Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Pineal, Dec 4, 2011.

  1. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pineal Banned Banned

    I am critical of the view that nature is raw material, only, organisms including us, are modular machines, only, that if tweaked and adjusted in any way determined useful is OK. I am critical of this in two ways. One, I think there is a great deal of current epistemological hubris - that all the effects of these changes can be tracked and also that there is a willingness to track them - given corporate interests and their control over oversight. Two, I don't feel like all change is OK. I think this seeing everything as tweakable genetic machines is missing something.

    Arioch raised the issue of an unborn child with Tay-Sachs and how as a parent one would perhaps be simply grateful for gene therapy. Fair enough.

    Here we have a parent's love for their child treated with respect.

    What about love of ecosystems or non-human animals?

    If what we currently call nature is replaced and out of the interests of the few, is this OK?

    If all Oak trees are replaced by Oak trees with salmon genes - for some reason, say they burn at a higher temperature or grow faster - does my sentimental attachment for non GM Oak trees have any value?

    I find it startling that Science and Progress are somehow impossible if people disagree with the voice in the OP.

    As far as the philosophical position I think is better, I think it is too early in the discussion for this.

    Often when someone is critical, people demand a solution, as if for the criticism to be valid a replacement of the criticized must be presented. But often the first problem is getting to some agreement that there is a problem. If there is agreement, then it can be much easier, with all minds searching together, to find a solution. If there is no agreement, well then the solution will not be used.
    There are things sacred to me. There are things sacred even, to the vast majority of the scientific community - they do not harvest living persons' organs even though they could perhaps save more people via this method on occasion. There are many other places where the entire scientific community is deontological and considers instrumental reason insufficient to judge.

    And then outside that many things are sacred still to many people. Restoring is not the issue.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page