...to this discussion.

I have been reading a collection of essays by the philospher Bertrand Russell called "Why I am not a Christian" (after a famous speech he made in 1927 of that title) - published in 1956. In the preface to the book he writes:

"There has been a rumour in recent years to the effect that I have become less opposed to religious orthodoxy than I formerly was. This rumour is totally without foundation. I think all the great religions of the world - Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam and Communism - both untrue and harmful."

I think not only are the essays in the book wonderfully articulate and impressive, but also that in 1956 he had the intelligence to class "Communism" as a harmful religion.

Landon - you write, "I think there is a good arguement for actual risk assessment from different groups."

Yes. That is why the target article is centered on a quantitative actuarial assessment of the risk from continued delay in the development of cloning-based fetal transplant technologies.

A quantitative assessment of other political risks would be welcome.

I think there is a good arguement for actual risk assessment from different groups. I mean why waste effort on rhetoric aimed at an insignificant enemy. I'm just saying that should always be one of the foremost concerns, knowing where the risks are and reacting accordingly to each.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Marcus - you write, "Or which is the greater threat at the moment. Islamic Jihad or Christian Luddites."

Indeed. This is probably material for another thread, but objective evaluation of an existential threat must take into account not only the ideology, but also the history of each enemy and its present power. There is a great deal for free men to learn from the history of the previous century, and the consequences of empowering the Communists to defeat the Fascists or vice versa.

Here in the United States, "anti-terrorism" legislation is being used primarily as an instrument of Christianist repression in Bush's "wars" on biological science, commercial medical technology, drugs, gambling, "obscenity," pain medicine (suffering is a "gift from God," so effective medical relief of chronic pain is criminalized,) access to abortion services and so on. When Christianists demand "tools" for "fighting the Islamists," we need to think long and hard about what will happen when those "tools" are used, in accordance with the Christianists' anti-human ideology, against life on Earth.

Not directed at you, per se...

"All that remains in question is exactly how many people any specific instance of interference with commerce - or of interference with the freedom of biological science and life-maintaining technology - is going to kill."

Or which is the greater threat at the moment. Islamic Jihad or Christian Luddites.

...why to be fair?

I also support Adams opposition to this prohibition of research and development of cloning technology.

Marcus - you write, "Can you cite one person that predicted mass murder prior to Lenin's implementation of the policy?"

No. But now one knows better - in part because Ayn Rand used the evidence to induce a general principle: That freedom of commerce is a pre-condition of life qua Man. And a principled generalization of the derivation of that principle is that any interference with what men do to maintain their lives is, in its essence, a form of murder. All that remains in question is exactly how many people any specific instance of interference with commerce - or of interference with the freedom of biological science and life-maintaining technology - is going to kill.

I sympathize with Adam on one point: It doesn't matter whether or not stem cell research will or will not do what it's hoped it will do, when government starts to prohibit research, it's in the wrong, period. "Free scientific inquiry" is a contradiction...

...by complaining about my criticism of your own analogy, but still not addressing your original argument.

The only reason I wrote "now" in relation to communist collectivism, was that neither you or I lived back then.

Can you cite one person that predicted mass murder prior to Lenin's implementation of the policy?

Hindsight is a beautiful thing. Ayn Rand's insights into the evil consequences of collectivism were partly born out of that experience.

Marcus - are you saying that back in 1920 one could not literally identify Lenin's restriction on trade in grain as mass murder, because there was no precedent, and the numbers on the consequences of the new policy were not in yet?

Commerce and technology are proven means by which men maintain and extend their lives. The function of Man's conceptual faculty is to predict the consequences of potential actions in advance, so as to choose rationally among available courses of action. Prohibitions that restrict commerce or technology have consequences that, through the use of our conceptual faculty, can be estimated ahead of time. To insist that the final body count must be in before one can literally identify a crime, is to disqualify our conceptual faculty from its proper function.

...on how convinced I am of the prediction of your claim. There is absolutely no way I can know or YOU can know in advance how many lives could be saved through therapeutic cloning by fetal tissue. And by "saved" I mean that death would be averted when absolutely no other legal alternative existed to keep that person alive.

However - the life-saving effects of free trade in a Communist country, we can easily speculate on with confidence - because we have compelling evidence.

We can look at how many people starved to death in Communist Russia or Communist China under the collectivist farming system (i.e. millions) - compared to how many die now of starvation under a relatively free market system in the same time period (i.e. not enough to be reported on, if any).

I cannot refute your speculation with regards to the numbers, nor can you refute my objection at not having enough evidence. Only time and further evidence will show if you were right or not.

I think that at the base of your objection is the "speculation" implicit in any choice among present alternatives on the basis of actuarial estimates. I could give any number of examples from history in which failing to speculate is readily recognized after-the-fact as mass murder. In the first example in my article, Lenin prohibited private trading in foodstuffs as contrary to Socialist Morality. At the time, "there was no way to prove or disprove any estimate of the numbers of people that could be saved" from starvation by allowing commerce in grain to continue.

So, was calling the Great Famine a "Communist plot of mass murder" then "simply a passionate and thought-provoking device for underlining one's rational opposition" to Lenin's edict, or is it something to be "taken literally?"