Here is a little political/science news for anyone interested. I normally stay completely away from politics, but since this one involves science (and the fact that life is generally good), it becomes worth mentioning.
Today Obama has reversed the nation wide ban on stem cell research formerly introduced by George W. Bush. This allows scientists to study the amazing 'adaptibility' of stem cells for use in medicine in the attempt to cure societies worst ailments (cancer, spinal damage, etc).
What interests me the most is the possibility that stem cells can be implemented to potentially reverse or prevent aging. They are the fountain of youth. Think of all the blog posting one could accomplish....
An interesting aside to this news item is the controversey drummed up by anti-stem cell / Pro-life proponents - that by researching stem cells we are killing people, farming babies for slaughter, and/or damning potential souls. Whatever the claim may be, it's complete nonsense. All the stem cells used in research are gathered from extra fertilized embryos stored for in vitro fertilization purposes. They would be thrown out anyway.....why not use them for constructive purposes. I always find it interesting that they leave this major point out.
Of course, when you deal with ideology, facts are used only if they support ones position, otherwise they are simply ignored.
Anyway, thats my rant for the day.
Enjoy
-
I agree with your point about how facts are only used to support ones position... I read a brochure today titled "Evolution: facts for and against". It would be fine if they actually did give convincing arguments for both sides however after the first few sentences I realized that it was entirely onesided. To give you an idea about some of the things said:
ReplyDelete"birds make birds, cats make cats, so how could we have evolved from monkeys?"
I dont have it with me so I cant remember all of them, so I guess the point im getting at is dont mislable your onesided bullshit just to get people to read it.. its annoying
Who wrote that last comment?
ReplyDeleteWhen I was younger I used to have the viewpoint that we shouldn't halt any scientific progress; any advance in technology was good and the more advanced we become the better capable we are of finding solutions to the fucked up problems created along the way.
Today I'm still behind the belief we shouldn't impede scientific research, but only because I think it well happen whether we want it to or not. If it doesn't happen in the public eye it'll still happen behind closed doors, whether that be government research or private research.
The breakthroughs we are starting to make are quite scary, especially in the biological fields. Genetically modified plants that grow plastic are great, unless they happened to start growing outside the lab. Stem cells that can be induced to replace dying brain cells, slow or completely stop the aging process, all sounds deliciously interesting, except for when the human population becomes an exponential nightmare. Genetically altering an unborn baby to be disease-free, ugly-free, and a good public speaker is a tantalizing idea, until six million babies all grow up to be perfect prime ministerial candidates, while only one is required for the position.
I think the biggest issue we are faced with is not whether or not we should ban certain scientific research, but how we will ethically control how we use the advances that arise from said research.
bro you must have alot of time to write a 500 word blog,, want to do an essay for me? liked the blog though.... interesting,, indeed,, i don't know anything about it,, but i read it all,, so must count for something,, make a blog about of the buffalo bills sign terrell owens hahah
ReplyDeleteI would if I knew anything about Terrell Owens.
ReplyDeleteah its all coming together now... so how do i post showing my name? (it was me who commented on jons post)
ReplyDeletenm i just found out lol
ReplyDelete