Goethean Science

I can certainly relate to Holdrege’s frustration with the traditional scientific explanation. I also found it hard to examine specific questions and pieces in order to draw or support a conclusion. I always felt the need to become more involved with the unit/species as a whole. The explanation of abstraction with even greater abstraction makes the process difficult to follow.

I like the Goethean approach through delicate empiricism. The concept of participating in a conversation and interacting without any preconceived questions to answers allows for the unbiased observation leading to the answer. Using sensorial imagination and living understanding allows the observer to learn.

I’m not huge on nature and have not spent much time thinking about it. I am born and raised in NYC so I don’t consciously interact much with nature but I am exposed. I think the Goethean approach to examining would be a better approach for me. I have limited historical knowledge and no exact questions to answer. The observation leading to understanding would allow me to learn more about the plant, flower or tree.

Genetic Manipulation

I believe that genetic manipulation should cease at being utilized to assist those with disease prevention. I believe this is the only way to ensure that society provides the best for its people and keeps the playing field level. Genetic augmentations such as muscles, memory, height and sex selection is inertly dangerous because it will be used to create a superhuman. John Rawls states “it is in the interest of each to have greater nature assets” meaning that even by adding restrictions towards using genetic manipulation it will not be used in a morally responsible manner. John Rawls is an advocate of genetic manipulation but his statement shows that even the advocates know that society will always take advancements beyond their intended purpose.

Michael Sandel argues that even if a free market is available genetic manipulation is not acceptable. “In order to grapple with the ethics of enhancement, we need to confront questions largely lost from view – questions about the moral status of nature, and about the proper stance of human beings toward the given world.” I agree with Sandel regarding the “drive to mastery” but also believe there is an acceptable middle ground when it comes to our health. The challenge will be guiding society to utilize the advancements in a responsible and intended manner. When it comes to creating children we need to appreciate their natural identity and not mold them into a “perfect” being. It is the job of the parent to create that mold through parenting. “To appreciate children as gifts or blessings is not, of course, to be passive in the face of illness or disease.”

To support gene therapy to fight diseases is to be responsible. I feel that any other purpose designed to mold a human life is not acceptable. Whether that be to increase their physical or mental abilities or determine sex is a violation of nature and have the potential for dangerous results. What happens if the child is not what the parent “ordered”? Is it refundable? What happens to society if there are natural people and superhuman? Do they exist in harmony or does one have repercussions for the other, such as health insurance coverage?

Invisibility Cloak and Other Applications

I read an article about an invisibility cloak and was quite impressed with how the technology works. It was developed by a group from the University of Tokyo and essentially the material of the cloak allows for a digital camera located behind the fabric to record the images and display them on the material providing the appearance of transparency. This is termed “optical camouflage”.

It was more impressed to understand this technology as more than just magic tricks on the street. I actually saw how this cloak can be quite hazardous to the user. In NYC the user can be hit by traffic or run into by other pedestrians simply because they are not visible. I was also concerned about utilizing this technology for criminal purposes.

The article went on to show the benefits of the technology. The cockpit in aircraft could project the underside of the plane while landing allowing the pilots to have a transparent view of the runway and the landing gears. Cars could utilize the technology to eliminate blind spots and decrease the number of vehicle accidents. I am a large advocate of safety for our troops overseas and the example of hiding military vehicles would certainly increase their safety. I worry that if the “enemy” has the same technology we could be at a disadvantage but I believe that radar, heat scans and other new technologies could limit the “invisibility” of the vehicles.

This is an extraordinary new innovation and when utilized in a morally responsible manner benefit society greatly. As with all innovations without monitoring they can be used to influence society in a negative fashion.

Right to Privacy - Expoitation of the Sacrifice for Safety

After reading the two pieces Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains by Jay Stanley and Barry Steinhart and In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love (Some) Government Surveillance by James Stacey Taylor, I changed my thoughts regarding privacy. My thoughts about privacy were in line with Taylor’s in that I believed that those who had nothing to worry about or do nothing wrong have no reason to be concerned about being monitored. This also came with the requirement that the information captured could only be used in “morally permissible” ways meaning that there would have to be just cause to dig into my data.

My feelings are still in line with Taylor’s because I will sacrifice privacy for safety, to a degree. What I have learned is that motivation and interests make the term “morally permissible” impossible to achieve. New technology is created at a speed greater than law creation and once the door has been opened to allow data aggregation and surveillance, institutions will exploit those laws for their interests and find loop holes to conduct business at my expense. In a perfect world this data could only be aggregated and used by the government for the purpose of reasonable national security. They catch here is that only the government writes the rules around what is reasonable and the actions can not be monitored by an independent third party.

Stanley and Steinhardt explained that once corporation gain access to this data and surveillance it is utilized for their interest and the speed and methods at which this information is being gathered is alarming if not scary. To think that my internet activity and financial data can be sold off because a weak law was implemented that, against its purpose, allows the activity rather than restricts it appalls me.

I firmly believe that my data and information can be gathered and utilized for my, and only my, best interest. Cell phone GPS, genetic privacy, RFID, the Patriot Act, TIA and CAPS II are all good technology when utilized in the appropriate manner. Having them used in the appropriate manner is impossible because of self interests and lack of monitoring. The identification of the exploitation makes me want to go to a place where I can’t be monitored. My private life is just that. My safety is a government issue. My information solely mine and those who house my financial information or I pay a fee to utilize their technology have an obligation to me to keep our interaction between us and no one else.

I am certainly more conscious of my situation after these readings and I may start to adjust my behavior as a response. It will not be an adjustment towards obeying laws, it will be an adjustment towards hiding my identity.