Philosophy: Debating Science [!OT]

[Xhell]

I completely agree. As you say, in a way the human genepool is almost stagnating since genes which induce negative attributes upon human beings are being allowed to persevere throughout the generations as opposed to eventually dying out. But then, there is no real means of rectifying the problem, for humans have evolved and developed to such an extent, that we express a substantial amount of altruism towards each other, and so the mere thought of allowing those with a genetic dispositions to die out is absolutely preposterous and heartless.

However, this is also an area where i believe science can offer a suitable solution. concerning the area of research relating to genetic engineering, i believe that eventually, at some point in the future, genetic research would have progressed to such an extent that the researchers would be capable of isolating specific genes situated within the DNA of a growing zygote cell, and in doing so be able to identify and eliminate defective genes.

in the end, science and knowledge does prove to have almost completely positive influences on our species.
However, what about when this knowledge and power is utilised and exploited to the extent that it encourages conflicts to arise within our species?
nuclear power and the manufacturing of nuclear weapons is an example. most developed coutries and some underdeveloped countries possess nuclear weapons because they are percieved as what determines the power of the country, and also are used as a deterrant/threat to other countries whom may consider attacking. in this time when world leaders are striving to achieve peace, there is constant tension existing between countries simply because of everyone having the ability to obliterate another country with the push of a button. but of course, noone is willing to give up their nuclear weapons out of fear that another country will attack as soon as they are vulerable.
and so the apprehension and intimidation is mutual, and everyone is maintained at a constant standpoint.
this is also why america is so powerful. they have a huge economy, are incredibly rich, can afford knowledge, thus can afford inconcievable amounts of power in the form of military expertise and nuclear weapons.


also, what about scientific advances such as the ability to clone people? the ethical implications associated with such an issue is huge, yet it is considered as a scientific breakthrough. although this is true, is the ability to clone people such a useful achievement? of course cloning things like body parts (for people who suffer from various medical problems) is beneficial for mankind, what are the advantages of cloning a person? it seems to be incredibly unethical, since the child would have to endure an incredibly stressful life.


althought scientific advances can create tremendous things of which we can utilise as a race, is there a point at which researchers should simply stop, due to the results of a particular breakthrough imposing potentially huge amounts of power upon the country with access to the knowledge, creating something else which can be exploited to excess, and perhaps be used against others.

[mrwiseman]

However, what about when this knowledge and power is utilised and exploited to the extent that it encourages conflicts to arise within our species?

99% of what Science can offer is not useful to start conflicts per se, although part of it is useful for defense and offense. However, Science is just a tool, and like every other tool, it's as bad as its users. If Science were to be considered negative because of its applications in war, then what can be said about knives, powder, rocks, carved wood, and even our own hands?

A secondary effect of military technology is wars getting more unlikely, at least between developed countries or undeveloped, unbalanced countries with nuclear weapons. Since we all know how devasting those weapons are, nobody wants to start a war between those who have them.

In fact, wars are now less frequent in Europe than they used to be 1000 years ago where you could have had an "European war of the season" magazine.


most developed coutries and some underdeveloped countries possess nuclear weapons because they are percieved as what determines the power of the country, and also are used as a deterrant/threat to other countries whom may consider attacking

Actually, not all developed countries have nuclear weapons. Germany, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, and other countries have declined the possibility of developing major nuclear weapons, and are using nuclear technology for other matters, like producing energy.


noone is willing to give up their nuclear weapons out of fear that another country will attack as soon as they are vulerable.

I can understand why India and Israel won't even consider it, and France got its ass kicked so lamely they had to do for them to think they have a chance if Germany feels like having another trip through it, but I think once we integrate Russia into the West - markets, treaties, and even modern culture, and if we make sure no third world countries have any, we can be fairly sure we won't be attacking each other. No civilized country in the modern world will attack another, even if it's only for the fact we are all markets for each other.


this is also why america is so powerful

The USA being so powerful is certainly annoying and endangers the world's balance, especially because they were always so inept in foreign policy. But Europe first then China will become economic equals with time, so things will hopefully get much better as the USA won't be able to be the world police and we'll get three evenly separated major centers of development, economy, and power.


what about scientific advances such as the ability to clone people?

It is possible to, but besides shock value, it's mostly useless. Clones are still different subjects who will respond differently because of their different state (memories). No use in cloning, not even military (you don't want an army of people with the same weak points). Would it matter if I'm cloned? Not really, I'm still myself and any clones wouldn't affect me one bit.


is the ability to clone people such a useful achievement?

Not really, just like most space missions. It's just a checkpoint for scientific and technological development which is later applied for useful matters.


since the child would have to endure an incredibly stressful life

Well, that depends on if the media make too much a big deal of it and scientists are too much of a burden. But he or she would be a normal person besides fame, just as normal as the original.


is there a point at which researchers should simply stop, due to the results of a particular breakthrough imposing potentially huge amounts of power upon the country with access to the knowledge, creating something else which can be exploited to excess, and perhaps be used against others

Maybe so, if the people is going to be irresponsible with such an advancement. However, think of what you can win. We all knew genetics will open the doors to cloning, but we can benefit from this practice so much and in so many ways, it's a greater loss not to continue developing it. Think when science will be able to recreate parts of your body, or when you'll be able to get your children's DNA fixed so they won't have the tendency for some illness or whatever. This might in fact reactivate evolution and produce better humans in the future.

[Xhell]

Yeah, I too agree with all the wonders and advantages offered by genetic research. I myself find the concept particularly appealing, and depending on how going to university will influence my career prospects, I may even consider pursuing a career in genetics! it's all simply so fascinating!
I'd love to be able to perfom all this research and be able to acquire a means by which things like organs can be regrown, by imposing a particular gene on someone who suffered an accident. Anything biology related truly enthralls me.

In response to what was said concerning military power and nuclear weapons possessed by the world leaders, I do agree that the way in which they're used depends entirely on the owners and the purpose with which they bestow the weapon, be they evil or good. Either way, the weapons themselves are simply a tool manufactured by humans for our own intentions. But I wonder, if at some point in the future, when new individuals have risen to the rank of country leaders, if something will provoke a nuclear attack on a country be an opposing country.
The entire world preys that this outcome will never occur, but I sometimes contemplate the consequences if one day they are used, simply because they will remain present for long enough (assuming that the leaders don't deactivate the actual detination devices).

<font color="#345E81" size="1">[ January 19, 2005 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Raij ]</font>