Eithics Are In The Way Of Acceleration
As it stands, there are barely any strong arguments against what might be seen as 'unethical' scientific practices. In almost every situation, scientific advancements serve to help society far more than they harm the individual. However, this is often not taken into account.
I think the main arguments for hyper-ethical science are almost an inverted version of the concept of delayed gratification. We see certain practices as bad because we focus on the immediate pain or discomfort they might cause an individual, but we never see the harm that the scientific discovery could have prevented.
A non-crying child is just a child, but a crying child is a crying child.
Not to mention, a significant number of our scientific discoveries originate from practices and procedures that are now banned. (Just look at the most landmark experiments in psychology for examples of this.)
The main reason people oppose this is because the idea itself is inherently unappealing. The number of 'god-complex scientist creates the next plague' pieces of fiction is so high that they might as well be their own genre.
Unfortunately, I don’t see public opinion changing any time soon.
As it stands, there are barely any strong arguments against what might be seen as 'unethical' scientific practices. In almost every situation, scientific advancements serve to help society far more than they harm the individual. However, this is often not taken into account.
I think the main arguments for hyper-ethical science are almost an inverted version of the concept of delayed gratification. We see certain practices as bad because we focus on the immediate pain or discomfort they might cause an individual, but we never see the harm that the scientific discovery could have prevented.
A non-crying child is just a child, but a crying child is a crying child.
Not to mention, a significant number of our scientific discoveries originate from practices and procedures that are now banned. (Just look at the most landmark experiments in psychology for examples of this.)
The main reason people oppose this is because the idea itself is inherently unappealing. The number of 'god-complex scientist creates the next plague' pieces of fiction is so high that they might as well be their own genre.
Unfortunately, I don’t see public opinion changing any time soon.