Monday, August 17
Clive Hamilton on New Ecological Consciousness (Part-1)
Since we discussed about Global Climate Change last semester (not to mention the ever increasing debate) I thought it's appropriate to post a 2-part video I came across. In these videos (20+ minutes per video) Clive Hamilton talks about “Consumerism, Self-creation and Prospects for a New Ecological Consciousness” in a lecture series titled “Rethinking Our Place in Nature”. To learn more about Clive Hamilton click here.
For those who are wondering if they should spend more than 1hr on watching a video that does not interest them, here’s the content or topics that Clive Hamilton talks about (I have created & listed them in sequential order, and being a blog I have divided them into two parts for respective videos).
Topics in Part-1:-
- What has ecology taught us?
- Industrial revolution led humans to control nature.
- Recent discovery that nature is unable to satisfy human desires.
- Must change from triumphalism to humility.
- How?
:- need for New Ecological Consciousness
But, how?
one method: use reason to overcome appetites.
- Human reasoning has never been sufficiently powerful to change human behavior.
- Ecological Consciousness built on science can appeal to human reason but can’t appeal to inner sense of self.
- Must change self in essence and not relationship with natural systems.
- Existence of world of deeper reality behind everyday world.
“World hidden behind nature which renders nature possible” – Arthur Schopenhauer.
- Schopenhauer Vs Kant
- Every creature has a will to live equivalent to that of every human.
- Identification of self from nature:
“in man as in animal that does not think there prevails a lasting state of mind the certainty springing from inner most consciousness that he is nature, the world itself” - Schopenhauer.
An expansion of oneself with such appreciation.
- Metaphysical error and moral failure of instrumentalist approach to environment (environment as catalogue of resources).
- Emergence of new ecological consciousness will depend on emergence of sense of self and it’s relationship with natural world (and not much on change of belief and attitudes).
- How can humans construct sense of self?
:– by philosophical changes.
- Occurrence of structural change of present society from Productive Society (PS) to Consumption Society (CS).
- Features of PS to CS transition (Differences between PS and CS)
- Reinforcement of PS -> CS transition by other social changes.
Social reform movements in 1960’s and 70’s.
Collective democracy to individual self.
- Invasion of marketers before achieving answer to the quest of autonomous identity.
- Individuality (our current percept of individuality) of marketing society is pseudo-individuality.
- Need for radical re-thinking of relationship between humanity and natural world.
Current environmentalists use the approach of Green Consumerism.
Still Interested! Click here to watch part-1.
Clive Hamilton on New Ecological Consciousness (Part-2)
Here's the 2nd video to the 2-part video where Clive Hamilton talks about “Consumerism, Self-creation and Prospects for a New Ecological Consciousness” in a lecture series titled “Rethinking Our Place in Nature”. To learn more about Clive Hamilton click here.
Topics in Part-2:-
- Green Consumerism
“collection of efforts by environmental NGO’s, businesses and government’s to persuade individuals to buy goods & services that are less harmful to natural environment through their production, consumption and disposal”.
Self-creation from consuming green goods.
- Dangers of Green Consumerism:
Privatization of responsibility for environmental degradation.
Rather than set of problems endemic to economic & social structure, understood as individual responsibility to personal environmental contribution (consistent with free-market view).
- Failure of Green Consumerism to induce significant inroads into unsustainable nature of product & consumption.
- Implications of individualizing responsibility to democracy & environmental progress:
Transforms public debate from institutions (perpetuating environmental degradation) to about personal behavior.
Express concerns through purchasing decisions.
Commoditization of social consent.
Changes ethical conversation to questions of personal morality and not understanding cause & solution (structural factors).
Blocks real solutions.
- Green Consumerism dis-empowers by denying us our agency as citizens.
- "Consumers are not that same as being a citizen, just as Supermarket behavior is not the same as ballot-box behavior".
- Entrenchment of consumption behavior with self.
- Phenomenon of wasteful consumption
:– unbounded desires but limited capacity for usage.
- Evidence contradicting Environmental Kuznets Curve.
- Must re-manufacture ourselves and not just change our consuming behavior.
- Can the citizens be persuaded for an authentic fulfilling alternative to consumer life?
- Must directly challenge consumption & identity formation.
- Recent down-shift phenomenon among some individuals as a challenge.
- Non-philosophical, non-environmental motive of the down-shifters but for personal fulfillment.
Still Interested! Click here to watch part-2.
Wednesday, May 13
Bad science yet again!
It turns out that I read several journals published by Elsevier (now that I think of it, they're even publishing a paper of mine in International Studies in the Philosophy of Science). But they were recently outed about publishing several "fake journals". Unbelievable!
Tuesday, May 12
Euthanasia??
If someone is in an excruciating amount of pain, is it ethical to ‘make’ them live? Or is it ethical to allow a doctor to help them die? Society is much more liberal today than it was in the past, and physician assisted suicide remains a perplexing question, both legally and morally. Is it morally permissible to have a doctor assist in euthanasia when someone is in a lot of pain? I’m not sure.
A utilitarian argument for euthanasia: “Actions,” according to the utilitarian John Stuart Mill, “are right as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce pain or the reverse of happiness.” In the case of a terminally ill patient suffering from severe, untreatable pain, we would see that the happiness of that individual would be maximized by euthanasia and pain minimized. When someone is in that excruciating level of pain from this progressive disease it would make the person unable to enjoy the activities that made their life pleasurable, so there could be no higher intellectual or emotional pleasures to balance the physical pain. If the patient was to choose death, their misery would be reduced. Family members and friends would suffer by watching their loved one suffer through a prolonged illness. If the person was able to choose euthanasia for themselves, it would open up more hospital space and resources for patients with more treatable conditions. (It is important to recognize that utilitarianism requires us to evaluate all possible effects and how they would contribute to or detract from everyone’s happiness.) With the case of voluntary euthanasia, conventional utilitarian justifications against killing do not apply. Euthanasia is not a random action but one, which occurs only at the demand of a suffering patient.
There is also a moral question as to whether active or passive euthanasia should be used?; Active euthanasia being when a patient requests in and passive euthanasia being when a doctor does not treat a patient. I do not know the answer to this. There are also many legal issues that coincide with this issue. If euthanasia was legalized, there are issues of family members trying to convince their family member into it, and therefore receiving the benefits from a will, life insurance, etc. I would hope this wouldn’t happen, but you never know.
What do you think? Is this an ethical option?
A utilitarian argument for euthanasia: “Actions,” according to the utilitarian John Stuart Mill, “are right as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce pain or the reverse of happiness.” In the case of a terminally ill patient suffering from severe, untreatable pain, we would see that the happiness of that individual would be maximized by euthanasia and pain minimized. When someone is in that excruciating level of pain from this progressive disease it would make the person unable to enjoy the activities that made their life pleasurable, so there could be no higher intellectual or emotional pleasures to balance the physical pain. If the patient was to choose death, their misery would be reduced. Family members and friends would suffer by watching their loved one suffer through a prolonged illness. If the person was able to choose euthanasia for themselves, it would open up more hospital space and resources for patients with more treatable conditions. (It is important to recognize that utilitarianism requires us to evaluate all possible effects and how they would contribute to or detract from everyone’s happiness.) With the case of voluntary euthanasia, conventional utilitarian justifications against killing do not apply. Euthanasia is not a random action but one, which occurs only at the demand of a suffering patient.
There is also a moral question as to whether active or passive euthanasia should be used?; Active euthanasia being when a patient requests in and passive euthanasia being when a doctor does not treat a patient. I do not know the answer to this. There are also many legal issues that coincide with this issue. If euthanasia was legalized, there are issues of family members trying to convince their family member into it, and therefore receiving the benefits from a will, life insurance, etc. I would hope this wouldn’t happen, but you never know.
What do you think? Is this an ethical option?
Response to Graham
I agree with you Graham that for organisms like bacteria or insects it becomes difficult to discuss whether these organisms have intrinsic value. However, I have a hard time with applying “essences or a set of essences,” especially if they are to be a certain property that something possesses.
In respect to the “essences”, if it is something the organism is to possess, like as you state, a “physical, function, or potentially immaterial” property, wouldn’t labels such as these only help us sort out what type of instrumental property the organism has? For example, let’s say that it was determined that insect X had a specific role in its ecosystem, like decomposition of animal Y’s remains. I am assuming then that the property or essence of insect X would be: decomposer of animal Y. However, such a property seems to only designate what insect X does, not what makes it insect X. To me this is like saying that I am a human because I can talk, read, and write, but I am sure that you would agree that this is not what makes me human—these properties are not what make up my intrinsic value or even essence.
Also, there are some general problems of essentialism (which are why it is not generally accepted today). One, to ascribe an essence to a certain species you must ensure that all members of that species have that property. So what happens when a member of that species does not have that property or trait, are they then a member of a different species? Do they make up their own species? Second, properties may be very similar between different species (or even exist in other species). For example, a certain role or trait of a species may best describe its essence, but what if another species also has the trait?
In general, when it comes down to organisms like bacteria and insects; I think that it is more about respect such organisms through respect for each ecosystem as a whole. For example, if I make sure to not overuse and to reuse things that I need, and that I do not stomp around doing whatever I please and using whatever I wish (and along with other actions), I would say that I am respecting other people and other species around—and in general my surrounding ecosystem. So, in terms of biodiversity, by respecting your ecosystem (and thus the other organisms/species in your ecosystem) you are then helping in the conservation of biodiversity.
In respect to the “essences”, if it is something the organism is to possess, like as you state, a “physical, function, or potentially immaterial” property, wouldn’t labels such as these only help us sort out what type of instrumental property the organism has? For example, let’s say that it was determined that insect X had a specific role in its ecosystem, like decomposition of animal Y’s remains. I am assuming then that the property or essence of insect X would be: decomposer of animal Y. However, such a property seems to only designate what insect X does, not what makes it insect X. To me this is like saying that I am a human because I can talk, read, and write, but I am sure that you would agree that this is not what makes me human—these properties are not what make up my intrinsic value or even essence.
Also, there are some general problems of essentialism (which are why it is not generally accepted today). One, to ascribe an essence to a certain species you must ensure that all members of that species have that property. So what happens when a member of that species does not have that property or trait, are they then a member of a different species? Do they make up their own species? Second, properties may be very similar between different species (or even exist in other species). For example, a certain role or trait of a species may best describe its essence, but what if another species also has the trait?
In general, when it comes down to organisms like bacteria and insects; I think that it is more about respect such organisms through respect for each ecosystem as a whole. For example, if I make sure to not overuse and to reuse things that I need, and that I do not stomp around doing whatever I please and using whatever I wish (and along with other actions), I would say that I am respecting other people and other species around—and in general my surrounding ecosystem. So, in terms of biodiversity, by respecting your ecosystem (and thus the other organisms/species in your ecosystem) you are then helping in the conservation of biodiversity.
Monday, May 11
Private Sector Ethics
http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/20011009forum1009bnp6.asp
The above is a link to an interesting article written by John Prescott called "The Private Sector: Espionage, Ethics, and 'Competitive Intelligence." In the article, Prescott discusses the concept of competitive intelligence, which is the activity of collecting, analyzing, and utilizing business-related information to help make informed decisions. Prescott also discusses the ethical dilemma behind the use of competitive intelligence. The big issue at hand is that although some of this information and the competitive use of information may not be illegal in certain instances, there is an ethical responsibility for companies to use better judgment and respond ethically to the information they receive. An example of this is the case of Proctor and Gamble in which Prescott discusses in the article. According to the article, Proctor and Gamble used competitive intelligence in order to enhance shareholder value. Although this was not deemed illegal, the "average citizen" would view the espionage used by P&G to be unethical and illegitimate.
I found this article particularly interested for a number of reasons. The first reason being my background in business and my general interest in business ethics and how big business operates. The second reason for its relevance to the discussion we had earlier on in the semester about the ethics postponing the release of important medical information or medicines by private sector companies in order to gain financially. In our discussion of the topic, we discussed how some private sector companies often postpone release of new information or better medicines in order to continue to profit from current medicines or information that is available to the public. These two topics are very similar in nature. In essence, these private sector medical companies are using competitive intelligence to profit in the same way as these private sector big businesses are doing. I found this article to be very interesting, especially with our experience with the ethics of private sector companies.
I personally find it unethical to use competitive intelligence in the medical industry because of the ethical implications it could lead to because the potential benefits new drugs and information could have on the public. I find it a bit trickier in the private sector retail industry, however. The reason for this is that although I believe a company has the responsibility to be honest with the public, it is often crucial to gain a competitive advantage against your competitors in order to stay in business. Without a competitive advantage or use of competitive intelligence, many smaller companies would probably falter, leading to a few large companies developing a monopoly in the industry, which also leads to unfavorable results and potentially unethical behavior by the monopolized companies.
The above is a link to an interesting article written by John Prescott called "The Private Sector: Espionage, Ethics, and 'Competitive Intelligence." In the article, Prescott discusses the concept of competitive intelligence, which is the activity of collecting, analyzing, and utilizing business-related information to help make informed decisions. Prescott also discusses the ethical dilemma behind the use of competitive intelligence. The big issue at hand is that although some of this information and the competitive use of information may not be illegal in certain instances, there is an ethical responsibility for companies to use better judgment and respond ethically to the information they receive. An example of this is the case of Proctor and Gamble in which Prescott discusses in the article. According to the article, Proctor and Gamble used competitive intelligence in order to enhance shareholder value. Although this was not deemed illegal, the "average citizen" would view the espionage used by P&G to be unethical and illegitimate.
I found this article particularly interested for a number of reasons. The first reason being my background in business and my general interest in business ethics and how big business operates. The second reason for its relevance to the discussion we had earlier on in the semester about the ethics postponing the release of important medical information or medicines by private sector companies in order to gain financially. In our discussion of the topic, we discussed how some private sector companies often postpone release of new information or better medicines in order to continue to profit from current medicines or information that is available to the public. These two topics are very similar in nature. In essence, these private sector medical companies are using competitive intelligence to profit in the same way as these private sector big businesses are doing. I found this article to be very interesting, especially with our experience with the ethics of private sector companies.
I personally find it unethical to use competitive intelligence in the medical industry because of the ethical implications it could lead to because the potential benefits new drugs and information could have on the public. I find it a bit trickier in the private sector retail industry, however. The reason for this is that although I believe a company has the responsibility to be honest with the public, it is often crucial to gain a competitive advantage against your competitors in order to stay in business. Without a competitive advantage or use of competitive intelligence, many smaller companies would probably falter, leading to a few large companies developing a monopoly in the industry, which also leads to unfavorable results and potentially unethical behavior by the monopolized companies.
Sunday, May 10
Homeopathic Medicine
Reading Jenny's post reminded me of probably the funniest lecture of my college career. As most of you know, I'm a chemistry major and I'm taking Inorganic from Doc Bitterwolf. He decided he would introduce the bioinorganic chemistry section (biochemistry with metals) with a lecture laughing at homeopathic tonics/potions/mysterious liquids. Since it is a room full of senior chemistry majors, we naturally looked at some of the ingridients. Most of the 'magical potions' were just exteremly dilute metals/other crap. Almost every metal, even lead, is found in dilute levels in the body so I don't really think adding a little bit extra is really going to help.
Simply google searching homeopathic medicine lead me to this site:
http://www.hmedicine.com/
One of the little potions I thought was funny was what they called Petroleum (Crude oil!). My guess is that it is a can of crude oil. Or even oil mixed with water (wait, that doesn't make senes). Some of the things it says to treat include (but certainly not limited to!) Motion Sickness, eczema, smelly sweat, and even diarrhea! Take note that these conditions have almost nothing related to each other... at least none that I can think of. Besidese, crude oil is chop full of all sorts of things. Mostly non-toxic but there are some nasties in there--you wouldn't drink gasoline, would you?
I'd strongly suggest checking that website out, or others like it, for a good laugh. Especially if you have a decent background in biological systems/chemistry.
Finally, wish I were smart enough to bottle crap and sell it to the uneducated for lots of money..
Simply google searching homeopathic medicine lead me to this site:
http://www.hmedicine.com/
One of the little potions I thought was funny was what they called Petroleum (Crude oil!). My guess is that it is a can of crude oil. Or even oil mixed with water (wait, that doesn't make senes). Some of the things it says to treat include (but certainly not limited to!) Motion Sickness, eczema, smelly sweat, and even diarrhea! Take note that these conditions have almost nothing related to each other... at least none that I can think of. Besidese, crude oil is chop full of all sorts of things. Mostly non-toxic but there are some nasties in there--you wouldn't drink gasoline, would you?
I'd strongly suggest checking that website out, or others like it, for a good laugh. Especially if you have a decent background in biological systems/chemistry.
Finally, wish I were smart enough to bottle crap and sell it to the uneducated for lots of money..
More on
Lauren asked some great preemptive questions to my presentation about biodiversity and sustainability in her last post. When talking about responsibility, I think it’s intuitive that humans are the primary cause of biodiversity loss and destruction to the environment. Therefore it is our responsibility to solve the problems that we are causing. I believe that the utility that biodiversity can provide, necessitates a significant global response to this problem. When discussing how to go about solving this problem, I agree with Wilson that we ought to “freeze” these biodiverse places. A place is something that Sahotra Sarkar identified in ecology as an area with a major concentration of biodiversity. Though this (and a few other) concept(s) in ecology are ambiguous, there is generally an agreement of when enough diversity exists in a population to be considered biodiverse.
In our discussion following my presentation, there seemed to be a real problem with the notion of intrinsic and instrumental value of biodiversity. I agree with Matthew, that if we rethink biodiversity as this pool of resources for the taking, then we may destroy places simply for their instrumental value. There seems to be a fine line between the recognition of the value biodiversity has, and the acquisition and discovery of resources that could prove valuable. Perhaps this would be a major problem if we managed to actively recognize and protect biodiverse places. Making the argument for instrumental value is much easier than arguing for intrinsic value. Being somewhat of a conservationalist, I still believe life to have intrinsic value but the issue becomes blurry when discussing microorganisms, insects, or other minute organisms. A better argument is made for the uniqueness those organisms possess. Again it seems we can agree that the extinction of a certain organism is bad because once it disappears, it is gone forever.
I keep seeing a reoccurring theme of essentialism in these recent issues. Essentialists believe that most biological organisms have “essences” or properties that comprise and demarcate what it means for them to exist as that organism. This reconstruction may work a little better in the context of discussing why life has an intrinsic value, as opposed to how it could serve as a functional species concept. Still we are left with the issue of determining what these essences or set of essences are. They could be physical, functional, or potentially immaterial properties (as Justin referenced) that something possesses. This notion seems far too unclear to make definitive statements about the intrinsic value of life and biology in general.
In our discussion following my presentation, there seemed to be a real problem with the notion of intrinsic and instrumental value of biodiversity. I agree with Matthew, that if we rethink biodiversity as this pool of resources for the taking, then we may destroy places simply for their instrumental value. There seems to be a fine line between the recognition of the value biodiversity has, and the acquisition and discovery of resources that could prove valuable. Perhaps this would be a major problem if we managed to actively recognize and protect biodiverse places. Making the argument for instrumental value is much easier than arguing for intrinsic value. Being somewhat of a conservationalist, I still believe life to have intrinsic value but the issue becomes blurry when discussing microorganisms, insects, or other minute organisms. A better argument is made for the uniqueness those organisms possess. Again it seems we can agree that the extinction of a certain organism is bad because once it disappears, it is gone forever.
I keep seeing a reoccurring theme of essentialism in these recent issues. Essentialists believe that most biological organisms have “essences” or properties that comprise and demarcate what it means for them to exist as that organism. This reconstruction may work a little better in the context of discussing why life has an intrinsic value, as opposed to how it could serve as a functional species concept. Still we are left with the issue of determining what these essences or set of essences are. They could be physical, functional, or potentially immaterial properties (as Justin referenced) that something possesses. This notion seems far too unclear to make definitive statements about the intrinsic value of life and biology in general.
Wednesday, May 6
The Swine Flu Scare
The news has been flooded with the swine flu scare. However Mexico has recently begun to reopen their shops and schools according to an article by BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8036568.stm
I don’t know a lot about the virus, but it seems to me that they media has blown the virus out of proportion. From what I understand new viruses are discovered every year, with the common flu virus killing thousands of people around the world. So why is the swine flu such a big deal? Yes they virus has killed people, but the people at most risk are the young and elderly, like all virus infections. Why don’t the networks care about other viruses that kill thousands of people every year? I think the obvious answer is that the news networks are making a ton of money off of this scare. By hyping this story up, people are checking the news daily/hourly to see if any new cases have been discovered and the news networks are making a killer profit. It is in their best interest to make things seem like a bigger deal than they really are. I wish the news networks would just report the news, and not add any “drama” to ensure that viewers keep coming back for updates. This (profit) is the biggest problem with big news networks, because they care more about making money then delivering unbiased news.
I don’t know a lot about the virus, but it seems to me that they media has blown the virus out of proportion. From what I understand new viruses are discovered every year, with the common flu virus killing thousands of people around the world. So why is the swine flu such a big deal? Yes they virus has killed people, but the people at most risk are the young and elderly, like all virus infections. Why don’t the networks care about other viruses that kill thousands of people every year? I think the obvious answer is that the news networks are making a ton of money off of this scare. By hyping this story up, people are checking the news daily/hourly to see if any new cases have been discovered and the news networks are making a killer profit. It is in their best interest to make things seem like a bigger deal than they really are. I wish the news networks would just report the news, and not add any “drama” to ensure that viewers keep coming back for updates. This (profit) is the biggest problem with big news networks, because they care more about making money then delivering unbiased news.
Tuesday, May 5
Some stuff I found interesting
I had to do a group project in one of my animal science classes where we refuted posters that were put up in the commons that were fighting against milk, meat, and cows in general. Our group choose bST (bovine somatotropin) as our topic. I have already stated my oppinion about how I feel that this hormone is being misrepresented and the media is using scare tactics so people wont use it.
One of the largest arguements that is being thrown around is that cows are absolutely terrible and destroying our country by releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere. According to K. A. Johnson and D. E. Johnson from Washington State University in their article "Methane emissions from cattle,""Ruminant livestock can produce 250 to 500 L of methane per day. This level of production results in estimates of the contribution by cattle to global warming that may occur in the next 50 to 100 yr to be a little less than 2%." To add to my arguement for for bST, using rbST (which is the manufactured hormone produced the same way as human insulin for diabetics) reduces the number of lactating cows required to produce a given quantity of milk = reducing feed products = A reduction of cultivated cropland =decrease soil erosion and reducing the number of cows reduces the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Using rbST in 1 million cows saves enough cropland to reduce soil erosion by 2,300,00 tons per year and CO2 emmisions by 824,000,000 kg per year. Even though cows are only contributing to global warming under 2%, bST can reduce this even more. I just thought all this was interesting.
While we were researching for materials we also stumbled across this book and website that I just can't believe are even out there (well I guess i can, there is alot of crap out there) but still... Its so ridiculous to see what out there. The book is called Milk A-Z and the website is notmilk.com. If anyone has the time to check out something, definitely check out the website. It just humors me to see how hostile they are. They call some of the best animal scientists in the world "the clueless ones." So much of this websites information is not cited and I could not find anything to back up half the information. I believe this ties in with alot of what we have said about publications and how they are un sesored and not peer reviewed. They are claiming all facts but they have no way to back that up. I think this is a great case of someone who falls under the category of the "tyranny of the ignorant" and is leading many others to fall for the same trap.
One of the largest arguements that is being thrown around is that cows are absolutely terrible and destroying our country by releasing tons of methane into the atmosphere. According to K. A. Johnson and D. E. Johnson from Washington State University in their article "Methane emissions from cattle,""Ruminant livestock can produce 250 to 500 L of methane per day. This level of production results in estimates of the contribution by cattle to global warming that may occur in the next 50 to 100 yr to be a little less than 2%." To add to my arguement for for bST, using rbST (which is the manufactured hormone produced the same way as human insulin for diabetics) reduces the number of lactating cows required to produce a given quantity of milk = reducing feed products = A reduction of cultivated cropland =decrease soil erosion and reducing the number of cows reduces the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Using rbST in 1 million cows saves enough cropland to reduce soil erosion by 2,300,00 tons per year and CO2 emmisions by 824,000,000 kg per year. Even though cows are only contributing to global warming under 2%, bST can reduce this even more. I just thought all this was interesting.
While we were researching for materials we also stumbled across this book and website that I just can't believe are even out there (well I guess i can, there is alot of crap out there) but still... Its so ridiculous to see what out there. The book is called Milk A-Z and the website is notmilk.com. If anyone has the time to check out something, definitely check out the website. It just humors me to see how hostile they are. They call some of the best animal scientists in the world "the clueless ones." So much of this websites information is not cited and I could not find anything to back up half the information. I believe this ties in with alot of what we have said about publications and how they are un sesored and not peer reviewed. They are claiming all facts but they have no way to back that up. I think this is a great case of someone who falls under the category of the "tyranny of the ignorant" and is leading many others to fall for the same trap.
Biodiversity Conservation
Unmined Riches- E.O. Wilson
Wilson explains that if we use our available manpower, the United States could make a substantial contribution to a global biodiversity survey. He explains there first should be an emergency assessment of immediately threatened regional ecosystems thought to harbor especially rich and diverse assortments of species. Areas where high diversity is confirmed could then be the focus of intense conservation efforts. He then proposes an intermediate effort aimed at a more systematic exploration of threatened areas that are especially rich in species, like tropical rain forests. Insects and other arthropods are so vital to the overall functioning of life, Dr. Wilson writes, that "humanity probably could not last more than a few months" if they were to disappear. Finally, a global biodiversity survey would combine the first two studies with more conventional long-term explorations. The survey would be broadened to include the tiniest creatures like protozoa and bacteria. This growing encyclopedia of life would provide, over decades and even centuries, a description of the living world that gradually coalesced "to create a fine-grained image of global biodiversity."
Because of the destruction of tropical forests and other habitats, uncounted species are becoming extinct before scientists can even name and study them for their scientific and economic value. An effort to survey all these "unmined riches," Dr. Wilson says, is at least as important as mapping the human genome or cataloguing the heavens, since it involves the living fabric on which human survival depends. I feel that E.O. Wilson has made a compelling argument for us to begin biodiversity conservation now before it is too late. I think that Wilson reminds the jaded viewer that there really is a crisis, and that it is nearly too late to do anything about it. This ethical dilemma goes hand-in-hand with global climate change in the fact that it is hard for people to first acknowledge the problem, and second it is hard to know what the effects will be. There are ethical and moral responsibilities that need to be taken into consideration. Who is responsible to conserve biodiversity? What about the responsibility to provide resources to people? How do we go about conserving biodiversity since it is so vast? Etc. etc.
Wilson explains that if we use our available manpower, the United States could make a substantial contribution to a global biodiversity survey. He explains there first should be an emergency assessment of immediately threatened regional ecosystems thought to harbor especially rich and diverse assortments of species. Areas where high diversity is confirmed could then be the focus of intense conservation efforts. He then proposes an intermediate effort aimed at a more systematic exploration of threatened areas that are especially rich in species, like tropical rain forests. Insects and other arthropods are so vital to the overall functioning of life, Dr. Wilson writes, that "humanity probably could not last more than a few months" if they were to disappear. Finally, a global biodiversity survey would combine the first two studies with more conventional long-term explorations. The survey would be broadened to include the tiniest creatures like protozoa and bacteria. This growing encyclopedia of life would provide, over decades and even centuries, a description of the living world that gradually coalesced "to create a fine-grained image of global biodiversity."
Because of the destruction of tropical forests and other habitats, uncounted species are becoming extinct before scientists can even name and study them for their scientific and economic value. An effort to survey all these "unmined riches," Dr. Wilson says, is at least as important as mapping the human genome or cataloguing the heavens, since it involves the living fabric on which human survival depends. I feel that E.O. Wilson has made a compelling argument for us to begin biodiversity conservation now before it is too late. I think that Wilson reminds the jaded viewer that there really is a crisis, and that it is nearly too late to do anything about it. This ethical dilemma goes hand-in-hand with global climate change in the fact that it is hard for people to first acknowledge the problem, and second it is hard to know what the effects will be. There are ethical and moral responsibilities that need to be taken into consideration. Who is responsible to conserve biodiversity? What about the responsibility to provide resources to people? How do we go about conserving biodiversity since it is so vast? Etc. etc.
Should College Athletes Be Paid?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/184556/should_college_athletes_be_paid.html?cat=14
The above is an article written by Lee Andrew Henderson regarding the issue of paying college athletes a salary for playing sports for there respective school. The argument proposed by Henderson in the article is that of they are putting in a lot of extra work and more responsibility than typical college students. She proposes that these athletes, at the very least, should be given a weekly allowance or some sort of small wage to help pay for transportation, food, books, etc..
Her second argument, which I find to be quite strong and compelling is her introduction of the case of the Texas Longhorn football program. In 2005, the Longhorns won the National Championship in which they gained $3.5 million. Another $14.9 million went to the rest of the Big 12 teams. All of this is possible because of the players on the field, yet they do not see any of that money.
It seems to me that a case can be made that giving these student athletes a monetary reward for their effort. Since many of these programs make millions of dollars for their respective universities, it seems fair to me that the athletes should receive some compensation for their contribution. I can also see the counter-argument that the money should be pumped into programs other than the athletic department for the betterment of the education of the student at these universities. I'm sure there are a lot of different information opinions and views on this topic. I'd like to see what all of you think about the matter.
The above is an article written by Lee Andrew Henderson regarding the issue of paying college athletes a salary for playing sports for there respective school. The argument proposed by Henderson in the article is that of they are putting in a lot of extra work and more responsibility than typical college students. She proposes that these athletes, at the very least, should be given a weekly allowance or some sort of small wage to help pay for transportation, food, books, etc..
Her second argument, which I find to be quite strong and compelling is her introduction of the case of the Texas Longhorn football program. In 2005, the Longhorns won the National Championship in which they gained $3.5 million. Another $14.9 million went to the rest of the Big 12 teams. All of this is possible because of the players on the field, yet they do not see any of that money.
It seems to me that a case can be made that giving these student athletes a monetary reward for their effort. Since many of these programs make millions of dollars for their respective universities, it seems fair to me that the athletes should receive some compensation for their contribution. I can also see the counter-argument that the money should be pumped into programs other than the athletic department for the betterment of the education of the student at these universities. I'm sure there are a lot of different information opinions and views on this topic. I'd like to see what all of you think about the matter.
Response to Global Warming
Before class last week, I had was not sure what my opinion was climate change. My uneducated opinion was that I didn’t think that humans were the sole contributor of climate change. I thought that a few politicians had nothing better to do and made a big deal about something that was not known for certain. That being said, I still thought that we had the obligation to change our ways to ensure that this planet is here for other generations. I thought that the cost of not taking action outweighed the cost of taking action regardless if we were actually causing global warming.
After class I have been convinced that we are actually causing the global warming. Before class I was not aware of the science behind proving that we have caused the climate change. However this really hasn’t changed my opinion of what we should do. I think that we defiantly need to change how we use the world’s resources.
How do we solve this problem? This is what I see as the biggest problem facing us. I think that raising awareness about global warming is the easy part. How are we going to regulate and enforce policies to reduce green house emission and reduce global warming? The Kyoto portal has addressed these issues, but they don’t seem to be doing enough fast enough. It seems that people are greedy and don’t want to effect economic growth by enforcing green policies. What do you guys think? What can be done and is it too late?
After class I have been convinced that we are actually causing the global warming. Before class I was not aware of the science behind proving that we have caused the climate change. However this really hasn’t changed my opinion of what we should do. I think that we defiantly need to change how we use the world’s resources.
How do we solve this problem? This is what I see as the biggest problem facing us. I think that raising awareness about global warming is the easy part. How are we going to regulate and enforce policies to reduce green house emission and reduce global warming? The Kyoto portal has addressed these issues, but they don’t seem to be doing enough fast enough. It seems that people are greedy and don’t want to effect economic growth by enforcing green policies. What do you guys think? What can be done and is it too late?
Monday, May 4
Last Meeting Information
For our last meeting — : ( — we'll take a sort of potpourri approach. First, I'd like to talk a bit more about climate change ethics and policy. In particular, it seemed to me that there was much more to be said about issues of responsibility at both the individual and national levels. In the latter case, we bump up yet again to global justice issues. We'll spend around 40 minutes, say, on this.
Then Graham will give his presentation (shorter than other groups, as he's been left without a group) and we'll take some time to talk about biodiversity and the ethical issues devolving therefrom — another hour, perhaps. Graham would request that you read the following short selection from E. O. Wilson's book The Diversity of Life. Since we were late getting this to you, I do not regard it as "assigned", but it's an easy read and potentially good fodder for discussion.
Finally, we can use any remaining time to talk about any issues/questions that have been nagging you. Let's stop briefly to look back and survey the ground we've covered.
Then Graham will give his presentation (shorter than other groups, as he's been left without a group) and we'll take some time to talk about biodiversity and the ethical issues devolving therefrom — another hour, perhaps. Graham would request that you read the following short selection from E. O. Wilson's book The Diversity of Life. Since we were late getting this to you, I do not regard it as "assigned", but it's an easy read and potentially good fodder for discussion.
Finally, we can use any remaining time to talk about any issues/questions that have been nagging you. Let's stop briefly to look back and survey the ground we've covered.
Saturday, May 2
After class discussion on Global Climate change, I still think that we have an obligation to future generations, but there is also the fact that the main public does not usually think of future generations, but also of now (I'm not saying everyone thinks this way, however). What I mean by this is for example, some people recycle etc. because they are trying to better the earth for themselves when they're still living, or they are worried about making it worse. They are not really putting in perspective or even thinking about how their actions could affect future generations.
I would also like to point out about the increase/change in our climate in general. I think no matter what, the earth will have cycling changes, but I also think that we are speeding this process up drastically. I think we all need to do our part, even if we think it will not make a difference, but maybe in the long run, it will help with this global climate change.
I would also like to point out about the increase/change in our climate in general. I think no matter what, the earth will have cycling changes, but I also think that we are speeding this process up drastically. I think we all need to do our part, even if we think it will not make a difference, but maybe in the long run, it will help with this global climate change.
Wednesday, April 29
Clarifying Human Dignity (Response to Graham…)
You brought up some excellent points in regards to the two types of human dignity in your last post Graham. I think that this is a very important distinction to make. I admit that as I’ve been thinking through the human enhancement, it has been the first definition that I’ve utilized (as you picked up on my last post). Just to clarify the first definition of human dignity relates to our intrinsic value as human individuals and then the second definition of human dignity (as Graham pointed out) relates to our behavior as human individuals. We use this second definition when we say that someone’s actions (running around naked or throwing feces at people) don’t measure up to some kind of social standard.
I think we can agree that the second definition of human dignity in regards to behavior isn’t what gives us intrinsic value. Going back to your lunatic running the streets naked. The fact that he acts in a socially deviant way doesn’t negate the fact that he has intrinsic value. This is why you as an individual can’t just shoot him or enslave him for his behavior. Although his actions may be undignified as a human being, there is still something about him which must be respected. He may need to be punished for his criminal behavior, but as Kant points out to punish someone for a crime IS to treat them as an end and not a means. It recognizes their individual responsibility as human.
You wonder why people like Kass seem to think that our human dignity can be so easily lost. I think a clarification here may be helpful. Kass’s whole point is that human dignity can’t be lost! It is impossible to extract from an individual there intrinsic worth as a person. It is actually those who think an individual’s worth comes from their biology or external social views that need to answer why human dignity can be taken away from someone.
What Kass is saying is that while, a person’s human dignity can never be taken from them, we can treat others as if they didn’t have that intrinsic worth. That is the danger of post humanism, not that is will somehow remove the “dignity gene” but that it isn’t treating the individual with the respect due them as a person with intrinsic human dignity. By analogy, enslaving a group of people doesn’t actually remove their dignity as persons but in a horrifying way treats them as if they weren’t intrinsically valuable individuals.
I can relate to your frustration when Kass never clearly defines human dignity. That is one of the weaknesses of his argument I admit. But, let’s look at both sides. The post-human proponents say that if Kass can’t give a clear definition for human dignity then he shouldn’t denounce them as harming this unidentified thing. On the same note though, if the proponents can’t give an adequate definition for human dignity how can they say that Kass’s policies oppose it? It’s pretty clear I believe that the proponents haven’t provided a clear and defensible definition for human dignity and how post humanism won’t harm it.
One last question, I haven’t taken phil bio but the notion of essentialism seems interesting. If essentialism holds that a species has a distinct set of properties that define it as a species, are these properties physical or immaterial? Is essentialism referring to scientifically, statistically determined characteristics like Fukuyama’s Factor X or does it refer to a philosophical, classical definition of essences? (You’ll have to excuse my ignorance).
I think we can agree that the second definition of human dignity in regards to behavior isn’t what gives us intrinsic value. Going back to your lunatic running the streets naked. The fact that he acts in a socially deviant way doesn’t negate the fact that he has intrinsic value. This is why you as an individual can’t just shoot him or enslave him for his behavior. Although his actions may be undignified as a human being, there is still something about him which must be respected. He may need to be punished for his criminal behavior, but as Kant points out to punish someone for a crime IS to treat them as an end and not a means. It recognizes their individual responsibility as human.
You wonder why people like Kass seem to think that our human dignity can be so easily lost. I think a clarification here may be helpful. Kass’s whole point is that human dignity can’t be lost! It is impossible to extract from an individual there intrinsic worth as a person. It is actually those who think an individual’s worth comes from their biology or external social views that need to answer why human dignity can be taken away from someone.
What Kass is saying is that while, a person’s human dignity can never be taken from them, we can treat others as if they didn’t have that intrinsic worth. That is the danger of post humanism, not that is will somehow remove the “dignity gene” but that it isn’t treating the individual with the respect due them as a person with intrinsic human dignity. By analogy, enslaving a group of people doesn’t actually remove their dignity as persons but in a horrifying way treats them as if they weren’t intrinsically valuable individuals.
I can relate to your frustration when Kass never clearly defines human dignity. That is one of the weaknesses of his argument I admit. But, let’s look at both sides. The post-human proponents say that if Kass can’t give a clear definition for human dignity then he shouldn’t denounce them as harming this unidentified thing. On the same note though, if the proponents can’t give an adequate definition for human dignity how can they say that Kass’s policies oppose it? It’s pretty clear I believe that the proponents haven’t provided a clear and defensible definition for human dignity and how post humanism won’t harm it.
One last question, I haven’t taken phil bio but the notion of essentialism seems interesting. If essentialism holds that a species has a distinct set of properties that define it as a species, are these properties physical or immaterial? Is essentialism referring to scientifically, statistically determined characteristics like Fukuyama’s Factor X or does it refer to a philosophical, classical definition of essences? (You’ll have to excuse my ignorance).
Tuesday, April 28
Human Enhancement
So I just had a few thoughts from last weeks presentation. First off I just think it would be entertaining to admit that I had the second lowest score of 9 =) I guess you could say I am on the con side. When I think of the difference between therapy and enhancement I see it as this: Therapy is helping someone meet their current potential and I see enhancement as enabling someone to go beyond their potential. Is bigger really better? I dont think so at all. I don't think that being able to give someone a pill to make them happy will make the world a better place let alone that person be truely happy. I see it as an easy way out. I think the point that stood out the most from the critic side was the loss of pride in one-self. To give everyone the opportunity to make themselves go beyond their potential seems to me that what makes us so much different from other creatures is our vast amount of emotions. This is kinda extreme but I see our world going towards that scene in the movie "Wall-E" where technology was so advanced no one had the desire to do anything and they all became so obese they couldnt get up and they just sat around all day and no relationships except for those in their virtual world. That is a pretty extreme case, but I think one of the reasons we have people excell in certain activities is because they can take pride and joy into the work they put into excelling and that satisfaction you get when recieving a first place in an activity just wouldnt be the same. You took a pill to make you run faster, yeah you would probably have to work alittle so that your muscles could work, but that extra training you did to be the fastest wouldnt mean anything. The award ceremony would mean nothing, the pill deserved the award... not you. One thing I did notice throughout the presentation was that the two sides were almost argueing against different things and I believe this happens alot. The pro side seemed to be argueing for enhancement that could be used to fix physical deformities, physical complications, and diseases. The critic side seemed to be argueing against super humans. First off, for the pro side, I have to say that I believe a hundred percent that plastic surgery is an enhancement. But as someone said in class it has been so abused and the ability to help people has gone way beyond that. I think the the human race cant handle alot of our technology. I think it was said at the end of class, but the idea that we need to argue for the same thing and debate a certain situation instead of debating the whole topic. Sorry this is so scattered... I just had alot on my mind =)
Swine Flu Outbreak
http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2009/04/swine_flu_outbreaks_and_the_et.php#more
The link above is an article titled "Swine Flu Outbreaks and the Ethics of being Sick" by Janet Stemwedel. In the article, Stemwedel discusses many ethical questions regarding what to do when you sick. One question she raises is that of staying in bed vs. seeking medical care. In this section of the article, she discusses the cost-benefit analysis of staying in bed vs. getting medical care when you are not sure how serious your illness is. She brings up many interesting points for when you should get medical care vs. when you should tough it out. This dilemma reminds me of the prisoners dilemma reading we discussed in class earlier this semester. There are costs and risks that each decision you make takes on, and it is often difficult to figure out what the best solution will be to end up with the best possible outcome. On one hand, going staying in bed and toughing your illness out will not put a burden on the hospital resources who need to help people who actually have the flu opposed to those who are not sure. On the other hand; however, if you do not get treated, you have the possibility of getting sicker; also, if you do recover on your own, the tracking of the illness cannot be recorded and this also becomes a disadvantageous outcome. It's defintely a very interesting question to ask yourself when you come down with something and are not sure of the severity of your illness. I'd like to hear what you all think of the article and ethical issues it discusses.
The link above is an article titled "Swine Flu Outbreaks and the Ethics of being Sick" by Janet Stemwedel. In the article, Stemwedel discusses many ethical questions regarding what to do when you sick. One question she raises is that of staying in bed vs. seeking medical care. In this section of the article, she discusses the cost-benefit analysis of staying in bed vs. getting medical care when you are not sure how serious your illness is. She brings up many interesting points for when you should get medical care vs. when you should tough it out. This dilemma reminds me of the prisoners dilemma reading we discussed in class earlier this semester. There are costs and risks that each decision you make takes on, and it is often difficult to figure out what the best solution will be to end up with the best possible outcome. On one hand, going staying in bed and toughing your illness out will not put a burden on the hospital resources who need to help people who actually have the flu opposed to those who are not sure. On the other hand; however, if you do not get treated, you have the possibility of getting sicker; also, if you do recover on your own, the tracking of the illness cannot be recorded and this also becomes a disadvantageous outcome. It's defintely a very interesting question to ask yourself when you come down with something and are not sure of the severity of your illness. I'd like to hear what you all think of the article and ethical issues it discusses.
The Blur of Dignity (Response to Justin…)
Justin, I liked your layman’s definition of ‘human dignity’, particularly the notion of their intrinsic value. I’ve thought a lot about this issue because the question of post-human dignity looms at every end of this debate, and the dreaded post-human state is purely speculative. So we all have this intrinsic value that holds our dignity, human status, etc. but why does it seem so easy to lose? There seems to be a blurring of two separate definitions of dignity. Of course the sense that you are referring to as an intrinsic, state of “being human” sense of dignity; and then the sense relating to behavior, respect, and self-worth. Perhaps there is an assumption that we all have dignity regardless of our behavior. I know this is beginning to blend with definitions of integrity but I would argue that this second notion of dignity is just as easily compromised as ones integrity. Here is the problem I have when discussing the post-human, there ought to be (if there isn’t already) a precise conception of intrinsic dignity. If this intrinsic dignity could be compromised by altering the human state, then what other external (or internal?) factors could also compromise it? This was always where Leon Kass lost me in his argument. He argued for the potential post-human threat to human dignity but never really offered a concrete sense of this type of dignity. The lack of definitive explanation has always led me to believe Kass arguing for some type of theistic soul. I found this seemingly implicit axiom very frustrating, not to mention the nauseatingly frequent invocations of Aldous Huxley’s book, Brave New World.
I also don’t think dignity is relating to something as trivial as laws, culture, or “someone arm”, as Justin clearly pointed out, but I do question the dignity of someone with severely diminished mental function. Not in the sense that just because you lack mental abilities you cannot have dignity, but at what point does mental deterioration start affecting dignity? If your deteriorated mental state left you insane and you felt the perpetual overwhelming urge to run naked through public throwing feces at passersby, then your dignity would definitely be in question. Though this would be in the second sense of dignity mentioned above and not the first, right? Again the terms are blurring between the intrinsic sense of dignity and the dignity that we all have as self-respecting adults. The problems I refer to as the “blurring” may only exist as problems for me because of my own engrained perceptions.
Kass’s direction does seem to be moving into the immaterial realm which now resembles the tenets of essentialism. Essentialism is the belief that biological species hold essences or properties that constitute what it is to exist as that species. This is most commonly seen as a type of alternative species concept within the philosophy of biology. So if Kass is saying that our intrinsic dignity (i.e.) ‘what it means to be human’ is defined by this unidentified characteristic, then I take Kass to be an essentialist. I won’t go into the problems with essentialism here, but Kass will have to rise to an unprecedented level if he wants to beat this challenge.
One other point I would like to make is that it’s not clear that living an enhanced state would affect human dignity. Of course if we construe the post-human to the over-enhanced abomination like state of The Borg from Star Trek, then it’s easy to focus on the negative. I wonder if those who have experienced organ transplants, prosthetics, or other types of treatments feel as though they have lost something integral with their sense of self. This may provide a little insight into what the post-human state may look like on a very rudimentary level.
I also don’t think dignity is relating to something as trivial as laws, culture, or “someone arm”, as Justin clearly pointed out, but I do question the dignity of someone with severely diminished mental function. Not in the sense that just because you lack mental abilities you cannot have dignity, but at what point does mental deterioration start affecting dignity? If your deteriorated mental state left you insane and you felt the perpetual overwhelming urge to run naked through public throwing feces at passersby, then your dignity would definitely be in question. Though this would be in the second sense of dignity mentioned above and not the first, right? Again the terms are blurring between the intrinsic sense of dignity and the dignity that we all have as self-respecting adults. The problems I refer to as the “blurring” may only exist as problems for me because of my own engrained perceptions.
Kass’s direction does seem to be moving into the immaterial realm which now resembles the tenets of essentialism. Essentialism is the belief that biological species hold essences or properties that constitute what it is to exist as that species. This is most commonly seen as a type of alternative species concept within the philosophy of biology. So if Kass is saying that our intrinsic dignity (i.e.) ‘what it means to be human’ is defined by this unidentified characteristic, then I take Kass to be an essentialist. I won’t go into the problems with essentialism here, but Kass will have to rise to an unprecedented level if he wants to beat this challenge.
One other point I would like to make is that it’s not clear that living an enhanced state would affect human dignity. Of course if we construe the post-human to the over-enhanced abomination like state of The Borg from Star Trek, then it’s easy to focus on the negative. I wonder if those who have experienced organ transplants, prosthetics, or other types of treatments feel as though they have lost something integral with their sense of self. This may provide a little insight into what the post-human state may look like on a very rudimentary level.
Monday, April 27
Obama's Speech on Science
President Obama gave a speech today regarding science research, funding, and education. This speech gives a very broad plan for the future of our country’s scientific research and development. When compared with the American Competitiveness Initiative (that I spoke about in the group presentation), this plan does focus more on the education and research aspect instead of the profit-driven science and technological advancements. Yet, there are many similarities between them as well, which focuses on intertwining education, science, and the economy. While all of the points in this speech sound like they can help the country advance in many areas of science, there continues to be a strong tie between science and the need for economic growth (the "profit" of the government). There are many, MANY issues addressed in the speech, so if you have some time, check it out!
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/27/obamas-strident-support-of-science/
(The transcript of the speech is a few paragraphs down on the page)
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/27/obamas-strident-support-of-science/
(The transcript of the speech is a few paragraphs down on the page)
Climate Change Responsibility and Social Justice
Climate change has become increasingly important in the past decade. Increased green house gas emissions (carbon dioxide emissions) in the atmosphere due to human activities such as burning of fossil fuels, land use, etc. are resulting in increased global temperatures, glacier retreats, increased length of seasons, changing and severe weather, sea levels rising, etc. This in turn causes a number of controversial and ethical issues: the rich (developed countries) vs. the poor (developing countries) and the responsibilities and obligations that accompany climate change. There are many ethical issues that correlate to climate change. If prevention and reduction strategies are to be developed to address the issues of climate change, they must combine adaptation, mitigation, and ethical principles in developed and developing countries.
Politicians and world leaders have an obligation to develop a plan that will reduce the sources of climate change. However Chalmers explains that many value systems are ill-equipped to deal with the spatial and temporal complexities of the problem. Meaningful change will require collective action on an unprecedented scale, and will require that responsibility is effectively assigned and assumed. One aspect of this ethical dilemma of climate change is whether or not humans have an obligation and responsibility to future generations. Climate change is not only effecting the current generation, but could also have a drastic impact in the future. Secondly, there exists and issue of the obligations of the rich vs. the poor. Considerable changes in our climate will have a greater effect on certain countries. One of the complications of trying to develop solutions to climate change is acknowledging that it is a serious issue. The countries that are well-off and are financially stable have many resources, connections, and influences that can be used to inform and educate others of climate change. They also have the financial means to help fund scientific research and implement prevention and adaptation plans. Countries such as these have an ethical and moral responsibility to use their resources to help the effort of climate change prevention and reduce their impact. The problems associated with climate change will have the greatest effect on the poor. The plans and strategies developed to adapt to and prevent climate change need to be tailored so that there are responsibilities to the poor that guarantee social justice.
Politicians and world leaders have an obligation to develop a plan that will reduce the sources of climate change. However Chalmers explains that many value systems are ill-equipped to deal with the spatial and temporal complexities of the problem. Meaningful change will require collective action on an unprecedented scale, and will require that responsibility is effectively assigned and assumed. One aspect of this ethical dilemma of climate change is whether or not humans have an obligation and responsibility to future generations. Climate change is not only effecting the current generation, but could also have a drastic impact in the future. Secondly, there exists and issue of the obligations of the rich vs. the poor. Considerable changes in our climate will have a greater effect on certain countries. One of the complications of trying to develop solutions to climate change is acknowledging that it is a serious issue. The countries that are well-off and are financially stable have many resources, connections, and influences that can be used to inform and educate others of climate change. They also have the financial means to help fund scientific research and implement prevention and adaptation plans. Countries such as these have an ethical and moral responsibility to use their resources to help the effort of climate change prevention and reduce their impact. The problems associated with climate change will have the greatest effect on the poor. The plans and strategies developed to adapt to and prevent climate change need to be tailored so that there are responsibilities to the poor that guarantee social justice.
Human Dignity
While thinking about the enhancement presentation over the last week, the question of human dignity has kept surfacing in my mind. It seems that this is one of the fundamental questions that we have to investigate if we are to begin exploring the human enhancement debate. I think I’m going to write my final paper on this topic and was curious to hear others perspectives on the issue. I guess the question is, “In what does human dignity rest?”
First of all, I guess we need to at least try and define the terms. If I had to define human dignity in layman’s terms, I guess I would describe it as a characteristic of each and every human individual which gives them intrinsic and not just utilitarian value. In other words, we all know intuitively that you can’t put a dollar value on someone’s life; human life and money aren’t on the same spectrum. I believe that’s what Kant was referring to when he said we must always treat humanity whether others or our self as an end and not merely a means. Human dignity may be hard to define, but I believe that we all intuitively believe that there is something about us that gives us intrinsic value. And even if we don’t admit to this, we all seem to live as if human life had intrinsic value.
So, from where does this value come? (You’ll have to forgive me my Kassian exploration, but I’m definitely open to hearing other points of view). Two options which I think are ruled out logically are our physical human body and the common values of society. I’ll try to explain my reasoning. If we root out human dignity in our physical body or in our DNA we have made a gross err. The problem with rooting dignity in the physical body is that anything physical can be removed. If our dignity was physically found in our “right arm”, by removing that appendage one could physically remove someone’s dignity. I know this sounds a little ridiculous but bear with me. What about rooting it in our neurons? We could then say that to be dignified is to have a certain mental capability. But again if one loses this through brain damage, do we say that they have physically lost their dignity? The same holds true for our DNA, it may be immensely harder to remove, but any attempt to say that it is our basis for a dignified life is to say that if an individual had their genetic makeup altered, they could in fact alter their human dignity. Any attempt to root human dignity in the physical, material body seems destined to fail because, anything physical can be removed from the person.
What about viewing human dignity not as something emanating from an individual but as something that is bestowed upon an individual from the outside culture? In other words, human life has dignity because we all agree as a society that it has dignity. At first this sounds like a very reasonable approach but it too has a fatal flaw. If the surrounding culture can give an individual human dignity then they can also take it away. In our current western society we sometimes forget this fact and say that a person is valuable because we all agree that they are valuable. But what happens when society no longer believes that? Is that not what has happened all through history. Slavery, denying women their rights, child prostitution, infanticide, racism, is not each of these a situation where society has decided that a certain group of individuals no longer has the dignity that the rest of society has? If we are going to denounce these practices as objectively wrong in any sense, we can’t turn back around and say that human dignity is bestowed on the individual by society. That is just nonsense.
So where does that leave us? I think this the direction that Kass was moving in his writings. This is why he argued for rooting human dignity in something immaterial yet still in the individual. I agree that it’s hard to define and by definition can’t be discovered by science which only concerns itself with the physical. But, in light of the other options is it really that farfetched? We can call it the “The natural human activity,” or “human flourishing,” or the “human soul,” but I think that a pretty strong argument can be made for rooting human dignity in something of this sort. I realize that a positive argument hasn’t been made here but the negative argument against the alternatives seems pretty strong.
I realize that there are a lot of assumptions made in this argument, but if we agree that human dignity is something that does exist, sooner or later we must begin defining and laying out its boundaries. Any thoughts? Like I said I’m open to criticism and am looking for feedback before writing my paper.
First of all, I guess we need to at least try and define the terms. If I had to define human dignity in layman’s terms, I guess I would describe it as a characteristic of each and every human individual which gives them intrinsic and not just utilitarian value. In other words, we all know intuitively that you can’t put a dollar value on someone’s life; human life and money aren’t on the same spectrum. I believe that’s what Kant was referring to when he said we must always treat humanity whether others or our self as an end and not merely a means. Human dignity may be hard to define, but I believe that we all intuitively believe that there is something about us that gives us intrinsic value. And even if we don’t admit to this, we all seem to live as if human life had intrinsic value.
So, from where does this value come? (You’ll have to forgive me my Kassian exploration, but I’m definitely open to hearing other points of view). Two options which I think are ruled out logically are our physical human body and the common values of society. I’ll try to explain my reasoning. If we root out human dignity in our physical body or in our DNA we have made a gross err. The problem with rooting dignity in the physical body is that anything physical can be removed. If our dignity was physically found in our “right arm”, by removing that appendage one could physically remove someone’s dignity. I know this sounds a little ridiculous but bear with me. What about rooting it in our neurons? We could then say that to be dignified is to have a certain mental capability. But again if one loses this through brain damage, do we say that they have physically lost their dignity? The same holds true for our DNA, it may be immensely harder to remove, but any attempt to say that it is our basis for a dignified life is to say that if an individual had their genetic makeup altered, they could in fact alter their human dignity. Any attempt to root human dignity in the physical, material body seems destined to fail because, anything physical can be removed from the person.
What about viewing human dignity not as something emanating from an individual but as something that is bestowed upon an individual from the outside culture? In other words, human life has dignity because we all agree as a society that it has dignity. At first this sounds like a very reasonable approach but it too has a fatal flaw. If the surrounding culture can give an individual human dignity then they can also take it away. In our current western society we sometimes forget this fact and say that a person is valuable because we all agree that they are valuable. But what happens when society no longer believes that? Is that not what has happened all through history. Slavery, denying women their rights, child prostitution, infanticide, racism, is not each of these a situation where society has decided that a certain group of individuals no longer has the dignity that the rest of society has? If we are going to denounce these practices as objectively wrong in any sense, we can’t turn back around and say that human dignity is bestowed on the individual by society. That is just nonsense.
So where does that leave us? I think this the direction that Kass was moving in his writings. This is why he argued for rooting human dignity in something immaterial yet still in the individual. I agree that it’s hard to define and by definition can’t be discovered by science which only concerns itself with the physical. But, in light of the other options is it really that farfetched? We can call it the “The natural human activity,” or “human flourishing,” or the “human soul,” but I think that a pretty strong argument can be made for rooting human dignity in something of this sort. I realize that a positive argument hasn’t been made here but the negative argument against the alternatives seems pretty strong.
I realize that there are a lot of assumptions made in this argument, but if we agree that human dignity is something that does exist, sooner or later we must begin defining and laying out its boundaries. Any thoughts? Like I said I’m open to criticism and am looking for feedback before writing my paper.
Sunday, April 26
Possibility of Human Cloning
This is a video I came across on CNN.com. According to this, a doctor recently used cloned embryos and transferred them into 4 different women in the hopes that they would result in pregnancies. I find this truly unbelievable…first, that we actually have the technology to do this. And second, because there are people that want to have their children be clones of themselves. Personally, I would have a difficult time with the concept of having a child that would actually be a replication of me. It just seems weird. But on a more general note, with a “breakthrough” like this it seems like there are more negative side effects than positive. They state that by cloning the embryos and implanting them, they can provide a couple with “biological offspring”. Don’t we already have the technology to do this without cloning? A lot of time and money are going into this area of study even though there is an alternative that is already being used. In vitro fertilization is one option that has been used for decades now and the procedure is far less risky compared to cloning. The main concern with cloning is that there is a higher chance of the child having birth defects. So, is there a rational reason for this doctor to clone a human? In my opinion, the reason for cloning in this case is not substantial since there are alternatives already available, and the procedure should not have gone forward.
This video also states that there are doctors that clone embryos for the use of stem cells. These stem cells are used only for medical research. But there are other methods of obtaining stem cells for research that are “natural”, such as collecting umbilical cord stem cells after a child is born. The lines that have been drawn in the cloning debate seem blurred. How is it acceptable for embryos to be cloned for the use of stem cell research, but not for reproductive purposes? It would seem that once an embryo has been cloned, even for the use of stem cell research, it would be difficult to stop the eventual reproduction of a human being. Both purposes come from the initial act of cloning, so how can the two be distinguished?
The topic of cloning is very controversial and there are many conflicting opinions on the matter. According to the video, the doctor involved believes that his team will have successfully cloned a baby within two years. If we haven’t been able to resolve the issues involved with this topic by now, how will we resolve them in two more years?
Thursday, April 23
Human Enhancement: Buy the Ticket, Take the Ride
This started as a response to Alex’s post from a few days ago, but I think it’s grown long enough to become its very own thread.
While I'm sympathetic to Alex's view that human enhancement (particularly genetic) holds many tempting opportunities for improvement of the human condition, I have serious reservations about it. For me, morality of the pursuit of knowledge always comes down to motive and intent. Personally, I'm not against human enhancement for what it is, another technology to augment our reality. I have two primary issues with it, one stemming from personal belief and one from my concern for social justice.
To be fair, I will disclose upfront that my personal belief stems partly from the Buddhist teachings of attachment, desire, and no-self as they relate to human suffering. From my personal perspective, I am skeptical of the motives people may have for wanting to "improve" themselves in the first place. Are we really doing it to improve our health and well-being, or is it because it would be "cool" to have the latest and greatest super-human capabilities? Does this desire arise out of a general dissatisfaction with our present state? I think this is, as Kristian eluded to, psychological more than anything else. A lot of proponents talk about "improving well-being" and this "moral obligation to future generations to enhance," but I really believe these arguments are trying to hide a deeper, self-centered motivations of wanting to change who or what we are now. I guess in this way I agree with Kass somewhat when he says we should ‘let healthy bodies be,’ but this doesn’t mean I’m completely opposed to people wanting to ‘augment’ themselves either. We’re all at different stages of acceptance of our present condition, so I think it’s natural to have these motives. I think that in any case (and Dave, I’m also a fan of casuistry, case-based reasoning), the individual needs to truly reflect on what it is she values about both her present state and the improvements that enhancement supposedly will bring.
From the social justice perspective, this is where I hit a wall with human enhancement technology. Again, I think that self-centeredness is part of the problem here, because it seems to me that enhancement is often pursued out of personal fantasy and greed. Aside from that, however, I think we do have a moral obligation to the worse-off, and I don’t see how enhancement research is going to help them in the near future. Thomas Pogge, Norman Daniels, Dan Brock, James Flory, and Philip Kitcher (all those papers we had for the discussion on justice in research) all argue that we have an obligation to devote scientific research and resources to other people and other nations worse off than ourselves, especially when we have a direct involvement in their economic or social affairs. These resources are limited, and the more we devote to enhancement tech, the less we devote to AIDS, malaria, TB, water/food crises, etc. I don’t buy the proponents’ argument for one second that enhancement tech will eventually help these people someday. If we have a problem now distributing resources appropriately, how can we expect this to change in the future? I know Bostrom argues that future people will be smarter and maybe even more caring than we are, but I’d rather not chance the survival of our modern population on the enlightenment of future generations.
I also wanted to add that I agree with Dave that human enhancement is already happening, and I think we’re wandering through fog along the edge of a cliff. The technological capabilities to select for certain traits in embryos are mostly a reality, and it’s already being performed to some extent when we select ‘healthy’ embryos for IVF or choose to abort others when found to carry some dangerous disease. Our society obviously has a fascination with mood- and physical-enhancement drugs, which are highly advertised and made widely available. Cosmetic plastic surgery, whether the proponents want to call it enhancement or not, is probably one of the worst yet most widespread fads of our modern times, in my opinion. Maybe there’s no stopping the train, but I hope that individuals think carefully before they jump on board because, in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, “buy the ticket, take the ride.”
While I'm sympathetic to Alex's view that human enhancement (particularly genetic) holds many tempting opportunities for improvement of the human condition, I have serious reservations about it. For me, morality of the pursuit of knowledge always comes down to motive and intent. Personally, I'm not against human enhancement for what it is, another technology to augment our reality. I have two primary issues with it, one stemming from personal belief and one from my concern for social justice.
To be fair, I will disclose upfront that my personal belief stems partly from the Buddhist teachings of attachment, desire, and no-self as they relate to human suffering. From my personal perspective, I am skeptical of the motives people may have for wanting to "improve" themselves in the first place. Are we really doing it to improve our health and well-being, or is it because it would be "cool" to have the latest and greatest super-human capabilities? Does this desire arise out of a general dissatisfaction with our present state? I think this is, as Kristian eluded to, psychological more than anything else. A lot of proponents talk about "improving well-being" and this "moral obligation to future generations to enhance," but I really believe these arguments are trying to hide a deeper, self-centered motivations of wanting to change who or what we are now. I guess in this way I agree with Kass somewhat when he says we should ‘let healthy bodies be,’ but this doesn’t mean I’m completely opposed to people wanting to ‘augment’ themselves either. We’re all at different stages of acceptance of our present condition, so I think it’s natural to have these motives. I think that in any case (and Dave, I’m also a fan of casuistry, case-based reasoning), the individual needs to truly reflect on what it is she values about both her present state and the improvements that enhancement supposedly will bring.
From the social justice perspective, this is where I hit a wall with human enhancement technology. Again, I think that self-centeredness is part of the problem here, because it seems to me that enhancement is often pursued out of personal fantasy and greed. Aside from that, however, I think we do have a moral obligation to the worse-off, and I don’t see how enhancement research is going to help them in the near future. Thomas Pogge, Norman Daniels, Dan Brock, James Flory, and Philip Kitcher (all those papers we had for the discussion on justice in research) all argue that we have an obligation to devote scientific research and resources to other people and other nations worse off than ourselves, especially when we have a direct involvement in their economic or social affairs. These resources are limited, and the more we devote to enhancement tech, the less we devote to AIDS, malaria, TB, water/food crises, etc. I don’t buy the proponents’ argument for one second that enhancement tech will eventually help these people someday. If we have a problem now distributing resources appropriately, how can we expect this to change in the future? I know Bostrom argues that future people will be smarter and maybe even more caring than we are, but I’d rather not chance the survival of our modern population on the enlightenment of future generations.
I also wanted to add that I agree with Dave that human enhancement is already happening, and I think we’re wandering through fog along the edge of a cliff. The technological capabilities to select for certain traits in embryos are mostly a reality, and it’s already being performed to some extent when we select ‘healthy’ embryos for IVF or choose to abort others when found to carry some dangerous disease. Our society obviously has a fascination with mood- and physical-enhancement drugs, which are highly advertised and made widely available. Cosmetic plastic surgery, whether the proponents want to call it enhancement or not, is probably one of the worst yet most widespread fads of our modern times, in my opinion. Maybe there’s no stopping the train, but I hope that individuals think carefully before they jump on board because, in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, “buy the ticket, take the ride.”
Wednesday, April 22
Blog Best-of Due Date
I mentioned in my last post about grading the blog that I will be asking for a "best of portfolio" of your blog posts. Here's how I want that: please select what you take to be your five most substantive, interesting, and important posts or comments from the term, copy and paste them into the body of a single email message to me and send it by May 12th (posting in that week is fair game: hopefully everyone will keep reading out of interest). I'll sit down on the 13th and consider these, your cumulative blog score (curved across the class), and the average of your best eight weeks and come up with a letter grade for this component of the course.
Response to Group 2's Presentation
After Group 2’s presentation on human enhancement, I came to the same conclusion I usually do about most ethical topics: they must be dealt with case-by-case. Of course that is probably just because of my moderate nature—I don’t like to have clear-cut situations. I am a firm believer in discussion and whether or not we pursue human enhancement should be discussed thoroughly every time an ethical question arises. Some cases are clear: if cancer treatments can be created through biotechnology that does not consist of taking poison then it should be our priority to do so. Allowing a parent to choose the aesthetic features of their children is an example of enhancements we should not employ as there really are not any tangible benefits to society or the individual.
Kind of brings me to my whole thought on the matter of enhancement: we already do it. I did not want to get into this in class due to time so here’s a good place to put my thoughts. Our only purpose, with comparison to the rest of nature, is to reproduce and raise our young to the point that they can reproduce. I am ignoring the fact that a lot of animals do not raise their young. So is it much more to say that we should do everything in our power to make life easier for the next generation? This, of course, is not always the case as with pollution or big-bank CEOs. Curing and treating disease is just one way we do that. So, in this regard, medicine is natural. Biotechnology is just an extension of medicine that involves new science. As history tells us, new science can appear to be bad and unnatural. Therefore, it is safe to say human enhancement already happens. For example, vaccines enhance our ability to develop immunities to disease.
However, there must be a limit. That limit should be heavily discussed by both sides of the issue. Thinking that aging is a disease is probably up there on craziest things said. Could write a book about why not dying is actually a bad thing. I’ll go with just saying that over-population is enough evidence against it. Also, I firmly believe that enhancement in sports beyond proper nutrition and hard work is wrong. I think that the flaws in athletes are what make the sport worth watching. It is nice to see great performances every now and then but everyone being perfect would take away the point of watching. Sorry, Matthew.
Guess that is just my idea on the matter: Beat the topic down with discussion until a course of action can be made.
Kind of brings me to my whole thought on the matter of enhancement: we already do it. I did not want to get into this in class due to time so here’s a good place to put my thoughts. Our only purpose, with comparison to the rest of nature, is to reproduce and raise our young to the point that they can reproduce. I am ignoring the fact that a lot of animals do not raise their young. So is it much more to say that we should do everything in our power to make life easier for the next generation? This, of course, is not always the case as with pollution or big-bank CEOs. Curing and treating disease is just one way we do that. So, in this regard, medicine is natural. Biotechnology is just an extension of medicine that involves new science. As history tells us, new science can appear to be bad and unnatural. Therefore, it is safe to say human enhancement already happens. For example, vaccines enhance our ability to develop immunities to disease.
However, there must be a limit. That limit should be heavily discussed by both sides of the issue. Thinking that aging is a disease is probably up there on craziest things said. Could write a book about why not dying is actually a bad thing. I’ll go with just saying that over-population is enough evidence against it. Also, I firmly believe that enhancement in sports beyond proper nutrition and hard work is wrong. I think that the flaws in athletes are what make the sport worth watching. It is nice to see great performances every now and then but everyone being perfect would take away the point of watching. Sorry, Matthew.
Guess that is just my idea on the matter: Beat the topic down with discussion until a course of action can be made.
Tuesday, April 21
Readings for 4/24
Here are the 2 readings for the upcoming 3rd presentation on "Global Climate Change".
5th Chapter titled Doing Something from James Garvey's book "The ethics of Climate Change".
Kyoto Protocol from "Encylopedia of Global Warming and Climate Change" 2008 Ed. Sage Publications.
EXTRA:-
For a quick guide to "The ethics in climate change" here's an interview (15min) with author, James Garvey DOWNLOAD mp3
5th Chapter titled Doing Something from James Garvey's book "The ethics of Climate Change".
Kyoto Protocol from "Encylopedia of Global Warming and Climate Change" 2008 Ed. Sage Publications.
EXTRA:-
For a quick guide to "The ethics in climate change" here's an interview (15min) with author, James Garvey DOWNLOAD mp3
Organic Foods
Our group presentation as you all know was about the industry in science. Just something that I didnt quite go into was organic foods. I am not against organic foods even though I may seem to appear that Im against it. I do believe that there needs to be a balance though. I do not like to support industries that hide behind peoples fears and concerns of the envirnment... organic foods today seem to be more of a market scheme then anything to me and I guess that is what bothers me the most. I believe that we should be supporting local farmers and getting away from dangerous pesticides. I do believe that pesticides are important though, we just wouldnt be able to produce enough forages to take care of our population of both humans and animals. The pesticides protect our crops from disasterous losses. Maybe what we need to put more research in developing less dangerous pesticides? I know we are having some very negative outcomes from using our past pesticides, such as the farmers that are using them are now coming down with cancers and such. I think anything we do is going to come with a price which is to bad... unfortunately we cant have everything. I think people need to start looking at the big picture though. I dont have an answer to how we can "make" people look at the big picture. Maybe it we just need to move back to older morals. It seems the further we move away from morals and ethics the more we lose. I dont know what morals need to come back and I realize I am walking on thin ice when it comes to even mentioning morals and what morals are. I cant define a good person, there must be something we strive for though, so maybe going back to older generations morals where life revolved more on family values then everything today being bigger is better and such. I think organic food is a great idea... i would love to support it... but i think it is just as corrupt as any other industry which is led by profit. Who blames them for being led by profit though... many of us are in college just so that we can make more money when we graduate compared to if we hadnt come to college. I know many people that have jobs that make great money but they hate the job... So I dont blame big industries for being led by money. It is just sad to me that something that could be such a good thing is being ruined, and people dont even realize it. I doubt many people stop and thing about how food is labeled and where it comes from and they blindly follow the labels that they feel safe with. I had no idea until I researched it that organic food in the US is being imported from China and other countries! That is crazy to me. There is so much more to the industry that many people would even think about... I think we do need to stop and think about things... people arent using their brains like we should be! Of course I am speaking very generally... but I think even I need to think more so I dont feel to bad about thinking that others should too.
Private Industry in Academics
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
Here is an article from Discovery Magazine (Oct 2007 issue) by Jennifer Washburn. It talks more about the industry of science. The subject of private industry meeting the academic world is presented. In today’s world, the trend is for universities to receive funding from private companies in the hopes that the results from the research will benefit the company. The article points out that there are instances when the professors have either worked at that company or own stock in that company, which creates a conflict of interest. On the other hand, the joining of private industry and universities will create a connection for information to travel through. This would provide the students with an applicable experience while still in school, as well as preparing them for work in the “real world”. The companies will also benefit by receiving up-to-date information on the area of research.
However, there is a huge debate on what information is released to the public. Since much of the work is done at public universities, it is under the specific university, and more generally, the government’s jurisdiction. When the private companies begin to put money into the university’s research, the dilemma of HOW the research is used becomes an issue. The private company will want to publish only the information that will benefit their agenda, while the university will want to publish all of their findings so that the knowledge can be spread to others in that same area of study. So what is typically done in these situations? Many companies will use just the research that is beneficial to them…but is this sending the wrong message? Yes. They should be releasing ALL of the information about the research so that the public can have the opportunity to fully understand the situation. But by using only part of the research that is conducted at the universities, isn’t this sending the wrong message to the students that will soon be in the workforce doing their own projects? Will they think that it is okay to just release the information that benefits the company the most instead of looking out for the best interest of the public?
From page 4, “The dilemma, says Eric Campbell of Harvard, is that industry partnerships yield many positive benefits: funding opportunities, the conversion of knowledge into products that benefit the public, rewards for inventors, jobs, economic growth. On the other hand, “the fundamental reason the public invests in science is out of the belief that it represents truth, untainted by commercial interests,” he says. “So to call that into question, I think, is really one of the great risks.’” The universities and the students attending them will have more research opportunity by collaborating with private companies. The big question that arises from this is… Does the collaboration present the public with an accurate representation of the situation? I think that is doesn’t present the information in a truthful manner. How are we, as the public, supposed come to an accurate conclusion when we don’t have complete information? If we are looking at this using the “problems” in Kitcher’s book, there are two problems that relate to this situation.
First, is the Problem of Inadequate Representation:
When the only information about the research that is being presented is in favor of the company’s agenda, the company is neglecting the interest of the public by not properly informing them of possible problems. The company’s main goal is to promote their project/product. Therefore, they are only going to represent the beneficial views of the research. This is unbalanced representation.
The second problem is Problem of Tyranny of the Ignorant:
The public is not being informed of ALL of the conclusions of the research. So, how are they supposed to fully understand the situation? They will under-value certain aspects of the research that may actually have great significance, but since they have been poorly educated on the subject due to the company’s agenda, they may come to an unsuitable conclusion.
It is a difficult task to decide if privately funded research at universities is ethical. I think it will depend on the specific university, the research that is being done, and the individuals involved with that research (due to a possible conflict of interest). I think that there are many instances of misrepresentation of the information, mainly from the company’s perspective. However, I do think there are many cases when the research that comes from these collaborations will benefit the public, and outweigh the negative outcomes. So, we should not rule out the possibility of private-and-academic research in the future. What do you think?
Here is an article from Discovery Magazine (Oct 2007 issue) by Jennifer Washburn. It talks more about the industry of science. The subject of private industry meeting the academic world is presented. In today’s world, the trend is for universities to receive funding from private companies in the hopes that the results from the research will benefit the company. The article points out that there are instances when the professors have either worked at that company or own stock in that company, which creates a conflict of interest. On the other hand, the joining of private industry and universities will create a connection for information to travel through. This would provide the students with an applicable experience while still in school, as well as preparing them for work in the “real world”. The companies will also benefit by receiving up-to-date information on the area of research.
However, there is a huge debate on what information is released to the public. Since much of the work is done at public universities, it is under the specific university, and more generally, the government’s jurisdiction. When the private companies begin to put money into the university’s research, the dilemma of HOW the research is used becomes an issue. The private company will want to publish only the information that will benefit their agenda, while the university will want to publish all of their findings so that the knowledge can be spread to others in that same area of study. So what is typically done in these situations? Many companies will use just the research that is beneficial to them…but is this sending the wrong message? Yes. They should be releasing ALL of the information about the research so that the public can have the opportunity to fully understand the situation. But by using only part of the research that is conducted at the universities, isn’t this sending the wrong message to the students that will soon be in the workforce doing their own projects? Will they think that it is okay to just release the information that benefits the company the most instead of looking out for the best interest of the public?
From page 4, “The dilemma, says Eric Campbell of Harvard, is that industry partnerships yield many positive benefits: funding opportunities, the conversion of knowledge into products that benefit the public, rewards for inventors, jobs, economic growth. On the other hand, “the fundamental reason the public invests in science is out of the belief that it represents truth, untainted by commercial interests,” he says. “So to call that into question, I think, is really one of the great risks.’” The universities and the students attending them will have more research opportunity by collaborating with private companies. The big question that arises from this is… Does the collaboration present the public with an accurate representation of the situation? I think that is doesn’t present the information in a truthful manner. How are we, as the public, supposed come to an accurate conclusion when we don’t have complete information? If we are looking at this using the “problems” in Kitcher’s book, there are two problems that relate to this situation.
First, is the Problem of Inadequate Representation:
When the only information about the research that is being presented is in favor of the company’s agenda, the company is neglecting the interest of the public by not properly informing them of possible problems. The company’s main goal is to promote their project/product. Therefore, they are only going to represent the beneficial views of the research. This is unbalanced representation.
The second problem is Problem of Tyranny of the Ignorant:
The public is not being informed of ALL of the conclusions of the research. So, how are they supposed to fully understand the situation? They will under-value certain aspects of the research that may actually have great significance, but since they have been poorly educated on the subject due to the company’s agenda, they may come to an unsuitable conclusion.
It is a difficult task to decide if privately funded research at universities is ethical. I think it will depend on the specific university, the research that is being done, and the individuals involved with that research (due to a possible conflict of interest). I think that there are many instances of misrepresentation of the information, mainly from the company’s perspective. However, I do think there are many cases when the research that comes from these collaborations will benefit the public, and outweigh the negative outcomes. So, we should not rule out the possibility of private-and-academic research in the future. What do you think?
Human Enhancement
This week’s group is presenting on human enhancement. I don’t really know where they are going with it, but I for one have not found a real reason not to pursue or implement these technologies. All the cons I have read on the subject seem to be scare tactics, or problems that can be addressed and fixed if openly discussed.
We fear the unknown. It is my belief that science has been pushing humanity forward throughout history and the technologies used in human enhancement are no different. Hundreds of years ago Galileo was persecuted for going against the geocentric belief that was popular at the time. Now we know that the sun is the center of our universe, not the earth. With this basic discovery we have been able to unlock many mysteries of our universe. What new things could we discover if we pursue the technologies used in human enhancement? More importantly, what will not be discovered if we choose not to pursue these technologies? I think that the pros of these technologies outweigh the cons.
If you want to read some good articles in favor of human enhancement visit Nick Bostrom’s web page: http://www.nickbostrom.com/
We fear the unknown. It is my belief that science has been pushing humanity forward throughout history and the technologies used in human enhancement are no different. Hundreds of years ago Galileo was persecuted for going against the geocentric belief that was popular at the time. Now we know that the sun is the center of our universe, not the earth. With this basic discovery we have been able to unlock many mysteries of our universe. What new things could we discover if we pursue the technologies used in human enhancement? More importantly, what will not be discovered if we choose not to pursue these technologies? I think that the pros of these technologies outweigh the cons.
If you want to read some good articles in favor of human enhancement visit Nick Bostrom’s web page: http://www.nickbostrom.com/
Last week's presentation
These whole week, I have been thinking about group one's presentation, and really what we can do to better communicate/educate. I would like to mainly focus on Jenny's and Alex's part on having better access to communication and mainly how the media persuades the general public. I think with how our technologies are now, we have the capability to communicate effectively, such as via internet, radio etc. the hard part with the communication and technology, however is really getting the truth out about specific things, such as exactly what BST, how it affects you etc. There will always be "untruths" when it comes to science and the industry of science, and truly I don't know if there is any way to not have the untruths happen. A quote from the paper the group assigned, said that "researchers have ethical duties to examine their positions carefully. As a result, citizens may not be well informed and will be less likely to protect their rights to life, to know, and to consent." What I thought of this quote, was the fact that if the researchers examined everything more carefully and educated the public, then it would cause the public to be more informed, and then have more of a say in their lives, and have the knowledge of the science given to them. This knowledge of science etc, will be crucial in the future, in making decisions, etc. Our group today will be going over Human Enhancement, which is a very debatable topic, and is something that is close to becoming reality. If people were to better understand and be more informed, I believe it will be beneficial to all, because then we could have a better say in what we eat, and what we want for our well being in life.
Response to "Science the Endless Frontier"
There are many things that one can respond to from not only these excerpts but also the entire report, but what caught my attention was Bush’s discussion in respect to higher education and its role with basic research.
First, I think that Bush’s description of colleges and universities, and the environment that they provide for scientists is something to think about. And, I would have to say that it is difficult to disagree with him. Why wouldn’t a scientist want a place to work where they don’t have to worry about outside pressures? For a student pursuing science, is it not beneficial for them to be in such an environment? Also, I would suggest that scientists would have more time to teach, due to not having to spend so much of their time dealing with certain pressures or politics.
So why is it not like this? Bush suggests elsewhere in his report that it is because of the government and industry applying all of these pressures on universities. They want to know answers to certain problems so they look to these scientists to solve them. But, is that really the role of the scientist? As Bush notes scientists should be allowed to pursue basic research, and not feel pressured to have to answer certain questions. Don’t get me wrong, I still think scientists should be held accountable for their research and be willing to discuss its implications on society, however, their research should not be pursued only for the reason to answer a question someone else is asking.
Second, what I find most concerning about Bush’s report is that it was written in 1945 and that it is 64 years later, and the only thing I can think of is, has our country really even changed or progressed since then? Universities and the scientists at these institutes are still looked to for the answers. Many research grants offered by the NIH (a government agency) are specific questions and are looking for answers. Also similar to what Bush pointed out, barriers still need to be removed for people in respect to higher education. The cost of education is continuing to increase (take Washington universities for example), and continuing to cause people to not attend higher education, or to have drop out of higher education because they cannot afford it. Yes there are some funds/grants/scholarships/etc. available for individuals in such situations, but in reality it isn’t enough. Money should not prevent those who have the drive and want to attend higher education from attending.
However, what is being done to address these issues? At times it is difficult to tell if anything is, and that people keep telling themselves during these times that something is happening. But these people need to obviously open their eyes and see the real picture. They need to look at how even though science has progressed in the past 64 years, could we be farther if individuals in research weren't constantly dealing with outside pressures? I would suggest that things would look different if some of these pressures and the barriers to higher education were removed.
"Science the Endless Frontier"
“Science the Endless Frontier” – by Vannevar Bush
A Report to the President, July 1945
(Below are excerpts from this report or you can click above on the title for the link to the entire report)
“Scientific progress on a broad front results from the free play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown.”
The Importance of Basic Research
“Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends. It results in general knowledge and an understanding of nature and its laws. This general knowledge provides the means of answering a large number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to any one of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers. The scientist doing basic research may not be at all interested in the practical applications of his work, yet the further progress of industrial development would eventually stagnate if basic scientific research were long neglected. “
Centers of Basic Research
“Publicly and privately supported colleges and universities and the endowed research institutes must furnish both the new scientific knowledge and the trained research workers. These institutions are uniquely qualified by tradition and by their special characteristics to carry on basic research. They are charged with the responsibility of conserving the knowledge accumulated by the past, imparting that knowledge to students, and contributing new knowledge of all kinds. It is chiefly in these institutions that scientists may work in an atmosphere which is relatively free from the adverse pressure of convention, prejudice, or commercial necessity. At their best they provide the scientific worker with a strong sense of solidarity and security, as well as a substantial degree of personal intellectual freedom. All of these factors are of great importance in the development of new knowledge, since much of new knowledge is certain to arouse opposition because of its tendency to challenge current beliefs or practice.”
Remove the Barriers
“Higher education in this country is largely for those who have the means. If those who have the means coincided entirely with those persons who have the talent we should not be squandering a part of our higher education on those undeserving of it, nor neglecting great talent among those who fail to attend college for economic reasons. There are talented individuals in every segment of the population, but with few exceptions those without the means of buying higher education go without it. Here is a tremendous waste of the greatest resource of a nation - the intelligence of its citizens.
If ability, and not the circumstance of family fortune, is made to determine who shall receive higher education in science, then we shall be assured of constantly improving quality at every level of scientific activity.”
A Report to the President, July 1945
(Below are excerpts from this report or you can click above on the title for the link to the entire report)
“Scientific progress on a broad front results from the free play of free intellects, working on subjects of their own choice, in the manner dictated by their curiosity for exploration of the unknown.”
The Importance of Basic Research
“Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends. It results in general knowledge and an understanding of nature and its laws. This general knowledge provides the means of answering a large number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to any one of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers. The scientist doing basic research may not be at all interested in the practical applications of his work, yet the further progress of industrial development would eventually stagnate if basic scientific research were long neglected. “
Centers of Basic Research
“Publicly and privately supported colleges and universities and the endowed research institutes must furnish both the new scientific knowledge and the trained research workers. These institutions are uniquely qualified by tradition and by their special characteristics to carry on basic research. They are charged with the responsibility of conserving the knowledge accumulated by the past, imparting that knowledge to students, and contributing new knowledge of all kinds. It is chiefly in these institutions that scientists may work in an atmosphere which is relatively free from the adverse pressure of convention, prejudice, or commercial necessity. At their best they provide the scientific worker with a strong sense of solidarity and security, as well as a substantial degree of personal intellectual freedom. All of these factors are of great importance in the development of new knowledge, since much of new knowledge is certain to arouse opposition because of its tendency to challenge current beliefs or practice.”
Remove the Barriers
“Higher education in this country is largely for those who have the means. If those who have the means coincided entirely with those persons who have the talent we should not be squandering a part of our higher education on those undeserving of it, nor neglecting great talent among those who fail to attend college for economic reasons. There are talented individuals in every segment of the population, but with few exceptions those without the means of buying higher education go without it. Here is a tremendous waste of the greatest resource of a nation - the intelligence of its citizens.
If ability, and not the circumstance of family fortune, is made to determine who shall receive higher education in science, then we shall be assured of constantly improving quality at every level of scientific activity.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)