This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Bringing Back Extinct Near-Human Species
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Gone
Ya I don't know about that, when they're quoting the bible and saying x is wrong because the bible says so, then they're blindly following it word by word, and I don't think their opinions should be considered valid if they base their sense of right and wrong off what some possibly fictional character says, especially when said possibly fictional character fails to offer any valid reason for something being wrong, the only reason being because he "said so". Sorry, but because you "said so" is not a valid reason in any way shape or form.
Even if they're quoting it word for word, even if they're basing it off of flipping a coin, or what a palm reader tells them, everybody still gets a say. I just wanna be clear, are you really saying that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote on what laws are passed? Or that their motives for voting on an issue should be brought into question?
I say again, everybody gets a say in the way a democratic government functions and what laws are passed. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but go cry about it somewhere else. I don't mean to be short with you, but at this point I'm actually getting a bit frustrated. This is one of the basic principles of democracy. Just because you don't agree with a certain persons religious, or philosophical views, doesn't mean you get to take away their decision making power.
Also, why would I respect any morality other than my own? Why would I want any moral view other than my own to get a say?
Because unless you have some kind of a God complex, you realize that morality is one of the most vague and subjective things that exists in the human psyche?
Seriously, the basic principles of morality have been studied and questioned for thousands of years without answer. Everybody from Aristotle to to your more recent western philosophers like Kant and Mill have questioned it. And you, some random dude in his mid twenties, thinks he has all the answers, and the right to decide for the rest of the world whats right or wrong?
Everybody's entitled to their opinions dude, but when you start saying that anybody who bases their moral viewpoints on material you don't understand or disagree with shouldn't have a say, I lose all respect for whatever point you were originally trying to make. And its not cause I disagree with you, but because that's such an asinine stance to have in the first place.
Post by
gnomerdon
you're a fool too.. if u wanna play that name calling game.... -__- seriously... i said nothing directly at you, just stated my points.
neanthathals would be exactly like us. we have no proof until we physically see it. there was a point of history where blacks were considered closely related to the great apes and they were 2nd class citizens because we KILLED off any black man that knew how to read in fear that they will retaliate one day.
any animal group there that had a community where they thought and devised to attack another primate group are on the same level as us.
if neanthathals live with us and co-exist with us even as a "gardener" or a miner. i'm willing to say that they are the same as us.
edit: i for one would rather be a fool than to see a "half human / half Neanderthal" labeled as second class citizens. and i'll fight for their right... if they ever do protest...
Post by
gamerunknown
We evolved over the course of our entire history, they only began to when being exposed to us.
This isn't really an accurate depiction of evolution. There is no objective measure to state something is "more evolved" than another (for instance, using fecundity as a shorthand, virii are vastly, vastly superior to humans). We can merely point to fitness to survive in an environment. Part of that fitness is ability to change environments to aid survival - finches do it and humans certainly do it.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
When are they going to bring back dinosaurs.. I want a jurassic park.
This.
Post by
Gone
No it's just that if they're reason is "my possibly fictional god said so" is not a good reason.
You say it's a bad reason, what makes your opinion more valid than theirs? I'm not trying to argue one side or another of the religion thing, I'm just saying that every person gets to vote on these things, regardless of how they came to their conclusions.
So one person thinks abortion for mothers who just don't want the child is morally wrong, another person thinks it's perfectly okay. What, should I hope that person get's their opinion considered? Hell no, subjective morals or not, I stand up for what I think is right or wrong, this isn't like people disagreeing on a favorite color, morality is serious, if I think something is morally wrong and thus do not want it legalized, why the hell would I be okay if it's legalized just because some people think it's okay? Sorry, but when it comes to morals, screw all but my own.
Standing up for what you think is right is one thing, saying that people who disagree with you shouldn't get a vote is another. At the very least it's censorship, at most it's blatant oppression.
We evolved over the course of our entire history, they only began to when being exposed to us.
This isn't really an accurate depiction of evolution. There is no objective measure to state something is "more evolved" than another (for instance, using fecundity as a shorthand, virii are vastly, vastly superior to humans). We can merely point to fitness to survive in an environment. Part of that fitness is ability to change environments to aid survival - finches do it and humans certainly do it.
I didn't really mean literal evolution. I more meant that a lot of the tools and art that we find in their earliest history remain more or less the same throughout, and that they only really started to adapt when they came into contact with homosapiens. Where as our ancestors improved their tools and weapons and hunting styles to grow, and it's that quality that's made us the dominant species on the planet today. the fact that neanderthals didn't is what leads most researchers to believe they were significantly less intelligent than out ancestors.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
You know leaving aside the ethics questions; the fact is you wouldn't want to bring back an extinct near human species anyways. One of two things will more then likely occur:
A) Our germs kill them out too quickly since there are diseases now that probably didn't exist in their times.
B) They end up with some weird disease in them that could end up infecting us and causing a new plague.
And before anyone pish-toshs the second, just think of all the diseases we've ended up getting from primates.
Post by
Gone
I do think it matters, let's say that book is one day proven to be fake. Then we'll look at every decision made by the bible's morals and go "oops".
That doesn't matter dude, what about this are you not getting. Idk why you keep bringing up the Bible, try and tear yourself away from that for a second.
If somebody casts a vote for an issue based on the alignment of the stars, something most people agree these days doesn't predict a thing,
THEN THAT IS THEIR RIGHT AND YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS TRYING TO SUPPRESS THEIR VOTE.
Also I could use the same logic as you and say that if some day the Bible is proven true, then everybody who ever made a decision that went against its teachings would be going "oops" as well. But the difference is you don't see me saying that all non Christians shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Not wanting what I think is evil to get it's way is only oppressing evil, which doesn't bother me at all. Sorry but this whole "you have your morals and I have mine, let's all get along!" bullcrap doesn't work with me.
We aren't talking about things that are blatantly evil, we're talking about people who have ethical or philosophical problems with human cloning, that may or may not be basing these problems on religion.
This is about you believing that religion is irrational, and trying to say that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote because, in your mind, it hinders progress. The first part of that is fine, we all have dissenting opinions on things, but when you start to say that people shouldn't be allowed to make decisions based on a world view you disagree with, you set yourself up in a position of absolute authority, believing that you have the answers everybody else should follow. The point behind a democratic society is that no one man has all the answers, and we leave it to the majority to make decisions for the common good.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Well there's also the issue of the current overpopulation.
Sold, a few hundred cloned ape-men won't do much to the already 8 billion humans on the planet in terms of population; by the time they reach adult hood, we'd still out number them 100000 to 1.
Post by
Gone
Well there's also the issue of the current overpopulation.
Sold, a few hundred cloned ape-men won't do much to the already 8 billion humans on the planet in terms of population; by the time they reach adult hood, we'd still out number them 100000 to 1.
A few hundred now, who knows how many in a few years. Overcrowding is our future generations problem a lot more than it is ours. Also atm there's still just under 7 billion people on the planet, not 8.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Again, it would only be a few hundred at the absolute most. They wouldn't cause any more drain then adding an extra few hundred humans. Over population isn't an issue, since it would take centuries before they would ever reach a population size that would add even the smallest tilt to the over population we already have.
Post by
Gone
Again, it would only be a few hundred at the absolute most. They wouldn't cause any more drain then adding an extra few hundred humans. Over population isn't an issue, since it would take centuries before they would ever reach a population size that would add even the smallest tilt to the over population we already have.
Its not an issue of numbers so much as them being a drain on resources. They don't have any place in the wild anymore, so if they are a part of society they either have to find work, or if they're incapable of this they would need somebody to take care of them. They would need space to live, and if they do have near human intelligence, but not at the same level as humans, they would probably need an entire new school system.
Also with modern medicine and technology, they can easily multiply fast enough to make a difference on a global scale within a century. In the past century our own population has grown more than at any other point in our history. And that is proportionately, not just based on pure numbers. There are as many people on facebook now as there were alive on the planet a few hundred years ago. In 1900 there were only about one and a half billion people on the planet.
Again, population growth is a problem for the future, so saying that they won't be a problem for anybody for hundreds of years is the same as saying global warming and pollution are the problems of somebody a few generations down the line.
Post by
Adamsm
But that's thing; by the time their population reaches a point where it would be a 'danger' our own would have already pushed the planet past the threshold.
And that's of course if they are even able to survive; look up the medical stats on Dolly the cloned sheep and how many issues she had, not adding in the outside germs and the like that we are used to but would probably spread like a wild fire and kill them off even with all the medical technology we have today. There would be lots of trial and error as they tried to figure out what meds would work on the cloned Nea's and which wouldn't.
As for the spreading; how many people do you think would actually volunteer for this? Then of course you'd have to have fertile children from the clones, which at the moment isn't exactly the easiest thing(just look up all the complications that have occurred with cloned animals).
As for the moral/ethic thing, I'm still staying away from those discussions.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
@Ryka, all I'm saying is that when it comes to decisions about what is right or wrong, I don't any but my own views to get a say. ONLY when it comes to ethical decisions. And I never said all religious folk shouldn't get a say, I just don't think we should or shouldn't do things based on what some possibly fictional character thinks.
It is a complex issue. My physics teacher once told me that art, religion, and science are the three legs that society stands on. Now while there are plenty of people who are uneducated in matters of science, and there are plenty of people who aren't religious, and there are plenty of people who can't appreciate good art, when you look at society as a whole the statement still rings true. These three things catering in some form or another to the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual needs of the collective.
I agree with you that religion in and of itself shouldn't have an influence on our laws (in other words we shouldn't pass laws backed up by religious doctrine). But I still think that people have a right to choose what laws they vote for, and if the person is religious then it's inevitable that this factor will play a big part in what drives their decision.
TL;DR, my point is just that religion is a large part of society, and while it shouldn't have an effect on laws in and of itself, it has an effect on the people who determine these laws.
Post by
588688
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.