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.
PsiSpy
Humans have always had the capacity for self destruction ever since the Chinese experimented with gunpowder. But we’re still here.
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
But how can humans be trusted to decide such things? What if we step over the edge and cannot turn back to learn?Originally Posted by median
PsiSpy
Humans have always had the capacity for self destruction ever since the Chinese experimented with gunpowder. But we’re still here.
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
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.
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?
humanity.
I'm sure many will. People who can see clearer than those blinded with progress.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.
Humans of course. Gods special creation.
What do you mean "how can humans be trusted?" - who is doing the trusting?
Impose Limits, slow things down. Stop some lines of research.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.
proof?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?
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?
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?
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.)What consequences can you already see from cloning, genetic engineering, stem cell therapy etc?
That's the second time today I've seen someone pontificating on this subject: the other one
has an excuse though.
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.
Well, yeah, if GOD didn't want people to have these diseases, He wouldn't afflict people with them, would He?Seeking cures for debilitating diseases is devaluing life is it?
Similarly, if you have toothache, you should on no account go to a dentist, because that would also involve playing GOD.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks