Technical activity automatically eliminates every nontechnical activity or transforms it into technical activity. This does not mean, however, that there is any conscious effort or directive will. Jacques Ellul
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Escalator Fallacy
In the Philosophy in Human Nature course with professor Langguth we spoke of a fallacy that humans are always looking to get "better." More evolved one would say, like that song we listened to before we left class on Tuesday. Nevertheless, disregarding his credibility and moving all intellectual things aside. I simply do not agree with Jefferey Smith. I think, like Brand, it has been a huge benefit for us. The ability to create more crops with less use, or ability to integrate two strands of something to create a better crop to me is just an amazing thing to think of in an of itself. Yet, the negatives being some people getting sick, or repercussions with perhaps the plants dying out all together is a pretty big issue. Lets look at the issue of sickness, if people are getting sick off of these new strands, treat it like a food allergy, use the old or non-genetically altered food. A simple way to avoid any issues there, and if it becomes to big we will just rid of that strand. Also the extinction of that crop, just conserve some of the old crop and voila all negatives avoided. I look at the plants similar to the human body, there are so many things out there now to put you in better shape or to improve you strength. If you take it and you see side effects, stop, but if you see the results you wanted or the results that the product was supposed to give you. What is the harm?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The idea of trial and error with genetic engineering to me is merely and "sped up" version of evolution. Really it is taking the best parts of evolution and deleting the "bad parts" (such as the amount of time it takes to create improvements). In one of the psychology major courses we discussed whether engineering humans to be bigger, faster, and smarter would be ethical. I argued that if I could guarantee my child would be 6'5, 230 pounds, a world class sprinter, and have a 170 IQ along with raising them properly then of course I would as I would want the best for my child and in a distant way my species. I know there are hundreds of arguments again what I just said, not all bad either, but as a simple example I think eventually we will have to realize that being able to use these technologies may simply be as evolutionary as chimps who use sticks and other tools to get good.
Post a Comment