Is talk about Stem Cell research taboo here?

40 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
I just read an interesting article about it.

i find it fascinating ... but i am not sure if is a topic that
can be discussed with out people going off the deep end.
  • I did (and do) too - and I don't know anymore.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7136204].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
    Ken:

    I once pointed to a new climate change study. Just pointed to the article. Offered up exactly zero opinion -- even went so far as to say, "Interesting article. I offer no opinion whatsoever."

    The result? All hell broke loose. I received an infraction and threatening pm's from a nutjob who'll go nameless.

    My recommendation? Steer clear, my friend. I basically stick to sarcasm and the mental equivalent of fart jokes now.

    You can, however, pm the link to me as I'd be interested to read the article.
    Signature

    Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7136247].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

      Ken:

      I once pointed to a new climate change study. Just pointed to the article. Offered up exactly zero opinion -- even went so far as to say, "Interesting article. I offer no opinion whatsoever."

      The result? All hell broke loose. I received an infraction and threatening pm's from a nutjob who'll go nameless.

      My recommendation? Steer clear, my friend. I basically stick to sarcasm and the mental equivalent of fart jokes now.
      Oh man, that's such a big tease! You know that kind of comment just makes people curious. Curse you, Dan Riffle! May all your fart jokes permanently stain your monitor.


      @Ken - This topic could easily veer off into religion or politics. If you don't go down that road yourself, I think you'd be safe as far as the forum goes -- maybe not from the nutjobs though.
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7136417].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

        Oh man, that's such a big tease! You know that kind of comment just makes people curious. Curse you, Dan Riffle! May all your fart jokes permanently stain your monitor.


        @Ken - This topic could easily veer off into religion or politics. If you don't go down that road yourself, I think you'd be safe as far as the forum goes -- maybe not from the nutjobs though.
        Oh come on Dennis.....I think we all have a good idea of he who shall not be named is!!!
















        Cthulhu!!
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7136851].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Oh come on Dennis.....I think we all have a good idea of he who shall not be named is!!!
          Well, I don't. I don't know which side of the issue Dan is on, so I wouldn't know which side of the issue no-name would be on.

          Given your reply there, I could probably guess now. If it's who I think you mean, I've never known him to take an issue from a thread to a PM or to give infractions, so maybe my guess would be wrong.


          Cthulhu!!
          I don't know what that means either. Maybe I'm just getting dumber with age. :confused:
          Signature

          Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7137289].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
            Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

            Well, I don't. I don't know which side of the issue Dan is on, so I wouldn't know which side of the issue no-name would be on.

            Given your reply there, I could probably guess now. If it's who I think you mean, I've never known him to take an issue from a thread to a PM or to give infractions, so maybe my guess would be wrong.




            I don't know what that means either. Maybe I'm just getting dumber with age. :confused:
            I think I know who Kim thinks it is, but that would be incorrect.

            I really meant that comment as a passing comment to highlight my experience with political topics here. I didn't throw it out there to be tantalizing. That's not my nature. Again, I'm a fart joke guy.

            And, to save you some time, I believe any posts revealing the person's identity in the thread I referred to were deleted.
            Signature

            Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7137613].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
    Banned
    It can (and probably will) go downhill fast and get nuked; but I'm up for trying anyways. Did it happen to be the article on the two scientists winning a nobel prize for reversing adult cells to a fetal stem cell state?

    I thought that development was very interesting and could potentially remove a lot of moral issues from the debate. I think that stem cell therapy will become an important part of medical treatments in the future. It's just a matter of when, not if.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7136274].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Post it. It's science. Science is not politics at the research level - neither is it religion. It's SCIENCE. If we can no longer speak of science because some nutcase want's to go postal about it, we're in a huge amount of trouble deeper than a forum post or two.

    BTW - I've heard of this stem cell research and it is fascinating. There are a lot of implications in it that can take us into the realms of the "unspeakable" in this forum - but the science is amazing. If I know Americans - the most major interest in this science will be its cosmetic value:rolleyes:
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7136730].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
      Banned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      If I know Americans - the most major interest in this science will be its cosmetic value:rolleyes:
      You might be right, unfortunately. For me, the draw is in organ regeneration more than anything else. The idea that someone with liver failure or whatever could have a new one grown from their own cells (meaning rejection isn't an issue) is amazing.

      Then there are bones that can be regrown, skin tissue (probably cosmetic as you stated), all that jazz. It would be amazing if this technology reached it's full potential.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7136853].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by Joseph Robinson View Post

        You might be right, unfortunately. For me, the draw is in organ regeneration more than anything else. The idea that someone with liver failure or whatever could have a new one grown from their own cells (meaning rejection isn't an issue) is amazing.

        Then there are bones that can be regrown, skin tissue (probably cosmetic as you stated), all that jazz. It would be amazing if this technology reached it's full potential.
        The same goes for me Joseph.
        Like it or not, it is only a matter of time before the kidney I received will fail. It may last one year or 21 years,but it will fail eventually. 21 wouldn't be so bad, but 5 years from now would be.
        The concept that my new one could come from my own cells and not have to worry about rejection and the high cost of the anti rejection drugs is something that has real potential for a large segment of our population.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7136883].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
        Originally Posted by Joseph Robinson View Post

        It would be amazing if this technology reached it's full potential.

        I can see an opposite side to the technology reaching its full potential: where are we going to put everybody? We're already running out of space. Imagine if everybody lives to 130.

        I'm pretty sure stem cell research will trigger the Zombie Apocalypse. I'm thinking Alzheimer's patients with brand new bodies all hopped up on bath salts or something.

        Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-stem cell research. But, I'm also pro-Zombie Apocalypse, so I'm probably the wrong person to discuss this topic.

        Nevermind. Nothing to see here. Move about your business.
        Signature

        Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7136912].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

          I can see an opposite side to the technology reaching its full potential: where are we going to put everybody? We're already running out of space. Imagine if everybody lives to 130.

          I'm pretty sure stem cell research will trigger the Zombie Apocalypse. I'm thinking Alzheimer's patients with brand new bodies all hopped up on bath salts or something.

          Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-stem cell research. But, I'm also pro-Zombie Apocalypse, so I'm probably the wrong person to discuss this topic.

          Nevermind. Nothing to see here. Move about your business.
          I see that side of it too, and it could definitely be a problem. It's where one of those moral questions comes into play: where do we draw the line on what it is used for? Is it right to artificially expand the human lifespan beyond what it is capable of?

          If I remember correctly (been a while since I took a biology class), your cells start to break down in your 50s/60s, it is just the natural way of things. With population control/etc. in play reversing that process will be a huge debate down the line.

          It will get interesting, that's for sure.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7137017].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
          Probably not possible. Cultures that choose to remain illiterate have life expectancies below 50 years old.

          The average lifespan for Afghanistan is 44 (I think.)

          Joe Mobley

          Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

          Imagine if everybody lives to 130.
          Signature

          .

          Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7137090].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

          I can see an opposite side to the technology reaching its full potential: where are we going to put everybody? We're already running out of space. Imagine if everybody lives to 130.

          I'm pretty sure stem cell research will trigger the Zombie Apocalypse. I'm thinking Alzheimer's patients with brand new bodies all hopped up on bath salts or something.

          Don't get me wrong. I'm pro-stem cell research. But, I'm also pro-Zombie Apocalypse, so I'm probably the wrong person to discuss this topic.

          Nevermind. Nothing to see here. Move about your business.
          We would definitely have to address the over-population issue. OF course, limits in child breeding would have to be set - but I'm thinking that for a chance of a disease free longer lifespan, people would be more than willing to make that adjustment. After all - there will always be kids that need a good home to adopt.

          Originally Posted by Joseph Robinson
          I see that side of it too, and it could definitely be a problem. It's where one of those moral questions comes into play: where do we draw the line on what it is used for? Is it right to artificially expand the human lifespan beyond what it is capable of?

          If I remember correctly (been a while since I took a biology class), your cells start to break down in your 50s/60s, it is just the natural way of things. With population control/etc. in play reversing that process will be a huge debate down the line.

          It will get interesting, that's for sure.
          Right now we have our cells, and entire body health being depleted by environmental toxins. Is it fair for us to have our life spans reversed because a company wants to make money poisoning us? (think health + monstanto). If we curbed our breeding habits to make life comfortable for people to live that long in health - and stopped poisoning everyone and everything on the planet, we might achieve the partial utopia that many dream of.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7137230].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
            Banned
            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

            If we curbed our breeding habits to make life comfortable for people to live that long in health - and stopped poisoning everyone and everything on the planet, we might achieve the partial utopia that many dream of.
            It might just be that I hang around people in their late teens and early 20s, but I'm not sure if there is a way to stop people from actively "mating" lol. On the poisoning bit I can agree as well. I don't think humanity should be doing anything that drastically messes up the life cycle one way or the other.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7137390].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Can you even imagine a world where centenarians all look like new high school grads? Kinda kewl to think of it. I'd love to look like I did at 30 but be able to keep everything I have learned. But then I've always preferred stilettos to sensible shoes, if ya get my drift.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7136867].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Oh come on Dan,
    What better form of population control is there than Zombie Apocalypse?
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7136982].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    If I were King of the World, life span would be dependant on the number of decedents a person has. Someone without children living to 1,000 would have far less impact on the Earth than the average person that had two kids and their kids had 2 kids, etc.

    It isn't that we don't have room. It's more a matter of farm-able land and fresh water. I believe both of these can be over-come with technology. It would be more a matter of financial priorities than anything else. If we can pipe oil across Alaska, we can pipe water anywhere we want. It's simply a matter of how much money we're willing to pay.

    Only .5% of the water on Earth is potable. We know how to clean the other 99.5%. Again, it's just a matter of how much we're willing to spend to do it.

    There's plenty of land. For example, if any one's ever driven from S. Utah to S. California, or through Arizona, Nevada, etc., knows there's long stretches of land with no one living on it. This land is actually very fertile and gets plenty of sunlight. The problem is there isn't any water. But any time we're willing to pay to pipe water to those areas, we can have lots and lots more farmland.

    While GMO may be a problem now, it doesn't mean it always will be...Or that there aren't other uses for it other than food. For example, bamboo grows at the rate of up to a foot a day. Take these fast-grow genes and splice it to a redwood tree and have fast growing redwoods for building materials, etc.
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7137510].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      If I were King of the World, life span would be dependant on the number of decedents a person has. Someone without children living to 1,000 would have far less impact on the Earth than the average person that had two kids and their kids had 2 kids, etc.

      It isn't that we don't have room. It's more a matter of farm-able land and fresh water. I believe both of these can be over-come with technology. It would be more a matter of financial priorities than anything else. If we can pipe oil across Alaska, we can pipe water anywhere we want. It's simply a matter of how much money we're willing to pay.

      Only .5% of the water on Earth is potable. We know how to clean the other 99.5%. Again, it's just a matter of how much we're willing to spend to do it.

      There's plenty of land. For example, if any one's ever driven from S. Utah to S. California, or through Arizona, Nevada, etc., knows there's long stretches of land with no one living on it. This land is actually very fertile and gets plenty of sunlight. The problem is there isn't any water. But any time we're willing to pay to pipe water to those areas, we can have lots and lots more farmland.

      While GMO may be a problem now, it doesn't mean it always will be...Or that there aren't other uses for it other than food. For example, bamboo grows at the rate of up to a foot a day. Take these fast-grow genes and splice it to a redwood tree and have fast growing redwoods for building materials, etc.
      Just because we have some open land doesn't mean it's okay to fill it with humans. We're already in an extinction. Filling MORE land with MORE people will just expand the species being taken out - and we are one of the species that are risk.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7138098].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        Just because we have some open land doesn't mean it's okay to fill it with humans. We're already in an extinction. Filling MORE land with MORE people will just expand the species being taken out - and we are one of the species that are risk.
        It's better than your plan for World full of "centurians"...Oh, that's right, you didn't post a plan to enable humans to live longer...

        The land I mentioned has far less species/life per square mile than the lands we are living on now. With planning and care, we can inhabit those lands with far less impact than we do now, and give some of our land we are on now back to "nature".

        We occupy the land that we do know because it supported life and we didn't have the technology to inhabit other lands. We now have that ability.

        The point is, if we want to extend human life, we need more food, water and land.

        And as "King of the World", I say it's "okay" for us to live on those lands under the circumstances I gave.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7138194].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          It's better than your plan for World full of "centurians"...Oh, that's right, you didn't post a plan to enable humans to live longer...

          The land I mentioned has far less species/life per square mile than the lands we are living on now. With planning and care, we can inhabit those lands with far less impact than we do now, and give some of our land we are on now back to "nature".

          We occupy the land that we do know because it supported life and we didn't have the technology to inhabit other lands. We now have that ability.

          The point is, if we want to extend human life, we need more food, water and land.

          And as "King of the World", I say it's "okay" for us to live on those lands under the circumstances I gave.
          Ah - well, you have talked me into nodding my head at that idea. It would be best for us to live in lands that are basically uninhabitable for everything else and give them some room to maintain their own natural environment. Okay - I like it. All except it would wipe out a lot of my favorite gem hunting fields.
          It's always something ~ Rosanna Rossana Dana
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7139551].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joseph Robinson
          Banned
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          And as "King of the World"
          "I am your king!"

          "Well I didn't vote for you." :p
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7140926].message }}
        • Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          And as "King of the World", I say it's "okay" for us to live on those lands under the circumstances I gave.
          Hey Kurt - take notes...here's your loophole!

          This guy is legally allowed to wear a crown in his passport photo and carry around a sword because of European religious freedom laws. He claims to be a reincarnated King Arthur and leader of the ancient druids

          The Raving Outlaw Biker-Druids and Their 1575-Year-Old King | VICE
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7145426].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

      If I were King of the World, life span would be dependant on the number of decedents a person has. Someone without children living to 1,000 would have far less impact on the Earth than the average person that had two kids and their kids had 2 kids, etc.

      It isn't that we don't have room. It's more a matter of farm-able land and fresh water. I believe both of these can be over-come with technology. It would be more a matter of financial priorities than anything else. If we can pipe oil across Alaska, we can pipe water anywhere we want. It's simply a matter of how much money we're willing to pay.

      Only .5% of the water on Earth is potable. We know how to clean the other 99.5%. Again, it's just a matter of how much we're willing to spend to do it.

      There's plenty of land. For example, if any one's ever driven from S. Utah to S. California, or through Arizona, Nevada, etc., knows there's long stretches of land with no one living on it. This land is actually very fertile and gets plenty of sunlight. The problem is there isn't any water. But any time we're willing to pay to pipe water to those areas, we can have lots and lots more farmland.

      While GMO may be a problem now, it doesn't mean it always will be...Or that there aren't other uses for it other than food. For example, bamboo grows at the rate of up to a foot a day. Take these fast-grow genes and splice it to a redwood tree and have fast growing redwoods for building materials, etc.
      When it comes to food, technology may not be the total way to go.
      Russia's small-scale organic agriculture model may hold the key to feeding the world
      The problem with genetically altering anything living is the unintended consequences. Take your redwood example. Right off the bat I can see nutrients to feed the trees being a problem. Also The amount of water taken in at a faster rate could cause not only nutrient uptake issues but also could create a fast eroding arid soil.
      Like that old commercial "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature.", well that's true
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7138323].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        When it comes to food, technology may not be the total way to go.
        Russia's small-scale organic agriculture model may hold the key to feeding the world
        The problem with genetically altering anything living is the unintended consequences. Take your redwood example. Right off the bat I can see nutrients to feed the trees being a problem. Also The amount of water taken in at a faster rate could cause not only nutrient uptake issues but also could create a fast eroding arid soil.
        Like that old commercial "It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature.", well that's true
        My bamboo/redwood was just one example of unlimited possibilities. Like it or not, the 21st Century will be the century of DNA.

        And...how much water does it take now to grow a single apple naturally? What is it, something like 200 gallons of water per apple? What happens if there's no water?

        While natural micro-farming is a good idea, it is also vulnerable to local disaster...the "natural" corn in the mid west didn't survive the drought. It was the drought-resistant GMO corn that survived.

        And this drought wasn't limited to the US...Russia had a major drought as well. So if there's no GMO corn, you better come up with a Plan B when Mother Nature doesn't play along, which is more often than we'd like to think. Natural crops didn't fare too well during the Dust Bowl.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7138434].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          My bamboo/redwood was just one example of unlimited possibilities. Like it or not, the 21st Century will be the century of DNA.

          And...how much water does it take now to grow a single apple naturally? What is it, something like 200 gallons of water per apple? What happens if there's no water?

          While natural micro-farming is a good idea, it is also vulnerable to local disaster...the "natural" corn in the mid west didn't survive the drought. It was the drought-resistant GMO corn that survived.

          And this drought wasn't limited to the US...Russia had a major drought as well. So if there's no GMO corn, you better come up with a Plan B when Mother Nature doesn't play along, which is more often than we'd like to think. Natural crops didn't fare too well during the Dust Bowl.
          Actually you got that backwards. The drought resistant corn which is also bt corn ran into problems with corn root worms becoming immune to the bt and because the worm thrives in dry soil did tremendous damage to the gmo corn crops. Plus you have the environmental effects of growing gmo's. They use more pesticides and because the pesticides contaminate the soil, they require more fertilizers.
          You can't have a clean environment and grow gmo's.
          So the question is do you want to pollute the earth more for a minimal gain with gmo's or do you want to clean up the environment with a larger gain in food production.
          Then you have the whole health issue of eating gmo's both for us and for the animals they are fed to. WHy do you think the AMA is telling farmers to use less antibiotics? Why are they using so much? Because tthe gmo feed they are given causes health problems and with the large amount of antibiotics the animals are given we are gitting super viruses, just like we now have super weeds in 26 states (caused from round-up ready crops) and super bugs (caused from bt crops).
          Gmo's are simply not the intelligent way to go when it comes to plants.

          Iv almost forgot to add.
          We already have varieties of corn that are drought resistant from cross breeding. They naturally out preformed the drought resistant gmo corn.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7138612].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    I didn't see this thread until after I posted a thread that touched on the same subject. Whoops.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7137671].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Dennis,
    The unnamed did with me before.

    Dan,
    I'm actually glad to be wrong.

    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7137883].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
      Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

      I think I know who Kim thinks it is, but that would be incorrect.

      I really meant that comment as a passing comment to highlight my experience with political topics here. I didn't throw it out there to be tantalizing. That's not my nature. Again, I'm a fart joke guy.

      And, to save you some time, I believe any posts revealing the person's identity in the thread I referred to were deleted.
      Thanks for trying to save me some time, but I wasn't curious enough to go hunting through threads to figure it out. I did look to see if the infraction was still there though -- that's easy.

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      Dennis,
      The unnamed did with me before.
      I guess I didn't make him as mad as you did. My bad.
      Signature

      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7138018].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by KimW View Post

        Oh come on Dennis.....I think we all have a good idea of he who shall not be named is!!!
















        Cthulhu!!
        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

        Well, I don't. I don't know which side of the issue Dan is on, so I wouldn't know which side of the issue no-name would be on.

        Given your reply there, I could probably guess now. If it's who I think you mean, I've never known him to take an issue from a thread to a PM or to give infractions, so maybe my guess would be wrong.




        I don't know what that means either. Maybe I'm just getting dumber with age. :confused:
        Dennis, A brief description:

        Cthulhu[1] is a fictional cosmic entity who first appeared in the short story "The Call of Cthulhu", published in the pulp magazine Weird Tales in 1928. The character was created by writer H. P. Lovecraft.

        H. P. Lovecraft's initial short story, "The Call of Cthulhu", was published in Weird Tales in 1928 and established the character as a malevolent entity hibernating within an underwater city in the South Pacific called R'lyeh. Described as resembling "...an octopus, a dragon, and a human caricature.... A pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque scaly body with rudimentary wings",[6] the imprisoned Cthulhu is apparently the source of constant anxiety for mankind at a subconscious level, and also the subject of worship by a number of religions (located in New Zealand, Greenland, Louisiana, and the Chinese mountains) and other Lovecraftian monsters (called Deep Ones[7] and Mi-Go[8]). The short story asserts the premise that, while currently trapped, Cthulhu will eventually return. His worshipers chant "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" ("In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.")[6]
        Lovecraft conceived a detailed genealogy for Cthulhu (published as "Letter 617" in Selected Letters)[9] and made the character a central figure in corresponding literature.[10] The short story The Dunwich Horror (1928)[11] references Cthulhu, while The Whisperer in Darkness (1930) hints at one of his character's knowing the creatures origins ("I learned whence Cthulhu first came, and why half the great temporary stars of history had flared forth.").[8] The 1931 novella At the Mountains of Madness refers to the "star-spawn of Cthulhu", who warred with another race called the Elder Things before the dawn of man.[12]

        I'm a fan of pulp fiction writing.
        Met the creator of The Shadow once,who ghost wrote for Houdini.
        One day I might scan a few covers of some pulp mags I have and post them.
        They had great artists doing the covers.



        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

        Thanks for trying to save me some time, but I wasn't curious enough to go hunting through threads to figure it out. I did look to see if the infraction was still there though -- that's easy.



        I guess I didn't make him as mad as you did. My bad.
        I just seem to have that effect on some people.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7138356].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Cthulhu[1] is a fictional cosmic entity who first appeared in the short story "The Call of Cthulhu", published in the pulp magazine Weird Tales in 1928. The character was...
          OK - I never read that. I don't read much fiction. I'm just glad I didn't spend much time trying to figure what that meant. I thought it was an acronym for something.
          Signature

          Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7138407].message }}
  • Originally Posted by HeySal
    If I know Americans - the most major interest in this science will be its cosmetic value
    If it won't make your 'wee-wee' hard -

    We don't want to hear about it!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7137923].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Sue Bruce
      "We would like to be able to find a way of obtaining spare heart or brain cells from skin or blood cells. The important point is that the replacement cells need to be from the same individual, to avoid problems of rejection and hence of the need for immunosuppression." Toronto Sun

      I remember reading about tooth implants quite a while ago and the problem was the patient's body rejecting anything foreign, also with organ transplants. The first heart transplant patient passed away fighting rejection.

      We really don't realize how important the research is until it affects us or one of ours. The same as most of our causes.

      Those raising money for research, doing the door to door canvassing, running for life and working at the community level have been affected personally.

      One of our own, KimW would be given a huge gift if this advancement could be used for kidney cells.

      We have to be open to the new advancements while tempering that with the chance for abuse. A huge obstacle with this life changing advancement in science.

      Sue
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7138059].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Anthem40
    I think with the recent developments in stem cell research, the primary reason people were some emotional about it has been circumvented.
    Signature
    95% of IM'ers have great relationships with clients who also advertise offline and with other people. Stop missing out on that cash and leverage into it. PM me if you are an established marketer and want to find out how.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7137965].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author EvolBaby
    Well glad I'm not the only one interested in stem cells.

    Matter of fact for the past 7 years I've worked for the leading stem cell research and advocacy group in the world. I've even illustrated a children's book for them to teach people about what are referred to as "adult stem cells". Any of you who aren't aware of the advancements in stem cell research will be flabbergasted at what is going on. This industry is the biggest discovery and advance in medicine in history and will soon dominate the way we treat injuries and illnesses.

    The Director of our institute was the first person ever to develop a commercially successful adult stem cell treatment center for cardiovascular disease and he's been training doctors, building new research centers around the world. I kid you not. I get to chat with the top doctors and researchers and patients. The developing stem cell treatments make Star Trek look like a witch doctor from some forest tribe.

    I'm not even going to try to post links to what is being done and what I've done but you can find a new children's ebook about it on Amazon. (bet that will get this post nuked).

    Anyway, every day more breaking news hits the news wires about these stem cell technologies to the point our staff can barely keep up with them. We were invited to the White House when President Bush was in office as we don't use embryonic stem cells for treatments and for good reason. Let me explain.

    Embryonic stem cells are extracted from a human embryo. In the old days it meant destroying the embryo bringing up issues of controversy. Nowadays the embryo isn't destroyed during extraction, however, embryonic stem cells inevitably turn on cancers and tumors. On the other hand there are what are referred to as adult stem cells. These are the stem cells already in your body. Easy to extract and program to fix just about every tissue in the body. Safe and highly effective and the procedures are so easy one day you might do it at home. I have seen in the labs tissues we never thought could be repaired or regenerated being done so. We can regrow spinal cord tissue, optical nerve tissue, lungs, hearts, pancreas, skin, muscle, bone and more! I could cite chapter and verse but it would be so many hyperlinks in this thread it would look like an ebook.

    So the bottom line is that foreign countries are racing to corner the market. The FDA and Big Pharma in the U.S. are trying to squash any stem cell research and treatments that don't fit their agendas. Everyone else in the world is telling the FDA and U.S. government to kiss their butts because they know, especially China, that stem cell treatments are going to revolutionize medicine and regenerative medicine from now on.

    Finally, I wouldn't put it past our doctors to be able to turn people of any old age back to being 19 years old again. The breakthroughs are that powerful and I bullsnot you not. You wanna know more just PM me and I'd be glad to help.
    Signature
    Copywriting/Article Writing at $2 per 100 words! Cartoons, Comics, T-Shirt Designs!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7194749].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Paul Myers
      Dennis,
      I don't know what that means either. Maybe I'm just getting dumber with age.
      Tsk. HP Lovecraft, et al.

      And Cthulhu was not "He who is not to be named." That was Hast...

      Err... Never mind.
      Signature
      .
      Stop by Paul's Pub - my little hangout on Facebook.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7195183].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Jeez Paul. You'd be formidable if you started reading.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7195543].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RyanEagle
    Originally Posted by kenmichaels View Post

    I just read an interesting article about it.

    i find it fascinating ... but i am not sure if is a topic that
    can be discussed with out people going off the deep end.
    From all the replies to this thread, I guess there's no need to post the link to the article. lol
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7196135].message }}

Trending Topics