I thought this was particularly interesting.

After viewing this short clip do you think that science is currently pushing society towards a utopia?

I think that this is far from happening considering that any scientific improvement for the betterment of the biological system is thought of as playing god. Thus as a result there will always be those who deny or reject such advancement. In which case they will be left in the dust of those who seek out and accept this improvement.

What would suggest that even if science went forth uninhibited that the result would be utopic? Nothing we've seen so far has suggested it.

This isn't to say science is evil. Far from it. We're better off in terms of quality of life now than we were a century ago for certain. However, human nature hasn't changed at all.

Utopian visions usually involve a fairly egalatarian "everyone is happy" ideology. Besides the fact that this doesn't exactly mesh with Satanism, even if science were to grow to the limits of what we can currently even speculate on, such as:

- Medical breakthroughs extending life indefinitely and making injuries non-permanent
- Clean "unlimited" power
- Rapid, safe transportation
- Supreme hygiene
- Unparallelled entertainment

What would suggest that the common man would have access to this? Although there is a trend that eventually technology becomes cheap enough that most people can afford it, this is not a universal truth - look at medical technology. Cosmetic surgery has been around in various forms for centuries and has been used in a more or less modern capacity since the early 20th century, but it is still hardly an everyman luxury. The common man does not own a personal aircraft. He probably never will.

The best stuff is always kept by the richest sector and that will never change. Every social structure man has devised so far still had an upper class and they had the good shit. The majority still lived in squalor and will continue to do so.

Suppose the common man did have access to every luxury. Would even that be utopian?

Or would people simply languish in vapid consumerism and petty self-importance, paving the way for the erosion of their freedoms?

If only I had a literary example....

Exactly. Bottom line is, utopia is a pipe dream. Populated by not just philosophers but apparently Vulcans who never act on emotional impulse.

Just be glad you can flush your shit, it's not all that bad.

If you dress a pig in a tuxedo, know what you got?
A pig in a tuxedo.

No matter what advances are made scientifically or otherwise, people remain what they are. Give them the capability to instantaneously broadcast the wisdom of the world, and they will fill it with videos of fart jokes and idiots getting hit in the balls.

>> No matter what advances are made scientifically or otherwise, people remain what they are. Give them the capability to instantaneously broadcast the wisdom of the world, and they will fill it with videos of fart jokes and idiots getting hit in the balls. <<

A better way of explaining it is the quote from Richard Burton as John Morlar in the brilliant film The Medusa Touch...


"Humans are inherently evil. We discover what powers the sun and we make bombs with it."

Just to be a nit-picker (and because I'd rather not, as a conscientious consumer, be lumped together with hysterical jesus freaks)... I think there are a lot of reasons why people are wary of medical advances other than the "it's god's territory" fear. Plenty of perfectly valid reasons to be cautious about new and/or unfamiliar technology.

Science has a long history of being demonized. But, at the other end of the spectrum, there are some folks who seem to idolize it, mistake it for a kind of religion to worship. Either extreme is pretty disturbing.

A really fun, entertaining, insightful book on the history of the "Mad Scientist" scapegoat/stereotype is David Skal's Screams of Reason. Highly recommended.

Thank you Shade for the recommendation!

That is indeed a very valid thought to be considered. I view science as a wonderful tool to be used when it proves itself as benefitial. I can see the benefits of having our limbs and other body parts repaired as we age. But as far as something as deadly as nuclear bombs, I think that is worthy to fear since it can potentially kill me.

All I have to say is what is so wrong with this country that people can't accept this? Manipulated Christians... need to awaken to reality and gain some intelligence.

Hmm not that I dispute this but technology may improve too fast for even the rich to keep up.

Shit does flow downwards but then even shit gets backed up sometimes.

Can you give one example of another reason? Why are you wary of medical advances?

You're kidding, right?

"Medical advances" is a nice clean euphemism for the incredible series of historical fuckups, that is the beta-version guinea pig testing on the human herd, before feedback on what didn't quite work, and lawsuits, and legal statutes, and beyond all else, ego and the profit motive, force further progress, to where the "advance" can be used with confidence.

Thalidomide anyone? How bout a nice silicone breast implant? Or the first version of an artificial anything? Latest cure for itches? There's thousands of examples.

Not complaining mind you; it's just what is.

Always let other people's bodies be used to work out the kinks of the latest "advance" - THEN use it!!

For some reason drug commercials always end in a long list of warnings about how this may cause vomiting, dizziness, thoughts of suicide, depression, and risk of stroke.

Yeah, nothing to worry about with medical advances. They just make you want to kill yourself if you avoid a stroke!

I'm just waiting until they have to start saying, "Warning, may cause diarrhea, vomiting and mild death."

Then you have the law offices following up with radio commercials offering a lawsuit against such companies.

While no one is going to be happy with errors, medical error is not going to be an exception, quite far from it; I'm pretty sure everyone is happy to know that they'd have anaesthetic available in the surgery room if they were going to be split opened for whatever given reason.


So is it really medical advance in itself that scares you personally, or is it medical error?

If you decide that it is indeed medical advance in itself that scares you personally, do you propose that medicine has already advanced enough and should therefore stop advancing, or do you propose different forms of research, or... ?

“We look for medicine to be an orderly field of knowledge and procedure. But it is not. It is an imperfect science, an enterprise of constantly changing information, uncertain information, fallible individuals, and at the same time lives on the line. There is science in what we do, yes, but also habit, intuition, and sometimes plain old guessing. The gap between what we know and what we aim for persists. And this gap complicates everything we do.” ~ Atul Gawande, Complications: A Surgeon’s Notes on an Imperfect Science

I understand human error; nothing in medicine has a 100% ironclad guarantee of safety. Everything has side effects, some more unpredictable than others. Medical advances don't scare me. I'm just suspicious of anyone trying to sell me something. It's tempting to want to see the medical profession as altruistic, as having my best interests in mind, but it's a business like any other. I don't think that's a good thing or bad thing necessarily. Just something I try to keep in mind. Caveat emptor.

The only other cause of concern for me, personally, is privacy. Any time there is a surgical addition of artificial parts I think they come with a bar code, sku number or some other scannable trackable doohickey. Information management and privacy protection would be critical; one's medical history can include clues, hints and explicit details of so many things. I'd rather be off the grid entirely than be lit up like a Christmas tree with a blinking neon roadmap of vulnerabilities for total strangers and potential enemies to see and/or exploit.

I don't mean to sound paranoid. I just think it's important to carefully weigh the pros and cons before doing something that effects my health and safety.

“The best protection against propaganda of any sort is the recognition of it for what it is. Only hidden or undetected oratory is really insidious. What reaches the heart without going through the mind is likely to bounce back and put the mind out of business. Propaganda taken in that way is like a drug you do not know you are swallowing.” ~ Adler and Van Doren, How to Read a Book

I am not sure who you are addressing; I have never said a thing about being "scared" about anything in this discussion so far.

Be that as it may (no matter really), I do have one word to describe the train wrecks that can happen when capitalism meets science meets quarterly report myopia...

Monsanto. Fuckers. I hate 'em.

Now, Monsanto is not doing human medical research per se, but do serve as a paradigm of how advanced genetic research can be designed only for corporate profit and nothing else, result in catastrophe that affects the biosphere as a whole, and still be clothed in enough corporate happy talk bullshit and have enough political clout to continue unabated, with next to zero chance to put the genie back in the bottle once the public catches on.

It is not difficult to envision similar uncorrectable errors occurring in human genetic research some day.

By the way, I and my partners am involved in creating a multi-national bio-tech start-up, so for me this is not theoretical jawing about.

I am absolutely pro-science and absolutely pro-capitalism, but that does not preclude the possibility of incredibly intractable problems resulting from the confluence of both.

If I may jump into the conversation with my 2...or maybe even 1 cent worth...

Any time anyone...or anything...comes across as a savior, chances are they may be behind the problem in the first place.
Science...especially medical science...HAS to be a dialogue between the practitioner and the consumer. Everything comes at a cost; even if it is not immediately apparent. Always do your own research. Chances are, you have as many resources as your physician. And if history has taught us anything, freaking forget about utopia. There ain't no such animal.

Fear? No
Educated caution? Yes.

What they said, and plus think about this. It's a business. If the Dr. or the pharmaceuticals that they prescribe you actually cures you, do you think they're going to make nearly as much as they do now?

However, this area in which the video is on does show real promise, and progression towards some very real potential uses. It, however, does not signify a Utopia.

I apologize to anyone disappointed that there never will be a Utopia, but it's simply just how it is. There's always going to be violence, war, peace, crime, etc., etc. with every civilization. It is simply how nature works both in the human animal, and animals in general.

Sort of killing two birds with one stone you could say with this post.

Can you imagine how friggin' BORING utopia would be?!
Think about it...No more disasters for professional...disaster reliefing people...to make money on.
Assuming a bare minimum of intelligence, far fewer stupid people to fall for your wiles.
And...more alarming than that...no more really good looking dumb chicks to take...I mean...woo.

Messy and imperfect is okay.

Now...if we can have a utopia where the above would not be an issue...

Daark, although I understand the dangers of mixing medical science and profit, do you think there's really any other way?

I too am very much pro-science and pro-capitalism; and I've always assumed that the problems that can arise from the mixing of the two, were just an inevitability (“cost of doing business”, “a necessary evil”, etc.) Basically, I’ve always assumed that in regards to things like this, money needs to be the primary motivation for anything to get done (or at least to get funded).

I kind of got the impression from your post above, that maybe you had an idea about how to rectify this issue, or that you had better ways in mind for dealing with the two? If you do, I would be very curious to know what your thoughts are; at least in a very basic way (meaning I’m sure that you could give an explanation that would go way over my head).

I would rather live in a society that postulates strength. A utopia would be set for the weak and allow the myth of equality to no longer be a myth. Judging the history books this would prove impossible.

I also think science is indeed important for stratification in the world at large. Just look at the third world countries.

No it's not. I think errors will always be made so long as humans (the king of the fuck ups) exists. But it is what happens once all the errors and kinks are worked out that really matters.

Not to speak for Reverend Daark, but from my perspective there are a lot of issues that arise from any meeting of business-for-profit with matters of considerable human interest, such as medicine, food, etc - but I do not propose a better way. I recognize a necessary evil and simply advise that you watch your own ass and trust no one. Similarly I suggested that technology in general is hardly our savior, though clearly enough it has advanced our quality of life. At least, advanced our quality of life in the context of having exceeded earth's natural capacity to bear us quite some time ago.

I wondered if you were referring to the Terminator plants. Those were never made commercially available, but the very concept of it is just fucking appalling. Even ignoring the (admittedly slim) chance of global catastrophe from it (caveat: I think the odds of it having SOME possibility of widespread damage is not so slim - might be limited to "only" a wipeout of corn crops, or somesuch, but still not something we want to try out), the very concept of forcing agriculture to enslave itself to a fucking corporation is disgusting. Isn't the whole point of farming the fact that it is independently sustainable? Isn't the whole idea here a more or less guaranteed food source, weather permitting?

Was only curious because there are quite a few reasons not to much like Monsanto. Just look at how many superfund sites they've left laying around.

Yep, that one.

The most aggressive arms dealer to the Third World is deserving of a humanitarian award compared to Monsanto. Their list of cynical nastiness goes on for pages.

>>>
EDITED FOR LEGAL REASONS
>>>

Hey... just think of Monsanto as the Scientology of Science, and you've got the picture!

I found irony in the fact that Terminator plants share a name with a movie series focussed on the hazards of technology run amok and destroying mankind.

Maybe I'd find more irony in it if it weren't for the fact that crop failure is a much more real and likely danger than being overrun by kickass cyborgs. I think I'd rather go to war with robots than starve because some greedy douchebag businessman wanted to patent and monopolize food.

Hear hear on all points.

Envision this.

Monsanto successfully gets a monopoly on most of mankind's food crops. They get their terminator tech approved. The world adjusts (painfully) to the situation of HAVING to buy EVERY years seeds from them.

Insiders at Monsanto get into the derivative markets. They engage in insider trading. They get caught. They go bankrupt and the execs go to prison.

Lawyers for the holding company for Monsanto's assets while it transitions out of bankruptcy prevent the proprietary seeds from going to market.

For two years.

Thank you for your very well thought-out response.


So the problem as you see it is not so much a matter of economics and science coming together; as what happens next. That makes sense.

Aside from ethical issues, some of the things that you're concerned about would seem to be very impractical, even from a long term financial standpoint. I'm aware that companies are accountable to their stockholders, but it all just seems so shortsighted even if greed is your only motivation.

Needless to say, destroying the world really isn’t a very profitable, long-term business strategy.

Reminds me of Billy Crystal's Miracle Max:

Indeed, though that part was mostly for humor sakes.

My response was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

I mean...what kind of Satanist would I be if ever took advantage of stupid people? Especially dumb chicks.

That's right, you didn't use the term "scared", I guess I used it because I thought that's what it was considering you were referring to medical errors... I should have stuck with "wary" I suppose.

I did get the impression that you were not in favour of medical advance in itself by your initial post, but thanks for clarifying it.

Not only medicines may cause "side effects", even chocolate may cause a "side effect", if one eats too much of it, they'll end up in the toilet for hours, they'll get fat, etc.

General side effects cautions given with medicines are due to the fact that not everybody's body's the same... what can be beneficial to one, may bring side effects to someone else because of a number of given conditions.

It's not a bad thing to be wary in the end anyway.


PS: I'm replying to you but I'm not implying that you have said any of these things, they are my opinion alone.

I wasn't asking because I agree or disagree. You had just mentioned that there were a lot of other reasons to be wary of medical advances without actually naming a single one.

It does still seem to me that it is not medical advance in itself that people are wary of, but rather medical error and the many medical errors that occur until medicine advances.