"Ethics" oversight of science is bullshit.

>>8423231
In human speak and not low IQ ape that buzzwords to seem smart:

>The factors that act to attract, secure and consolidate investment may also have the effect of confirming a course for innovation, creating both ‘lock in’ of contingent technological forms and forward momentum along a particular technological pathway.

The things that bring in investment focus on one pathway of innovation.

>No matter which way one looks, the frontiers of technology are seen to be at one and the same time, frontiers of politics.

Technology should be politicized.

>"they consider it to be essential to put in place means for tracking social justice outcomes over time, and social justice goals in regulation of genome editing technologies"

We want to arbitrarily control technology based on our personal liberal feelings.

not like it matters

if they don't do it the chinks definitely will

>>8423251
They already are.

File: boris-johnson.jpg (1017KB, 1600x1177px) Image search: [Google]

1017KB, 1600x1177px

This is why we need ACTUAL SCIENTISTS sitting on goverment committees, think-tanks and in boardrooms.

It's no coincidence that the majority of high level managers and directors in scientific institutions are the same people who couldn't handle doing basic scientific research. It's more important to talk-the-talk than walk-the-walk

>>8423269
You don't like "so smart" buzzword soup? The harder to digest a sentence is, the more intelligent and right it is obviously.

"In this way, the concept of editing has a certain thickness, whereby, while apparently descriptive, it implies a tacit evaluative judgement."

>>8423235
>Technology should be politicized.
No the quote just states that it is politicized in that sense.
>We want to arbitrarily control technology based on our personal liberal feelings.
We want to control our technological findings in a way that won't break down society and hopefully won't introduce another communism like uprising.

>>8423284
They don't provide any figures or fact. Only loose ideas. Until they talk about actual study into what price becomes out of reach or other things it's pointless.

IVF, which is the closest technology to genetic engineering, isn't that expensive and many countries have options for it through public funding.

The problem is they don't provide figures or anything besides feelings. I could say just as legibly an idea that genetic engineering will save huge amounts of healthcare spending that goes to genetic disease, therefore making society more equitable.

>>8423364
>They don't provide any figures or fact. Only loose ideas.
And neither do you. How the fuck do you want to discuss ethics without feelings anyway.

>>8423376
ethic is not about feelings. It feels pretty good to slaughter poor people, but I think it is unethical.

>>8423448
Ethics is entirely about feelings

I really wish people would stop posting this girl

>>8423231
> "Ethics" oversight of science is bullshit
t. 12 year old

>>8423452
why? If beating your wife makes you feel good, then is it ethical?

>>8423532
If it makes her feel bad, it's bad.

If she thinks getting beat up feels good, then there is no ethical problem.

See, it's just feels.

>>8423532
If thats the feeling you are basing your ethics on, then yes. The technical term for that ethical system is egoistic hedonism

>>8423235
>No matter which way one looks, the frontiers of technology are seen to be at one and the same time, frontiers of politics.
>Technology should be politicized.
Now, I don't know much about you UK folks and your language, but in Ameircaneese, that says technology IS politicized, not that it necessarily should be. (Given the negative connotation of politics in general, it indeed suggests lamentation at the fact.)

Though this is the one I find funny:
>"Disability justice and rights scholars have made a range of moral arguments against selective technologies, from individual rights based arguments such as the right to life of people with disabilities, to arguments for the social and emotional value (e.g. vulnerability to contingency) of biological difference, to the value to humankind of conserving disability cultures, and the importance of the visibility of disability in establishing social attitudes, behaviour, and structures."
As it almost sounds as if he's saying that, if medical technology eliminates disability, we'll lose a somehow valuable culture unique to disabled people.

I was unaware that "wheelchair" was such a rich and glorious ethnicity. I suppose I'll need to look up their musical and literary accomplishments.

>>8423565
if that is the case, then my the wife should think it is ethical to be beaten up, because the husband likes it?

It makes no sense

>>8423448
The only reason it is considered unethical to slaughter people is that being slaughtered feels bad. Hence, ethics is just feelings.

>>8423452
You're thinking empathy, as it's exactly the opposite. Ethics is the process of separating feelings from morality. ie. The old "guy steals overpriced cancer drug for wife, is he right?" conundrum. Emphatically yes; ethically, no.

Not that people don't commonly make an emotional argument while claiming the ethical high ground, but that's just a case of ignoring the definition of the discipline.

>>8423569
>then my the wife should think it is ethical to be beaten up, because the husband likes it?
If she has the same ethical system as the beating husband then no, since being beaten up damages her happiness it is not good

>>8423578
All ethical arguments are emotional arguments at their core, just like every philosophical argument

>>8423581
It hurts my feelings that my wife does not feel happy with my happiness. Maybe she is the one being unethical.

Feelings cannot play any role, because it is too much perspective dependence, and ethics should be globally defined, not locally. Otherwise, we have a different ethical system for different groups, which could contradict each-other!

>>8423590
>It hurts my feelings that my wife does not feel happy with my happiness. Maybe she is the one being unethical.
Both of you are operating under an ethical system in which correct action is defined as that which increases your personal happiness. Also for both of you your own happiness necessitates a reduction in the others happiness. Thus you are in conflict while both acting ethically, according to the ethical system you are using

>Feelings cannot play any role
Create an ethical system that is not based on feelings then, by all means

>ethics should be globally defined, not locally
Justify this without your feelings

>Otherwise, we have a different ethical system for different groups, which could contradict each-other
So? Justify why this is bad without reference to your feelings

>>8423567
These people are deluded. I remember reading a reddit thread where SJWs were celebrating that bartenders must not deny serving alcohol to pregnant women in NY.
One poster specifically emphasized that denying alcohol from pregnant women is ABLEIST, because it implies that being born with fetal alcohol syndrome and other disabilities makes you a lesser being.

>>8423589
t. Someone who has never had either a philosophical nor an ethical argument.

Hell, when it comes to philosophy, it's not even a situation where every argument is emotionally charged. They've created literal mathematical languages for dialectic debate design specifically to remove all emotion and misunderstanding.

You've just had a lot of arguments with kids claiming they are being ethical and/or philosophical - there's a difference.

>>8423618
Present to me one single philosophical position that does not fundamentally rest on the arguers feelings

I'll wait

>>8423598
>Create an ethical system that is not based on feelings then, by all means
Like, nearly all of them?

>ethics should be globally defined, not locally
>Justify this without your feelings
Practicality of application and resolution of conflict.

>>8423630
>Like, nearly all of them?
Name one

>Practicality of application and resolution of conflict.
And why is this valuable?

>>8423231
reminds me of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i80qaETtw8

special snowflake complains about science and all of its products, then pulls out her smart phone and starts browsing

>>8423622
>Present to me one single philosophical position that does not fundamentally rest on the arguers feelings
Zeno's paradox?
Various Ship of Theseus issues?
The objectiveness of reality? Qualia?
Epistemology? Criterion? Molyneux? Set theory? Sorites paradox? Counterfactuals? Material implication? The Problem of induction? The problem of demarcation? NEED I FUCKING GO ON!?

You just have no idea what philosophy is... Which is sadly increasingly common, given modern education standards.

>>8423636
>Name one
Utilitarianism, Objectivism, Deontology, Role ethics, Post-structuralism, Consequentialism, State consequentialism... I actually have a harder time naming one that isn't. (And generally, if it isn't, it's not really ethics - like, wait, I got one, "Christian Ethics".)

>And why is this valuable?
Continued smooth operation of the system of society.

Yes, I realize, if you boil things down far enough, just breathing is an emotional choice, and any ethical system, however logical and practical and divorced from emotion, must take the emotional well-being of society into account to be effective, but the core effort and focus of both Philosophy and Ethics is to derive logical, rational conclusions, in spite of the fact that we are emotional beings.

The fact that people sometimes claim ethical righteousness based on their emotions has no bearing on that fact.

>>8423643
Every single one is based on feelings. Demonstrate how they are not.

More specifically, explain to me how you can justify an axiom without an appeal to emotion

>>8423670
>Utilitarianism, Objectivism, Deontology, Role ethics, Post-structuralism, Consequentialism, State consequentialism... I actually have a harder time naming one that isn't. (And generally, if it isn't, it's not really ethics - like, wait, I got one, "Christian Ethics".
All based on subjective, emotional rationalisations of what constitutes "good"

>Yes, I realize, if you boil things down far enough, just breathing is an emotional choice
Good, i'm glad you concede the argument

>Philosophy and Ethics is to derive logical, rational conclusions
Based always and without exception on emotional foundations

>>8423670
>Continued smooth operation of the system of society.
Are you serious? I think you vastly overestimate the impact of philosophical academia on actual policy-making.

>>8423678
>Demonstrate how they are not.
I couldn't begin explain how they are...

Zeno: "In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead."

Where the hell is the emotion in that argument?

>>8423684
"Everything is emotion" is not an argument, it's just reducto absurdum.

>>8423684
>>8423670

I want to say, I get what you're saying. Ethics can indeed proceed on a rational basis once we have agreed on axioms.

But thats the problem, its the axioms themselves that are usually being disputed, and all axioms are justified entirely by emotion

>>8423692
>Where the hell is the emotion in that argument?
The entire argument rests on the infinite divisibility of space, a belief which is justified by emotion (and totally contradicted by observation)

>>8423692
>"Everything is emotion" is not an argument
Well it is an argument, its just not a very good one. Which is ok since I never argued it

My argument is that "all axioms are justified only with emotion"

>>8423685
I'm describing the value of the property as it pertains towards the application of the goal, not the end result of the inevitable shortcomings arising from inevitably imperfect application and limited perception.

>>8423696
More or less agreeing argumentatively then. The field and the study is designed to divorce itself from emotion. It just doesn't always succeed, and in some instances, doesn't take into account all the consequences of said... But like science, it's an evolving field, likely never to be perfected.

But even in the most charged situations, it's not *entirely* by emotion. Positions are always subject to challenge by reason, to one degree or another, and ultimately, pragmatism tends to win out over such concerns. (Even if, sometimes, it's through the mechanism of extinction.)

>>8423711
>I'm describing the value of the property as it pertains towards the application of the goal, not the end result of the inevitable shortcomings arising from inevitably imperfect application and limited perception.
Congratulations on sound like an obnoxious twat while saying nothing of substance. I see you've earned your philosophical credentials well.

>>8423704
>a belief which is justified by emotion (and totally contradicted by observation)
No, it's the opposite. Observation and emotion say space is divisible. But upon rational reflection, Zeno finds this not to be, and goes on to provide a mathematical explanation.

That the exact opposite of an emotional argument (which in this case, would be in the right), vs. one based purely on logic.

(Plus, the only real mathematical solution to it involves convergence, which isn't really complete.)

>>8423711
>Positions are always subject to challenge by reason
Not axioms though. They can only be challenged on emotional grounds, as they are only justified with emotional reasoning.

This is my entire and only point

Perhaps saying "ethics is entirely about feelings" was stretching it too far, since I freely concede that reason is a valid tool for turning axioms into outcomes, so I will retract that statement and replace it with

All ethics is based on feelings

>>8423716
I'm sorry, I'll translate:
I r sayin' what it r tryin' to do, nut what it doos IRL, lol11!1!

>>8423725
Dunno what yer on about, axioms are challenged by reason all the time.

I mean, unless we're down to that whole "existing is an emotional choice" thing again. Doesn't change the fact that an axe is better for chopping wood than your hand. (Unless you're Chuck Norris.) Not every decision is bound up in and buried by emotional turmoil.

>>8423231
>low IQ, gibberish, and braindead
they aren't, they are all DoD shills, they just want to cut off civilian programs so that genome editing is only performed at top secret clearance so that any advances don't enter into the domain of public use and discussion and can be used by the military right away in secret for whatever it may be useful.

>>8423735
>axioms are challenged by reason all the time
Example?

>I mean, unless we're down to that whole "existing is an emotional choice" thing again
I dont know what this means

>>8423736
Eh, I think they are just idiots.

Not that I mind genetic engineering being slowed a bit by idiots (however much I disagree with their reasoning), given the potential for species wide consequences, the potential for abuse, and how little we currently know about what we're actually doing. Though, I realize the younger among you are probably hoping for immortality in your lifetime's - so as you were.

>>8423746
If I have to provide an example, I suspect we're talking about very different thing when we say "axiom", especially given recent history.

Perhaps provide an example of an axiom that remains unchallenged by reason? Cuz I can't think of one, off hand.

>>8423231
Salmon dalmon.

>>8423751
Pleasure is good, pain is bad

>>8423760
That's a value judgment, not an axiom. Marquise De Sade, among others, had a lot to say about it, and the value of pain and pleasure is widely debated, and has been, like forever. It's not as if John B. Watson and Dr. Spock would ever agree on the subject.

>>8423770
Its not a mathematical axiom but it is still an axiom. An axiom is an assumed truth used as the basis for an argument

>>8423760
>>8423770
Specifically, thats the fundamental axiom that hedonism is based on

>>8423776
Hedonism has too broad and varied a definition of both of those to really consider that a proper summation of the axiom.

>>8423773
I'd call that far too vague to be considered an axiom in a debate, but I suppose... It's nonetheless, one that is regularly challenged by reasoning, as well as emotion.

>>8423782
>Hedonism has too broad and varied a definition of both of those to really consider that a proper summation of the axiom
Regardless, every form of hedonism is based on that idea

>It's nonetheless, one that is regularly challenged by reasoning
Well go on then, demonstrate how you would challenge that without emotional reasoning

>>8423643
what a useless list of bullshit

might as well be talking about pokemon lore or something. Equally useless.

>>8423794
>Regardless, every form of hedonism is based on that idea
Not, really. I mean, I suppose you could place it as a header, but the pleasure principle is a lot more complicated than that, and in the end, doesn't have anything to do with the colloquial definition of pleasure or pain.

>Well go on then, demonstrate how you would challenge that without emotional reasoning
The obvious one be that pain is a survival function that programs avoidance of danger, in addition to a conditioning mechanism, while the emotion of pleasure pursued without attention to consequence, leads to said consequences. Ergo, neither is consistently "good" or "bad", while both are sensasion states that aid in survival.

>>8423806
Even if I were to agree with you, it'd be besides the point - but well played.

>>8423821
>The obvious one be that pain is a survival function that programs avoidance of danger, in addition to a conditioning mechanism, while the emotion of pleasure pursued without attention to consequence, leads to said consequences
Entirely possible

>Ergo, neither is consistently "good" or "bad"
Conclusion does not follow from argument. Why does pleasure/pain being survival mechanisms mean they do not equal good/bad?

Could it be that your argument rests on an unstated but assumed definition of "good" that contradicts my own offered definition of "good"?

>>8423831
Well, I suppose I am resting on the axiom that survival is good and death is bad... But without that we're rapidly going towards the anti-natalist argument that suggests breathing is an irrational act.

There is, however, the fact that pain as a programming and training technique acts as a deterrent in any given individual, without which said individual will inflict it upon others. Thus pain cannot be said to be universally bad, or it propagates universally. For pleasure, more simply, as already suggested, its blind pursuit can lead to an inability to acquire pleasure (or even to pain), this suggests it is not so universally good that it should be pursued in every opportunity.

Granted, if you have a scenario where no one ever feels pain, and everyone always feels pleasure, then you're off into a nirvana scenario, yes. Though, it'll be rather short lived, as without that cycle of motivators, everyone will eventually simply die, which brings us back to the first paragraph.

>>8423848
>I suppose I am resting on the axiom that survival is good and death is bad
Precisely

>Thus pain cannot be said to be universally bad
Why? I am defining pain as bad. There is no higher evil except greater pain

The only way to counter this is to use a definition in which pain is not the only evil, which means relying on an alternate axiom that is emotionally justified

>>8423567
>As it almost sounds as if he's saying that, if medical technology eliminates disability, we'll lose a somehow valuable culture unique to disabled people.
You're in for a wild ride, friend.

https://www.start-american-sign-language.com/cochlear-implants_html
>Cochlear Implants – A Cultural Threat

post more emma

>>8423863
You can come up with entirely non-emotional reasons why death is bad, but if you're unwilling to set any at all (not even survival), you can't do anything, and at that point, there's no reason to discuss it - or anything else.

>>8423231
i need to impregnater her inside her pussyer so badly

>>8423231
That is why Europe will fall behind Asia eventually, Chinese or Singapore I imagine have far less concerns for ethics in genetic research.

>>8424655
>i need to impregnater her inside her pussyer so badly
t. Jamal the Refugee Scholar

>>8424360
>You can come up with entirely non-emotional reasons why death is bad
No you cant. All your justifications will be reducible to value judgements which are always based on emotion

>>8424864
Like I said, if you can't even set survival as a goal, there's no point in making any plans or discussing them.

You can, however, entirely unemotionally, set goals - such as nonsensical ones of no consequence, and determine the best way to achieve them. Death just happens to be of high emotional consequence. It may get *priority* as a matter of an emotional value judgement, but determining the best and most logical way to avoid it, doesn't necessarily require emotionally based decisions.

Though, for short term decisions among a lot of variables of little consequence, some studies of brain damaged patients suggest that emotions actually help. Still, even those rare birds, still tend to prioritize survival.

>>8424881
>You can, however, entirely unemotionally, set goals
No you cant, your motivation is ALWAYS emotionally driven. There is literally no such thing as a purely rational motivation

I get what you're saying, bu you are fundamentally wrong. You cannot ever completely divorce yourself from emotion because the underlying root of all your reasoning is always emotional

>>8424887
I'll give you that, at your core, to a degree, you can't exist without emotion, for you have no motive to do anything... But there are certainly those who exist under greatly reduced emotional capacity, and/or literally cannot connect their emotions to their decision making process - and it turns out that sucks.

But, on non-emotionally charged issues your logic and reasoning will almost always win out. Further, the more people you bring to the issue to debate that logic, who are emotionally detached from the issue, the more likely that will be... Which among the reasons we so often ask for "advice" (or, more to the board topic, due so many duplication experiments).

Emotions do not completely divorce you from making logic based decisions or setting logical values. At worst, they interfere.

Or, to put it in pop-sci fasion:
http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/audio4.wnyc.org/radiolab/radiolab111408.mp3
(Skipping to about ~21 mins.)