Kid, I'm talking about one with a head, what then?
The Dangers and Morality of Science
by Big Dog 43 Replies latest social current
-
-
kid-A
Kid, I'm talking about one with a head, what then? Clones for the purpose of organ harvesting that actually have consciousness should most certainly never be allowed to exist or be created. Period. I cant imagine any scenario where this could be justified. But, what do you think about a childless couple creating a clone of themselves to be raised as their own child, if no other reproductive options are available?
-
seattleniceguy
Sorry to take so long to reply, BD.
You're right, there are certain technologies that are dangerous in the hands of the wrong people, and those should be controlled. But this isn't really something new. For example, humans have known how to create missiles for some time. But we generally agree that citizens should not be able to purchase missiles. So the technology is controlled.
Every technology is going to have "good" and "bad" uses (as before, "good" and "bad" depend on the circumstances). If we want to solve diseases, we're going to learn how it all works, which will involve experimentation on genes of viruses and bacteria. Certainly, that opens up the possibility that someone could use this information for destructive purposes, and we will need to be on the watch for that. But it also helps millions of people who suffer from all manner of disease on a daily basis.
In regard to your question about whether it is worth it, I would unhesitatingly answer yes. The vast majority of people in advanced countries live lives that people 100 years ago wouldn't even dare to dream. Most of us work 40 hours a week, enjoying weekends and vacations to ourselves. We are far healthier, our infant mortality rate is far lower, and for the most part we are warm and well-fed. The parts of the world still afflicted by poverty are actually shrinking, even though their population continues to grow. (See the September 2005 special issue of Scientific American ("Crossroads for Planet Earth") for a great overview of where we stand on the big problems - things are getting better in a big way.)
So yes, scientific advancement brings its own set of ethical questions, and technology sometimes needs to be controlled for the good of the society (although this is a political question). But scientific knowledge is helping us all live richer and better lives.
SNG
Addendum: Here's a sidebar from the issue of SciAm I mentioned:
-
heathen
Sad thing is I think most people could use a brain .LOL from the neck up would suffice for them .....
-
googlemagoogle
You are saying no knowledge is inherently "good" or "bad", it just is knowledge, the problem is in the application and method. I would go with that to a point, except, I'm trying to see how I can be neutral about say, atomic weapons and the knowledge to build them, I'm trying to see nukes as a neutral thing and I'm having a hard time with it.
nukes are already an application, not scientific knowledge. the knowledge is how to split atoms. this knowlege is neutral. nukes are "bad" (for me). maybe that's just because i live in a country without nuclear weapons (and even enegery). nukes seem to be "good" for the us though, as they got lots. -
tetrapod.sapien
BD,
cool thread. sorry i missed it. okay, you raise a lot of good points. in general, i agree with you on many of them. but here are some i would like to comment on:
I don't see a bunch of Ph.d.'s in lab coats on the sidewalk protesting weapoons development and the like.
on a lighter note, have you ever seen any of these scientists protesting?
http://www.improb.com/projects/hair/hair-club-top.html
LMAO!
okay, now onto the rest:
Do you see science as all good, no downside, or do you see moral and ethical issues that should make us ask not can we do this, but should we?
i see science as all good. i do not see all scientists as all good though. but that is a value judgement on my part. the scientists that i have the largest problems with are the weapons scientists, and the creationist scientists, of course.
in the end, SNG really hits the nail on the head with regards methodology. i think all questions should be allowed to ask. as in, let a scientist hypothesize about whatever she wants. but if the methodology for testing the hypothesis invloves the disregard of human, or animal rights, then there should be some penalty for it.
But do you think there are places we shouldn't go with science? Things that don't need to be tampered with or are too dangerous or raise too many ethical questions?
no. all should be open. as in open source. the moment that you try to stop the discovery of some new type of knowledge via science, is the moment you drive bright young minds underground. there should be punishment for certain methodologies, however. sure, it might be dangerous or unethical, but it is still going to happen. you can't really stop it. the best situation is to get the public involved in science funding and debate, with lots of facts and information. if scientists have no funding, and the general public is against the research, they are going to have a harder time doing it.
Do you feel many scientists are amoral or even immoral in their pursuit of discovery?
no. there might be the odd one.
As science advances you pick up what others have done and run with it, but do enough questions get asked like where is this going, what are the possible outcomes of this knowledge? Can humans be trusted with such knowledge? If there is no God, no built in conscience of divine origin, or rules handed down from above, who decides what is moral and what isn't? What measuring stick do we use? Do ends justify means?
scientists do ask these questions quite regularily actually, regarding the out come of the knowledge.
with regards god and morals, that is in IMO a non-issue. we all have morals whether we think we get them from outside of ourselves or not.
Or, let's as you stated talk about methodology, what about animal testing? Tetra makes the point that if you believe in evolution, we are just big brained apes, does that give us the right, the moral right to do what ever we want to our evolutionary cousins that weren't as fortunate to develope such advanced cognition skills? If we are not "special" in the way christians think humans are special then what gives us the right?
actually, that's the opposite of what i think the results of learning that we are big brained apes should be. i have to thank frog for introducing me to this terminology, but this ape/evolution question you raise is all about anthropocentric vs. ecocentric worldviews.
the very fact that i see us as simple products of evolution, and not pinnacles of creation, fosters an ecocentric worldview, where we have no more rights (beyond survival) than do any other animals have on us. i personally feel that because we are but animals, we do not really have the right to test on other animals. as animals, all we have to do is put ourselves in their shoes to see what i mean.
however, if we were special creation, then i would think that we do have the right to test on animals and rape the environment. that would be an anthropocentric worldview were we are special, and separate from animals and ecology. i hope this helps you understand where i come from a bit better.
People are always ranting on this board about how dangerous reglion is, well, what about the products of science? When did religion ever give its followers the ability to vaporize 100,000 people in the blink of an eye? Science/knowledge/scientists whatever label you want to use have opened up wonderful benefits to mankind in the last century, but they/it also gave us for the first time the true ability to eradicate ourselves as a species, and put that power in the hands a very small group of people. Does the good really out weigh the bad?
absolutely. you have a point.
does the good outweigh the bad? really? of course it does.
Kid, but what if they do clone a person? Who are they a ward of, the state? the lab that grew them? Do they have rights like gestated humans or are they seen as something else? I just see lots of scary scenarios that have been the fodder of sci fi novels and movies playing themselves out.
if they have a brain, whether conscious and sentient or not, then they should not belong to anyone.
if they are headless bodies, only for the purpose of organ harvest, then that is fine, as i see nothing magical about a human body.
Would it be homocide or suicide with a clone?
homicide.
But, what do you think about a childless couple creating a clone of themselves to be raised as their own child, if no other reproductive options are available?
i consider this total arrogance. people want their own genes because they do not understand how genomes and evolution work. there are many many many children out there, with genes just as good as anyones, who need to be adopted.
TS
-
Big Dog
Tetra,
Thanks for the reply, very cool stuff as always and plenty of food for thought.
I'll offer that goat on the hibachi tonight to your benevolence.
BD
-
tetrapod.sapien
I'll offer that goat on the hibachi tonight to your benevolence.
all hail TETRAGOD!!
cheers mate,
TETRAGOD
-
-
Cady
on a lighter note, have you ever seen any of these scientists protesting?
LMAO!!
Do you feel many scientists are amoral or even immoral in their pursuit of discovery?
No, not at all. I see corruption as being the result of the desire for financial gain or an improvement in social status/promenance. If you want money, there are a hell of a lot easier ways to get it than to go through years and years and years of incredibly hard work for the pittance you make as a grad student. Once you become a scientist there is, of course, the natural desire to be recognized for your work. However, there are strict ethical and professional standards w/in the scientific community. Basically, you're surrounded by a lot of very smart ppl who have their eyes open. I think most scientists care a lot about ppl and their profession and protect it; the few renegades are going to be relatively shunned.
...As science advances you pick up what others have done and run with it, but do enough questions get asked like where is this going, what are the possible outcomes of this knowledge? Can humans be trusted with such knowledge? If there is no God, no built in conscience of divine origin, or rules handed down from above, who decides what is moral and what isn't? What measuring stick do we use? Do ends justify means?
I work for a lab whose purpose is to include values in the development of technology. Our lab is partnered w/major tech companies around the world.
People are always ranting on this board about how dangerous reglion is, well, what about the products of science? When did religion ever give its followers the ability to vaporize 100,000 people in the blink of an eye? Science/knowledge/scientists whatever label you want to use have opened up wonderful benefits to mankind in the last century, but they/it also gave us for the first time the true ability to eradicate ourselves as a species, and put that power in the hands a very small group of people. Does the good really out weigh the bad?
Humans have always created tools. A sharp rock can be used to cut meat or to kill a rival. The problems are not the result of the tool but how the individual behind it is motivated. As far the question of the mind and heart, and the turning of such towards hatred, religion has done a great job in that area. For that reason, I see religion as a much greater threat than science and the tools it creates.
Cady
