My point it that there aren’t any respectable stem cell reseachers actually promising immortality. I don’t even know of any scientific evidence that says humans can become immortal. Yet people still think science will give that to us, if we just trust it enough.
It doesn’t really matter how much science was behind it, if in the end it becomes irrational.
I think we would all like to see that process be impartial. There is finger pointing on both sides however. For example, scientists in certain fields, like genetic engineering, are pretty much entirely supported by private parties with vested interests in showing that genetic engineering is safe. And after all, what genetic engineer would want to publish disparaging results that show problems with their field?
And therein lies the rub. What does “better” mean? An immortality pill, for example, would create incredible problems with overpopulation. Ones I don’t think the world is ready to deal with yet.
There are people that aren’t really fearful of technology but want to see a more long term approach to technology that emphasizes sustainability instead of growth.
This is a much easier claim to defend and more rational. Yet it doesn’t by any mean reflect a future capacity for immortality.
I’m certain science can help society achieve its goals, but I don’t think our societies are really geared towards improving the quality of life for everyone over the long term. Rather the technological front of science is geared towards creating short term profits for a few.
Sorry for the nitpick, but I just cannot leave these things alone:
When the automobile came out, people did not say you would soffocate if you went above 12mph. People racing horses can achieve speeds of 30 mph, so that theory is out. Not to mention that Trains were around in the early 19th century, way before automobiles.
I have heard similar things said about trains though, that people thought if you went above 30 mph you couldn’t breathe. I think this has the scent of an urban legend.
For Bakhesh, imagine, for a moment, you are the owner of a petrol station. You can choose to have a sign displayed (costing about £1, perhaps) warning people of potential dangers of using mobile phones and ‘banning’ them from use on the forecourt. Why, you ask?
Is this not a better option to warn off people (thus covering your own ass in terms of possible future litigation) than risking the 1:10000000 chance of some feckers phone actually sparking and causing an explosion for which you could end up liable? Now, I don’t know if the act of having displayed a sign would remove responsibility entirely for the potential explosion from the owner of the station, but it might. So why not display the sign as a precautionary measure? What have you got to lose?
Well, like I said, a lot of petrol stations have cell phone transmitters hidden on the forecourt. If there is a danger in using a mobile phone, then you would imagine the risk of a transmitter is far greater.
Why are mobile phones singled out in this way? There are other things with a less than one in a million chance. What about the odds of a spark of static electricity for example. I get static shocks off my car all the time, yet there are no signs telling me to ground my car before entering a forecourt. What about other pieces of elctrical equipment? If I walked onto a forecourt with a walkman on, wouldn’t this have a similarly remote chance of causing an explosion? If you have to stick up a sign for any possibility, no matter how remote, why not a sign that says “beware of lightening”?
Epimetheus: I had my suspisions this might be an urban legend before I wrote it. I couldn’t find anything about it on snopes, so I assumed it must be at least grounded in fact and stuck it in my original post.
I think there are some pretty legitimate objections to GM, not least that they may (IMHO undoubtedly will) be modified with the firm’s long term interests in mind, rather than the benefit of all humanity as zoid mentioned.
This presents the need for iron regulation by governments of the world, without question. And not just GM, but many technologies have the potential, if used only to make capital, to justify and reinforce widespread technophobia.
Its not so much technology that people fear as technology being used to rape humanity. Have we forgotten the Human Genome fiasco already?
There is also legitimate concern about the unknow effects of cross-pollination of non-GM crops by nearby GM crop fields.
And then, suppose someone makes a mistake in the rush to bring out a product? Might not be very funny.
I guess the issue here is the transmitters are generally located high up in the front signage which is away from fume build-up, as apposed to a mobile phone in your pocket or hand as you fill up, which would be less than a metre from the petrol pump where the fumes would be more concentrated and less dissipated.
Of course, I agree with you that mobile phones are targeted more because they are new and people are less sure of them. And I agree they only have an (extremely small) comparable risk with respect to any other electrical gadgets, so it seems wrong or simplistic to single them out for banning.
“beware of lightening”?" - what, of painting things white? Or did you mean lightning? Sorry, couldn’t resist.
I’ve been reading a couple of sources about the Transcontinental Railroad in the US, where it is mentioned that people did have a belief at the time that it was “impossible” for a human to travel more than 60 mph due to some sort of odd pseudo-religious body-health reason. Something about the soul not being able to keep up with the body. On one stretch of track in Nebraska, during testing, they proved this wrong, but the average person did not believe it, and thought that reports of people living past 60 mph were either lies or mistakes. Because, you see, it just couldn’t happen.
Aro: One fallacy of your “sign” premise is that in the US, having such a sign has very little practical bearing on either the filing or the success of a civil suit. People sue people every day for silly and frivilous things, and sometimes either force a settlement from the nuisance factor, or else outright win. So there’s no great level of “covering of the ass” that really happens.
But having disclaimer signage displayed does go some ways to negating your duty of care to customers under current Health & Safety legislation in the UK, all else being equal.
I’m not taking about gaining protection from privately brought civil cases.
But a car is somthing that everyone has been familiar with since birth. You may not know how it runs but you know how to drive it. You know what you can and cannot do safely while operating a car. You’re pretty sure that your head wont explode if you go above 60. You know the car won’t suddenly start itself and bite you or something.
And what part of the mobile phone has sparks shooting from it?
None, now. It was (the rumour / risk) derived from older style mobiles with large batteries which were claimed to have the potential to cause internal sparks, if malfunctioning.
See the excerpt from a Motorola brochure in my link above. Even the manufacturers of teh 'phones were posting warnings along with their (much) earlier models.
About cell phones in gas stations, the reasoning I heard is that such distractions are dangerous when handling a highly flammable substance. It can be dangerous if, for instance, you drive off with the nozzle still stuck into the gas tank. Sorry, no cite.
Well, in the UK you might actually gain more protection from civil cases nonetheless, as the tort system is a bit different than the US. Your example is obviously far more applicable to the UK, and I agree with your points in that context. That was why I limited my prior comment to “in the US”.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.