Thank goodness for these comments. The article structure makes it almost impossible to read. What on earth are they thinking?
China's Science Revolution
41–50 of 53 posts
Re: China's Science Revolution
#42http://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.
Counter-counterpoint: Nazi science is one of the main reasons why we have IRBs.
They conducted many unethical experiments to obtain results. If China is researching unethically (by plagiarism, etc), then their work is worthless.
Re: China's Science Revolution
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Poland, along with the eastern European countries doesn't have this hangup about human biology.
I believe what I was saying mostly applies to the US and western European countries.
For all their faults, communist countries at least took science education seriously. The idea that a woman and man have a finite amount of time to produce healthy offspring is a 'bad culture fit' for the kind of egalitarian orthodoxy that is not taken seriously in ex-communist countries.
If you're in the US or western Europe, try asking random average people what the age limits are before the natural fertility rate is 1% per month (it is age 45).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/age-female-fertilit...
Ironic that it advises education. Most IVF clinics don't accept eggs after 42 because the probability of an IVF cycle working is less than 5%.
Here's a study showing the contradiction between what women/men have the impression of being true, with the facts.
http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/5/1375.abstract
"Even though participants generally perceived themselves as being educated about fertility issues, both men and women vastly overestimated the ages at which female fertility shows a slight and a marked decline. The discrepancy between their perceived knowledge and what is known regarding the science of reproduction is alarming and could lead to involuntary childlessness if men and women's reproductive decisions are based on inaccurate perceptions."
I don't find it alarming that people make mistakes. I do find it alarming that this was well known in the past, even when people couldn't read and now university students are less educated than their grandparents.
Come to think of it, maybe the canard about education reducing the reproduction rate in developing countries is correct after all...
Re: China's Science Revolution
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
Warnher-von-Braun (and co.), who brought the fledgling "nazi space science" from the post-war Germany to the US.
if we follow the time-lines of the space exploration of NASA after 1960 and before 1960, his contributions are conspicuously evident.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_%28rocket_family%29
Re: China's Science Revolution
#45Re: China's Science Revolution
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
> And other advancements were... not as impressive as elsewhere.
This applies in the case of nuclear, but not in others: jet engine, rocketry.
Re: China's Science Revolution
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know what Tay-Sachs is?
How is that relevant?
It's a source of suffering that can be solved through genetic engineering of embryos that some group of people with resources will be inclined to address.
It is relevant because it precisely fits your criteria.
Re: China's Science Revolution
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that relevant?
It's a source of suffering that can be solved through genetic engineering of embryos that some group of people with resources will be inclined to address. It is relevant because it precisely fits your criteria.
Sure but my point is that technology that empowers a small group of powerful people to reduce their suffering may end up increasing suffering overall.
Re: China's Science Revolution
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a source of suffering that can be solved through genetic engineering of embryos that some group of people with resources will be inclined to address. It is relevant because it precisely fits your criteria.
Sure but my point is that technology that empowers a small group of powerful people to reduce their suffering may end up increasing suffering overall.
Yes. This is possible. You are completely correct.
Of course, this is in fact true for all values of $TOOL in "Given $TOOL, a bad thing may happen".
Re: China's Science Revolution
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but my point is that technology that empowers a small group of powerful people to reduce their suffering may end up increasing suffering overall.
Yes. This is possible. You are completely correct. Of course, this is in fact true for all values of $TOOL in "Given $TOOL, a bad thing may happen".
Sure - but the risks vary from tool.
Rich people editing their babies seems like it's more risky for society than most tools.