Granted I'm not sure how much advice a person who needs help rating his own profile can possibly give.


Profile picture, summary, etc.

Okay, you CLEARLY didn't even read what was just typed if you're still on about volunteering. READ the final paragraph again.

The final paragraph. Read it.




And what exactly is a "franken freakery", because it's sounding more and more like a term for stuff you have difficulty comprehending.


Laws were broken in the past, some were broken to gain access to test subjects to experiment on. But if I hadn't made it clear enough already, they aren't intertwined. There's no relations to the two. To dismiss something just because "the Nazis did it!" is blind paranoia.



Do you believe that we should never build new roads and develop a country's infrastructure ever again because hey, the Nazis did it too?

The atrocities they performed was rounding up specific groups, having them labour and executed upon the thousands while others are subjected the painful experimentation. Did I say anything about opening up death camps? Did I say anything about trying to kill of the gypsies?

Even in those experiments Mengele performed, the experiments themselves weren't atrocities, the specific acts in carrying them out were. The methods to begin them, the methods to gather subjects and data. Laws have already been broken long before the experiments even began.





Lastly, volunteer? HOW in the world are most of these (theoretical) experiments supposed to work on a developed organism? Do you seriously think all it takes to create a Spider Goat is to just take a goat and inject it with spider blood? You've missed the goal by a mile if you plan on using a fully developed organism.

And exactly when and where did I specifically say "Hitler did some good, therefore all his atrocities are negated"?

All I'm trying to point out is that yelling "NAZIS!" is never a good argument against a certain idea. You seem to be under the impression that the killing of millions are for the sake of experimentation and research the research rather than just wild connections.

Hence Hitler ate sugar. The consumption of sugar in their food is something Nazis have done. It is completely different from pursuing scientific endeavors, however the argument holds exactly the same amount of grounds due to it's lapse in logic.

There is one issue with this logic. The very concept of evolution assumes that evolution has a direction to go, and that whales returning to the seas is going backwards.


There is not particular path evolution take, rather it's simply a matter of whichever organisms and individuals within a species most capable of surviving a given environment will be the one who gets to pass their genes on. Returning to the seas isn't devolution, it's simply that the species is apparently having a better time surviving by becoming aquatic again.


Granted I'd love to know the exact circumstances that lead to such an evolutionary path happening, and to have seen each transitional forms.




I think we may be thinking of something similar, but may just have different terminologies for it. Care to give an example of what you mean?

Oh I don't doubt the possibility that something MIGHT have come to Earth from space, it's low, but it's certainly there. Hell, we already know there are organisms right here on Earth who have proven to be capable of surviving the vacuum space, so maybe those are the evidence of panspermia.


Just pointing out that Earth can produce life on it's own without any help.


(I'm also more than certain that there is life out there in the universe already, the question is whether we'll discover any before going extinct)

Dude calm down. Hitler also ate sugar, should we have a ban on sugar as well?

We've tinkered with DNA multiple times already and have come out with products that benefits everyone. It's a matter of using your common sense. Do you think we simply have Spider-Goats magic itself into existence? No, they were a result of years of research and exploration of how genes work.



The right might not actually be there, but there's certainly merit to use some funds to simply cheer up and help pick the more downtrodden. Would certainly save us more money in the long run as weird as it may sound. Funding some state-sponsored homes to house addicts and such for free in more normal neighbourhoods. There'll be heavy resistance initially but the results will show in a few years.


However that's a topic for another thread.

"Nazism" has nothing to do with these specific scientific endeavors. You can say Nazis have had an interest in the subject, but the Nazis were a lot of thing. Saying "this is bad cuz Nazis did it" is a HORRIBLE argument, and you're proving exactly why. You can't keep a cool head when you talk about this subject. You see the world in black and white rather than the grey it really is.


Tell me, would you object with people displaying a sanskrit as well? Or perhaps using it as a decorative symbol? If you do, you're not going to have the greatest time in many parts of Asia or many temples in general.




That's actually quite a good point. Although it'd apply moreso to the US than other countries. But yes there are theoretically more than just one place to redirect funding. The question is why do space programs get favoured over grounds that we yet to cover on Earth. Stuff that are a bit closer to our reach.

Hard to say. Afterall, Earth already has what it takes to produce the basic units of life. I'm not saying your theory isn't possible, however Earth doesn't need any outside help to create life...theoretically speaking. In fact our planet probably had multiple "origins" of life, it's just that ours stuck around.



As for memory in DNA...are you referring to behavioral evolution? I'm not sure if you really need trillions of years to develop something like that.

****ing with nature is not necessarily a bad thing. The development of vaccines is the pinnacle of our ability to mess around with nature thus far, and it is thanks to it that we almost rid humanity of small pox and measles. It's only because of ignorance and paranoia that measles is starting to make a resurgence.

Screwing around with nature is the only way we can restore eye-sight.


It is only thanks to genetics that we are finally able to produce Spider-Goats.

Well...arranged marriages have existed for a helluva long time and still does.


In such arrangements, appearance may or may not be a factor, but it is common for the two to eventually learn to love each other, and we definitely know they've had sex because they have children. Psychology plays a huge part.

This is going in circles...

Who is or isn't a criminal completely changes as the law themselves changes. And even if laws don't change, completely normal and stable people have a tendency to snap.


All I mentioned is that gun control laws, while ideal, are impossible to support because of how incompetent law enforcement is. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. I'm saying that it's pointless to ban the ownership of guns because of how useless the police are at enforcing such a law if it comes about.

I already mentioned them. They were among the pioneers of animal welfare and anti-tobacco tobaccos.

Many of you appear to assume that just because one assumes they did some good, that they also use it to absolve all of their much greater wrongs. People just lose their minds the moment "Nazi" is mentioned.




If you're referring to Tuskegee, the past is in the past. It was an era before the National Research Act was developed. We have hiccups, but to limit scientific endeavors just because of some potential fall-out that may happen would be small-minded.

If you're so worried that the research will only benefit certain people, it'll benefit everyone eventually. There was a time when owning a car was a luxury. Now almost everyone can get one if they want to.




No you see. You brought up the term "Nazi". All I did was bring up an idea that the Nazis also happened to have some dealings with.

You can bring up any idea. But the moment you bring "Hitler" or "Nazi" into the equation, you invoke Godwin's Law. The Nazi's have done an awful lot of things, bad, normal, good, etc.

Hitler ate sugar at some point in his life. So should we ban sugar?




You're right, we don't know nearly as much as we should about nature.

And this is exactly why we should pursue such endeavors. The more of these research and experiments that we do, the more we learn. Let's put it another way. Giving birth used to be a rather dangerous thing, complications were not uncommon and the rate of death was comparatively high. It is only because we devote so much time and effort into learning more about the process, and after much repeated operations that we are where we are today.

We can't halt scientitific advancement just because we're afraid of what may or may not happen. Especially when it's something so harmless.

You're the one who first brought up the Nazi's. Godwin's Law.




Well, I was aiming for something more along the lines of the fact that our own genes, and the depths of our planet are theoretically much more realistic a goal to tap, yet we hardly spend nearly enough funds on these areas compared to space exploration.

But yeah those things you mentioned would be a likely boon if we decide to learn more about the depths of our planets. Plus, the discovery of more wildlife we could never possibly conceive.


I agree with you that we pretty much reached the extent that the course of nature can possibly bring us. I mean, we'd still evolve, to some small capacity, but it's safe to say we plateau'd.

But in my pov, this is exactly why we should pursue genetics and DNA manipulation. This could potentially bring us as a species to a state that is naturally impossible. More importantly, to further teach ourselves how our bodies work and develop. There are a number of horrible human conditions that are genetic in nature. This may be the best route to tackling them.


Not 100% sure what you mean in your final sentence though.



To be able to manipulate one's sex before birth would help reduce a lot of those specific kinds of abortions. That was the entire point I brought up abortions.

Also, ask yourself this. Are those pointlessly cruel experiments done during Hitler's reign a natural result of the subject matter...or was it because it was headed by someone like Mengele who amputated limbs of twins just because he feels like it? Nazi's have done many MANY things both good and horrible. But you can't let the things they've done forever be linked to them. Or else people would use "Nazi's did it!" as arguments against anti-tobacco and animal rights laws.

You invoked Godwin's Law right from the getgo...just because one or two groups who held these views were a little on the extreme side. Just because Nazi's and Monsanto (two completely different entities) were less than ethical doesn't mean this field they were associated with is inherently wrong.


Also I'm not singling out the US. I said NASA alone spent all that money. Implying just how much more money we're spending if we take all space programs from all around the world into account. When all that money could have went into something more feasible.

Unfortunately the quality appears to go down with each subsequent sequel.


With Jurassic Park being the shortest of the 3 films (yet no cheaper...)

That's what I meant with my comparison to prohibition and my mockery of the police.

The police suck, it's not just an America thing, it's universal.


I'd support a ban on gun ownership if we have a force that is competent enough to enforce it. But criminals will find a way to get them and there's nothing law enforcement can do to stop them. Just like how mobsters are able to brew their own or import alcohol during the Prohibition.

It's a controversial issue. On one hand I'd prefer a girl to be attractive. I'm not too sure how to react if a someone I personally find physically unattractive were to ask me out, because on one hand they look unattractive to me, but on the other hand I'm no <insert whoever you think is attractive here> myself, so it may be hypocritical of me to judge others by their looks?



Keep in mind it's hardly a researched on subject. Not to mention there are a lot of people who purposefully choose to go for asymmetry as well. This is most expressed in hair style. And some people find heterochromia to be attractive.

(fun fact, spellcheck doesn't acknowledge the existence of heterochromia because it keeps telling me I spelt "petrochemical" wrong)

Personally I'd support laws that ban the ownership of guns, or atleast easily concealed small arms...

But that's only in an ideal world where the police are competent enough to find a way to make sure literally no one but the enforcers of law have access to a fire arm.



But no, the prohibition has shown us that the police really really suck at their job. There is no way the police or any force in the world can possibly uphold such a law.



(I have nothing against alcohol and I don't exactly support the prohibitions movement btw, but how badly it backfired tells you a LOT about the competence of law enforcement and the police)

The earliest life existed ~3 Ga's ago. You'd be surprised by the mere accidents that can happen. Think about flipping 1000 coins and getting 1000 heads. Unlikely to happen, but give it enough time and it will happen.

Hell, life and it's creation is itself an accident. Especially life on a planet that is actually able to support it no less.