where should science stop?

[PsySpi]

What boundary is too far, and how do we decide what is too much?
What should we not do? Isn't it time limits were established before we destroy ourselves?

Panic and/ or discuss.

[median]

PsiSpy

Humans have always had the capacity for self destruction ever since the Chinese experimented with gunpowder. But we’re still here. O0
Science nowadays is so heavily regulated by ethical bodies that the idea of going ‘too far’ – a wonderfully subjective concept, is somewhat tempered.

If, however, you are referring to the potential scenario of ‘self annihilation’ then isn’t this the ultimate state of regulation? :D

Mistakes made allow us to decide what is too far. History is a great teacher.
We test, we evaluate and then we re-evaluate.

I’d better stop here. My philosophy meter is showing a 7.5 monads on the Nietzsche-Schopenhauer scale ;D

[PsySpi]

PsiSpy

Humans have always had the capacity for self destruction ever since the Chinese experimented with gunpowder. But we’re still here. O0
Science nowadays is so heavily regulated by ethical bodies that the idea of going ‘too far’ – a wonderfully subjective concept, is somewhat tempered.

If, however, you are referring to the potential scenario of ‘self annihilation’ then isn’t this the ultimate state of regulation? :D

Mistakes made allow us to decide what is too far. History is a great teacher.
We test, we evaluate and then we re-evaluate.

I’d better stop here. My philosophy meter is showing a 7.5 monads on the Nietzsche-Schopenhauer scale ;D



But how can humans be trusted to decide such things? What if we step over the edge and cannot turn back to learn?

[tkingdoll]

Who is this 'we'?

You have the vote (if you're old enough), that's your voice. If you don't like the way your country spends its science budget, lobby your MP.

What do you mean "how can humans be trusted?" - who is doing the trusting?

What do you propose to curtail this impending doom? Kill all scientists? Destroy all books? Blow up schools? As long as there are people, there will be progress.

[huw-l]

But how can humans be trusted to decide such things? What if we step over the edge and cannot turn back to learn?


Well, looking back on history there seems to be a clear correlation between technological advancement and lower mortality rates. I'm willing to bet that the trend will continue.

So far the people killed by technology (mainly in wars) are outnumbered by orders of magnitude by those saved by technology. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Who would you prefer to trust?

[PsySpi]

Who is this 'we'?


humanity.



You have the vote (if you're old enough), that's your voice. If you don't like the way your country spends its science budget, lobby your MP.


I'm sure many will. People who can see clearer than those blinded with progress.




What do you mean "how can humans be trusted?" - who is doing the trusting?



Humans of course. Gods special creation.



What do you propose to curtail this impending doom? Kill all scientists? Destroy all books? Blow up schools? As long as there are people, there will be progress.


Impose Limits, slow things down. Stop some lines of research.

[PsySpi]

But how can humans be trusted to decide such things? What if we step over the edge and cannot turn back to learn?


Well, looking back on history there seems to be a clear correlation between technological advancement and lower mortality rates. I'm willing to bet that the trend will continue.

So far the people killed by technology (mainly in wars) are outnumbered by orders of magnitude by those saved by technology. Seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Who would you prefer to trust?


proof?

[PsySpi]

Do you think science should continue down all paths, no matter how terrible the concequences? Do you agree there should be limits? How would you determine those limits?

[wollery]

What consequences?

How do you know, before conducting research, whether a particular line of enquiry will produce positive or negative outcomes, in terms of its impact on humanity?

[PsySpi]

What consequences?

How do you know, before conducting research, whether a particular line of enquiry will produce positive or negative outcomes, in terms of its impact on humanity?


The consequences we can already see.

Do you think for example cloning, genetic engineering, stem cell therapy e.t.c and other controvertial paths are acceptable to follow?

[wollery]

The consequences we can already see.

Do you think for example cloning, genetic engineering, stem cell therapy e.t.c and other controvertial paths are acceptable to follow?


What consequences can you already see from cloning, genetic engineering, stem cell therapy etc?

[PsySpi]

The consequences we can already see.

Do you think for example cloning, genetic engineering, stem cell therapy e.t.c and other controvertial paths are acceptable to follow?


What consequences can you already see from cloning, genetic engineering, stem cell therapy etc?


None yet, we are currently resisting down those paths because we see where they could lead. (the devaluing of life, playing GOD, interfering in places we should not, denying God as we do.)

[Mojo]

What boundary is too far, and how do we decide what is too much?
What should we not do? Isn't it time limits were established before we destroy ourselves?

That's the second time today I've seen someone pontificating on this subject: the other one
has an excuse (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-10-22T032828Z_01_L21745170_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-POPE-SCIENCE-DC.XML&rpc=92) though.

[wollery]

None yet, we are currently resisting down those paths because we see where they could lead. (the devaluing of life, playing GOD, interfering in places we should not, denying God as we do.)

Seeking cures for debilitating diseases is devaluing life is it?

'Playing god' is an emotive term, designed to make people recoil in horror at the thought, but since I don't believe in god it's a fairly worthless term to me.

What places should we not interfere? Oh yes, the 'divine'. Forgive me for not getting worked up about that.

To 'deny' god I'd have to believe that it exists, which I don't, anymore than I believe that the IPU, FSM, tooth fairy or santa claus exist.

[Mojo]

None yet, we are currently resisting down those paths because we see where they could lead. (the devaluing of life, playing GOD, interfering in places we should not, denying God as we do.)

Seeking cures for debilitating diseases is devaluing life is it?

Well, yeah, if GOD didn't want people to have these diseases, He wouldn't afflict people with them, would He?

Similarly, if you have toothache, you should on no account go to a dentist, because that would also involve playing GOD. ;)

[Dr B]

Why do people always assume that scientific advances necessarily lead to bad things?

[Mojo]

Why do people always assume that scientific advances necessarily lead to bad things?


Because they've read Frankenstein and a couple of Michael Crichton novels.

[Dr B]

Why do people always assume that scientific advances necessarily lead to bad things?


Because they've read Frankenstein and a couple of Michael Crichton novels.


;D ;D ;D quite so O0

[PsySpi]

Why do people always assume that scientific advances necessarily lead to bad things?


Because they've read Frankenstein and a couple of Michael Crichton novels.


;D ;D ;D quite so O0


Do you deny science should have regulation?

Doesn't frankenstein and Jurassic park show up the dangers of thinking were are God?

[Dr B]

Naaah

I'm off diggin up corpse's later......anyone with me????? >:D

[Cuddles]

Doesn't frankenstein and Jurassic park show up the dangers of thinking were are God?


You do realise those weren't actually real, don't you?

[Mojo]

Do you deny science should have regulation?

It depends on what you mean by "regulation". If you mean regulations about how science is carried out, no. If, as seems to be the case from what you've already posted, you mean regulations about what subjects science should be allowed to investigate, then the answer to your question is yes.

[tkingdoll]

Guys, we're being trolled. PsySpi no more believes his ridiculous arguments than we do.

[Jocky]

Guys, we're being trolled. PsySpi no more believes his ridiculous arguments than we do.

Awwwww, but it's such fun! Can't we play with him just a little bit longer, pleeeeeese mummy? We promise to wash our hands before tea!
:D

[PsySpi]

Guys, we're being trolled. PsySpi no more believes his ridiculous arguments than we do.


That depends on how you would define a troll. Someone with opposing viewpoints? Then Yes.

Someone posting to get a reaction? Then no.

Someone posting for the purpose of starting a debate? Then yes.

Sommeone posting things they don't believe? then prehaps.

Unfortunately I did the stupid thing of starting three threads at the same time, all with different arguments I may not agree with 100% but am exploring. I intended to test them against their counters, since thats what forums like this are for. However I cannot give any the attention and defending they deserve, so my side looks to be weaker than it should.

This is my intent with this thread, phrased in as neutral a way as I can manage-

where should science stop?
Because science is a powerful tool, but most would argee there are some applications we should not put it to. This is the theme of many a book or movie. We have not yet reached that point but we are getting close. What system of ethics should govern how we apply science? What aspects of it should we avoid?

As an example, some controvertial science-

Cloning- should cloning be allowed? Up to what point and why?

Genetic engineering, how far should it be taken?

Basically we can all agree that some things are a bad idea, for example creating through genetic engineering an animal with cosmetic mutations due to which it is in constant, terrible pain for the sole purpose and use as a pet.
This is beyond a line that should not be crossed (creating things that suffer terribly for no reason.) How far back should this line be drawn?

[Dr B]

If you are truly intending to explore - then read and think. No one here could ask anymore of you than that. O0

[Mojo]

where should science stop?
Because science is a powerful tool, but most would argee there are some applications we should not put it to. This is the theme of many a book or movie. We have not yet reached that point but we are getting close. What system of ethics should govern how we apply science? What aspects of it should we avoid?

As an example, some controvertial science-

Cloning- should cloning be allowed? Up to what point and why?

Genetic engineering, how far should it be taken?

Basically we can all agree that some things are a bad idea, for example creating through genetic engineering an animal with cosmetic mutations due to which it is in constant, terrible pain for the sole purpose and use as a pet.
This is beyond a line that should not be crossed (creating things that suffer terribly for no reason.) How far back should this line be drawn?

I think you're confusing science, which is a tool for understanding the universe, with the uses to which we put our understanding of the universe.

You're also using a rather extreme example, and one which most people would regard as undesirable. But what about other uses of the technology resulting from the same science?

Do you think it is wrong to genetically modify rice so that it produces vitamins in which people in some rice-growing parts of the world are deficient?

Do you think it is undesirable to genetically modify microorganisms to produce the rennet used to manufacture vegetarian cheese (even the Vegetarian Society approves of that one)?

[Mojo]

Basically we can all agree that some things are a bad idea, for example creating through genetic engineering an animal with cosmetic mutations due to which it is in constant, terrible pain for the sole purpose and use as a pet.

And why single out genetic engineering? There are several breeds of dog arrived at via conventional breeding that suffer as a result of genetic defects.


This is beyond a line that should not be crossed (creating things that suffer terribly for no reason.)

Interesting that you don't like the idea of "creating things that suffer terribly for no reason", but also seem to consider stem cell research to relieve suffering to be "playing God".

[PsySpi]

where should science stop?
Because science is a powerful tool, but most would argee there are some applications we should not put it to. This is the theme of many a book or movie. We have not yet reached that point but we are getting close. What system of ethics should govern how we apply science? What aspects of it should we avoid?

As an example, some controvertial science-

Cloning- should cloning be allowed? Up to what point and why?

Genetic engineering, how far should it be taken?

Basically we can all agree that some things are a bad idea, for example creating through genetic engineering an animal with cosmetic mutations due to which it is in constant, terrible pain for the sole purpose and use as a pet.
This is beyond a line that should not be crossed (creating things that suffer terribly for no reason.) How far back should this line be drawn?

I think you're confusing science, which is a tool for understanding the universe, with the uses to which we put our understanding of the universe.

I understand it's not the knowledge at fault (unless the ethical issue is with the nature of the experiments) However having the knowledge increases the chance that someone will misuse it. (I suppose though since the knowledge is "out there" waiting to be discovered the risk is always present)


You're also using a rather extreme example, and one which most people would regard as undesirable. But what about other uses of the technology resulting from the same science?

Do you think it is wrong to genetically modify rice so that it produces vitamins in which people in some rice-growing parts of the world are deficient?

Do you think it is undesirable to genetically modify microorganisms to produce the rennet used to manufacture vegetarian cheese (even the Vegetarian Society approves of that one)?


No, and No. However the last one is less controversial since the GM parts are not in the end product. Both of those are a question of safety which applies to any new descovery. There is also an issue with the GM rice "escaping" into the wild.

[PsySpi]

Basically we can all agree that some things are a bad idea, for example creating through genetic engineering an animal with cosmetic mutations due to which it is in constant, terrible pain for the sole purpose and use as a pet.

And why single out genetic engineering? There are several breeds of dog arrived at via conventional breeding that suffer as a result of genetic defects.

Unless you object in principle to different species swapping genes, then the difference is a matter of scale. Its just far easier to alter things with genetic engineering, easier to get things wrong.




This is beyond a line that should not be crossed (creating things that suffer terribly for no reason.)

Interesting that you don't like the idea of "creating things that suffer terribly for no reason", but also seem to consider stem cell research to relieve suffering to be "playing God".


I don't quite think this myself, but it is a common objection based on the stem cells origin, not its application.

[Cuddles]

I don't quite think this myself, but it is a common objection based on the stem cells origin, not its application.


Which stem cells? It's perfectly possible to create stem cell lines without any ethical problems at all. The trouble is that psychotic religious types spread a huge amount of propaganda about killing babies without caring that much stem cell research is carried out specifically to produce them without needing embryos, and without understanding that the Catholic Church says that embryos are not life until after the time cells are taken anyway.

[lost thought]

What boundary is too far, and how do we decide what is too much?
What should we not do? Isn't it time limits were established before we destroy ourselves?

Panic and/ or discuss.

I'm a new member so I'm joining this thread a little late but it seems like PsySpi has got fed up and given up.

Science should stop when all diseases have been cured.O0
Science should stop when every thing that can be learned has been learned.O0
There is no limit to what we know that can destroy us we have already learned to destroy our selves the day we made our first weapon in the name of god.>:-)

If in doubt about last phrase, how many acts of genocide have been committed in the name of god before science started....>:-)

Lost Thought >:-)
WW

[lazerustheduck]

The argument is self defeating by the medium it was delivered. Imagine the implications that could of been garnered by the attempt to invent thinking machines we have seen the consequences as out lined in such popular culture as Terminator and Wargames.
So given all this and adding it to the original argument.Computers should not of been invented and since they shouldn't of been invented the sheer fact this argument was broadcast from a computer totally nullifies the argument.

[newatheist]

But how can humans be trusted to decide such things? What if we step over the edge and cannot turn back to learn?
so who do we give the reponsibility to? a race from another planet?

the truth is science has provided many many great benefits and i would rather live in a world of great innovation and growth for a short amount of time than a never changing, dull and long one.

[newatheist]

i would rather live in a world of great innovation and growth for a short amount of time than a never changing, dull and long one.
thats not to say great scientific advance over a short period of time will result in our annhialation.

[lost thought]

so who do we give the reponsibility to? a race from another planet?

the truth is science has provided many many great benefits and i would rather live in a world of great innovation and growth for a short amount of time than a never changing, dull and long one.

Found this whilst looking for lectures on software programing,
Programming DNA ?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/paul_rothemund_details_dna_folding.html

Really cool !!!O0

Lost Thought >:D

[lost thought]

Rather than start a new thread I will just add this link here.
Pushing the boundries.
The LHC.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/brian_cox_what_went_wrong_at_the_lhc.html (http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/brian_cox_what_went_wrong_at_the_lhc.html)