Eugenics on Nature or synthetic biology is said to be the greatest thing in science in the 21th century. With Eugenics on Nature, science intends to ‘redesign life’. Thus, without ever having been able to explain why life exists, science believes that it can become master of it.
Plants and animals are to become victim. While vegans and animal rights activists naturally care and protect animals and are with many people and efficient in social organization for a cause, my personal worry is that plants may be excluded from protection when it concerns a potential violation of that which has made it possible for plants to come into existence, and subsequently, that which may be vital for them to prosper into the farther future.
A special on Synthetic Biology in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019) provides perspective:
Morality in scienceRemaking life means automating biology
Those given to grand statements about the future often proclaim this to be the century of biology in the same way that the 20th century was that of physics and the 19th century was that of chemistry.
Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.
In science the inability to define the meaning of life has resulted in an ideal to abolish morality completely.
(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/
(2019) Science and Morals: Can morality be deduced from the facts of science?
The issue should have been settled by philosopher David Hume in 1740: the facts of science provide no basis for values. Yet, like some kind of recurrent meme, the idea that science is omnipotent and will sooner or later solve the problem of values seems to resurrect with every generation.
https://sites.duke.edu/behavior/2019/04 ... f-science/
Morality is based on ‘values’ and that logically means that science also wants to get rid of philosophy.
Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science in relation to philosophy.
It shows the path that science has pursued since as early as 1850. Science has intended to rid itself of philosophy.Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account.
When science is practiced autonomously and intends to get rid of any influence of philosophy, the ‘knowing’ of a fact necessarily entails certainty. Without certainty, philosophy would be essential, and that would be obvious to any scientist, which it is not.
It means that there is a belief involved (a belief in uniformitarianism) that legitimizes autonomous application of science without thinking about whether it is actually ‘good’ what is being done (i.e. without ‘morality’).
The idea that facts are valid without philosophy results in the natural tendency to completely abolish morality.
When morality is reduced to an empirical property of the social sciences, what theory could possibly prevent the idea that morality is an illusion?
The “why” of morality
When the human intends to prosper not only for the purpose to live another day (which would include 100-200 years, i.e. a ‘short term’ perspective), but for the long term (i.e. millions of years), the path that is chosen today can have a profound impact and it can be an argument that the human should chose wisely by which philosophy would acquire a leading position for humanity, not like a religion with dogma’s, but as a continuous quest to discover the optimal path for humanity.
Growth and progress is exponential by which it is increasingly important to make the right choices.
Morality would be the key for success and modern day morality is based on magical thinking by letting it depend (in general) on the lap part of the human.
Moral compass
Humans are naturally equipped with a moral compass but when progress is increasingly made outside the direct influence scope of the human being, paired with the modern day dogma that the facts of science are valid without philosophy (a belief in uniformitarianism), which naturally results in a tendency to completely abolish morality, it may be important that that magical ‘moral compass’ aspect of human evolution is provided for by a professional plausible method that can secure long term success on that regard: philosophy.
Morality in science today
A recent article on Phys.org displays the current state of morality in science.
(2020) How we make moral decisions
The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don’t seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-moral-decisions.html
The article shows that in 2020, science has just the “universalization principle” available for moral considerations and for guiding science.
Meaning beyond what science can “see”
How could the universalisation principle prevent a practice like Eugenics on Nature when faced with a trillion USD synthetic biology revolution that reduces plants and animals to meaningless beyond the empirical value that a company can “see” in them?
When vegans and animal right activists continue to turn a blank eye to plant well-being, a better method for morality may be urgently required to protect Nature.