Greg,

I think you are wrong to believe that those in the scientific community are NOT asking questions about the implications of human enhancement.

There is actually a considerable body of discussion about issues relating to Human Enhancement, the possible benefits and potential pitfalls.

There is much in the writings of the various advocates of human enhancement that gives one pause, and the "yuck" factor which you exhibit is a common and not neccesarily unwarranted response. However, the mistrust is possibly better focused into proper scepticism - not simply denial or suspicion, but critical engagement.

Man started intervening in his evolution when he first made tools, when he first started to cook, when he made clothes and shelter. Man, through technology has become what he is - or as Ortega y Gasset says - "man without technology ... is not man".

Take Pills for example: Popping pills at the basic level no different to taking in any other chemical - "food" being the name of the majority of chemicals we ingest. Many peoples lives are already enhanced by the consumption of pills - those with severe psychological issues, the very sick, the very old. That there is a large amount of unneccesary consumption, does not negate the fact there is a large amount of beneficial consumption.

There are many valid concerns to be addressed, but I think the wrong approach is to simply defer such oversight decisions to some disciplinary body. This is something that "Transhumanists" already consider - do you want someone else to determine your possible future, or is it better to engage and decide yourself.

Take a look at what the "transhumanists themselves have to say:

"6) Policy making ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights, and showing solidarity with and concern for the interests and dignity of all people around the globe. We must also consider our moral responsibilities towards generations that will exist in the future."

http://humanityplus.org/philosophy/transhumanist-declaration/

QUOTE
Although all progress is change, not all change is progress.
END QUOTE

I hate to say it Geoff, but they have a point there.

Organic chemists -> DDT

Energy scientists -> petrol & diesel & internal combustion engines -> globa warming

Microbilogists -> antibiotics -> overuse -> antbiotic resistance.

I am not saying that scientists and science are the cause of these problems per se.

But I am saying that the scientific community has been and is as short sighted and narrow visioned as politicians when developing these things.

I believe that they need to take a greater responsibility in how their discoveries and inventions are used by the rest of society in the long term.

That will involve the formation of some sort of scientific body that wields signficant political clout to the point of the scientific community withdrawing scientific services where absolutely necessary.

I would agree that there is much in science that is too uncritical, I am not sure "short sighted" is how I would refer to it as. To forsee all possibilities, even the near future, is something available only to an omnisicent god.

And, I agree with you insofar as this should immediately urge one to caution.

But for the same reason I remain sceptical as to oversight. Who can say what will and will not benefit mankind. Who can say that an oversight committe might not stop research into something that could be of unforseeable utility.

With eyes wide open we march blindly into the furture.

(don't know who said that, but I assume someone did)

Well put it this way Geoff.

I remember watching doco some where along the line where a scientist had a jar of jelly beans and got a large number of people to guess how many there were.

There were the usual few out of the ball park guesses and a mjority of some where in the ball park guesses. When averaged all the guesses came within a fraction of the correct answer.

I figure that a scientific regulatory body, with all the widely divergent input and complaints it would receive from both inside and outside the scientific community, would end up operting in much the same manor as the above example and give the scientific community the correct direction on average.

Unless they didn't get to see the actual Jar, I am not sure about the analogy. You have some awareness of the capacity of the jar, the layers of jellybeans, the size an so on.

I would say that guessing the future is more like asking people to predict where one particular jellybean will fall when you tip the contents of the jar down the stairs.

The purpose would not to be to predict where the research might end up but rather to prioritise it and constrain it when the majority of society feels it is an inappropriate.

I should add that, for this to work properly, the general public would need to have an adequate level of scientific literacy otherwise you would end up with the likes of the anit-immunisation lobby halting research on vaccines.

And again we return to the inadequacies of our current education system when it comes to science!

You are right of course George that upgrading science education in our schools probably wont have any significant effect the current generations of science illiterates.

But it WILL have a positive effect on the quality of debate about scientific issues in future generations.

Once again your comment is indictative of uncritical short term thinking.

What ever we do, we must always keep in mind what will be the effects on the future or our decisons now.

And baring that in mind, science education reform now is absolutely essential.

Sorry George, but if we don't, then Australian societywill gradually slide towards the low standards of third world countries where superstition, mythology, religion and psuedoscience rule their lives.........and look at the common results of this in their societies!

E.G. Africans hunting and killing albinos for the magical healing properties of their bones etc.

Education is the basis of well informed debate.

So I am not sure there is much that can be done about the high level of scientific ignorance in the current generations.

Unless you can convince all adults, who did not receive a university education, to return to school for the greater good of society.

And convince equally ignorant governments to pay for it.

So we probably have to just endure the current ignorance and hope that education reform will improve matters in the future.

Not sure about that at all.

A few points to consider

1) There is a notable emphasis on eductaion in many of Australia's migrant communities.

2) There is a notable trend of anti-intellectualism within Australians of Anglo-European origin. (I come from the country - I've seen it)

3) In the light of the ethos of individualism, it seems more likely that, rather than decreasing scientific literacy, it is the declining tendency to accept as authoritative statements from people that in previous times were considered figures of authority.

It is not only the Priests and the Politicians that have lost their gravitas.

Are you saying that there is no growing divide between scientists and non-scientists Craig?

If so then I suggest you spend more time outside you lab.

Come and spend some time in the Epping Victoria, for example, and you might change your mind.

I was a scientists but now I am not. When the benefit of both experiences I can assure you craig that there IS a substantial divide and it is growing.

And it is all down to our education systems which are failing our society when it comes to science.

Greg, I assume you meant Chris, not Craig in your reply? I've not commented on the presence or absence of a divide...

And I think you've misread what Chris has said, as he is pointing out the irony of a recent Conversation bemoaning the growing divide between scientists and non-scientists being followed up by something so scientifically inept as large sections of *this* Conversation.

Having recently read some of the musings of the advocates for human enhancement, I would agree with you that a lot of it is 'pie in the sky' sort of stuff.

But it looks like quite a tasty pie. To reduce the entire discussion to ridicule of some of its more speculative pronounccements seems a little un-scientific.

Besides, there is a difference between having no evidence, and there not being any evidence. A little more than a century ago, we had no evidence for a great many things which are now commonly accepted as scientific "truths." That we have no evidence of P does not immediately rule out the possibility of P.

Or, as the Goddess related to Parmenides:

"...that it is not and that it is right that it not be,
this I point out to you is a path wholly inscrutable
for you could not know what is not (for it is not to be accomplished)
nor could you point it out..."

Yeah, sorry Chris.

If that is what you meant Chris then ignore my post and my appologies to you.

Yes I was trying to say there is a growing divide and it deeply worries me - especially when I see articles like this which would no doubt freak out many members of the public and further entrench this belief that scientists like 'playing god' and 'creating frankensteins', etc...

I see your point, in that someday it may be possible to do things we think unlikely at the moment. But if you look, for example, at the Olympic games just gone and the constant cycle of new world records, and things like increasing life spans and survival from previously-fatal cancers based on newer medical technologies and drugs, it is obvious that there is already much 'human enhancement' already taking place.

So why not have an article more grounded in reality discussing things actually taking place now? It just seems absurd to post flagrantly 'pie in the sky' ideas, especially when they involve techniques such as splicing human and non-human (note, not 'animal' - we're all animals) DNA when the authors should be well aware of how controversial this is, and how poorly the wider public would view these suggestions

Have a look at this video I found last night: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/learning-think-critically/

Right smack bang on the subject.

Chris,

"So why not have an article more grounded in reality discussing things actually taking place now?"

Thanks to the internet, there is ample room for both. Certain physical constraints of old publishing have been removed. Any judgement on what we should therefore discuss is a values argument.

That there is value in a grounded and pragamatic discussion does not negate the value of the speculative. Science proceeds not only by the accumulation of evidence but by the use of imagination - if we don't imagine what might be possible on the basis of what we know to be possible, science risks losing the spirit of adventure and the will to uncover new things.

"It just seems absurd to post flagrantly 'pie in the sky' ideas"

To me it seems absurd to object to such ideas. But that is probably because science fiction is as important to me as science fact. If we don't imagine possibilities, we may as well call time on the human project.

"...authors should be well aware of how controversial this is, and how poorly the wider public would view these suggestions."

This is either an argument for censorship or better communication. Science has a long relationship with controversy. Science has always been a challenge to our so called "common-sense," not its hand-maiden.

From where I sit, that something is controversial is not an argument against discussion of it - this seems to lead to secrecy and opacity that ultimately breeds suspicion.

George said: "As for splicing having no evidence, we can already make mice that glow in the dark based on their DNA. what could we be capable of in 30 years?"

I don't think anyone has claimed that 'splicing' isn't possible - in fact it's part of my day-to-day job! The point is that the suggested modifications are clearly not the result of a single "spliceable" gene, but come from the interplay of numerous genes working in concert during development of the particular organism from its original fertilised egg. Making mice glow is easy* - just introduce a GFP gene. In that case it is a simple one-gene splice.

*By 'easy', I mean the techniques are well understood. Not that it's 'easy' in the 'anyone can do it' sense...

Rex, if Robin Dunbar is correct, the big brain evolved to handle social interaction (grooming) within expanding social groups. Social media expand groups hugely, so in theory we should become huge brained animals with pronounced digits and not much else, provided the other sex comes to think of big brains as sexy and texting as foreplay. Which I think is happening!

Nah, last time I checked men preferred women to be have large-breasts, slim wastes and to be less intelligent than them.

Personally I prefer woman with large breasts, a slim waste AND a brain.

Cupie doll type woman just irritate me.

"one area that WE SHOULD NOT COMPROMISE on with ethnic minorities no matter how much it offends their sensibilities."

Really?

How about starting with the Christian majority who pose a massive impediment to progressive thought?

Or stopping the daily Lord's prayer reading at the opening of parliament?

And what to do with those who want "intelligent design" taught in public schools?

How about enlightening George Pell to a few basic truths about women, homosexuals and small children?

In addition, let the very wealthy Catholic church pay for their private schools, saving tax dollars for the greater community's right to education.

Then, if you really think it would be necessary after bringing the Christian church into the 21st century, go for your "ethnic minority". Frankly I find your comments quite offensive to "ethnic minorities", particularly as they do not have the clout, nor the organised lobbyists of Christians.

Now, I realise I have offended a number of Christians. I do know there are those who do not take the Old and New Testaments literally - my comments aren't intended for you - except for this:

How about lobbying your churches to join the rest of the community in learning about the real world, the natural world. Heaven can wait. We need informed people right here, right now.

"How about lobbying your churches to join the rest of the community in learning about the real world, the natural world. Heaven can wait. We need informed people right here, right now."

I don't really care what the churches or mosques believe in the end. Just as long as neither of them attempt to interfere in the science ciriculum or just as long as no bureaucrats attempt to interfere in the science ciriculum on either of their behalf.

Greg

The majority Christian religion IS impacting on schools:

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/maralynparker/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/public_schools_do_not_need_christian_chaplains/

Perhaps YOU could start getting science back into public schools by protesting against: chaplains, compulsory religious education, teaching of ID as a science subject.

NAH, you want to pick on ethnic minorities. And, of course YOUR Catholic school is the exception. Riiiight.

For the record I find all three Abrahamic religions equally abhorrent.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with chaplains in schools, or for that matter the muslim equivalent if they ever come about.

Just as long as religion and science do not mix with the likes of intelligent design etc. And just as long as the chaplains and their supporters do not attempt to interfere with the science circulum.

Nor am I saying that islam IS interfering with science teaching at present.

Given the many 'accomodations' that have been given to those of islamic faith in a very short period of time they have been arriving in Australia in numbers, I am merely saying we should NOT start compromising with the faith on science education should such demands be made at some point in the future....perhaps in league with the christian churches.

Previous generations have already gone through this battle with the christian faith. There is no sense to rewinding the clock bit by bit with islam only to have to fight the same battle again at some point in the future when we come to our senses again.

Greg

"I don’t necessarily have a problem with chaplains in schools, or for that matter the muslim equivalent if they ever come about. "

You are Catholic.

As a secularist, who genuinely wants children taught from a basis of reason rather than religion, I prefer our tax dollars be spent on qualified counsellors rather than Christian, Muslim or even Buddhist chaplains.

Generations on, Christians are still getting many "accommodations" - along with Islam. For example, government funding of Catholic schools - the Catholic religion is one of the wealthiest organisations in the world.

The only one "winding back the clock" is you wanting 'special' exemption from the secular AND other faiths.

Religion belongs in churches, mosques, synagogues, ashrams - anywhere except in our schoolrooms.

I can see no further point in trying to reason with someone who is so oblivious of their own hypocrisy.

Greg I agree with many things you have to say - but not this, not making a case against minorities but wanting special exemption for your own ethnicity - that's right you are from an ethnic group as well - you just happened to be born into a large and powerful ethnic group.

No. I am not Catholic, my wife is.

I was a little concerned with sending the kids to a catholic school, but after talking to the headmaster and a few students I realised that they respected the state circiculum, took science seriously (as much as you can in a primary school) and the religion side of it was kept in its proper place.

Don't know about other religious schools but this one was reasonable.

I was also very impressed with the science class room of the local catholic high school on their open day. When we went in for a look see at one of the science classes, a form 3 or 4 class was sitting at microscopes studying histology. I did not learn about that until third year university. Many of the other local schools, use the science facilities at this school apparently.

I am more than happy sending my son there next year given that.

And I am comfortable with low level religion in schools, as long as it is kept in its proper place and does not interfere with the rest of the circiculum. That includes Islam, just so long as the anglo-saxon 'multicultural police' don't start bowing and scraping to Islam, or any other multicultural religions, with respect to the ciriculum.

OK so its your wife who is Catholic. I don't care. And I don't care if you think your individual school is acceptable. You give Catholics special exemptions which you are not prepared to give to other religions. Your comment on ethnic minorities is so biased as to be considered reprehensible.

I don't believe ANY religion is entitled to ANY special exemptions in public schools - they interfere with the teaching of science.

Religion is a belief in the supernatural, people coming back from the dead, virgin births, big sky daddies on and on. This has no place in schools.

If any teaching about religion is made in public schools, it needs to be comparative religion - no special exemptions for Catholic or Islam or Caluthumpians.

Comparative teaching of religion - to ensure that students understand the many religions throughout the world and, hopefully, develop understanding of such. Which can be taught under the umbrella of social subjects.

Diana, I believe I specifically said that I would not necessarily have a problem with the equivalent of islamic chaplains in schools along side the catholic ones.

So long as BOTH are kept in their proper box.

My concern, as previously mentioned, is more with the anglo-saxon multicultural police who appear to have a penchant for bowing down to islamic culture and religion, in their anti-racism zeal, more so than they seem to do with other cultures and religions.

Look I was taken to church (Uniting) by my grandmother as a child, was read the bible was given a bible,......... In high school I learnt and loved the science.

Science won out in the end.

As long as chaplains etc are kept in their box and prevented from indoctrinating children with statements along the lines that you will go to heaven but all non-believers will go to hell blah blah blah, then I don't necessarily do any harm.

I guess it has its place as a moral code, as long as that is all it is presented as by the chaplains etc. At the same time I would support the introduction of secular ethics classes as an alternative for those who prefer it.

That way all of the whinging mob gets a bit of what they want which will hopefully keep them SILENT.

Good for you Maciej.

You have been in Australia for a long time, respected the local culture and earned Australian citizenship I assume. In which case I accept you as a fellow Australian.

I guess what we are really talking about here is the difference between permanent residents and those who have earned Australian citizenship.
And given that muslims are the among lastest waves of immigrants I would presume a high proportion of them are permanent residents rather than Australian citizens.We are also talking about the high number of immigrants Australia is currently taking in.

But if you take your argument to its logical conclusion then we Poles and Anglo-Saxons are equal to Aborigines and do not owe them a debt for our forbears imposing their culture and will on past aboriginal society with all the human suffering that that has caused in the present.

Regardless of your opinion on the matter and what precisely the laws say I do not believe that new immigrants/permanent residents have the right to impose their culture on their host's culture. They are akin to guests in your house and would do well to always ensure they are minding their manors lest they generate hostility towards themselves!

And this feeling is quite intense among many Australians due to the unprecedented high immigration intake Australia has had over the past decade or so. I feel it to some extent also and I make absolutely no appologies for it. If we had stuck with the average 50,000 per year in the 80s, muslim or African or what ever, then I doubt that we would be having this conversation.

However my primary concern is environmental sustainability and zero net population growth. If we get this right then all the above problems will largely disappear over time in my opinion.

Plenty of people have a highly moral codes who were not schooled in religious schools, attended church, nor, when in need of counsel, had to make do with Christian rather than secular counsellors.

You claim to be concerned about giving a good understanding of science in schools and conversely champion tax dollars being spent on religious people (chaplains) being in public funded schools.

Best of luck to you and especially your children who may or will have to go through the juggling of rationality versus superstition as they mature.

An excellent book I would recommend for you and your children is Sam Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation."

I have had enough now of trying to show that you are being less than objective regarding the teaching of science in schools.

No doubt we will converse elsewhere on these pages.