While looking for information on genetics and language, I found:


http://www.evolpub.com/Americandialects/Science&Ebonics.html

I think we should be very careful to bear in mind the difference between propensity and actuality.

Just as in other parts of this thread, simply because someone can do something doesn't mean that they will do that thing. I may have a family history of cancer or a very high probability of diabetes, but it doesn't mean I will get them.

It is even more difficult when dealing with behaviors that are volitional. Perhaps there are genes that increase the aggression of individuals (through increased testosterone or whatever) but increased aggression wouldn't be a crime. In fact, there are certain aspects of society where these people would flourish.

Since I believe traits to be ethically neutral (and behavior is what is right or wrong) manipulating genes to alter traits would be bad. It would be like arresting someone for a crime because they fit a profile and before a crime has even been committed.

The movie "Minority Report" was all about exactly this scenario - arresting people for crimes that had not yet been committed. Of course, the paradox is that since they are arrested before the crime is committed, then the crime never actually happens. So how could the person be arrested for it?

Yeah, I was thinking about that movie as well. But it plays out in other things too. That is one of the principles of gun control.

Premise: some people are violent and cannot be trusted.
Premise: Guns magnify the amount of violence one person can inflict.
Conclusion: By banning guns we can minimize the damage some people will inflict on innocent members of society.

Another problem with this would be that a propensity for violent behavior due to specific genetic traits are not exclusive. Meaning that just because someone does NOT have a genetic propensity does not mean that they will not become violent.

Excellent additions.


-I really wanted to jump on this point. Excellent point, and I want to take it even a step further. We have been restricting, and using various techniques to modify human and animal behavior since long before drugs even ancient herbal medicines.

All of the rules of society, its laws, customs, taboo's and all of the consequences that societies members will meet out are an attempt at behavior modification.

I think its just a natural extension of this idea, its just scary as hell to think of any irresponsible party at the controls . . . I guess it gives most of us a gut check to think about Gattacha, or that other movie mentioned both cool flicks with a message.

Yes, but most of us reject what the Nazi's did. Its not a closed issue for me, I would love to also eliminate genetic diseases... but how do we go about it? I don't see a compromise between the various issues - like personal liberty. (Like SkyHook mentioned, I'm even opposed to mandatory inoculation.)

And at what point do we 'know enough' to begin - it might be that the same genes that contribute to murderous impulses also contribute to other things we greatly value.

Or am I jumping the gun here, and thinking that we are talking about complete elimination of certain genes from our pool, and you are talking about something else?

Massagetrade:

PARADOXICALLY, most (if not all) of the 20th century's scientific advances have been achieved exactly because of the Nazi's! (BECAUSE THEY DARED TO DISREGARD ALL OF THE MORAL AND ETHICAL VALUES!)

Fast forward 65 years:
The society has afforded animals the greatest right in History Of Civilization -- NOT TO BE HUNTED DOWN!!!* * * * * * *

Nowadays, the domesticated animals -- raised at the farms -- lead the life some of the humans (especially the homeless) can only dream about!!!
P.S.
Frankly, the question of "Human's Moral/Ethical Right to kill other species" is somewhat a WASTE OF TIME * * *
Because the answer is simple -- SURVIVAL!!!

? ? ? What about the rights of the plants ? ? ?

Here is an animal that got hunted down just because he was big. It was a 28 foot alligator in Alabama at Lake Wiess about 90 miles north of Birmingham.

Too bad they had to kill him. He's massive! That was a full grown buck in his mouth. He could make a snack of a human.

Betty White has another one.

I really do not understand this reference.




Ok, lets talk about this specific issue.

You have two possibilities.

Mandatory inoculations or discretionary inoculations.

What are the pro's of mandatory inoculations?
What are the pro's of discretionary?
Cons?

Hey massage,

I see we can go round and round with what we are "meant" and "should" do. I'll try to clarify:

As an omnivore species, by definition of the word "omnivore", we are "meant" to eat plants and animals. We are designed to eat meat i.e. proteins, fats and sinew. The same with plants i.e. fiber and cellulose. Our bodies can extract these items and use them for fuel and energy storage.

Herbavores can not process muscle protiens and animal fats and vice-versa with many carnivores. That is the design and functionality of their systems. We, on the other hand, can do both.

So with that in mind, I have to say yes, we are "meant" to eat animals and plants.

Now to your arguement: "Should" we eat farm animals, is it necessary to commit these actions and is it morally acceptable to do so?

On one hand, we have choice. As you mentioned, we can choose to not eat animals, we can still be alive and function without "animal" fuel. So if you personnaly feel that you don't need to eat meat, then this will affect your morality on raising animals, killing them and eating them. On this hand, you might say that it is not right to kill for food and you might say: I "should" not do this. I understand this viewpoint.

On the other hand, this is who we are. From our ancestral roots to now, we have consumed meat and plants.....our bodies have changed because of the proteins we absorb from meat. This is what I was talking about when you mentioned that proteins from animals "sparked" our advancement and allowed our brains and bodies to grow better then what they were doing when we merely ate fruits and tubers. On this hand I say that we should eat meat, we should continue to raise animals for food. And the morality and ethics on this hand really don't come into play. If you are starving or meat is your choice of food, then that is what is one your mind, not: "Is this right what I'm doing, am I wrong for killing this animal?"

I understand the point you were making with your size being larger than a woman and does that mean you "should" rape. Earlier in our history, this is exactly what men would do. You are bigger, you desire something, take it. But morally, this is wrong and damages personality or self. But are we damaged as people because we eat animals, I really don't think so.

Basically, I'm trying to say, like you, that just because you can do something doesn't mean you "should". But that is totally up to you and what falls into your morality and ethical system.

As a society, we are fine with eating animals. The quandry we face is how we treat our future steak, what kind of life do we give livestock before slaughter? This ultimetly falls into the scope of one's own ethical system.

Maybe in the future we can break away from this practice of raising animals with advances in science, like turning inorganic into organic "foodstuffs". If this does happen, then I would argue that it is wrong to kill for food, but until then: Bring on the beef!

Thank you also for clarifing the vegan points, my realm of knowledge in this area is somewhat limited and I apperciate any ideas you have to offer.

I'm hungry for Wendy's now.

I see no pro's of mandatory inoculations.
The price paid is too high.

I would not ever want anyone to force me take an inoculation. You lose your freedom of choice in the matter, you are no better than livestock.

Since the is no such thing as a “universal” moral or ethical standard, and therefore can be no universal agreement as to what is ethical/moral, maybe if we drop back a step we can find some rules we can agree on that will allow us to at least understand/agree on exactly what it is we’re talking about.

Morals, ethics, rights, etc. must have some purpose (desired result). So what is the desired result of adhering to any moral/ethical standard? What is the lowest common denomiator? Is there any “property” or “attribute” that could be said to be common to all moral/ethical standards? What is it that defines ethics/morals from a functional standpoint.

I submit that the single lowest common denominator is “survival value”. And “survival value” does not have to (and should not) be limited to the black-and-white “alive or dead”. Anything that contributes to the “health and wellbeing” of anyone, could be said to have survival value for that person. Of course “staying alive” is a goal that has survival value. But “viewing a beautiful piece of art” is also a goal that has survival value.

Now I’d like to take a short trip back to the issue of morals vis-à-vis groups/individuals.

To me, the key question is: Could an action be considered either moral or immoral if it has no effect whatsoever on anyone other than the person performing the action?

From my viewpoint, the answer to that is a definite “No”.

However, such an action could be considered ethical.

The difference being that an action can have survival value for the individual, while simultaneously having no effect whatsoever on survival of any group.

This is why I differentiate between “morals as group agreements” and “ethics as personal choices” – with the implied “relating to survival value” in both cases.

Now that is not to say that morals and ethcs have no relationship to each other. Quite the contrary. Morals are dependent upon ethics. But note that ethics are not dependent upon morals.

Basically, the question is "Can something be ethical and not be moral". And conversely, "Can something be moral and not be ethical"?

At least, that's how I see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Here is a positive aspect of everyone getting inoculated. If too few get inoculated, then those without can jeopardize the young.

There was a case where a man refused getting his measles shots, got measles and gave it to a neighbors newborn baby by accident, the baby was too young for the shots . . . it died.

It happens.

That was irresponsible of me on two counts - ambiguity, and lack of personal effort towards historical verification. I was speaking of a common belief that the Nazis, in addition to their other dispicable 'programs', (supposedly) engaged in mandatory, forcefully applied, sterilization to people they believed had inferior or undesirable genes.

If they did indeed to this (the ways its represented), I'm pretty sure most people would agree this was 'wrong'.

(Thank you for responding without making assumptions as to 'where I was going'.)

For sure, no problem I get irate when other people do that to me, so I try my best to stay open and not jump to conclusions.

I am not sure of the historic nature of genetic knowledge and genetic discrimination.

Looks like the awareness began here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel So I guess that makes it a possible idea that the Nazi's made such discrimination's.

It just seems odd to me given how alike everyone's genes really are, but I guess the details of that exact knowledge where only acquired recently after the genome was brokedown ect.

Fusion, thank you for elaborating on your point of view.

I don't like to bicker over semantics, but sometimes its the best route to mutual understanding; and I'm still not conivinced that 'meant' is the best word for your meaning, as it suggests predestination and intention, with an implication of 'ought' and 'should'. According to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mean, I think you mean:

"To design, intend, or destine for a certain purpose or end"

I agree we have an omnivore structure to our bodies, and omnivore capacity. I don't agree we are 'meant' to eat meat - and this is not because I am currently eating a vegan diet, nor because I am displeased by factory farming. In fact, in some ways I support hunting and farms managed with compassion.

In general, I think the whole notion that we are 'meant' for anything based on our bodies structure or capacity is completely flawed, and a terrible basis for asking 'what should I do' ?



Now you are talking about capacity, rather than intention or predestination. So why say we are 'meant' to eat meat? Why not say that we 'can' eat meat?

This use of the word 'meant' reminds me also of arguments that were made long ago (well... not that long ago) for why women were the 'inferior' sex and why people of different skin colors were appropriately treated in different ways. Different kind of people were 'meant' for different things. This has nothing to do with veganism, and everything to do with what is implied by the word meant.



Omnivore structure is part of who we are. Omnivore habits? You are saying this is an inherant, undeniable aspect of being a homo sapiens? Again this same kind of argument has been used & abused a great deal to rationalise things we now recognize as immoral in the past. Sexism, rape, slavery, the list goes on.



I accept this suggestion about the distant past. Today, we have refridgerators and blenders and ovens and distribution systems and most people in industrialized nations are getting too many calories and probably too many meat-based fats.



This is a bit of a tangent, but there are rare individuals who will ask themself this question, even as they are starving. A reliable friend told me his relative (in India) decided he was ready to die, and willfully fasted himself to death - in other words, he had that level of control, intention, choice. Most people are victim to their own unexamined and not-understood drives.



Why???



The person who did the raping was not damaged (in certain cultures). This development of ethics prohibiting rape is not preservation of self! Think about this.

(1a) You identify women as part of your 'group' worthy of protection from the harm of rape.
(1b) The raper did not.

(2a) Some people identify non-human animals as enough of 'part of their group' as to be worthy of protection from certain kinds of abuse.
(2b) Some people do not.

How broad, how encompassing is our caring?

Speaking of which: Bushido & Red I didn't have net access earlier, but I really appreciate the spirit and ideas you guys are putting forward in this thread!


(I'm off to an all you can eat salad bar!)

That particular case is, in my opinion, very tragic indeed. And without denying that tragic nature, I can still see an opposing "general" issue that has some validity.

It seems like we are often fighting against evolution – or at least, trying to replace it with something artificial. From an evolutionary standpoint a baby that can survive a case of the measles, without the help of a vaccine, is more valuable to the race than is a baby who cannot. Thus, it seems that, through vaccinations, we are putting the survival of individuals above the survival of the race. In effect, making the race dependent upon the vaccinations for it’s survival. Which you could even call a “racial addiction”. So the concept of “addiction to technology” is not just an “emotional” addiction. In this sense it is actually and truly a physical addiction.

On the other hand, a sharpened stick use in hunting animals for food is “technology”. So where do you draw the line?

All of which points directly to the “available resources” issue. (The stick had to come from somewhere.)

If racial survival includes “quantity” (i.e. a higher number of members = higher survival level) as well as “quality” (i.e. a greater amount of available resources per capita = higher survival level\) then it the inevitable outcome, for the human race, on a long enough timeline, cannot be anything but total extinction – by vitrue of the nature of entropy alone.

So the entire concept of “preserving natural resources for future generations” boils down to nothing more than a personal viewpoint as to “how many generations?”

And so I draw the conclusion that ultimately, all decision, moral, ethical, or otherwise, are, and cannot be anything but, based solely on personal viewpoint.