So I found this post about a small portion of one woman's DNA from the mitochondria replacing the damaged mitochondrial DNA from another woman's egg for the in vitro fertilization taking place. The article notes that Britain is the first country to allow this.
I'm curious to know what your thoughts are. I would imagine that, if this were to not be banned across the board, eventual commercialization of genes would become a reality. Sure, it's been talked about having "Build-a-Baby" workshops, but what if you could give your child some characteristic of some celebrity? Say, if you had a daughter and wanted to give her the ability to sing, you could buy the genes for Mariah Carey's voice and put it in your daughter's embryo (provided her acting genes didn't carry over). I imagine that this would still add an incentive to procreate naturally, as a new voice would probably be more marketable than a recycled one. Would that make people with artificially enhanced genes less "valuable" than people of the same capabilities who inherited theirs randomly from two parents, or more valuable because it would be like a status symbol to have an enhanced human genome?
...or will we get some kind of Bioshock/I Am Legend disaster and the whole thing should be banned to avoid altogether a what could be a slippery slope?
Edit: I didn't get into the potential sociological ramifications of three-parent children. I'm curious if the ability to procreate with more than two people would lead to an increase in polygamy. I think it's safe to say that most societies have avoided it, but there was no biological relevance to it either. This is the first time that the product of polygamy could be embodied into one child. Your thoughts?
Post edited 3/20/15 9:38PM
10 months ago
Question: What is the largest organ of human body?
Answer: The skin.
It's a fairly well known piece of trivia, but rarely the first one to come to mind. The skin is made up of three layers: the epidermis (lit. on top of skin), dermis (lit. skin), and subcutaneous layer, or hypodermis (lit. under skin). In the skin are sensory receptors that sense heat, cold, pressure, and pain; sweat glands; arteries and veins; etc. These things, however, are all under the skin; we don't see them. What we do see, apart from the skin, are nails and hair. Nails are made from a special type of skin that is hardened by the protein keratin. It is also found in hair.
What is even more fascinating is that nearly every part of the body that we see is dead.
The epidermis, the part of the body that we see, has roughly 5 layers of dead skin cells. The dermis, underneath the epidermis, has living skin cells. As the body produces more and more cells, each layer pushes up from underneath, and old layers die, forming the part of the body that we see. Hair and nails are basically the same. Their roots are alive, but nearly all the cells that can be observed on the outside of the body are dead.
What amazes me is that we can spend so much money, time, and effort to not only focus on this dead layer, but be attracted to it as well. Society has placed such great emphasis on the "looks' of an individual, especially women, that it is expected of people to not only pamper to the largest non-living area of the human body, but to flaunt it as well. We, as a society, are attracted to the flesh of an individual, the part of a human that is truly dead.
What's worse is that we judge people by their "looks.' Magazines, movies, "eye candy', situations in which you cannot know the personality of an individual'”only observe the part of them that is not alive. It cannot grow, it cannot respond. At best, it only provides a silhouette of what is underneath.
The idea that beauty is only skin deep might as well be equated with finding attraction in an animated corpse. The beauty of an individual is where the life is. From the cells in which blood flow underneath the skin all the way to the heart housed deep within the body, it is what is underneath that provides for and sustains any physical attractiveness. The lungs, windpipe, vocal box, and tongue that give a woman her ability to speak, express herself, sing, or laugh. The blood cells that provide nourishment to the brain, nerves, and muscle, providing both the mechanics and coordination for a man to write a symphony and play it with dexterity. Everything that makes a person who he or she is can be attributed to that which is alive, not dead, in the body.
Most importantly, every body is only a shell to house that which produces anything of value or attractiveness. The person makes the joke, not the mouth. The mechanic fixes a car, not his hands. The skin, hair, and nails are nothing without the rest of the body'”and the rest of the body is nothing without the person inside it. The eyes cannot see the person, only lust for them. The soul is what truly generates and inspires appeal.
2 years ago
Don't know if that would make me a saint or a sinner.
I don't consider myself to be very patient. I am extremely methodical if I create a plan, such as a schedule or a budget. I will follow it to the letter with militant determination. However, if I have not set up a structure for myself, I tend to be impulsive. When this journal was originally drafted, I was supposed to be studying for a test. Even now, I should be in bed instead of posting online. But what the heck, why not?
Have you ever had something for which you have waited a long time? For me, that waiting can be the most excruciating thing, but it pays off. I think the most expensive thing for which I saved up when I was a kid was an original xbox. I think I saved longer for that machine than I had for anything else (and possibly anything since then). Part of the reason it took so long was that I was too impatient to wait on other stuff, and I ended up using xbox money for other stuff that I didn't want as much anyway. Nevertheless, I got it, and it was completely worth the wait. I proceeded to buy the first Halo and live a great childhood.
Let's look at the other end of the spectrum. I've only had one relationship. I waited five years to date her for five months. There was no one else I would have dated during that time. She was a seriously awesome girl. They were five great months, and I do not regret it in the least. It was never going to work out, though. We both knew it. We were headed in different directions, becoming different people. The writing was on the wall. It sucked letting go. But I wouldn't take back that experience for anything, even though I waited longer for her than probably anything (or anyone) else in my life.
Here I am now, looking back on that experience, and seeing history rewrite itself. Only one girl that I like (a seriously awesome one, at that), waiting for her, and seeing a divergent future between the two of us. Is it worth going through the pains of waiting? Is it worth risking the heartache of our futures not being compatible? Should I risk putting her through that if I see a future stacked against us?
I think so.
I hope so.
Perhaps such assumptions are out of line. Maybe I should stop pining away and just ask her out. Maybe I should forget about her and wait for someone that I am sure it will work out. After all, who am I to predict the future? There's no telling that any of my plans are going to work out the way I see them. Life could drastically change tomorrow, and all of this would become irrelevant. But I've seen these signs before. I've walked this road and felt these feelings before. By definition, I'd be insane to think that things would play out differently this time.
Well, I've never been one for sanity anyway.
I think everyone has one particular movie that they keep close to their heart for whatever nostalgic reason. For me, that movie was Independence Day. I played the old PC game when I was 5, saw the movie when I was 7, and have been in love with it ever since. It has been a dream of mine to see it on the silver screen (which apparently will come true soon). Now, it seems we might get two more Independence Day movies as well.
So, the question I pose to the RT community...does anyone care? I'll admit that I'm hugely biased and cannot wait to see the movie again, but Fox has a legitimate concern when they wonder if audiences today would want to see a sequel seventeen years later (at least). Also, would making another sequel even be worth it, or would it have the "Phantom Menace" effect? According to imdb, writer Dean Devlin was paid to write a sequel script shortly after the success of the first one, but paid the money back to Fox because he didn't feel it would live up to the first one. In my opinion, if Devlin and Emmerich have spent this much time on one movie, maybe it will actually live up to the first. After all, the idea for this humble film was generated in 1994 and slated to be released in 1999.
Any thoughts from the community? Did you even like the first movie? Would you see it again, or the sequels, if they were released in theaters?
4 years ago
Here it is. After two years on this site, the bright idea came to me to generate a journal. I can't say I'm very active on this sight with social networking and junk, so no one will read this. I will have freedom to write whatever I want without repercussions. Take that, famous people. However, when renowned psychologists need to study the vast complexes of my brain at some point in the future, this is where they may be begin.
Sidenote: They should probably bring a duster or one of those static rags. The vast complexes of my brain have been inactive for some time.
2015 years ago
Our actions define us.
My actions define me.
I hope that all I do is meaningful.