Atellus Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Following on from the thread on elective technological augmentation of humans (discussing the Singularity) and other conversations about the social acceptability of merging computers with the human body in the real world, it occured to me to try drawing up a list of the current "scientific bogeymen" that occupy, rightly or wrongly, the public consciousness. Here's what I've got so far: - Human Cloning - Designer Babies - GM food - Embryonic stem cell research - Artificially Intelligent machines at or beyond human equivalence - Nuclear power generation (waste products) Several of these are related, but in the media are generally segregated. I thought of including the controversy over the MMR vaccine and related incidences, but evidence seems to be emerging that this really was just a public relations scare with no data to back up the medical concerns. This was 30 seconds brain storming. I'm sure I've left out alot so would anyone else care to contribute and see what we can come up with?
spikerz66 Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 evolution V. creationism "inteligent design" pretty much anything that involves ethics and free will is deemed as a "scientific boogeyman"
Sisyphus Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Anything that sounds like "mad science" will be treated as such at first. Hence, nuclear power, cloning, genetically modified food all produce completely irrational fears in people. The best thing to do is to just ignore all the stupid evangelicals, hippies, and the like, and quietly continue the work in the background, let people benefit from the technologies, and grow accustomed to them. The "outrage" will take care of itself, most of the time.
Mokele Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 Part of the problem is that advanced science is a *great* source of villains for books, movies, etc. I need to explain where the big nasty monster came from. 50 years ago, I could say nuclear tests or outer space. Today I can say genetic engineering or pollution. Those probably won't work in another 50 years, and writers will be using some other excuse. It basically boils down the fear of the unknown or that which isn't understood. Mokele
ecoli Posted November 6, 2006 Posted November 6, 2006 - Nuclear power generation (waste products) Most of those I understand, but disposing of nuclear wastes is a real problem that we must face before we can accept nuclear power at a greater level. Just ask France, which uses nuclear power for 86% of it's electricity generation (or there abouts). Long term storage is indeed a problem that technology can solve, but I don't think it's 100% there yet.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now