Bio-Tech RE:Format//...~
Sep. 21st, 2005 08:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7Mindless Self Indulgence - [Straight to Video]--- The panel was almost ludicris in its shallow nature. I wanted honest discussion, and thought, a true cost benefit analysis. What I did not want was someone saying "Biotecnological enhancement is great, and here's why!" countered by "bio-technology Sucks, and here's why!" or vice versa. This is almost precisely what I was given.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mech_angel and I arrived percisely on time, and sat down near the front, to hear the speakers introduced. There was so much talk, from the heads of so many departments (three or four, all told), speaking as to how much of an honour it was to be there, and to be able to do this wonderful, revolutionary thing. They were kissing each other's asses, so hard, i wondered if they would have any stamina left, for the actual discussion; this should have been my first clue.
The Dresden Dolls - [Colorblind]--- The first gentleman, Professor Maxwell Mehlman, J.D., noted that he was asked to speak on the negative aspects of Bio-Tech, even though his opinion is that it was a good thing, to be monitored, and regulated, and given to the people as a choice, rather than a mandate, and carefully moderated, to prevent a full on eugenics, or "Brave New World" situation. He didn't say all of this, in the beginning, rather this was what was gained, from listening to him speak. I feel that this was good for him. While his presentation was campy, smarmy, and somewhat unfocused, using a lot of pop-culture movie stills, in his Power-Point Presentation, it was honest, in that he was forced to seriously ocnsider the downsides of the things he was advocating, if in a subtle manner. He was made to be honest, about the dangers, and the costs, as well as the potential benefits. (Ben Folds Five - [Battle of Who Could Care Less]). Which is the kind of even-handed assesment for which i was hoping, throughout. I was displeased with what followed.
Ronald Bailey, a Biotechnology news correspondent, spoke, after Professor Mehlman. His enitre presentation aws blindly optimistic, glossing over all potential concerns with a "Well that's what nature does, anyway; we're just helping it along" attitude. This was not helpful. The questions raised by this position, when it said that there were no ethical remifications, to any bio-tech enhancement practices, were basically of a "Prove It" nature. (Buffy the Vampire Slayer Cast - [That's What it's All About]). What i mean, here, is that Mr Bailey did not address the concern of the nature of the human condition, when approached by this sweeping and/or incrimental change, in its physical host. Change in form informs (yes, i meant that) change in mental structure. What will this do to us, as a species? And how should we allay these concerns?
Neither speaker had anything to say on the subject, other than "We'll get along," or "We'll have to do the best we can." (Poe - [Strange Wind]). Which is true. We can only do what we are able to do, and we have what would seem, in such a situation, a moral imperative (you like that? You like how i wove morals and ethics, into the whole thing?) to do whatever that is, if we are going to do it, to the best of our abilities. However, what we can do, in this situation, is not necessarily what we should do. There's that naturalistic fallacy, for you, again. That classic "Is/Ought" gap. What is done is not necessarily what Should Be Done. To think that it is, without taking into account the myriad ideals of choice, freewill, and determinacy, and the intersections, thereof (because they do), is wildly irresponsible. Messiers Mehlman and Baily did not, i feel, address any of this.
Tony Scott - [Hare Krishna (King Britt Funke Mix)]--- My point, here, is that they did not discuss the Ethical implications of Bio-Technological Enhancement. They discussed the sociological efficacy and implications, and the legislative aspects, but they did not directly address its moral efficacy. Also, symptomatically, they didn't distinguish between the varying types of Bio-Tech Enhancements, and the differing ramifications there-involved.
If you couldn't tell, i'm kind of disappointed.
*breathes deeply*
In other news, i started reading Anansi Boys, today. I'm really enjoying it, quite a lot. I recommend it. Yes. I'm soon off to do more of that.
Before that, though, looking at pictures, thinking of dates, I keep having, in my head, something thatmech_angel said to me: Different permutations of a theme, each to each. One after another. Very strange, the things the universe does to our head...
Polaris - [Ashamed of the Story I Told]--- I think that's my cue to shut up...
I'm out.
mech_angel and I arrived percisely on time, and sat down near the front, to hear the speakers introduced. There was so much talk, from the heads of so many departments (three or four, all told), speaking as to how much of an honour it was to be there, and to be able to do this wonderful, revolutionary thing. They were kissing each other's asses, so hard, i wondered if they would have any stamina left, for the actual discussion; this should have been my first clue.The Dresden Dolls - [Colorblind]--- The first gentleman, Professor Maxwell Mehlman, J.D., noted that he was asked to speak on the negative aspects of Bio-Tech, even though his opinion is that it was a good thing, to be monitored, and regulated, and given to the people as a choice, rather than a mandate, and carefully moderated, to prevent a full on eugenics, or "Brave New World" situation. He didn't say all of this, in the beginning, rather this was what was gained, from listening to him speak. I feel that this was good for him. While his presentation was campy, smarmy, and somewhat unfocused, using a lot of pop-culture movie stills, in his Power-Point Presentation, it was honest, in that he was forced to seriously ocnsider the downsides of the things he was advocating, if in a subtle manner. He was made to be honest, about the dangers, and the costs, as well as the potential benefits. (Ben Folds Five - [Battle of Who Could Care Less]). Which is the kind of even-handed assesment for which i was hoping, throughout. I was displeased with what followed.
Ronald Bailey, a Biotechnology news correspondent, spoke, after Professor Mehlman. His enitre presentation aws blindly optimistic, glossing over all potential concerns with a "Well that's what nature does, anyway; we're just helping it along" attitude. This was not helpful. The questions raised by this position, when it said that there were no ethical remifications, to any bio-tech enhancement practices, were basically of a "Prove It" nature. (Buffy the Vampire Slayer Cast - [That's What it's All About]). What i mean, here, is that Mr Bailey did not address the concern of the nature of the human condition, when approached by this sweeping and/or incrimental change, in its physical host. Change in form informs (yes, i meant that) change in mental structure. What will this do to us, as a species? And how should we allay these concerns?
Neither speaker had anything to say on the subject, other than "We'll get along," or "We'll have to do the best we can." (Poe - [Strange Wind]). Which is true. We can only do what we are able to do, and we have what would seem, in such a situation, a moral imperative (you like that? You like how i wove morals and ethics, into the whole thing?) to do whatever that is, if we are going to do it, to the best of our abilities. However, what we can do, in this situation, is not necessarily what we should do. There's that naturalistic fallacy, for you, again. That classic "Is/Ought" gap. What is done is not necessarily what Should Be Done. To think that it is, without taking into account the myriad ideals of choice, freewill, and determinacy, and the intersections, thereof (because they do), is wildly irresponsible. Messiers Mehlman and Baily did not, i feel, address any of this.
Tony Scott - [Hare Krishna (King Britt Funke Mix)]--- My point, here, is that they did not discuss the Ethical implications of Bio-Technological Enhancement. They discussed the sociological efficacy and implications, and the legislative aspects, but they did not directly address its moral efficacy. Also, symptomatically, they didn't distinguish between the varying types of Bio-Tech Enhancements, and the differing ramifications there-involved.
If you couldn't tell, i'm kind of disappointed.
*breathes deeply*
In other news, i started reading Anansi Boys, today. I'm really enjoying it, quite a lot. I recommend it. Yes. I'm soon off to do more of that.
Before that, though, looking at pictures, thinking of dates, I keep having, in my head, something that
mech_angel said to me: Different permutations of a theme, each to each. One after another. Very strange, the things the universe does to our head...Polaris - [Ashamed of the Story I Told]--- I think that's my cue to shut up...
I'm out.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-22 01:05 am (UTC)Any context to the thoughts on what I said? Maybe it'll clear something up. I dunno. ^_^;
no subject
Yeah, there weren't, and no you shouldn't have. It was almost Too simplistic. Wait. Scracth the almost.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-22 06:41 am (UTC)I've probably said this in the past but, if you get the chance, read "Great Mombo Chicken & the TransHuman Experience" for some perspective and comedy on both sides.
no subject