I don’t have time at the moment to comment on this, but maybe you do:
The science of soul beliefs is an incredibly fascinating affair—one that bioethicists, cloning researchers, and even theologians might be wise to consult before assuming a firm stance on either side of the polemical fence. However, a future filled with soulless clones should be the least of our worries. Human beings might be lazy about many things, but not reproductive sex. And as long as those evolved moral sentiments of ours serve to roadblock scientific progress, I’ve a hunch most of the world’s babies will continue to be made the old-fashioned way.
[Link: Would Your Clone Have Its Own Soul, or Be a Soulless Version of You?: Scientific American]
_______________
Possibly related posts (automatically generated):
- Your Brain in Love: Scientific American
- “What Is Pseudoscience?: Scientific American”
- Scientific American: “Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution”
- “Sex and stigma, with Francoise Barre-Sinoussi : Scientific American”
- “The Myth of Joyful Parenthood: Scientific American”
The crack about “roadblocking” sort of shot all pretense of objectivity or sensibility in the article. There’s really no way to interpret that in a positive way, so I guess the author’s upset about all the ways that morality interferes with scientists’ right to do whatever they want, whenever and however they want.
How much better it would be if we’d stop “roadblocking progress” by fretting about whether or not certain things are moral.
Good point. There appears to be an unstated assumption there that scientific progress is its own justification, with no moral principle above it that can speak to it.
I’m not much into pop culture cliches, but the best line I’ve ever heard in a popular work addressing that problem is from Jurassic Park. I don’t remember if the book used this line or not, but this is what mathematician Ian Malcolm says about morally blinded “progress” in the movie:
I see the same thing in the stem cell debate. Some people are willing to toss aside every moral consideration over embryonic stem cells based on totally unfulfilled promises. They want the progress, but they don’t want the moral guidelines, to the point that the science itself gets blurred out.
Embryonic cells are not being pursued by private firms because adult cells are actually getting results. But the reaction to stories like this one immediately jumps to comments about fundamentalists and pro-lifers being “wrong”, even though the treatment is another successful use of adult stem cells. The bile over “moral roadblocks” turns into a “factual roadblock”.
Stem cells are a good example of where moral “roadblocks” are probably stopping us from going down a needless detour. Comments like the author’s “roadblocking progress” crack suggest that some people are willing to ignore all moral considerations in the name of “progress”, even if there’s no reason to think that progress is being made. I honestly don’t understand why.