|
|
More and more we see that technology and science often clash with established social norms and morality.
Is science and technology a portion of our overall progress? I think all could agree that yes, the constant development of new technologies and new scientific discoveries is a facet of human progress.
Are morality and ethics also another facet of human progress? Again I think that as a whole, morals and ethics definitely are parts of our progress.
Sometimes people mistake the two as being a choice as one over the other. but I think they are interdependent, and should be treated as such. When science progresses society should adapt to the changes. And where society progresses we should also adapt our technology and scientific endeavours.
Example of a situation where we forget this interdependence. Stem cell and genetic research. Some people see stem cell research as taboo I think because we have been using human embryos, and there's something that says it's dark and evil to do research on/eat/murder other people. Rightfully so, because we evolved from creatures that had compassion for others of their species. But, now a scientist comes along that says that if you empty out the genetic materials in a cow embryo and insert human DNA into it (now I'm not sure if it's just possible or that it definitely happens, couldn't really find out anything more on this) that you can then have a human embryo without taking it from our women.
This is a backdoor solution to the taboo of using potential humans as research and test subjects. But, guess what there is still huge problems socially with this. I have no problem with this myself, and I guess this makes me some lousy liberalist/cold hearted/scientific/religion hating nutjob, but I just don't see the problem. I understand the need to pacify these people that are so clearly stagnant and stubborn, but there comes a point where we as whole have to make a decision to move forward and leave the people behind that will just hold us back and make threats towards us. Now I'm not saying that depending on where you stand on this particular example defines what type of person you are. I think we all have our own view of who the conservatives are, and that we all overlap in our views for the most part so there's no reason to get huffy puffy.
So I guess the main question is, should we as humans try to progress the best ways we know how and when needed give it a solid push when we're being held back by bureaucracy/red tape/non-progressive groups?
Sorry if this is out there. Haha.
Whatever we do will be put through the crucible of Mother Nature. If it is found lacking it will be destroyed.
We live to short of lives to think we have any answers that we can simply get on our own. We must look back at what others have done and what the net effect of it has been.
This touchy feely crap we have today is built on love for others no matter their contribution or traits. Acceptance at the price of discernment.
Without a clear look at history we are but children touching at the shirt tails of greatness. No idea of the harm we can do by rushing in on an emotional whim. This is where morality and being taught what is right and wrong is all about.
Getting us to think instead of feel is very important. Feelings are just a sense. Like hearing and seeing. And like those other senses they can be fooled if not tempered with wisdom.
For example, anti-freeze tastes great. But it will kill you. So knowing about the danger is important. And to not warn others is criminal.
So if we ignore the past and keep doing what feels good instead of what is good for us we will simply parish and some more deserving creature that better heeds the wisdom of the past will step up for a swing at greatness.
Maybe I just ramble. But their is a point in there someplace.
These are philosophy questions, not really questions of science. Specifically, some of the questions i see that you raised are: What is progress? If we increase our technology without increasing our ethics and morals, have we progressed? What about if we increase our ethics and morals but not technology, is that progress? Do ethics and morality change, or are they constant while we simply become more and more moral and ethical? Should we adapt to our environment (ie, technology) or adapt it to us, and why? If an advance is deperately needed, is it ok to "push" ahead (as you put it), even though our current ethics and morality disallow it (on the assumption that future ethics will allow it)?
All of these questions are awesome; each could really do with its own thread. But they're not really science questions. You might have better luck if you asked them in the philosophy forum.
The questions I asked were rhetorical for the most part, and science and philosophy have many relations but the subject matter was science related and not philosophical at heart. I'm sure no one minds that I might have crossed over a little bit.
| cornga56 wrote: | | The questions I asked were rhetorical for the most part, and science and philosophy have many relations but the subject matter was science related and not philosophical at heart. I'm sure no one minds that I might have crossed over a little bit. |
I doubt if anyone minds, but you're not going to get the right kind of people in the right mindset reading the question here. Your chances are just better in the other forum. Assuming you want an answer, that is.
I think these are certainly very complex questions you're posing.
| Quote: | Is science and technology a portion of our overall progress? I think all could agree that yes, the constant development of new technologies and new scientific discoveries is a facet of human progress.
Are morality and ethics also another facet of human progress? Again I think that as a whole, morals and ethics definitely are parts of our progress.
Sometimes people mistake the two as being a choice as one over the other. but I think they are interdependent, and should be treated as such. When science progresses society should adapt to the changes. And where society progresses we should also adapt our technology and scientific endeavours. |
Progress and thus technology are natural to our planet's mode of being. 
I believe morality and ethics are constructs no more (or less) natural that anything we do. Of course they are not JUST a matter of discourse but are obviously derived from physical reality - but still constructs. The Mountain People by Colin Turnbull is an interesting reference point here. I don't think that the concept of progress is solely fuelling the development of the technology. I don't think science is detached from people so as to people should adapt to it. It is a part of natural change. Everywhere in the world there are people whose beliefs, either progressive, orthodox or (even) regressive, must adjust constantly to the shifting reality.
Ethics only readjusts to current changes in the scientific or other discourse. And remember not to treat science as absolute point of reference. It is also embedded into a discourse (a construct!). The reality we are observing is not the one that "actually is there." Scientists, as regular folk, tend to think that scientific approach is objective but forget that if you observe the system and forget about the observer you don't know what you get - not the "true reality." Unfortunately "reflexivity" is not the strongest point of western scientific community and this sometimes renders science ideological (IMHO).
cheers, interesting topics, but too much of them in one thread. 
The amount of progress we have undergone is insane. Morality is obligatory.
Progress has been going on since the dawn of time. Progress never stops in a world with living organisms that have the capacity to flourish. Progress is inevitable. Progress is, in its way, pointless, when it reaches a certain extent. Example: we have enough nukes to obliterate most major cities across the globe, and some people still think we need more nukes. Example: Your computer gets 600 frames per second in most games and you still want that new nVidia graphics card. Why bother getting more when you already have enough?
Morality is something to be wary of. People will look down upon you if you don't observe it. People will hinder you from doing what you really want to do if you don't observe it. People will spark debates over it. It will create a vast amount of spam across mediums, and it has. How much spam do we need on the internet? How much spam and how many advertisements help anyone with finances? How much better would your life be if there wasn't so much spam? These are the things that come to my mind when I think of morality. Some people choose not to observe it. Some simply overlook it. Some devote their entire lives to it, and are either persuasive or secluded from the world. Morality brings to mind religion. Religion exists for the sole purpose of morality.... How much better/worse would your life be without religion? In all likelihood, it would be worse on the whole, as people fought over petty things. It may, on the other hand, be better in some instances. Perhaps you would be glad if there wasn't so much debate over creationism and evolution.
Well, that's all I have to say about that. My mind just went blank.
(Cultural) progress is something that I imagine is pretty hard to define and measure, and may be impossible to adequately define in scientific terms. Even scientific "progress" may be something of a misleading term, unless you take the perspective that increased public knowledge is progress, in which case progress is pretty much inevitable. On the other hand, progress may require steps we aren't willing to take as a culture, or that we consider to be unethical, in which case progress becomes a double-edged sword. It may be more scientifically appropriate to discuss things in terms of change rather than progress.
I think ethical questions are a common casual interest to many scientists because ethical debates are such a challenge to resolve from a scientific perspective. Many scientits I know actually get uncomfortable thinking too hard about ethical issues. It can be difficult to remember that a completely scientific world view is an inherrantly limited one, hemmed in by fundamental assumptions underlying scientific reasoning. Scientists are often tempted to ply their trade in intellectual areas where it may not be appropriate, and I think ethical discussions fall into that category.
I was having a conversation this weekend with a woman who read a book that was a discussion of the evolution of morality. Although I haven't read the book, it struck me as an effort to shoehorn a discussion on the nature of morality into a scientific context where it doesn't belong. From what I could tell talking to my friend, the book seemed to base a lot of it's discussion on evolution by group selection, which commonly misunderstood even among expert biologists. I can think of examples in nature where organisms seem to defy predictions of group selection, and it makes me wonder whether, even among non-human animals, "ethics" are culturally defined.
I think scientists need to get more comfortable with the fact that the scientific method isn't perfect, and that it's not going to tell them "everything" about the universe they live in.
|
