5 ms·

While I disagree with the US's stance, ignoring your morals because other countries are doing something would be a race to the bottom.

point78 7y ago
What if those morals are evil? (Philosophical question I suppose)
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  What if the other side's morals are evil? What even is evil? Is there an objective "evil"?
sampo 7y ago
> ignoring your morals If those morals say people should die instead of getting the organ transplants they need, maybe we are better off ignoring such morals.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
  - thebeefytaco 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Activities
  - Symmetry 7y ago
    I think most of us recognize a moral difference between murdering animals and murdering people. Especially those of us who eat meat.
- dmonitor 7y ago
  The moral is that embryos deserve the same rights as people, so you’re really just killing one person to save another
  - rflrob 7y ago
    But do rats (or other non-human animals) with human organs deserve the same rights as humans? I don't think that the human pancreas is the source of our innate "human-ness" that gives us distinct moral standing from non-human animals. You can certainly wonder whether there is any such thing that gives humans a special standing, but if you also eat pork, you have a tricky row to hoe in that argument.
  - ddingus 7y ago
    No it is not. Viability matters here. I realize you see that differently. Realize others will ALWAYS differ on this. ALWAYS. Frankly, this will absolutely be done. There probably will be wars over it too. And it still will be done. And then it will be done sans an embryo, using stems. Right now, powerful, wealthy people are paying full attention. The one thing they cannot buy will end up for sale. More time. Buckle up. It is going to get super ugly.
    - diminoten 7y ago
      He's not saying the idea is accurate, he's simply stating the idea. No need to argue unless you don't think he's representing the viewpoint accurately.
      - ddingus 7y ago
        I think it is accurate, and we all see that how we see it. There is not a wrong, just grave differences, IMHO, unresolvable ones. At least for a considerable time. That was the intended point. People are going to really struggle over this area of tech. Not so much an argument as it is, look out. Incoming!
    - socceroos 7y ago
      Viability? That's a moral slippery slope if I ever saw one.
- notadoc 7y ago
  Do you consider it moral or immoral to harvest organs from prisoners, as China reportedly does? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests...
- Allower 7y ago
  yes they should die, stop pretending death should be avoided at all costs.
- 12ojk12p3jipoj 7y ago
  That's a short-sighted view of morals in general. Whenever a new technology is made available to the world, you must take the good side-effects with the bad. It's very convenient to only view this from the lens of improved health service without considering that previously unexploitable biological processes that are now in control of 3rd parties. This research is part of a larger trend in biology where things once thought to be impractical are rapidly becoming possible. Extend these trends decades into the future; are you okay with a world where people can select the quality/type/number of organs for other people? What about the intentional creation of deadly viruses that select for subsets of the population? What about organizations intentionally modifying embryos to create people fit for menial labor? What about people making involuntary clones of others? And so on and so forth with the presently sci-fi topics. Whether or not most people would generally agree to do such things, the fact is that they become possible. Without accurately projecting the economic factors in play 50, 100, 200 years from now, you can't actually confirm that people won't exploit biological research in this way. Consider the atomic bomb as a case study. There are immediate positive side-effects that particle physics has brought to the world; but it doesn't simply cancel out the negative effects, nor can anyone alter their severity. After the creation of the 1st atomic bomb, the world is now left in a position where any of the major world super powers can _literally_ wipe out all human life on earth. Millions of man-hours per year have to be dedicated to preventing terrorist groups from acquiring atomic weaponry, and the stakes of political action have been permanently raised. Similarly, if producing viable human-animal embryos becomes possible, the status quo of biology is permanently altered. Is it for the better? Maybe, but it's glib to just _assume_ it's better.
curiousgal 7y ago
I wouldn't call morals things that change the moment a big company with deep pockets and suave lobbyists has a stake in changing them.
bluecalm 7y ago
If significant % of the population doesn't think it's problematic it should be allowed as long as it doesn't influence lives of the other part. You can easily opt out of any stem cells based research or treatment, we can make it not state funded. Opposing that is the kind of self-righteous aggressive morality I despise. It's the same with abortion: about half the population thinks it's ok to let a woman decide. It doesn't influence you, your family or your community if you opt out. If you still think your feelings should dictate how others then you're the problem and the reason there are so many conflicts and so much violence caused by "I want to dictate how others live and I don't accept if they disagree".
- rebuilder 7y ago
  Wouldn't we still have slavery if we did things the way you suggest?
  - dbrian 7y ago
    That would very clearly negatively affect the opposing party.
    - Lord_Baltimore 7y ago
      Killing the opposing party through abortion would be a negative effect.
      - firethief 7y ago
        "Negative" here sounds like it should mean something objective, but that can't be the case because curbing population growth makes the world better for everyone in it.
        Lord_Baltimore 7y ago
        Should we thank genocidal regimes for "curbing population growth"?
manigandham 7y ago
Morals are subjective and personal. A country has ethics, but those are also a collective representation and open to change. When it comes to biological sciences, we are on the forefront of some very big questions that do need consideration, especially because other populations (in advanced first-world countries) are deciding to move forward.
dexterdog 7y ago
And every person arguing this is going to use this tech to save their kid regardless of their current moral position
- danShumway 7y ago
  I don't want to be dismissive of either side of the debate, but this specifically seems to be a very weak argument. If Japan had just approved involuntary human experimentation on political prisoners, and it eventually lead to a breakthrough on cancer research, every person who argued against it would still immediately use that research to save their kids. People are (broadly speaking) usually hypocritical when their individual needs conflict with their social ideals. Productive discussions about social moral standards should usually ignore that hypocrisy.
matz1 7y ago
Acknowledging they have different moral doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Just like them you should do what you think is right.

point78 7y ago

What if those morals are evil? (Philosophical question I suppose)

ilikehurdles 7y ago
What if the other side's morals are evil? What even is evil? Is there an objective "evil"?

sampo 7y ago

> ignoring your morals If those morals say people should die instead of getting the organ transplants they need, maybe we are better off ignoring such morals.

lonelappde 7y ago
wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
- thebeefytaco 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Activities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731#Activities
- Symmetry 7y ago
  I think most of us recognize a moral difference between murdering animals and murdering people. Especially those of us who eat meat.
dmonitor 7y ago
The moral is that embryos deserve the same rights as people, so you’re really just killing one person to save another
- rflrob 7y ago
  But do rats (or other non-human animals) with human organs deserve the same rights as humans? I don't think that the human pancreas is the source of our innate "human-ness" that gives us distinct moral standing from non-human animals. You can certainly wonder whether there is any such thing that gives humans a special standing, but if you also eat pork, you have a tricky row to hoe in that argument.
- ddingus 7y ago
  No it is not. Viability matters here. I realize you see that differently. Realize others will ALWAYS differ on this. ALWAYS. Frankly, this will absolutely be done. There probably will be wars over it too. And it still will be done. And then it will be done sans an embryo, using stems. Right now, powerful, wealthy people are paying full attention. The one thing they cannot buy will end up for sale. More time. Buckle up. It is going to get super ugly.
  - diminoten 7y ago
    He's not saying the idea is accurate, he's simply stating the idea. No need to argue unless you don't think he's representing the viewpoint accurately.
    - ddingus 7y ago
      I think it is accurate, and we all see that how we see it. There is not a wrong, just grave differences, IMHO, unresolvable ones. At least for a considerable time. That was the intended point. People are going to really struggle over this area of tech. Not so much an argument as it is, look out. Incoming!
  - socceroos 7y ago
    Viability? That's a moral slippery slope if I ever saw one.
notadoc 7y ago
Do you consider it moral or immoral to harvest organs from prisoners, as China reportedly does? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests-organs-detainees-tribunal-concludes-n1018646 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-forcefully-harvests...
Allower 7y ago
yes they should die, stop pretending death should be avoided at all costs.
12ojk12p3jipoj 7y ago
That's a short-sighted view of morals in general. Whenever a new technology is made available to the world, you must take the good side-effects with the bad. It's very convenient to only view this from the lens of improved health service without considering that previously unexploitable biological processes that are now in control of 3rd parties. This research is part of a larger trend in biology where things once thought to be impractical are rapidly becoming possible. Extend these trends decades into the future; are you okay with a world where people can select the quality/type/number of organs for other people? What about the intentional creation of deadly viruses that select for subsets of the population? What about organizations intentionally modifying embryos to create people fit for menial labor? What about people making involuntary clones of others? And so on and so forth with the presently sci-fi topics. Whether or not most people would generally agree to do such things, the fact is that they become possible. Without accurately projecting the economic factors in play 50, 100, 200 years from now, you can't actually confirm that people won't exploit biological research in this way. Consider the atomic bomb as a case study. There are immediate positive side-effects that particle physics has brought to the world; but it doesn't simply cancel out the negative effects, nor can anyone alter their severity. After the creation of the 1st atomic bomb, the world is now left in a position where any of the major world super powers can _literally_ wipe out all human life on earth. Millions of man-hours per year have to be dedicated to preventing terrorist groups from acquiring atomic weaponry, and the stakes of political action have been permanently raised. Similarly, if producing viable human-animal embryos becomes possible, the status quo of biology is permanently altered. Is it for the better? Maybe, but it's glib to just _assume_ it's better.

curiousgal 7y ago

I wouldn't call morals things that change the moment a big company with deep pockets and suave lobbyists has a stake in changing them.

bluecalm 7y ago

If significant % of the population doesn't think it's problematic it should be allowed as long as it doesn't influence lives of the other part. You can easily opt out of any stem cells based research or treatment, we can make it not state funded. Opposing that is the kind of self-righteous aggressive morality I despise. It's the same with abortion: about half the population thinks it's ok to let a woman decide. It doesn't influence you, your family or your community if you opt out. If you still think your feelings should dictate how others then you're the problem and the reason there are so many conflicts and so much violence caused by "I want to dictate how others live and I don't accept if they disagree".

rebuilder 7y ago
Wouldn't we still have slavery if we did things the way you suggest?
- dbrian 7y ago
  That would very clearly negatively affect the opposing party.
  - Lord_Baltimore 7y ago
    Killing the opposing party through abortion would be a negative effect.
    - firethief 7y ago
      "Negative" here sounds like it should mean something objective, but that can't be the case because curbing population growth makes the world better for everyone in it.
      - Lord_Baltimore 7y ago
        Should we thank genocidal regimes for "curbing population growth"?

manigandham 7y ago

Morals are subjective and personal. A country has ethics, but those are also a collective representation and open to change. When it comes to biological sciences, we are on the forefront of some very big questions that do need consideration, especially because other populations (in advanced first-world countries) are deciding to move forward.

dexterdog 7y ago

And every person arguing this is going to use this tech to save their kid regardless of their current moral position

danShumway 7y ago
I don't want to be dismissive of either side of the debate, but this specifically seems to be a very weak argument. If Japan had just approved involuntary human experimentation on political prisoners, and it eventually lead to a breakthrough on cancer research, every person who argued against it would still immediately use that research to save their kids. People are (broadly speaking) usually hypocritical when their individual needs conflict with their social ideals. Productive discussions about social moral standards should usually ignore that hypocrisy.

matz1 7y ago

Acknowledging they have different moral doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Just like them you should do what you think is right.