------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BEB6BB.E4494820
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just to explain my joke (even though they're usually best not explained) =
about the 180 year long life as there was a vaguely serious point behind =
it. I have found an increasing amount of media coverage of science where =
scientists make amazingly implausible claims that they are about to =
solve one of the great mysteries of the universe (in this case, the =
secret of not-quite-eternal life), the precise details of which often =
have to be kept secret or have not quite been worked out yet. Another =
example is British Telecom research that claims it will (ca 2020 or some =
such date) create a computer system that is able to transform the output =
from a brain scan into output that tells you what the person is thinking =
about (if I've remembered this correctly). They just need to work out =
the precise algorithm.... This ensures press coverage, speculation about =
its eventual impact and possibly continued funding from those convinced =
something important is going on.
Another similar strand, which perhaps points to this sort of view being =
part of the Zeitgeist, is the claim of various physicists that we are =
heading towards 'the end of science' because all the 'big questions' =
will soon be incontrovertibly answered for once and for all.
So I'm sceptical about these things, but at the same time alert to the =
implications.
Phil wrote:
<<The logical extension of biological and genetic determinism inherent =
such a standpoint as Clinton's (and hence the US government which has =
inscribed this standpoint into law) is that society is no longer =
responsible for the afflicted amongst us. In short, it comes back to the =
(what I understand as) Liberal tenets of responsibility for one's own =
actions. If the "mentally ill" cannot or will not respond to, or even =
seek out, help from neurology's chemicalia, then _they'll_ be =
responsible. It'll be their own fault, their own problem, and they'll =
have to take the blame. Eventually, this must manifest itself in the =
most inhumane decisions for those who cannot cope with life. I seem to =
recall that Clinton took time off from his first presidential hustings =
to expedite the execution of a mentally disabled person in Arkansas. >>
Two examples from the UK. The Tories instituted 'care in the =
community' about 10 years ago and dumped all the people in mental =
hospitals on the streets, with inadequate, underfunded support if any at =
all and no clear legal line of responsibility. The result has been =
several=20
I don't worry so much that info can be hidden in DNA, although it's =
both interesting and scary enough in itself. My main concern is that a =
whole neo-phrenology based on flawed criteria can now be applied to a =
new list of "objective" genetic criteria which will correspond to =
"superior" qualities in humans: neo-eugenics writ large and no longer =
implicit.=20
Furthermore, it appears that the info gleaned from Nazi medical =
"experiments" in concentration camps has just about exhausted itself, =
and therefore a forum for genetic experiments on humans must be found =
fairly soon if applied knowledge is to catch up with technological =
potential. My bet it that it isn't far away, and I don't think I'm being =
alarmist or reactionary.
Phil
Phil Graham
p.graham who-is-at qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BEB6BB.E4494820
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01BEB6BB.E4494820--Phil wrote:<<The logical extension of biological and genetic = determinism=20 inherent such a standpoint as Clinton's (and hence the US government = which has=20 inscribed this standpoint into law) is that society is no longer = responsible=20 for the afflicted amongst us. In short, it comes back to the (what I=20 understand as) Liberal tenets of responsibility for one's own actions. = If the=20 "mentally ill" cannot or will not respond to, or even seek out, help = from=20 neurology's chemicalia, then _they'll_ be responsible. It'll be their = own=20 fault, their own problem, and they'll have to take the blame. = Eventually, this=20 must manifest itself in the most inhumane decisions for those who = cannot cope=20 with life. I seem to recall that Clinton took time off from his first=20 presidential hustings to expedite the execution of a mentally disabled = person=20 in Arkansas. >>Two examples from the UK. The Tories instituted 'care in the = community'=20 about 10 years ago and dumped all the people in mental hospitals on = the=20 streets, with inadequate, underfunded support if any at all and no = clear legal=20 line of responsibility. The result has been several
I don't = worry so=20 much that info can be hidden in DNA, although it's both interesting = and scary=20 enough in itself. My main concern is that a whole neo-phrenology based = on=20 flawed criteria can now be applied to a new list of "objective" = genetic=20 criteria which will correspond to "superior" qualities in humans: = neo-eugenics=20 writ large and no longer implicit.
Furthermore, it appears = that the=20 info gleaned from Nazi medical "experiments" in concentration camps = has just=20 about exhausted itself, and therefore a forum for genetic experiments = on=20 humans must be found fairly soon if applied knowledge is to catch up = with=20 technological potential. My bet it that it isn't far away, and I don't = think=20 I'm being alarmist or reactionary.
Phil
Phil=20 = Graham
p.graham who-is-at qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Pal= ms/8314/index.html