Time to question bioengineering.

[Anomalocaris]

Simple-minded hogwash too irremediably fixated on many Ill considered over-simplifications to serve the goals it ostentatiously claim to hold sacred in a way competitive with other systems which does not explicitly claim to be beholden to the same goal.

[Epimethean]

Thank you, Chuck.

[theVOID]

Void, when reason is given for me to seriously evaluate my thinking, I will always say thank you.

Good principle

I realize that I am making a rather emotional argument here, and yet something in me does not see this as inherently wrong, somehow. In a way, I see the difference as that between burglary and robbery, wherein killing the animal to use it seems (yes, I realize the tendentious nature of that verb) more like the former and removing its own motivations while leaving it alive more like the latter. Both are thefts, but one seems more violative.

I appreciate you fellows walking me around this thing.

In a sense you can only make an emotional argument when expressing your own values, or even when trying to persuade others to adopt your own values, that's just the nature of value as a purely subjective experience, all the values you have are based on your desires and as your desires often differ from others it can be hard to convince someone to adopt your values, for instance; A desire to see justice may directly or indirectly lead someone to believe in Karma and if their desire for justice outweighs their desire to have true beliefs it will likely be extremely difficult to persuade them otherwise - Similarly, your desire that living creatures be free from suffering seems to outweigh your desire to see scientific advancement and that leads you to make statements concerning it being morally bad to manipulate beings for the advancement of knowledge, whereas I am someone who tends to value scientific knowledge over the suffering of animals we would tend to disagree in that regard - The only way to resolve any debates would be to either find a common desire and work from there looking at consistency of beliefs relative to our desires, play off our shared desires such as the desire to have true beliefs and see if we can find some reason to change our desires or update our beliefs about various propositions related to these desires.

Now, if we want to know what values are good or bad relative to other values, as in which desires we have are ones that tend to promote or thwart other desires, then we can start making some objective statements about value, but that's a discussion I don't have time for right now

[Napoléon]

Speaking out my ass? Well that's a pleasant response.

Would you have preferred a more vitriolic one?

I was responding to something which someone asked an opinion for. I was giving it. I didn't think it was necessary to say that but hey, I'm sure I'll get over it

You stated you could see no use for it. I stated an obvious fact -- just because one cannot foresee a use, does not imply anything other than you have not seen a use. Are you going to be upset over a statement of fact?

If you truly believe that I am "making up bullshit", then counter it. Explain, elucidate your viewpoints. Or are you too chicken?

I never said that there weren't other uses, I said that I can't see any other uses. You are making out like I have implied that there is no use for controlling animals as though that is factual, when I clearly stated "I see", which would actually imply that it is only my opinion. And seen as that was what the person asked for I gave it. I never asserted anything as fact so it was pretty pointless for you to respond to my response to another person. I think you are being incredibly pedantic.

Really? I think exactly what I said is well within the bounds of proper discussion. You made a claim of usage -- the implication was that it had no use, except under a clause which you intentionally framed as mere "experimentation".

Again, I was actually responding to a question of opinion. Whenever someone asks "is it right or wrong" the answer is always going to be a subjective answer.
As it is I don't see any purpose which I could reasonably condone for controlling and manipulating other living beings. I maintain that I did not IMPLY anything. Maybe if you'd have took the time to read what I was responding to you may have understood the context of my post a little better.

But do tell, what is the purpose of using/controlling an insect? OTHER than experimentation?

Normally, I'd consult the research papers that were done -- they usually include a section on the usage, possibilities of such. Some things that would come immediately to mind would be in understanding neural structures better, how they operate and carry commands. The technology that you are referring to is not perfect -- in fact would be considered primitive in development due to the lack of understanding we have over the brain. That understanding is being rapidly built up, but as always, there are current limits and boundaries.

For real world use, a spy agency would no doubt consider controlling bugged (heh) insects to be an interesting idea. But I am just one dull man, with limited ideas, and as such can't be the answer to all your questions.

One thing I am quite confident in, is the possible purposes of controlling an insect is not nil.

Understanding neural structures better? And how would we do this by manually controlling another living creature? Other than experimentation.

As for 'real world use' sure there are plenty of reasons. But the fact is would you condone them? I wouldn't. If we found out we could somehow cure cancer by controlling chimps would you do it?
The bottom line is, is that it is taking advantage of another species for the advancement of your own. You may accept this as fine, but I personally wouldn't necessarily agree.

There would have to be seriously good reasons for me to come around to the idea to taking control of other living creatures. So far using them 'for spy purposes' isn't a good enough reason in my view.

Don't get me wrong though, no doubt shit like this will be done in the future.

[Autumnlicious]

I never said that there weren't other uses, I said that I can't see any other uses.
You are making out like I have implied that there is no use for controlling animals as though that is factual, when I clearly stated "I see", which would actually imply that it is only my opinion. And seen as that was what the person asked for I gave it. I never asserted anything as fact so it was pretty pointless for you to respond to my response to another person.

Wait, what? I think most of us already knew it was your opinion -- I was criticizing your need to state what you "couldn't see uses for", as if that possibly proves anything other than what you don't see. It doesn't need to be asserted as fact to warrant criticism, only asserted. And in the context of "Time to Question Bioengineering", I see little difference between your statement and a random individual posting "their opinion" on using life.

I think you are being incredibly pedantic.

Thank you. One does not suffer fools as often as I do without developing certain... countermeasures. Though I do get too rough to people too often.

Again, I was actually responding to a question of opinion. Whenever someone asks "is it right or wrong" the answer is always going to be a subjective answer.
As it is I don't see any purpose which I could reasonably condone for controlling and manipulating other living beings. I maintain that I did not IMPLY anything. Maybe if you'd have took the time to read what I was responding to you may have understood the context of my post a little better.

While the answer is subjective, the reasoning used can always be criticized. And I have the context of which you posted in. For someone who talks a lot, you like to deny "implying" anything. What nonsense -- what's next, your posts are cannot be read "in between the lines"?

Other living beings are controlled all the time, by others. Like wasps do to caterpillars, barnacles do to crabs, humans to pretty much any animal -- the reasons to control and manipulate other beings are quite obvious and varied. Why do you deny reality?

Understanding neural structures better? And how would we do this by manually controlling another living creature? Other than experimentation.

As for 'real world use' sure there are plenty of reasons. But the fact is would you condone them? I wouldn't. If we found out we could somehow cure cancer by controlling chimps would you do it?

You just stated the reasons, the uses. So much for "being unable to see them". Whether you'd condone it is a matter of another discussion, I do.

If I could cure cancer by controlling chimps, you fucking bet I would do that in a heart beat.

I find it quite telling that you are demanding that I do your research for you, even when I gave you something to start over. I had also stated my limits and how I was not one of those researchers. By your demanding of me to justify hyperspecific parts of neural development, something that I am not an expert in nor will be (but have friends who are), you remind me of a creationist demanding a clear explanation of the genetic and epigenetic changes between humans and chimpanzees and how it relates to evolution.

It can be done, but we both know you're wasting my time. Not to mention, since when is your ignorance my responsibility?

So far, I've taken your arguments to the head. All you've done is fudge around and mumble "well, I think we shouldn't take advantage of other species for our own advancement".

Weak.

The bottom line is, is that it is taking advantage of another species for the advancement of your own. You may accept this as fine, but I personally wouldn't necessarily agree.

We take advantage of another species in power generation by destroying their habitat. We take advantage of other species through our farming, agriculture and animal usage. We take advantage of bacteria in our vaccine development, using selected retroviruses to induce, re-engineer them.

Nearly every little thing that you take for granted in our civilization, is built on with one form or another of "taking advantage of other species", in some step, application or research.

There would have to be seriously good reasons for me to come around to the idea to taking control of other living creatures. So far using them 'for spy purposes' isn't a good enough reason in my view.

Ah. The "I don't want it until I want it" argument. Reminds me of the cognitive dissonance of women going into abortion clinics to get abortions, then telling the doctors how it should be illegal, as if they're the only special case in the universe.

Don't get me wrong though, no doubt shit like this will be done in the future.

And no doubt there will be plenty of people demanding that their arbitrary and titillating views be catered to, even in the areas of research and development.

I'm not impressed.

[Epimethean]

How to avoid being emotionally biased?

[HeyItsZeus]

Meh, no reason to fear the inevitable. Just learn to live with what comes I suppose...

[theVOID]

How to avoid being emotionally biased?

Some resources from what is by far my favourite website.

http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Bias
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Intuition...Philosophy
http://lesswrong.com/lw/xg/emotional_involvement/
http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Ethical_I..._Yudkowsky

Meh, no reason to fear the inevitable. Just learn to live with what comes I suppose...

Unless the inevitable is frightening

[Epimethean]

Taking a look see at those links. Thank you.

[Napoléon]

@ Moros

I'll admit I probably was being ignorant, and I understand that it was wrong for me to say "I see no reason for using animals etc". My mistake.

I still think you're being a pedantic condescending ass over a very minute post. You say I'm arguing? LOL, you're getting on a hype because I posted something silly. Yes. You win. It was silly. Happy now?

When I said the post in question it was in direct relation to bio-engineering. I personally don't agree with controlling physically other creatures. Sure we take advantage of them all the time, but I don't think that warrants unnecessary manual control for experimentation purposes. The original post I made wasn't a clear reflection of my stance I'll grant you, and as such I fully accept the scrutiny you gave it. Please understand that this post wasn't exactly a frickin' 'argument' which I took about an hour to think over. I just posted it within seconds, and was just going with whatever came into my head at the time. Now fair does, the statement I made itself wasn't grounded on anything but a personal preference but where did I state it was anything but? Before you start going off on one about ONE fucking little post why don't you go and criticize every other minute post which people have made in haste. Trust me there's thousands of them, but I don't see you hanging over like a vulture waiting to pounce on them.

I find it quite telling that you are demanding that I do your research for you, even when I gave you something to start over.

This made me LOL. You tell me all these things which are 'reasons for control' but then can't even answer whether the reason is experimentation or not? Well surely YOU would have done the research, because it is YOU making a fucking argument. It's not doing research for me it's doing research for YOU. If you don't know whether controlling animals is for experimentation or not yourself then what right do you have to suddenly start having a go at me, for asking a question regarding your argument?

I maintain I did not imply anything in my first post you seem to be arguing over. Someone asked for an answer to a subjective question, and I gave it. Now if you really have something to state as fact on that then you are the one doing the research.
When you assert a point you claim to be true but can't answer very simple enquries about the assertion you make then what's the point in making the assertion?

BTW I didn't ask for specifics about neural science for fuck sake, I just asked what is the purpose of controlling animals if you're NOT experimenting on them? If you can't answer this then stop making out like you're SOOO MUCH BETTER THAN MOI! for supposedly 'doing research'.


I mean really, I'm not impressed