As for designer babies, I'd love to say "no it's hideous and wrong and bad" but I can't. The world doesn't work in black and white. Should it be used commercially to "enhance" children? No. We don't need Aryianism v2.0 thanks. But would you subject an unborn child to HIV? What about cancer? permanent respiratory problems?
Ahem I'II just put it this way, what whould your parents do when you were screened and the doctor said that you had Autistum and It could be averted by changing a letter in your G-node. Which whould they want, a problematic, smart-alecy child that didn't want to be hugged. Or a completely NORMAL child. I know which my parents would choose and I wouldn't be here.
I think in the case you were referring to, they told you you were wrong because you were. If there were no set mathematical laws in place and people were allowed to use 1+1 = 11, then how are things going to be built, or measured? how will we progress with no means of communication numbers? Even ancient races had the standardize, for example the Egyptian cubit was the length of the forearm
Every time you needed a cubit of something, you sent your big brother. It barely worked then, and removing standardisation would prove extremely problematic. If you managed to invent yourself a fully working mathematical system that can be used in any given circumstance, good on you. It's totally useless until enough people understand it to use it on a day-to-day basis. So they did the right thing and you apparently didn't learn what they were trying to tell you.
I'm not talking about standerisation here I just thought that 1 + 1 = 11 because it looked like this: I + I = II (<< roman numerals here) because the numerals were large and friendly for all the other nero's in my class. Hey it worked for the romans.
As for designer babies, I'd love to say "no it's hideous and wrong and bad" but I can't. The world doesn't work in black and white. Should it be used commercially to "enhance" children? No. We don't need Aryianism v2.0 thanks. But would you subject an unborn child to HIV? What about cancer? permanent respiratory problems?
I can see the moral objection. I really can. But I'd never, ever be able to let ANY child enter the world where it'll know nothing but pain and suffering until it dies. Nor would I let a child be predisposed to any horrific illness. And that's what it comes down to. If a child is genetically inclined to anything that makes them suffer, I'd want to stop that. I've heard the debate over and over but I cannot see why anyone wouldn't.
Human greed is too powerful, all we can do is take there minds off such pain and give them the strengh to pursue there happyness (it is there right too) and possably greatness, we need to tell everyone we can do anything because the statement impossable is teroetically incorrect.
EDIT: me r speel gud
No flamebaiting!!!
If you really want to exercise your mind, I recommend that you take some philosophy. Find yourself a good teacher, and learn. With time, you can learn how to creep people out using logic.
I am my own teacher and I already do, giggity
.
True, but thats why those examples make such excellent influence. Think about it this way: We fought against the Nazis, they were evil, and since good fights evil, we must therefore be good. Such thought processes help to make a democracy sound better, and makes the average person feel good about being an American. It works so well that those who didn't fight feel proud, and patriotic for being an American, depite the fact that they've never fought in the war, or have done anything to support the country.
On a side note, not every Nazi was evil. Ever heard of Schindler's list?
There are good and bad people on both sides of war, Rommel being an example.
