I photocopied "The Objectivist Ethics" to read it through and mark it up again with this challenge in mind. Did you see my PM to you about that? Your suggestion has ramifications.

Moral pragmatism? You read. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pragma...

Agreed.

Dr. I agree totally.

Mike, thanks for your comments, but you appear to be going off on tangents not connected to my comments.

...their self-abasing beliefs, for sure; and I have little doubt you would in self-defense.

While I am sure that I would make a lovely bbq, conscious, I will forgo that honor in favor of smashing my 'cooks' into atomic sub-components. (Or die trying - eh?)

Jan

Well said, Jan. Such brazenly rational selfishness would have garnered you an invitation to Be the bbq in generations past....

Any attempt to limit my ability to attain immortality is murder - of me. I take the right to mine own life as a matter of paramount importance, and I will brook no argument that says that it is unethical for me to do this. I will control my genetic material as I see fit and am able to afford - there are genes I do not like in my body, and genes that do. If I decide to clone myself in the future, or have a genetically modified child, that is my business, and not the concern of anyone else.

Technology has done more to feed people and eradicate disease than any well-intentioned charity program. If it is not crushed by political limitations, it will continue to do this: we are fully capable of feeding the billions, of providing electricity and education to everyone in the world. It is politics and people who think that they have the right to control others who are standing in the way of this - right now, and in the future.

There is no compromise on my right to mine own body, longevity (if I can achieve it), or potential reproduction. If you feel that you have the right to do these things, then I have only one thing to say to you: Get out of my way.

Jan

Send pictures of cute cats. They will not self-delete...they will use their resources, just as the rest of us do, for things that please them.

Jan

I'm no fan of Maphesdus, but that's strike two.

Ok, Gulchers, give me a bit.
The Two Strkie Policy broom is a -comin'.

Oh, you're back.

I've been a bit busy with other things.
I'm thinking that now is a good time for me to let the newbies know of the Two Strike Policy on my threads.

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/6d...

When and where did you meet with Obama?
How are you close enough to his inner circle for him to ask what your opinion is?

How many poor do you see getting elective surgery, like cosmetic facelifts or tummy tucks? Life extension will not be seen as a necessary procedure. Treatments to aid in a healthy normal life are one thing, but performance enhancing or life extension procedures will be considered extraordinary for a long time.

I could see performance enhancing medical procedures for military purposes, but I suspect that robotics will make that unnecessary. Advanced prosthetics or limb replacement (regrowth?) will be available to all to restore function, and genetic screening and in utero treatment for fetal disorders as well, but the fancier procedures will take a very long time to "trickle down", if at all. I still think the issue of life extension is a social bombshell.

Zenphamy, any way in which one person or group stops another from acting can only be political. We may want that to protect rights. Beyond that, of course, are different questions - and the "beyond that" is very near. The original article by Ed Hudgins cited Leon Kass: “In perpetuation, we send forth not just the seed of our bodies, but also the bearer of our hopes… If our children are to flower, we need to sow them well and nurture them, cultivate them in rich and wholesome soil, clothe them in fine and decent opinions and mores, and direct them toward the highest light. ... If they are truly to flower, we must go to seed; we must wither and give ground.”

Replying to this over on Rebirth of Reason, I said that I had to look up Leon Kass. Leon Richard Kass was one of President George W. Bush's science advisors. "...best known as proponent of liberal education via the "Great Books," as an opponent of human cloning, life extension and euthanasia, as a critic of certain areas of technological progress and embryo research..." -- Wikipedia. His is an old argument; and one perhaps not easily ignored. Enduring power - political, cultural, philosophical, ... ethos, Zeitgeist... - conserves itself, making change more difficult.

In this case, in particular, not only did the government not fund the research, which is fine, but they made human cloning illegal. How would legal controls on the Internet affect the "Internt of things" when some of those "things" are parts of your body or adjuncts to your brain?

3D printing makes body parts, from joints to tissues. Doctors and hospitals are regulated, but can the government prevent you from making these and installing them yourself? We have had robot surgery for about 30 years. Give yourself an anesthetic and run the program...

As for the Einsteins, that is a result of our population explosion. People like that came along once every lifetime (maybe). Now the 25% smartest people in China are more people than are in the United States. But they need freedom to make the best use of that intelligence. That is why we know more of these people in the 15th century than in the previous 10 or 15 centuries.

Mike, I tend to think the questions go a bit deeper than things like the Constitution. In the evolution of the human species, Nature has been the controller to date and she's a cold hard bitch. Nature isn't purpose driven or influenced by the desires of either the successful or unsuccessful mutations, and works at her own pace with no regard for the constructive destruction of the antecedents except possibly to work from some basic architecture. But as our species has reached the point within the last 10,000 years at which we can influence, control with limits, and modify our environment which has been a prime decider in the mutation sweepstakes till now, we've begun to reduce the impact of natural evolution on our species.

Is the logical next step to begin working around the pace, randomness, and narrowness of natural evolution and control (expand) our own evolution? Were the Galileo's, DaVinci's, Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's, US Founders' of the last 1,000 years (less than an eye blink in the time frame of Nature) freaks or representatives of Nature's evolution? What is our role, for good or bad, in controlling our own evolution? Who or What is the determiner or controller of the race's destiny as we take this next grand step?

Carol,
Rand's ethics are not based on "moral pragmatism. " As she wrote pragmatism can be amorphous not grounded in reason, yet hides behind it. This is a logical positivist argument and undermines the foundations for morality. You are perhaps confusing her with Hegel.

Mike--You probably know this, but if not, please be advised that too much vitamin A--especially if taken all t once can be toxic. I'm no MD, so take it for what its worth--in friendship. http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-suppleme...