Stem Cells and Human Cloning [Archive] - Dreamviews lucid dreaming forums

03-15-2005, 11:14 PM

I dont see cloning of people as such a problem, its just another body and it needs to grow, and the upbringing and experiences are what makes a personality, though genes might have an influence on it, it is mainly that. So for all we know a clone of Hitler will grow up to be a really nice person. I think accelerated growth and mind transfers are more science-fiction then the cloning itself. Cloning of body parts will have huge medical benefits, obviously.
The only scary possibilities of more knowledge of human genes are discrimination based on genes, insurance companies rejecting you, etc. Though maybe, that is where the future lies. Evolution by our own selection, not nature since human evolution now risks degradation now that so many specimen survive and reproduce and bad genes spread.

Yume

03-16-2005, 06:12 PM

As long as people don't use stem-cells from unborn babies I am ok with it. It is just wrong to horribly deny something its existance and then take its body for someone else. On the issue of cloning I don't like it. The process for organization is tricky and we don't need overpopulation even if it is cloning an "intelligent mind"

Gwendolyn

03-18-2005, 09:31 PM

I think that stem cell research is a great thing to support. There are so many things to be gained. I think that our government is doing every member of American society a disservice by banning this sort of research. Other countries will become more advanced, and this could be potentially dangerous for the U.S. Anyway, you just can't put a hold on science, especially in such a potentially helpfull area. As far as cloning goes...Cool. Sure, we'd have to work a few bugs out, but in the end being able to clone humans would do more good than harm.

I know this is a little off subject, but this topic reminds me of a book I read recently by Robert Heinlan called "Time Enough for Love". In it, the main character (who is the oldest person alive in the book) gets cloned, but his clones are female, and he adopts them as his daughters. It's an entertaining piece of work to say the least. I liked it.

Howie

03-20-2005, 08:45 AM

If only Humans new when to say when.
The stem cell research and it's benifits are obvious for our own race. However you can argue that the worlds population and it's resourses are diminishing now. Add a much lenghthier life span to the already overpopulated most of the world and obolish many of the diseases that claims so many lives each year and to me it will be inevitable that these things will only generate other problems.
Nature balances out things for a reason.

In wealthy Societies this could aslo create a gender gap. If let go far enoough, as it most likely will at some point, there could be John Q's neighbor who has the money to give his son the genes to be genetically enhanced to play football like John Q's dad did, but better. Oh. & add blue eyes to my baby too.
The neighbor on the other hand who cannot afford any gene manipulation will I dare say be disenfranchised?
I little greater of a gap than not having the same shoes.

So if God doesn't want us to do these things, why do we have the means to do them?

But ya, I'm up for a new liver too Bradybaker count me in. :D

bradybaker

03-20-2005, 03:36 PM

Sure, in the short run, problems such as discrimination by genetic makeup (ie. Gattaca) could arise. But in the long run, would our species not be much better off? Smarter, stronger, more resistant to disease, etc. Sounds like a good future to me.

03-20-2005, 07:42 PM

That was what I was getting at in the last sentances of my post. Ethically its a tricky subject, but sacrifices must be made for achieving such improvements.

Oh and Howezter: Nature does nothing for 'a reason', it is simple cause and effect.

Howie

03-20-2005, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>Sure, in the short run, problems such as discrimination by genetic makeup (ie. Gattaca) could arise. But in the long run, would our species not be much better off? Smarter, stronger, more resistant to disease, etc. Sounds like a good future to me.[/b]

If you want to live in an over populated world. I agree that out race would improve. Smarter, stonger. I just can't find an answer for over population and the many causes it provides.

<!--QuoteBegin-CT
Oh and Howezter: Nature does nothing for 'a reason', it is simple cause and effect.

That is rather remarkable then how perfectly intuned an proficient nature is.

bradybaker

03-20-2005, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Howetzer
If you want to live in an over populated world. I agree that out race would improve. Smarter, stonger. I just can't find an answer for over population and the many causes it provides.
I'll guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

One answer would be to penalize anyone who has more than a certain number of children and offer rewards to people who have few or no children.

03-20-2005, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Howetzer

That is rather remarkable then how perfectly intuned an proficiant nature is.

well, to me its the simple fact of quite a few years of evolution and all that. Maybe you're religious and dont believe in it, but its really quite straightforward.

Yume

03-20-2005, 09:10 PM

Over population is why I am pro-suicide. If someone wants to die I will let them go off and take themselves out. It's a bigger benefit to the world to have people who don't have doubts about living.

Rakkantekimusouka

03-20-2005, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Yume
Over population is why I am pro-suicide. If someone wants to die I will let them go off and take themselves out. It's a bigger benefit to the world to have people who don't have doubts about living.

:bravo:

What a refreshing sentiment...I concur fully.

Peregrinus

03-20-2005, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker
One answer would be to penalize anyone who has more than a certain number of children and offer rewards to people who have few or no children.

I believe China has already tried that. They've had a few *erm* problems with the policy.

As far as cloning: I'm all about organ cloning, but we developed sexual reproduction for a reason. That's how you're supposed to make more humans. It mixes up the gene pool and facilitates adaptation and evolution. (Not to mention the fact that it's far more pleasant than having blood drawn.) I honestly can't think of a convincing reason why there should be human cloning. The first group to do it will not be in it for "the advancement of science" but rather to add to their laurels the distinction of bringing a prevalent aspect of science fiction into reality.

And here's (http://www.infoaging.org/b-cloning-4-aging.html) a brief article about how cloning affects the aging process.

Howie

03-21-2005, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div><!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer
If you want to live in an over populated world. I agree that out race would improve. Smarter, stonger. I just can't find an answer for over population and the many problems it causes.

I'll guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
One answer would be to penalize anyone who has more than a certain number of children and offer rewards to people who have few or no children.[/b]

I agree. But if you are like me that stragegy does not seem to go over very well. When ever I brought it up.
They go directly to youth in asia.
If you look at educated societies their birth rate falls while the third world countries and uneducated parts of more intellegant communities, birth rates double and sometimes triple.

So maybe as a result of this more stronger, smarter, intellegant society the problem of over poulation would take care of itself :idea:

Howie

03-21-2005, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by CT+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CT)</div><!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer

That is rather remarkable then how perfectly intuned an proficiant nature is.

well, to me its the simple fact of quite a few years of evolution and all that. Maybe you're religious and dont believe in it, but its really quite straightforward.[/b]

I am not relgious by standard.
But to say nature does not do anything for a reason is utterly absurd. We have quite a few years of evolving under our belt as well, Do we do things for no reason?

What are labled as natural disasters are the earths methods of doing things for a reason.

A simple thunderstorm is natures way of maintaining stabiltiy in our atmosphere. The air above us is stable or balanced when heavier, cooler air is near the surface & lighter. When warmer air arises above, instability accurrs, thus causing thunderstorms or tornadoes. Turning the atmoshere right side up.

A hurricane on a larger scale transfers much of the tropical air from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere of the earth,again causing stability. And with that, much like wild fires they in the process cull a lot of the dead wood forests and practices survival of the fittess among species.

I could go on about lightning, Volcanoes etc. but I think it is pointless.

bradybaker

03-21-2005, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div> But to say nature does not do anything for a reason is utterly absurd. We have quite a few years of evolving under our belt as well, Do we do things for no reason?[/b]
Define 'reason'.

<!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer
What are labled as natural disasters are the earths methods of doing things for a reason.

A simple thunderstorm is natures way of maintaining stabiltiy in our atmosphere. The air above us is stable or balanced when heavier, cooler air is near the surface & lighter. When warmer air arises above, instability accurrs, thus causing thunderstorms or tornadoes. Turning the atmoshere right side up.

A hurricane on a larger scale transfers much of the tropical air from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere of the earth,again causing stability. And with that, much like wild fires they in the process cull a lot of the dead wood forests and practices survival of the fittess among species.
A simple thunderstorm is not an action that nature takes to regain stability, it is a result of the instability. Similarily, hurricanes do not 'cause stability', they result from instability.

Peregrinus

03-21-2005, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Howetzer
If you look at educated societies their birth rate falls while the third world countries and uneducated parts of more intellegant communities, birht rates double and sometimes triple.[/color]

So maybe as a result of this more stronger, smarter, intellegant society the problem of over poulation would take care of itself :idea:

The higher birth rates of "under-developed" nations are the result of economics, not a lack of intelligence or education. In those countries, a child is an economic asset, not a liability as it is in most of the industrialized world. When a child reaches its fifth birthday in Vietnam or Bangladesh or any number of other countries, s/he can go work in the neighborhood Nike factory and thus contribute to the family's income. In more agrarian-based economies, a child is a farm-hand. This is in direct contrast to the economic liability which children represent in European and North American societies (among a few others). Here, a child must be raised and sent to school before s/he ever earns a cent, and even then, the child's income is usually his or her own and does not contribute to the family's.

It's far too easy to blame such things as high birth rates on poor people being "stupid and irresponsible." It is true that access to contraceptives and sexual education can lower birth rates, but only in areas where the economic situation is conducive to such a reduction in the child labor market.

Howie

03-21-2005, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by perigrinus
It's far too easy to blame such things as high birth rates on poor people being \"stupid and irresponsible.\" It is true that access to contraceptives and sexual education can lower birth rates, but only in areas where the economic situation is conducive to such a reduction in the child labor market.

I don't think I ever said Stupid or irresponsible. Uneducated yes
Doesn't Africa have the largest birth rate and the largest death rate? Granted it is I think the largest Continent unless Antartica is but that does not matter.
You don't think in the areas in our own country the poorest communties have more children?

It is a natural progression as you become more educated for you and a husband or spouse to look ahead to be more finaicial sound. To say, We can't afford to have three more babies and send them all to college. And have a retirement fund and and and.
Other countries even try to teach birth control to third world countries and it doesn't float.
Most of those counties don't have enough economic commerce for that to even come into play.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Define reason!

A simple thunderstorm is not an action that nature takes to regain stability, it is a result of the instability. Similarily, hurricanes do not 'cause stability', they result from instability.

It is a cycle. A life cylce just as we have our own. But we look at reason as it has to be from a human point of view, labled as a motive, decision or something we control
If the entire concept of reason is looked at from a human stand point, then what you and CT say, cause and effect come into play. But reason as an underlying cause for something to accur can be entirley differant.
You don't think the whole Universe has a cycle? And the earth doesn't have a life cycle?
A life cycle. Structured like ours, no. But if it does have a life cycle then it would stand to reason (from a human aspect) that so too would the earth have, reason.
I am not trying to compare it directly to a human life but if you can take evolution and a life cycle into play then they are comparable.
So the reason behind the earths actions are defined by the completion of this cycle.

Peregrinus

03-21-2005, 04:11 PM

[quote]I don't think I ever said Stupid or irresponsible. Uneducated yes
Doesn't Africa have the largest birth rate and the largest death rate? Granted it is I think the largest Continent unless Antartica is but that does not matter.
You don't think in the areas in our own country the poorest communties have more children?

It is a natural progression as you become more educated for you and a husband or spouse to look ahead to be more finaicial sound. To say, We can't afford to have three more babies and send them all to college. And have a retirement fund and and and.
Other countries even try to teach birth control to third world countries and it doesn't float.
Most of those counties don't have enough economic commerce for that to even come into play.

Take a look at these data (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income00/inctab2.html) from the US census bureau for 2000. Scroll down to the "Size of Household" data categorized based on household income. As you can see, the number of people in a household actually decreases with a decrease in income. This would indicate that poor people in this country aren't just irresponsibly popping out babies. Could it be that we in middle class America are simply so concerned when we see poor people having any children at all (which we are fond of saying they "can't afford") that their perceived birth rate is exaggerated in our minds and popular culture? I didn't come across data on birth rate as a function of income, though, so if you find that, please post it.

Joseph_Stalin

03-21-2005, 05:28 PM

You overlook the fact that such prime and engineered people would no doubt come from well developed countries, who could afford such things. Surely, there would be some over-population as it has been occuring, but in reality not many would actually have these benefits.

Yume

03-21-2005, 06:42 PM

[quote]I don't think I ever said Stupid or irresponsible. Uneducated yes
Doesn't Africa have the largest birth rate and the largest death rate? Granted it is I think the largest Continent unless Antartica is but that does not matter.
You don't think in the areas in our own country the poorest communties have more children?

It is a natural progression as you become more educated for you and a husband or spouse to look ahead to be more finaicial sound. To say, We can't afford to have three more babies and send them all to college. And have a retirement fund and and and.
Other countries even try to teach birth control to third world countries and it doesn't float.
Most of those counties don't have enough economic commerce for that to even come into play.

Take a look at these data (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income00/inctab2.html) from the US census bureau for 2000. Scroll down to the \"Size of Household\" data categorized based on household income. As you can see, the number of people in a household actually decreases with a decrease in income. This would indicate that poor people in this country aren't just irresponsibly popping out babies. Could it be that we in middle class America are simply so concerned when we see poor people having any children at all (which we are fond of saying they \"can't afford\") that their perceived birth rate is exaggerated in our minds and popular culture? I didn't come across data on birth rate as a function of income, though, so if you find that, please post it.Can you define how accurate that polls is compared to the total population and 5 year change?

03-21-2005, 06:55 PM

[quote]I don't think I ever said Stupid or irresponsible. Uneducated yes
Doesn't Africa have the largest birth rate and the largest death rate? Granted it is I think the largest Continent unless Antartica is but that does not matter.
You don't think in the areas in our own country the poorest communties have more children?

It is a natural progression as you become more educated for you and a husband or spouse to look ahead to be more finaicial sound. To say, We can't afford to have three more babies and send them all to college. And have a retirement fund and and and.
Other countries even try to teach birth control to third world countries and it doesn't float.
Most of those counties don't have enough economic commerce for that to even come into play.

Take a look at these data (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income00/inctab2.html) from the US census bureau for 2000. Scroll down to the \"Size of Household\" data categorized based on household income. As you can see, the number of people in a household actually decreases with a decrease in income. This would indicate that poor people in this country aren't just irresponsibly popping out babies. Could it be that we in middle class America are simply so concerned when we see poor people having any children at all (which we are fond of saying they \"can't afford\") that their perceived birth rate is exaggerated in our minds and popular culture? I didn't come across data on birth rate as a function of income, though, so if you find that, please post it.Can you define how accurate that polls is compared to the total population and 5 year change?

... and that would be relevant how?

Peregrinus

03-21-2005, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Yume
Can you define how accurate that polls is compared to the total population and 5 year change?

Part of the US Census Bureau's purpose is to create representative samples of the American population, so I can only assume that they're reasonably competent in that area. As for changes over the past 5 years: I hightly doubt that the average household size as categorized by income has changed significantly, and am quite sure that that general trend of a decrease in size with a decrease in income still holds. I haven't noticed a private baby boom of the impoverished in the last few years...

Yume

03-21-2005, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div><!--QuoteBegin-Yume
Can you define how accurate that polls is compared to the total population and 5 year change?

Part of the US Census Bureau's purpose is to create representative samples of the American population, so I can only assume that they're reasonably competent in that area. As for changes over the past 5 years: I hightly doubt that the average household size as categorized by income has changed significantly, and am quite sure that that general trend of a decrease in size with a decrease in income still holds. I haven't noticed a private baby boom of the impoverished in the last few years...[/b]A poll is not one hundred percent. It cannot actually give you right information. Unless you have complete accurate information you should not use it. Polls cannot define truth. There are over a million households in the U.S. You should find out how many people were in that poll. Let's they only polled about 10000. That means there is about a 1/10 chance your information is correct if there are about 1 million families in the U.S.

Howie

03-22-2005, 05:49 AM

Peregrinus, That is very intersting. Not what I would have thought. I am like you Yume or me/yu :P
When it comes to polls most of them are not accurate.

Originally posted by Yume
A poll is not one hundred percent. It cannot actually give you right information. Unless you have complete accurate information you should not use it. Polls cannot define truth. There are over a million households in the U.S. You should find out how many people were in that poll. Let's they only polled about 10000. That means there is about a 1/10 chance your information is correct if there are about 1 million families in the U.S.

But I think a US Census Bureau's would be a lot more accurate than a bias media poll.
The problem I have with Cencus polls again comes from the poor. Since a large portion of the poor are minorities or immigrants they are less apt to take part in the poll or not give an accurate account on how little they make if they do. I know people out of pride that have exagerated their income, and they are not poor by any means.

Your cencus still comes at a suprise. Thanks for the information.

And CT. Had you read the post above mine you may see that the relavance was a response to Peregrinus post. :tongue:
And what happened to our discussion on the weather? :)

Peregrinus

03-22-2005, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>Originally posted by Peregrinus@
<!--QuoteBegin-Yume
Can you define how accurate that polls is compared to the total population and 5 year change?

Part of the US Census Bureau's purpose is to create representative samples of the American population, so I can only assume that they're reasonably competent in that area. As for changes over the past 5 years: I hightly doubt that the average household size as categorized by income has changed significantly, and am quite sure that that general trend of a decrease in size with a decrease in income still holds. I haven't noticed a private baby boom of the impoverished in the last few years...A poll is not one hundred percent. It cannot actually give you right information. Unless you have complete accurate information you should not use it. Polls cannot define truth. There are over a million households in the U.S. You should find out how many people were in that poll. Let's they only polled about 10000. That means there is about a 1/10 chance your information is correct if there are about 1 million families in the U.S.[/b]

Have you ever had a statistics or math class in general? Do you even know what a "representative sample" is? Do you think that when medical scientists do drug studies, they use every single person in the US as their test subjects? How about when the AP polls Americans with various questions that are then reported on the news? Do you get a call every time? Does that mean that these polls are crap? Absolutely not. Representative sample. Polls do have error inherent in them, but nothing like this 10% accuracy you're positing. With a well-constructed sample, you can poll 1000 people and get +/- 3% accuracy for the entire American population.

Take a minute to actually research before you post.

Peregrinus

03-22-2005, 09:45 AM

[quote]The problem I have with Cencus polls again comes from the poor. Since a large portion of the poor are minorities or immigrants they are less apt to take part in the poll or not give an accurate account on how little they make if they do. I know people out of pride that have exagerated their income, and they are not poor by any means.[/color]

I seriously doubt that the poor are any more dishonest in their census responses than are the wealthy or middle class.

Yume

03-22-2005, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus@
<!--QuoteBegin-Yume
Can you define how accurate that polls is compared to the total population and 5 year change?

Part of the US Census Bureau's purpose is to create representative samples of the American population, so I can only assume that they're reasonably competent in that area. As for changes over the past 5 years: I hightly doubt that the average household size as categorized by income has changed significantly, and am quite sure that that general trend of a decrease in size with a decrease in income still holds. I haven't noticed a private baby boom of the impoverished in the last few years...A poll is not one hundred percent. It cannot actually give you right information. Unless you have complete accurate information you should not use it. Polls cannot define truth. There are over a million households in the U.S. You should find out how many people were in that poll. Let's they only polled about 10000. That means there is about a 1/10 chance your information is correct if there are about 1 million families in the U.S.[/b]

Have you ever had a statistics or math class in general? Do you even know what a \"representative sample\" is? Do you think that when medical scientists do drug studies, they use every single person in the US as their test subjects? How about when the AP polls Americans with various questions that are then reported on the news? Do you get a call every time? Does that mean that these polls are crap? Absolutely not. Representative sample. Polls do have error inherent in them, but nothing like this 10% accuracy you're positing. With a well-constructed sample, you can poll 1000 people and get +/- 3% accuracy for the entire American population.

Take a minute to actually research before you post.[/b][/quote]I do know what a sample is. Polls fail because of error. You cannot have a defined truth. Only one truth out of many. Unless you have a complete representation it is not accurate for debates because of it's margin of error. Because of margin of error you cannot take polls as the definite truth. There have been studies that are incorrect which makes that research unhelpful. Anything that cannot be accurately defined can hurt people or create misleading information because it could be incorrect. By saying that when you poll 1000 people you get a +/- 3% accuracy you are actually stereotyping Americans because each person is an individual.

Peregrinus

03-22-2005, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Yume
I do know what a sample is. Polls fail because of error. You cannot have a defined truth. Only one truth out of many. Unless you have a complete representation it is not accurate for debates because of it's margin of error. Because of margin of error you cannot take polls as the definite truth. There have been studies that are incorrect which makes that research unhelpful. Anything that cannot be accurately defined can hurt people or create misleading information because it could be incorrect. By saying that when you poll 1000 people you get a +/- 3% accuracy you are actually stereotyping Americans because each person is an individual.

Are you smoking something? You are saying nothing is valid and acceptable if it is not perfect. That's ludicrous. Everything is an approximation. +/- 3% accuracy is enough to base national policy decisions on, so I think it's good enough for an internet post. And what the hell does "each person being an individual" have to do with average size of household? Your post is like the lovechild of a nihilist and a PC spokesperson.

Howie

03-23-2005, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Peregrinus
I seriously doubt that the poor are any more dishonest in their census responses than are the wealthy or middle class.
I would simply have to disagree. :?

I think we can all conclude that the original topic...what was it? Stem Cells and Human Cloning. can spark many a debate aside from what's right in front of you.

Peregrinus

03-23-2005, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div><!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus
I seriously doubt that the poor are any more dishonest in their census responses than are the wealthy or middle class.
I would simply have to disagree. :? [/b]

There's really no possibility of further constructive discussion when the presentation of compelling data is countered with unsupported and unsubstantiated speculation that seeks to discredit the data based on opinion alone.

Howie

03-23-2005, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>Originally posted by Howetzer@
<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus
I seriously doubt that the poor are any more dishonest in their census responses than are the wealthy or middle class.
I would simply have to disagree. :?

There's really no possibility of further constructive discussion when the presentation of compelling data is countered with unsupported and unsubstantiated speculation that seeks to discredit the data based on opinion alone.[/b]

Is your, "serious Doubt" any less credible than my opinion?
Do you honestly think that any immigrants are going to take part in a cencus?
And do they not make up a large portion of the low income households? Also Peoples pride is a strong thing. So even if they were to take part in the cencus pole and it was accurate. What recentage of peolple whoes income that is considered in the poor bracket, when it arrives in the mail is it likely to arrive in the trash soon there after.

Peregrinus

03-23-2005, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Howetzer
Is your, \"serious Doubt\" any less credible than my opinion?
Do you honestly think that any immigrants are going to take part in a cencus?
And do they not make up a large portion of the low income households? Also Peoples pride is a strong thing. So even if they were to take part in the cencus pole and it was accurate. What recentage of peolple whoes income that is considered in the poor bracket, when it arrives in the mail is it likely to arrive in the trash soon there after.

It was my mistake to use the term "serious doubt," and I apologize for any misunderstandings that may have created. I should have phrased it as, "I have never seen any research that calls into question the accuracy and validity of US census data, and until such research is conducted or existing research brought to my attention, I will continue to view census data as accurate representations of US demographics." Does that make it clearer? Since I provided you with nationally-recognized data on the subject in question, if you would like to dispute that data, it would require scientifically valid research, not opinions. If you find research on the subject of census responder honesty as correlated with household income, I would be more than happy to read it and reconsider my views on the accuracy of US census data. Until such time, however, I will treat census data as valid within minimal margins of error.

Howie

03-23-2005, 05:05 PM

You are perfectly clear. And you are correct by going by the available data. However, if it is like how I claim it to be, how could those fact ever be brought to light?
It sounds like a cop out... But seriosly. Where could I get information that I don't believe to exist?

Joseph_Stalin

03-23-2005, 05:47 PM

Uhh....how about those stem cells? :?

Yume

03-23-2005, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div><!--QuoteBegin-Yume
I do know what a sample is. Polls fail because of error. You cannot have a defined truth. Only one truth out of many. Unless you have a complete representation it is not accurate for debates because of it's margin of error. Because of margin of error you cannot take polls as the definite truth. There have been studies that are incorrect which makes that research unhelpful. Anything that cannot be accurately defined can hurt people or create misleading information because it could be incorrect. By saying that when you poll 1000 people you get a +/- 3% accuracy you are actually stereotyping Americans because each person is an individual.

Are you smoking something? You are saying nothing is valid and acceptable if it is not perfect. That's ludicrous. Everything is an approximation. +/- 3% accuracy is enough to base national policy decisions on, so I think it's good enough for an internet post. And what the hell does \"each person being an individual\" have to do with average size of household? Your post is like the lovechild of a nihilist and a PC spokesperson.[/b]I never said nothing is valid. You need to work on your interpretation skills. I am saying that polls and surveys that do not reach 100% of the population that they are making a statement for cannot be considered accurate and valid in a debate because you cannot tell if the statement you are making is definetely correct. They cannot really define the American population thus the poll cannot back up your statement since it does not have accurate proof. If you had a way to poll everyone which is almost impossible and have correct data(backing up Howetzer) since people can make false truths then you could use it to back up your point, but since you do not have that you do not have proof of your statement.

Every generation is different. Statistics do not stay the same. They will always change whether you like it or not. Each person's individual choice to have kids, not have kids, or define the variable of the number of kids they want reflects the statistics of the data so even if you actually had accurate data it could have changed because it is possible it could have. Since you cannot define a truth without error you fail to have a supporting example for your statement.

Peregrinus

03-23-2005, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Howetzer+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Howetzer)</div>You are perfectly clear. And you are correct by going by the available data. However, if it is like how I claim it to be, how could those fact ever be brought to light?
It sounds like a cop out... But seriosly. Where could I get information that I don't believe to exist?[/b]

US census data is used to make policy decisions at all levels of government and is used in social sciences research both in academia and the corporate sector. If there were any serious doubt about the validity of the data, it would have been raised and evaluated long ago. Since it has not been to my knowledge (and apparently not to yours either, since you haven't linked to any research in that area), there is absolutely no further point in this idle speculation about honesty in responses to government surveys declining with a decline in household income. You have no evidence to support it, so I'm not going to discuss this further. Playing the game of stereotypes and what-ifs is an activity I prefer to avoid.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume
I never said nothing is valid. You need to work on your interpretation skills. I am saying that polls and surveys that do not reach 100% of the population that they are making a statement for cannot be considered accurate and valid in a debate because you cannot tell if the statement you are making is definetely correct. They cannot really define the American population thus the poll cannot back up your statement since it does not have accurate proof. If you had a way to poll everyone which is almost impossible and have correct data(backing up Howetzer) since people can make false truths then you could use it to back up your point, but since you do not have that you do not have proof of your statement.

Every generation is different. Statistics do not stay the same. They will always change whether you like it or not. Each person's individual choice to have kids, not have kids, or define the variable of the number of kids they want reflects the statistics of the data so even if you actually had accurate data it could have changed because it is possible it could have. Since you cannot define a truth without error you fail to have a supporting example for your statement.

My "interpretation skills" require no further improvement, at least not to deal with your posts. You've simply repeated yourself only this time in slightly more circuitous language. There is no "proof" that meets your criteria of perfection. To hold such a standard requires that you accept no data whatsoever, because no data is perfect and completely free of error, however minute. A lack of validity and utility does not follow from a lack of perfection. The fact that I’ve had to explain this twice indicates that you probably lack the background in mathematics and the methods and conventions of science necessary to restore this discussion to its original purpose. I'm really not in the mood to go around in another circle of incomprehension while trying to act as a science tutor right now, so if you still don’t understand why your objection to poll and census data is invalid, I’ll simply leave you to your misconceptions.

Yume

03-23-2005, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>Originally posted by Howetzer@
You are perfectly clear. And you are correct by going by the available data. However, if it is like how I claim it to be, how could those fact ever be brought to light?
It sounds like a cop out... But seriosly. Where could I get information that I don't believe to exist?

US census data is used to make policy decisions at all levels of government and is used in social sciences research both in academia and the corporate sector. If there were any serious doubt about the validity of the data, it would have been raised and evaluated long ago. Since it has not been to my knowledge (and apparently not to yours either, since you haven't linked to any research in that area), there is absolutely no further point in this idle speculation about honesty in responses to government surveys declining with a decline in household income. You have no evidence to support it, so I'm not going to discuss this further. Playing the game of stereotypes and what-ifs is an activity I prefer to avoid.

<!--QuoteBegin-Yume
I never said nothing is valid. You need to work on your interpretation skills. I am saying that polls and surveys that do not reach 100% of the population that they are making a statement for cannot be considered accurate and valid in a debate because you cannot tell if the statement you are making is definetely correct. They cannot really define the American population thus the poll cannot back up your statement since it does not have accurate proof. If you had a way to poll everyone which is almost impossible and have correct data(backing up Howetzer) since people can make false truths then you could use it to back up your point, but since you do not have that you do not have proof of your statement.

Every generation is different. Statistics do not stay the same. They will always change whether you like it or not. Each person's individual choice to have kids, not have kids, or define the variable of the number of kids they want reflects the statistics of the data so even if you actually had accurate data it could have changed because it is possible it could have. Since you cannot define a truth without error you fail to have a supporting example for your statement.

My \"interpretation skills\" require no further improvement, at least not to deal with your posts. You've simply repeated yourself only this time in slightly more circuitous language. There is no \"proof\" that meets your criteria of perfection. To hold such a standard requires that you accept no data whatsoever, because no data is perfect and completely free of error, however minute. A lack of validity and utility does not follow from a lack of perfection. The fact that I’ve had to explain this twice indicates that you probably lack the background in mathematics and the methods and conventions of science necessary to restore this discussion to its original purpose. I'm really not in the mood to go around in another circle of incomprehension while trying to act as a science tutor right now, so if you still don’t understand why your objection to poll and census data is invalid, I’ll simply leave you to your misconceptions.[/b]What you seem to forget is truth has no error.

Howie

03-24-2005, 06:03 AM

Peregrinus, I was asking a question.
How would I come across that data?
I use google.There seems to be a lot of information on suveys, polls and cencus. But if you can look at it from my point of view. How would I obtain data that is not there because it has never been recorded?
You are putting you trust in the government and what they say. That is your choice. I wish I could do the same.

Joseph_Stalin You are right. As I stated earlier, this has a lot of validity to the obsructions & debates that cloning will be sure to have.
And a lot of protesting ;)

Peregrinus

03-24-2005, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Howetzer
How would I obtain data that is not there because it has never been recorded?
You are putting you trust in the government and what they say. That is your choice. I wish I could do the same.

I'm putting trust in the government, academia, and (on this particular subject) the corporate sector. That covers almost all interested parties in the United States. This is not a \"government says\" issue. If the government's data were inaccurate, it would not be used by academics whose reputations and careers are determined on the quality and validity of their research nor by corporations whose profits and survival depend on decisions made from precise data. If you want to find research on this subject, you need to check relevant scholarly publications. I cannot give you a concise list, because the breadth of the disciplines that use census data means that it could be in almost any social sciences journal. JSTOR’s online database would be a good place to start, but I believe they require a subscription (I’ve never tried to access the site off-campus, so I don’t know for sure). If that’s the case, your public library is probably your best bet.

Originally posted by Yume
What you seem to forget is truth has no error.
That's not the point, as I've tried to explain. Twice. I am now through discussing this with you.

Yume

03-24-2005, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div><!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer
How would I obtain data that is not there because it has never been recorded?
You are putting you trust in the government and what they say. That is your choice. I wish I could do the same.

I'm putting trust in the government, academia, and (on this particular subject) the corporate sector. That covers almost all interested parties in the United States. This is not a \"government says\" issue. If the government's data were inaccurate, it would not be used by academics whose reputations and careers are determined on the quality and validity of their research nor by corporations whose profits and survival depend on decisions made from precise data. If you want to find research on this subject, you need to check relevant scholarly publications. I cannot give you a concise list, because the breadth of the disciplines that use census data means that it could be in almost any social sciences journal. JSTOR’s online database would be a good place to start, but I believe they require a subscription (I’ve never tried to access the site off-campus, so I don’t know for sure). If that’s the case, your public library is probably your best bet.

Originally posted by Yume
What you seem to forget is truth has no error.
That's not the point, as I've tried to explain. Twice. I am now through discussing this with you.[/b]That is the point. I am saying that your data is not 100% accurate and has so much error it is pretty likely it is untrue and since it can be untrue you cannot use it as a truth. You have failed to refute that and your response is obviously saying that you cannot prove your statement. You have given up I assume.

03-24-2005, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div>Originally posted by Peregrinus@
<!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer
How would I obtain data that is not there because it has never been recorded?
You are putting you trust in the government and what they say. That is your choice. I wish I could do the same.

I'm putting trust in the government, academia, and (on this particular subject) the corporate sector. That covers almost all interested parties in the United States. This is not a \"government says\" issue. If the government's data were inaccurate, it would not be used by academics whose reputations and careers are determined on the quality and validity of their research nor by corporations whose profits and survival depend on decisions made from precise data. If you want to find research on this subject, you need to check relevant scholarly publications. I cannot give you a concise list, because the breadth of the disciplines that use census data means that it could be in almost any social sciences journal. JSTOR’s online database would be a good place to start, but I believe they require a subscription (I’ve never tried to access the site off-campus, so I don’t know for sure). If that’s the case, your public library is probably your best bet.

Originally posted by Yume
What you seem to forget is truth has no error.
That's not the point, as I've tried to explain. Twice. I am now through discussing this with you.That is the point. I am saying that your data is not 100% accurate and has so much error it is pretty likely it is untrue and since it can be untrue you cannot use it as a truth. You have failed to refute that and your response is obviously saying that you cannot prove your statement. You have given up I assume.[/b]

So basicly what you're saying is that the facts that Peregrinus supplied (Which are based on statistical data, with a negligible margin of error in the opinion of government, academia and corporations, negligible enough to base important policies on it) are wrong because they have a margin of error that is too large in your opinion, so unless Peregrinus comes up with facts based on 100% correct data your argument (which is backed up with no such facts) wins by default?

Yume

03-24-2005, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by CT+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CT)</div>Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus@
<!--QuoteBegin-Howetzer
How would I obtain data that is not there because it has never been recorded?
You are putting you trust in the government and what they say. That is your choice. I wish I could do the same.

I'm putting trust in the government, academia, and (on this particular subject) the corporate sector. That covers almost all interested parties in the United States. This is not a \"government says\" issue. If the government's data were inaccurate, it would not be used by academics whose reputations and careers are determined on the quality and validity of their research nor by corporations whose profits and survival depend on decisions made from precise data. If you want to find research on this subject, you need to check relevant scholarly publications. I cannot give you a concise list, because the breadth of the disciplines that use census data means that it could be in almost any social sciences journal. JSTOR’s online database would be a good place to start, but I believe they require a subscription (I’ve never tried to access the site off-campus, so I don’t know for sure). If that’s the case, your public library is probably your best bet.

Originally posted by Yume
What you seem to forget is truth has no error.
That's not the point, as I've tried to explain. Twice. I am now through discussing this with you.That is the point. I am saying that your data is not 100% accurate and has so much error it is pretty likely it is untrue and since it can be untrue you cannot use it as a truth. You have failed to refute that and your response is obviously saying that you cannot prove your statement. You have given up I assume.[/b]

So basicly what you're saying is that the facts that Peregrinus supplied (Which are based on statistical data, with a negligible margin of error in the opinion of government, academia and corporations, negligible enough to base important policies on it) are wrong because they have a margin of error that is too large in your opinion, so unless Peregrinus comes up with facts based on 100% correct data your argument (which is backed up with no such facts) wins by default?[/b][/quote]Not neccissarily 100%, but with less error. Since the poll doesn't even cover half of the U.S. Population the chances of it are extremely unlikely. It could be that he could be way off. The margin of error is too great to consider it. Small polls are not a good tool when dealing with a big population. His poll is not accurate enough to back up his statement. I would be comfortable putting in $20.00 US dollars against his data since the chance of it not happening is more likely.

bradybaker

03-24-2005, 07:39 PM

Small polls are not a good tool when dealing with a big population.[/b]
Actually they are an extremely good tool. You really need to go take a stats class before you get into arguments with people who know what they're talking about.

Yume

03-24-2005, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by bradybaker
Small polls are not a good tool when dealing with a big population.
Actually they are an extremely good tool. You really need to go take a stats class before you get into arguments with people who know what they're talking about.[/b]I know what I am talking about and the size of this poll is too small to be accurate. They did not have as many people in the poll as they should have. Check the data yourself. To have a statement like this you would need a larger size. Notice how I have been saying small.

Peregrinus

03-25-2005, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Yume
I know what I am talking about and the size of this poll is too small to be accurate. They did not have as many people in the poll as they should have. Check the data yourself. To have a statement like this you would need a larger size. Notice how I have been saying small.

I don't know why I keep getting drawn back into this. It's not my responsibility to cure you of your ignorance, but I'm getting annoyed at your persistent attempts to spread it. Clearly when I asked you if you know what a representative sample is, you didn't even bother to look up the term and discover that you, in fact, have no idea what it means before you answered a hasty false affirmative. What are you, Yume-- 13, 14 years old? What’s the highest level of mathematics instruction you’ve had? The most dangerous people in the world are those who don't know what they don't know. Right now, you either fall into that category or are purposely trying to conceal what you know to be your lack of knowledge on this subject. Whichever one it is, lay off. You don't know what you're talking about and each further post only confirms the fact. Go educate yourself with a statistics class—or even just a stat book—first, and then come back to this discussion which hopefully, after this long diversion, will get back on its original track.

So, how ‘bout those stem cells…?

Yume

03-25-2005, 11:33 PM

Do you even know how many people were polled? That is your problem. I do know stats and there is a basic quota you should make to your sample size. This poll didn't make it. Statistivs are good and I like to use them, but the data you provided just doesn't work. There are basic requirements that people must achieve to have valid data. You have not even touched that argument thus you have failed to claim validity. I have said this many times and I gave you too many times to respond. It is you who need to listen or read in this case more closely. I recommend you look into your data more in depth before you use it. A big problem I have found with many people is they do not do an analysis on others data. They just accept it as true. That is not a very good idea. You should know how the research was done before you believe it.

About Stem Cell Research. I am all for it until people start wanting to use humans they aborted in the research. First they are given no chance to live and then their remains are used to better someone else. That is a sad day for Democracy in my eyes.

Peregrinus

03-26-2005, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Yume
Do you even know how many people were polled? That is your problem. I do know stats and there is a basic quota you should make to your sample size. This poll didn't make it. Statistivs are good and I like to use them, but the data you provided just doesn't work. There are basic requirements that people must achieve to have valid data. You have not even touched that argument thus you have failed to claim validity. I have said this many times and I gave you too many times to respond. It is you who need to listen or read in this case more closely. I recommend you look into your data more in depth before you use it. A big problem I have found with many people is they do not do an analysis on others data. They just accept it as true. That is not a very good idea. You should know how the research was done before you believe it.

Dear God, you really are this dense, aren't you?

If you "know statistics," answer my question. What's the highest level of mathematics instruction that you've had? To be fair, I'll list the pertinent math courses I've taken, so we can compare who knows best what they're talking about: Calculus I, Calculus II, Calculus III, Statistics, Differential Equations, and Linear Algebra, all of those taken and successfully completed with a cummulative 4.0 GPA within the last 5 years, with Calculus III and above taken at a first tier private university.

My response to your "argumenents" has been, for the first two times, and now this third one: REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE. Go and look up the damn word, Yume, and then realize that your claims of a sample too small to accurately represent the American population are impotent when a small, REPRESENTATIVE sample is constructed and polled. If you actually bothered to look at the data you're criticizing before plopping down at your keyboard and chewing and regurgitating what you've already said, you'd realize that the household survey covered 106,418 households. That number is 90 times as large as the approximately 1000-1500 people needed to construct a representative sample of the US population with a margin of error of +/- 3%. If you know how to multiply numbers, you'll find that even with an error of 3% (which is unlikely, since the standard error for the mean and medium incomes is less than 1%), the averages DO NOT CHANGE enough for the overall trend to reverse. Would you like to know what margin of error is necessary for the trend to reverse? For such a thing to even be possible for a portion of the trend would require that the error be greater than the greatest magnitude of difference between two categories, and that would necessitate 11.3% error. To reverse the entire trend would require far more error. That is unheard of. If such were the case, US census data would never be used by government policy makers or researchers in academia and the corporate sector.

So, before for you start making an blithering idiot of yourself, take your own advice. Analyze the data before you criticize it.

Yume

03-26-2005, 09:39 PM

03-26-2005, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div><!--QuoteBegin-Yume
Do you even know how many people were polled? That is your problem. I do know stats and there is a basic quota you should make to your sample size. This poll didn't make it. Statistivs are good and I like to use them, but the data you provided just doesn't work. There are basic requirements that people must achieve to have valid data. You have not even touched that argument thus you have failed to claim validity. I have said this many times and I gave you too many times to respond. It is you who need to listen or read in this case more closely. I recommend you look into your data more in depth before you use it. A big problem I have found with many people is they do not do an analysis on others data. They just accept it as true. That is not a very good idea. You should know how the research was done before you believe it.

About Stem Cell Research. I am all for it until people start wanting to use humans they aborted in the research. First they are given no chance to live and then their remains are used to better someone else. That is a sad day for Democracy in my eyes.You have taken 1 statistics class. This is over.[/b]

you've taken more/higher level one?

bradybaker

03-27-2005, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Yume
You have taken 1 statistics class. This is over.
Did you even read the rest of his post?

Kaniaz

03-27-2005, 12:44 PM

Are we playing the credientals game? Let's not, no-one cares.

Peregrinus

03-27-2005, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by CT
you've taken more/higher level one?

No. If he had, he would have said so. I would imagine that this is his attempt to bow out dragging what he believes remains of his dignity by again avoiding a simple question and making an ambivalent statement that he hopes will be interpreted as implying that he has more expertise in this area than I.

And no, Kaniaz, this isn't a contest of credentials, but it is a question of credibility.

Kaniaz

03-28-2005, 04:13 AM

OK, that's all I was able to glean from the posts (I have no idea what "Stats 1" is, etc).

Yume

03-28-2005, 06:13 PM

I will humor you Perengrinus.

I have taken 3 years of stats classes all at which are at the beauty of the best WCC basketball team.

I just find it pointless when someone really has to go that off topic. I'm getting the point with bradybaker too. I have a standard considering I have won countless trophies in debate classes. You do not do things like this. I like to keep debate room rules and that includes keeping on topic. I have actually left a debate because someone said that my khaki pants were unprofessional and should be marked down. I still won it too. :mrgreen:

bradybaker

03-28-2005, 08:10 PM

I'm speechless...I am without speech.

Originally posted by Yume
I have taken 3 years of stats classes all at which are at the beauty of the best WCC basketball team.

Wait....a basketball team taught you stats? Well there's your problem right there!

Peregrinus

03-29-2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Yume
I will humor you Perengrinus.
Aww, shucks. That's mighty fine of you, there. Mighty fine.

I have taken 3 years of stats classes all at which are at the beauty of the best WCC basketball team.[/b]
I'm with Bradybaker on this one. This is going to sound just plain rude, but I simply cannot believe that someone who lacks such a basic understanding of statistical principles could have taken three statistics classes, even if only at the middle school or high school level and even if they were \"statistics for the game of basketball\" (or whatever that non-sentence about beauty and basketball is supposed to mean). Also, for the record, a secondary school math class (or three) is not qualitatively equivalent to a university-level mathematics course.

I just find it pointless when someone really has to go that off topic. [/b]
I wouldn't have felt the need to if you hadn't jumped in and started dogmatically criticizing something you don't understand.

I have a standard considering I have won countless trophies in debate classes. You do not do things like this. I like to keep debate room rules and that includes keeping on topic. I have actually left a debate because someone said that my khaki pants were unprofessional and should be marked down. I still won it too. :mrgreen: [/b]
And with such logic as, "Each person's individual choice to have kids, not have kids, or define the variable of the number of kids they want reflects the statistics of the data so even if you actually had accurate data it could have changed because it is possible it could have," as perfectly circular as Giotto's proof to the Pope of his artistic skill, how could you not win your debates?

But I will agree with you on one thing, this discussion diverged a long way back.. somewhere on page 2, I think.

Yume

03-29-2005, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Perengis
I'm with Bradybaker on this one. This is going to sound just plain rude, but I simply cannot believe that someone who lacks such a basic understanding of statistical principles could have taken three statistics classes, even if only at the middle school or high school level and even if they were \"statistics for the game of basketball\" (or whatever that non-sentence about beauty and basketball is supposed to mean). Also, for the record, a secondary school math class (or three) is not qualitatively equivalent to a university-level mathematics course.

Sorry I meant to say I have taken 3 years of stats classes all at which are at the beauty of the college with the best WCC basketball team. Gonzaga is a nice college.

And with such logic as, \"Each person's individual choice to have kids, not have kids, or define the variable of the number of kids they want reflects the statistics of the data so even if you actually had accurate data it could have changed because it is possible it could have,\" as perfectly circular as Giotto's proof to the Pope of his artistic skill, how could you not win your debates?

But I will agree with you on one thing, this discussion diverged a long way back.. somewhere on page 2, I think.[/b]Sometimes in Lincoln Douglass debate that can go against you. Also in CX that info can really hinder you.

We'll just leave it be. It is a waste of time. We all have our opinions.

Peregrinus

03-29-2005, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Yume
Sorry I meant to say I have taken 3 years of stats classes all at which are at the beauty of the college with the best WCC basketball team. Gonzaga is a nice college.

Ok, now I'm speechless, except to say that you should ask for your tuition money back. Seriously. I went ahead and dragged out some of my old stats notes. The equation for the margin of error in a poll such as the census data I posted is approximately equal to 1 divided by the square root of the number of people in the sample. That's where I got the \"1000-1500 people represent a margin of error of approximately 3%\" statement. For the 106,418 people polled by the census bureau for that report, that equates to a predicted 0.3% margin of error, which is comparable to the calculated 0.47% error in the median income for that particular report. If after 3 statistics classes, you weren't even taught that much, you were gypped. You should really get your money back.

Sometimes in Lincoln Douglass debate that can go against you. Also in CX that info can really hinder you.[/b]

I guess sarcasm doesn't come through a computer screen very well. :?

But yeah, this is dead. There's really no point anymore.

albinox

03-30-2005, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by bradybaker
Is human cloning ok?

No. I think the technology will get banned. It's dangerous to do things like that.

Peregrinus

03-31-2005, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by albinox+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(albinox)</div><!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
Is human cloning ok?

No. I think the technology will get banned. It's dangerous to do things like that.[/b]

I could see it possibly getting banned in the US, but if that happens, cloning operations will simply locate elsewhere. It's like any other kind of technology-- you can't "undiscover" it. Once something is known to be possible, there will always be people who want to experiment with it. Whether human cloning occurs in the US or is outsourced to another country, I'm confident that it will occur.

Howie

04-01-2005, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Peregrinus
I could see it possibly getting banned in the US, but if that happens, cloning operations will simply locate elsewhere. It's like any other kind of technology-- you can't \"undiscover\" it. Once something is known to be possible, there will always be people who want to experiment with it. Whether human cloning occurs in the US or is outsourced to another country, I'm confident that it will occur.

Yes, It is inevitable! :arrow: :| = :|

albinox

04-04-2005, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>Originally posted by albinox@
<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
Is human cloning ok?

No. I think the technology will get banned. It's dangerous to do things like that.

I could see it possibly getting banned in the US, but if that happens, cloning operations will simply locate elsewhere. It's like any other kind of technology-- you can't \"undiscover\" it. Once something is known to be possible, there will always be people who want to experiment with it. Whether human cloning occurs in the US or is outsourced to another country, I'm confident that it will occur.[/b]

Well, no one has been able to clone humans yet, so I don't think we will have to worry so much about it. :) Maybe they never will be able to clone humans at all.

Peregrinus

04-04-2005, 01:50 PM

Howie

04-04-2005, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by albinox
Well, no one has been able to clone humans yet, so I don't think we will have to worry so much about it. :) Maybe they never will be able to clone humans at all.

What you said Peregrinus!

Yes, It is inevitable! Number 9. please come to the front , number 9!

:| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :) :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :|

04-09-2005, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Yume+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yume)</div><!--QuoteBegin-Perengis
I'm with Bradybaker on this one. This is going to sound just plain rude, but I simply cannot believe that someone who lacks such a basic understanding of statistical principles could have taken three statistics classes, even if only at the middle school or high school level and even if they were \"statistics for the game of basketball\" (or whatever that non-sentence about beauty and basketball is supposed to mean). Also, for the record, a secondary school math class (or three) is not qualitatively equivalent to a university-level mathematics course.

Sorry I meant to say I have taken 3 years of stats classes all at which are at the beauty of the college with the best WCC basketball team. Gonzaga is a nice college.

And with such logic as, \"Each person's individual choice to have kids, not have kids, or define the variable of the number of kids they want reflects the statistics of the data so even if you actually had accurate data it could have changed because it is possible it could have,\" as perfectly circular as Giotto's proof to the Pope of his artistic skill, how could you not win your debates?

But I will agree with you on one thing, this discussion diverged a long way back.. somewhere on page 2, I think.[/b]Sometimes in Lincoln Douglass debate that can go against you. Also in CX that info can really hinder you.

We'll just leave it be. It is a waste of time. We all have our opinions.[/b]

Yume all I have seen you do is saying that Peregrinus' information and knowledge is invalid, without any reasons why. You say you know better then her because you took more highschool classes but thats not really a solid argument to back up your statements. Peregrinus has provided facts, information, etc. and you've deciced not to acknowledge those without any clear reason. So I'm interested in your reasonings why she is not correct.
This is not about opinions, but about the facts.

SantaDreamsToo

06-11-2005, 03:19 PM

Ill make this simple:

1-cloning whole humans= bad

2-genetic modification= bad

3-cloning hearts and other organs= good

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reasons for my answers:

1. cloning whole humans: I dont really have a reason why this would be wrong other than my own religious beliefs and political beliefs, (to each his own)

2. genetic modifications: The fist people to have this done to their children would probably have complications and whatnot, (what if your child wasnt meant to have something you gave them, so it clashed with some other natural bodypart and made them look bad (defined chin, smaller nose, bigger nose, etc...) also your child might be looked at as an outcast of society, or you would make naturally "beautiful" people have a disadvantage, there could also be something with the sports thing, like when your child being gifted at sports grows older and tries to join the league hes rejected because he was "given" his abilities thus putting naturals at a disadvantage

3. cloning hearts and other organs: I thyink that this would be widely accepted, as long as you didnt kill a baby or something like that, this would be the same as building a fake heart from fabric (not possible I know but you get the point ;) ) you wouldnt be killing anything or taking your soul away. Im sure there would be some people that rejected it but still many more would accept it. the only way that I can see this as bad is if you made new better muscles for athletic purposes or better eyes or something like that, (as long as you stay in what a human can normally have). also overpopulation may be a factor in the future but im sure that there would be a greater number of suicides as well.

(excuse me if this was way off topic of what your talking about now but I only read 3 pages ;) )

Gargen

06-11-2005, 10:39 PM

i would wanna get my future hot wife cloned, if you know what i mean

Howie

06-12-2005, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Gargen
i would wanna get my future hot wife cloned, if you know what i mean

What if you got divorced Garden! :shock: Twice the alomony. JK. :)

Going to be hailed for their genius. = Quite possible. If we stick to embriotic research and developement. ( I am not sure if this has been pointed out, I did not see it.) But the embrios that the scientist use are, for a lack of a better word, clinical waste. So they would be going to waste anyway. But then you go back to the abortion issue and that whole debate.

Going to be ostracized from society. - I don't think so.

Going to hell. - What about heavan? Or neither?

SantaDreamsToo

06-12-2005, 12:57 PM

about the hell thing,

every religion has somewhere or a lower place that bad people go, (if you don’t have a religion then you just have morals to go on)

Roller

06-24-2005, 09:08 PM

The world will become over populated, whether or not people's life spans are increased. Humans are both an R-selected and a K-selected species.

An R-selected species is one in which it's population is only limited by the rate at which it can reproduce... eg locusts.

A K-selected species is one in which the population is limited by the available resources.

The difference with humans is that when we reach the limit of our resources we have a war, and out of this we create new technologies to boost our resources (refridgeration, better farming, higher yeilds). Therefore, with the boost in population that we might experience from a drammatically increased life expectency we would also be implemeting new technologies (genetically modified foods for higher yields etc).

Also, I think that the longer we live the better off we will be. Just think, if we suddenly started living for 150 years. People would be more likely to think about the evironment, and making sure that the earth etc is still good for a longer time, instead of being careless because they're going to die soon anyways.

Howie

06-26-2005, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Roller
Also, I think that the longer we live the better off we will be. Just think, if we suddenly started living for 150 years. People would be more likely to think about the evironment, and making sure that the earth etc is still good for a longer time, instead of being careless because they're going to die soon anyways.

I wish I could agree.
I don't think fifty years would change our ways of thinking and satisfy our egoes anymore than if we lived 200 years..
I think over population and the out-resourcing and consumtion of our natural resources is inevitable. With longer life spans it would just happen sooner.