Thread: Stem Cells Take A Step

I am against stem cell research. I believe in God, but that's not why I'm against it. It's because I feel that disease and death exist for a reason. It's mother nature's way of population control. So far humans have been able to circumvent her mechanisms with superior intelligence, but the consequences are catching up.

The fact is, there's too many damn people in the world. Which of course leads to excessive pollution, rapid depletion of resources, poverty, and just the degradation of the planet in general. In other words, if the disease doesn't kill us, something else will.

So my conclusion is that while this research has the opportunity to save countless lives, the price will eventually be paid by future generations. You may win a battle against nature, but she'll always win the war.

^ What?

Look at this way then, it's diverting resources from more basic things like food to something that only the more affluent portions of the world can afford; a reduced global population for you, and a greater chance at a longer life for me.

Seriously though, by your logic there is no feasible option other than to live as animals.
Intelligence is a tool that tends to promote survival, if it's not used then what's the point of having it in the first place?

Originally Posted by adonai

^ What?

Look at this way then, it's diverting resources from more basic things like food to something that only the more affluent portions of the world can afford, a reduced global population for you, and a greater chance at a longer life for me.

Seriously though, by your logic there is no feasible option other than to live as animals, intelligence is a tool that tends to promote survival, if it's not used then what's the point of having it in the first place?

Are you implying the affluent are more deserving of life?

As for your second point, man is a recently developed species, so there's no way of telling whether superior intelligence increases the chances for survival. The most successful survivors to this point are the least intelligent, such as the virus, bacteria, cockroaches, etc. What has intelligence done for man? We've just gotten better at consuming everything and killing each other more efficiently.

By the way, I'm not this pessimistic and anti-life in person, this is just for the sake of argument.

I know, it may not have any value in increasing long term survival, but that's not how evolution works. The best short term solution will always be chosen, and since intelligence has obviously been the one defining trait of humans that at the very least increases the survival of the individual.

I never said that anyone was deserving of live, but being alive generally brings with it a sense of self preservation, so there's there isn't really a choice for someone that's already alive, I personally would welcome nearly anything that would extend my own life though (even at the expense of the length of someone else's life) and I would respect any similar views that others hold.

Besides that's why I said "seriously though", it's not really a question that have a correct answer, unlike the conscious choice to use human intelligence to it's fullest extent.

Yeah, I love debating too, thanks for the opportunity.

Originally Posted by mikowee

As for your second point, man is a recently developed species, so there's no way of telling whether superior intelligence increases the chances for survival. The most successful survivors to this point are the least intelligent, such as the virus, bacteria, cockroaches, etc. What has intelligence done for man? We've just gotten better at consuming everything and killing each other more efficiently.

i just want to note that this is an EXTREMELY unfair comparison. since bacteria, viruses, and insects have had BILLIONS of years to perfect their survival processes where as humans have only been around for a couple million years if that long. theyve had thousands of times longer to become hardy, well adjusted, and resourceful...

... so i call no fair.

i´m 4such research with dna and such(as long as people won´t suffer from it)
and i don´t think tht if we´re going to cure cancer and alzenheimer(sp?) would cause overpopulation(with the "help" of humans,mother nature kills enough humans already,that is with tsunamis etc.)

^ Most bacteria, viruses, and arthropods don't have a reason to interact with humans in any way, and the ones that do tend to require us as hosts, so there's no reason for them to kill us at all.

and their short generation span allows natural selection to take place much more efficiently, they can adapt genetically while humans have to adapt behaviorally (through the application of our superior intellect).

It's still true though that intelligence hasn't been established as a trait that supports long term survival (as opposed to the flexibility afforded by short generation spans and very large numbers of offspring).

Originally Posted by StealDragon

http://www.wgal.com/health/10725552/detail.html

lets not make this into a religious debate (<= Futile Plea .-. ) i think this is good, now that techniques have developed that dont require the "death" of human embryos and the potential good that they can do against previously uncurable diseases, theres no reason why President Bush has to keep up his "its ungodly" bullshit. these techniques would have been developed anyway if he had passed it the first time, im just dissapointed that advancement was impeded on such flippant of reasons with the least heavy proof to back it up.

but then again im biased. ive got a family riddled with diabetes and alzhiemers [sp?]... the fact that my christian family supports this and Good-Ole-God-Fearing Mr. Bush doesn't vexes me terribly.

Question:
How can you ask not to turn this into a religious debate, when you bash religion itself in your post?

They've discovered many things that could be linked to Alzheimer's - what I don't understand is why not just do the research and fix things without resorting to debates about what's life and all. I'm sure there are ways to cure or prevent such diseases without having to kill something.

And anyway, another question is - would you feel comfortable being treated with something that came from what could have been a human if you'd let it live in its natural environment? I wouldn't. It's not a religious issue, it's a matter of what you'd choose, and I want to be given that choice.

Originally Posted by Digital_Eon

They've discovered many things that could be linked to Alzheimer's - what I don't understand is why not just do the research and fix things without resorting to debates about what's life and all. I'm sure there are ways to cure or prevent such diseases without having to kill something.

Well, basically pieces of the person's brain is missing, there's actually less neural matter in someone with AD. I don't see how that can be cured without replacing the atrophied flesh.

Originally Posted by Digital_Eon

And anyway, another question is - would you feel comfortable being treated with something that came from what could have been a human if you'd let it live in its natural environment? I wouldn't. It's not a religious issue, it's a matter of what you'd choose, and I want to be given that choice.

No problem at all:

Originally Posted by adonai

I' never said that anyone was deserving of live, but being alive generally brings with it a sense of self preservation, so there's there isn't really a choice for someone that's already alive, I personally would welcome nearly anything that would extend my own life though (even at the expense of the length of someone else's life) and I would respect any similar views that others hold.

And since you are placing so much emphasis on life instead of sentience, in my opinion (and yours if you follow through with that logic) the embryos would be better off as a part of someone flesh (in which case it will be alive), rather then discarded after it's sat in storage for too long.