To be clear, are you "pro" or "anti" uplifted-transhuman-extraterriestrial-mmoaddicted-cyborg-animals?

Just want to know where you and I stand...
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^gwiz665:
Is a doctor a business or not? Can he deny his business or not?

Suppose the sign said "Whites only" or "Gay people seek treatment elsewhere" or "Muslims not welcome", would it be okay?
That said, it's probably legal, because we tend to make discrimination laws based on enumerated protected classes (e.g. race and religion), and I doubt political discrimination is on the list, because there haven't really been issues with it.
Personally, I think discrimination laws should reverse the default, and say that you don't discriminate, except for a specific list of enumerated exceptions. Would kinda keep us from having to do a new civil rights movement to protect strange new varieties of humans as they emerge (e.g. genetically modified humans, clones, cyborgs, MMO addicts, AI's, extraterrestrials, uplifted animals, transhumans, etc.).

>> ^gwiz665:

Is a doctor a business or not? Can he deny his business or not?


Suppose the sign said "Whites only" or "Gay people seek treatment elsewhere" or "Muslims not welcome", would it be okay?

That said, it's probably legal, because we tend to make discrimination laws based on enumerated protected classes (e.g. race and religion), and I doubt political discrimination is on the list, because there haven't really been issues with it.

Personally, I think discrimination laws should reverse the default, and say that you don't discriminate, except for a specific list of enumerated exceptions. Would kinda keep us from having to do a new civil rights movement to protect strange new varieties of humans as they emerge (e.g. genetically modified humans, clones, cyborgs, MMO addicts, AI's, extraterrestrials, uplifted animals, transhumans, etc.).

If only it was legal to just stamp on kittens once they get to about 1 year old.

maby we could geneticly modify them to always stay young and cute?

What you really mean when you say "I believe everyone should have access to equal healthcare" is that you want someone else to cure your disease. You want someone to pay for your X-rays, someone to extend your lifespan. "Equal healthcare," as you are describing, means we both walk in with a disease and we both walk out without it. It means we all live to be the same age regardless of our condition or lifestyle.

Yet you don't care about people with Xeroderma Pigmentosum. Do you even know what it is? Why not? Why aren't you trying to cure it? Why aren't you donating as much money to the Xeroderma Pigmentosum society (http://www.xps.org) as you are to the American Cancer Society (http://www.cancer.org)? Kids with Xeroderma Pigmentosum rarely live past the age of 20.

Xeroderma pigmentosa, for those not in the know, is caused by an autosomal recessive genetic disorder, aka you are born with it. The symptoms are instant and immediate burning and malignant skin cancer upon even brief exposure to sunlight. Yes, you have all the drawbacks of being a vampire and none of the perks - you die if you go outside, even for an hour.

http://ds9.ssl.berkeley.edu/lws_gems/4/images_4/xp_lg.jpg

http://www.tidsskriftet.no/lts-img/2001/fig200101023.jpg

http://www.metastaticlivercancer.org/dark-skin-girl.jpg

Without genetically modifying your DNA, you cannot cure this disease. This is just one of millions of examples of ways in which people will never be equal. Equality was never about everyone being identical...same height, same DNA, same lifespan, same income, same musical talent, same level of attractiveness...it was about people being treated equally, despite being different.

IMHO, Martin Luther King Jr. would spit on your vision of "equality" and "morality."

You want to make an argument for universal healthcare? You better use logic because you do not have morality or pity on your side.

You are lucky to live in a time where you even have access to a 60 year lifespan or diagnostic X-rays, because as far as I can tell, you haven't done a single thing to enable either. You think human progress is allocated by the government, 2.5% at a time? How many millions of people suffered through all types of diseases, plagues, wars, long hours, deprived social lives, rocky marriages, and short lifespans to create the technologies you are not only demanding as "rights" but complaining about the cost there of?

You resent those who inherit the fortunes of their fathers, yet you yourself have inherited the wealth of all of humanity - language, mathematics, engineering, art, music, literature, agriculture, architecture, and all the lessons of history - a sum far greater than any pile of gold. You are living your entire life off of the sweat, blood, and tears of your ancestors - and you have the gall to complain about what you've been given?

The billions of people who died before you weren't nearly as lucky, and I bet they didn't complain half as much.

>> ^notarobot:
I appreciate Brand's appeal for rational global-problem solving as well as his research and his organization of information, but I share almost none of his enthusiasm for the topics he discussed.
Genetic engineering presumes that humans, in our 50-70 year life span know better than nature. Nature has been at the game of shaping genes, of us and every living thing on the Earth, for a long time. Once a gene has been modified it can stay way for eternity. There is no undo. It is arrogant for any human to believe that even the knowledge of how to meddle with genes should be the same as carrying the wisdom to wield that knowledge without error.

If you think something shouldn't be done, because nature knows best, you could carry that same argument to all aspects of our technology, and I doubt you want us to live in pre-stoneage time again. I don't see how nature knows anything, or cares about anything. Nature just functions through mutation and selection. At any time an invasive or disruptive species could evolve. The only safeguard on nature is that evolution moves quite slow.
We have been genetically modifying animals since the first wolf was domesticated. Just look at what kind of freaky dogs we have created since. Or highly productive farm animals that couldn't function in the wild, a dairy cow for example. Now we have the ability to speed up and improve this process. And granted, there is a difference, because now we can move genes into an organism that never were there before, like jellyfish genes in a mammal.
Most if not all species that we engineer have no competitive advantage in nature and will only thrive in our carefully managed farmlands. For potentially more dangerous applications, we need to take adequate precautions and thoroughly test species or build in kill genes that we could trigger. Or just make them infertile.

Though it is true that warheads can be dismantled (with significant effort) for use in nuclear power stations, the fact that the bi-product of fission reactors is weapons-grade material remains lost on most people.

This fact is not lost on many engineers. Many modern reactor designs cannot make weapons grade materials. The reason that many old nuclear plants can do this is because they were specifically designed to make the bomb material and produce energy in the process.
Weapons grade material can also be made without reactors by extracting the fissile component of natural uranium.

Geo engineering is the product of similar arrogance of as genetic engineering. It is fueled by a desire for a static environment. The fact is that the Earth has never stood still, and will never do so (except for that one time in film..).

Of course the Earth doesn't care what we do, it and life will go on no matter what we do, even after a full out nuclear war. The point could be made that we have been geoengineering for a long time now. Just look at our cities, farmland and pollution. The only problem is that some of our geoengineering is potentially harmful to us and nature. Therefore deliberate geoengineering is proposed to mitigate these problems. From a humanitarian view one would want to mitigate these problems to relieve human suffering, just like we try to eradicate horrible diseases.

Obviously the scientists who genetically modified a mouse to be not afraid of cats, have created a dog who is.

I have a bias against anything genetically modified. But if a genetically modified orgasm pill came across my path that might change my mind.

I'm sure that at some point we'll have genetically modified cats that never grow past the kitten stage (and probably never die of old age).

In reply to this comment by Structure:
Is that some Red Drink she's having?

HFCS-55 and HFCS-42 are "made from corn" but so are some forms of plastic.

And "doesn't contain any artificial ingredients" is hilarious. It's made using a genetically modified enzyme and requires a huge amount of processing that refines it down to the point it no longer has anything to do with corn.
Due to the FDA having no definition of "natural", a product would have to be made of 100% ground ghosts to stop being natural. At least we can be assured it contains no supernatural ingredients.
I know, I hate their lies. "natural," thanks for the laugh!

Is that some Red Drink she's having?

HFCS-55 and HFCS-42 are "made from corn" but so are some forms of plastic.

And "doesn't contain any artificial ingredients" is hilarious. It's made using a genetically modified enzyme and requires a huge amount of processing that refines it down to the point it no longer has anything to do with corn.
Due to the FDA having no definition of "natural", a product would have to be made of 100% ground ghosts to stop being natural. At least we can be assured it contains no supernatural ingredients.

Sounds like a genetically modified gazelle made to glow in the dark for the convenience of lazy yet wealthy, Western armchair-hunters who have a preference for night hunting!

I saw very few people who were on the fence here.

I like the one chick who said "I'm a Republican as far as my body and stuff, but with the environment, I'm very green".

I assume that means she likes to be unknowingly fed genetically modified foods, but wants to recycle the wrapping it came in.

^Its true they do , just not the seeing kind

Also it seems like a lot of the accusations you level against meat production can also be applied to veggie and fruit production.

Like with cows, large tracts of land are cleared (deforested) to make room for production. Many veggies and fruits are genetically modified or breed so they produce larger edible parts, have a longer growing period, and are more resistant to certain diseases. In order to ensure a healthy crop they're sprayed with pesticides, fertilizer, and in some cases herbicides (to de-weed framing plots), all of which have extremely aversive effects on the environment. Further more like various livestock fruits and veggies are breed and cultivated with production, shipment, and profit in mind, not the nutritional value or taste.

I have had the advantage of having grown up with parents who planted their own garden annually, so i am both privileged and cursed to know the difference between home grown tomatoes, broccoli, potatoes, cantaloupe, oranges etc etc over the crap I find in the grocery store. Like meat products fruits and veggies sold commercially are lacking in both flavor and nutritional value of the fresh 'home' variety.

As far as getting sick, over the years there have been a large number of recalls and warnings about various fruits and veggies being contaminated by salmonella, or some other horrible bacterial agent. There's one going on right now over jalapenos, it was tomatoes until those were cleared.

Its how the industry is run, meat or veggie. I don't mind if people are vegans or not, the choices you make are yours to make, but before you go claiming moral high ground you better start checking the back side of your own britches for a few 'stains'.

I'd like to see both industries undergo some major reform, even if it does end up making the cost of food go up. As it is there are many food items meat and veggie, I don't buy because the quality is crap at best. Unfortunately I'm stuck having to compromise my sense of taste for quality, because there isn't much of a fresh foods market where I live, and I don't have the capacity to grow/raise my own.

^Same here, no vote.

But before I go, I'll tell you which policies of Ron Paul I DON'T like. Here's how I went about it. Google "ron paul". Go to his website. Click on Issues. Click a random issue category. Read. Pick out ridiculous things.

I clicked on Health Freedom, because I heard Ron Paul earned an M.D. I figured if there's one area he must have correct, it must be in the health area. It seems I was wrong.

"I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments."

Alternative medicine. Like acupuncture? Magnetic healing stones? Man, that's smart.

"I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements."

So NO barrier against things like new untested drugs is better than a barrier which catches at least SOME things? Man that's almost too smart for me to comprehend.

"I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations."

Right... Let's HELP the chances of having a smallpox epidemic. I know I'm not the only one who likes having their colon hanging OUTSIDE their ass.

Oh, I can't wait until the year 2000! It looks Dreamy.
Can we get genetically modified food too? How WONderful!