We all must die sooner or later. While this writer would prefer "later", it seems prudent to be prepared for any contingency in this rapidly changing world.
This writer usually resists the temptation of doom-and-gloom movies such as "I Am Legend" or "2012". However, a recent announcement by the White House has inspired new concerns for the Atlanta Creationism Examiner. Scientists now have permission to play God.
Synthetic biology, or experimentation with DNA in an attempt to create new life forms, has been deemed low-risk by the Obama administration. An "expert" panel suggested vigilance and self-regulation would be sufficient for scientists trying to create artificial life forms under the guise of pollution control or medicinal purposes.
The irony that the same government that believes childhood obesity is a "crisis" and no longer trusts parents to properly feed their children is willing to give carte blanche to the scientific community because it thinks their motives are pure.
While Craig Venter's work with a self-replicating bacteria cell controlled by a synthetic genome may seem "exciting" and the proponents gush about potential benefits, the possibility that something could be created that could not be stopped should give us all pause to reconsider this idea of trying to create new life forms not produced by God or evolution (giving the benefit of the doubt to evolutionists in this one instance).
Michael Crichton's classic The Andromeda Strain warned of the dangers of an extraterrestrial microbe unleashed on Earth that wreaks havoc and destroys cities. Perhaps he was looking too far away for the real source of danger.
Should the worst fears of this writer become manifest and science actually manages to create something that causes the end of our world as we know it, it would be prudent to remain spiritually prepared. Like the song says, "....and I feel fine."
It won't be the end of my spirit, no matter what happens or when.
Comments
One in three children is obese and obesity related illnesses are the leading cause of death in this country and you don't think it's a crisis?
How has the government tried to prevent you from feeding your kids whatever you want?
No, not a crisis. No more than the number of abortions performed each year. Death is death, inevitably.
Also, there is such a thing as personal responsibility.
I thought you liberals considered overpopulation to be leading to global warming? This is an easy, painless way to get rid of excess numbers of us, so why don't you want to get rid of 30% of the population?
You haven't followed the banning of Happy Meals in San Francisco? Or the woman filing a class action lawsuit against McDonalds because she hates their food but can't resist going there?
Eat what you want, and I'll do the same. If either of us gets too fat, we'll die sooner. I won't make you eat broccoli, and you can't make me eat cauliflower.
I hate the stuff....unless a certain Armenian grandmother cooks it, with a special cheesy sauce, in which case it's pretty good. Otherwise, you can put a gun to my head and I still won't touch it.
Just what we need, food police.
You should write about Ray Comfort who stated that "the banana is an Atheists worst nightmare." Comfort did not know that domestic banana's and wild banana's are a lot different from each other.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I typically don't do requests. I figured out that Mr. Deity people use the banana in each skit because of the banana business and Ray Comfort has expressed his regrets for a bad analogy. I prefer to advocate and defend my own goofy ideas, for better or worse.
Thanks for reading! Why is your name so familiar?
I write those goofy, error-filled comic booklets where I call everybody else the anti-Christ.
Ah. I get it. An impostor.
James 2:24 - "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."
However, even James 2:24 shows that it is faith AND works, not just one or the other. The object of that faith is incredibly important.
God bless
Man, I get sleepy when you preach, Vince. If you ain't gonna say something relevant, we can get all the preaching we like by going to church.
Still waiting to see how the government is preventing you from feeding your kids whatever you want to. You're making outrageous assumptions about my political affiliations and accusations about what I fell the implications of global climate change are. This strikes me as nothing more than a outright attempt to poinson the well. Perhaps you can tone down the emotive rhetoric.
I have heard about San Fran's effort to ban the inclusion of a toy in the happy meal. They aren't prevented from selling the happy meals altogether. If that's what you're referring to. The rationale behind the elimination of the toy is the same as when the goverment prevented Camel from using cartoons to sell cigarettes. Marketing harmful products to children is morally wrong, no?
The implications of obesity are not reserved for the obese. Because we live in a national economy and a highly globalized world, your actions have profound effects on everyone. In this case, your poor health choices will lead to hospitalizations, medical procedures and ultimately death. This causes a strain on the national health care industry that is short on nurses and doctors already. So in many ways, by promoting healthy diet and excersize, the government is promoting a healthy economy.
They aren't preventing me from feeding my kids how I want. They're threatening to take further action to impinge on my personal freedoms.
Your assumption is predicated on the belief everyone is entitled to the same health care. If one makes poor health choices, they should assume they will die an untimely death and not expect the health care system to perform miracles to extend the life they squandered. Personal choices have consequences.
Having Joe Camel market cigarettes to kids and Happy Meals are two vastly different things. The last time I checked, hamburgers were not considered addictive. But you probably would not appreciate my take on cigarette marketing, which in my opinion is draconian -- if cigarettes are really so terrible, why not make them illegal like marijuana, which arguably is less harmful? The answer is: money. You can't tax contraband, and there are too many known customers of tobacco to ban it entirely. So they milk the cow for all it's worth, like the hypocrites they are in the federal government.
According to another draconian law, it is okay to get drunk everyday except for Sunday, for some "mysterious" reason. Is the government trying to encourage "something" with their draconian alcohol law?
Um, yeah. Sobriety once a week. We agree it's pointless.
"They aren't preventing me from feeding my kids how I want."
Good, we're making progress.
My assertion, that the government should promote healthy eating habits, is not predicated on anything other than the fact that your personal health choices, or what you decide to feed your kids, have effects on a national scale. Millions of kids running around with diabetes and heart problems has a serious effect on the stability of our health care system. Can you acknowledge that?
There is significant evidence that suggests that sugary and fatty foods are addictive (run a PubMed search for it, you'd be surprised), but we don't limit cigarette marketing because they're addictive, it's because they kill people. So placing restrictions on how food is marketed is with the same motivation: if something is harmful, it shouldn't be marketed to children.
Surprisingly, we might actually have some common ground here because I do think it is hypocritical that we reap millions from the poor through cigarette taxes (the poor are overwhelmingly those who smoke) while we then pay millions in farm subsidies to tabacco growers. It also seems hypocritical that we've prohibited marijuana use but we continue to allow alcohol consumption even though it's been proven far more deleterious to health and addictive. These hypocracies are simply cultural artifiacts. Cigarettes and tabacoo are accepted vices and marijuana is not, it's cultural, not the government's fault.
You make some interesting points and I agree with many of them. However, and I'm not just trying to be negative here, it seems like every time someone proposes to pass a law, regulate this or that, etc. for the good of society (and that was not sarcasm), someone else cries out about individual freedom.
I've seen this many times, as I'm sure you have. What's the solution? I'm not just playing devil's advocate or anything here, I'm really seeking an answer.
Robert
Anon,
I was fine with most of what you just wrote until you got to the punch line. That last sentence made you appear extremely gullible.
Are you serious? Excuse me, but our culture didn't pass the anti-marijuana laws. Our government did. Why? Because they care about individual health? No, for the same reason the tax code is what it is. People with an insatiable hunger for power are manipulating the masses....because they can.
"We've got to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it!" The sound bite of a generation.
doh
*tobacco x2
THAT slip didn't bother me. It was your assertion that culture drives legislation and government just observes it happening...
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!