Beyond the end of our nose?

My favorite response to this charge was made by Craig Venter (or one of his associates): "We're not playing."

What if in God's name we want to play God? >:)

How far is too far to go in the name of science? — MonfortS26

Hawking wants to know the mind of God and if he could reprogram his brain, as appears likely to do with it being possible to artificially change our memories, he could literally become his own God by programming his own mind to believe he actually is God.

My favorite response to this charge was made by Craig Venter (or one of his associates): "We're not playing." — Arkady

True enough, they are not. But science is driven by more than the curiosity of inquisitive scientists. It is also driven by funders who have a variety of interests, but which generally boil down to making money, it is driven by governments (which have a variety of interests), by citizens' concerns which run in various directions, advocacy groups, and so on. And I don't think that most of the research is bad. Nobody thinks we are playing God when we look for cancer treatments and new antibiotics, or study the structure of the brain. (Not that none of it has unintended consequences.)

Where God-acting comes in most critically is genetic research on animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, fungi, et al (including our esteemed selves) that may reverberate far beyond the vision of the researchers involved. There is no reason to grant a level of trust to geneticists or other specialists that we don't grant to anyone else.

GMO crops designed to kill some pest directly, or indirectly by tolerating herbicides/pesticides, may not be any threat at all to whichever animal (including us) that consumes the GMO produce. But GMO crops may result (have, actually, resulted) in changes in production that affect food production ecology adversely. Mono cropping and very, very large fields has eliminated a great deal of bee foraging food (blossoming plants) which adversely affects bees. A reduced population of bees (not only the familiar honey bee, but various wild pollinators) has a negative consequence for insect-pollinated crops. No pollinators, no apples, plums, pears, berries, cherries, oranges, grapefruit, peaches, melons, squash, and so on -- a good share of our diet.

There are other consequences of mono cropping, like a world-wide vulnerability to some disease agent that might drop corn or bean yields through the floor. Like water pollution from intensive fertilization, and so on and on.

Two greek words: hubris and nemesis. Hubris, the excessive pride, Nemesis, the punishment.

Nobody thinks we are playing God when we look for cancer treatments and new antibiotics — Bitter Crank

Nobody? I think you'll find that a long way from the truth!

Where God-acting comes in most critically is genetic research on animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, fungi, et al (including our esteemed selves) that may reverberate far beyond the vision of the researchers involved. — Bitter Crank

I fear that as the first recorded example of genetic engineering occurs in the Old Testament this is rather shutting the gate long after the horse has bolted. As for mono-cropping the idea that this is somehow linked to advances in genetic engineering is surely unsupportable. It's been happening for as long as there has been agriculture, it's most obvious 'disaster' being the desertification of most of Northern Africa!

Considering there probably isn't a God, this question becomes irrelevant.

How? There doesn't need to be an actual God for human beings to act as though they were such a being. Atheists can still be guilty of hubris!

Considering there probably isn't a God, this question becomes irrelevant. — darthbarracuda

Perhaps "playing nature"is a better way of putting it.

Two greek words: hubris and nemesis. Hubris, the excessive pride, Nemesis, the punishment. — Bitter Crank

What is wrong with hubris?

Nobody thinks we are playing God when we look for cancer treatments and new antibiotics
— Bitter Crank

Nobody? I think you'll find that a long way from the truth! — Barry Etheridge

Figuratively, nobody. Even fundamentalist evangelicals (like strict Baptists sects) readily avail themselves of medical treatment, though they are likely praying quite fervently. Christian Scientists try very hard not to use medicine, but there are only 85,000 of them world wide.

Where God-acting comes in most critically is genetic research on animals, plants, bacteria, viruses, fungi, et al (including our esteemed selves) that may reverberate far beyond the vision of the researchers involved.
— Bitter Crank

I fear that as the first recorded example of genetic engineering occurs in the Old Testament this is rather shutting the gate long after the horse has bolted. As for mono-cropping the idea that this is somehow linked to advances in genetic engineering is surely unsupportable. It's been happening for as long as there has been agriculture, it's most obvious 'disaster' being the desertification of most of Northern Africa! — Barry Etheridge

They were putting fish genes in strawberries to manage damage from frost in the OT? They were engineering Roundup resistance in corn plants in the OT? Right.

No, I don't think mono cropping of the sort I am referencing here has been going on for the last 10,000 years, give or take a few. The Mono cropping of which I speak has these features;

• Millions of acres are planted with one crop (like corn, soybeans).
• The gene lines of the seeds have been narrowed to produce seed with very specific characteristics. The plant leaves and or roots may contain genetically engineered poisons to kill insect pests.
• Along with very specific crop characteristics comes very specific disease resistance.
• If 70% of Iowa is growing 1 strain of corn, and when (not if) some disease attacks one field of the crop, the disease will sweep across the state, wiping out most of the crop--and cross state boundaries too. The same is true of other food crops like rice and wheat.

A more natural example illustrates this: Commercial banana plants are all clones. They have to be, because the bananas don't produce seeds. The bananas grown up until the 1960s went extinct as the result of a fungal disease which wiped out the plants (and still wipes them out). The Cavendish Banana which is successor world standard, is also under threat from a new fungal disease.

Bananas won't disappear -- there are many other varieties. But most varieties tend to not taste as good, ripen as predictably, ship as well, or have other features that makes them less desirable, like being more difficult to grow. (Most of them have seeds.)

The solution isn't very complicated: Plant variant strains of crops, or different crops altogether, on adjacent fields. (That farmers don't do this is largely economic, and not a result of genetic engineering.) But the narrow range of strains is still a very real threat.

Another feature of "green revolution" plant breeding is that the plants usually require substantial fertilization. That feature raises the cost of growing the crop, increases the amount of agricultural pollution, and so on.

What is wrong with hubris? — MonfortS26

Hubris is excessive over-reaching--not just mere pride, but really grandiose ambition. Hubris (serious over-reaching) is a moral flaw because the proud, long reach is into territory where harms to others are not evident or consequences are not visible.

In Greek drama, the hero's hubris -- vaulting ambition -- was punished by Nemesis, a divinity. You've heard "pride comes before a fall"? It was Nemesis who made sure there was a fall.

Do we as a society have any sort of guidelines to prevent that from happening?

Money is doing all the driving at the point of guns. You cannot play God when the brightest lights are life on, but nobody is ever home. Fukushima and Chernobyl are two examples of people playing God with money.

We seem to have guidelines that guarantee hubris will happen. Donald Trump as businessman is probably no more hubristic than any other tycoon type. As a presidential candidate he's clearly engaging in hubristic bragging, such as claiming that he is the only one who can protect people's guns, or some damn thing like that. (In fact, his ability to "protect people's guns" is rather limited.) Saying he will make Mexico pay for the wall is hubris too.

IN running for the presidency, Trump is reaching way beyond his grasp. Trump is of course not the first candidate to reach farther than his or her grasp.

I'm wondering what we would be obliged to acknowledge if it became evident that the fundamental constituents of the Universe are not actually physical. And I think that day approaches.

My favorite response to this charge [of playing God] was made by Craig Venter (or one of his associates): "We're not playing." — Arkady

According to the likes of Venter, h. sapiens are the only beings in the Universe that are really capable of intentional action.

How can we prevent hubris in ourselves?

What do you mean by that?

For Venter and many other scientists, the Universe is essentially matter and energy, unendowed or undirected by intelligence. Intelligence, they say, is the product of the actions of matter and energy, which, given time and lots of chances, spontaneously evolves into living forms including homo sapiens. So, in this worldview, h. sapiens are the only intentional beings, that we know of, in the Universe. Sure, there might be other intelligent species, but we haven't discovered them, so for now, we're the only beings capable of forming intentions and acting purposefully in a universe of blind forces.

So in that sense, man has displaced God - hence Venter's comment.

I'm wondering what we would be obliged to acknowledge if it became evident that the fundamental constituents of the Universe are not actually physical. And I think that day approaches. — Wayfarer

I meant this part. I would agree that intelligence is likely a product of matter and energy though. I've always felt Descartes had it backwards and that it should be "I am therefore I think".

I would agree that intelligence is likely a product of matter and energy.

I don't agree. I don't think there's anything in the sciences that justifies that view - it is not even known what intelligence is. Customarily, it is said the be 'the product of evolution', and in one sense it is, but to say that this is all it is, is called 'biological reductionism'.

Yes but someone has to pave the way in the sciences. There may be no justification for my view, but in order to justify my view all other views must first be ruled out. My understanding is that most science is a reductionist philosophy, so viewing the mind from a strictly materialistic perspective is the best way achieve as much of an understanding of it as possible. If there is more than "the product of evolution" in relation to intelligence, then what might that be?

The neo-darwinian, materialist account of mind is the dominant paradigm in the secular west. It is in some respects a secular religion, i.e. it defines what educated people are expected to believe.

Reductionism and indeed scientific method is extremely useful in its domain of application, but really it's the philosophy of scientists and engineers; break processes up into steps, systems into chunks, understand the principles by which they're combined. It is fantastic for a huge range of things but when it is applied to questions beyond its scope is when it morphs into scientism.

There was a book published on this very subject by a respected philosopher, Thomas Nagel, a tenured professor, called Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. He makes clear, he's not pushing a religious barrow, he claims to be an atheist, but one who says that materialism simply doesn't add up from a purely rational perspective. It was a very controversial book because it questioned the accepted dogma - the Guardian named it 'the most despised book of 2012'.

It is fantastic for a huge range of things but when it is applied to questions beyond its scope is when it morphs into scientism. — Wayfarer

I'll check the book out. What makes you think that the understanding of the mind is beyond the scope of science though?

It's not necessarily at all! But, it's beyond the scope of materialism. And they're actually two different things. But there are neuro-scientists, and other scientists, who are not at all materialistic in their approach, so it's not an problem of science per se, it's more an attribute of Western secular culture. That's pretty well what Nagel's saying also.

It's not necessarily at all! But, it's beyond the scope of materialism. And they're actually two different things. — Wayfarer

What makes you say that?

Well, science is one thing - scientific method, the discovery of principles, making of predictions, testing hypotheses. It can be used across an enormous range of subjects for all kinds of purposes.

But scientific materialism is another matter - it's the belief that the only valid knowledge is scientific knowledge, that the scientific account of the world is the only real one, and so on.

But the scientific method definitely seems to be the most accurate source of knowledge in the world

I used to play Batman with my brothers. Don't tell me there isn't a Batman either!?!

money is an excellent means of exchange but there are things that can't be bought.