Rising leap

 Rising above the now, we stand on the precipice of time, 

Each moment fleeting, a fervent leap of desire. 

In the ephemeral present, we trust in the patterns 

That whisper promises, believing in the continuity 

Of our transient selves.

To transcend the now, we embrace uncertainty, 

With courage and hope, we navigate the unknown. 

Self, a vessel of moments, guided by currents of belief, 

Each now a wave, shaping the voyage of our being.

In the crest of existence, past and future converge, 

Our truth requires a leap into boundless embrace.

Stardust of organic molecules

 

A Good Life?

In a forest deep, by a tranquil stream,
A soul sought out the perfect dream.
Gazing long at life's bright gleam,
Lost in the beauty of the scene.

The world around, a fleeting dance,
Moments passed in a trance.
Yet grasping tight, no chance to hold,
The good life slipped, like liquid gold.

For one may see and feel the light,
But never own the day or night.
Experience, not possession, is the key,
To live the good life, wild and free.

In the mirror of the stream's embrace,
Reflections show a fleeting grace.
To future hearts, this truth impart,
The good life's found within the heart.

The tool makes the man

 

They handed me a rifle, cold and steel, 

Taught me to aim, to fight, to kneel. 

In the eyes of the world, a soldier I stand, 

Defined by the tool placed in my hand.

A hammer to a builder, a brush to an artist, 

Each tool shapes the soul, from the start to the hardest. 

We become what we wield, in work and in strife, 

The tool makes the man, in his journey of life.

War on Death

Declaring a ‘War on Death’ may be more productive than declaring a war on taxes.  It may even be technologically possible.  Why then don’t we declare a war on death?

In a letter to Jean-Baptiste Leroy in 1789, Benjamin Franklin wrote:

“Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in the world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.” 

Death and taxes

He wrote this letter in French to his friend within a few weeks after the founding structural document had been adopted.

In recent times, many have spoken out that we need to reduce taxes.  Some, like Grover Norquist, have even declared an informal ‘war on taxes’.  The basic idea is to reduce the percentage of taxes paid by citizens.

What if, instead of taxes, we declared a “war on death”?

The battlefield of such a war would be to push the length of productive life for humans to as long as we can make it.  Not just healthy habits to live longer, but technologies to extend life-spans dramatically.

Why We Struggle

Assume for a moment that it is technologically feasible to double the length of a person’s life.  What would be the result?

Longer lives give each person more time.  More time to learn, more time to work and more time to play. 

Longer childhoods

With longer time to learn we could become smarter and wiser before we begin to impact society.  Extending childhood by ten years or more would give parents more time to build character and values into their children.  Education could be extended to cover more information allowing a better educated electorate.

With longer time to work, each life would be more productive.   As time goes by, people become better at their vocations, so skills would have more time to be practiced and used.  A longer working life would also allow more time to save for retirement and old age, reducing individual’s burdens upon society.

With longer time to play, the quality of our lives could be increased.  Investing effort into our families, communities and culture could improve the quality of our lives.

Progress So Far

As fantastic as the idea may seem, we have already more than doubled the average life-span in developed countries. 

In medieval Britain, the average length of life was about 30 years.  By the 1600’s the average age of death had been pushed up to 35 years.  By the 1900, the average jumped to over 50 years.  Now it is typical to live until our mid-70s.

Much of the historical improvement in length of life has been due to nutrition, hygiene, and reduced infant mortality.  Science and cultural practice worked together to allow doubling of years lived.

Assuming one made it through childhood, had healthy habits, and disease or dangerous conditions did not kill a person early, the maximum length of life has stayed fairly stable. 

Our progress so far has been about eliminating the causes of death rather than extending the length of life.

Cells degrade

Technology and Habit

To achieve long life-spans, we need to make progress on the causes of aging.  We would have to increase the longevity of each individual to make new gains in life-span.

If we view our bodies as a process, we can work on extending the functioning of the components that make the process work.

Aging and eventual death are caused by accumulative changes to the complex molecules and cells that we are made of.  Several factors contribute to aging and death. 

Most cells only divide about 50 times before toxins, irradiation, and errors break down DNA so it is no longer viable. 

Some plants and animals have genetic repair capabilities that could be researched in order to build technologies in order to overcome DNA breakdown.  Learning how the regenerative capacity of these creatures work would be one place to start looking.

There are other technologies that could be developed to extend life-spans. 

Current sources of
pluripotent stem cells

Pluripotent stem cells can be induced to become other types of cells.  Although previously controversial because of embryonic stem cells, it is now possible to induce adult skin cells to become other cells.   We may soon be able to use our own cells as building blocks.

Researchers have recently discovered technology that allows a mouse skin cell to become a brain cell.  Extending these tools could allow us to grow our own, custom built replacement parts.

Each individual would have to improve their own habits in order to minimize cell and DNA damage.  Bad practices already can lead to shortened lives. 

We could choose as a society to institute cultural institutions that would promote better behavior.  Parents, teachers, churches and other influencers could help instill the virtues of healthy habits.

Dangers Overcome

With current birth rates, more people would place more demand on resources.   We may have to adjust our rates of consumption or improve our technologies in order to not deplete some limited resources.

With more time and education, we may be able to overcome these kinds of challenges.  With more at stake in a longer future, individuals could be motivated to be more prudent in their choices and habits.

If a revolutionary technology were to appear that suddenly and drastically increased life-spans, there would be social upheaval to deal with.

Those unable to afford the technology could become quite jealous.  Those who control the technology could become quite powerful.

I will not pretend that the consequences of life extending technologies will not present difficult challenges.  However to turn away from the technology because of the challenges seems a foolish reason not to try.  As a parent, I find it a moral imperative to give my children the opportunity for long, healthy productive lives.

Cost Benefit

Each year the U.S. economy is about $15,800,000,000,000 (almost $16 trillion).  This only represents about a quarter of the world’s economic output in a given year.

Even if it costs $16 trillion to develop and roll out a technology that would double life-spans, the payoff in productivity would greatly outweigh the costs. 

On average each person works over 30 years of their life now,  doubling working time to 60 years of productivity is one payoff. 

The labor return on capital investment for such a technology could be as high as 3000% on the one year investment. 

Even taking the ultra-conservative approach that the benefit would cover the costs is still a wise move.  Who would not want to live twice as long if the costs to do so were covered?

The extra years of labor a person could have are added on to the end of their current careers meaning their expertise would be greater.  The payoff to society for each person who gains a doubling of lifespan would be more than a quantity of dollars, but also be a qualitative improvement in labor.

With life expectancy in the mid-70’s a person is employed over 90,000 hours in their lives.   Even improving this number by half would be an enormous gain in professional output.

Who Should Fund it?

Like with the Atom Bomb, life extending technology would have to be controlled by society to ensure power was not concentrated in the hands of the few. 

If at some future time a private institution were to fund and discover technologies that dramatically expand life, they would be in a position of vast power.  With current patent law, this could upset cultural and societal structures beyond repair. 

Currently, no institution but government has the capability to focus and fund such large scale research. 

Allowing government funding could make the research publicly available and keep the power of such technologies focused on the whole of society rather than just a few people.

Baby's future in the balance

The nation that achieves this technology first will be at great advantage to those nations that do not have it.  The first mover advantage of longer life-spans could be enormous. For this reason, peaceful nations may even want to share the burden of costs and the benefits of discovery.

The research would not have to be funded all at once.  Given the potential outcome, even some public debt would be warranted as payoffs could easily overcome its risks and costs.

Even if the effort were to fail, the knowledge that it is not possible to future generations would be a boon.  Knowing that a war on death is not winnable is information that can effect how future generations would live our lives.

How long can we delay?

Dream On

It is easy to dismiss such ideas “out of hand”. 

Some will think their religious doctrines threatened.  Others will doubt it is even possible.

It seems reasonable that Aristotle, Isaac Newton, or even Madam Curie would have seen the idea of putting a man on the moon as fanciful science fiction. 

Consider for a moment the alternative.  If we could make life longer and do not, are we not acting immorally to future generations?

Perhaps extending life-spans is fanciful. 

We must however ask ourselves; what if it is not?  What if it could be?

Humans Scaling the Universe

We exist on the tip-point of the large and small.  

There seems to be a limit to how big or tiny life can be.  

We can only exist at a special scale where the universe interacts with itself.  

Life happens in the narrow band between the extremes of galactic super-structures and Planckian indeterminacy.

We can only impact the universe in scales near to our own.

It leaves one with awe to consider we exist in the special range where reality comes to know itself.

From Huge

The biggest organization of matter and energy we know of are galactic super-structures.

Galactic super structures as detected and described

Formed by a newly discovered, but not understood “dark energy”, these collections of galaxies are at 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles long (21 zeros) and 90,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles thick (19 zeros).

At this largest known scale, the galaxies appear grouped together like the skin of soap bubbles in the kitchen sink. 

Great voids of cold, empty darkness fill space between films of galaxies.  These voids are not truly empty, rather sparse compared to the concentration of galactic bubble skins.

There may be larger structures than these; we are still in the process of discovery. 

There are physical limits to how far we will be able to sense because of the speed of light.  We may never be able know the true formation beyond a certain scale.

Two imaginings of  Planck Scale quantum foam

To Tiny

The smallest organization of matter and energy we know is at the Planck Length.

Sometimes called space-time foam, the Planck length is where energy and matter can be no smaller.

The rules we know through math suggest the Planck Length is the very fabric of reality.

Only 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000636 inches across (34 zeros), these size scales are so small we can not even measure its existence, rather only guess using formula.

Here matter and energy also vibrate in a foamy like way.  

Some suggest that this is the scale were bits of matter and energy form.  Others speculate the universe vibrates at this level giving rise to matter and energy. 

There may be smaller structures than the Planck Length.

Beyond Planck scales, reality as we know it makes no sense.  It appears as if the essence of reality itself is bubbling in and out of existence at this tiniest of scales.

Humans in the
middle of scale

The Great In-between

Almost exactly in the middle of the scale, life exist. 

Larger structures are too separated by space to have enough effect on each other to develop complex systems like life.

Smaller structures are also too separated to be able to have the intricacy needed in order for life to exist.

Only from the largest of whales to tiniest of microbes does there exists enough interaction of matter and energy for life to form.

A hundred pennies

Measuring Scale by Hundreds

Before we can understand how is big and how small is small, lets review some simple math.

Think about a hundred pennies.  

A hundred pennies is something most people count at one time or another.  A hundred is number we know. 

Scaling in hundreds

Using units of one hundred is something our minds can grasp.  We can see a hundred items and have a sense of just how many that is.

Going from one to a hundred pennies is the same scale as going from a hundred to ten thousand pennies ($100).  

Going from ten thousand to a million pennies ($10,000) is another simple jump in scale.

The same kind of scaling works in the opposite direction.  Imagining a hundredth of a meter is not so hard to visualize.  

Imagining another step down to ten thousands of a meter is a similar leap of mind.

We will use this scale of 100’s to help us understand our scale in the universe.

Each of the dotted lines will represents a jump in a hundred times of size. Going to the left we get bigger, going to the right we get smaller.

Our Place

The scale between a human and a pyramid is similar to a mosquito to a human.  These jumps of up one hundred and down one hundred can be used as a reference point for how big each leap we will make.

Going Big

As we go up the scale, a mountain is to a pyramid as a pyramid is to a human.  Each dotted line represents a hundred times bigger.

Going up from human to moon, from moon to the solar system and beyond, we can begin to understand the enormity of it all.

The planets and stars interact with one another.  They are too far apart to form life in any way that we could understand.  

The forces are so far apart and the time taken to interact so long that highly complex structures simply can not form.

As long as humans only used their eyes, they could not even know how the solar system was formed.  Only when they began to use telescopes did it shape start to be understood.

With larger and more powerful telescopes like the Hubble and others we have begun to probe far beyond what we knew before. 

Amazing structures that slowly form and fade at large scale surprise us and inform us.  Several different measurements indicate that the largest structures have taken about 16,000,000,000 (9 zeros) years to form.

Going Small

 As we go down the scale, a hair width is to a mosquito as a mosquito is to a human.  Each dotted line represents a hundred times smaller.

Going down from human to DNA, life exists on four steps on our scale.  DNA is .000000001 (seven zeros) smaller than us.

Beyond this point, the universe again becomes sparse.  

The matter and energy that make up atoms are so far apart that their interactions do not permit complex things like life to form.

The smallest thing we can see is about the diameter of a hair.  Beyond that scale our naked eyes fail to discern.

With microscopes we began to see the smaller.  Moving from light to electrons we seek to understand the tiniest of things. 

Even these tools have limits to how small we can see.  Indirect evidence and experiment lead us to theories about what actually is below smaller scales.

Human Scaling

As recently as 1900, humankind only interacted with scales between mountains and hairs.  Things a thousand times bigger or smaller than us were only imagined or indirectly sensed.

Atom bombs and atoms moved

Einstein, Goddard, and Crick invented ideas and tools that extended our knowledge to the larger and the smaller. By 1970 humans had reached the moon and begun to understand the structure of DNA.

Our tools have only recently in human history had the ability to move mountains.  With the advent of the atom bomb, we have just now been able to effect reality on the 10,000 scale.

Our tools have only just allowed us to move individual atoms around.  We now manipulate DNA and other small molecules regularly.

Tools that change the universe on larger scales require enormous energy, often out of control. There may be limits to how much energy we can control.

Tools that change the universe on smaller scales require precise control and much less energy.  There may be limits on how accurate we can be.

Comparing Scales

If we think about the scaling of things in the universe, it helps to understand the enormity and tininess of it all:

Galaxies are to stars as stars are to earth.

The moon is to a mountain as a mountain is to an human.

A human is to a hair as a cell is to DNA.

Cells are to atoms as atoms are to electrons.

At each scale, different structures, different organizations of the universe exist.  The relationships between the scales give rise to the structure itself.   The largest galactic cluster is composed of reality on the Planck level.

Limits of Scale

Perhaps someday in the not too distant future, humans will move regularly through our solar system.  It does not seem impossible that we may even manipulate the parts of the atom.

There do appear to be physical limits in both directions, large and small, that will slow down our understanding and our impact on the universe.

It is wonderful to live in times of great discovery.  It may be tragic to not have lived after them.  

Note: If you want to explore the scale of humans to the universe, there is a wonderful online program developed by Cary and Michael Huang.  This tool allows you zoom in and out at different scales, seeing graphically the relationships between Planck length and observable universe.  I encourage you to spend time with this tool and learn just where humans fit in the scale of the universe.  http://htwins.net/scale2/

Endlessly Unique

Are you unique?  Perhaps there copies of you existing out there, somewhere in the universe?  If the universe is infinite then there are infinite copies of you.  What is morality if there is an infinity of  you?

What is Infinity?

Infinity  (∞)  is a tough concept to wrap one’s head around.  Definitions like “without any limit”, “unbounded”, or “endless” allow labels, but not understanding.   

Our mind tends to think of a large number that keeps getting bigger.  We can not really imagine infinity directly, only stand close to it and pretend we grasp the immensity.

Is there really such a thing as infinity?  

Some say that infinity is only an imaginary idea, like Spock in Star Trek.  

Others say a circle is infinitely long, going round and round and round.  

No one knows for sure, despite centuries of thought and experiment.  We may never be able know if infinity is real or imagined.

We can prove infinity comes in different sizes.  Georg Cantor showed how not long after the U.S. Civil War.  

You in a bounded universe.

We can prove that infinity comes in different shapes.  One-third goes 3.33333333... While Pi (Π) starts 3.14159265358…  Both infinite, both different.

These thoughts are only logic based on guesses.  Tricks our minds can play with symbols.  Infinity is an imagined reality.  Let us see what other magic our mind can hold.

Always Repeating

One thing infinities share is local repetition.  If you divide a piece of infinity you’ll find it again and again.  In the one-third number this is obvious.  There are many, many “3” pieces in 3.33333333...  

Repetition is true inside the Pi number too. The pattern “62” is repeated several times in just this short piece of Pi:

3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716939

937510582097494459230781640628620899862803482

If you go far enough, you will find infinite copies of  any piece inside an infinity.

The larger the pattern, the rarer our piece becomes.  Rare is only a relative thing.  Like with the odd numbers and whole numbers, there can be infinite copies of any piece in infinity.

A big enough universe
for several copies of you.

Repeating Universe

We have come to know our universe is very large.  Is our universe infinite? Does it have a limit, bound, or end?  Some have guessed at the answer, but there is no proof yet.  We do know it is much larger than we can directly observe.  What facts we do have suggest it's edge would be vast beyond our comprehension.

Atoms and sub-atomic particles can be compared to numbers.  There are limited types of these parts, just as there are limited numbers we count with.  Both are pieces, divisions of an infinity.

There are only so many ways you can combine particles together.  It may be a big number of possible ways particles can be mixed together, but not an infinite numbers of ways. 

Particles and numbers are organized into patterns.  Bits of matter that form little copies over and over again through out the universe. 

If you look far enough you find that patterns repeat.  Patterns of matter behave as the “62” in Pi.  The larger the pattern, the farther you may have to look, but it will eventually be there.

Copies of You

If the universe is infinite then you are but one of infinite copies of you.  Every variation of your life exists repeatedly.

If the universe is large enough, but still has an end, then there may copies of you somewhere far away.

If the universe is small enough, there may be only one you. You may be unique.

An infinite number of you in an infinite  universe.

A Moral Mess

I am not sure if I like these ideas; one of me, many of me, an infinity of me.

If there are infinite me’s, then I am irrelevant to the universe.  Every mistake I could make would be made. Every good thing I could do has been done.  My choices then are only my experience of life and have meaning only to me.

If I am the only me, unique and special, then the pressure for morality in the universe overwhelms me.  Any mistake I make has consequences on the universe, limiting or expanding its potential.  Although my impacts are small, they are permanent and of unimaginable consequence.

Perhaps it is better if there are many copies of me.  My mistakes might be overcome by another copy.  I may be able to do better than the other copy.  There is room to still find the potential of what the universe could be, without the pressure of being it's only hope.

It may be best if I have no meaning at all to the universe.  Then one, many or infinity, the universe will go on it's merry way no matter what I do.

 Be sure to subscribe!

Mapping Healthcare (Part 2)

Healthcare is getting more expensive.  From my personal experience it also seems inefficient.  I have been investigating public data about what is going on in the United States with healthcare.  Here and in the previous post are what I've found.

Life expectancy

Live Long

States with high insurance rates are more likely to have citizens with longer life expediencies.

It could be argued that better healthcare helps people live longer.  It may also be that those who live longer take better care of themselves.

Other factors at play are education and wealth.

Where money flows

Medicare Spending

Those states with the highest spending per person on Medicare tend to be uninsured.  This places a great burden on the state and nation in caring for them.

These federal and state transfers of wealth between citizens subsidize those in the greatest need.

Weighty matters

Obesity

Obesity is high in states with the most uninsured. Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer, which are some of the leading causes of preventable death.

In 2008, medical costs associated with obesity were estimated at $147 billion; the medical costs for people who are obese were $1,429 higher than those of normal weight.

Those who place themselves at the greatest health risks cost us the most.

Coughing it up

Smoking

Smoking takes a large drain on our healthcare resources.  Adult smoking rates vary across the US, but the states with the most smokers are in the Midwest and Southeast regions.

Cigarette smoking has been identified as the most important source of preventable disease and illness.

About 8.6 million people in the U.S. have at least one serious illness caused by smoking. For every person who dies of a smoking-related disease, there are 20 more people who suffer from at least one serious illness associated with smoking.

Working for insurance

Unemployment 

Our standard in the United States is to have health insurance through our employment.

Unemployment seems to be a factor in healthcare rates, but is not necessarily the determining factor everywhere.  These short term fluctuations in prosperity may only have marginal effects on the ability to obtain care.

The elderly especially are often not employed and therefore more reliant on government for care.


I will not pretend to have an answer for our healthcare challenges.  My experience is that our system is inefficient.  It is clear that healthcare costs are rising at the same time that access to care is decreasing.

More personal responsibility for our actions is required.

I believe we have a moral obligation to help those who can not help themselves.

Finding a balance that reduces expenses while improving care and access is good for the country.

Part 1 here.

Mapping Healthcare (Part 1)

Having become employed by Pfister Waggen (an industrial scale maker) I was inducted into the German national healthcare system.  Early after starting my job, a physical was required in order to establish a health baseline.  Stripped to my underwear, I stood in a long line of men slowly plodding from station to station having my blood pressure taken, my ears examined, my body prodded and poked.  While the experience was dehumanizing, it seemed to me the very symbol of notorious German efficiency applied to universal healthcare.  It was a very similar to the process used by the U.S. Army on new recruits.

Efficient and dehumanizing medical exam.

In America today, my lovely lady has several health issues requiring her to see many different and expensive specialists.  Hours are spent waiting in rooms, moving from one clinic to the next at great cost.  The doctors are kind, helpful and the experience is as pleasant as it can be.

There appears however, to be much time and resources dedicated to the infrastructure of care rather on than on the care itself.  Each professional specializing in one narrow area with staff and resources duplicated in many places.  Each office has separate records and billing to support their independent, decentralized infrastructures.  The inefficiency of the system stands in stark contrast to that of the German experience I had.  It is humane but wasteful.

In these two posts are the results of my exploration of public data about what is going on in the United States with healthcare.  I wanted to know how states compare with cost, access, and need for healthcare. Note you can click on map captions to see the source of my data.

Health Insurance Rates

Who is Insured?

About 1 in 6 United States citizens have no health insurance.  This represents about 54 million people who rely upon charity for accident, disease and routine care.

The rate of non-coverage is growing at  about 1% a year, meaning that over 3 million people a year lose their insurance and are at greater risk.

The elderly and the rich are are actually gradually improving their access to health insurance, while the  poor and women are losing their access.  This is happening despite the Affordable Care Act (Obama-care) allowing 18-25 year-olds to remain on their parents insurance plans.


Costs are Rising

The current trend in healthcare expenses is not sustainable. Costs of healthcare are increasing much faster than the number of people requiring healthcare.  These costs are robbing the United States of our ability to compete globally by diverting money from savings, investment, retirement, and diverting more and more of our labor pool.

Access to healthcare

Sickness Sucks

No one wants to die.  No one wants to be sick.  Given enough resources, we would all do what ever it takes to help ourselves live as long as we can.  We also want to stay as healthy as we can.

This implies that demand for health will remain high, no matter the level of the supply.  When supply and demand do not find a balance, markets fail.


Government or Private?

Since healthcare demand may always be greater than healthcare supply, using a purely market solution to find a balance is probably not practical. Some kind of intervention to keep the market in balance seems prudent.

A pure government solution has an associated bureaucracy.  Bureaucracies tends to grow when civil servants are not tied directly to economic outcomes.

Neither an all government or all private system will find balance and get the greatest bang for our buck with healthcare.

Conservative Identification 

Conservative Identification

Our uninsured are concentrated in the southern states and sparsely populated mountain states.  While not universally true, self identified politically conservative states are more apt to have people without health insurance.

This map displays the "conservative advantage," defined as the percentage conservative minus the percentage liberal in each state.  When compared with the other maps here, it generally appears that conservative states have more need for healthcare and less of it available.

Here is a good overview of the differences between conservative versus liberal views on healthcare.  In simple, over-generalized terms, conservatives view self-responsibility to be the driver for whom should get healthcare, while liberals tend to view healthcare as a social safety net to be provided to all in need.

In the next post here, I will investigate some of the demand issues with the U.S. healthcare system at a state level.

Ohhh! The Humanity (Part 5)

Asexual Ethics

What does it mean to be a 'human'? In this series we are examining our definitions of being human from several viewpoints.

In Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV we examined the diversity of opinion, basic biology, sexual ethics, and In Vitro reproduction aspects of what it means to be human. The final part in this series looks at the issues with asexual reproduction of humans, focusing on stem cells and cloning as examples of asexual reproduction.

Stem cells dividing.

Stem Cells

Stem cells are cells that can become other cells types. They can be thought of as universal cells. Stem cells come from bone, blood, or umbilical cords.

It is technologically possible for a stem cell to be developed into a fetus. Every stem cell, under the right conditions can become another human being. There are no documented cases of a birth using this method, but its potential exists.

More probable is the development of the stem cell into a part of a human. By creating the proper environment in the lab, the scientists are experimenting with growing individual organs from stem cells. These conditions cause the stem cells not to reproduce a entire human.  The creation of ears, thyroids, and even skin from stem cells are all under research.

Stems cells can become other cell types.

Stem Cells Sources

Stem cells can originate from embryos and adults. Early in this research, retrieving an embryo’s stem cells required destroying the embryo. As mentioned earlier, this destruction was classified as murder and therefore is a sin.

More research has allowed scientists to trigger adult cells to return to an embryonic state, requiring no destruction of an embryo. These adult cells that return to an embryo state could theoretically be grown into adult humans. I was able to find no clear moral statement from a major religion on the morality of these adult cells being converted back into embryonic cells.

Cloning is Confusing

This technology to control the mechanics of what goes on inside a cell, is very confusing morally. As individuals we can choose to see a stem cell as a potential human only requiring some tools to make it start. We can also see these stem cells as just a small piece of someones body that they can choose to use or not. Both are true and false at the same time.

Field of cloned corn.

What about growing a replacement heart instead of growing a human with a stem cell? If a loved one is dieing and a new organ could be grown to save their lives, are we murdering them by saying no to the organ growth? Or are we murdering a new potential human by misusing those stem cells?

Another moral approach would be to consider stem cells as a part of the human they came from. Just as when we scratch ourselves and remove live cells, stem cells are just a piece of our bodies removed for a purpose.

What if we do use one of our cells to grow a copy of ourselves? Cloning a person is often considered immoral from both scientific and religious viewpoints. This simple and often emotional response to cloning misses the fine details of what is actually going on.

Can we clone a heart to replace the bad one inside us? What about heart and lungs? What about heart, lungs, liver and spine? Where does the line between “replacement” and “full human” get drawn? Perhaps we should prohibit the growing of brains? What about part of the brain?

Confusing cloning.

Does a clone have a soul? Do we cause god to attach a soul to clone? If we can force God's hand in this way, then can God not say “no” to giving us souls?

 If God does not put a soul in a clone, then is a clone human?

What rights should a clone have?

Stem Cells and other forms of asexual reproduction are transforming our understanding of the what goes on when humans are developed, opening up medicinal possibilities to extend and create life.

Summary

In this series, we have shown that our traditional views of ethics about what defines a human are challenged by a deeper understanding of what we are. The line between “life” and “human” are difficult to pin down with out making assumptions about things we can not prove with evidence.

The “common wisdom” approach to humanness is clearly only partial. As science and technology drives forward, religion will continue to play “catch-up” defining the morality of new unforeseen possibilities.  Like with freedom, the details of how humanity is formed will require us to continually re-examine what we believe.

Part I - Part II - Part III - Part IV - Part V

Be sure to subscribe to this blog in order to follow the explorations.