No Flu Vaccines for Creationists pt. 2

A few years ago . . . Of Cabbages and Kings wrote the following when we were all afraid of bird flue . . .

"No one wants bird flu to turn into a pandemic but if it does, I kind of hope it strikes first at the creationism and "intelligent design" folks not lethally mind you, just enough to put them in bed for a few days so when their heads clear they might wonder. You see, the pandemic, whether it comes or not, is living proof of evolution. In fact, influenza viruses are superb examples of how evolution works in quick time."

As I wrote at the time:

I have to agree with this. No vaccines or anitbiotics of any kind should be given to folks who don't believe in evolution. If evolution were false, there would be no need for new antibiotics to replace penicillin or amoxicillin since these organism would not evolve resistances to anitbiotics through the mutation and survival of the fittest processes. For the same reasons, flu shots wouldn't have to be updated every year if evolution were false and therefore one shot at anytime should be sufficient.

Let's see these people put their health where their beliefs are.

Recent work by the CDC further validates the evolutionary process, by tracing the genetic history of the new flu strain. I still believe the other statements above even though there is no vaccine for the recent flu outbreak at this time(which really isn't swine flu despite having that time), and there may not be one developed in time for the Northern Hemisphere flu season. If you don't believe in evolution, you shouldn't be allowed a shot. It's a great way to ration them out and also weeds the religious whack job christianists out of the populations.

(Poor spellers and people who blog drunk should not be prevented from obtaining future vaccines though.)

Gotta Love the Post-Modernism of Robotics Ethics Laws Based on Asimov

The tradition of SciFi writers predicting the future continues and has now advanced from Jules Verne to Isaac Asimov. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes to get to some of the things Heinlein predicted.

That said there is something vaguely creepy about an entire national obsession with robots and the need for a nation to actually have a robotic ethics codes. Even the Europeans are getting in on the act. Though it does make practical sense for nations whose populations are imploding. However, it seems premature to establish robotic ethics at all before any of them pass the Turing test.

The most interesting implications of robotics combined w/limited AI are those related to creating sex robots. And all new successful technology from the VCR to the internet has been driven through its applicability to pornography (and making its use more anonymous). If robots are to become commonplace this is the most profitable place for manufacturers/researchers to start. And regardless of what I think, it's only a matter of time before some company starts doing this. Most likely Korea or Japan due to the population pressures mentioned above (which is getting worse due to the aborting of what would be female children in those cultures - we're actually witnessing cultural suicide, from a detached perspective, it would make an excellent PhD thesis).

The positive aspects the spread of sex robots could virtually eliminate trafficking in women and sexual slavery. This has enormous potential to reduce human rights abuses and vastly improve the lives of women around the world since sexual slavery would become comparatively more expensive.

Of course, despite these positive cultural impacts, the christianists likely will rise up in outraged opposition. I'm sure they'll find some obscure Biblical passage to justify opposing another form of sexual release. More likely however, they'll just trot out the chestnut about Onan. Any literate reader of Scripture would realize his punishment was due to "gaming the system" to keep fucking his sister-in-law - which Hebrew law condoned in order to give her a son, but which activity would have to stop once she became pregnant - not for having sex that didn't result in conception (even the Song of Songs praises sexuality) which as become the justification for opposing birth control etc.

Does it matter what the Pope thinks about Biotech?

Obviously the Pope's opinion is wrong, especially his comments on artificical insemination for infertile couples (doesn't that go against God's command to "be fruitful and multiply" - of course people like Benedict don't really use logic). Additionally, the Pope is wrong and Andrew Sullivan right on gay marriage - if you're pro-marriage you allow gays to have civil union because it would provide the same social benefits to and from these couples that married people receive.

But does it even matter that he has an opinion? He is not the head of Christendom, only Catholicism (which recently has been seeking to reconcile with many of the protestant denominations). Aside from Catholics and christianists, do we even care?Most Europeans seem to ignore him. And what about the Chinese who have no cultural connection to the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam)? It's unlikely they would respond to his opinion either.

Additionally, the entire protestant movement was based on the idea that the Catholic church was too dogmatic and didn't allow others to interpret Christianity as they saw fit. So there's really no reason for him to pay much attention to him since the Anglican Church, to which I belong, does not agree with him.

More Evidence Religious Right is Anti-Woman

Many evangelicals unwittingly live as feminists, Moore says - (BP)

Ditto on Stem Cells

Balloon Juice perfectly articulates my views on the stem cell "debate."

When I say debate, I actually mean fight, because there is no debate for me. A stem cell is not a person, it is not murder, and it is not immoral or amoral to use them. People who make the claim that conducting research on a stem cell that will otherwise be destroyed or discarded is akin to taking a human life have, IMHO, queered this debate so needlessly that it is pointless to even attempt to reason with them. Besides- they only understand brute political force, which is what they are trying to use to impose their moral code on the rest of us, so why ‘debate’ them.

I Love The War at Home

There is no way the Lifestyle Police will allow this to remain for a whole season. The first episode revolved around the daughter offended that her boyfriend wouldnt't go down on her; the second revolved around boomer yuppie (and other) pot smokers; and the third around maturbation jokes. And they were all funny, but I doubt the Pat Robertson crowd would agree.

For Those Who Claim Katrina = Divine Wrath

'For human pride is more powerful than any instruments of which it avails itself. It must be regarded as inevitable that a religion which apprehends the truth about man and God by faith alone should be used as the instrument of human arrogance. This is done whenever the truth which is held by faith, because it is beyond all human attainment, comes to be regarded as a secure possesion. In this form it is no longer a threat to man. It does not mediate judgment upon the false and imperial completions of human life. It becomes, rather, the vehicle of the pretentions that the finiteness and sin of life have been overcome.' - Reinhold Niebuhr, 'The Nature and Destiny of Man: Vol. 2; Human Destiny.'"

Change the Fucking Channel!

Unbelieveable. Now that we have the V-Chip (borderline fascist), cable boxes that allow one to block certain channels, and content ratings for television shows, the Christianists have decided that is not enough.

No. Instead, they want to make sure that I, an adult who likes my television replete with sex, violence and profanity, am not allowed to see it. They want to fine my favorite television networks for showing the programs I want to watch. And all this because they do not want to change the channel, actually use the V-Chip, or block certain channels from their cable boxes. All this in the name of "protecting the children." Instead, they should exercise their parental responsibility by learning how to use their V-chip or channel blocker. That way, they get the results they want: their children not watching "inappropriate" material; and we, the majority, get to watch what we want: our entertainment as ""coarse" or "violent" as we like it.

Their agenda is not protecting children. Their agenda is controlling adults. They want to stop the "coarsening of the culture." I want to stop their "infantalizing the culture." (TM). I'm an adult without children. Single adults without children are now the majority of the population. We should not have our entertainment options limited to whatever the Christianists determine is "child-friendly" (of course, maybe political activity is somehow easier than reading the instructions). We should be able to watch whatever we want on cable without their interference.

The rationale for regulating the airwaves is clear: they belong to the general public and are licensed to private users in return for public service (now reduced mainly to the weekend talk shows), and the consent to be governed.

As far as I know, there exists no similar, sound policy rationale for regulating cable.

To join the fight, please visit: www.televisionwatch.org Target="_blank"