Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China's Science Revolution

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: China's Science Revolution

#31

Post by groby_b »

samdoidge wrote: post #19
arcanus wrote: post #8

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/03/138937778/plagiarism-plague-hi... I don't believe I can put it better than the article above, "These days, China is lavishing money on Mr. Science. But without the checks and balances provided by Mr. Democracy, the corruption plaguing the rest of the system is infecting the reputation of Chinese science. "

Counter point: Dictatorship Germany in WW2 produced many scientific advancements.

Sure. Granted, they killed a whole bunch of people for e.g. the medical advancements. And the advancements are at least of dubious value[1].

And other advancements were... not as impressive as elsewhere. See e.g. nuclear science.

But the upside of science under a dictatorship is that you will publish lots of papers claiming successes, for personal health reasons, so you've got that going for you.

[1] http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199005173222006

Re: China's Science Revolution

#32

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

oldmanjay wrote: post #30
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we prevent certain kinds of people from even being born in the first place, how is that not as bad as murder or sterilisation?

can you answer the converse? It's not at all clear to me how excising genetic dead ends is anything even remotely related to murder or sterilization, so I feel like the burden is on you to actually put something forth.

You're still erasing people from the gene pool.

Re: China's Science Revolution

#33

Post by TeMPOraL »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #25
biofox wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of the issues come from conflating positive and negative eugenics. Promoting and enabling people to have healthier progeny is in no way comparable to forcibly removing people from the gene pool through sterilisation or murder. People are going to have children regardless. If there's an option to reduce suffering, I think we have an imperative to follow it.

If we prevent certain kinds of people from even being born in the first place, how is that not as bad as murder or sterilisation?

If you're not spending every minute of your life trying to get laid, how is that not as bad as standing by and letting innocents die? Every choice you make has an impact on the life of your (or someone else's) hypothetical future offspring. Is fighting poverty tantamount to genocide? Richer societies tend to have less children and healthier children on average - which means disproportionately less of the certain kind of people that suffer from various poverty-related diseases.

Doing moral calculations on people who have not yet been conceived is tricky, and you can't simply equate them with living and breathing ones.

Re: China's Science Revolution

#34

Post by TeMPOraL »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #32
oldmanjay wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you answer the converse? It's not at all clear to me how excising genetic dead ends is anything even remotely related to murder or sterilization, so I feel like the burden is on you to actually put something forth.

You're still erasing people from the gene pool.

Gene pool is not made of sentient beings. It has no inherent moral value in itself.

Re: China's Science Revolution

#35

Post by groby_b »

petra wrote: post #21
joe_the_user wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think one needs a specific study for such a broad question. Science has historically based on a system of open debate. From Galileo onward, the ability of a scientist to engage in experiments which put commonly believed ideas into question has been one of the foundations of scientific progress. Both the NAZIs and the regime of Joseph Stalin had a history of supporting well-connected frauds to the detriment of…

>> Both the NAZIs and the regime of Joseph Stalin had a history of supporting well-connected frauds to the detriment of science. Can you expand some details about that in the nazi regime ? but leave aside that nasty stuff with eugenics(which wasn't really a science) and focus on the hard sciences ?

"Please give examples of pseudoscience, but leave aside pseudoscience".

But fine, let's skip eugenics.

* Ahnenerbe - racial heritage of German people, and plenty of occultism * Large parts of their human experimentation. * "Social Darwinism". (Granted, runs into eugenics. But it's the foundational belief under the whole regime, so hard to avoid) * Phrenology * "Jewish physics" - discarding Einstein completely. Trying to get Heisenberg & Quantum Physics, as well, but turned out his science worked a little too well to discard. * The idea that women can't get pregnant from rape[1]

In general, you'll find much of the "bad" science in the softer sciences - the more soft, the worse. The reason is that it's easier to maintain a fraud if the field doesn't expect clear reproducible answers.

The harder sciences were affected via Aryanization - e.g. Chemistry lost 25% of all its academics in the runup to 39.[2]

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/life/history/2013/11/nazi_anat... [2] http://cen.acs.org/articles/91/i37/Chemistry-Nazi-Germany.ht...

Re: China's Science Revolution

#36

Post by TeMPOraL »

internaut wrote: post #27
biofox wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of the issues come from conflating positive and negative eugenics. Promoting and enabling people to have healthier progeny is in no way comparable to forcibly removing people from the gene pool through sterilisation or murder. People are going to have children regardless. If there's an option to reduce suffering, I think we have an imperative to follow it.

Thank God for the Chinese. They must think we're insane. Bioethicists I've watched debate are seemingly unconcerned with the present day. I've never seen it emphasized (as it used to be once) that the potential for mental and physical handicaps goes up very dramatically as a woman ages. There exists a fairly narrow window to produce children optimally. I am confident no school children are aware of this through sex e…

It may depend heavily on the country. In Poland, which is arguably a western nation, we were taught about the "optimal childbearing age" in biology classes, and the women I know are acutely aware of the concept. Maybe what you're describing is a US thing?

Re: China's Science Revolution

#37

Post by Nadya »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #32
oldmanjay wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you answer the converse? It's not at all clear to me how excising genetic dead ends is anything even remotely related to murder or sterilization, so I feel like the burden is on you to actually put something forth.

You're still erasing people from the gene pool.

Under that argument - choosing not to mate is erasing people from the gene pool. Choosing who you mate with is also erasing people from the gene pool and denying people the possibility of mating with you at all is also erasing people from the gene pool. With the safe assumption that sperm and eggs have variations from one another - masturbating erases thousands if not millions of potential people from the gene pool and every period a female has without fertilization is another person missing from the gene pool.

Given the number of people on the planet - resulting in trillions (and trillions) of DNA combinations between mating pairs - millions of possible people are erased from the gene pool on the grounds of "not everyone can mate with everyone in a given lifetime, even if we wanted to". Not to mention all the potential genes that die each day.

I'm not sure I see your point.

Re: China's Science Revolution

#38

Post by Pica_soO »

melling wrote: post #7
biofox wrote: post #2

I find these reports both exciting and deeply reassuring. As research in the west becomes more politicised and regulated (the biosciences especially), having serious Chinese investments in science, with aspirations to become world leaders, is precisely what we need to promote competition and drive progress. Another example is the use of CRISPR gene editing in human embryos. While we are dragging our feet ruminating o…

Really? I've been waiting for over a decade for China and India to step onto the world stage. We should encourage and help more. These two countries with a combined 2.6 billion people should be able to easily outpace the research in the west. Does it matter if basic research is done in the US, India, or China? Imagine if China and India could each double the amount of research done by the US.

Four bully's instead of two surely make for a nicer school yard.

Re: China's Science Revolution

#39

Post by semi-extrinsic »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #32
oldmanjay wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

can you answer the converse? It's not at all clear to me how excising genetic dead ends is anything even remotely related to murder or sterilization, so I feel like the burden is on you to actually put something forth.

You're still erasing people from the gene pool.

When a couple uses gene therapy to ensure their children don't get stuff like mitochondrial myopathy, how is that bad?

Do you really think it's better for that couple (and society) that they do it the "natural way" and only have children who won't live to see their eighteenth birthday?

Re: China's Science Revolution

#40

Post by gumby »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #25
biofox wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a lot of the issues come from conflating positive and negative eugenics. Promoting and enabling people to have healthier progeny is in no way comparable to forcibly removing people from the gene pool through sterilisation or murder. People are going to have children regardless. If there's an option to reduce suffering, I think we have an imperative to follow it.

If we prevent certain kinds of people from even being born in the first place, how is that not as bad as murder or sterilisation?

The issue cannot be as absolute as you have framed it. For example, laws agains consanguinity (having a child with a close relative) "prevent certain kinds of people from even being born".
Post reply on HN