ethical no no tech

[Guest guest]

Technology is not neutral. Concepts of technology are neutral. Application

and development of concepts of technology are never neutral because as

soon as you elect to use anything, you are invoking a particular value system

as giving you the right to that use. There is no moral or ethical dilemma that

cannot be reduced to the issue of one's judgment regarding control or

dominion over oneself, other people, other species, or some facet of the

material world. To only imagine/conceive a potential benefit or any outcome

is a neutral endeavor.

 

Before the choice arises as to how to use something that has been developed

(and why not go straight to a hot button like guns), the choice was already

made to extract ore and fuel from the earth, and expend time and energy to

bring that technology into being. The initial choice to actualize the

previously

neutral concept results in an ever-expanding web of consequences. And

that's before the secondary choice of how to use that technology, which by

then only revolves around judgment of whether the gun is to kill for good or

bad result or merely be held up as a threat, justification being easy either

way.

 

The creative vision of artists and thinkers does sometimes prove to be

prophetic, perhaps as consequence to expression through the intermediary

technology of their chosen media. Somewhere along the course of bringing

those dreams to fruition, sometimes an awareness develops of consequences

that were not part of the initial vision. Perhaps a risk-benefit analysis

causes

reconsideration. Sometimes once the vision is actualized, experience elicits

repugnance, remorse, and desire to affect awareness in others of the deeper

realities inherent in an interconnected world.

 

Science is rational, but if I'm not mistaken higher mathematics (the unsolved

questions of the universe and all that) is not. The practice of medicine seldom

methodically explores all avenues of cause and effect, nevermind co-incident

factors versus requisite co-factors, and that doesn't even begin to consider

environmental and socio-economic. There are simply too many variables. I

personally believe that all medical research is fundamentally flawed for this

reason alone, and the necessary narrowing of study focus means that a

broader overall view is either missed entirely, or (to the sometimes advantage

of holistic and TCM) obtained by taking intuitive leaps.

 

Ability to successfully take these leaps comes from experiential knowledge,

the cultivation of which frequently leads to an irrational but quite real sense

of

our interdependence with everyone and everything, and the ripple effect of

every action we take.

 

Most people who say they believe in science and the potential future of

medical and other technology don't actually uphold thorough and systematic

rational thought, or they would more frequently arrive at the bigger picture of

a

holistic viewpoint. Perhaps they would even be moved beyond their self-

centric greed . Most scientists on the other hand, simply need to get a life,

because they don't have a clue.

 

Joe Reid, Philosopher I'm copyrighting this ©2005 just because I hate being

misquoted or taken out of context.

http://www.jreidomd.blogspot.com

[Guest guest]

, " jreidomd " <jreidomd@h...> wrote:

>

 

> Most people who say they believe in science and the potential future of

> medical and other technology don't actually uphold thorough and systematic

> rational thought, or they would more frequently arrive at the bigger picture

of a

> holistic viewpoint. Perhaps they would even be moved beyond their self-

> centric greed . Most scientists on the other hand, simply need to get a life,

> because they don't have a clue.

 

Joe

 

I am curious if you have read Drexler's Engines of Creation or anything else by

nanotech

philosophers. It certainly does not seem so. Nor Z'ev. Nor Roger. These

writers are very

concerned with ethics and even the main federal nanotech initiative is acutely

aware of

these issues. Of course, technology is applied by peole with values, but

technology itself

is indeed neutral - it is just stuff, how could it be otherwise? But again, we

have evidence

of another irreconcilable rift in our field and in America. I thus won't devote

much more

time to refuting purely philosophical arguments on this issue. Why debate

stopping

something that can't be stopped. Does anyone really think the military will not

proceed

regardless. Do people want all this data and power controlled by military

rather than

civilians? BTW, one of Drexler's well elaborated points is that technological

evolution is

actually somewhat independent of the other forces you describe. The evidence is

that

despite more cycical changes in socieoeconomic structures, technology has always

moved

inexorably towards the physical limits of the universe. We go backwards all the

time in

social affairs, but only forward in technology. something unusual is going on

there and it

can't be simplified to your supposedly holistic analysis.