(June 20, 2011 at 7:42 pm)Epimethean Wrote: I don't think science can heed the warning of the liberal artists, but I hope that my children or their children will not reap the consequences of the seeds we are perhaps soon to sow.
The reason many scientists and engineers don't take the "warnings" of liberal artists seriously is because they know jack shit.
Really, how hard is it to listen to a group of people who make unproven claims and use fear as a primary motivator?
I always get pissed off when people bring up Frankenstein -- they're not cautioning against reckless ambition, they're more likely using it as a sledgehammer against their "scientist enemies" -- as if using a work of fiction convinces anyone but the weak minded. If they wanted to illustrate hubris, there exists a vast body to select from. Only reason I might see one may select "Frankenstein" in a political context is to single out science, as if a process is responsible for human fallibility.
(June 21, 2011 at 5:13 pm)BloodyHeretic Wrote: So do I as it happens, but they've done it, should we make legislation to prevent them?
The above perfectly enrages me in some contexts. It reeks of self-serving moral superiority, as if scientists and researchers are mindless, soulless automatons that need to be controlled.
Do you have even an idea of a tenth of the animal welfare legislation in place? Or are you simply shooting blanks from your ass?
By Odin's beard, sometimes atheists are no better than Christians!
(June 21, 2011 at 5:11 pm)Napoleon Wrote:(June 21, 2011 at 5:09 pm)BloodyHeretic Wrote: Well does anyone think it's wrong that they've built chips into the brains of insects and can remote fly them around a lab? Would it be wrong if they did it to chimps?
Absolutely it's wrong. I see no purpose that it serves, other than experimentation.
Sorry Napoleon and BH, but you're both speaking outta your asses again. Napoleon, there are a great many things in this world you shall never truly see the purpose for, yet they are required nonetheless. Just because you cannot immediately see the use, doesn't mean it does not exist.
BH, that's quite a leap from simple insects to complex mammalian organisms. But why did you select chimps? Was it to drive the human-like point home, or merely to make an emotional appeal? Subverting a roughly sapient organism like that fly in any form would be considered awful, be it a dolphin, chimp or human.
There is a great need to understand the limits and capabilities of our fellow animals, only if to better evaluate what we can do and can't do, for ethical, scientific reasons. I agree with that, but mindless fear is not the route to go. Nor through appeals to emotion or the "Frankenstein" effect.
