Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Who can limit the boarders of technological progress? Should it be Done?,…

- - - - Not the focus of this discussion
- - - - So who should limit progress?
        
        My opinion after studying the topic is that:
        
        Technological/Scientific progress should be limited by the scientific community along with the government. These parts together will generally come with the best answer's possible.
        
        After a technology (or its exploration) is "approved" by this council, the parents should be entitled to deciding what is best for their children.
        
        What about the vaccines example?
        
        Yes, unfortunately there will be parents that will reject new technologies out of fear, but it should be the government's job to provide education and awareness so that irresponsible actions are not taken. If they are however, and end up causing harm to the baby, the parents too are responsible for that.
        
        There could even be a global institution of scientific regulation... Like a UN but exclusively for science and technology innovation. With the exponential growth in their development, it doesn't sound unreasonable to have such institution.
- - - - Should the Government it self be entitled to decide the boarders of progress?
        
        This is a hard question...
        
        There are many different government structures around the world, so it is impossible to have one answer that fits all scenarios.
        
        China, for example, is known for its big regulation and authority of its population. Should it's government be entitled of regulation the science community? Is that fair?
      - Should the parents be responsible for deciding if that technology can be used in their babies?
        
        There was a case (that I think it happened in England) where a couple had a daughter with a rare disease. If the financial implications of the procedure were not enough, on top of that, the english government prohibited the operation (Now, I don't remember the disease, the reason the government used to justify their actions or how it all wen't, so it wouldn't be right for me to keep talking about this case).
        
        But, we could use another example to go on in this direction. For instance, should the government be the one to decide if someone else's' kid must take a vaccine? Should the parents be responsible for that?
    - - He Jiankui altered the genes of twins that had a healthy mother and a HIV positive father, so that the babies would have a resistance to the disease
        
        To do such thing, Jiankui and his team used a technology called Crispr. It is a very famous technique, and according to a "New Scientist" article, it identifies specific segments of DNA within a cell and alters, deactivate or activate that "code".
        
        He claimed that if it wasn't him, it would be someone else.
        
        Can we even stop progress?
        
        My honest opinion is that no, we can't. We can regulate it, but even so, these barriers are flexible to time.
        
        A silly, yet powerful example (that is more connected to the progress of ideology, but that also has a lot of science involved) is Galileos.
        
        Despite having a very scientific claim, he was accused by the church to be heretic. Coincidently, as He Jiankui, he was also sent to prison...
        Now, some of Galileo's ideas in the fields of mathematics and astronomy are accepted around the world.
        Who knows, maybe 100 years from now, genetic modification of babies will be as common as the idea of a spheric earth, and the actions of He wont sound so extreme...