Had to vote this one up! Well put.

Scientists like Tyson always imagine themselves to be masters of reason. The problem is that it's true, but only within a very limited range, only up to a point.

As example, scientists are clearly masters of developing new knowledge, this is beyond dispute. But they are also clueless at grasping that human beings simply aren't rational enough to successfully manage ever more power delivered at an ever faster pace, without limit.

Why, why, is this so hard for them to understand??? We have thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, an ever present existential threat which we rarely find interesting enough to discuss. This is who they are giving all the new powers to. An insane asylum.

Stop making men.

If we stopped making male humans, 95% of the violence in the world would melt away. Trillions of dollars now spent globally every year on trying to manage violence (armies, police, jails, prisons, courts, victim services, rebuilding of societies etc) could be liberated for re-investment in life affirming projects such as health care and education etc.

This one change would not solve all human challenges, but it would radically transform the human condition for the better. There's only one little problem.

We aren't interested. We don't care. We won't pay the price. We have no imagination. We're stuck in the past. We're content with the status quo because the violence isn't happening to us personally right now.

All talk of utopia. Just talk.

luciusmorgenstern 5++

No thanks. I have other interests at this point. I probably should have ignored a response to a 2 year old post, but it is what it is.

Actually Valance , I have engaged you .

If you go back and re-read my previous comment I directly quoted you and gave a response to that quote ....... ....... now that hardly constitutes evasion .

you still didn't answer my question about the abortion procedure correcting the biological miscarriage oversight .

You are not even engaging in your own statement .

So before we discuss the implications of the value of rational beings , can you please answer my previous questions

If the soul is the form of the body, once the soul/form reaches enough brain development to be conscious

You've mingled and mangled several definitions there! The soul is the form of the human person, it is present at or very near conception, so that would be a good place to set your limit. Brain development and consciousness are possible because it is a human person, if it weren't a human person then it would never develop a conscious brain. After conception the developing human person is not in potentiality (in the Aristotle/Aquinas sense) it is in actuality.

If you understand these terms better then you might embrace pro-life from conception. Read through Dr. Bonnette's articles, he understands the terms the best.

If the soul is the form of the body, once the soul/form reaches enough brain development to be conscious I’m against abortion. 20 weeks is a good, conservative limit. Some argue this is as late as 5 months after birth, but I’m sure newborns are conscious, even if in a primitive state. Rationality comes into play after 2, at best.
The vague language I’m using is that of Aristotle and Aquinas. I’m clearly separating potential from actuality.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/04/when-does-your-baby-become-conscious