|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 239 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 200 of 239:
| 
Mar 1 20:41 UTC 1996 |
Rane, you're absolving the invention of any guilt at having been
created. That is so common sensical as to be absurd. A non-thinking
thing is morally neutral because it has no sentience. An inventor, on
the other hand, and the act of inventions are *not* morally neutral in
all cases.
Rocks can be used to the same ends as bricks, either as building materials
or as means of murder. Og, shaman of the Grog tribe, discovers it is
possible to crush a human cranium through the use of a rock. He finds
this information of interesting scientific note, and demonstrates this
information (using handy skull that happen to be laying here or there,
or perhaps a hapless nearby impala, as a demonstration model). Thenext
week, several of the tribe are discovered with their craniums bashed in
and with rocks laying nearby. Og didn't commit any of the murders.
So, as far as I can tell from Rane and Greg's arguments, Og has no
responssibility in this scenario at all. Is that accurate?
I'm not saying that a scientist should refrain from studying because
any study is potentially dangerous. I'm saying it's a scientist's
responsibility to maintain enough connection with the real world and
human behavior to know when a development's costs outweigh its benefits.
I agree, btw, Rane, that a scientist always has the right to put themselves
in mortal danger... as does anyone, for that matter.
|
tsty
|
|
response 201 of 239:
|
Mar 1 21:05 UTC 1996 |
Og has no responsibility for the murders, correct. The hapless
impala would disagree, certainly but that's a slightly different case .
ONe or three loose nuts behind the wheel don't make car manufacturers
liable for or guilty of murder - nor should that option even be
considered by rational people, imo.
Of course the state wants to control everything, so obviously the
state is guilty for every solitary negative event, buty the state has
given itself immunity so no one is guilty .. and anarchy reigns.
The obvious solution to this condition is to prohibit any/all/every
advance or creation until the state has total control over everyting
to the point where there are no mal-events happenning. Then, maybe, we
can afford the risk of advancement to some new creation or invention.
Yeh, right, uh-huh .... don't think so though.
|
brighn
|
|
response 202 of 239:
|
Mar 1 22:00 UTC 1996 |
Ah, we disagree on the responsibility that Og has. Dubious we can
say anything that would convince the other, so may be we should
stop boring everyone else with this... =}
Again, though, my extremem example from one end of the scale is
countered with an extreme example from the other end... well,
not the total extreme. The total extreme would be to blame Plato
of vehicular homicide because he generated a system of thought which
ultimately led to much of Western thought, which encouraged the
development of physics as we know it today, without which knowledge
many of the parts of the car would be impossible to devise, and
vehicular homicide is impossible without a car. 8^) So it's
all Plato's fault, the entire demise of the Western world. Heh.
I wrote the preceding paragraph because I'm getting the feeling
that Greg, Rane, and Testy think I'm that sort of neoPagan ecomilitant
nutsy. I'm not. I'm just saying that scientists and inventors have
the responsibility to weigh the costs and benefits of social usage.
Testy, for one, seems to disagree. *Shrug* So be it. =}
|
adbarr
|
|
response 203 of 239:
|
Mar 1 22:52 UTC 1996 |
Since I have been here last, I have created a device with a singular
effect: Push the red button and the planet is destroyed. Who wants the button?
|
brighn
|
|
response 204 of 239:
|
Mar 1 23:30 UTC 1996 |
Just leave it on the table, Arnold, someone will take it.
It isn't really your concern.
But what an awesome invention, you should be lauded.
|
ajax
|
|
response 205 of 239:
|
Mar 2 05:47 UTC 1996 |
Arnold, you need two red buttons, one for each hemisphere, capable of
destroying the opposite hemisphere. But not before there's time for the
other side to push their red button, too. Why does this sound familiar? :)
|
srw
|
|
response 206 of 239:
|
Mar 2 05:58 UTC 1996 |
So therefore if a scientist discovers something very important, something
which could change the world, but which requires careful and ethical use to
ensure that the change is for the benefit rather than the detriment of the
world, what is the right thing to do?
Because the most likely event would be the unethical use of this discovery,
I think I hear you arguing that the scientist should not publish the
information. I am certain that that is the wrong answer, however. Another
scientist is bound to discover the same thing and publish it, or maybe just
sell the information to the bad guys. Suppression of knowledge does
not lead to a better society. It is the stock and trade of a police state.
Publishing the information might even allow some other scientist to find a
way to counteract the detriment derived from improper use of the first
discovery. How could he know without sharing the knowledge?
Scientists, like all other individuals, need to make up their minds as
individuals whether to lobby governments/companies regarding the use of
any given technology, but I don't think a scientist is making an ethical
decision when he/she suppresses the results of research. Our society as a
whole, and not any given scientist, should bear that weight.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 207 of 239:
|
Mar 2 08:21 UTC 1996 |
Og was responsible for the crushed skulls of his test specimens.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 208 of 239:
|
Mar 2 08:47 UTC 1996 |
Do you mean to say that the unknown tribesman who saw that a crushed
impala skull was similar to a crushed human skull and used that
to twist Og's idea has some measure of Personal Responsibility
which Og has no influence over? I see here two separate ideas.
Og finds that skulls can be crushed with a rock. It seems from
what was said that his idea was that we can hunt more effectively.
This is good. Then we have a separate idea that crushing skulls
means death, and that can be used to eliminate enemies. Og is
responsible for disseminating the idea for improved hunting to
the tribe. Yeah Og! John tribesman Doe is responsible for the
idea of killing people.
Asid. I am pretty sure none of you are upset with the guy who
invented baseball, and specifically the bat. You wouldn't say
he is a bad guy. Yet in Japan you must register your baseball
bat in a more strict manner than registering a handgun here.
Because there, it is so common for Og's idea to be twisted.
|
brighn
|
|
response 209 of 239:
|
Mar 2 08:55 UTC 1996 |
Steven, it means sceintists should be well-versed in ethics.
Scary thought.
I'm confused about those of you who are so willing to condemn the
emotional among us for not thinking things out, but are unwilling
to accept that scientists have some level of ethical responsibility.
So Og maditates long and hard, and decides that the benefits (teaching
hunting skills) outweigh the costs. This is dubious, in this case,
Chaz, since hunting impalas with stones is not so effective, comared]
to arrows and spears, which more than likely Og and the Groggians
knew how to use. Maybe the scientist, though, *does* decide that
the benefits outweighs the costs. Excellent. He's thoughtit through.
Instead, what I hear people saying is, "He's developped it, put it
out for people to use, and if people abuse it, it ain't his fault."
Well, *that's* not thinking things through, and *That's* what Greg
originally accused the non-thinkers of. Full circle y'all have come.
|
scott
|
|
response 210 of 239:
|
Mar 2 12:26 UTC 1996 |
There needs to be a distinction between pure research and invention here.
If the atom bomb is an example of invention that some argue should have been
suppressed, what about the pure research of the Curies (into the nature of
radium very early on) that was the first real study of radioactive material?
How would they know that their research into an interesting phenomenon would
result in a weapon of mass destruction?
|
brighn
|
|
response 211 of 239:
|
Mar 2 15:58 UTC 1996 |
Gee I was wondering when which of you thinkers would get around to
making the distinction I noticed 50 posts ago. =}
Few scientists actually invent anything, they examine phenomena which
allow inventors to invent. Inventors can invent without an understanding
of the science of what they've invented, but that makes things harder to
fix when something goes wrong.
But the same thing applies. In the case of the Curies, the benefits of
their research are obvious... medicine, as well as science for science's
sake (which is, IMHO, a wonderfully worthy goal), and so on. They were
dealing with materials that inventors were already poking around, and so
the likelihood that some of the (natural) material they were studying
would have been used for this end or that was likely. Because of their
study, and that of others, those dangerous materials are at least
understood enough that they're less dangerous. *shrug* And if a
scientist goes into a field with *no* idea of the potential danger,
and stumbles upon something dangerous, then yeah, it's an ethical
dilemma as to how much to disclose. *shrug*
|
scott
|
|
response 212 of 239:
|
Mar 2 21:36 UTC 1996 |
No, my point is more about what both the scientists and inventors (who tend
to be the same people, quite often) can't predict good/bad, they are just
trying to get a handle on how something works.
For example, studying quarks and other sub-atomic phenomena. The research
right now is about figuring out what the heck is going on in there. Maybe
100 years from now it will be obvious what was going on in there, and people
may argue whether it was good to do that research (esp. if a weapon is
developed out of it). The only thing is, it won't matter what is developed
from the results. We've always been able to kill people and we've always been
able to help people. We just have more ways of doing both because of all that
research and invention.
|
janc
|
|
response 213 of 239:
|
Mar 3 01:15 UTC 1996 |
>Steven, it means sceintists should be well-versed in ethics.
>Scary thought.
Why scary? Scientists as a group are probably better versed in ethics
than most people. If you look at any group of people fighting for
appropriate control of technology (e.g., environmental groups) you will
find them just crawling with scientists. Many scientists worked hard to
discover the risks of nuclear technology, and worked hard to publicize
that knowledge widely. Science did not invent the bomb, drop it into
the hands of the politicians, and forget about it. They worked hard to
educate everyone about the risks of the technology. There was a time
when "nuclear" and "radioactive" were terms that had all the public
charm that "internet" has now. People were eager to have nuclear cars,
swallow radioactive cure-all drugs, and see nuclear-powered airplanes
fly over their houses. What changed their minds? A lot of hardworking
scientists who learned the facts and pushed them into the public minds.
So when you say scientists need to have ethics, are you just arguing for
the status quo, or what?
|
tsty
|
|
response 214 of 239:
|
Mar 3 06:49 UTC 1996 |
it also should be noted, with some degree of appreciation, that
the Curies (effectively) killed themselves with their research.
And i'm not so in disagreement with brighn as he might have interpreted.
However, if i were to use a nutcracker on his thumbs ... well, see
what i mean? All those delicious walnuts .. just rotting away under the tree.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 215 of 239:
|
Mar 3 08:11 UTC 1996 |
I was going to say something like Jan did in #213, but about Og. I
maintain that Og has no personal responsibility for the manner in which
his compatriots use or misuse the crushing-stone idea, however he has a
*separate* responsibility as a member of the community to be concerned
about any subsequent misuses that arise. I would not go so far as to say
that it is incumbent upon him to do anything about subsequent misuses,
since that may not be his forte (societies also delegate the enforcement
of ethical standards, in order for most members of the society to do other
things of use to the society).
I also maintain that it was not incumbent upon Og to suppress his
invention if he became aware of its possible unethical use, though some
inventors might do just that. That is *their choice*, and does not reflect
upon the inventor (though obviously some people think it does, as this is
what we are discussing).
|
janc
|
|
response 216 of 239:
|
Mar 3 17:38 UTC 1996 |
Actually, we are discussing "The Growth of Grex" but it's hard to tell.
|
brighn
|
|
response 217 of 239:
|
Mar 4 00:44 UTC 1996 |
Yes, Scott, I would argue for the status quo. I said that because I
was getting the feeling that the self-proclaimed scientists around here
resent having to consider ethics.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 218 of 239:
|
Mar 4 06:18 UTC 1996 |
And self-proclaimed ethicists around here resent having to think logically.
|
brighn
|
|
response 219 of 239:
|
Mar 4 06:36 UTC 1996 |
I don't resent having to think logically, but then I don't cliam
to be an ethicist... I have my own ethics, but that's it.
|
adbarr
|
|
response 220 of 239:
|
Mar 4 12:10 UTC 1996 |
So, what do I do with this red button (it is flashing on and off, now, do I
puh it? Try to disconnect it? Hide it?
|
steve
|
|
response 221 of 239:
|
Mar 4 15:49 UTC 1996 |
This later discussion has been interesting--I'd like to see it
continue, but in its own item, somewhere other than coop where it
doesn't quite belong.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 222 of 239:
|
Mar 4 16:56 UTC 1996 |
You mean, get back to the topic? The topic had been the popularity of
party, which engages a lot of users but which is rather empty-headed
compared to (most) discussions in conferences - like this one, for
example. However, rather than just derail it, STeve, you should provide a
little steerage back onto the track. Such as, suggesting what Arnold
should do with his flashing red button.
|
brighn
|
|
response 223 of 239:
|
Mar 4 17:05 UTC 1996 |
Push it.
|
arianna
|
|
response 224 of 239:
|
Mar 4 19:18 UTC 1996 |
*hug brighn* (Happy Birthday, hon...*sigh*)
|
