341–350 of 883 posts
Can anyone actually think of an actual discovery that harmed people? I'm missing some actual examples of what they're trying to protect people from.
A genetic cure for hereditary deafness looks possible. Here's the objection: "Members of the signing Deaf community argue that research which aims to eliminate or cure deafness is a form of cultural genocide. The argument goes like this: the use of gene therapy to cure hereditary deafness would result in smaller numbers of deaf children. This, in turn, would reduce the critical mass of signing Deaf people needed for a flourishing community, ultimately resulting in the demise of the community."[1]
A similar argument has been made against cochlear implants, which already work in many people who are totally deaf. "According to the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), “An implant is not a ‘cure’ and an implanted individual is still deaf,” which makes us realize the crux of the issue. Those who are deaf and hard of hearing consider these disabilities to be aspects of their identities. By using the cochlear implant, they are essentially killing a piece of themselves that they’ve lived with from the day they were born."[2]
Think about that for a while.
[1] https://impactethics.ca/2017/03/02/gene-therapy-a-threat-to-...
[2] https://www.theodysseyonline.com/cochlear-implant-controvers...
Yet, people can be harmed indirectly. For example, research may — inadvertently — stigmatize individuals or human groups. It may be discriminatory, racist, sexist, ableist or homophobic. It may provide justification for undermining the human rights of specific groups, simply because of their social characteristics. [..] Advancing knowledge and understanding is a fundamental public good. In some cases, however, potent…
Quoted post unavailable.
People are asking for example of something this particular set of rules would prevent.
An example that's already illegal in the most extreme sense of the word doesn't convince anyone.
This is a straw man. The only people who won't see it as such are those who already agree with you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the world we live in, this would be used to abort babies that don't pass the PGS to the vast majority of people who have this information. If you think that aborting babies, in general, is not immoral, then I, personally, don't see this as a problem. Let's try a different thought experiment: If you were doing IVF because you wanted one child. And you had two embryos. So you knew you would discard one. And you fo…
> But another way to think of it is: you had a choice to decide if your child can see. You chose to give them sight. Yet another way to think of it is: you had a choice to decide whether your blind child should live. You chose that they should die. Your desire to only want one child in this circumstance is not free of ethical implications.
Here's an example of scientific research being questioned for such ethical reasons, in a less familiar area. A genetic cure for hereditary deafness looks possible. Here's the objection: "Members of the signing Deaf community argue that research which aims to eliminate or cure deafness is a form of cultural genocide. The argument goes like this: the use of gene therapy to cure hereditary deafness would result in small…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And many many people will be fooled. At least you can spot the acolytes with "I believe in Science" bumper stickers and yard signs. Science is not a belief system.
No, but the trappings of science have been used to dress the new religion of the west. Same old shit, we just don’t call it god now, we call it “the science”. We are romans in the early 5th century. What’s coming won’t be pretty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting that the linked policy says almost the exact opposite of Fermi's statement, implying that ignorance is sometimes better than knowledge: "...considerations of harm can occasionally supersede the goal of seeking or sharing new knowledge, and a decision not to undertake or not to publish a project may be warranted."
I know the people behind statments like these are coming to it with extremly unintelligent and bad faith definitions and intentions, but the actual words are actually correct. If you had the option to delay humanity's discovery of atomic bombs to late 20th century or after, and therefore delay any substantial deep understanding of the atomic physics beneath, you would probably do it. If you had the atomic bomb, you p…
Here's an example of scientific research being questioned for such ethical reasons, in a less familiar area. A genetic cure for hereditary deafness looks possible. Here's the objection: "Members of the signing Deaf community argue that research which aims to eliminate or cure deafness is a form of cultural genocide. The argument goes like this: the use of gene therapy to cure hereditary deafness would result in small…
Reminds me of the book Far From The Tree. The deaf have formed proud communities but have also spawned zealous subcultures that are effectively cults. Some seriously suggest that deaf children should be taken away from unafflicted parents.