NP Biopolitics

[Otto]

Well, actually I haven't intended to go marching along with the same people
who normally rally before abortion clinics.

Rob:
> Cloning is just like taking a cutting from one plant to propagate another.
> Isn't it?
>

Not really, or? But anyway, because I'm a layman in biology it maybe is best
to stick to the ethics.

>
> And, genetic mutation is how we've gotten to where we are:
> "naturally". I keep coming back to the ethics rather than the technology.
> The purpose.

The overwhelming majority of all mutants don't survive. The fact that we are
here sometimes appears to me like a long list of unbelievable coincidences
that could turn an atheist into a believer.

I really would like to believe that one day it will be able to use all
technology exclusively ethically. But given the history of technology (King
Ludd, Rockets) and the present situation (eg. 18 million Africans died of
HIV) I have my doubts. On the other hand I admit that it's a shame
to let good chances for improvements for all people go by just because of
the bad boys.

>
>'Boys from Brazil' is totally indefensible. Mens rea. And
> breeding "more beautiful" humans is a bit like propagating prize roses.
Not
> unethical but pretty pointless: a waste of time, money and resources. But
> using genetic modification to eradicate, say, multiple sclerosis, or to
> breed, say, blight-resistant wheat in Africa ... well, I'm inclined to
> believe that anyone who opposes either of these projects is on the wrong
> side of the ethical divide.
>

I'm not sure if "breeding more beautiful humans" hasn't been the purpose
behind the SS-"Lebensborn"-thing, thus very unethical.

The wheat is mostly used to make the people dependent from foreign
enterprises, another unethical behaviour we know from the early days of
Indonesian coffee & Dutch colonialism. I don't think that I can subscribe to
your harsh verdict on all sceptics but it definitely goes for people who
start fighting the police at demonstrations over this or other "global"
issues.

>
> Or, to bring it back to _M&D_, using "Hospital Blankets [...] 'to convey
the
> small-pox to the Indians'" (307) is a bad thing, Washington's "small
patch"
> of hemp, "planted as an Experiment" (278) not so. Both are examples of
> bio-technology: it is the ethical imperative in either case which differs.
> Even George's admission that, "if it prospers", he might extend the hemp
> plantation to become a "Market-Crop" for "Profit" does nothing to diminish
> the substantive utility of the future harvests.
>
> best
>


We have to differentiate, indeed, and given the fact that the thing has
started already we will have to stick to it, if only to be able to fight
bio-terrorism and to feed the people. Any fundamentalism has to be rejected,
including being fundamentally against bio-technologies. The reasons Rifkin
applies to the "progressives" - poverty, women, children, animals and the
global environment - very easily could be used as good arguments for cloning
by the "technicians" too.

Our governments generally should be (and act) more ethically and less only
purely pragmatically oriented.

Otto

>
> on 8/2/02 2:12 PM, Otto at o.sell at telda.net wrote:
>
> > "What unites social conservatives and progressives on cloning issues is
> > their commitment to the intrinsic value of life and their opposition to
what
> > they perceive to be a purely utilitarian perspective on biotech issues.
To
> > be sure, the social conservatives and left activists differ in the "life
> > issues" they embrace and champion. The former crusade for what they
regard
> > as the rights of the unborn and family values and rail against
infanticide,
> > euthanasia and pornography. The latter speak out on behalf of the poor,
> > women, abused children, fellow animals and the global environment. Both
> > groups come together in opposition to cloning -- but for different
reasons."
> > Jeremy Rifkin, The Nation, February 7, 2002
> > http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12367
> >
> >
> >
>