Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Nelson on March 28, 2011 at 12:17pm

um. which scientist thinks of life in that way? and why does the fact that life is chemical reactions at bottom mean that the only value it has is as chemical reactions?
does love feel less spectacular when you know it's a biochemical process in the brain meant to pair-bond the parents to ensure they stick together to increase the chances the offspring will survive?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dennis Paul Renner on March 28, 2011 at 12:39pm

The video explains, What Scientists?  The video also questions the morasl and ethics of this subject.  I think it is important to watch the video before responding to this discussion

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dennis Paul Renner on March 28, 2011 at 12:36pm

.  I think it is important to watch the video before responding to this discussion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on March 28, 2011 at 12:50pm

i've seen the video before. Wolpe's a bioethicist and his talk is about the things we're able to do with biology these days and whether we should be doing it, whether we should be doing what we'll soon be capable of doing, and, if so, under what sort of ethical controls we should be doing it.

you're taking Wolpe's talk and using it as a jumping off point to strawman scientists.

and so i'm interested to know which scientists "think of life as only a cheap tool to manipulate, and to produce useful proteins." because Wolpe never even comes close to suggesting that he thinks this is how scientists view life.

you are committing (in addition to the strawman fallacy) the modo hoc fallacy. just because life IS a at base about chemical reactions doesn't mean that it's ONLY chemical reactions.

if you want to talk about bioethics then we can do that, of course. but don't strawman scientists and pretend that they think that life is ONLY chemical reactions just because it is, at bottom, chemical reactions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on March 28, 2011 at 12:57pm

I throw my lot in with Nelson.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eoganacht on March 29, 2011 at 2:04am

Come on sevens!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dave on April 26, 2011 at 9:07pm

*like* lol

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dennis Paul Renner on March 28, 2011 at 4:36pm

Yes for me it is a question of bioethics.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 28, 2011 at 1:36pm

It seems to me that you entirely missed the point of the video.  The speaker presents some rather shocking possibilities, but in a way that graphically pits intriguing wonders against cold-hearted amoralities.  He is obviously trying to engage a lot more dialog and thought on the implications of technologies that are rapidly surpassing our moral framework.  People are always excited to dive into new technology, but usually too lazy to consider the ethical dilemmas that might arise.  I think watching this video has likely set a nagging little reminder in my head that may pop up the next time I get exited about organic processor technology.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dennis Paul Renner on March 28, 2011 at 5:28pm

I agree.  Through out history humanity has charged forward with little reguard to cause and effect.  Science along with corporate capitalism has not always acted in a responsible manner and as a result the whole of humanity is faced with some terrible problems. 

I think we have reached a point in science where we can no longer disreguard cause and effect or rush to market for profit genetically engineered life untill we have a full understanding of all the variables and consequences. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 28, 2011 at 9:26pm

I like to always point out the role of the consumer in the success of corporate capitalism. All this recent carbon-cap--limit bullshit treats corporate production like the factories are just having a big orgy together, but that's a huge fallacy because they don't act alone at all.  They are producing goods for the consumer, and until you get the consumer to absorb some of the blame (by considering the ethics of purchases, for instance) you'll never fully address the problem.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mallory on March 28, 2011 at 1:52pm

I just have to ask: why does life have to be "special"? No, I didn't watch the video because I couldn't get past the opening question. Also because I'm on my phone.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page