American Scientists Create First Synthetic Living Cell - Vatican Warns them to Not Play God

[ellenjanuary]

There are some things, I do not miss...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I mostly have technology in mind rather than "pure" science (whatever that is).

It's science done simply for the sake of expanding knowledge and not with any particular technological application in mind... e.g. the experiments that the Vatican is complaining about here.

Yes, we would have lost out on some advancements, but which ones? Nobody can say.

We would've lost heliocentrism, for starters. What technological advancements rely on that?

More importantly, advancement that are doing us harm might have been averted, or at least their implementation would have seen some kind of regulation. I think those benefits far outweigh the potential problems of losing out on some discoveries.

Wait a minute... you really think that we'd be better off without scientific advancement? Have you thought your position through?

IMO, reliable water treatment and surgery that is more likely to cure you than kill you have, all by themselves, given humanity orders of magnitude more benefit than all the harm associated with technology put together.

Same but irrelevant.

No less irrelevant than your point. You don't want biotechnology companies mucking with things that affect your life? Well, I want the same from the Vatican.

What the church does with respect to its adherents is its own business apart from illegal activites.

Its adherents? I didn't see anything in the article that suggested the Vatican was directing its statement to Catholic scientists exclusively.

But that last prepositional phrase indicates that at least the church's activity is regulated by local laws.

Which phrase?

Technology needs much more of that regulation and public scrutiny. BP anyone?

Fundamentally, the issues with BP weren't technological; they were with the human element. AFAIK, the equipment involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster all worked within design parameters; the problem was that it was subjected to conditions outside its design parameters by the people controlling it.

If you use the wrong tool for the task and it fails, the problem isn't with the tool; it's with the person wielding it.

 

[Dunemeister]

It's science done simply for the sake of expanding knowledge and not with any particular technological application in mind... e.g. the experiments that the Vatican is complaining about here.

There is very little research done of that sort. Perhaps some astronomy. Arguably, evolution (indeed, much of biology) fits this definition. But that's a drop in the bucket compared with the vast majority of scientific endeavour, most of which is motivated at least in part by a desire to positively effect change in the world or with at least half an eye on possible beneficial applications.

We would've lost heliocentrism, for starters. What technological advancements rely on that?

Not sure, but I imagine much of the technology that is in furtherance of or implications of accurate astronomy owe some debt of gratitude to heliocentrisim. I realise I'm stretching the point in this case but hell, I'm allowed to for the sake of argument.

Wait a minute... you really think that we'd be better off without scientific advancement? Have you thought your position through?

IMO, reliable water treatment and surgery that is more likely to cure you than kill you have, all by themselves, given humanity orders of magnitude more benefit than all the harm associated with technology put together.

Perhaps I haven't thought it through with philosophic rigour (but I doubt you've done the same with your position, so we're square). Besides, I didn't say all. I'm very grateful that we don't use leeches to cure fevers anymore, and I'll add your examples to the list. However, there are a great many scientific (read: technological) advancements that we could have lived without. Machines that have made us dependent on fossil fuels, for example. And much of the "advancements" we take for granted have actually done more harm than good, for example chemical treatments of food crops and the development of modern mega-farming and so on. The harms associated with just those innovations may indeed actually balance out the goods you've mentioned. We can also add the scientific innovations involved in the mass production of machines such as machine guns and the logistics and control of masses of humanity such as armies (and WalMart). These have contributed very little to human flourishing and have even caused a great deal of harm. (Gotta have something for those advanced surgeons to do, eh?)

No less irrelevant than your point. You don't want biotechnology companies mucking with things that affect your life? Well, I want the same from the Vatican.

No, I want there to be a forum for real public debate to mediate the introduction of technologies, including those of biochem firms. As for the Vatican, so long as their activities are lawful, they can do what they want, including lobby.

Its adherents? I didn't see anything in the article that suggested the Vatican was directing its statement to Catholic scientists exclusively.

Of course the Vatican or any other religious institution can pronounce on moral issues. You are free to disagree. Pas de probleme.

Which phrase?

Ya got me. What was I thinking?

Fundamentally, the issues with BP weren't technological; they were with the human element. AFAIK, the equipment involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster all worked within design parameters; the problem was that it was subjected to conditions outside its design parameters by the people controlling it.

You're thinking too small. The technology of oil dependence. The technology of deepwater oil extraction. It's precisely those human factors that should have been present throughout but weren't that's the problem. Nobody ever asked me if my country should be dependent on oil (let alone foreign oil). Unfortunately, technological advancement is our secular society's sacred symbol. Question it, and you are branded a heretic. Wonder whether it should have constraints put on it and you're accused of not thinking things through.

If you use the wrong tool for the task and it fails, the problem isn't with the tool; it's with the person wielding it.

Which strenghthens my argument. Technological advance needs to be publicly scrutinised and debated before being authorised. All of this must be done by the people.

 

[Sententia]

There is very little research done of that sort. Perhaps some astronomy. Arguably, evolution (indeed, much of biology) fits this definition. But that's a drop in the bucket compared with the vast majority of scientific endeavour, most of which is motivated at least in part by a desire to positively effect change in the world or with at least half an eye on possible beneficial applications.

Interesting post but this first point seems odd to me. What are you trying to imply? Most of the time I gather berries on my property because they are in season and I would like to eat some... some times though I go out and get them because I am bored and might want some later and other times I do so because I think my family might want some.

Am I wrong to gather berries because I am hungry and right to do so because I think my family might want some?

Obviously I am painting your argument in more simple terms but only doing so to try to understand what you are attempting to imply.

 

[Dunemeister]

Interesting post but this first point seems odd to me. What are you trying to imply? Most of the time I gather berries on my property because they are in season and I would like to eat some... some times though I go out and get them because I am bored and might want some later and other times I do so because I think my family might want some.

Am I wrong to gather berries because I am hungry and right to do so because I think my family might want some?

Obviously I am painting your argument in more simple terms but only doing so to try to understand what you are attempting to imply.

What I'm trying to imply is that there ought to be checks on technological advancements given the demonstrably horrendous outcome of a good many of them. They should be subject to public scrutiny before being implemented, and they should suffer continual review upon implementation. Technology is not sacred. Nor is science (even it its "pure" -- and almost non-existent -- form). I hope this makes clear the disanalogy with gathering berries. There can be no bad outcome there (unless you're planning to feed them to your child, who is deathly allergic).

 

[tumbleweed41]

Scientific research should be tempered with common sense. Not public opinion or politics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is very little research done of that sort. Perhaps some astronomy. Arguably, evolution (indeed, much of biology) fits this definition. But that's a drop in the bucket compared with the vast majority of scientific endeavour, most of which is motivated at least in part by a desire to positively effect change in the world or with at least half an eye on possible beneficial applications.

But there's a difference between doing science with the hope that it will help humanity in some unknown way, and doing R & D.

Perhaps I haven't thought it through with philosophic rigour (but I doubt you've done the same with your position, so we're square). Besides, I didn't say all.

No... you just gave the impression that on the whole, the net effect of technology in general has been more bad than good. That's the conclusion I'm questioning.

I'm very grateful that we don't use leeches to cure fevers anymore, and I'll add your examples to the list. However, there are a great many scientific (read: technological) advancements that we could have lived without. Machines that have made us dependent on fossil fuels, for example.

... yet I suspect that if one of your loved ones was injured and a diesel-powered ambulance arrived to take him or her to the hospital, you wouldn't tell the ambulance driver to go away, would you?

And much of the "advancements" we take for granted have actually done more harm than good, for example chemical treatments of food crops and the development of modern mega-farming and so on. The harms associated with just those innovations may indeed actually balance out the goods you've mentioned.

You've got to calculate that balance fairly, though. I agree that the environmental damage associated with mega-farming is significant, and that we should do what we can to minimize it, but does it really outweigh the benefit of a stable food supply?

Modern farming practices have prevented a huge number of deaths from famine. How much pollution would it take to outweigh that?

We can also add the scientific innovations involved in the mass production of machines such as machine guns and the logistics and control of masses of humanity such as armies (and WalMart). These have contributed very little to human flourishing and have even caused a great deal of harm. (Gotta have something for those advanced surgeons to do, eh?)

With all these weapons being built, don't you find it strange that at this point in history, the average person has the lowest-ever likelihood of dying by violence? In all of human history, on the whole, this is the time of the greatest peace: being killed by another person is now an abberation... at most times in our species' history, it was commonplace.

This contrast says to me that you're not fully accounting for the positive effects of technology... or maybe that the harm associated with the negative aspects isn't as bad as you portray it.

No, I want there to be a forum for real public debate to mediate the introduction of technologies, including those of biochem firms. As for the Vatican, so long as their activities are lawful, they can do what they want, including lobby.

Would this forum have room for people like me, who want to tell the Vatican that they're no moral authority at all, that they should get their own house in order before they start worrying about what other people are doing, and that while they may think that their "wisdom" is God's gift to humanity, this opinion is in the distinct minority once you get beyond St. Peter's Square?

I do notice, though, a distinct double standard on your part: the Vatican can do what it wants as long as it's legal, while biochem companies need to have their legal actions "mediated" by public debate.

I'd say that on the whole, the Vatican is more of a source of harm for the world than any biochem company. Why shouldn't we have a public debate to "mediate" its activities, then?

Of course the Vatican or any other religious institution can pronounce on moral issues. You are free to disagree. Pas de probleme.

But it's definitely not an internal matter of the Catholic Church, which was my point. They're butting into my affairs, so IMO this give me the right to butt in right back.

You're thinking too small. The technology of oil dependence. The technology of deepwater oil extraction. It's precisely those human factors that should have been present throughout but weren't that's the problem. Nobody ever asked me if my country should be dependent on oil (let alone foreign oil).

So you think that this spill is an inevitable result of drilling for oil?

And yes, you were asked. You were asked every time you voted in an election (or, if you didn't find any of the candidates to your satisfaction, every time you chose not to run yourself). You were asked every time you went to the store and made choices as a consumer.

In recent decades, you would've been directly asked for your input on these sorts of projects through the environmental assessment process. I've personally gone to the people to solicit their input on things as minor as whether a left turn lane should be built on a highway; I'm sure that if you had really, seriously wanted to speak out, you would've had your chance.

If you don't think your voice was heard, it's just that you were asked along with everyone else and your voice is only one of many.

Either that, or your voice was heard... but it was your actions that were heard more loudly than your words. I don't know whether this is the case for you, but I do know that the commercial success that drives things like the pursuit of more oil is dependent on consumer demand... and that demand comes from all of us.

Unfortunately, technological advancement is our secular society's sacred symbol. Question it, and you are branded a heretic. Wonder whether it should have constraints put on it and you're accused of not thinking things through.

Well, be branded a heretic, then. Why should other people's opinions stop you from doing what you think is right?

Which strenghthens my argument. Technological advance needs to be publicly scrutinised and debated before being authorised. All of this must be done by the people.

I both agree and disagree.

On the one hand, in principle, I think you're right: we should have a right to speak out about the things that impact our lives. However, I wouldn't limit it solely to technology. I think that anything that has the potential to harm us is fair game for us to limit it. This would include, for instance, the power given to the Catholic Church and other religious institutions by many governments around the world.

On the other hand, I worry about one aspect of letting the powers that be place limits on technology: technological advancement often creates major shifts in social power. One of the common themes of the technological advancement of the last few centuries is the increase in political and social power for classes of people who never really had it before. We have a middle class because of technology.

I'd argue that without the Industrial Revolution, Britain wouldn't have even extended the vote to all men, to say nothing of women. It was the increased wealth and economic power of the middle class, brought about by technological advancement, that enabled them to gain political power as well.

If you give those who currently hold power the ability to limit technology, then I worry that you may prevent positive societal change like this from happening. I think the ability to limit the advance of technology needs to be subjected to some rational limits itself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I'm trying to imply is that there ought to be checks on technological advancements given the demonstrably horrendous outcome of a good many of them. They should be subject to public scrutiny before being implemented, and they should suffer continual review upon implementation.

Out of curiosity, do you think that this statement would be any less true if we replaced the term "technological advancements" with "religions"?

 

[Dunemeister]

But there's a difference between doing science with the hope that it will help humanity in some unknown way, and doing R & D.

Yes, there is.

No... you just gave the impression that on the whole, the net effect of technology in general has been more bad than good. That's the conclusion I'm questioning.

Well, let's talk about what I actually said rather than "impressions".

... yet I suspect that if one of your loved ones was injured and a diesel-powered ambulance arrived to take him or her to the hospital, you wouldn't tell the ambulance driver to go away, would you?

No, so.....what, exactly?

You've got to calculate that balance fairly, though. I agree that the environmental damage associated with mega-farming is significant, and that we should do what we can to minimize it, but does it really outweigh the benefit of a stable food supply?

Modern farming practices have prevented a huge number of deaths from famine. How much pollution would it take to outweigh that?

The food supply isn't stable. We've seen more and greater famines in the 20th century than we've ever seen before.

With all these weapons being built, don't you find it strange that at this point in history, the average person has the lowest-ever likelihood of dying by violence? In all of human history, on the whole, this is the time of the greatest peace: being killed by another person is now an abberation... at most times in our species' history, it was commonplace.

Really? The average person where? Sudan? Inner city Chicago? Downtown LA? Or do you have suburban white folk (the beautiful people) in mind?

This contrast says to me that you're not fully accounting for the positive effects of technology... or maybe that the harm associated with the negative aspects isn't as bad as you portray it.

Possible.

Would this forum have room for people like me, who want to tell the Vatican that they're no moral authority at all, that they should get their own house in order before they start worrying about what other people are doing, and that while they may think that their "wisdom" is God's gift to humanity, this opinion is in the distinct minority once you get beyond St. Peter's Square?

It's a public forum, so yes.

I do notice, though, a distinct double standard on your part: the Vatican can do what it wants as long as it's legal, while biochem companies need to have their legal actions "mediated" by public debate.

No, I've said that technological advances should be publicly scrutinised before widespread implementation. Once that scrutiny has taken place, the company can do with it what the society says it can do with it.

I'd say that on the whole, the Vatican is more of a source of harm for the world than any biochem company. Why shouldn't we have a public debate to "mediate" its activities, then?

We do. People can choose not to support the RCC. They can go to other churches or no church. But as it happens, the average person (there she is again!) has no choice but to eat food produced unethically and unsafely (is that a word?).

But it's definitely not an internal matter of the Catholic Church, which was my point. They're butting into my affairs, so IMO this give me the right to butt in right back.

Yep.

So you think that this spill is an inevitable result of drilling for oil?

Not quite. But if the oil industry hadn't had control of our political machinery from the get-go, we could have had honest debate about the effects of their products long ago. If we weren't in such political thrall to giants like BP, we could have invented and implemented alternatives to this wasteful and dangerous technology long ago.

And yes, you were asked. You were asked every time you voted in an election (or, if you didn't find any of the candidates to your satisfaction, every time you chose not to run yourself). You were asked every time you went to the store and made choices as a consumer.

Pap.

In recent decades, you would've been directly asked for your input on these sorts of projects through the environmental assessment process. I've personally gone to the people to solicit their input on things as minor as whether a left turn lane should be built on a highway; I'm sure that if you had really, seriously wanted to speak out, you would've had your chance.

Your assurance is misguided.

If you don't think your voice was heard, it's just that you were asked along with everyone else and your voice is only one of many.

Ah yes, the status quo is the way to go.

Either that, or your voice was heard... but it was your actions that were heard more loudly than your words. I don't know whether this is the case for you, but I do know that the commercial success that drives things like the pursuit of more oil is dependent on consumer demand... and that demand comes from all of us.

Yes, the market (the secular god).

Well, be branded a heretic, then. Why should other people's opinions stop you from doing what you think is right?

You're missing the point. By being branded a heretic, you are no longer taken seriously in discourse. Being marginalised, your freedom to maneouvre and participate in public discourse is limited.

I both agree and disagree.

On the one hand, in principle, I think you're right: we should have a right to speak out about the things that impact our lives. However, I wouldn't limit it solely to technology. I think that anything that has the potential to harm us is fair game for us to limit it. This would include, for instance, the power given to the Catholic Church and other religious institutions by many governments around the world.

What de jure power does the RCC have in the USA (or any other Western country for that matter)?

On the other hand, I worry about one aspect of letting the powers that be place limits on technology: technological advancement often creates major shifts in social power. One of the common themes of the technological advancement of the last few centuries is the increase in political and social power for classes of people who never really had it before. We have a middle class because of technology.

No, we have a middle class because of political reforms enacted in the 17th and 18th centuries.

I'd argue that without the Industrial Revolution, Britain wouldn't have even extended the vote to all men, to say nothing of women. It was the increased wealth and economic power of the middle class, brought about by technological advancement, that enabled them to gain political power as well.

That may be so. But that's no argument that technological advance should be viewed as an automatic and unquestioned good. The IR caused a great deal of mayhem and chicanery, too, and perhaps slowing down that movement could have allowed society to less painfully adapt. Coulda shoulda woulda....

If you give those who currently hold power the ability to limit technology, then I worry that you may prevent positive societal change like this from happening. I think the ability to limit the advance of technology needs to be subjected to some rational limits itself.

There we're agreed.

 

[Dunemeister]

Out of curiosity, do you think that this statement would be any less true if we replaced the term "technological advancements" with "religions"?

I'd say that in the case of religion it's already true.

 

[McBell]

I'd say that in the case of religion it's already true.

Please present an example where this already true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, let's talk about what I actually said rather than "impressions".

Here's what you said:

Yes, I mostly have technology in mind rather than "pure" science (whatever that is). Yes, we would have lost out on some advancements, but which ones? Nobody can say. More importantly, advancement that are doing us harm might have been averted, or at least their implementation would have seen some kind of regulation. I think those benefits far outweigh the potential problems of losing out on some discoveries.

Like I said, you say that the harm of technology outweighs its benefits.

If you didn't mean what you said, feel free to correct yourself.

No, so.....what, exactly?

So the harm of pollution and the other impacts that have gone along with fossil fuels. Even though you might prefer to not bear the cost, I don't think you'd want to give up the benefit.

Fossil fuels are what allow that ambulance to get an injured loved one to the hospital quickly. At the hospital, every single piece of life-saving equipment was brought there by some sort of fossil-fuel-powered vehicle. Most of those devices were made in processes powered by fossil fuels. All of the plastics you see there, from IV lines to the nurses' gloves, were made from fossil fuels.

I certainly think that we should strive to reduce the impact of fossil fuels wherever possible, and we should look for practical alternatives to them, but the whole reason we have a fossil fuel dependency in the first place is that those fuels allow us to enrich our lives (and in some cases, actually save our lives) in ways that wouldn't be possible any other way. If you want to make a fair assessment, you have to look not only at the dependency, but also the reasons for that dependency.

The food supply isn't stable. We've seen more and greater famines in the 20th century than we've ever seen before.

Because we have orders of magnitude more people than ever before. As bad as the 20th century was, it still allowed the average resident of our planet a much, much better chance of not dying from hunger than any other time in our history.

Really? The average person where? Sudan? Inner city Chicago? Downtown LA? Or do you have suburban white folk (the beautiful people) in mind?

No, I'm thinking about the whole planet, on average.

Think about what the causes of death are in Sudan, inner city Chicago or downtown LA. What proportion of those deaths are a result of violence?

For most of human history, the odds that your death would be at the hands of another person were somewhere around 20-50% (quoted from memory, so forgive me if I'm a bit off). In the case of some isolated tribes that have been studied today, it's as high as 80%.

Even in Darfur, where (according to Wiki) 300,000 people have been killed in the recent conflict but where several million people live, the average citizen still has a better chance of avoiding violence than the average person over humanity's history.

No, I've said that technological advances should be publicly scrutinised before widespread implementation. Once that scrutiny has taken place, the company can do with it what the society says it can do with it.

That was half of it. You also said this about the Vatican:

As for the Vatican, so long as their activities are lawful, they can do what they want, including lobby.

Again: why the double standard?

We do. People can choose not to support the RCC. They can go to other churches or no church. But as it happens, the average person (there she is again!) has no choice but to eat food produced unethically and unsafely (is that a word?).

How do you figure? What do you consider to be "unethical" or "unsafe" food production? Is there no food you consider "ethical" or "safe" available where you are?

Not quite. But if the oil industry hadn't had control of our political machinery from the get-go, we could have had honest debate about the effects of their products long ago. If we weren't in such political thrall to giants like BP, we could have invented and implemented alternatives to this wasteful and dangerous technology long ago.

I don't buy that. GE or GM are just as much "giants" as BP is. If they saw a way to make a profitable replacement to fossil-fuel-based technologies, they would've done it, and BP or any other oil company wouldn't have been able to stop them.

Pap.

How is my "pap" different from your argument about the Vatican? Why is "if you don't want it, don't buy it" valid when we're talking about a religion, but not when we're talking about a consumer good?

Your assurance is misguided.

Have you ever actually bothered to try to make your voice heard?

Ah yes, the status quo is the way to go.

No, democracy is the way to go. Do you disagree?

Yes, the market (the secular god).

Ad hominem.

Do you practice what you preach or not? If companies listen to your actions more than your words, what do you have to complain about?

You're missing the point. By being branded a heretic, you are no longer taken seriously in discourse. Being marginalised, your freedom to maneouvre and participate in public discourse is limited.

What de jure power does the RCC have in the USA (or any other Western country for that matter)?

Off the top of my head:

- in the US, responsibility for administering some government-funded social services
- in Canada, several provinces (e.g. Ontario) maintain funding for Catholic schools, but not schools of any other religious group.
- the Catholic Church is the official religion of many Western countries (e.g. Italy).

And on top of this is its political influence and de facto power, which it wields to great effect all over the world, often with the cooperation of local governments.

No, we have a middle class because of political reforms enacted in the 17th and 18th centuries.

... which is why Britain, for instance, extended voting rights to all men in the 17th and 18th centuries, and not in the 19th century after the middle class developed political power thanks to industrially-driven increases in wealth, right?

That may be so. But that's no argument that technological advance should be viewed as an automatic and unquestioned good.

Did I say it should? I'm questioning the underlying theme in your argument: that it should be viewed as an automatic and unquestioned bad.

I'd say that in the case of religion it's already true.

Which part?

Do you mean that it's already true that "a good many" religions have a "demonstrably horrendous outcome"?

Do you mean that it's already true that religions are "subject to public scrutiny before being implemented," and that they "suffer continual review upon implementation"? If so, could you give a few examples?

 

[Allah-lover]

Is it a reality or propaganda. How can we know?????????????????????????????

 

[painted wolf]

You could try to replicate the experiment.....

wa:do

 

[Dunemeister]

Like I said, you say that the harm of technology outweighs its benefits.
If you didn't mean what you said, feel free to correct yourself.

You failed to accommodate the word "some" in your interpretation, not to mention the general thrust of the entire discussion in which I have already pointed out some of the benefits of technology. If correction is required here, it's not from me.

You point out benefits of fossil fuels. I acknowledge the benefits of them. And in the end, I'm not really taking a position on whether they are better than possible alternatives. What I'm saying is that there has never been any public debate about it, and that's wrong. We should have vigorous public debate about how we organize our societies and not give that right up willy nilly to those who have a proprietary interest in us organizing ourselves around them.

Now to your point about my apparent double standard. Why do I take a laissez faire approach to religion but a regulationist approach to corporations? Because religion is a matter of conscience. I thought so much would be obvious. But you can (and should) regulate the predatory, profit-driven, amoral activities of corporations. People are free (at least in the West) to buy into any malarky (or sober truth) they wish that doesn't involve harming others (as defined by commonly agreed to common law or constitution). I'm surprised I even have to argue this point.

You see, the worship of technology isn't merely a matter of choosing between consumer goods. It's about organizing our society around the ideas of inevitable progress, the appropriacy of bending nature to suit our wants, and profit motive. Individually, these ideas are abhorrent because false and prone to abuse. Combined, they are a perfect storm of idiocy. The only way 'round the idiocy is democratic, bottom-up analysis and debate.

And getting back to the point of this thread, all religions have a duty to respond to the immoral deeds and systems of corporatism and corporations. More, society as a whole has a duty (which it has up to now left up to such groups as the RCC) to engage in this debate.