But it still follows that there is no existing proof that we will "get burned." The idea that any modern metaphor for the story of Frankenstein should justifiably end research in any direction is an idea based solely on unfounded fear. Simply equating a line of research with a gothic novel attributes no objective facts to it.

I could equate your statements to the Bible verse that states that he who increases knowledge increases sorrow, and use such a statement to suggest that what you're saying implies that you're Christian. But my doing so has nothing whatsoever to do with your religious tendency (if any).

If you kill one person who has evolved a defense for a disease only his people have been killed by then you may be killing all of humanity...

We judge people, and do not have the wisdom to judge genes...

And we do not understand that war kills masses as feuds never did...

German culture took over Europe from the Celts, but it did not destroy their genes, but incorported them...

Great events like the black death led to a lot of homogeny, but war was worse...

China produces people on average of ten IQ points on Americans

Genghis Khan sorted people by intelligence and killed anyone without skill

for the most part human beings have through our forms limited our evolution because we have limitted our exposure to the caprices of nature...We have created and recreated our nature in our forms.

]You do not know what adaptation you might be killing even when you kill some stinking freak murderer...

But no one really knows that one physical change today resulting in disease may not provide some resistence to an environmental problem, or some pandemic

Some people believed that many Indians passed a far less dangerous and virelent form of syphilus that offered some protection from the African and European variety.., and I would guess that it might have been the basis of so vaccine... Just a guess since all the diseases the whites passed like small pox and measles killed far more than fire arms...

You are absolutly wrong about the Mongols...

We don't see things as they are, we see them as WE are.

That is a later stage of society from feudalism that really does not represent biological or intellectual value, but simply a moral valuation...

they did act as an intelligence test by saving as many of the intelligent, upper strata members of other societies...

I never rob anyone of their humanity trying to see them as noble... They were what they were just as the Native Americans, and the Germanic peoples were what they were, human...

True, but I don't give people of antiquity a moral pass for butchery when there were clearly contemporaries who saw it as such.

I see that as its own form of perverse eugenics. Hitler was quite the collector of art from occupied countries himself, and antisemitic Germans during the Nazi era actually protected well educated German Jews (who ended up having a much lower death rate than the ostjuden, i.e. the lower class Jews from Poland, Russia, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe who were all slated for extermination).

The word "human" is neutral. But people bring moral judgements on themselves by the choices they make. I can go along with your existential argument, but you're missing the next step that Sartre articulated famously. By constraining the humanity of others one constrains one's own humanity as well. Are we to celebrate the sophistication of Genghis Khan because he slaughtered babies but saved intellectuals? It makes him look all the more like a thug whose enormous empire wasn't enough for his self-aggrandizing self-image.

Do you really trust that we can make good changes simply with technological advancement? The problem with this is the lack of ethical consideration that goes into much of our science. We are like Dr. Frankenstein trying to solve the mysteries of life, and before we know what we have, we've created a monster. Atomic technology comes to mind-- the powers of the atom have been a double-edged sword, giving us the ability to wipe out all of existence in nuclear war, and also incredible diagnostic abilities that we now use in much of modern medicine.

I'm not anti-technology, but I think we need to tread carefully. We probably already have too much technology for our own good; we are not prepared for immortality in the slightest. How could we manage to deal with immortality when currently we are all still intent on wiping each other out? Technology is not going to be the change. We need a cultural, spiritual change, a change where we first learn to treat each other correctly, to treat ourselves correctly, and to lead happy, productive lives. Immortality can certainly wait; I would never want to be made immortal on this planet as it currently stands, the way we are heading. That would be something like hell, "eternal suffering".

I agree but does this does this mean what one sees in himself he sees in his fellow man? Would this disposition cause zero empathy?

do you expect that Genghis Khan was looking for a moral pass

It is possible that if the Muslims could have given their people justice that they would also have kept them strong enough to resist the Mongols.

Only when honor is lost to wealth can any people be defeated, and they are defeated because they are immoral...

They recognized that all nazis had their good Jews

You are making a moral judgement without the basis for a moral judgement...

Aedes; don't we know more, and understand better that we are a part of humanity?

Yes, I would say Jews were generally immoral, but only on testimony from my own family... The Jews to whom I am related were definitely second class; but coming to America found the old class hierarchy was behind them, so they achieved and rose in society according to their ability.

many leading Jews helped to keep their societies under control for deportation

They could not present a united front against the nazis because the rich were united against the poor

The first true thing many Jews heard in the camps was: that is your wife and children you smell burning...Get to work.

If you want to see morality among the Jews look at the gaza strip war...

Virtually the entirety of my family died in the Holocaust. One of my grandmothers lost her first husband, her brother and both parents. My other grandmother lost both parents and 5 siblings (all of whom were children). One grandfather lost his mother, 7 siblings, and survived a death march. One grandfather lost his mother who was his only living relative. Three of the four survived Auschwitz. In what way were they immoral compared with, say, their Christian neighbors in Poland and Hungary who were never sent to the ghettos and camps? In what way were they immoral compared with anyone else in the world? I mean my grandmother's brother, a young boy who starved to death in the Lodz ghetto, never did anything that deserves a judgement of immorality. They were all poor. My one grandfather from Hungary was a doctor but he was the only one in my entire family who ever had an education.

How can you say such things? Does immorality mean something different to you?

Then he said jews were immoral he obviously meant the vital part of the society that could have done something about it, no need to take this to the personal side.

Then he said jews were immoral he obviously meant the vital part of the society that could have done something about it.

That's not at all what he meant -- in fact that is obviously NOT what he meant. He parodies a Yiddish accent, he says Jews were generally immoral which makes one wonder about whom he'd regard as an exception, he curiously makes a point out of Jewish immorality as if Nazi immorality is an afterthought, he refers to his Jewish "first father-in-law" as the reference for WHY he thinks Jews were generally immoral, and he goes on to extrapolate the immorality of current Israeli policy as an exemplar of Jewish immorality in general.

Furthermore, it's blind ignorance to historical facts to blame the genocidal policy of the Nazi regime on their victims -- but ironically this is one of the party lines of neo-Nazi organizations and Holocaust revisionists.

You should all take this personally just because you're humans. And don't tell me what I should and should not take personally; I'm sorry, but I've been around the living history of this event enough that I feel entitled to take offense at this.

Would The reason honest people are naive is because they assume others are honest until proven otherwise, and this is also why people that cant be trusted usually dont trust much others either