I recentlly started a thread on indefinite life extension, asking people
if they are ready to live indefinitly:
[DBETZ] - 07:18am Jan 10, 1998 EST (#1 of 2)
I can see the reality in this concept and I do think it is possible. My
question is do you think this planet will be able to substain life
another 250 years if we continue to distroy it at the rate we are
progressing ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[phughes] - 07:45pm Jan 10, 1998 EST (#2 of 2)
Dbetz: Yes, if we continue to use the same technologies and processes
that we now have for another 250 years, the entire ecosystem could
destabilize and humanity along with many other species could be wiped
off the planet like a bad case of the flu. That's why it is essential
that along with increased lifespan, comes increased responsibility to
improve ourselves. Obviously anyone with increased intelligence can see
that our current inefficient and polluting ways are a dead end.
Long-term survival implies that wedevelop a sustainable society both on
earth and off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ON CLONING:
[elizowen] - 03:23pm Jan 10, 1998 EST (#8 of 9)
Are you against President Clinton's proposed five-year ban on human
cloning then? Does he have a point that "scientific advancement does not
occur in a moral vacuum" or is this just hot air from a politician who
doesn't want to rock the boat? Is it worth taking a timeout before we
run the risk , according to one fertility expert,of producing babies
whose chromosomes match those of the donor -- i.e., by the time they
reach 20, they could have the blood pressure problems of their
middle-aged parents?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
phughes] - 07:38pm Jan 10, 1998 EST (#9 of 9)
In principle, I am not against a kind of moratorium to allow time to
develope a wise and beniificial plan on how it can be used productively.
However, Clinton is merely pandering to popular (i.e ignorant and
fearful) opinion in order to protect his butt and that of his party. His
rhetoric was full of moral and religious overtones that are irrelevelant
to conducting safe and sound science. Most people when asked why they
are against cloning, resort to such stupid answers as "its wrong,
immoral and dangerous" w/o giving a single reason why, other than "it
just is!".
We don't need a ban, we need an informed and educated debate and how
best to DEVELOPE this technology, not how to stop it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the hysteria about asteroid imacts and why space migration is good
thing:
[phughes] - 04:04am Jan 10, 1998 EST (#35 of 37)
I have two points to make about asteroid impacts.
1) The chance of an asteroid hitting earth with enough force to
seriously destabilize human civiliation within the next 100 years is
about 1 in 50,000. I take those odds every time I get in my car. I'm not
worried.
2) If you are worried, which you should be if you care about the
long-term survival of the human race, then you should also be a strong
advocate for space migration. It is utterly silly that we should
contemplate a long and sustainable future, without incorporating space
migration as THE FUTURE for humankind. We have an amazing, beautiful and
infinite universe awaiting us, if we can just muster the courage and the
will to go. We must - otherwise all life's 3.875 billion year struggle
from primeavel hot baths to now would have been in vane. The universe is
calling us. It is our birthright and our future.
Ad Astra!
Paul Hughes
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com