H5N1 Virus, Atomic Weapons, Genetic Modification

> ** Things which may be used for good or evil aren't necessarily
> either one. It's the intent of the aplication which matters.

Intent does matter, but it's not the only thing that matters.
Negligence (foreseeably harmful action without intent to harm) isn't
what I would call evil, but it sure isn't good. The next sentence
partially addresses that, but the harm need not result
from "diversion to evil": it can just be accident, an excess of the
kind of risk present to a lesser degree in anything one does.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "John Frazer"
>
> I wrote
> >> Our "authority" comes from the fact that it's
> >>possible within the laws governing this physical
> >>world.
>
> Dan Wylie-Sears replied
> > That sounds too much like a might-makes-right
> >principle for my tastes.
>
> I was thinking more like the "opposable thumbs-makes-right" (or
> capacity for analytical thinking) principle, but it's another way
of
> saying the same thing, I guess.
>
> > The fact that it's possible tells us nothing about
> >whether it's morally acceptable. (It is, btw.)
>
> So, many of us think that a lot of the presently controversial
things
> are OK, but how to clearly delineate our thnking which leads us to
it?
>
> Should the last remaining cultures of smallpox be exterminated, or
> should they be kept for biodiversity and science?
>
> Suggested (off the top of my head for now) talking points:
>
> ** Things which may be used for good or evil aren't necessarily
> either one. It's the intent of the aplication which matters.
Whether
> it's atomic power, gene engineering, or altering an asteroid
> fragment's trajectory to bring it to HEEO; what is the intent, and
is
> it reasonably certain that its safe from irresponsible diversion
to
> evil?
>
> ** The simple fact that it's possible to divert something to evil
> intentions isn't sufficient cause to utterly ban the thing
(besides
> the -seeming?- impossibility of banning anything).
>
> ** Is attempting assurances of safety and only-good-use possible?
Is
> banning and eliminating anything (with strong tendencies to be
used