Mageth

ethics do not and should not come into play when technology is concerned.

So, for example, do you feel we should dam every river, drain every swamp, chop down every forest, pollute every ocean, exterminate every species and genetically "improve" every child just because we have the technology to do so?

ethics are a completely subjective out-of-date concept that bears no relevance on reality whatsoever.

You heard it first here, people! The murder, rape and pillage spree begins now!

like i said, if you don't like the consequence of the application of technology, go live on a desert island where you don't have to deal with it.

If our society decides to apply every technology without considering the potential negative effects of that technology, then eventually a "desert island" may be the only place we can live.

but technology will not be held back because you or anyone else don't like the results.

Did you even notice that I said that I'm not anti-technology? In fact, I'm strongly pro-technology; I just think new (and existing) technology must be applied with reason, with careful consideration given to the ethical issues such application may raise. One can be pro-technology without your "damn the-torpedos, full-speed ahead, fuck you get off the boat if you disagree" attitude.

irrelevant. the technology will arrive regardless. i do not seek to convince the ignorant masses.

So you apparently categorize anyone that disagrees with your potentially destructive attitude as "ignorant masses." Only avalanche:ix and his chosen group of technological elites are fit to make decisions for humankind's future! Ethics be damned; let's turn the world into a genetically-engineered, robot-driven wasteland just because we can.

I too want technology to advance, and think it will continue to advance in spite of some people's protestations. I just don't want to destroy ourselves and the nature around us in the process. Some technologies we discover may well be better left unapplied or applied with caution.

if they wish to fight against it, let them. they will be destroyed by the technological singularity anyway.

Somehow I picture avalanche:ix materializing in a ball of lightning in a dark alley of 1980's LA to seek out and destroy the future mother of John Connor.

The Other Michael

Hey folks,

Some of you need to remember that you are in the hallowed virtual halls of MF&P, and the level of discourse here is expected to be a bit higher than the expletives and insults I'm seeing.

I started out deleting insults, etc as I was reading down through the thread, but now that it looks like I'd have to edit a lot more than the one or two posts than I anticipated I decided to issue a general warning..

Let's continue the discussion in a more civil fashion from here on.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

avalanche:ix

those are matters of economy, not technology. you really should know better. besides, as technology advances, we increasingly get rid of the need to cause ecological damage using old polluting technologies.


well, yes. ofcourse we should. though the parents could always refuse ofcourse. but since many would actively pursue to have this done, it is something we should definitely do for them. and like i said, if you don't agree...there's always the desert island. don't trample on people's rights to utilize technology the way it's supposed to be used.




you say that as though you think it invalidates my statement. it does not, these things are only 'wrong' in a subjective manner.




the problem is not that society adepts technology without considering the potential negative effects, it's that society only sees negative effects, even where there are none or where they are grossly pulled out of proportion. look at the scare associated with the words 'nuclear' and 'genetic'. neither of these are particularly dangerous when properly utilized, and both of them have enormous benefits that far outweigh the potential negative effects. but because of ignorant and conservative people, people can't do certain things because THEY think it's wrong. thats all i'm saying. if you don't want to be genetically engineered for perfection, that's your problem, just don't impede my right to do so.



not if you actually consider 'ethics'. the only people i've ever heard mention the word ethics in conjunction with technology are the ones trying to ban things like research into cloning and genetic engineering.




no, only those masses which do not comprehend the technology. that should be obvious.



i, unlike some, do not intend to make decisions for the whole of humanity. i just wish for the freedom to do as i please, as long as it doesn't harm others. unfortunately, the 'ethics' groups prevent me with their conservative nonsense.


you know, you say that as though it's a bad thing. and i'm not actually being sarcastic. why would this be a bad thing, aside from the wasteland thing ofcourse? WHY is a genetically engineered robot driven world a BAD thing? i think it would be a great thing.


i'm a transhumanist. i seek the destruction of the human race by evolving it into something better.



that would be so cool.

avalanche:ix

i thought this was an intelligent forum of freethinkers where we didn't panick or get offended when we saw certain 'things', not some censoring conservative breeding hole.

i thought this was a mature place where we didn't have to hide our thoughts and feelings and dog-forbid, reality, because it scares us or is offensive.

were you *asking*? or were you being yet another censoring moderator with a touch of fascism? not an insult, just an honest question. though i doubt you'll see it as that and delete it anyway.

that would just dissapoint me in this place.

Mageth

those are matters of economy, not technology.

And "economy" is an example of something which should be considered when applying technology. My point exactly.

you really should know better. besides, as technology advances, we increasingly get rid of the need to cause ecological damage using old polluting technologies.

Congratulations! You've just applied the ethic of conservation to technology!

neither of these are particularly dangerous when properly utilized, and both of them have enormous benefits that far outweigh the potential negative effects.

So you do think that consideration should be given to properly utilizing technology, and that we must weigh the benefits against the negative effects? And all this time I thought we disagreed.

but because of ignorant and conservative people, people can't do certain things because THEY think it's wrong. thats all i'm saying.

Because someone disagrees with your opinion does not make them "ignorant". What you're doing here, and in other posts, is "poisining the well" by painting those who disagree with you as "ignorant" etc.

if you don't want to be genetically engineered for perfection, that's your problem, just don't impede my right to do so.

The genetic engineering of humans would affect the entire human race, not just you. Everyone's voice should be heard, the potential effects on all should be considered, as everyone has a stake in the results.

Once again, I'm not saying that genetic engineering of humans should be banned. I'm all for it if "properly utilized", to borrow your own words.

not if you actually consider 'ethics'. the only people i've ever heard mention the word ethics in conjunction with technology are the ones trying to ban things like research into cloning and genetic engineering.

Then you might want expand your reading by subscribing to the American Journal of Bioethics, or do a google search for "ethics technology", or "ethics genetics," etc. The last turned up as a first link the site genethics.ca. From the site:

Mission
The goal of this site is to serve as a clearing house for information on the social, ethical and policy issues associated with genetic and genomic knowledge and technology. Throughout, I strive to maintain a non-partisan and balanced stance, with regard to a wide range of opinions, and to the resources that are listed here.

i, unlike some, do not intend to make decisions for the whole of humanity.

This statement directly conflicts with your statement below, "i'm a transhumanist. i seek the destruction of the human race by evolving it into something better."

i just wish for the freedom to do as i please, as long as it doesn't harm others.

That's an ethical standard, IMO. I thought you'd disposed of ethics?

unfortunately, the 'ethics' groups prevent me with their conservative nonsense.

Perhaps they see "doing as you please" in this area as potentially bringing harm to them or others? By your own ethical standard stated above, aren't you obligated to at least consider what they have to say? Or are you satisfied with merely dismissing them as "ignorant" and banishing them to a desert isle (as to the latter, what was that bit about "harm to others"?)

i'm a transhumanist. i seek the destruction of the human race by evolving it into something better.

That's a subjective ethical goal if I've ever heard one. Can't you realize that many others may not see what you envision as necessarily "better"?

avalanche:ix

no...i said that is the result of technological advance. i did not nothing else.


they ARE ignorant. they really don't know what they're talking about.



nonsense! if we drink alcohol, our potential behaviour can harm others, we don't outlaw drinking alcohol. a small group of people learning more than others gets them an advantage in the economy, that affects everyone, we don't outlaw that, and we DON'T need to consider it. nobody, and i do mean NOBODY, will tell me or those like me that we cannot engineer ourselves because of the potential consequences for humanity, fuck humanity. we are *individuals*, not members of your herd.


nobody determines what properly utilized is. rule of the majority? opression. rule of the minority? opression. rule of the individual in each individual case? freedom.




that part of the human race that wishes it, yes. ergo, it does not conflict.



i never said i done away with them, please read what others are saying. i merely pointed out the fact that they are subjective, and generally obsolete.




no, technological progress takes precedence over any ethical concerns that i or anyone else may have.


i would not banish them there, but that would be their only way to achieve piece of mind if they have problems with technology, for *we* will not be the ones to leave.




then let them perish.

lunachick

Well, I've given this a little more consideration. After reading avalanche:ix's posts, I'm in full agreement with actively removing the 'stupid' gene.

Paul2

I'm an "elitist" because i choose to pay someone to pump my gas for me? pfft. Make everyone equal? why? If i can work my ass off to get where i am, other people can to. if they don't want to, then fuck them. i'm not handing shit to them on a silver platter. Since this is just mental masturbation, let's assume we do make everyone of equal smartness. What then? Who will collect our garbage? someone with a harvard law degree? Making everyone smart will not solve the "elitist" problem you think we have. have you seen that movie gattica?

Sarpedon

Well Paul2, I see no reason that we can't have intellegent people in relatively low status jobs. I have had such jobs in the past, and I was completely fine with them. Garbage pick up, for example is a relatively well paid job. I could easily see someone intellegent doing such a job, in order to pursue their intellectual pursuits during their own free time.

Also, your comment about working your ass off is quite apposite. I'm not talking about working, I'm talking about intellegence. Education and intellegence are two different things. I like you am working my ass off for an education. Those who don't want to do that, can be the garbage collector above. One of the smartest guys I know works as a roofer, and reads poetry and scientific journals in his spare time.

And yes, I say that you are elitist if you pay someone to pump your gas for you. I say this because not only do you pay them to do a simple task that you think is somehow beneath you, but also because you imply that they are stupid; "If stupidity is "cured," who will pump my gas? " and lazy; "I'm not handing shit to them on a silver platter." You imply that all your success is completely due to your own efforts, and that you had no inherent advantages over anyone else. Most people consider me to be "smart", but I am not so arrogant as to say I am successful entirely due to my own efforts. We all like to foster the myth of the "self-made man" though a person can achieve success through hard work, a person who is born stupid cannot. We hear stories about Carnagie, an intellegent and hard working man who achieved success, but we do not hear about the man who was born less intellegent, worked just as hard, and had to spend his whole life in a low status job and having elitists look down their noses at him. In short, the tendancy to attribute success to one's own hard work is merely an excuse for selfishness. A convienient fiction.

Paul2

You are right. I'd be at a severe disadvantage in my position if i had less intelligence then i do now.

But again, making everyone of equal intelligence will not fix the elitist issue you brought up. People will find other ways to discriminate.

edit: forgot this.

No, it's not beneath me. I choose not to pump my own gas because i am lazy or it's to cold outside. However, i would not do his job unless i was desperatly in need of money.