tuco

According to most analysts and commentators I've read, populists and nationalist fell short of expectations. That the EU is going to dissolve I've been hearing for a few decades now and to me its more like other, ever popular, apocalyptic scenarios so this is about as much I am willing to say on it. Everyone will manage without the EU that is not the question. Question is, as its always been, if benefits outweigh downsides. While ago I've read let's say unconventional commentary about the EU and Brexit: Europe’s dangerous creation myth In Western Europe, nationalism isn’t conservative — it’s radical. https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-creation-project-myth-history-nation-state/ For some reason, I can't edit the above so its gonna stay that I guess.

I am lead to believe, based on what I've read, that let's say the roots of "suicide prevention" are evolutionary and cultural. While the biological element is probably not going to go away in foreseeable future, the cultural one - especially the mentioned stigma -, is subject to change granted there is will to change it. Personally, I hope that the support given to those who are set on committing suicide would be similar to the support given to those who signaling the possibility of committing one. I would also hope examination of socio-economic realities of those displaying signs of being suicidal is not preceded by psychiatric evaluation with appropriate steps taken accordingly. Since I am not sure what direction the OP was heading and since this topic is quite complex, let me finish with a definition of selfish I prefer: for own benefit, without regards for others.

CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2014* - https://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=920687 ---- The kilogram, symbol kg, is the SI unit of mass. It is defined by taking the fixed numerical value of the Planck constant h to be 6.626 070 15 x 10–34 when expressed in the unit J s, which is equal to kg m2 s–1, where the metre and the second are defined in terms of c and Cs. This definition implies the exact relation h = 6.626 070 15 x 10–34 kg m2 s–1. Inverting this relation gives an exact expression for the kilogram in terms of the three defining constants h, Cs and c: which is equal to The effect of this definition is to define the unit kg m2 s–1 (the unit of both the physical quantities action and angular momentum). Together with the definitions of the second and the metre this leads to a definition of the unit of mass expressed in terms of the Planck constant h. https://www.bipm.org/en/measurement-units/

Personally, I am a huge fan of Back to the Matrix. Morpheus was right when he said: If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain. I guess, the movie was not made yet as the idea is not popular and conditions under which it could become popular are hard to imagine. Let me just say that assuming it's even possible to have the kind of processing power needed to run Matrix and let's also assume energy is abundant taking the red pill, so to say, would be quite eco-friendly

Syria: Will the world be even more dangerous, cruel, unjust? http://www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/1/1158/syria-will-the-world-be-even-more-dangerous-cruel-unjust ---- But there is a red line, folks, and we are good guys! To paraphrase a classic, to deceive oneself is the most common deception.

Why <insert anything>? is problematic.

First of all, the thread is incorrectly in "Genetics" because its an ethical issue. Secondly, I was on topic correctly and tactfully noting the above fact. Thirdly, I do not understand what "getting undies in a twist" means but somehow I do not think it means "pointing out the obvious".

And its all yours. Bye

OK, it has nothing to do with genetically altering humans. Good catch. Now, how is picking the gender of a baby different from I dunno picking the height of a baby? Because one is genetic altering and the other one is not. Well, I do not think the issue here is whether an action is either gene altering action or not, I do not think people care about the mechanics in general, but about making choices. How does it matter whether we are able to identify and pick male or female embryo or identify and pick embryo short or tall growth potential? How it's done is pretty much irrelevant in my opinion. What is relevant is the ability to make such choice or not. This is the ethical choice, the rest is technological matter. btw over here parents cannot choose the gender unless for the reasons you stated because it's against the law.

I know it exists, that is why I mentioned it, unlike much much larger scale. Indeed, its sometimes done for the stated reason. But it's not done because the parents want it and I can imagine some parents wanting it. In similar fashion, like some parents would like to have a girl/boy, some could wish to have their baby to be pre-disposed for arts or sports. So in my eyes, it's not about should or should not, but where is the line?

The problem in Gattaca was not that one was modified and the other was not, but discrimination based on such modification. Our societies have a long way to go, new ethics, laws and approaches will need to be realized, implemented and developed, but unless the technology will be relatively easy to control/hard to obtain - like nuclear technology for example - which from what I know about it it is not, I just do not see how could we prevent other people from using it. Of course, there will be some limits on what will be acceptable and whatnot but OP did not specify them. The devil is in details. edit: and indeed, eliminating certain traits, aggressivity for example in order to reduce violent crimes, can have unforeseen and even undesirable consequences, however, by allowing genetic engineering we are not necessarily eliminating certain trait from the gene pool.

In the west .. the law, the communists had committees like committees deciding who can have an abortion and who cannot. Since the OP did not specify, outside of much much larger scale, what kind of modification we talk about, we can talk about any. I will talk about the ability of parents to chose the gender of their baby. Let's say it will not be allowed in the west but will be allowed elsewhere. I can also imagine parents traveling to where it's allowed. Then I can image pressure to change the law and law being changed simply because if there will be demand, there will be supply and it's the people, not committees who have the power to change the laws.

I think its inevitable so it's not a matter of ought to. Once the tech will be here, for much much larger scale, who is going to stop people from using it? Perhaps we should ban it like nuclear weapons .. oh wait!

I do not think what you wrote is on another level, but rather the opposite. From the article: Limitations come from the environment. To say, for example, that we have 5 fingers on each hand by a chance is stretching the meaning of "by a chance". Two notes: Since we can influence our environment in a significant way, can we say that we can influence our evolution? Does this "predictability", as talked about in the article, implies that alien species evolving in a similar environment to ours, would evolve in a similar way?