H5N1 Virus, Atomic Weapons, Genetic Modification

> Our "authority" comes from the fact that it's possible within the
> laws governing this physical world.

That sounds too much like a might-makes-right principle for my
tastes. The fact that it's possible tells us nothing about whether
it's morally acceptable. (It is, btw.)

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "John Frazer"
>
> From sraj
> >... Recognize that it is highly immoral to alter in
> >an unnatural way the DNA of any life form on Plant Earth.
>
> As Brad wrote, this has been going on for thousands of years. A
> tongue-in-cheek comment by one of my favorite authors says that
much
> of our current global problems may be nature getting back at us
for
> turning the noble and superbly adapted wolf into things like the
> Chihuahua and Pekingese...
>
> >... Since we are not the creators of the original life
> >forms we have no authority to alter them.
>
> Our "authority" comes from the fact that it's possible within the
> laws governing this physical world. Our "authority" comes from the
> fact that Great Elvis, the King of the ETs (or pick your heavenly
> authority figure) hasn't come down and in no uncertain terms
forbade
> us from doing anything that's possible in this universe. "Visions"
of
> the Virgin mary and aliens have visited people to warn us, and
> individuals have come up with their own ethical admonishments, but
> not anything provable and authoritative, nothing palatable to all,
> nothing consistent with history and empirical fact.
>
> Brad Walsh wrote
> > The solution to all of these is not banishing the
> >technology--that has proven unworkable...
>
> This is an important point. It stems from the basic law that
> prohibition never works. If you make a law banning something, you
> only drive it underground and drive its value up.
> Unless there is a worldwide agency with complete access to any
> facility which may do harmful science, any agreements we make now
> only affect those who are not inclined to break the laws.
> This is too big to contemplate: how many police and inspectors
would
> our multinational agency need? What kind of authoritative force
must
> it be endowed with to assure adherence? No industrial chemical
> facility on the planet could have private property rights against
> immediate surprise search.
> Even a complete unanimous and binding edict from the UN security
> council couldn't possibly be anything more than an
ineffectual "feel-
> good" motion.
>
> > It's better parenting, better diplomacy, teaching
> >tolerance, and a little stronger dose of non-violence
> >in all things.
>
> I'm not saying that the concerns and recommendations made by Sraj
are
> useless, but just how could we do anything about it? Brad's
> suggestions are good, but may sound like making the next step in
> human evolution happen.
> About all we can do is better diplomacy and education. Don't
outlaw
> a technology, outlaw inflicting unjust harm by anyone, by any
means,
> and make a more fair and just international situation so making
war
> is the least profitable way out for anyone.
> Like nuclear weapons, our best insurance against biological and
> chemical weapons is to make them and unilateral warfare
uneconomical