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?

Two opinions I do not necessarily agree with: On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.10987.pdf THE MYTH OF A SUPERHUMAN AI - https://www.wired.com/2017/04/the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai/ Let me just note that I do not really understand the question:

What is, old argument? Regarding "democratization"". I think its one of those concepts that make sense on theoretical and not too sophisticated level but fail to be supported by data and have unintended consequences due to complexity of the issues it's trying to solve. Kind of like communism.

In my eyes, the Bush Doctrine sheds some light on "democratization" and conservative views the OP was mentioning. As the wiki puts it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine#Natan_Sharansky

Citation needed for "the world community". It had no mandate of the UN Security Council. Other than that. Achievement, to end the conflict, of the intervention, is highly questionable, so is calling the intervention, killing civilians in the process, "humanitarian". Regarding US foreign policy, in my view, such policy is self-serving in the first place. Not saying there is anything wrong with it being self-serving, but it's important to recognize it when evaluating it in the global context. So if the US administration will believe that for example, an action will get some points at home it's more likely to execute it than if it was unpopular. In similar fashion, if the US administration will believe that an action will serve any strategic goal of the US, it's more likely to execute it than if it would not serve any. And this is regardless of consequences of such action at the point of impact. For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

Well, then you are a silent psychic, which as you probably agree is not worth much on the psychic market So I guess, the short and loud interest is over now and we can carry on, till next chemical attack, or?

Psychic

Let's do a quick recap Spring 2011 https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/05/201153185927813389.html Since then: List of massacres during the Syrian Civil War - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War List of Syrian Civil War barrel bomb attacks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_Civil_War_barrel_bomb_attacks Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War Human rights violations during the Syrian Civil War - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_violations_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War around: 500 000 dead 2 000 000 wounded 11 000 000 displaced 1 000 000 besieged and denied life-saving assistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#Impact https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/syria ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ And now there is red line, now we say no more. Well, seems to me we have a pretty high threshold when it comes to the suffering of our fellow human beings.

I do not think so. I post my stuff and give others opportunity to read it and say their stuff. There is no truth to be found. I posted my reasoning and arguments already. I can only repeat them. Russia ridicules Trump's Twitter diplomacy in Syria standoff No kidding. Word. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/13/middleeast/russia-trump-twitter-syria-chemical-attack-intl/index.html

I guess there could be also regional differences, in awareness/perception of the Holocaust. Americas vs Europe for example. There is also room for NGOs. Over here just today one NGO was publicly reading names of the victims in 16 cities and got a lot of media coverage. Other than that as CharonY said, its a matter of time.

Since it's apparently not clear, I was summarizing an article by Joshua Landis. Also, I am not interested in answering your questions nor explaining myself. We are in realms of opinions and priorities and to me its a waste of time and energy debating opinions/priorities in great length. I have stated mine clearly several times already and I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Support the kick in the balls, I could not care less. To me its stupid but what can I do? Skilfully craft paragraphs of text only to be told .. I do not agree with you? I do not think so. Been there, got the t-shirt and moved on.