On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:38:35 -0400
Joseph Sterlynne <firstname.lastname@example.org> posted
> LA Times op-ed piece by Craig Venter and Daniel Cohen:
[ snip ]
>The most interesting thing is that they conclude with a proposal:
> There is no universal system of ethical criteria that says, "This is
> good. This is possible, but it is bad, so don't do it." Now that we are
> at the threshold of the most fundamental knowledge man can attain of
> his own being, such a universal system is imperative.
>There is further [fundamental knowledge], like the structure of the human
>mind and minds in general. Directly and precisely modifying that like
>software will truly be revolutionary.
> What we propose is the establishment of a kind of worldwide "upper
> chamber of parliament" for this purpose.
>This sounds like a strange term with which to pitch the idea. Why do I
>suspect that the first images many people (or at least Americans) will get
>are of stuffy, peruked men arguing behind large closed doors?
...the image that comes to this American's mind is the
illo from the Rosicrucians ads that used to run on Cover3
of _Amazing_ and _Thrilling Wonder_: the robed and
soutaned cabal in the candlelit chamber, muttering "This
Knowledge Must Die." Since this supraparliament
presumably will be chosen on a democratic basis, can we
expect to see representation of such widely respected
disciplines as chiropractic and homeopathy, not to mention
increasingly serious philosophical currents such as
Shamanism and the Gaia schtick?
stencil, Jackboot Factor 3.3, sends
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:42 MDT