Halloween Discussion Forums, Costumes, Horror!

My father, a heavy cigarette smoker, died of lung cancer when I was 7 (a young 7, not even 7 1/2). Twice in my life I have been awakened by cigarette smoke at night, once when I was 12, and another time 12 or 15 years ago.

When I was 12, my mother just refused to believe me. She said I must have smelled something drifting in from outside our house, although our house was next door to a vacant lot. Anyone smoking there in the dead of night would have been pretty creepy, too. The thing was, as soon as I awakened and smelled the smoke, I thought it was a ghostly visitation, and I got scared. The instant I was frightened, the smell vanished. Then I felt sad. I felt as if my father had returned to check up on me, but then left as soon as he realized he had frightened me.

The second time was even stranger. It was November, and a chilly rain was falling outside. Our windows were not open, and no one in our house smokes. I awakened my husband, who smelled nothing. But I continued to smell the cigarette smoke even after he said he didn't smell it.

The next morning, he was at work, the kids were at school, and I was rummaging around through some old drawers and stored stuff, looking for cash I thought I had squirreled away. Instead, I ran across a letter my father had sent to my mother during WWII, when he was stationed in England. The letter was in a shoebox I had brought up from my mother's house after she died. They had been newlyweds, and he had clearly written that letter to entertain her. He was a lawyer and wrote well, so I was highly entertained, too. I noticed that the letter was dated the same day I was reading it, but in 1944.

When my husband returned from work, I was all excited about the letter and couldn't wait to tell him what I'd found, but he gave me this weird look and wouldn't speak. I asked him what was wrong. He said, "Don't you remember?" I said, "Remember what?" And he said, "You really don't remember, do you? Last night?" Then I recalled waking him up about the cigarette smoke I'd smelled. He said, "You can stop that now."

I have never known what to make of these events. Perhaps they don't mean anything. But my husband clearly thought the second one meant something.

Ha! Ha! Hello Dalai! Tossing his hat into the ring.

• http://io9.com/5942616/dalai-lama-tells ... r-adequate

I skimmed that article. I have never been too clear on the actual "religion" of the Dalai Lama. He is Buddhist, right? But Buddhists don't believe in a deity, do they? So it is at its core an ethical system, not really a religion, as I understand that term.

If he is saying that people can be ethical without being religious, sure, I agree with that.

I am somewhat skeptical about the ability of science to provide a basis for our morality, though. It seems to me that what science discovers, at least the technologies it enables us to develop, are essentially amoral. We are the ones who invest them with moral meaning or purpose. For example, we have now mapped the human genome, which can provide the basis for new and exciting types of medical research. If our knowledge of the human genome enables us to, say, eliminate some devastating human disease--cystic fibrosis, whatever, you choose--then that would seem to be a good thing. But what if we also, or instead, use that knowledge to mail order the kind of babies we want to have? What if everyone decides he/she wants blonde & blue-eyed baby girls who are super athletes and brilliant mathematicians? Is that ethical or moral? And if we use science to regulate such choices "For the good of the many," society, whatever--who is going to decide what that good is? What kind of government will we have?

IDK. I think these are discussions beyond the realm of science. I actually value science, and the reason on which it is based, as highly as anyone, I think. I believe our human reason is a marvelous gift, a splendid tool. But I don't think it can do everything, or know everything.

Yeah about the DL. I gathered from the article that while Buddhists don't believe in religion they do believe in a metaphysical world. The article mentions that some Buddhists don't believe in the metaphysics and are splitting off into their own group.

I agree with what you say about science and technology. Basically, guns don't kill people, people do. Just read yesterday that the technology for mail order babies and superhumans is already here. It's just that nobody is using it yet. Or are they???

Under the Gene therapy section...

• http://io9.com/5942574/9-overlooked-tec ... -the-world

Mike, IIRC, the points you make were the ultimate revelation of The Boys from Brazil. The clones shared Hitler's DNA and some of his traits, but they weren't Hitler, because they had grown up in a different world from his.

From what I understand, a "clone" would be an artificially produced identical twin. Identical twins almost always grow up together and are very, very similar, but they are not the same person. Clones would be even more different from their original, I think, because of the difference in environment.

That would be funny in a movie, I think.

Mike, I have suspected that the "replicative fading" you mention might be a real problem with the very first clone, not just clones of clones. Have the animal clones they've made lived as long or as vigorously as their originals? I don't think so.

In a clone, it's the DNA that is identical. I believe that is also the case in the spontaneous, natural phenomenon of identical twins. Since the "clones" happen at the same time, though, one is not conspicuously weaker than the other. At least I'd guess that's why. I also have heard that identical twins are mirror images of each other--one will be left-handed, the other right-handed, that sort of thing.

We are learning so much about human development nowadays that I think it is becoming clear no two people will ever be exactly alike. Even something as "physical" as eyesight is determined in part by how the child uses his/her eyes at crucial periods of development, by nutrition, etc. And intelligence is apparently controlled by a complex interaction of several different genes as well as environmental stimuli. So the answer to that old question, "Which matters more, nature or nurture?"--is "yes."

I don't feel particularly threatened by cloning, even of people. I think anyone who survived as a clone would still be a unique person, due to his/her experiences. My only concern would be if the clone were to be somehow less strong, due to that "replicative fading" you mentioned. If it were to become possible to replace a diseased or defective organ with a cloned organ, that would be a tremendous medical advance, I think. Obviously, though, you'd have to figure out a way to reproduce the organ without reproducing the entire organism, and I'm not sure how that would be done.

Murfreesboro wrote:If it were to become possible to replace a diseased or defective organ with a cloned organ, that would be a tremendous medical advance, I think. Obviously, though, you'd have to figure out a way to reproduce the organ without reproducing the entire organism, and I'm not sure how that would be done.

It's being done Murph. They use stem cells and force them to grow onto a scaffolding into the shape of the chosen organ. Of interest to Mike would be that it's no longer necessary to use embryonic stem cells, they are figuring out how to turn regular cells into stem cells.

• http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2 ... ted/39733/

As for the clone/twin thing? I always figured a clone would be like an identical twin. After all, identical twins are formed when an egg splits after fertilization, hence the same genetic material. My sisters were so alike until their teens I even had trouble telling them apart sometimes. As they got older and went their separate ways they grew further apart in actions as well as looks. Now you'd have trouble telling they were twins.

Do y'all think Gregory Peck sold the role in Boys from Brazil? I just didn't see him as Mengele. Maybe its just me. I thought he just didn't fit the role.