The Ethics of Science -- how do you see it?

[Elder]

So many things happened in my life that I could hardly believe, even as I was experiencing them. Two episodes stand out. The first was Neil Armstrong’s “small step” on the moon, forty years ago. It represented everything we had ever hoped for, dreamed of and didn’t quite dare to expect. A step leading us to the stars and maybe human survival.

The second was the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre. I felt as if I were witnessing someone walking over my grave. In those images of exploding planes and collapsing buildings, I saw the potential destruction of the human species.

Both events happened, both were a huge step in alternate directions: triumph and annihilation.

One day we may look up at the sky and see the first alien star-ship visiting us from another civilization. One day we may pick up an intelligent message from outer space, just as Carl Sagan imagined in Contact. One day we may even invent our own inter-galactic space vehicle and go for a look.

On the other hand, one day we may look up and see a mushroom-shaped cloud, for a fraction of a second, before we lose our eyes and our lives. There is a very good chance that on that day mankind will finish the job started at Hiroshima on August 6 1945, and put an end to the human saga. On that day, if there is a God, he will weep. It will have been such a horrible waste!

Which of the two alternate futures awaits us depends, to a large degree, on the scientists themselves. Not just on the breakthroughs they provide, leading us to a possible glorious future but, more importantly, on the ethical stand they take when bribed or coerced by madmen to produce weapons of mass destruction.

[ShrimpMaster]

The ethics of science are reaching an epidemic. I think another catastrophe is abortion. Humans who run under the guise of 'science' who will tell us a baby in the womb is not a human, therefore, it is okay to kill. This isn't like a bomb going off in your face. It is a slow death. Like a splinter in your foot. There have been over 50 million humans aborted legally in the United States. Many more than were killed by a nuclear bomb. People look the other way because a 'scientist' said so. It is disgusting.

[Alec Smart]

A step leading us to the stars and maybe human survival.

No, it just led to the Moon, actually.

Both events happened, both were a huge step in alternate directions: triumph and annihilation

And treat those two impostors just the same (poetic license on annihilation)

One day we may look up at the sky and see the first alien star-ship visiting us from another civilization. One day we may pick up an intelligent message from outer space, just as Carl Sagan imagined in Contact. One day we may even invent our own inter-galactic space vehicle and go for a look.

One day we might log into this forum and find you've used up all your recycled posts.

On the other hand, one day we may look up and see a mushroom-shaped cloud, for a fraction of a second, before we lose our eyes and our lives. There is a very good chance that on that day mankind will finish the job started at Hiroshima on August 6 1945,

Mankind has managed to restrain himself for the 70 years since then so maybe it's looking good.

-- Updated July 27th, 2015, 10:16 pm to add the following --

It is a slow death. Like a splinter in your foot.

You're right about it being slow. I remember getting a splinter in my foot when I was a kid and I'm still hanging on.

[Jklint]

There is a very good chance that on that day mankind will finish the job started at Hiroshima on August 6 1945, and put an end to the human saga. On that day, if there is a God, he will weep. It will have been such a horrible waste!

I'm reasonably sure God won't weep and that our microscopic fiascoes here would go by completely unnoticed within the main frame of the universe. He doesn't weep when people die horrifically or prematurely, including children and baby animals since there's always more where that came from.

What makes us weep wouldn't cause an echo of regret in the conscience of god. Think of all the planets out there whose civilizations are likely to be in states of severe transition and possible self-induced destruction because its distributed intelligence couldn't compromise. What's it to god or nature if a potential gets flatlined into total silence? To repeat: There's always more where that came from.

Which of the two alternate futures awaits us depends, to a large degree, on the scientists themselves. Not just on the breakthroughs they provide, leading us to a possible glorious future but, more importantly, on the ethical stand they take when bribed or coerced by madmen to produce weapons of mass destruction.

This statement seems somewhat subsequent to an event having already occurred many times. There's enough of that on the planet now to barbecue it beyond recognition whether or not more is made. This was not instigated by madmen which perversely endorses a higher probability of it happening...which DOES NOT mean it will!

In the geopolitical chess game of power especially in the context of "Final Solutions", there are very few madmen because you would have to be truly mad not to know the consequences. As far as scientists themselves are concerned, I imagine they build it for the same reason governments want it, for deterrence because you can't trust a potential enemy not to use it if they have it. This is the human race we're talking about where love and respect is a myth if it conflates beyond its immediate boundaries.

People always mention Nagasaki and Hiroshima. What has been kept hidden for a long time is that the Japanese were not too far off having a nuclear bomb themselves and due to the fact that collapse was inevitable were ready to use it as soon as available.

[Spectrum]

I am optimistic the Ethics of Science will be efficiently handled by the Science of Ethics coupled with the Philosophy of Morals/Ethics and supported by all other relevant fields of knowledge.

The critical leading research is the Connectome Project. [url]https://en.wik:pedia.org/w:ki/Connectome[/url]
When we reach a certain critical stage of the Connectome Project, humanity will be able to rewire the human brain and psychology towards greater and greater morality and ethics based on fool proof & voluntarily approaches.

-- Updated Tue Jul 28, 2015 11:24 pm to add the following --

http://www.openconnectomeproject.org/

[MarcusMalone]

I do enjoy your idea Elder of two alternative futures where one includes a journey to farther galaxies and one are deepest demise. My prediction is a lot less entertaining. I think that the progress in scientific discoveries will lead to a desensitization of the value of human beings. That we will see ourselves as purely material objects with the caveat of being able to feel pain. I imagine a sterile doctor's office where the doctor views his patient as a textbook definition of their body parts. There is no doubt that the doctor is scientifically minded, but my concern is that is all he is and that is the problem. What I see in the future is a world of less motivation to make the world a better place or worse as well. Imagine you're involved in the creation of a spaceship that will launch into the many stars. Have you asked yourself the question - why am I doing this? If its for curiosity and new discoveries then the path will lead nowhere but everywhere. The problem is that the curiosity of the mind does not end and you'll find yourself on an eternal path of new things - directionless. If the answer is for the betterment of the human species, then the answer is not a stable one. The human species is, but conscious matter and there is no universal ground or law to say that human beings are worth the effort. The subject veers into relativity.

[Whitedragon]

You raise a serious question in your post. Science says they don’t believe in magic, but in effect it is magic to those who don’t know it: they blindly have to accept what they are told. Who can disprove science if they are not experts in those fields or don’t have the ability or equipment to investigate it for themselves ? If the state decides it wants to withhold information from someone it can order scientists, who control the physical proof and evidence, to falsely disclose information to an individual or the public in general.

Science may be honest, but people are not. Science might be useful but people, like you say, are less reliable and stable. I think science is not the problem for this reason. As for abortion, I am both for it and against it, depending on the circumstances. What I’m about to say may sound cold, but whether fetuses are people or not, abortion has helped with a lot of crises the world is facing like crime and over population of the planet. If ethics is based on love, love without wisdom is like a ship in a starless universe.

I think children born with aids that could not be treated should be aborted. I think if a child can be saved from being born into a bitterly impoverished and hostile environment should be saved from such a life if the parent so chooses. Everybody wants to save the babies, but once their born no one wants to help pay for the lunch, schooling, and medical expenses. People born in dire environments and conditions are also more likely to develop psychological trauma leading to all kinds of sorrow and misery for them.

I think it is a foolish waste to abort a potentially healthy child that would grow up in a friendly milieu. I am not for aborting children who could live a normal life. It is a waste of life and counterproductive to society.

[DoctorEuthanasia]

I don't believe that Science is the problem nor those who are professionalized in it. What we should be worrying about is those of our species too primitive to use it correctly. These people make up the majority of our population, and have shaped societies that deal with information in an overly rigid manner, creating a planet of dishonestly and competition between groups. For example, the cold war was not caused by scientists but by tribal warfare triggered by biological urges in everyday citizens. Environmental problems are due to excessive population growth caused by non-scientist parents and the irresponsible technologies that they demand for luxury. In nature, animals create mass extinction events in accordance with the Medea Hypothesis. Here in civilization they misuse technology to create a situation of terror and chaos.

Will we be lost in materialistic meaninglessness if we successfully survive for the next 10000 years? If psycho-moral development keeps up with the pace of Scientific growth, then I would assume no.

I would also like to add another argument to the debate on fetuses. If the pain that they feel matters, then what about the suffering of their food? Many animals suffer per fetus brought into existence. Are you really going to sacrifice them so that a lump of flesh can live a miserable life?

[LuckyR]

The ethics of science are reaching an epidemic. I think another catastrophe is abortion. Humans who run under the guise of 'science' who will tell us a baby in the womb is not a human, therefore, it is okay to kill. This isn't like a bomb going off in your face. It is a slow death. Like a splinter in your foot. There have been over 50 million humans aborted legally in the United States. Many more than were killed by a nuclear bomb. People look the other way because a 'scientist' said so. It is disgusting.

Uummm... talk about a one topic voter. How did you get to your post from the OP?

To add a bit of perspective:

First, "science" did not create the issue of abortion. Abortion has been an issue since the first woman had a pregnancy they didn't plan for (which before Modern "science" was a much higher proportion of total pregnancies).

Second, since the human population is increasing, your whole "slow death" thing is pure emotion, unsupported by statistics.

Sure, the human population growth rate is slowing, but the cause is the rise in women's education, not abortion.

The rate of pregnancy has dropped by 12% in the US in the last 2 decades, yet the rate of abortion has dropped by 33% in the same time.