The Human Body
This astonishing series takes us on a journey breathtaking twists of the most complex biological mechanism on earth - the human body.
Using a technique that allows us to see photos changes over time, graphics, drawing and illustration calculated computerized techniques in order to investigate any effect, due to a corner of the human body in his various stages of growth, maturity and the final state - decay.
Matriculation, girls, pains of adolescence, complex activity of the brain and eventually death shown in steps with detailed explanation.
Offering clear voice of Dr. Robert Winston allows 10-year-old child even gain knowledge and understand the human body than ever before.
Life Story – Every second, a world of miraculous microscopic events take place within the body.
An Everyday Miracle – The drama of conception activates the most sophisticated life support machine on earth.
First Steps – In four years, the new-born child learns every survival skill.
Raging Teens – The hormone-driven roller-coaster otherwise known as adolescence!
Brain Power – The adult human brain is the most complicated - and mysterious - object in the universe.
As Time Goes By – is far more complex - and fascinating - than mere decline.
The End of Life – Even in death, the body reveals remarkable secrets.
Excellent documentary.
Nothing scientifically fancy can i say,
It's just the music made me cry xD
Terrible quality video. Upload better quality or I don't recommend watching this.
Actually this documentary is much talk and videos of the doc that much more info he could have shared, generally poor work here
very interesting
I wholeheartedly agree with vlatko. There is absolutely NO reason for any debates on religion to be posted on this doc.
That said, this is a very good one. Thanks for posting it. I can't wait to share it with others...
Wow! This doc was incredible. Fascinating, dramatic, and disturbing at times... I cried my ass off the last episode.
This is a fantastic documentary on the human body, I highly recommend it to everyone
"The most complex biological mechanism on earth – the human body." Hahahahaha XD
the human brain alone is the most complex biological structure in this world, in computer standards, it would be accurate to say that the most powerful computer in the world can only do a fraction of what an average human brain can do. Sure it can process in info many times faster, but it can never take available information and come up with a completely new idea; like an apple falling on your head and deriving that with the presence of gravity. we barely know how the brain works after a century of study by the world's most brilliant minds. The simple things you do every day like moving, eating and using your senses don't just happen by magic but by incredibly complex process inside your body. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems
@Luis Tamarez:
I wouldn't say that, right now on the news, a transistor has been developed from one single atom, that is stable and that works, add that to quantum computing and computers will beat the human brain by 2020 in computing power exponentially
Got it
JAKE :) Therefore, that you’re saying there’s no foundations I totally agree but please don’t insult me [undeveloped ideas full of prejudice and biased generalities]. I take from this response of yours you have been personally touched or feel that the prejudice were on you somehow. Why am I saying this… because if you are going to make a statement regarding something that I wrote I want it to be in the “I” form, this way you speak for yourself and not in the name of humanity.
Jake I dont see why you would take from my comment re undeveloped ideas etc that I take it personally - I was responding to the content of the argument which was based on prejudiced (distorted generalities) - which you accept to be the case. There is no need for me to state this from an `I` perspective because it is not an opinion, I am highlighting that `evidence` used was not relevant because it brought together the notion of religious individuals being man in a cloud with beard (which altho` may apply to a good percentage does not stand up to being used as a reason to dish religion. Also, this notion is then generalised to form the point of the refute. So no opinion of mine here.
However I welcome and acknowledge your response that on reflection you see how you hadnt thought it through ... and defintely more power to you on that strength to say so - it tells me that your core motivation is seeking the underlying reality/truth :))
You say that you presume I am religious and presume I have a resentment against scientists. There is nothing I say that should lead you to think that. I am not for or against either per se. I focus on the arguments/assertions/beliefs of anyone or any organisation or philosophy that builds an argument on unsound foundations. I adore seekers of truth/reality and have been pre-occupied with the Big Question `who are we what is the universe, how did we/it happen, etc` since a child :) There is so much prejudice in every field (incl. science) that tells us more about the easy waay we as humans fall into rank and file order - either through not being able to question properly or by applying prejudices we very often learnt on auto pilot and go on to generalise and distort ideas - present them as a premise taking a few lines, followed by reams of deduction ... BUT here is what fools most people: the deduction is faultless ... but the argument is completely flawed because the PREMISE does not stand upto scrutiny.
There are many people of various religions that are hateful zealots, there are many that are believers because they adopted it from their family, many who ran to it as a security and dare not question it. Likewise there are many in science who believe (yes believe) that science holds answers that dismiss religion (this is a nonsence logically ... the fact that science has discovered much to admire and the fact that religion is often used as an opiate of the people , does not mean that it is logical for scientlists to dismiss the idea of a universal intelligence (either as a mover and shaker or as an evolvement of consciousness) just because it is misunderstood, used and abused by many. It is in itself a non scientific approach. Scientists who do this tend to be those who use science as a belief system and a security blanket for their own take on the world and their place in it.
I do indeed resent scientists and I do indeed resent religious individuals who bully others based on their own prejudice and own agenda and own sloppy thinking. However, there are many who I have tremendous admiration for because they are true scientlists and true religious seekers who are willing to ditch any set ideas in order to open up and be creative. I have a very soft spot for Einstein - his attitude, his thinking, his individuality, his remarkable ability to play with his knowledge and apply his intellect in both a linear and creative fashion ... strong enough to stand up against detractors at the risk of being sidelined :)))
@ Caroline, following the tread I can see that somehow we cannot avoid this discussion that I unfortunately started in the wrong section. My first questions to you before I reply to anything you wrote is what are your line of studies and what is your faith? From what I gather it seems to me that you are a believer and this will not be the first time I get in a flaming discussion with people that do have enough knowledge to challenge my theories but yet again they would still have a certain crossed opinion because they mixed religion and science. Do not get me wrong religion in itself is a science, it’s as of now considered a science in the same rang of historical studies such as mythology and sociology. One cannot pretend of being a complete sociologist or anthropologist without a quick stroll in Theology.
Before I go further, yes I am a Sociologist, Anthropologist and I’m heading for a master in history and I do love science but let us be real; I am well aware that science doesn’t have all the answers and that is for the same reasons that research is always ongoing. In the course of writing my thesis in anthropology I had 3 anti-thesis from people questioning my studies so obviously we’re not even close to the all-knowing scientist yet… at least I do not pretend to be one. I also have a style that is not like many others in my discipline… I dumbify things a lot because I want the common guy to be able to give an opinion on what being discussed.
“In short the argument you give has no foundation from any perspective other than personal bias and undeveloped ideas full of prejudice and biased generalities.
God fanatics ? Being religious does not equal God fanatics. God fanatics or religion does not equal bearded man in a cloud. Science though DOES often generate and fuel fairy tales.
In short any perspective by definition is limited.” I don’t know if you noticed, but in what I wrote, there was no rhetorical development whatsoever (this is why I apologized to Rodrigo because I realized that I did not think things through) this can happen to anyone “EVEN YOU”. Therefore, that you’re saying there’s no foundations I totally agree but please don’t insult me [undeveloped ideas full of prejudice and biased generalities]. I take from this response of yours you have been personally touched or feel that the prejudice were on you somehow. Why am I saying this… because if you are going to make a statement regarding something that I wrote I want it to be in the “I” form, this way you speak for yourself and not in the name of humanity.
Where did I say that being religious imply automatically “GOD fanatics” I would have prefer that you asked “ Jake what do you mean by this”, instead of assuming that I was referring that all religious person were god fanatic “My dad and my wife are religious and I don’t see them as a fanatics”. Here’s a pointer for you: I am baptized Roman Catholic, therefore I do have a religion, but I’m also questioning a lot few standard based on historical matters and social events. You’d be surprised to know that religion fascinate me even more than science itself. Being a sociologist/anthropologist, I will often and definitely use religion to explain the social group we are studying. Religious believes have formed the modern societies that we live in today… I could give several examples but this is not the place for that.
As for science, I feel a bit of resentment against scientists in both of your replies. As I cannot put all religious fellows in the “GOD fanatic” category, I believe that you should pay attention when you mention that many scientists believe to be all-knowing (it’s only a few). When I made reference to Carl Sagan, I made a reference to a series of episodes call Cosmos, which to me bring another explanation of how the world was formed (a tangible and verifiable explanation). Don’t get me wrong Caroline I do not want people to stop believing in what they believe… because let’s be honest, there will be a lot of depression going around if people will suddenly stop believing in god , it would be a social chaos. Carl Sagan was himself agnostic and I’m more of an agnostic than Atheist, because no one can pretend that there’s no highest POWER. Now why have I referred people to COSMOS, because I believe in natural selection, I believe that along with god believes some religious people should also have an interest in what the human have found… not only what they believe God did. I feel in your manifesto that you’re minimizing the important discoveries that science has brought to humanity… the one that count of course, I would have definitely lived without the gun ?.
In short I’ll be happy to discuss further with you and if that is the hat of a scientist you want me to put on I will, as long as you put on the same hat. By the way in your manifesto I did not see any challenge… what I have read is mostly correction of a 10 lines paragraph that I apologized for; since I realized that I didn’t think it through. You went all the way trying to prove me wrong on something that has (as you said) no foundation and that myself realize how wrong it was.
RESPONSE to Coyote :) Quote: `but saying that a god or 'designer' designed everything isn't free thinking, it's a cheap and easy answer that has NO proof. I agree -and I never said otherwise. However scientist`sd are fond of saying that there isnt any proof as if that meant that something doesnt exist ... to say there is no proof means something doesnt exist is sloppy thinking and illogical.
no scientist is trying to pass themselves off as all-knowing.? Yes they are and yes they do (they treat science itself as a religion in which they have faith) having said that the real scientific innovators are clear that they dont know and are big enough to say so. You say:
incredible understanding of the human body and its complex workings. I say: Yes, but it is still tiny ... I remember an eminante surgeion stating:I have been a surgeion of some repute for many years and have performed hundreds of successful operations .. I know precisely where to put one piece of flesh and sew it to another piece, what not to touch, what to avoid etc ... but, once I do that it is the miracle of the human body that then does the healing. I can state roughly how it does that - but how it manages to be able to is quite another.
Absolutely right, science has been a great contributor to our knowledge and understanding - and will continue to be... what we have learnt as a result is phenominal and everything you list as achievements is true and stunning and to be gretaly appreciated ... my point though is that in the ultimate understanding it is miniscule. At the ultimate reality of quantum physics all this knowledge ceases to explain anything ... the knowledge so far explains manifest systems no more than that.
Religion: you say that given that the majority of people are muslim or christian (actually - not statistically true btw) that they do believe in a man with a white beard ... this is also not true and demonstrates your presumptions on which you base your statement ... you are referring to a high percentage of such believers who do have that type of image, but they fail to un derstand the essence of their own faith (have tended to take on the faith as a societal/cultural belief passed down to them - rather than profoundly refelcting on the big question and viewing the religious systems in that light ... such people who have are coming from a whole different perspective and level. Also it isnt true that `you just need faith` as you state it does.
I think so much of what you say, and the fact that you responded in the way that you have tells me that you are not a scientist who uses science as a personal shield - just as many religious nuts do - and I think that you and I could have a very constructive stimulating discussion.
The majority of groundbreaking scientific advancement have come from scientists that fundamentally dont fit into the norm ... they use their current knowledge as a starting point ... they are excellent thinkers - by that I mean able to differentiate between linear and creative, and use both, and are also wonderful individuals who have stood up against a lot of flack hurled at them by their contempories who cut them down because they were proposing hypothesis outside of the then belief systems of the science community. Many so afraid to be questioned, or to support non conformist hypotheses not because they dont see the potential but because they will not get financed.
Science certainly doesn't have all the answers and no scientist is trying to pass themselves off as all-knowing. But we do have an incredible understanding of the human body and its complex workings, especially compared to what we did just a decade ago. The flip-side to that coin is that religions generally DO claim to have all the answers, and instead of facts (or at least well established hypothesis), you just need faith. We know an astonishing amount about the human body because of science. We've mapped the human genome and can trace our evolution as a species and as living organisms on this planet back through hundreds of millions of years.
@ Caroline
"However only a few scientists believe that science can answer all questions and only a few religious adherents belief God is a man with a long white beard."
Many scientists believe science CAN eventually answer most questions through rigorous testing and experimentation, we just haven't gotten there yet! Many scientists have also negated the idea that we need some kind of intelligent being to have created the Universe (check out 'God: The Failed Hypothesis' by Victor Stenger, Hawking's 'The Grand Design' and many others). Likewise, I'd say that since Christianity and Islam are the world's two largest religions, many people do in fact believe god is a man with a long white beard, not just a few. Science hasn't backtracked on its stated beliefs that it "could and would find the answers to everything", rather hypothesis change and develop. We've mapped the human genome, mapped the genomes of countless other species, are discovering new planets all the time, making steps in curing harmful diseases, etc; science is answering countless questions everyday, how many are religion and spirituality truly answering? I do wholeheartedly believe that free thinking should be encouraged, but saying that a god or 'designer' designed everything isn't free thinking, it's a cheap and easy answer that has NO proof.
All who are commenting here on religion vs science haven;t watched even a single part of the series.Its all about biological information about human body not about religion or community or behavior of human beings.it sucks when every issue now a days becomes politics using the most popular tool now a days RELIGION......better watch the documentary and try to understand if ur brain really works........well I loved this documentary.
Wonderful.Very nicely explained all aspects biologically of human body.All the episodes are very informative.The last one about death is just amazing.Thanks a lot Dr. Robert Winston for such a making such a wonderful documentary.
The naked human body is such a total turn on in all it's various manifestations.
I'm not trying to be sick, I'm genuinely curious... if babies can't breathe underwater for the first six months of their lives, would that mean they would suffocate rather than drown if there wasn't someone to help them out?
@Caroline wow lady this is a bit long, however I will answer to you shortly... although I have made the previous mistake of bringing the religion subject in here (which is not the subject of this video) I will not make the mistake of starting a tread about religion in this comment section again. I don't do the same mistake twice... find a common ground so we are not disrupting the discussion about the Human body versus religion and I'll be more than happy to oblige and reply to your post.
Jake I appreciate your apology to Rodrigo but would like to make a point. In your initial response: God fanatics… I go with sciences at least they are not filling you mind with ****** fairy tales about a bearded man living in a cloud…
Given that you are a socioligist/anthropologist I feel at liberty to challenge this, not just from a beliefs perspectives but from a xcientific perspective. In short the argument you give has no foundation from any perspective other than personal bias and undeveloped ideas full of prejudice and biased generalities.
God fanatics ? being religious does not equal God fanatics. God fanatics or religion does not equal bearded man in a cloud. Science though DOES often generate and fuel fairy tales.
In short any perspective by definition is limited. Science way separated from religion historically when thought and experience moved away from philosophy as a mindset. There are bigots in all life spheres including scientists and religious adherents. However only a few scientists believe that science can answer all questions and only a few religious adherents belief God is a man with a long white beard. Both of these sets of people are clearly held in bondage to false reflections of what they declare they stand for. For you to use the beard as a representative of religious beliefs for you to denounce and to go on to attempt to clout it with a false representation of science. Many people use science to denounce religion when they cannot scientifically back up their stance. You for one use Carl Sagan as a way to falsely support your attitude. To anyone who has a holistic attitude and knowledge it is clear that the idea of a creator and the idea of science is not a mutually exclusive set of hypotheses. The idea that an intelligence designed the universe is not something that science has negated - indeed I can say that in the past few decades science has had to backtrack on its stated beliefs that it could and would find the answers to everything .. what it has discovered is that it can`t. It is able to explain a great deal about the mechanics of the material; worldsw ... but past the atomic structure it can be sure of nothing. And it is at the subatomic level that the real answers exist. The latest hypothesis is that there was not a big bang and the string theories don`t add upto a theory of everything either ... so the idea is that parallel universes does answer a lot of scientific problems including the inconsistencies of how much gravity there is ... the notion being that it leaks from another universe. If it does that then it is a short stretch o0f the imagination to imagine a being in that other universe designing usa in a petra dish! Finally, I would appreciate you not ju7mping to any conclusions about my state of beliefs by putting your own spin on what I have put forward here.
Science has happily allowed the general public to back scientific theory by not correcting people who gloriously state `... if I can`t see it I don`t believe it...` and making it clear that that statement is itself unscientific. Any scientist who believes that science has all the answers and who gives that impression to the general public is guilty of unscientific beliefs and guilty of misguiding the general public by allowing them to see scientists as all knowing (rather than people who experiment, have a set criteria for facts (that actually strictly are current hypothesis)and who have continually had their beliefs usurped by later generations, and who have hit a wall as far as their ability to understand the universe and how it came about) and they do a great injustice to free thinking individuals who are scientists, who are big enough to say they have few answers, who apply creative approaches to their thinking - who are not stuck and controlled by the latest - panel agreed beliefs - of the mainstream scientific bodies who have historically denounced our greatest innovators as being fools.
@TylerDurden,
well put... couldn't have stated it better myself. Without further commenting, I will now watch the doc!
I must disagree with Rodrigo. This documentary openly states at many spots that it is NOT just about numbers and biological quantities. Check the part when he speaks about the baby growing up and when he talks about the tears. He mentions numbers and then adds how much more there is to everything.
This is an amazing documentary, imo.
i have only seen the first 2 episodes,this series is amazing.How wonderful and complex THE human body is.
Cant wait to watch the rest.Thank you guys for posting this.
These shows, about the human body, are too gross for me. I thought I would barf when they stuck the camera down his ear canal.
@Rodrigo - Well knowing your style of writing now... I don't believe we'll argue again... but we can surely question everything... Even my mom don't wanna talk to me anymore I question her on everything, and then she use her powerful "Jake shut the hell up"... and oh it works! :0 Damn she always win that way. LOL
What a great discussion, it's good to see people dwelling in these issues in a healthy way.
Hope for other oportunities to more discussions and hope they light many of our concerns about the world and everything that stands on it and about spirituality for there are somethings that need to be out of this world that help achieve things simply impossible to achieve if looking only to human earthly standards.
I think that´s my whole point.
Thanks everyone Jake you are the man!! Great pleasure in arguing with you.
And special Thanks to Vlatko.
@Rodrigo Sorry! I did read back your comment and it made more sense. I really have a dislike for religion and I would sometimes just like a Religious freak jump on conclusions... sorry about that. I'll pay much more attention
Your back - See no need to trip out buddy I know when I can be wrong so no need to go on and on. I'm not your average feeble minded I can take a critic. I did watch the whole movie by the way...
Yes it had some quantities in it... and frankly I just found it funny and interesting... not that I'd believe that those numbers are completely accurate. As a scientist myself (yes I am an sociologist-anthropologist) I do love sciences but I also have my doubts and I do make part of things... Now this was a quick comment I have made based on my "dislike for religion" which after Rodrigo replied I've been cleared on what he was saying and see "You Back" I have no problem being wrong... that's what makes a human being.
As you suggested let's go back to the movie... since your sidelines, plus mine and others are indeed a waste of space.
Why does everyone keep thinking Rodrigo is a religious nut? He never said anything about science versus religion? He said it was a tool and a tool is not an application of morality or ethics, ask them NAZI Scientists who conducted all those attrocities, ask them about their twisted scientific sense of morality, ask the ones that still do animal testing of products with known toxins. I think Rodrigo and Tyler Durden were pointing out to y'all that science is a system of application and simply put, it has no moral compass. It feels nothing just like a screwdriver doesn't care whether it is used to screw in a screw or if it's jabbed into someone's head. Science is by definition "Objective" and stands outside of nature as an observer, it tries to understand the world through observation and experimentation. Religion came to be as a means for controlling the masses and consolidating power through means of a mythology. While it has been harmful in many cases it has also instilled in man a belief in an afterlife for which he must hold himself morally accountable in this life. Take the good with the bad for what it's worth. Both cases can fall into extremism and Science has it's dogma's just like religion. The only problem with Sciences dogmas as Tyler Durden noted is that it all falls apart at the quantum (irrational) levels and the only problem with Religious dogmas is they all fall apart at the (rational levels) hence his referal to Ken Wilbers pre/trans fallacy. Either way you cut it they are both succeptable to extremism and if we aren't careful we could lose everything.
I think Jake jumped on the bandwagon before he even understood what this was about, a lot like YourBrainOnReligion did. That's a typical thing to do as Tyler Durden pointed out again when you live in a dualistic "this or that" mind state. The world is neither black or white ladies and gents it tends to linger in the grey area. If I had to pick whose world I'd rather live in I'd go with Rodrigo's or Tyler Durdens anyday.
Now can we get back to the actual movie? All the sidelines are wasting space.
In this documentary everything is seen quatitatively, everything is counted, and there's little space for assuming errors, everything is a certainty for science, and they really think they are not religious!!!
I didn´t said sxience is wrong.
I said science doesn't give a damn for right or wrong.
Science doesn´t give a damn for human beings.
Science doesn't teach us how to live with each other.
Science is a tool.
I´m not saying there isn't religious fanatics.
But every day atheism and science become more and more fundamentalist in shaping our society so everyone is obliged to live the way they want and be the persons science determinism wants them to be.
There's a need for comunity freedom, and freedom to believe in GOD. And freedom to have children and dedicate a life to them instead of working the whole day and leave them in a baby school. Freedom to have family, Freedom is a word subverted by our Science suportred capitalism to serve their needs
This is in response to Rodrigo:
I realize it's been a long time since you made this comment, but I had to respond. Science hasn't done anything for humans? You don't go to the doctor? Take medicines? Drive a car? Live in air conditioning? Heating? Use electricity? Use stoves? Use refrigerators? TV? Computer? iPod? Dvd player? Radio? Take your children to the doctor? Get them innoculations? Use a cell phone and its satellites? Been in an airplane? Science doesn't have to be a living thing. It is a tool, but a tool that helps human beings every day. Helps them live longer and have easier lives. Science is by humans for humans. Curiosity is a good thing. A belief in a religion hasn't really done a lot for society. The Christian religion did cause countless horrendous tortures by the inquisitions. People's Jaws ripped apart. They had a pyramid called the Judas Chair that they lowered suspended people onto their anuses. Sick stuff. They burned countless people. People are still being stoned to death in third world countries because of religions. People are being imprisoned and killed for having the wrong religion. Science is what got us out of the religious dark ages. So I say science wins by a light year.
Very, very well said, Bobby. While one must also recognize that science also had its excesses and still continues to. Think eugenics, the horrible mind experimentations during the Cold War, biological warfare, nuclear warfare, and the list goes on, but science has learned to recognize its limitations and learn from its mistakes since. And as science learns more and more it is becoming more awed and humbled by the fascinating discoveries and complexities of this beautiful thing we call life. Religion, mainly its extremist side which claims to bear the Truth seems to be nearly 50% is still a far cry from acknowledging its limitations and continues to desecrate life by continuously engaging in the murders and wars and massacres of other human beings. There are far more compassionate groups in Christianity and Islam, and definitely in Buddhism and Hinduism, but extremism is unfortunately the loudest and has done more harm than good for humanity. Maybe one day religion will be a thing of the past, as it is slowly replaced by a different form of new 'religious' thinking, one that perhaps will be scientific all around but will also involve a much more sophisticated way of discovery which for now is considered intangible and will also highly value differences in faiths without ever denying common sense, reason nor proof as this new 'religious' way of thinking will never claim a truth, but an insatiable curiosity to explore. Here existence or the nature of dreams won't be a thing of contemplation or relegated to dream books, but of actual discoveries, research and more. :)
Rodrigo are you daft... sciences fanatics VS. God fanatics... I go with sciences at least they are not filling you mind with stupid fairy tales about a bearded man living in a cloud... now you saw life ... go watch Cosmos from Carl Sagan and tell me if science is so wrong... first we do not worship a non-existent being that promises a non possible relief of the inevitable... DEATH. We worship LIFE, NATURE as it really is. I did not see in this document any references to Sciences worshiping.
@YourBrainOnReligion, so how was the film? I love people who comment on comments before even watching the movie, it really spikes your credibility. Citing irrelevant so called "facts" before you even know what your commenting on then tying in a feminist extremism calling someone anti-women if they love children or wish people would think through the option of abortion more before going through with it? Where does it stop? Why do you assume that Rodrigo is religious? Seems to me that your making your assumptions from being trapped in the dualistic worldview of the basic Science vs. Religion paradigm. Relying on a dictionary to provide you meaning in life or dictate to you what is permitted ? If your truly about the rights of self and self liberty you would also make room for others to think outside the box. To answer your question, Religious people confuse facts with belief and vice versa for the same reason you assume to. Because most of them are trapped in their duality and simply cant live within the cognitive dissonance or comprehend non-dualistic states. Once confronted with it they trade their curiosity in for answers, be it biblical or theoretical . If you remain curious and continue down the rabbit hole, you eventually reach a point where language no longer can describe your reality. All theory goes out the window, all concepts fall short of what you have experienced. It is pointless to say more. BTW Rodrigo never used either word "fact or belief" in comparison, that was your interpretation. He simply pointed out that Science is a tool and should not be a belief system. Which it is.
BTW, @Anne, No one in their right mind is FOND of Abortion, I don't know any woman who would go through that for fun or looks back on the experience with nostalgia. With that I think you meant to use the word "practice abortion"...No? .
@Rodrigo, well said my man! Well said. Science is a tool or a lens per say, there are many ways to look at this so called reality. We should never accept any one way as the rule, least we all revert to fundamentalist anything. Scientists included. Thankfully we have the arts and our human experience to keep the question on the table and up for debate. The pre/trans fallacy should be noted here, and to one who has eyes to see it, this debate is a perfect example.
I thought this documentary was great, although I disagree with a lot of it, I did find it insightful and well produced. On the down side I fear to live in a world of cold calculation where everything is of weight and measure, let us experience love as it is, let us not quantify it into meaningless attachment for procreation. I feel this story is missing soo much.
Oh and thanks Vlatko.
@Rodrigo - Why is it religious people so often confuse facts with belief and belief with facts? Maybe it'd be to your advantage to look these two words up in the dictionary as to not confuse them any more in the future.
@Anne - Not sure why this would change anything regarding abortion. Abortion is only legally permissible at a certain stage in development prior to any neuro-development or cognitive awareness of any kind. In short, an embryo is more technically akin to a parasite than a human being. To have qualms over this means you should also have qualms with brushing your teeth as both kill living cell formations which can both quite accurately be considered as biological organisms. Beyond the science, to be anti-abortion is literally to be anti-women because when you allow yourself to see past your emotionally based biases, you'll quickly realize you're literally working to prevent women from having the right to decide what happens to their own bodies.
Off to start this 5-hour journey :)
I found the whole series quite touching and beautiful. From birth to death. There is a naturalness that is so often lacking in most western places now a days. Born in a hospital, die in a hospital. When both are normal natural occurances of a life.
I can always hope this gives those who are fond of abortion a reason to consider.
What a superficcial and sad account of humanity...
What emptiness lies in the soul of science fanatics.
They should see Science as a tool, not as a belief
people live an average of 55 years in africa what the hell ?
Awesome doc, if you haven't seen this then watch it now.