our military, our tax dollars, our sons and daughters getting traumatized and killed. We can do better, I'm sure, but I'm not at all confident that either of the big two political parties are likely to make a big difference. In other words, just because I call for accountability and responsibility from the folks in power, please don't imagine I automatically assume that their opponents are our saviors. I'm not looking to the White House or the U.N., etc., to lead us into peace. I think it starts here, with me. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
At 08:30 PM Tuesday 7/25/2006, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very interesting ones, but indisputably human. You use that word indisputably, but doesn't the fact that a new species name has been proposed *by definition* imply that at least one person believes the HeLa to be non-human? After all, how can you propose a new species name for humanity? 'Cuz they finally realized that the sapiens part was not really applicable? -- Ronn! :P Professional Smart-Aleck. Do Not Attempt. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After all, how can you propose a new species name for humanity? Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step, if they form a separate breeding group from baseline humans. Or Homo symbioticus (or whatever the name proposed at the end of _Heart of the Comet_) My point, though, was simply that at that point they would clearly no longer be human they would be something else, by definition. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure we'll eventually be able to clone humans from single cells. Are you saying that this would be by some other method than injecting cell or cell information from an adult into a donor egg cell? JDG JDG-- Putting the information into an egg cell would be easiest. I'm not sure how this helps your argument, though. Wouldn't such an egg cell be dead, since its nucleus would have been removed prior to inserting the new DNA ? If you think/feel that it makes a difference, we would probably eventually be able to produce artificial egg cells and/or to modify existing cells so they could perform as egg cells do. Kind of makes it weird for someone to be in a limbo area where one might or might not have a right to life... kind of like being Schroedinger's cat. Seems like an awkward way to be basing human rights if you ask me. Personally, I would want to err on the side of safety - if the entity *might* be human, then give it rights, rather than make the mistake of denying it rights, only to realize it later. Could leave us or our descendants with a lot of mental anguish in the future I don't see why rights can't be on a sliding scale, and so have no problem with this. I do pretty much agree with you, but want to award rights based on what beings know and do. Seriously, apes should definitely be given at least partial rights. ---David Oook, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There's something else to being human, and it's to do with our minds not our bodies. Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts, aren't they, but it's not science fiction. Conjoined twins are simply a special case of identical twins. And a chimera? One soul, or two? I think the debate in the States has become *so* polarised that it's difficult to explore nuance. As Dan's caricature of the pro- choice position showed. I must have missed that, but I find it hard to believe that Dan was more polarized on this issue than I. I didn't say he was *more* polarized, just that he showed how the debate has become so polarized etc. Here's his quote: The pro-choice axiom is that, before birth, there are no human rights, and after birth a full set. Which is clearly bollocks. There's a huge range of views across the spectrum, and this pigeon-holing into pro-choice or pro-embryo or whatever tag one chooses is not actually useful. Actually talking through differing viewpoints and trying to understand why other people think as they do, even if you disagree with them, can only help. First, I don't know that 12-16 weeks is well before the time it can feel pain. It seems like there is at least some evidence that pain can be felt as early as 8 weeks... http://tinyurl.com/jd5zu Yes, and there's other evidence that suggests it's much later. I'll dig it out later if I remember (kind of busy with a wedding in just over 5 weeks). The point remains, I don't think you can say with confidence that 12- 16 weeks is before it can feel pain. From a BMJ review paper, Vol 332, 15 April 2006, pp 909 - 912: The period 23-25 weeks’ gestation is also the time at which the peripheral free nerve endings and their projection sites within the spinal cord reach full maturity. By 26 weeks’ gestation the characteristic layers of the thalamus and cortex are visible, with obvious similarities to the adult brain and it has recently been shown that noxious stimulation can evoke haemodynamic changes in the somatosensory cortex of premature babies from a gestational age of 25 weeks. Although the system is clearly immature and much development is still to occur, good evidence exists that the biological system necessary for pain is intact and functional from around 26 weeks’ gestation. You also mention that you like the 12-16 week time limit because it is long enough that the mother has time to act. Out of curiosity, why is this a consideration? Because not everyone believes the same things I do. And because the law allows for abortions, so we must both allow them without prohibitive restriction, but regulate them carefully. There's no good answer, only a compromise that does least harm to the adult we already have. The law once allowed slavery too, and once not everyone believed the same things that you do. This logic does not appear to be consistent to me. And everything you do is consistent? It may not be consistent, but very little is. It works for me. a newborn baby is a human being, and the last trimester or so is close enough that it makes no odds. At the other end, a zygote isn't. Nor is a blastocyst. 4 weeks, still no. But it's then on we go fuzzy. There's no line. Just a grey area. Kind of makes it weird for someone to be in a limbo area where one might or might not have a right to life... kind of like being Schroedinger's cat. So why is that so hard to deal with? It's like the age of consent - it varies from country to country, but it's always a compromise between protecting the mentally or physically immature while not unduly restricting the mature and ready. Artificial lines to make the best of messy analogue situations. Seems like an awkward way to be basing human rights if you ask me. It's all awkward. Personally, I would want to err on the side of safety - if the entity *might* be human, then give it rights, rather than make the mistake of denying it rights, only to realize it later. See, you're just talking a different language. It's not even a rights question, really. It's a question of when does a developing life stop being the sole responsibility of the mother to choose, and when it becomes a ward of the state. Could leave us or our descendants with a lot of mental anguish in the future We'll get over it. We got over slavery (some of us), we got over female emancipation (some of us), we got over religious autocracy (some of us)... Can I ask another question - what about IVF? Would you ban IVF too? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 1:07 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After all, how can you propose a new species name for humanity? Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step, if they form a separate breeding group from baseline humans. Or Homo symbioticus (or whatever the name proposed at the end of _Heart of the Comet_) My point, though, was simply that at that point they would clearly no longer be human they would be something else, by definition. This is why we'll never agree. Being human is about expressing humanity, not about chromosome number, or genetic engineering, or symbiosis, or phenotypic modification. It's about language, society, culture, art, curiosity, expression, experience, learning. We could modify our bodies beyond all recognition and become a thousand new species, and as long as we retain all the aspects of mind that make us human, we'll be human. Likewise, if we're not capable of those things, we're not fully human, or not human at all. Not in any sense that means anything. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SciFi Channel sinks to all new low.
Gary Nunn wrote: It's with a heavy heart that I must report the SciFi Channel has sunk to a new all time low. I can only guess that SciFi Channel felt as if they had to do one worse than Tremors: The Series, and Scare Tactics. [Deep sigh here] As I type this, the SciFi Channel is showing professional wrestling. Gary Who just doesn't have the heart to create a witty closing line after this traumatic event. Uh, yeah. That's about the last thing I wanted to read, considering how my digestive system is feeling. (I'm on antibiotics and they're wreaking havoc.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SciFi Channel sinks to all new low.
From: Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's with a heavy heart that I must report the SciFi Channel has sunk to a new all time low. I can only guess that SciFi Channel felt as if they had to do one worse than Tremors: The Series, and Scare Tactics. [Deep sigh here] As I type this, the SciFi Channel is showing professional wrestling. Still not as vile and disgusting as Cartoon Network / Adult Swim showing Live Action movies and shows. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SciFi Channel sinks to all new low.
How about a little pure speculation? Maybe an executive, knowing he was about to get canned at TNT, quickly transferred to SciFi and took his pet show(s) with him. It must be a consipriacy between the professional wrestlers and the Who wants to be a superhero show. I'm shocked and amazed that they somehow roped Stan Lee into the whole tawdry affair. -- Matt - Original Message From: Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brin Mail List brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:38:26 PM Subject: SciFi Channel sinks to all new low. It's with a heavy heart that I must report the SciFi Channel has sunk to a new all time low. I can only guess that SciFi Channel felt as if they had to do one worse than Tremors: The Series, and Scare Tactics. [Deep sigh here] As I type this, the SciFi Channel is showing professional wrestling. Gary Who just doesn't have the heart to create a witty closing line after this traumatic event. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Look on my works, ye mighty...
On Jul 25, 2006, at 4:23 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: ...and Despair. (Shelly) The above quote is from Shelly's poem Ozymandus: I met a traveler from and antique land Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered vissage lies, whose frown, And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read, Which yet survive, stampt on these lifeless things, The hand that mockt them and the heart that fed: And on the pedestal these words appear: 'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!' Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away. Forgive an old English major a moment with one of my favorite works... For all the years I've known and loved this poem, I never knew until recently what I got from the Wikipedia entry on it: that the word survive in the seventh line, goes with the hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed (mock'd is used in the sense of a mock-up, or a copy). The words, stamp'd on these lifeless things, are an aside. The line says that the sculptor well read the passions that have survived both the hand of the sculptor which captured them and the heart of the ruler that fed them. Damn, Shelly was good. Shelly apparently wrote this poem in a kind of competition with poet Horace Smith, whose poem covers the same colossal wreck with nothing of Shelly's mystery and mastery. Smith's mundane little sonnet serves to highlight the brilliance of Shelly's: In Egypt's sandy silence, all alone, Stands a gigantic Leg, which far off throws The only shadow that the Desert knows: — I am great OZYMANDIAS, saith the stone, The King of Kings; this mighty City shows The wonders of my hand. — The City's gone, — Nought but the Leg remaining to disclose The site of this forgotten Babylon. We wonder, – and some Hunter may express Wonder like ours, when thro' the wilderness Where London stood, holding the Wolf in chace, He meets some fragments huge, and stops to guess What powerful but unrecorded race Once dwelt in that annihilated place. Dave The Moving Finger Writes Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:15:19 +1000 On 26/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, jdiebremse wrote: And a chimera? One soul, or two? Unless the person with the chimera genes has dissociative identity disorder a.k.a. multiple personality, one soul. How many souls has a calico cat? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 26/07/2006, at 3:05 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote: From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:15:19 +1000 On 26/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, jdiebremse wrote: And a chimera? One soul, or two? Unless the person with the chimera genes has dissociative identity disorder a.k.a. multiple personality, one soul. So souls can be combined as well as created? Or do identical twins share a soul? Charlie Theology 101 Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
