Thursday, June 29, 2006
Farming Today
Haven't heard that for a while. All our bees are going to die, apparently. I was vaguely thinking of getting some bees, but possibly won't now (one of the many projects dying unborn).
Sore throat turned into cold, spent 5 hours yesterday asleep, unsurprisingly woke early this morning with no desire for any more. Had bath, honey and lemon and yet more paracetamol,
played with my Cities characters until I ran out of action points, still not 6am. Coughing and sneezing but not as bad as yesterday. Can't go to work early because I have to go via the library to return The Great Escape which I borrowed for Son- he watched it on TV but missed beginning and end. Off to London at some point today, time depending on the state of my desk here and the pleas of my London colleagues (who appreciate me far more than my local ones, it must be said!) Hotel tonight, early meeting tomorrow then another week over; without Wednesdays they go remarkably fast.
Got to the calculus bits of my course; determined to understand the idea at last! Newton v Leibniz bits always entertaining anyway.
Was going to comment on Dr Who but Andrew beat me to it.
Have been contemplating slippery slopes (I need to think about something on my walk home from work). Trying to think of good examples of cases where a "slippery slope" has actually been gone down. Definition difficult; I think it must involve cases where a change in the law/practice does itself make a more extreme change more likely, as compared to just reflecting a change in general opinion which had already occurred. For instance banning smoking in pubs in a couple of European countries probably actually contributes to the banning of smoking in other countries, leading to a potential Europe wide ban. But does banning smoking in pubs contribute to the likelihood of a ban on smoking in people's homes? Or does it just reflect a general mood against smoking which will be reflected in law just as far as that mood goes and no further?
Would allowing selection of embryos to exclude genetic conditions be a slippery slope to designer babies (whatever they might be?) These arguments always appear invalid, dependent on emotion rather than likelihood, but should we take then seriously at least to the extent of looking at the precedents? There's a certain logic to saying that if a technique is allowed for reason A then it is more likely to be allowed for reason B than if it were banned totally. But what we are looking at here is an extension of the law to reason B against the presumed wishes of the majority of the population (if it isn't against their presumed wishes presumably there is little cause for general outrage) . That's what I'm not able to think of good examples of.
The example of abortion rather demonstrates the opposite happening; the reduction of the circumstances in which it is allowed under the law. But maybe you could say that that's a slippery slope the other way; the increase in the survival rate ofbabies born very early leading to a general protection of those potential babies in law (something which, incidentally, I can't entirely see the logic of; sure if you can extract a fetus at 22 weeks and have it survive you might argue that that should be done as an alternative to killing it, but since you can't, why is the fact that a premature baby of that age able to survive (sometimes, just) a reason for insisting that the mother carry the fetus for another 16 weeks?)
Lots of woolly thinking around at the moment. Like the argument from certain disabled people that to live is better than to die and that if this had been available they would never have been born. Given that they have been born, no selection process can change that. If they are looking back and saying that, if everything else had been exactly the same but embryo selection had been around, then they would not have been born, then I suppose they are right. If their mother had taken the advice to take folic acid for a couple of months before trying to get pregnant, chances are they wouldn't have been born as well, but we don't get outrage about that. It's very difficult to imagine someone else being born in one's place and to grasp the idea that if they had been born then their life would have been just as valuable to them.
I wouldn't hesitate to ensure that any descendant of mine didn't have bipolar disorder. Not because I have any particular complaints about my quality of life but because I know that their chances of having an easy, or productive life and one with good relationships would be higher that way. The fact that I'm managing to muddle through quite well is no reason to make anyone else have to do the same.
Hmm. Very pop philosophical. Must be the time in the morning and the paracetamol. I shall go and make some tea.
Sore throat turned into cold, spent 5 hours yesterday asleep, unsurprisingly woke early this morning with no desire for any more. Had bath, honey and lemon and yet more paracetamol,
played with my Cities characters until I ran out of action points, still not 6am. Coughing and sneezing but not as bad as yesterday. Can't go to work early because I have to go via the library to return The Great Escape which I borrowed for Son- he watched it on TV but missed beginning and end. Off to London at some point today, time depending on the state of my desk here and the pleas of my London colleagues (who appreciate me far more than my local ones, it must be said!) Hotel tonight, early meeting tomorrow then another week over; without Wednesdays they go remarkably fast.
Got to the calculus bits of my course; determined to understand the idea at last! Newton v Leibniz bits always entertaining anyway.
Was going to comment on Dr Who but Andrew beat me to it.
Have been contemplating slippery slopes (I need to think about something on my walk home from work). Trying to think of good examples of cases where a "slippery slope" has actually been gone down. Definition difficult; I think it must involve cases where a change in the law/practice does itself make a more extreme change more likely, as compared to just reflecting a change in general opinion which had already occurred. For instance banning smoking in pubs in a couple of European countries probably actually contributes to the banning of smoking in other countries, leading to a potential Europe wide ban. But does banning smoking in pubs contribute to the likelihood of a ban on smoking in people's homes? Or does it just reflect a general mood against smoking which will be reflected in law just as far as that mood goes and no further?
Would allowing selection of embryos to exclude genetic conditions be a slippery slope to designer babies (whatever they might be?) These arguments always appear invalid, dependent on emotion rather than likelihood, but should we take then seriously at least to the extent of looking at the precedents? There's a certain logic to saying that if a technique is allowed for reason A then it is more likely to be allowed for reason B than if it were banned totally. But what we are looking at here is an extension of the law to reason B against the presumed wishes of the majority of the population (if it isn't against their presumed wishes presumably there is little cause for general outrage) . That's what I'm not able to think of good examples of.
The example of abortion rather demonstrates the opposite happening; the reduction of the circumstances in which it is allowed under the law. But maybe you could say that that's a slippery slope the other way; the increase in the survival rate ofbabies born very early leading to a general protection of those potential babies in law (something which, incidentally, I can't entirely see the logic of; sure if you can extract a fetus at 22 weeks and have it survive you might argue that that should be done as an alternative to killing it, but since you can't, why is the fact that a premature baby of that age able to survive (sometimes, just) a reason for insisting that the mother carry the fetus for another 16 weeks?)
Lots of woolly thinking around at the moment. Like the argument from certain disabled people that to live is better than to die and that if this had been available they would never have been born. Given that they have been born, no selection process can change that. If they are looking back and saying that, if everything else had been exactly the same but embryo selection had been around, then they would not have been born, then I suppose they are right. If their mother had taken the advice to take folic acid for a couple of months before trying to get pregnant, chances are they wouldn't have been born as well, but we don't get outrage about that. It's very difficult to imagine someone else being born in one's place and to grasp the idea that if they had been born then their life would have been just as valuable to them.
I wouldn't hesitate to ensure that any descendant of mine didn't have bipolar disorder. Not because I have any particular complaints about my quality of life but because I know that their chances of having an easy, or productive life and one with good relationships would be higher that way. The fact that I'm managing to muddle through quite well is no reason to make anyone else have to do the same.
Hmm. Very pop philosophical. Must be the time in the morning and the paracetamol. I shall go and make some tea.
# posted by Louise H @ 5:00 am 
