The new 7 deadly sins

[friendly hardline atheist]

Earlier this month the Catholic Church updated the seven deadly sins by adding seven new ones:

Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty? -Times Online

The new sins are environmental pollution, genetic manipulation, obscene wealth, infliction of poverty, drug trafficking, morally debatable experiments, and violation of the fundamental rights of human nature.

Some of those get up my nose to different extents.

First I chuckle a bit about the Vatican preaching against amassing obscene wealth. A filthy rich organisation like the RC church preaching against getting filthy rich seems a bit......rich. But a bit of hypocrisy like that is not reason for me to get upset.

It does become more annoying when we turn to genetic manipulation. That sounds like the religious anti-science, anti-knowledge brigade out in full force again. 'Oh, how we long back to the good old days of ignorance of the Dark Ages'. Are these bishops and cardinals even aware that some of them are most likely using the fruits of genetic manipulation on a daily basis? A good example would be diabetes.

Some people suffer from diabetes from a young age, more people develop it at a later age. But by injecting insulin, most of the debilitating effects of diabetes can be avoided. I doubt if anyone would argue against insulin being helpful to people. Insulin is produced by genetically manipulated bacteria (formerly extracted from whales, unsustainable and wildlife-unfriendly as a source).

So genetic manipulation can make life better for people. And I am not aware of genetic manipulation having caused harm to people. Animals used in trials might be another matter, but I see animals used for research involving genetic manipulation no different than animals use in other experiments. You might be against using animals for experiments, and I would agree to some extent, but there is nothing more objectionable about experiments involving genetic manipulation to me.

So sofar, research using genetic manipulation has been beneficial to us without drawbacks for people that I'm aware of. So why must it all go then? The experience so far is that the research can help us without the nightmare scenarios coming true. Are these old men in the Vatican even remotely aware of what they want to do away with?

I don't know if there are many Catholics actively posting on the forum right now. If there are any, or someone who could elaborate the Vatican stance without supporting it themselves, could they explain why the subject is being treated with such a broad brush please? No distinction between any methods of research, between applications for good or bad, etc. Just throw out the whole thing. The Vatican being such a drag on the progress of our knowledge and detriment to the lives of many really annoys me. It feels as if we are on a movie set and the director calls 'Galileo Galilei, take 738, action'.

Peter

[JM]

Originally Posted by friendly hardline atheist

Earlier this month the Catholic Church updated the seven deadly sins by adding seven new ones:

Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty? -Times Online

The new sins are environmental pollution, genetic manipulation, obscene wealth, infliction of poverty, drug trafficking, morally debatable experiments, and violation of the fundamental rights of human nature.

Some of those get up my nose to different extents.

First I chuckle a bit about the Vatican preaching against amassing obscene wealth. A filthy rich organisation like the RC church preaching against getting filthy rich seems a bit......rich. But a bit of hypocrisy like that is not reason for me to get upset.

It does become more annoying when we turn to genetic manipulation. That sounds like the religious anti-science, anti-knowledge brigade out in full force again. 'Oh, how we long back to the good old days of ignorance of the Dark Ages'. Are these bishops and cardinals even aware that some of them are most likely using the fruits of genetic manipulation on a daily basis? A good example would be diabetes.

Some people suffer from diabetes from a young age, more people develop it at a later age. But by injecting insulin, most of the debilitating effects of diabetes can be avoided. I doubt if anyone would argue against insulin being helpful to people. Insulin is produced by genetically manipulated bacteria (formerly extracted from whales, unsustainable and wildlife-unfriendly as a source).

So genetic manipulation can make life better for people. And I am not aware of genetic manipulation having caused harm to people. Animals used in trials might be another matter, but I see animals used for research involving genetic manipulation no different than animals use in other experiments. You might be against using animals for experiments, and I would agree to some extent, but there is nothing more objectionable about experiments involving genetic manipulation to me.

So sofar, research using genetic manipulation has been beneficial to us without drawbacks for people that I'm aware of. So why must it all go then? The experience so far is that the research can help us without the nightmare scenarios coming true. Are these old men in the Vatican even remotely aware of what they want to do away with?

I don't know if there are many Catholics actively posting on the forum right now. If there are any, or someone who could elaborate the Vatican stance without supporting it themselves, could they explain why the subject is being treated with such a broad brush please? No distinction between any methods of research, between applications for good or bad, etc. Just throw out the whole thing. The Vatican being such a drag on the progress of our knowledge and detriment to the lives of many really annoys me. It feels as if we are on a movie set and the director calls 'Galileo Galilei, take 738, action'.

Peter

Interesting... so man is making up the sins according to what they think matter to God..

[pete]

Originally Posted by JM

Interesting... so man is making up the sins according to what they think matter to God..

As man has always done.

A mortal sin is dealing drugs? Then I feel sorry for all the clerks who sell alcohol & cigarettes at supermarkets. After all, if we're judging the supplier's sinfulness by the potential harm that could be inflicted upon a consumer then is there any good reason to omit alcohol & tobacco from that list? Just a thought.

[Frederick]

Originally Posted by pete

As man has always done.

A mortal sin is dealing drugs? Then I feel sorry for all the clerks who sell alcohol & cigarettes at supermarkets. After all, if we're judging the supplier's sinfulness by the potential harm that could be inflicted upon a consumer then is there any good reason to omit alcohol & tobacco from that list? Just a thought.

Come on, Pete. I think we all know what drugs the man was referring to! Have you seen the realeffect that heroin has on the body? I'm not talking about high society prats who have more money than sense, I'm talking about real addicts where some poor ba**ard crawls into a hole and dies - I've seen it in Burma. It's suppliers to those addicts we're talking about.
That aside, like the Queen's Christmas message, I don't honestly think there are a great deal of people out there who take an awful lot of notice of what he says anyway. Regardless of his personal views, like the Queen, he just reads out what is written. I mean, how many people take not of the Queen's Christmas message or the State Opening of Parliament? I certainly don't - I'd pay rather more attention to Margaret Thatcher!

[pete]

Originally Posted by Frederick

Come on, Pete. I think we all know what drugs the man was referring to! Have you seen the realeffect that heroin has on the body? I'm not talking about high society prats who have more money than sense, I'm talking about real addicts where some poor ba**ard crawls into a hole and dies - I've seen it in Burma. It's suppliers to those addicts we're talking about.

Well to me alcohol is a real drug. A drug that took my uncle's life 3 months ago at the age of 54 after 15 years of alcoholism. Should we hold accountable those who, for profit, enabled him to drink to his death? Alcohol and tobacco cause far greater health problems in Western societies than all other drugs combined. I do know what drugs he's talking about but to me it's inconsistent and stupid.

[Frederick]

Originally Posted by pete

Well to me alcohol is a real drug. A drug that took my uncle's life 3 months ago at the age of 54 after 15 years of alcoholism. Should we hold accountable those who, for profit, enabled him to drink to his death? Alcohol and tobacco cause far greater health problems in Western societies than all other drugs combined. I do know what drugs he's talking about but to me it's inconsistent and stupid.

I am, of course, genuinely sorry to hear about your uncle. My late mother (a smoker) went with "the big C" back in '73. However, because such things are obtained legally, society doesn't tend to classify them as drugs. Caffine is a drug, so is tea. I think most people think of drugs as barbituates or illegally obtained substances.
I read you original question as an aside, almost flippant comment. Again, I'm sorry you were forced to go through the turmoil of being unable to help somebody you cared for. Yours, Fred.