195 replies to this topic

[eternaltraveler]

Lazarus Long:

It should come as no surprise then that the presence of these trends in a society like ours has triggered a somewhat visceral response, one that has resurrected the arcane and traditional arguments that have actually all been heard before.

And frankly have virtually always resulted in a lot of unnecessary suffering and the failure of the society that made them to maintain its vitality.

Come come Lazarus. You and I both know that societies that relied on those points you bring up here are the norm of human existence. This last few hundred years of reason and belief in the individual may just be a momentary flirtation.

Though I will fight with all I have to make sure that this is not the case.

[Lazarus Long]

Bioconservative:

The fact that is often over looked by armchair scientific philosophers is that there is not one, but two options for the trajectory of a species. They either evolve – or THEY DIE OFF.

Another false dichotomy.

Actually there are many more options than two, that is why they call it adaptation. Transhumanism is evolution.

If you believe what you are saying here how come you would prefer to hinder when you should be helping us promote and optimize evolution?

It is how some of us are adapting ourselves to the future. How we influence change by changing ourselves. The conservative position seems to be trying to fight evolution, or define it as Intelligent Design from a force that isn't real, isn't present to have its premises tested.

Evolution is all about biodiversity not just humans, it is also about maximizing potential expression as a species and minimizing our risk of extinction by diverging into new environments, and *types* of humans not just solidifying gains through homogeneity.

[JMorgan]

(bioconservative)

Okay, the therapeutic imperative….. On one hand you have ‘potential’ human life.  On the other you have a highly speculative, ethically questionable technology whose objectives could possibly be accomplished by other means.

I'm open to any alternatives you may have to ease the pain of aging and cure disease. All science is highly speculative at some point.

I guess it was inevitable that in discussing therapeutic cloning I would have to at least put forth my fears concerning extensions of the maximal human life span – because, after all, that is one of the unspoken objective of developing these advanced biotechnologies, is it not?

That right there is the reason why we need to increase awareness regarding the advances taking place. Science is inevitably moving forward with or without us.

The real question we need to ask is "How prepared will we be when it happens?" Already, most people remain unaware of the incredible advances that have been made.

[kurt9]

I think 'bioconservative" is over the top.

He believes that therapeutic cloning is wrong and, yet, is pro choice. This is about as inconsistant as it can get. If you believe that embryos are human beings, then both abortion and therapeutic cloning are wrong because they both involve the murder of a human being. If you decide that an embryo is not a human life, then there is simply no moral argument for saying that therapeutic cloning is wrong but that abortion is OK. Its either one way or the other.

Why should we go "slowly" in the development of effective antiaging technology. Some of us over 40 do not have the luxury of waiting. If you are a college student today, then perhaps you have such luxury. Many of us do not.

The moral issue is this: every day 100,000 people die of aging. That means that evey year that the anti-aging technology is delayed, 36 million people die needlessly. Thats a Nazi holocaust 6 times over, every single year!

This is the basic moral issue of curing aging.

Are we to sacrifice our vitality and freedom for some illdefined concept called "social equilibrium"? This is simply way over the top for me.

The proper role of "bioethicists" is not to question the desirability of curing aging. Their proper role is as consultants to assist in societal institutions to adapt effectively to an immortalist society.

The right to life take precidence over any other consideration.

[eternaltraveler]

bioconservative:

And that is the problem with all biological distinctions, both in terms of gross morphology as well as the necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness to arise – they are all human constructs. From a scientific perspective there is no ‘defining point’ that designates the beginning of human consciousness.

You are absolutely right about that. There is no defining point that designates the beginning of human consciousness. However, there certainly is a point where you can say "before this there certainly is no consciousness".

And I think any legitimate scientist will agree that before there is a brain there certainly is no consciousness. After that point it might get muddy. Furthermore I think that trying to say there is consciousness before there is a brain is pure mysticism.

When the developing fetus's brain is around the size of a mouse's I wouldn't worry too much about it. I say lets pick a point between when the developing fetus's brain is the size and complexity of a mouse's and that of a dog's and call that the bright line and call it

[eternaltraveler]

jrhall:

I would like to add my support to malchiah’s observation and concern that many people believe that life begins at conception (or close to it). These people believe with all their heart and souls that destroying an embryo = killing a baby. You will never ever be able to shout them down, and I believe there will never be a philosophical or any other proof of when the embryo becomes human. (I am swayed by Agrippa’s 2nd trope, Sextus (PH I.164-77), “Anything submitted in support of a proposition must itself be supported and thus an infinite regress results.”) All bright lines drawn will be arbitrary to some degree. Some lines will just be intuitively more obvious to some people than others. As a good friend of mine commented today, “It’s only common sense; I have understood it since 5th grade sex-ed class, a new life begins when the egg and sperm join.”

I doubt you will find many here to really disagree that yes, a new life separate from the two parents begins at conception. However, assuming you are speaking from a non-religious perspective, it certainly is not a new consciousness. What is important, I think, is whether or not a new mind exists. And as I stated in my previous post I simply do not see how this can be before a brain exists.

[JMorgan]

I doubt you will find many here to really disagree that yes, a new life separate from the two parents begins at conception.  However, assuming you are speaking from a non-religious perspective, it certainly is not a new consciousness.  What is important, I think, is whether or not a new mind exists.  And as I stated in my previous post I simply do not see how this can be before a brain exists.

The only problem with this argument is that you then have to believe that there is no difference between a fetus at 8-9 months and a newborn other than where it happens to live. Biologically, the fetus is fully formed months earlier and is just continuing to grow. I doubt you would advocate infanticide simply because we can't prove a baby has a 'conscience.'

With that said, I do believe research using embryos is important and worthwhile, so long as none are used after 3 weeks of development when a brain and heart begins to form. (But that's not an issue anyway since we need to use cells before they differentiate themselves.)

[Lazarus Long]

malchiah:

With that said, I do believe research using embryos is important and worthwhile, so long as none are used after 3 weeks of development when a brain and heart begins to form. (But that's not an issue anyway since we need to use cells before they differentiate themselves.) 

Exactly

[jrhall]

(bioconservative)

Increasing the human lifespan is, in itself, an augmentation of human capacities. The fitness and stamina of youth combined with the wisdom and knowledge of maturity. How would an up and coming generation stand a chance? It wouldn’t, and this is but one of many objections that can be made against human augmentation. Our human essence is our functional equilibrium as a society.

Perhaps having wisdom and knowledge means that you do not crush those who do not.

Perhaps with wisdom and knowledge we will overcome the compulsion to horde things we don't need and thus have less need to play everything as if its a zero sum game.

Maybe most people are basically fair and decent and they will rise up against those who would repress the up and coming.

Maybe an increase in wisdom and knowledge would decrease the amount fear and anxiety in the world and so there would be less chance that a charismatic lunitic could rise up and declare that the problem is obviously the Jews.

Maybe reducing the amount of anxiety surrounding the seemingly inevitable collapes of the body would lead to more rational, productive and happy humans.

I can think of many positive possibilties. I don't know for sure if anyone of them will happen, but I think we could put together a plausable path to get to one of them. We do have the ability to imagine a better future, and the brains to make it more likely to happen.

But if you want to convince me that augmenting human capacities necessarly leads to the repression of an up and coming generation, I will need more argument.

Jeff

[jrhall]

(elrond)
I doubt you will find many here to really disagree that yes, a new life separate from the two parents begins at conception. However, assuming you are speaking from a non-religious perspective, it certainly is not a new consciousness. What is important, I think, is whether or not a new mind exists. And as I stated in my previous post I simply do not see how this can be before a brain exists.

If most here would agree that a new life begins at conception, then most would have to agree that if you destroy the embryo after conception then you are killing something that is alive.

I agree that consciousness cannot emerge without a brain as substrate.

Jeff

[eternaltraveler]

With that said, I do believe research using embryos is important and worthwhile, so long as none are used after 3 weeks of development when a brain and heart begins to form. (But that's not an issue anyway since we need to use cells before they differentiate themselves.)

couldn't agree more.

After they differentiate themselves it really is only relates to abortion.

[eternaltraveler]

If most here would agree that a new life begins at conception, then most would have to agree that if you destroy the embryo after conception then you are killing something that is alive.

Alive certainly, as alive as any clump of living cells, from an undifferentiated human embryo to a clump of algae. One might argue the algae is more valuable to us as it allows us all to breathe

[kurt9]

The one area I do agree with bioconservative is that of the status of embryos. If we (as a society) decide that embryos are living human beings and should be accorded the same rights as you and I, then both abortion as well as the creation of embryos is morally wrong and must be stopped. I do not agree with embryos being accorded the status of human beings. However, I recognize this as a legitimate argument for society.

However, bioconservative himself does not stand by this position. He believes that embryos should be protected such as to preclude their use in making stem cells and, yet, admits to being pro-choice. This indicates to me that he is not interested in the welfare of embryos as human being and, rather, is using this issue as a means to attack biomedical research and anti-aging research for reasons having nothing to do with protecting human life. This is unacceptable and there is no legitimate moral basis for supporting this position.

The true test of the bioconservative position will be when a method of deriving pluropotent stem cells is developed that completely eliminates the need for embryos. If they still remain in opposition to regnerative medicine after this development, then it will be apparent that their true agenda is to attack and undermine the individual's right to medical freedom and to control their own destiny in life. This is a position that has no legitimate place in a free society such as ours.

Bioconservative, I believe you owe us a clarification here.

Are you trying to defend the rights of a new class of human beings here, or are you meerly using the question of embryos as a smoke screen to attack people's right to life?

[randolfe]

I am late in arriving here.

I have spent two or three hours reading this discussion.

Before, I start a series of postings pointing out errors on all sides; I'd like to offer some general impressions about the manner in which this debate has evolved.

To begin with, Bioconservative seems to be extremely well informed. I would not be surprised to discover that he is really Leon Kass (or a carefully selected protégé).

Audrey de Grey is his only match in technical information. However, I have problems with Audrey de Grey’s political tactic of choosing a possibly less efficient method of creating stem cells just to avoid the “embryo debate”.

Those defending therapeutic cloning grant too much to those opposing it by ceding certain erroneous "facts" to the opposition.

The "Bush Lite" defense of therapeutic cloning can be found in the research of Rudolf Jaenisch. He is famous for saying all embryos conceived through cloning are "flawed", that all animals born from SCNT are "abnormal" even if they appear normal.


Rudolf Jaenisch is employed, (if I recall correctly from a debate between him and Dr. Panos Zavos on public radio), as an advisor/consultant (whatever) to Advanced Cell Technology.

Some of those involved in this discussion have "bought into" Jaenisch's "cloned-animals-can't-be-normal" argument by using a term he suggested in a paper published recently in Pub Med, "clonotes".

Bioconservative, to be consistent with (if not the pro-life then his pro-embro position), should join all those people I have debated on radio and TV (including Alan Keyes) by recognizing that an embryo created through cloning deserves the same "right-to-life" as any other embryo.

To their credit, every time I have asked if (once implanted) would they join me in the fight for my later-born twin's right-to-life, they have answered "Yes!"

To paraphrase Gertrude Stein (who shares my February 3rd birthday): "An embryo is an embyro is an embryo!"

I appreciate the impulse to be gracious and welcoming to informed conservatives like Bioconservative. However, we could spend our lives arguing with these people and it would be one massive waste of time.

I say that especially about Bioconservative because he is so well informed, he should have long ago deserted the positions he holds. A focused debate between him and Audrey de Grey would be time better spent.

I don't like long posts. I'll take a pause here. Next, I will make some posts correcting mistakes on both sides.

[randolfe]

Some factual corrections:

Lazarus Long error:

Quote(“IVF doesn't create one or two embryos. It is necessary to create hundreds if not thousands to effect one successful pregnancy”)Quote

Fact: In a typical IVF cycle a woman produces eleven eggs, a few more or a few less. These eggs are then fertilized.

Depending on the country, between two and ten fertilized eggs are put into the womb. The rate of success, regardless of how many efforts are made by infertile couples, is between twenty and thirty percent.

In the past, several fertilized eggs were put into the womb in hopes that “one” would implant. However, multiple pregnancies resulting when more than one embryo was implanted caused many countries to create guidelines on the number of embryos created and their manner of storage and implantation.

In Germany, recent legislation limited the number of embryos to two, forbade the freezing of embryos and mandated that all embryos created by IVF be implanted immediately.

[randolfe]

Malchiach error:

"As far as I know, therapeutic cloning does not require an actual embryo. An unfertilized egg is tricked into dividing with the use of an electrical spark. (Hardly an example of the 'miracle' of human conception.)"

Fact: The "amazing thing" about reproductive cloning is that it does everything that the "miracle" of conception does.

An embryo created for 'therapeutic cloning' could result in a later-born twin. It is an "actual embryo". That is what upsets conservatives so much. The egg is not "tricked into dividing" by insertion of a cell and an electrical spark, it is "motivated" into behaving as if it had been fertilized.

The fact is that it has been "fertilized" by the insertion of the cell's nucleus and the application of a spark or chemical catalyst.

Moralists object that this is the "creation of life". This is not the "creation of life" but rather the extension of an existing life (genotype). A living cell is necessary to create an embryo conceived through cloning. Cloning simply gives that cell's genotype another "life" through the cloned progeny.

[randolfe]

(Quote)Bio-Conservative:

I am not dodging the issue. What I am suggesting is that your line of reasoning is pure sophistry. You are ignoring intent. In IVF, embryos are created to serve reproduction. In cloning, embryos are created for research.

This also leads me to one of the points I want to make concerning the slippery slope. During previous debates on stem cell, a rather broad consensus was reached that stem cells derived from IVF could be used (since they were going to be destroyed anyway), but that attempts to advance to cloning technologies would not be permitted. Now all of a sudden stem cell is not enough, we need cloning as well. And so we begin down that ever so slippery slope. As the saying goes, give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

New quote:

Why not allow the embryo to develop just a little bit longer, a little bit longer, a little bit longer.. When and where do we stop? There is no fine defining moment like the initial creation of an embryo(Quote)

Bioconservative scores a big hit here. He is absolutely correct. Once we have a cloned embryo, why not implant it into a womb and allow “nature to take its course”. The first differentiation would be the creation of heart cells. This is before the appearance of the brain stem.

I think most people would approve of that. However, this is where the real “slippery slope” appears. As the implanted embryo develops, more and more “needed tissues” are produced.

At some point, certainly before the last couple months of a pregnancy when lung tissues are produced, the ethical issues about an unborn fetus’s life and the needs of the ailing “cell donor” come into real conflict.

This is the “next level” of the cloning debate. Those advocating therapeutic cloning avoid it like the plague. However, those like myself who see the problems on the horizon understand how difficult these simple questions are going to become.

I’m being overly generous to Bioconservative here. He is going to come in and attack me big time on this issue. That is because I have really pulled the “scab off the wound” in the cloning debate no one (including myself) is really ready for.

The enduring problem with the “slippery slope” is that it really exists.

[randolfe]

Audrey de Grey:
(Quote)The only thing you have said so far which I think was ill-judged is to label Mike West as a far worse ethicist than scientist. One of the most telling arguments that there is indeed a "bright line" at a point later than fertilization, and indeed later than the 7-day blastocyst stage at which embryos are destroyed in the current method for isolating ES cells, is (I believe) due to West: it is that at 14 days an embryo ceases to be able to split and give rise to identical twins

Another quote from Audrey:
(quote)Quite a few of my colleagues were slow to get involved in the ES cell debate early on because they were bullish about the rate of progress with adult stem cells: they felt it was going to be simplest to keep one's head down and get the ethical argument out of the way by developing a technology which did what ES cells did and which didn't upset anyone. That has so far proven overoptimistic, …

Yet another Audrey quote:
Some people say that exploring this sort of avenue is caving in to Bioconservative tyranny. I don't think so -- I'm a pragmatist, and I know that if a lot of people don't like something, however invalid their reason for disliking it may be, they can probably slow it down, so time spent finding a solution that satisfies most people is time well spent.(End of quote)

This is a great example of the “Bush Lite” criticism I made a couple of posts ago. I appreciate the importance of political compromise. However, to sacrifice the best in science technology to appease political opponents is simply not good science.

I admit that “politics” always involved choices. I just hate to see Audrey cave in to the “embryo-centric” forces of repression. I have to admit that I don’t understand the science in his proposed research. However, I believe I recognize political capitulation when I see it.

[randolfe]

Bioconservative

(Quote)Twinning occurs in approximately .4% of births and is the result of biochemical disturbances between cells during the early development of the embryo.(quote)

Well, here we have a serious error on the part of our very well informed Bioconservative. Perhaps, I am reading the statistics incorrectly. But let us see.

In reality, one out of eight births appear to be twins at an early point in pregnancy. However, only about 1% of live births are twins. What happens to all those other twins??

It is called in the literature about twins “the disappearing twin syndrome”. Look it up on the Internet.

It is interesting that Bioconservative opposes twinning. The special relationships between identical twins have been one of my great motivations in becoming a reproductive human cloning activist.

Why does he have to believe that for two people to be born sharing a very close and special human relationship (and an identical genotype—the first organ transplant was between identical twins because there was no rejection problem) has to be rooted in “biochemical disturbances between cells during early development of the embryo”?

I have explored the literature about twins and have never encountered this statement. I think it is rooted in the “yuck” factor so promoted by Bioconservative’s mentor and/or hero, Leon Kass.

[randolfe]

Bioconservative:
(quote)I just don't see these developments happening as quickly as many Transhumans expect. [This is not to say I do not respect you as a scientist, Dr. de Grey. I am sure you could blow me out of the water with your technical knowledge], but I think that sometimes our hopes have a heavy influence upon our expectations.(quote)

To his credit, Bioconservative really scores here.

When the successful cloning of Dolly was announced in 1997, I was one of those who believed reproductive human cloning was only a few years away.

In fact, it wasn’t until 2004 that a cloned human embryo was finally created. Even then, it was only created using a cumulus cell and a fertile woman’s own egg.

Stem cell therapies have been “oversold” to the general public. I am not really opposed to this. It is part of the political culture war revolving around science and medicine in our society today.

However, the reality is that many stem cell therapies will be years, possibly decades, in coming.

[randolfe]

I am going to take a break at this point. I hope I have contributed to this discussion.

There is a fantastic new book out. The title" "Cloning after Dolly". The author: Dr. Gregory Pence.

Everyone here will find this book interesting. Dr. Pence does not limit himself to the "cloning debate" (reproductive and therapeutic) but tackles the larger issues involved in the debates about genetic engineering, etc.

His final chapter is entitled: "Gathering Darkness or Transhumanist Light". He thinks outside the box. That is what we need. We have too many Bush Lite apologists when it comes to the issues involved in reproductive and therapeutic cloning.

Despite the best efforts of those involved here, the two issues really can't be separated. Read Pence's book and/or visit my site www.clonerights.com and become better informed.

[Lazarus Long]

Lazarus Long error:

Quote(“IVF doesn't create one or two embryos. It is necessary to create hundreds if not thousands to effect one successful pregnancy”)Quote

Fact: In a typical IVF cycle a woman produces eleven eggs, a few more or a few less. These eggs are then fertilized. 

Fair enough I misspoke but it is still the case that thousands if not hundreds of thousands or more are generated every year to meet the demands of the women who receive IVF in order to have a child even if it is a cumulative not individual number then. I am glad to be stripping away any misunderstanding I still have with this debate.

It does not mitigate the merits of the point I was making however.

[ddhewitt]

First let me say that this has been a fascinating discussion and I wish that I had time to participate in it further. Thank you bioconservative for sharing your views in "enemy territory". I am glad to see that Aubrey, randolfe and others have weighed in on the topic.

Indeed, the human gene pool may be in constant flux, but only within a range, an equilibrium.  What is a Darwinian population other than a variation around a mean? There most definitely is the distinct ontological/biological category of ‘species’ and it consists of reproductively isolated populations possessing relatively stable phenotypic/morphological form.  A proper reading of Gould (and the paleontological record) would bring one to an understanding that populations do not evolve by ‘constant speedism’, but rather through sudden, abrupt bursts followed by sustained periods of equilibrium.  The fact that is often over looked by armchair scientific philosophers is that there is not one, but two options for the trajectory of a species.  They either evolve – or THEY DIE OFF.

As a biologist I feel the need to dispute your proposed human gene pool equilibrium as nonsense. That must be the conservative in you talking. Evolution is an arms race with the gene pool constantly realigning to current conditions. We must not deny this process. We must embrace it and humbly try to understand it to try to fit our Intelligent Design rather than let it continue as a Blind Watchmaker. With our increased understanding this becomes less a choice and more of an obligation. For this is the crux of the matter. We need to face the fact that there is no retreat from evolution. It is happening whether we acknowledge it or not. We can choose to retreat from that realization which I believe might be your choice or we can accept it and see where that knowledge will take us which is the choice that I believe that many on this forum would make.

As for Gould and punctuated equilibrium. Evolution is proportional to selective pressure. Periods of rapid evolution will be obvious in the fossil record so it is easy to prove that they have occurred. Gradual evolution is less obvious from the fossil record and is better studied in the genetic record.

I would ask "Who are you to deny us our choice?. Would it be ethical for Jehovah's Witnesses to prevent others from taking blood transfusions? If you are worried that your dignity will be sullied by the use of stem cells then don't use them. By impeding stem cell research you are denying us our choices. That is paternalistic and by what right do you make that choice. I am sorry but "intrinsic worth" does not convince me and "unforseen consequences" means you had better use your imagination more effectively and come up with foreseeable consequences that are compelling considering the stakes. For splitting hairs on the start of life aside, the real agenda appears to be to impede progress and maintain an imagined "equilibrium" or status quo which is a more difficult goal than biological immortality.

I guess it was inevitable that in discussing therapeutic cloning I would have to at least put forth my fears concerning extensions of the maximal human life span – because, after all, that is one of the unspoken objective of developing these advanced biotechnologies, is it not?

Increasing the human lifespan is, in itself, an augmentation of human capacities.  The fitness and stamina of youth combined with the wisdom and knowledge of maturity.  How would an up and coming generation stand a chance?  It wouldn’t, and this is but one of many objections that can be made against human augmentation.  Our human essence is our functional equilibrium as a society.  

Again note the synchrony between "equilibrium" and your bioconservative views. Our society is not in an equilibrated state so statements about "functional equilibrium" stick in my craw. Perhaps you could elaborate with specific examples of how you believe we have reached equilibrium.

All the conservative position is advocating is that society take things slowly, and with more caution.  The soundness of such an approach is apparent, unless, of course, one allows one’s personal existential angst to cloud their better judgment.

That is one perspective on the conservative position. Another is that it is a knee jerk resistance to change and that will try to obstruct change by any means available but in this case literally millions of lives are depending on these decisions being delayed without a compelling argument. I value life, especially my own there is no angst about it.


I would just like to close with some questions.

What is dignified about a living dynamic intelligent human being being destroyed by death? I do not think that any answer that you can provide will convince me that to die of aging is noble. Talk about a "yuck" factor. My wisdom of repugnance is telling me to avoid dying.

If you believe that abortion is acceptable then would therapeutic cloning be even more acceptable once proof of principle had been established? From what I have gathered from the posts your main opposition at this point was that the sacrifice was being made and was unlikely to produce therapeutic benefit.

[lucio]

Since brevity is the soul of wit...

I am going to try to avoid going over those points which are already being made and made well by others. However, there is one point that I have always seen omitted from these kinds of discussions, in any field, and that I will have to make here: The rights of those who make the technology possible.
As Dr de Grey has pointed out elsewhere, scientists - good scientists - become scientists in the main because they love their work. A brief study of the lives of all the great scientists - and inventors and industrialists and artists and any kind of great human - were driven primarily by a fierce love of their work. Speaking as a scientist, I know this to be true. It's what keeps me going even when things look very black.

Do you know what it takes to perform Stem Cell therapy? Or to carry out genetic engineering? Do you know the long years of study, the merciless devotion to doing the best, the continual strain on your mind that goes into gaining that ability? And here is what I find inconcievable: That my life's work, and that of those whom I respect, admire, and love above all, might be destroyed simply because some group finds their work at odds with its "ethical feelings", and can vote some thug into power to enforce their wishes. The concept that we should have to exist with a knife poised at our throats - especially when one considers the incalculable benefit it has been - revoltes me at a fundamental level.

Whether or not technology should or should not be developed lies neither with the bioconservatives, nor with the transhumanists. It lies with those men and women who devote the precious time of their life to making it possible. It is in their hands primarily, from the best researcher to the most humble investor. Not in anyone elses.

Bullying scientists is neither moral nor practical. Try and think for a moment of as many real "mad scientists" as you can. Now try the same again, but try thinking of the amount of "mad politicians". Who was it who ordered the builiding of nuclear weaponry? Chemical? Now biological? Politicians. Science gives incalculable power - and the only ones who have the intelligence to determine the ends are those who are capapble of providing the means . I resent, revile and despise anyone who would try and reduce the most magnificent human beings in our world to the role of "milch-brains", simply there to churn out ideas and products when and where the philosopher-kings in power think they should.

On this note, we have just emerged from a century of the bloodiest horor that humanity has ever seen, all a result of of politics run wild. The Nazis killed six million in their konzentrationslager . Stalin killed twenty-six million more in his gulags, starved another twenty-four million to death. Mao killed thirty-million in his attemtps to collectivise farming. The atomic bomb was dropped on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And so on and so forth. So, answer me this, why does everyone seem to think that the main dangers to civilization come from advances in technology and business, and pay no attention to increasing governmental power?

I am fed to the teeth with those who continually worry about "benefits to society", and who give no thought whatsoever to those who are the only ones who can make those benefits reality.

Hugo Schmidt

[zeitgeist]

Moved to Catcher.

Reason: Profanity/Nonsensical

DonS
Navigator

Edited by DonSpanton, 18 January 2005 - 04:28 PM.

[John Schloendorn]

Zeitgeist, if your post is an attempt to damage imminst's respectability, then I have rarely seen such a poor one. For it is clear that only one who is desperately out of arguments would pick such means. If you are against transhumanism for some reason, you should follow bioconservative's example and seek productive dialogue instead of trying to compromise one of the rare occasions where it occurs.
(If you should honestly be for transhumanism, then the discrepancy between your goals and means becomes even more incomprehensible to me.)

Admins, please move me to the catcher so I can be with Zeitgeist )

Edited by John Schloendorn, 19 January 2005 - 03:09 AM.

[benzealley]

After reading through this thread, I've just realised quite how dangerous reading I.I. may be to my continued diligence at university... [wis]
I shall avoid going back too far, in an attempt to keep the thread moving.


Lazarus:

You do realize that this is almost a direct corollary to the same arguments made to sustain slavery, and when that failed to maintain a divided and segregated society based on racial fear and bigotry?

It's actually a rather poor corollary, in that the historical precedents have all been examples of one set of humans attempting to prevent another set from attaining the same quality of life as they themselves possess, which is clearly unethical and more or less simple bullying. The conservative opposition to transhumanity is an example of humans who (presently) all possess qualitatively the same abilities being concerned about one sub-group developing superior ones.

In a sense, a better analogy would be to the general concern that exists about the moderately wealthy becoming more so; we are concerned that those who have power will become sufficiently more powerful as to be no longer qualitatively "equal". (This has arguably already happened with regard to the ultra-rich in the USA...)

This may be particularly true when coming from those who see transhumanists as already possessing greater intelligence and/or technical savvy than they believe themselves to. (It's nearly irrelevant that many "true transhumanists" would offer the benefits and/or techniques of their advancement to anyone who wanted them; people will always be sceptical of that possibility even if, in this case, it turned out to be true.)


Randolfe:

I just hate to see Audrey cave in to the “embryo-centric” forces of repression. I have to admit that I don’t understand the science in his proposed research. However, I believe I recognize political capitulation when I see it.

The key point is that at the end of the day I, and I believe Aubrey, are "in this" to save lives by whatever means proves most expedient. If that includes performing the filthy and arcane art of politics, well, it's still better than watching people die.


Lucio - that was truly quite beautiful, thankyou.

--
Ben Zealley
~"When I look around, I see numb empty faces, the world is waiting to die... this apathy is so suffocating, the slow decay of my mind..."~
- Stabbing Westward, 'Television'

[randolfe]

This thread is getting better in certain ways. Bioconservative and others like him fear SCNT and stem cell research because they see it as the "current" front line in the war between today's comfortable and predictable society and the uncertainities of tomorrow.

With all these technologies, life is going to change. People with financial resources will live longer. This is true today but much ignored. How many poor people do you know who get triple heart by-passes or even a heart transplant??

I have total emotional sympathy for Lucio's passionate defense of scientists and their dedication to their work. He says:

"Bullying scientists is neither moral nor practical. Try and think for a moment of as many real "mad scientists" as you can. Now try the same again, but try thinking of the amount of "mad politicians". Who was it who ordered the builiding of nuclear weaponry? Chemical? Now biological? Politicians. Science gives incalculable power - and the only ones who have the intelligence to determine the ends are those who are capapble of providing the means . I resent, revile and despise anyone who would try and reduce the most magnificent human beings in our world to the role of "milch-brains", simply there to churn out ideas and products when and where the philosopher-kings in power think they should."

The only problem with his statement is the life of atomic scientist Oppenheimer. He got so caught up in splitting the atom and making the bomb, he didn't foresee where everything was going.

After seeing the devastation of Hiroshima, Oppenheimer spent the rest of his life campaigning to reel in the powers he had helped unleash. The "atomic" debate is still far from over. Atomic energy supplies 25% (or more) of the electrical power we use in the USA today. If tamed and used properly (without catastrophy) it may be our deliverance from fossil fuels. However, if some of those missing Soviet suitcase A-Bombs fall into the hands of terrorists and blow up some major cities, we will all suffer.

Technology and science is "neutral". Whether it is good or bad depends on how it is used. SCNT (nuclear transfer) and mastering embryonic stem cells, the building stones of life, gives us greater mastery over our lives.

Lee Silver put it very simply in "Remaking Eden" when he said that once we achieved conception outside the body (via IVF in a petri dish), we literally "took control of our own evolution". When we can culture stem cells and use them to rebuild our bodies, we're taking greater control of our lives and our evolution.

[eternaltraveler]

Zeitgeist, if your post is an attempt to damage imminst's respectability, then I have rarely seen such a poor one. For it is clear that only one who is desperately out of arguments would pick such means. If you are against transhumanism for some reason, you should follow bioconservative's example and seek productive dialogue instead of trying to compromise one of the rare occasions where it occurs.
(If you should honestly be for transhumanism, then the discrepancy between your goals and means becomes even more incomprehensible to me.)

Oh, I dunno. It seemed pretty funny to me

[lucio]

Quoting randolfe:

The only problem with his statement is the life of atomic scientist Oppenheimer.  He got so caught up in splitting the atom and making the bomb, he didn't foresee where everything was going. 

Under political auspices, for political purposes. And this is precisely what I mean when I object to the lunatic idea that scientists have the knowledge to determine the meas but not the ends . It was this philosophical dichotomy that allowed Oppenheimer to dodge the responsibility of his work. Furthermore, nuclear weapons were designed right from the start to destroy life. There wasn't any fuzzy "human dignity" issues here. These things were meant to kill. To kill a great deal of people. This was known from day one.

I think that the story of Frankenstein serves a valuable purpose here. It's a story that absolutely everyone seems to get wrong. It's not a tale of mad hubris and wrongheaded pride. Quite the opposite in fact. Frankenstein starts off as a brilliant young scientist, passionately devoted to his work. While this is the case, his life is great, and everything is fine.

When do things start to go wrong? When he rejects responsibility - and hence, rejects control - over his work. His creation was very benevolent, but it becomes twisted because he abandons it. Cataclysm after cataclysm follows, but Frankenstein still refuses to take responsibility for his creation, for his own actions. In the end, he dies rather than assume the responsibility over what he has created.

Now, regardless of what the greens, bionconservatives and so on say, scientists are monumentally unlikely to create a monster. Unfortunately, we don't have to. There are plenty of real monsters walking the planet. The danger is that the incalculable power we have will fall into the hands of one of them.

Responsibility implies control. And control requires responsibility. They are inseperable. I'm not saying scientists are infallible - far from it. I am saying that those who have spent years working on the subject matter in question are going to have a considerably better idea of the potential, purpose and necessity of what they have created. Certainly, much better than that held by various "activist" rabble and their thuggish "elected representatives". Scientists, by their very nature, are the most qualified people to judge the value and use of scientific work.