Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×
User Journal

Journal Journal: Moderm Society: Not so much a democracy

FOUL! they shouted, as for the first time in humanity a human had been cloned.

The recent announcement by the Raelian sponsored firm Clonaid of the first cloned human raised anger and and suspicion all over the world. The Announcement even unified the major churches into globally condemning the (so called) exploit. civil rights groups and other major lobbys are pushing governments to adopt law banning the practice of all cloning. basicly everyone is against the practice, but do they have any valid reasons?

the scientific community has repetedly said cloning humans is, for now, unethical. but the major argument against doing so is that the technique is not ready. too much guesswork is required to (currently) make a viable clone. But that reason, while perfectly valid, should not constitute the basis for a global ban. it merely means we are currently not ready (scientifically) to even think about cloning humans.

other reasons ranges from the "sacred rights of life" of the fetuses, to "god syndrome" (only god has the right to create life). some even go as far as saying that a clone is unethical because that child would be deprived of his unique identity.

i must say that the lastest argument is the lousiest one of them all. While the formers are based on religious bias, the later is based on the assumption that a clone would be totally and perfectly identical to his parent, which is entirely untrue.

A clone merely means it has the same DNA as the parent. several scientific studies shows that many traits, both physical and psychological, are defined by how the child is raised, his diet, and other random factors. the height, personality, and even the fingerprints would be different from the parent. these basicly renders NIL the claims that a clone would be robbed of his identity.

Enough rambling about cloning. lets just ask the main question: What is the big outcry in the light of what might be the biggest scientific mishap of the century, but at the same time a major breakthrough?

Why is everyone condemning something which, basicly, won't change your life? your neighboor won't turn into a monster tomorrow because a child was cloned. your will still be mowing the lawn, and going to work every mornings. It won't stop you from secretly watching your favorite kids cartoons or surfing the net.

Why then, does everyone so wants laws to ban the practice?

Maybe because secretly, deep inside everyone, is a secret desire to control everyone and everything. to make everyone like you. the phenomenom has already been observed and classified as "Social Conformism", basicly, if you're different you do not belong to society.

It is a cruel game of influence, where everyone tries to deny individuals a sense of affirmation that they can not get themselves. Or as Nietzsche postulated, a struggle of the weaks to drown the strongs into their collective whiney mass and deny them what they rightly deserve.

i'm pushing this "Social Conformism" even further. That is to say, we do not live in a Social Democracy anymore, if it ever was one. To me this is more like a Social Dictatorship.

A democracy implies liberties and rights. liberties that are supposedly granted by the consitution and the bill of rights (US and Canada).

It is widely recognised that "One's rights stops where the other persons' rights begins". One can easily see where i'm going to, the proposed legislation would infringe on that basic principle, by denying one's right to do something that does not harm the other party. and unfortunately, such "Social Dictatorship" behaviors are becoming more and more common. politicians are even endorsing the practice, saying it is their "duty".

but a democracy is not that, a democracy is a free society (free as in speech). where one is granted the liberty to do as he pleases, so long as it does not negatively impact one anothers.

say, rape is not a liberty that one have, stealing is not either. and nor is killing. but voicing your opinion is, because it does not impact on one's life (save for diffamatory statements, but those are not legal either), disposing of your belongings as you see fit is a right you have, and so is painting your car bright pink.

the problem comes from "morally challenging" questions, such as prostitution, cloning, abortion. all of those are "frowned upon" social behaviors (by the masses) that does not impact another's life but are increasedly lobbied against based on religious preferences or others. peoples seeks to impose their beliefs on such issues and force them down other's throats by using the muscled arm of the law. That is what i call "Social Dictatorship", a way of imposing the majority's view on something that they don't have any reason to even be part of. it is the weaks' way to coerce the strongs into their social molds, to take away their uniqueness and sense of innovation. but they hardly see they are condemning themselves at the same time, too taken by their vengeful intentions of "equality" to see their are locking themselves in their shell of mediocrity

Freedom is at stake once again, the very fondation of democracy, like a throng of sheep overruning the shepherd we will end up in a world of fascist, run by the church, and governed by puppets. a social mold at the planetary scale.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core." -- Hannah Arendt.