Can't we just drop a nuke on the Vatican

[Papewaio]

Anyway - I can just ignore the scientific solutions on the grounds that they are not part of man's natural condition, will never be universally available like sex, and should be disregarded from the moral question.

My argument was that there are other means of human reproduction other then procreation. One of which is a near future possibility the other a day to day reality.

=][=
Using 'not man's natural condition' or 'unnatural' is a weak an argument as a Godwin or 'Save teh Childrenz'

You are literally arguing against modern history. Well against the literature of it. Until the written word existed our histories, stories, knowledge, spirituality, laws and understanding of the world around us was limited to ourselves and oral history.

Books are unnatural and until the printing press limited to a select few. I find a heavy dose of irony that we told these few bright sparks hidden away in monasteries and teaching at universities that since they were enlightened to not procreate. Imagine how much brighter our population would have been if we hadn't culled out the brightest for generations.

Back on topic. Books are not a natural part of the human condition. History as interpreted from these musty volumes would not even exist as a discipline without them. So should we discard all of history as some diabolical byproduct of an unnatural process?

I don't think so. Then again I'm traveling to work, dressed in clothes and shoes, on a train, around bends, under overpasses, across bridges, across a harbour and debating this on the Internet via a mobile phone. So I'm clearly biased towards utilizing technology outside of man's natural condition.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My argument was that there are other means of human reproduction other then procreation. One of which is a near future possibility the other a day to day reality.

=][=
Using 'not man's natural condition' or 'unnatural' is a weak an argument as a Godwin or 'Save teh Childrenz'

You are literally arguing against modern history. Well against the literature of it. Until the written word existed our histories, stories, knowledge, spirituality, laws and understanding of the world around us was limited to ourselves and oral history.

Books are unnatural and until the printing press limited to a select few. I find a heavy dose of irony that we told these few bright sparks hidden away in monasteries and teaching at universities that since they were enlightened to not procreate. Imagine how much brighter our population would have been if we hadn't culled out the brightest for generations.

Back on topic. Books are not a natural part of the human condition. History as interpreted from these musty volumes would not even exist as a discipline without them. So should we discard all of history as some diabolical byproduct of an unnatural process?

I don't think so. Then again I'm traveling to work, dressed in clothes and shoes, on a train, around bends, under overpasses, across bridges, across a harbour and debating this on the Internet via a mobile phone. So I'm clearly biased towards utilizing technology outside of man's natural condition.

Books are an extension of the signs all cultures use - we just sat down and systematised them. Trains are just complicated sleds rolling on complicated logs. These are incremental improvements to technologies even apes use. In vitro fertalisation is a completely different matter and the bald fact is it takes two to tango and they can't both be dudes.

The current proposal to change eggs into sperm just proves this - because of the extreme lengths you have to go to. For two people of the same gender to procreate you are actually have to, in effect, have one change gender.

[Papewaio]

No tool is natural nor is any tool abundant in its infancy.

So neither of these should be used as reasons to ignore them. It is much better to figure out what the end consequences are if they do flourish and they map out the consequences of this happening. Then one can decide if a thing is moral or immoral based on what it's journey and destination require and the change to our society by using or denying it.

Also when I talk about clones as twins I'm taking particular aim at the sci fi meme that clones have a shared concious or telepathic ability. They do not, they are just the same DNA book read at different time periods to form a human who is an individual not a gestalt entity.

[Montmorency]

No tool is natural nor is any tool abundant in its infancy.

Every tool is natural.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No tool is natural nor is any tool abundant in its infancy.

So neither of these should be used as reasons to ignore them. It is much better to figure out what the end consequences are if they do flourish and they map out the consequences of this happening. Then one can decide if a thing is moral or immoral based on what it's journey and destination require and the change to our society by using or denying it.

Also when I talk about clones as twins I'm taking particular aim at the sci fi meme that clones have a shared concious or telepathic ability. They do not, they are just the same DNA book read at different time periods to form a human who is an individual not a gestalt entity.

There is a profound and I use the word deliberately, difference between what we do to our environment and what we do to ourselves.

It interesting you mention shared conscious awareness - something twins do appear to have, probably because they spend the first nine months of life together and afterward they grow up in parallel even though they diverge there have been studies showing that twins can have a disturbing level of convergence of things as mundane as what to have for dinner.

It's patently obvious that genetic engineering is so unnatural as to be beyond the pale of everything else. It's also obvious that it will be abused by either the rich or authoritarian governments. We might as well say the licensed and unlicensed rich.

Propagating the technology is not a good idea - it should tell you something that all the major Sci-fi authors see it being abused.

[Montmorency]

It interesting you mention shared conscious awareness - something twins do appear to have

Simple enough: causality.

A1 ~= A
A2 ~= A

A, then B

A1, then B
A2, then B

It's patently obvious that genetic engineering is so unnatural as to be beyond the pale of everything else.

Perfectly natural.

Propagating the technology is not a good idea - it should tell you something that all the major Sci-fi authors see it being abused.

One man's abuse is another man's empowerment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One man's abuse is another man's empowerment.

Weapons of Mass Destruction - who is empowered?

[Montmorency]

Would it be mean to respond, "Everyone"? But I'm mostly just yanking you with that.

But WMDs are a good thing to bring up here. They contribute to my larger point, which is that the technology will be propagated regardless of petty intellectual outrage.

Technologies like WMDs (and genetic engineering) are too powerful to be casually abandoned. Even should they not be taken up for private use, states will surely acquire them.

[Kralizec]

There is a profound and I use the word deliberately, difference between what we do to our environment and what we do to ourselves.

It interesting you mention shared conscious awareness - something twins do appear to have, probably because they spend the first nine months of life together and afterward they grow up in parallel even though they diverge there have been studies showing that twins can have a disturbing level of convergence of things as mundane as what to have for dinner.

It's patently obvious that genetic engineering is so unnatural as to be beyond the pale of everything else. It's also obvious that it will be abused by either the rich or authoritarian governments. We might as well say the licensed and unlicensed rich.

Propagating the technology is not a good idea - it should tell you something that all the major Sci-fi authors see it being abused.

I actually agree broadly about genetic technology, but I adimit it's just a gut feeling mostly. I associate it with scenarios like the Spacers from Asimov's SF novels, if you've read those (and even if you didn't read them, I still do)

I'm pretty shocked that you buy those stories about about twins somehow being mentally connected or whatever. I'm a pretty cynical person in general, but I also happen to know multiple (pairs of) identical twins, and to me it's all bull.

[rory_20_uk]

It's patently obvious that genetic engineering is so unnatural as to be beyond the pale of everything else. It's also obvious that it will be abused by either the rich or authoritarian governments. We might as well say the licensed and unlicensed rich.

Propagating the technology is not a good idea - it should tell you something that all the major Sci-fi authors see it being abused.

Genetic engineering has been done for millennia as we have bred animals and plants to be more suitable for specific roles.
Given genetic engineering is altering natural DNA using natural processes I fail to see how it is "patently obvious"