Thoughts for Science

Another subject that has come up a lot this semester is the fact that quite rapidly, that which was once science fiction is quickly becoming actual science. Perhaps not as fast as some authors rashly predicted, but genetic alterations, robots, and cryonics are now a thing of the present even if they aren't yet mainstream. The result has been mass opposition and endless debates over the morality of things like stem-cell research and cloning, and a significant conservative backlash to some of the paths science is taking. Now, whether or you or I personally agree with this that or the other, I think that I can safely say that opposition of any kind, whether they end up being right or not, is in fact a good thing. It is good for people to argue against and reasonably debate the things that many scientists are doing. Why do I say this is a good thing? Because whether or not cryonics or cloning is morally wrong, scientists must sometimes be made to stop and consider the moral implications of what they are doing. And that will only happen if people offer arguments against them. So whether stem cell research ends up saving countless millions of lives or is simply the first step down a long slippery slope ending in human beings as crops (or both), I am just glad that people are stopping to consider the ramifications and proceed cautiously. I think Ian Malcolm put it best in a Sci-Fi movie about the dangers of rashly cloning long extinct dinosaurs..."Yeah well, your scientists were so focused on whether they could, they never stopped to think if they should!"

Strange Bedfellows

Something that has always been on my mind, throughout freshman year in my FDR class, through science classes and religion classes a like, is this odd relationship that science and religion have. There are two schools of thought on this. One of which is that science and religion can't really co-exist, the other is that well, they can. Throughout the study of science fiction, i haven't had this question come up. Why ? Because the science fiction I've seen/read has moved past this question. I'm finding it really interesting to explore the ways in which God, or this higher power is manifest in various things I've watched or seen that are sci-fi, and that's the topic that my paper is exploring...

Till Later.

Arguments Against Immortality

IO9 has once again posted something that connects with recent discussions in class, this time offering four arguments against immortality.

Ethics on the Island

I am writing my paper on morality and ethical issues raised on LOST. Unfortunately I'll have to finish this paper before the series ends, so some of my theories may end up being wrong...but by and large so far LOST has maintained that the lines between good and evil are not clearly drawn. There are some decisions made by the characters that are flat out perceived as wrong on the show (such as Ben's sacrifice of his daughter for the greater good, or Sayid's attempt to kill Ben as a child to prevent him from committing atrocities later in life). However, a significant portion of my paper is going to be on the simple inability to distinguish the good from the bad on the Island, much as real life is like. I have been pleasantly surprised to find this theme ongoing with every new episode that airs, since the "good" side fighting against the supposedly evil monster nevertheless do a number of things that cannot be seen as right by any means (such as the sacrifice of innocent bystanders). It appears that LOST is attempting to capture the human condition and the confusion that occurs when you aren't sure if you're fighting for the right side. This makes alot of sense to me...after all, the evil of someone like Hitler is purely hindsight, since at the time he was followed by millions of people, many of which were good people. But, as was famously pointed out, the best lie is the one that is 99% true. I am very very curious to find out who, if anyone, holds the key to the whole truth in LOST.

Is Creativity Valuable?

If we lived in a future in which we all had the same or similar capacities to do all tasks (i.e. being able to download languages at will, able to do complex math mentally, able to lift heavy objects...etc.), I would like to think that jobs would be divvied out according to who had a passion for which job. Even if person A and person B are "equally qualified" to be editors, for example, if person A is more excited about editing, then it seems that he/she is best for the job b/c of the likelihood of creative ideas arising from that passion. Person A and person B might have identical GPAs, the same schooling, the same test scores...etc., but person A seems slightly more qualified to me b/c of wanting to apply the essence of his/her being to the workplace. That is what makes individuals unique--creativity.

It should be mentioned that by creativity, I am not referring to artistic ability necessarily. I think some people excel in creativity in developing sports strategies(think about how Butler was able to take on Duke), engineering (practical solutions to practical problems [maybe why a bridge is collapsing or why a certain computer command is ineffective] often arise b/c of a creative mind), teaching (being the first person to make learning fun for a student)...etc. I think creativity is something essential to being human. Maybe it is expressed in varying degrees in different people, but more often than not, I think that people who claim to have no creativity in anything simply haven't discovered their strengths yet.

I worry that creativity is undervalued these days, though, b/c as a nation, as an economy, we're more concerned about gross domestic product, not just in goods but in people. We want babies to be "Baby Einsteins" b/c we want them to be get have a head-start in school and thus a head-start in the job market. After all, why else do we go to school anymore except to be on the track to a career? People always say that there are serious problems w/ the school system, the economy...etc., but I think that ultimately if people are affirmed for their individualities--the areas in which they are creative and therefore unique--we might fix some of those problems.

Legal Limits

One of the questions brought up today in class is whether there should be legal limits to advancing, improving, and extending humans and their life. One example was if it should be legal to replace someone's heart simply because it would make them a better athlete, or make them stronger. I do think that there needs to be some type of regulation to control these types of actions. If one is allowed to infinitely enhance themselves or others, then things would no doubt get out of control. What would be stopping people from creating "superhumans"? I feel that our humanity would suffer greatly. While I personally hope that we do not reach a point where we need these certain laws to prevent these things from happening, certain laws would definitely be necessary to regulate enhancing a human's life.

Extended Life

What if one day technology allowed us to live a longer life?

Would this be a good thing? In my opinion this would not be good. As mentioned in a blog before mine, no one wants to die. But dying, I believe is what is best for all of humanity. This is because many problems would stem from living longer lives. For instance just to name a few (I can think a lot!): over population, decreased natural resources, increased disease, increased antibiotic resistance, and increased poverty (or division b/n 3 social classes).

My main concern is towards humanity. If people are able to live longer, yes they do in fact get to cheat death for a little bit longer, but the repercussions of this longer life span might actually wipe out humanity at a faster rate. If the world runs out of resources or disease runs rampant, then more people are going to be wiped out faster than anyone can reproduce.

Ironically, the attempt to extend humanity would ultimately wipe it out.