Adamantium wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
Arguing that you can't predict the future is not ignorance, it's just factual whether one likes it or not.
No one disputes this. A very shabby straw man does not advance your pro-ignorance argument.
Funny, because as I see it you're the ignorant one here. Ignorance is repeating the same mistakes over and over again, such as dumping knowledge humanity obviously isn't ready for yet. A single human, yes, but humanity, no. I'm not against knowledge, I'm against knowledge in the hands of people that don't properly know how to use it, which as you yourself mentioned is inevitable right now. I'm not so cynical though, I think there is a time in the future where humanity
can harness this power in purely positive ways, but we don't have the moral framework in place yet: when human morality makes a few more evolutionary steps forward itself then we'll have the proper foundation in place. It's basically short attention span you're arguing: now, now, now, I must have it now! Patience isn't just a virtue, it's also essential for good long term planning. Remember the mistakes you made as a teenager? Well that's actually where human society is at: adolescence. Our scientific and engineering maturity far surpass our moral maturity at this point in time.
Adamantium wrote:
Aristophanes wrote:
You say all evidence points towards a rosy conclusion, yet you're only looking at the science itself, outside of the moral implications of said research-- which is really all this thread is about.
I've said nothing of the kind. What I have said is that this specific research does not lead to the dark things you raise fears about. It doesn't have any moral implications related to outcomes that it doesn't lead to. I understand that you assign guilt by association to whole field of molecular genetics and collective guilt to all researchers in this area, but I think that's an irrational position.
It's not irrational, you may disagree, but it's not irrational. The actions of humanity itself are often irrational, one would be irrational to not take that into account. You're right, this one specific case will not end the world, but it's the furthering down
a path of knowledge humans just aren't ready to handle yet on a social level, therefore to me it is not innocuous, it's akin to a trojan horse. This is actually a very common trap humans fall into: one thinks they're so smart that they follow those "smarts" right into a dumb long term decision, read Oppenheimer's diary and you'll get the idea. As for researcher "guilt", sorry but other people don't make a person feel guilty, a person does that on their own-- generally when they know they're doing something wrong and can't lie to themselves about it anymore. I doubt researchers feel any guilt anyhow, in their eyes they see nothing wrong, they're just doing their job and practicing science-- and science isn't dangerous, it's just knowledge. Besides, one usually has to see the consequences of their actions to feel guilt, and it will be a generation or two down the line before the consequences of this era's researchers are known-- that's precisely why it's so easy for them to overlook any dangers, they know they won't have to deal with them.
We disagree on this issue and there's no bridge. I'm bowing out here and leaving you the last word-- I'll read it. Also, I should clarify, I don't think you're stupid even if I said it, I just think you're being really naive about where this is all heading. In the end time will tell, hopefully for the best whatever happens.
edit: quote nightmare.
23 Feb 2016, 1:28 pm
