h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

hmm, the ability for a person to use it in that manner is. The actual control is neither good nor bad but depends on the person doing the controlling and the situation in which it happens.

That's a fair point. Yes, there are obviously cases when the good of abortion *is* alloyed.
- As an instrument of genocide
- As an instrument of social control
- When women are wrongly deemed incapable of a choice
- When abortion is necessitated by poverty etc. etc.

None of those are necessarily the abortionists's fault, of course - but you're right. I need a better phrasing for when I bang my fist on the desk.

Also:
- Sex selection.

One might also add selection based on various other genetic characteristics which might be deemed to be desirable to some but not to others. I would, for example, be appalled at the idea of an in-utero test for a homosexual gene. And I've already put forward my own preferences for medical abortions in general. But on other medical abortions - there are no ethical certainties. Therefore - Choice!

>There's also the fact that Catholics tend not to go for the whole Sunday School/bible study thing<

This is true. At my first primary school, kids feel roughly into two brackets as far as sunday was concerned. Those sent off to sunday school, hardly willingly I may add, as we'd spent all week going to school, and in any case had plenty of bible reading given to us there.

And the other group of us, who ran wild in the countryside learning, or should I say discovering, a whole other form of knowledge, like building camps, making bows and arrows out of branches and twigs, studying and catching insects, (everyone seemed to have a big fascination with all butterflies, caterpillars, grasshoppers and ants), fossil collecting, to name but a few.

I count myself very lucky, that is, until we moved to some godforsaken 'nicer' neighbourhood. But my early experiences had by then stimulated a lifelong fascination with mother nature, and studying all her many manifestations.

BTW I was raised Catholic; just wooly Anglican. The state religion, taught in schools.

*wasn't*

Hi Ed,

"One might also add selection based on various other genetic characteristics which might be deemed to be desirable to some but not to others."

I'm not sure why this (or for that matter sex selection) would be a problem though. Could you explain why you think it would be (which I've no doubt will be more coherent than most of the explanations I've heard in the past)?

I thought to post this link to a Chav version of the 'Christmas story'. Being Chav, it's not very long. And it's damned funny.

http://www.boredandlazy.co.uk/a-chav-christmas/

It's also a highly unsuitable link and very likely to get modded.



F

It's time once again for the 'Do It Yourself' deity game:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.htm

Post your results here, if you like.

My score: Plausibility Quotient = 1.0

"
The metaphysical engineers have determined that your conception of God has a plausibility quotient (PQ) of 1.0. A PQ of 1.0 means that as far as the metaphysical engineers can determine your conception of God is internally consistent and consistent with the universe that we live in. A PQ of 0.0 means that it is neither internally consistent nor consistent with our universe. More than likely, your PQ score will be somewhere between these two figures. But remember that this is your PQ score as determined by the metaphysical engineers. The editors of TPM have no control over their deliberations, so don't blame us!

*******************

What kind of God is that!?

The metaphysical engineers are happy to report that, to the best of their knowledge, the God you conceive is internally consistent and could exist in our universe. But they are less sure that what you have described deserves the name of God. She is not, for example, all-powerful. A God which knows everything or is totally benign may be a wonderful ideal, but is she really a God unless she has ultimate power?

We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths.
"

Hail Eris!

Yes mine was also a 1.0. I tried out several different combinations it was consistently a 1.0.

But then I tried ticking all the boxes and got a report back from the metaphysical engineers that reminded me of debate here sometimes. Maybe the designers of that DIY deity game would like to join us on this thread, to contribute a bit of heated up excitement?

Hail flying ants and Romantic hardcore!

Now that you're heated up, try this one --

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

Dogster:
>>"One might also add selection based on various other genetic characteristics which might be deemed to be desirable to some but not to others."

>>I'm not sure why this (or for that matter sex selection) would be a problem though. Could you explain why you think it would be (which I've no doubt will be more coherent than most of the explanations I've heard in the past)?


Hokay...it's an interesting one, isn't it?

The common cry from oponents of anything relating to genetic medicine, fertility treatment, abortion, etc, is :'That's Just Nazi Eugenics!!!'

The thing is - in a sense, they're right. We're simply not up to the job of designing a Master Race. Think of some examples of what we might select out:
- Where would theoretical physics be if we selected out the gene for MND?
- Where would computer science be if we were able to select out a gay gene? Plus - how would we get a decent haircut?
- And I also like to flatter myself that you'd all miss me if it were possible to select out the gene for bipolar disorder. But even if not - would the Allies have won WWII without Winston Churchill?

I don't know even know what makes up an effective working team (an issue I was discussing with Swedelish sociologits last week). So how the *hell* do we know what makes up an effective society with all the skills necesary for our collective survival? Maybe evolution can do a better job than we can. Evolution requires random genetic variation in order to work.

In the light of this, we should also think carefully about, say, selecting out genes for Downs Syndrome. Eve if we bruttally set aside interests of humans with that condition...have we now turned off the gene, present in some, which makes tham able to care for those with Downs Syndrome? This caring behaviour might well have read-across benefits elsewehere.

But...*I Don't Know*. We also have to consideer individual cases. We are not in a reliable position to pontificate (deliberate use of the word) on which abortions are in the interest of the mother or of te prevention of a child's suffering.

When we don't know - best to have a choice, isn't it?

>ran wild in the countryside learning, or should I say discovering, a whole other form of knowledge<

I grew up on a farm, pretty much bugger all in the way of toys but lots of time spent farting about in trees, the river, organising picnics with the cousins, bouncing around on the bog when my Grandad was saving turf, etc. Was a bit disappointed by the lack of a sega at the time but glad of it now!


(Also, thanks to the chores that come with a farm, I can do pretty much any job and not find it too horrific - as my dad kept telling me, any day you don't have your hand up a cow's arse you're on a winner! )

"Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!"

>We're simply not up to the job of designing a Master Race.<

Precisely. It's the unknown X factor individuals that sometimes prove to be most important for our cultural development and civilisation. One could draw an analogy with Natural Selection itself. Most mutations/undesirable genotypes will be selected against. But very occasionally they prove to be the new 'creative' combination, that is best suited for survival in a certain unpredictable situation. That's the reason a large gene pool works best for producing a variety of phenotypes.

We can't predict exactly when and how such individuals might be just the ticket. As ed has mentioned, for example, Churchill. Winny was a loose cannon for most of his life, and just didn't fit in properly to peacetime politics. He was often back at Chartwell, wrestling with 'black dog', painting, and building wonderful meaningless brickwalls. But come the Nazi menace and threat, who was best at recognising its true evil, whilst 'piece of paper' was out wooing Hitler?

And when war broke out, as it inevitably would, given the totally aggressive Nazi war machine, Winny was made to be a great and inspirational wartime leader. And he made some damned fine speeches to help people feel positive, despite the perilous position we were in. You can't beat the power of positive thinking in such a situation, rather than capitulating and immediately throwing in the towel. Yes we needed the Americans to come in, and Churchill never stopped pestering them, and making sure the American people knew our situation.

Yes, so a designer master race would be about as good an idea as designer club Chelsea FC, are at winning the Champion's League.

Well Effers I think your straying into talking tosh. Sites about chav's "oh perlease", those sites werent even funny when they where novel. Ive always been proud to be a chav, screw people who dont like what I wear and if idiots want to judge me for my clothes or lifestyle choices like eating Iceland ready meals instead of Marks and Spencers ready meals then so be it.


As for Chelsea I detest the way that money has queered the pitch ni football but lets not pretend that all and every team that ever played was pretty much a "designer" effort. Its just that winning teams are dsign plus magic and before Abramovich and his millions bacme the bogey man it was the evil wizard Fergie who was the pantomime villian of English football hovering up all the best talent and and ManU fans who were derided for coming from Surrey.

I can't agree with you summary of WWII and Churchills part in the winning of it for the allies either. While he was obviously important there were other factors such as radar, resistance members in many European countries, exiled airmen from the same countries and resources from the US and the huge (at the time) Empire which all had more to do with winning the war than Churchill.

As with Jesus people have given too much credit for the effects of what goes on his name to him. While few people are willing to acknoledge his part in bad things like the bombing of Dresden or what happened when Russia started its land grab.

Im not trying to discount his acheivements but I hate the way his actions are sanitised and built up to the point where it seems like he singlehandedly won the war.

>Ive always been proud to be a chav,<

Sorry blicks but you are no chav. Maybe superficially. My definition of chav *always* includes, along with the other stuff which I like, the fundamental of taking pride in being 'thick', an affectation of course; but making a virtue of being stupid isn't anythingI've noticed you doing.

> Churchills part in the winning of it<

Please point out where I have said that; And I haven't said any nonsense about him single handedly winning the War. I said he was a great war time leader in inspiring positivity amongst a nation that must have felt utterly terrified, and he foresaw what Nazism was all about before the war, and spoke out in parliament, even though he was ridiculed. Endlessly pestering the US for help was incredibly important, pragmatically. They gave us a lot assistance in all sorts of ways before Pearl Harbour, sending supplies across the Atlantic, including some military. Risking attack from German U boats. My own mother's family got sent food parcels from an American woman, horrified at what was happening to Britain. My mother is friends with her to this day. They frequently visit one another. It's a deep bond

Hi Ed,

"Where would theoretical physics be if we selected out the gene for MND?"

Yeah but that cuts both ways. We've never seen the geniuses of theoretical physics that MIGHT HAVE been born if we had selected out the gene for MND.

"And I also like to flatter myself that you'd all miss me if it were possible to select out the gene for bipolar disorder."

This is a red herring though. You can argue that the particular circumstances that were necessary for you to be the person you are today should have been otherwise.

"But even if not - would the Allies have won WWII without Winston Churchill?"

Would he have needed if Adolf Hitler had been screened out before birth?

OK, enough examples - my point is that all of these examples swing both ways. There's no generalising from particular instances in this argument.

"So how the *hell* do we know what makes up an effective society with all the skills necesary for our collective survival? Maybe evolution can do a better job than we can. Evolution requires random genetic variation in order to work."

Is talking about evolution really relevant though? The time frame is too short. For sure we could worry about what will happen to the human race after 10,000 years of modifying our own DNA, but honestly that seems a bit far-fetched to me as a contemporary worry.

"Eve if we bruttally set aside interests of humans with [Downs Syndrome]...have we now turned off the gene, present in some, which makes tham able to care for those with Downs Syndrome?"

I don't really understand. Is this just a point about unintended consequences? Also, why the adverb 'brutally'?

"When we don't know - best to have a choice, isn't it?"

Oh I agree that we shouldn't have these choices taken away from us. But, if the huge majority of people were screening their children for a wide range of genetic conditions, I don't see the problem.

But I think, Dogster, that you make my point. We. Just. Don't. Know.