Gaurav Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I am with Lurker on this one. Science should not be prisoner to any taboo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 I am with Lurker on this one. Science should not be prisoner to any taboo! This is not a question of science avoiding taboo but scientists thinking about their social responsibility. Science MUST be in step with the spiritiual development of the people and the social outlook of mankind. Science cannot lag behind but science must not jump ahead either. There are stuff that mankind is NOT READY to deal with right now and one of the biggest ones is genetic reasons for having discrimination. It is not a matter of taboo, it is a matter of social responsibility. Why the fook should i do research in something, when i KNOW that the outcome of this is next several hundred years of bloodshed, social injustice and more discrimination ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Your line of reasoning sound more theory than practise Bongo. The reason I say is to my knowledge, and you can correct me here, I have not heard of Scientific experiments held back simply because the human society was not able to deal with the consequence. Yes they have been held back due to fear of attacks, physical as well as intellactual, but not otherwise. Any example that can help your view point? xx I can't provide any example but this one ( genetic research on racial context) would be a very good place to err in the side of caution. As i said, humanity is NOWHERE CLOSE to being ready to deal with this topic and thus, research on this MUST be shelved. The potential negetives out of it overwighs the potential positives by atleast a factor of 1000. That is reason enough for me to put a big red tape around this topic and say 'revisit in 500 years from now'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurav Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 This is not a question of science avoiding taboo but scientists thinking about their social responsibility. Science MUST be in step with the spiritiual development of the people and the social outlook of mankind. Science cannot lag behind but science must not jump ahead either. There are stuff that mankind is NOT READY to deal with right now and one of the biggest ones is genetic reasons for having discrimination. It is not a matter of taboo, it is a matter of social responsibility. Why the fook should i do research in something, when i KNOW that the outcome of this is next several hundred years of bloodshed, social injustice and more discrimination ? Mankind still believes in virgin birth, elephant god, satan, heaven/hell, ghosts.... If we wait for mankind to get ready then we will be waiting forever. Flat Earth anyone? You really expect me to give a fk about mankinds spiritual development? :haha: Scientists should continue their research in all fields but unlike this particular scientist they should stay away from issuing pseudo scientific fatwas :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 If we wait for mankind to get ready then we will be waiting forever. Then we wait forever. I don't see what is the point of advancing science in a field that is certain to cause enormous grief to mankind! Scientists should continue their research in all fields You have no idea of the moral dilemmas that face scientists sometimes, do you ? Sorry but i don't think you have much of a clue here, except for dogmatic beleif in more and more tech/knowledge at your disposal, even if that knowledge is certain to lead to your downfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Neo-luddite alert :D I am of course in agreement with Gai. The secular philosophy of equality has never claimed people are equal, only that they should be treated equally. Otherwise it would be a pretty stupid ideal to impliment in a country where wealth or education varies. Thus when people get fearful of some minor genetic difference in intelligence, they misunderstand what equality is about. Equality is going to have to deal with far greater differences in future when self-modification becomes common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Science MUST be in step with the spiritiual development of the people and the social outlook of mankind. Science cannot lag behind but science must not jump ahead either. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 The secular philosophy of equality has never claimed people are equal, only that they should be treated equally. Otherwise it would be a pretty stupid ideal to impliment in a country where wealth or education varies. Thus when people get fearful of some minor genetic difference in intelligence, they misunderstand what equality is about. Equality is going to have to deal with far greater differences in future when self-modification becomes common. I agree with the above. But my point still stands. Humanity as it is, is nowhere ready to deal with equality-related issues that will abound if this field of research is advanced. Just look around you - India is still pretty heavy on discrimination ( casteism), there is social discrimination in China and even in the neo-liberal west, there is still vestiges of centuries of racism/white superiority ingrained in the society. On a human historical context, the last 40 years was the ONLY time in the last 1000 years (at the very least) where human equality has looked towards improvement and not continued unequality or progression of unequality. And if anyone thinks that 40 years is good enough time to erase the effects of the last 1000 years, i gotto say that it is a very naive perspective. The reason for scientific advancement is for the betterment of human life. That and only that is the fundamental reason for scientific advancement, not to simply satisfy someone's craving of knowledge. And if tomorrow, there is some genetic reasons are found to discriminate on racial basis, there is absolutely no way that the positives would outweigh the negetives. So since this topic stands in clear violation of the prime directive behind scientific development, what is the point of such development, save for a dogmatic approach to uncovering more of the phenomenal universe even if it means humanity suffers terribly in the process ? I am not saying that this topic should be blackballed forever- merely till a time when humanity is ready to deal with the results in a humane way than the inhumane that we have been so dogmatic about. Let this be a pet project of some smarta$$ 500 years from now. But now is not the time for such a research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Basically you want to close pandoras box, and that aint ever gonna happen. I.E. the world has to adapt, because things arnt going to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Basically you want to close pandoras box, and that aint ever gonna happen. I.E. the world has to adapt, because things arnt going to change. No, not close pandora's box- but to realize that some things are best left for the future as the time right now is not suitable for it. The world needs more time and right now, its indisputable that research on genetic angle on race only serves to harm humanity far more than benefit it. I don't see a single REASON why to continue this research, save for the dogmatic approach to sciences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Now the atom bomb has been invented, the cat is out of the bag, it is a fact of life. Just because you dont want scientific experiements in a certain area isnt going to stop them. So you will have to live with it instead of trying to fight the tide. And furthermore, it is still unclear whether these experiments would be a bad thing, that is just your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Just because you dont want scientific experiements in a certain area isnt going to stop them. I can certainly try to advocate my perspective. You are arguing on what is/what isnt going to happen and i n that, i agree with your view. While i am saying what it is we SHOULD/SHOULD NOT do. And furthermore, it is still unclear whether these experiments would be a bad thing, that is just your opinion. That is lame. It may just be my opinion, but it is a well educated one and i can easily prove it to be so. In the topic of 'genetic research on race', i can easily point out atleast 5 bad consequences to every 1 good consequence you can come up with- and that should be obvious given the implications and recent human history in mind. So you will have to live with it instead of trying to fight the tide. Agreed on the A-bomb issue- cat is out of the bag, i have to live with it and not fight the tide. But at the same time, you refuse to learn the lessons of A-bomb and you refuse to heed the warnings of humanity not being ready for research in all concievable subjects. Now that the tide is in and fighting it is futile, it is, at the very least, prudent to build a few dams for the NEXT tide. I am yet to see any reason why research should be continued on this topic at this juncture in time, save for your, Lurker & Gai's dogmatic approach to science without any concerns for its implications towards humanity at THIS JUNCTURE OF TIME. Highly irresponsible IMO and highly illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gorah_pindu Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Basically you are advocating 'ignorant bliss'. The Buddha said ignorance is the root of prejudice :D Or in my view, humanity will face the truth sooner or later, and 'not ready yet' probably means 'not ready ever', so now is as good a time as any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Basically you are advocating 'ignorant bliss'.No, i am advocating 'ignorance is bliss FOR NOW ON THIS ISSUE'. This is case-specific, not a general doctrine. The Buddha said ignorance is the root of prejudiceBuddha also said that mankind is not ready for certain knowledge and knowledge without understanding is a dangerous proposition. and 'not ready yet' probably means 'not ready ever', so now is as good a time as any.That is ignorance of human social history at work here, nothing more. For one, if we are not going to be ready ever for certain knowledge, then we shouldn't have it. For what is the point of having knowledge that we are not ready for ? What possible tangable benifit is there to knowledge when we are not ready ? Besides, nowhere does it imply necessarily that 'not ready now = not ready ever', you just assumed that for no reason whatsoever. Human social history shows that social understanding of phenomena develops over time and humanity deals with certain knowledge better if the SOCIAL CONDITIONS EXIST FOR IT than at other times. The idea of paper currency is one such vivid example - first time it was tried, more than 2500 years ago in China, it led to instant rampant inflation and collapse of an empire. Yet, the principles used ( paper = denominated and backed up by gold/silver/precious gems) were more robust from strict ecnonomic sense than now ( where paper money is no longer backed by anything, just beleif/dogma). Yet it failed horribly 2500 yrs ago but succeded very well in the last 200. Why ? again, knowledge at different junctures in history leads to different results. So there is absolutely no basis in thinking that we are not ready now means that we will never be ready. Hell, the model followed by some western nations societerially, if followed for another few hundred years, will make us far more ready to delve into this field than now. But all i find here is a dogmatic approach and a lust for knowledge for personal gain/selfish reasons when it is very clear that knowledge spread on this particular topic in this particular juncture of human history would spell far more trouble for mankind than gain. The utter fatalist would argue that future is not set in stone and i don't know that but then again, utter fatalists do not have the responsibility of designing a system or using predictive tools. It is very clear that right now, we are just beginning to conquer human discrimination based on looks/race/arbitary notions of caste. It is still a very fragile environment and last thing humanity needs are irresponsible advocates of research that leads to far bigger fracturing of humanity by giving genetic reasoning for discrimination. And that too, the research is fundamentally geared towards discrimination and not anything substantial towards actually addressing any concerns about intelligence. Even if comprehensive gene study is done and it leads to XYZ conclusions, it still means squat when it comes to intelligence- for the prime contributor to intelligence is the brain. We already know that it is an adaptive thinking organ and by the very definition and nature of it, we are far from understanding how brain overcomes its neurological impairments, just how much of it depends on your genes, etc etc. So ultimately, this is a research avenue categorically playing into the hands of the racists/discrimantors on this planet. And blind advocacy of that is nothing but irresponsible behaviour and having no concern whatsoever for the consequences of one's actions. I'd recommend a course in scientific responsibility of man or ethics of science and its moral rammifications for you and the advocates of this line of thought i am against. For it is very clear that you are not familiar with the concept and thus your views reflect a completely irrepsonsible attitude towards knowledge and information, with no eye on the consequences of the knowledge you part to someone when the order of knowledge is not cared for. I'd suggest reading some of Einsitien's journals on this very issue, for he grapped with the morality of sciences and responsibilities facing the scientific minds fairly well in the modern context. Pascal argues it fairly well in his works too but its a bit too archaic for the beginner i'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaurav Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I am for scientific research and Frankenstein..ing of humans :giggle: We can't get more fkd up then what we already are. " I want Bongosamaj for dinner" says the master :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I am for scientific research Yes, we know that you've already proven your blind dogmatic approach on this topic. Yay! I am glad you arn't in sciences, personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Nothing should fetter a free mind. It's the society's responsibility to embrace the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 It's the society's responsibility to embrace the truth. And it is the scientists responsibility to see how the society handles the truth he/she discovered. You cant just cook up or find new things without any concern to how it impacts society. Sorry but that is science for the sake of science and utterly irresponsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Outsider Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 And it is the scientists responsibility to see how the society handles the truth he/she discovered. You cant just cook up or find new things without any concern to how it impacts society. Sorry but that is science for the sake of science and utterly irresponsible. Did I say cook up anything? What's the truth is the truth and if you cannot accept it you are an escapist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongosamaj Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 What's the truth is the truth and if you cannot accept it you are an escapist.If society is escapist, then it is so. Change society first before irresponsibly dumping 'truths' on them that they cannot handle and will lead to the wrong conclusions of the worst kind. Science exists to serve us. Not to serve itself or stand alone on its own. There is absolutely no logic or morality in irresponsibly dumping something on society that it isnt ready for. Bottomline for any research is whether the outcome benifits us or harms us. And any research into genetics of raciality will harm us far more at this juncture in time than help us. I don't know why people cannot accept that some things/concepts are good in theory but MUST WAIT for human society to be developed to a point before exploring it. Greed of knowledge perhaps ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts