My first paragraph was - as I said in dawkins-speak, me playing "non-specific potentially-malevolent anti-deity concept's advocate". Not what I think, but you asked whether anyone could disagree about using genetic modification to cure cancer. Just throwing out a response. As for the rest - my point is that I'm not sure that people DO stop to check whether they should do something all the time, because they get so wrapped up in the could. I would certainly trust that it wouldn't come to that on the important stuff, but the evidence of the LHC at Cern shows that they do sometimes take risks. Many scientists there stated that they really didn't know what would happen, up to creating a black hole. But they went ahead, so we likely dodged a bullet there. I would hope that scientists and genetic engineers ALWAYS consider whether something should be tried, once they get to the point where they have determined that something could be tried. I'm not convinced that this happens...
Saw this on Facebook. Not sure all of the societal changes can be put down the EU, but the basic ideal of peaceful co-operation is the main reason I am pro-EU and will vote Remain. please log in to view this image Geoffrey White 18 May at 09:23 · Some of my friends and relations have told me they will vote for Brexit in our referendum. At the risk of falling out with them I intend to vote for us to remai...n in the EU. Here's a bit of pre-EU history to help explain my position. I grew up in a time of post-war austerity. My country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was broke and virtually in ruins. Germans were still "the enemy" in children's games. Bomb sites and abandoned air-raid shelters were our playgrounds. Nine years after the war ended butter, meat and sugar were still rationed. One couldn't buy sweets without coupons issued by the government. Portugal and Spain were fascist dictatorships. In Spain unauthorised gatherings of more than 3 people were illegal. A military junta later seized power in Greece. Half of Europe was sealed off behind the Iron Curtain. I remember lying in bed at night, in my parents home, and hearing the roar of American warplanes flying overhead on their Cold War missions. We were told that, if the Russians unleashed their missiles, we would get 4 minutes' warning of Armageddon. In Britain our currency was weak. We had exchange controls. Travellers were allowed to take only £25 sterling out of the country plus a limited amount in foreign currency. On return, any left over had to be sold back to an authorised trader. The details were entered in one's passport. (See photo.) The UK still had the death penalty despite some obvious and irreversible miscarriages of justice. In France they still executed condemned prisoners by cutting their heads off. In Spain they used strangulation. The press and the BBC, (there was only the BBC), were not free from government interference and books, films and plays were censored. Women were paid less than men for equivalent work and landlords could turn away black and Irish people with impunity. For private acts of "gross indecency" gay men were sent to prison. During the 1950s, six similarly devastated European countries were determined that the catastrophe of war between them should never be repeated. They decided to work towards creating a single European economy. The result was never "just a trading agreement" as some detractors now suggest. The Treaty of Rome, signed in 1957, provided for free movement of goods, services, people and capital, with the stated aim of "closer relations between the States". The UK was invited to participate from the outset, but Prime Minister Attlee rather scornfully declined, thus missing the opportunity to influence the future development of Europe. However, by 1961 it had become obvious that the economies of "the Six", (France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg), were growing faster than ours, so we applied to join. It took 9 years of negotiations, (and 2 vetoes), before terms were agreed. The United Kingdom officially joined the European Communities on 1st January 1973. In the 1980s many of our skilled workers took advantage of the free movement of people and migrated to West Germany, whose economy had already overtaken ours. These British " migrants" were the inspiration for a popular television series, "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet". Since 1945 there have been wars in Europe, but none between countries that were members of the European Union. Despite global economic storms, the EU's citizens in 28 independent countries enjoy greater prosperity and greater freedom of movement, freedom from discrimination, freedom from conflict, freedom to trade across borders and freedom of expression than at any time in history. So far no member state has ever applied to leave the EU. There have always been candidates to join but to succeed they must have democracy, the rule of law, a market economy and guarantees for the protection of minorities and human rights. They also need the support of ALL existing members, including us, without which they cannot join. In my opinion it would be a shame if Britain were to turn its back on Europe, give up its voice and influence, and opt for an uncertain future. So...I shall vote IN on 23rd June.
77% in 1. Economy 85% In 2. Identity 85% In 3. Democracy 73% In 4. Society 62% In Not a surprise. And not me re-entering the debate, just posting my numbers...
Seems the polls are moving towards Remain.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...pensioners-tory-voters-and-men-are-deserting/ and this is reflected in the odds.... http://www.oddschecker.com/politics...referendum/referendum-on-eu-membership-result Lots of time for things to change though.
This would allow babies to be taken from the womb and left to die, right up the expected date of birth. Personally, I'm not against abortion, but I feel the current 6 month limit is the max, and almost too far. Isn't 3 months long enough for a mother to assess whether she wants to give birth? That's a genuine question on my part. Abortion Time-Limit Should Be Scrapped, Royal College Of Midwives’ Chief Says, Sparking Outrage A woman can be liable to life imprisonment if she terminates a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks. 16/05/2016 12:40 Kathryn Snowdon News reporter, The Huffington Post UK Thousands are calling for the Royal College of Midwives to retract its “extreme” position to scrap the abortion time limit after the union’s leader backed the controversial campaign without consulting its members. Midwives have branded the stance “shocking”after the RCM’s chief executive Cathy Warwick said the campaign had the union’s full support as she called for the legal limit to be “relegated to history”. Warwick holds a top position at a charity advocating the law change and has been told by MPs to consider her position over the potential conflict of interest. One Tory member of a Parliamentary health committee said the conflict was clear, branding it “pretty disgusting”. The union boss chairs the board of trustees at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which assists 65,000 women a year with birth control and has called for abortions to be removed from criminal law. please log in to view this image PA The Royal College of Midwives chief executive Cathy Warwick has been lambasted by union members for backing the controversial campaign. Under current laws, a woman can be liable to life imprisonment if she terminates her pregnancy beyond 24 weeks without medical legal authorisation. More than 10,000 people have signed a petition calling for the union to retract its position on the matter and consult with members on such important issues before any formal statements are made. A statement on the CitizenGo petition read: “It is extremely saddening that a profession which is directed towards helping mothers to give birth to their children is now actively promoting the destruction of those children at any stage of pregnancy. “Not only that, but in doing so, you are also attempting to restrict the conscientious rights of members of your college – whom you did not even consult – in their involvement in abortion.” The petition says that the campaign is “severely out of touch” with what women want. Judith Smyth, a midwife from Northern Ireland, told the Daily Mail on Monday: “Anyone advocating allowing abortion up to birth, I think is so sad and tragic, but to have my own representative body coming out in support of this extreme view is very disappointing. “‘I know she’s our chief, but there is clearly a conflict of interest. On something as big as this, she should have consulted us.” An RCM spokesman said Warwick had not consulted the union’s members on the issue, but said its constitution allowed the board to “set our strategic objectives” and the union had to advocate for choice in all aspects of women’s care. The spokesman added: “The RCM is not for or against abortion. It is for women, and respecting their choices about their bodies. “NHS policy is explicit that high-quality maternity services include respecting women’s right to make reproductive choices. “The RCM’s stance on decriminalisation of abortion is compatible with this.” Michelle Viney, who has worked as a midwife for 15 years, questioned why the RCM thought it did not have to put the issue to its members. Several MPs criticised Warwick’s decision to back the BPAS campaign, including Andrew Percy, a Conservative member of the House of Commons Health Select Committee. The Toy MP branded it a “conflict of interest” and called it “pretty disgusting”. Labour MP Robert Fellow said he was “utterly and completely appalled by this abhorrent proposal”. Democratic Unionist MP Jim Shannon said he would put the issue to Jeremy Hunt in Parliament later this week.
I was watching question time last night and they had a group of 8 undecided voters who had watched 6 presentations from both sides and only one said they would be voting to leave. The other 7 said they are strongly leaning towards stay. As you say Stroller, time will tell.
Can I just say that I'm (unsurprisingly) angry if you have assumed from my post above that I would support her stance. If this is the case, you really, REALLY couldn't have judged me any more wrongly...
Chaz, this wasn't aimed at you at all. I hadn't really read your posts too closely (sorry). Talk about scientists, LHC and Cern and my eyes glaze over - my problem not yours. I was simply responding to Stan's comment about killing children at birth, and it seemed topical in relation to Ms Warwick's unbelievable view that women should be able to kill their children up to the date of natural birth. I accept I took the dialogue off in a different direction
I'll back this up Chaz, nothing to do with your post. What odd behaviour. I have no insight into this stuff, but she is clearly out of order. I sometimes do wonder, especially when my now 20 year old son does something particularly jaw droppingly stupid, whether post natal abortion should be available though.
I find the genetics discussion interesting. I don't honestly know where I sit on it (unless you're as smart, committed to your beliefs and as well read as a Dawkins, I doubt you would fall outside a grey area). I would throw these ideas in the mix though:- Firstly, I do think a lot of humanity's creativity and productivity is derived from hardship and necessity and would it be counterproductive to make living too easy (seems callous to state that). Secondly, there's the issue of who gets to be genetically enhanced. I doubt it will be the populace of Myanmar or DRC so would this effectively be the divergence of the human race into two distinct strands, one outlasting the other by many years and propagating itself by wealth and genetic advantage (with little motivation to let the less affluent strand ever join the party)? Lastly, and slightly at odds to my second point, if the planet gets significantly more overcrowded due to negating disease, then my feeling is that the result would mean human induced catastrophe (wars, rebellions over living conditions etc) would become much more commonplace and that life wouldn't be any better for the use of genetics. All subjective and probably bollocks.
Sadly, the vast majority of 'soundbites' from either side are so laughable and negative I'm surprised they are given the oxygen of airtime. It would be a start if Cameron actually came out with something positive as to why we should remain instead of the ever more ridiculous statements of doom he utters on a daily basis. The 'Leave' campaign have been so devoid of any 'leadership' that they are simply giving Dave and his chums an open goal, I'll bet Cameron has to pinch himself every day to believe how easy the Brexit mob are making it for him, at this rate I'll predict a 60/40 remain vote...
remember the Scottish Referendum many kept their powder dry for fear of ridicule & abuse.The common man not opinion polls will decide & it will be emotion led except in the South West & Essex where it is so overwhelmingly out that its being spoken openly on loss of industry grounds Fishing has been decimated by legal economic rape from EU
Good points Matt. My take: - would be nice to try the easy life before we write it off. The late Iain Banks wrote a series of sci fi books about the Culture, a science based based basically communist civilisation where everyone is genetically modified, there are no shortages so possession is meaningless and there is no work. Hugely attractive, plus the books are both very funny and very violent. - it's a valid point, but that's a problem with society, not science. But if you look at polio and smallpox the technology has not been reserved for the wealthy. - longer more illness free lives would probably lead to a massive fall in the birth rate cf Japan, Italy, Germany (non immigrant populations). The U.K. was heading the same way. Comfortable households don't want to dilute their comfort so much, poor household views kids as insurance, as they expect to lose a few on the way. I think that it's virtually impossible to hold back science now, a trend that started 500 years ago with the Rennaissance and the Enlightenment. A good thing from my perspective, but there will doubtless be both mistakes and misuse, and, in the spirit of good science, it's good to be sceptical. PS did you ever get to read the James Ellroy stuff (apologies if I have mixed up posters).
On the science fiction topic, I suppose Isaac Asimov covered a couple of the points I made (stagnating societies with extended lives as almost a different species although I didn't clock a direct reference when I said it). Perhaps I've seen Orson Welles' Harry Lime cuckoo clock speech once too often! I think the advances happen faster than the controlling bodies can manage these days though. It was me you recommended James Ellroy to and I found American Tabloid in a charity shop a month or so back. Must say, looking at the first few pages, it's not something you idly pick up (you definitely have to be in the mood). I'm currently wading through House of the Dead by Dostoevsky - a bit heavy going but I like his psychological observations. American Tabloid is in the next few after that.
Ellroy has a rhythm, once you get into it it's like listening to music. Thrash metal to be precise. An acquired taste, but persevere, it's worth it. It's not as deep as Dostoevsky, though it's not a light read. When you've got a spare couple of months have a look at some Roberto Bolano. But try some of his short stuff before leaping into The Savage Detectives or 2666, both bona fide works of genius, but boy do you need to focus.
