Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

What is the moral/ethical line that science should not cross?


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#21 SpleenBeGone

SpleenBeGone

    Deer Leader of the Goriest Revolution

  • Administrators
  • 14,951 posts
  • LocationHouston

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:25 PM

I know we also have a ton of advancements from the nazi testing on jews as well. While it's saved millions more than it's killed, and from a purely scientific standpoint I can completely justify doing that to someone against their will to save many more, from a humanity standpoint I can't. All the science in the world wouldn't help us if we lost our humanity.
nmjUGDL.jpg

#22 Coconut Man

Coconut Man

    Gigabyte

  • Members
  • 798 posts
  • LocationThe latest Smash Major

Posted 03 February 2013 - 01:38 PM

That's exactly what I'm worried about. Humans losing their humanity.

fl9Uov4.gif


#23 Wolf

Wolf

    Zettabyte

  • Members
  • 6,487 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:10 PM

That's exactly what I'm worried about. Humans losing their humanity.


I can make a man turn to beast with simple printed cloth.

"Humanity" is such a frail concept.

#24 Diabolical_Jazz

Diabolical_Jazz

    Gigabyte

  • Members
  • 959 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:32 PM

I can make a man turn to beast with simple printed cloth.

"Humanity" is such a frail concept.


Practicing your supervillain monologue? =P
I don't think he needs to be immortal. I think all he needs to do is to write the right story. Because some stories do live forever.

#25 Diabolical_Jazz

Diabolical_Jazz

    Gigabyte

  • Members
  • 959 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:35 PM

I believe that we shouldn't do anything to a person without their consent. Past that, we should be doing everything we can to learn everything about everything.


Does that include basically all forms of genetic enhancement, then?

Because pretty much all of that will have to take place before one is born.
I don't think he needs to be immortal. I think all he needs to do is to write the right story. Because some stories do live forever.

#26 SpleenBeGone

SpleenBeGone

    Deer Leader of the Goriest Revolution

  • Administrators
  • 14,951 posts
  • LocationHouston

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:37 PM

Does that include basically all forms of genetic enhancement, then?

Because pretty much all of that will have to take place before one is born.

I believe that would be up to parents, initially.
nmjUGDL.jpg

#27 Diabolical_Jazz

Diabolical_Jazz

    Gigabyte

  • Members
  • 959 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:43 PM

I believe that would be up to parents, initially.


That's a pretty huge sort of decision to make without the child's consent though, isn't it?
I don't think he needs to be immortal. I think all he needs to do is to write the right story. Because some stories do live forever.

#28 SpleenBeGone

SpleenBeGone

    Deer Leader of the Goriest Revolution

  • Administrators
  • 14,951 posts
  • LocationHouston

Posted 03 February 2013 - 02:49 PM

It is, but it's no different than surgery or such preformed on a baby in the womb.
nmjUGDL.jpg

#29 Diabolical_Jazz

Diabolical_Jazz

    Gigabyte

  • Members
  • 959 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:01 PM

I see it as different. I mean, it's one thing to interfere on the child's behalf to prevent them from dying, or from living a really horrible life.
It's entirely another to decide that your child is not good enough in some way and start tweaking their genes without their consent.

I mean, maybe I'm alone in this, but I think that part of being human is having flaws. Flaws create your path in life as much as the things you're good at.
Even things like poor eyesight. And really, why would we subvert a person's right to decide whether or not they have poor eyesight? There's laser surgery for that now, so a person can actually decide that for themself if they want to.

And what about things like autism and down's syndrome? I do not see these as things that necessarily detract from the quality of life of an individual. Who is to say that we have a right to change them?
I've got a little brother with Down's Syndrome, and I wouldn't change him for the world. I've worked with Autistic people for five years, and I wouldn't change any of the people I've worked with. Except maybe the guy who was paranoid schizophrenic, and then the only thing I'd do is remove his paranoid schizophrenia, because that shit is a walking, personal hell.

I'm just trying to say that not all of this stuff is cut-and-dried. There are genetic differences in people that some people might consider a flaw, and others might not.
I don't think he needs to be immortal. I think all he needs to do is to write the right story. Because some stories do live forever.

#30 Coconut Man

Coconut Man

    Gigabyte

  • Members
  • 798 posts
  • LocationThe latest Smash Major

Posted 03 February 2013 - 03:03 PM

I see it as different. I mean, it's one thing to interfere on the child's behalf to prevent them from dying, or from living a really horrible life.
It's entirely another to decide that your child is not good enough in some way and start tweaking their genes without their consent.

I mean, maybe I'm alone in this, but I think that part of being human is having flaws. Flaws create your path in life as much as the things you're good at.
Even things like poor eyesight. And really, why would we subvert a person's right to decide whether or not they have poor eyesight? There's laser surgery for that now, so a person can actually decide that for themself if they want to.

And what about things like autism and down's syndrome? I do not see these as things that necessarily detract from the quality of life of an individual. Who is to say that we have a right to change them?
I've got a little brother with Down's Syndrome, and I wouldn't change him for the world. I've worked with Autistic people for five years, and I wouldn't change any of the people I've worked with. Except maybe the guy who was paranoid schizophrenic, and then the only thing I'd do is remove his paranoid schizophrenia, because that shit is a walking, personal hell.

I'm just trying to say that not all of this stuff is cut-and-dried. There are genetic differences in people that some people might consider a flaw, and others might not.


Exactly. I really couldn't agree with this more.

fl9Uov4.gif


#31 Calvary

Calvary

    Conceptual

  • Members
  • 6,624 posts
  • Locationwww.

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:32 PM

I also agree, removing genetic disability? Fair enough, but if my parents removed the large mole I have on my knee before I was born, I would be upset simply because this is a cosmetic change decided because they wanted their son to look better.

tumblr_om7nwjm5Wm1rsea1wo1_500.gif
Ask for my discord/Insta/Tumblr if you want.


#32 SpleenBeGone

SpleenBeGone

    Deer Leader of the Goriest Revolution

  • Administrators
  • 14,951 posts
  • LocationHouston

Posted 03 February 2013 - 04:39 PM

I wouldn't agree with simple cosmetic changes, but things that would most certainly make the child have an easier life, they should go for.
nmjUGDL.jpg

#33 Diabolical_Jazz

Diabolical_Jazz

    Gigabyte

  • Members
  • 959 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 05:17 PM

Is easier better?
I'm not disagreeing, per se, but I'm trying to say; where do we draw the line?

I think in the end it'll be a decision that people make for their children on an individual basis, but that isn't necessarily a perfect system. Most parents don't want to have a baby with autism or down's syndrome, and many of them will probably make their decisions for the wrong reasons.

There's definitely a prickly grey area of morality, here. It's something that needs to be examined by philosophy, individually and as a society.
I don't think he needs to be immortal. I think all he needs to do is to write the right story. Because some stories do live forever.

#34 K_N

K_N

    Megabyte

  • Members
  • 576 posts
  • LocationPhoenix

Posted 03 February 2013 - 06:25 PM

There is one single thing I 'morally' believe science should never take part in, and that is involuntary torture or pain.

Even that is only because my personal believes find it to be disgusting. Truly, I think science should be without limits as long as it does not lead to the extinction of any species. I can't logically justify any limit other than that, because they're all based on emotion, which is only a product of social interaction.

Edit: I'm talking about science for the sake of scholarly pursuits, not science used on a whim or for personal gain, which seems to be what's being discussed in here.

Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.


#35 Coconut Man

Coconut Man

    Gigabyte

  • Members
  • 798 posts
  • LocationThe latest Smash Major

Posted 03 February 2013 - 06:47 PM

Wow, I've gotten a lot of input and perspective. Thanks, everyone! I can now consider this at angles I hadn't seen before.

fl9Uov4.gif


#36 SushiKitten

SushiKitten

    Coffee Cat

  • Members
  • 1,916 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 03 February 2013 - 08:00 PM

I know we also have a ton of advancements from the nazi testing on jews as well. While it's saved millions more than it's killed, and from a purely scientific standpoint I can completely justify doing that to someone against their will to save many more, from a humanity standpoint I can't. All the science in the world wouldn't help us if we lost our humanity.


This was what I was going to say. If we say "screw morals" even just for one day and do the experiments that we are always curious about, but would never do, we would definitely come across a lot of scientific milestones, but at what price? We can't deny anyone their right to live and right to freedom. You get into some shady territory when you're looking at animals, but I'm on the fence about that. At least for humans, as long as everything is consensual, I agree with most others and think that we should do as much as we can to learn.

I remember watching a documentary about the human genome project that had mentioned that some research cannot be done by small scientist groups because the sequence of DNA they need to work on is patented by random people. That in itself, is something that I don't believe is ethical, either.

#37 No-Danico

No-Danico

    Danger Zone

  • Members
  • 1,776 posts
  • LocationGA, USA

Posted 03 February 2013 - 10:45 PM

Guys, there is no evil or good in Science, there's just Science.

The American Civil war helped Science and industry grow by leaps and bounds. With so many injured and dead, test subjects were everywhere. It brought about the dawn of modern medicine. Nerve damage, pain management, new methods of surgery, all changed during the war. Letterman basically invented the modern triage and transportation of injured from the battlefield.

The absolute shit the Nazis did cannot be vindicated, but the research can be. We’ve all heard about the cruel, brutal tests the scientist did back then, the things the Hebrew people were put through, sterility testing with gamma rays, injecting poisons into the heart to see what it would do, the man called the angel of death who loved to experiment on twins. I doubt what Mengele did could be called science. Most of the truly evil doctors came from universities that had been taken over and purified with the Nazi ideology.

But a lot of the men back then were genuine scientists who did real research. They would have their work published in peer-reviewed journals, report their findings to their collages, hold symposiums. Granted, most of the things they studied was weapon-based, and perhaps evil. But the link between cancer and smoking was found by them and their research, long before it was realized elsewhere.
It’s how Science is used that matters, the person is evil, not the research. The way test subjects were treated was abhorrent, but to discard what was learned would be an insult to the dead.

At this point, baring an all out Neo-Luddite war, such things as the Singularity are inevitable. The roots have been around since the 80’s, but the tree is just now beginning to bare fruit, and what we have now is just green and unripe. Just in my lifetime technology has been completely revamped.

Remember when everyone didn’t have cell phones? Or when graphics in video games were blocks?
Honestly, this is a fucking exciting time to be alive. Humans have reached the endpoint of natural physical evolution, the next step is social, technological evolution. Evil men will always misuse Science, whether it’s sharpened rocks or laser beams.

I hate to bring up my novel, but it starts with a letter written by a man who’s been around since the dawn of man. He writes it to his colleges during the middle of World War 2, warning them that the humans are creating a bomb that can poison the land, and worries about what they’ll do when such technology is readily available, he’s seen how they are. Humans never change, they just invent new toys to better kill each other.

ElectricSevereKatydid.gif

My first novel, Seeds of Magic- Barnes & Noble, Smashwords, Kobo, Sony Store


 


#38 SIlhouette

SIlhouette

    Megabyte

  • Members
  • 383 posts

Posted 03 February 2013 - 11:21 PM

Ok so a big one people are bringing up is genetic manipulation.

I do have an opinion but I would prefer to just state a little food for thought.

Sickle Cell Anaemia is when you have an X chromosome turned off which makes you very highly resistant to malaria. The downside is if you pass this on to your child and both parents pass this on then the child will die. So if we genetically manipulated the entire african populus with sickle cell then there would be millions of people surviving over the course of a possible lifetime that could not live otherwise...

But on the other hand, children born to parents genetically altered would have a 50-50 chance of living (if they received 2 sickle cells = 50%, one from each parent, or if they received one sickle cell = 25%, or none at all =25%) There are many other cases like this and my point is not obvious at all, I just want to see what you guys think.

We manipulate a geneome -> saves person -> child from saved person is born -> child doesn't need gene inherited from genetic manipulation -> gene is detrimental to his/her life.

#39 Affray

Affray

    Knower of things

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • LocationThe Great White North

Posted 04 February 2013 - 12:29 AM

So basically it could help deal with this whole overpopulation thing we are facing worldwide.

Win-win perhaps.

It is perfectly acceptable to fear and admire a being you could not possibly understand.


#40 K_N

K_N

    Megabyte

  • Members
  • 576 posts
  • LocationPhoenix

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:36 PM

There's also the science fiction scenario of Anton's Key - Leading to a scenario where a child is mentally an adult and can survive on it's own at 3 years old, and the human lifespan is only 18-20 years.

Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.