Stem Cell Nutery

[Alferd_Packer]

Glen Beck:

BECK: So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research, and then some, fundamentally changing – remember, those great progressive doctors are the ones who brought us Eugenics. It was the progressive movement and it science. Let’s put science truly in her place. If evolution is right, why don’t we just help out evolution? That was the idea. And sane people agreed with it!

And it was from America. Progressive movement in America. Eugenics. In case you don’t know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. …. The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening. So I guess I have to put my name on yes, I hope Barack Obama fails. But I just want his policies to fail; I want America to wake up."

What a knucklehead.


http://thinkprogress.org/2009/03/09/beck-eugenics/

[Monketey Ghost]

Nutery?

[Alferd_Packer]

It's a typo, but I'm going to run with it.

[ktesibios]

I agree that Beck is frothing like a pot of pasta that's about to boil over, but he doesn't seem to be alleging any kind of CT here. Perhaps this would be a better fit for the politics forum?

[Alferd_Packer]

I agree that Beck is frothing like a pot of pasta that's about to boil over, but he doesn't seem to be alleging any kind of CT here. Perhaps this would be a better fit for the politics forum?

He is pushing the conspiracy that Obama is going to create a new "master race."

Or at least that is how I read it.

[CurtC]

I didn't read it like that, at least not that snippet you quoted. It's similar to what Ben Stein said in an interview: "science leads to holocausts !!!111!!ELEVEN!"

[dudalb]

A. Glenn Beck has jumped totally on board the Woo Train.
B. But I agree this particular insane rant is not CI section material. It belongs in politics.

[fuelair]

He is pushing the conspiracy that Obama is going to create a new "master race."

Or at least that is how I read it.Cue Spike Jones!!!

[dudalb]

Cue Spike Jones!!!


Ven Der Furhere Says Ve ist Der Master Race,
Ve Heil,(rude noise) Heil (rude noise) Right In Der Fuehrer's Face....

[Brainster]

If Obama is going to let the "science" govern the process rather than morality then on what basis does he prohibit, say, cloning? On what basis does he prohibit genetic manipulation to produce blond-haired, blue-eyed children with no genetic disposition towards homosexuality?

Beck, of course, is a nut, the worst person to make this argument.

[skeptical]

How this idiot got a tv show is beyond me.

[dudalb]

How this idiot got a tv show is beyond me.

What gets to me is why Fox picked him up. Beck has always been a Poor's Man's O Reilly/Sean Hannity, and being on the same network with them just makes that more painfully obvious. I can't stand O Reilly or Hannity, but they are a lot better on their shtick then Beck is.
I think Beck is going down the CT and general purpose Woo trail to try to tap into an new audience that O Reilly and Hannity..who generally avoid wack Conspiracy theories like the plague because they turn a lot of people off...have not reached.
Prediction: It won't work, and Beck will be hunting for new Job in about a year.

[Brainster]

What gets to me is why Fox picked him up. Beck has always been a Poor's Man's O Reilly/Sean Hannity, and being on the same network with them just makes that more painfully obvious. I can't stand O Reilly or Hannity, but they are a lot better on their shtick then Beck is.
I think Beck is going down the CT and general purpose Woo trail to try to tap into an new audience that O Reilly and Hannity..who generally avoid wack Conspiracy theories like the plague because they turn a lot of people off...have not reached.
Prediction: It won't work, and Beck will be hunting for new Job in about a year.

Although I agree that he's a dolt, he's drawing numbers (http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-foxnews6-2009mar06,0,7908248.story).

Beck's indignant critiques of the Obama administration and gloomy outlook on the nation's financial health have found near-instant resonance. His eponymous 2 p.m. PST program averaged nearly 2.2 million viewers last month -- double the number the time slot attracted the previous February and a remarkable amount for the afternoon. That made "Glenn Beck" the third most-watched program in all of cable news for the month, after Bill O'Reilly's and Sean Hannity's evening shows.

[Foolmewunz]

If Obama is going to let the "science" govern the process rather than morality then on what basis does he prohibit, say, cloning? On what basis does he prohibit genetic manipulation to produce blond-haired, blue-eyed children with no genetic disposition towards homosexuality?

Beck, of course, is a nut, the worst person to make this argument.

Sorry to bump a three-days-dead thread, but I just saw this!

I probably miss some of the coverage, what with being over here in Hong Kong, so could you show me where Obama says/said that science will be the new holy grail of government and that we'll throw out all morality? I seem to have missed that in any of the coverage of this topic.

Someone's been watching too many reruns of Dexter's Laboratory.

[SnuffSnuff]

And I just saw this too:)

Now I haven't really heard of Beck until very recently so I might have been living under a rock, but after reading the posts, I suppose it's "a rock worth living under".

[Brainster]

Sorry to bump a three-days-dead thread, but I just saw this!

I probably miss some of the coverage, what with being over here in Hong Kong, so could you show me where Obama says/said that science will be the new holy grail of government and that we'll throw out all morality? I seem to have missed that in any of the coverage of this topic.

You clearly have trouble reading for comprehension. I did not say that we'll throw out all morality. I did not say science will be the new holy grail of government.

Obama said:

"To ensure that in this new administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisers based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions."

Now, in the simplest terms, he is full of horse crap; what he means is that he will appoint scientific advisers not based on their politics or ideology, unless they happens to disagree with his politics or ideology. But again, if you buy what he's selling, and I gather you do, on what basis would you oppose cloning? Science would absolutely say that we should go ahead and do it.

This is my point. People love to say we should make decisions based on science, but they seldom mean it. If you think about it scientifically, shouldn't we, say sterilize the mentally (and physically) handicapped? Scientifically it would result in a far superior population within a few generations. Not that it matters much; how long will it be before we can have designer babies?

So of course science has to be balanced by morality. On balance, I think Obama's position on stem cells is the correct one, but I reject the idea that it is an easy answer, and I laugh at the idea that Obama is somehow going to make his decisions solely based on the science and not the politics. Beck takes it too far because he actually believes that Obama means it.

Someone's been watching too many reruns of Dexter's Laboratory.

Never heard of it, so I'd guess you've seen it more often than I.

[Miss_Kitt]

And I just saw this too:)

Now I haven't really heard of Beck until very recently so I might have been living under a rock, but after reading the posts, I suppose it's "a rock worth living under".

:clap:

Welcome, SnuffSnuff! That was durned funny, thank you!

[Foolmewunz]

You clearly have trouble reading for comprehension. I did not say that we'll throw out all morality. I did not say science will be the new holy grail of government.

Obama said:



Now, in the simplest terms, he is full of horse crap; what he means is that he will appoint scientific advisers not based on their politics or ideology, unless they happens to disagree with his politics or ideology. But again, if you buy what he's selling, and I gather you do, on what basis would you oppose cloning? Science would absolutely say that we should go ahead and do it.

This is my point. People love to say we should make decisions based on science, but they seldom mean it. If you think about it scientifically, shouldn't we, say sterilize the mentally (and physically) handicapped? Scientifically it would result in a far superior population within a few generations. Not that it matters much; how long will it be before we can have designer babies?

So of course science has to be balanced by morality. On balance, I think Obama's position on stem cells is the correct one, but I reject the idea that it is an easy answer, and I laugh at the idea that Obama is somehow going to make his decisions solely based on the science and not the politics. Beck takes it too far because he actually believes that Obama means it.



Never heard of it, so I'd guess you've seen it more often than I.

Don't do that "reading for comprehension" gambit, please. It's offensive and petty.

[Caustic Logic]

People love to say we should make decisions based on science, but they seldom mean it. If you think about it scientifically, shouldn't we, say sterilize the mentally (and physically) handicapped? Scientifically it would result in a far superior population within a few generations. Not that it matters much; how long will it be before we can have designer babies?

Sorry I haven't been following and have no set opinion on stem cell research. I agree with the obvious dangers inherent in unbridled scientiific fundamentalism, but that's partly some neo-Luddite impulse, and to be fair, science doesn't necessarily want to 'perfect' our genetics. It doesn't really want to do anything except amazing stuff in general, or useful, marketable, power-increasing things. Which is the danger, of course, but it's not science's fault.

I do feel we should keep an eye on developments in science and morality, as the one is growing faster than the other and has been for a while. IMO some humility is in order, and some zen about the fact that we don't and shouldn't try to control everything cause we're just too dumb to play God.

[drkitten]

This is my point. People love to say we should make decisions based on science, but they seldom mean it. If you think about it scientifically, shouldn't we, say sterilize the mentally (and physically) handicapped?

Science has nothing to say on that issue.


So of course science has to be balanced by morality.

There's no "balance" involved. To borrow terminology from another debate, science and morality have overlapping magisteria; science describes what is, morality describes what should be. Science alone can never set policy. Not "should" never set policy, but, literally, can never set policy.

When Obama -- or anyone sensible, for that matter -- says that decisions should be "based on science" they mean simply that they should be based on an accurate and scientifically acceptable understanding of the basic facts and the overall situation. Denying global warming or evolution because they're politically inconvenient is avoiding facts. Forbidding research on existing stem-cell lines is avoiding facts.

[Cuddles]

those great progressive doctors are the ones who brought us Eugenics.

I don't see why this is always considered such a bad thing. They had some decent songs back in the 80s. Like that one with Arethra Franklin. I really don't think they deserve such a hard time.

[Brainster]

Don't do that "reading for comprehension" gambit, please. It's offensive and petty.

I am certain that "I must have missed it" and "You watch Dexter's Laboratory" were intended to be inoffensive and magnanimous.

:rolleyes:

[GreNME]

This is my point. People love to say we should make decisions based on science, but they seldom mean it. If you think about it scientifically, shouldn't we, say sterilize the mentally (and physically) handicapped? Scientifically it would result in a far superior population within a few generations. Not that it matters much; how long will it be before we can have designer babies?

Dude, that is so much not how genetics work that there's really nothing in the argument put forth to address as a correction. You may as well have been trying to explain how the space shuttle's booster rockets work by couching it in terms of a rubber band propeller airplane. Eugenics (and Hitler's proposed breeding programs) wouldn't work because it approached genetics in the same flawed way-- they have the process of evolution backwards.

[JamesB]

Science has nothing to say on that issue.



There's no "balance" involved. To borrow terminology from another debate, science and morality have overlapping magisteria; science describes what is, morality describes what should be. Science alone can never set policy. Not "should" never set policy, but, literally, can never set policy.

When Obama -- or anyone sensible, for that matter -- says that decisions should be "based on science" they mean simply that they should be based on an accurate and scientifically acceptable understanding of the basic facts and the overall situation. Denying global warming or evolution because they're politically inconvenient is avoiding facts. Forbidding research on existing stem-cell lines is avoiding facts.


You are correct, but even in that example it still comes down to morality. Even if you accept global warming (or climate change, whatever the term of the day is) 100%, what you do about it ultimately comes down a moral choice. Carbon taxes, CAFE restrictions, renewable energy etc. are all the result of moral decisions regarding what you value, not science. The same goes for stem cell research. Science tells us whether something can be done, morality tells us whether it should be done. Claiming that you simply value science over ideology can be used by both sides to stifle the debate of dissenters. It is not that simple.

[Brainster]

Dude, that is so much not how genetics work that there's really nothing in the argument put forth to address as a correction. You may as well have been trying to explain how the space shuttle's booster rockets work by couching it in terms of a rubber band propeller airplane. Eugenics (and Hitler's proposed breeding programs) wouldn't work because it approached genetics in the same flawed way-- they have the process of evolution backwards.

It's inefficient compared to using genetics, but breeding best to best has worked for horses for years.

[GreNME]

It's inefficient compared to using genetics, but breeding best to best has worked for horses for years.

No, it hasn't. Neither does it work in dogs. Without diversifying the lines, over time you get progressively weaker lines. Race horses today face this problem with weak ankles. Some dog breeds have chronic problems within the breed. These sorts of things are a direct result of breeding programs that continually try to put "best to best" as you put it. Eventually, you run into genetic dead ends that way. It doesn't mean that there aren't programs for animal breeding that can work, but it doesn't work the way you're implying, and in fact the method you're implying is what is precisely wrong with problems in non-human animal breeding as well as eugenics and Nazi-esque breeding programs from a strictly scientific perspective (of genetics).

But as was pointed out, there is no contest between morality/ethics and science, because it's a fabricated battle. Science describes what is, and morality/ethics promotes what should/could be. Two different methods doing different things. There's no clash because these two trains are on different tracks.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Beck's an idiot.

If someone was really against stem cell experiments in this economy, they should run with the line "We can't even afford to pay for x, y, or z, and now we're throwing money at stem cell research!" instead of the kooky blame science BS.

No wonder fiscal conservatives have been fleeing the GOP in droves over the past 8 years.

[Brainster]

No, it hasn't. Neither does it work in dogs. Without diversifying the lines, over time you get progressively weaker lines. Race horses today face this problem with weak ankles. Some dog breeds have chronic problems within the breed. These sorts of things are a direct result of breeding programs that continually try to put "best to best" as you put it. Eventually, you run into genetic dead ends that way. It doesn't mean that there aren't programs for animal breeding that can work, but it doesn't work the way you're implying, and in fact the method you're implying is what is precisely wrong with problems in non-human animal breeding as well as eugenics and Nazi-esque breeding programs from a strictly scientific perspective (of genetics).

But as was pointed out, there is no contest between morality/ethics and science, because it's a fabricated battle. Science describes what is, and morality/ethics promotes what should/could be. Two different methods doing different things. There's no clash because these two trains are on different tracks.

I'll go with you on breeding, since it is just an example to illustrate the point, not the point itself. What about chromosome/gene manipulation to enhance desired traits for the next generation of kids. What about cloning humans? Science has always struck me as the pursuit of knowledge, and can there be any doubt that those types of projects would add to our store of knowledge?

On what basis would you object to that without some reference to morality/ethics?

[GreNME]

The morality or ethical issues are separate from the science, neither dictates the other. JamesB and drkitten already laid out how each would affect what paths we take as a nation.

I agree that the statement in the inauguration address was hyperbole, because there's no way for science to set policy. However, scientific discovery and advancement can guide it, while moral structure and ethics define the directions and goals. As for the scenarios you posit and how they might affect our "store of knowledge," the simple answer I could give is that trying to 'know' things isn't the goal of science, that's the goal of people applying science. For the things you might find disconcerting or disagree with that you mentioned, whether or not scientific discovery is focused in those things has more to do with the moral direction of the nation and the administration, not with the science.

Plain and simple, what Obama was saying when he stated that was he was moving away from the previous administration's eschewing of scientific research over some rather ridiculous arguments made that were mostly based on religious reasons and not scientific or ethical concerns that were universally (to the US population) applicable. Namely stem cell research and likely the Evolution/ID 'debate', but it might also include more funding for technology research (mostly for communications, maybe some NASA funding) and environmental research (for renewables as well as direct GW studies).

[Morrigan]

I am certain that "I must have missed it" and "You watch Dexter's Laboratory" were intended to be inoffensive and magnanimous.

:rolleyes:

So two wrongs make a right?

[Foolmewunz]

I am certain that "I must have missed it" and "You watch Dexter's Laboratory" were intended to be inoffensive and magnanimous.

:rolleyes:

Yes, compared to "read... comprehension", which just translates into, "Hey, you're stupid."

Like I said, it's a cheap gambit, and it rankles.

I respect your non-political work, Brainster. You just seem to not be able to separate any paragraph including the word Obama from your partisan beliefs. I sincerely doubt that had McCain made such a statement and been elected, you'd be on this track at all.

[Steelmage]

How this idiot got a tv show is beyond me.

I think you answered your own question.