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?