How do we allow scientific innovation without ruining the world?

[AbbyGNelson]

No doubt, every new innovation has it's pros and cons. Now it's on us how effectively we use the particular technology for the benefit of mankind. Gun is an important innovation. But it is the negative use, which is devastating society. There should be an effective control on gun's usage to avoid its harms.

Oh I completely agree, humanity has been trying to figure out how to deal with guns for centuries, but what about the other technology in Final Notice. They created a way for people to know ahead of time that they were going to die. Their innocent thinking is this allows people to say their goodbyes wrap up loose ends, etc. But instead the loose ends wrapped up are people's lives. Do we need some kind of think tank to try to think of the worst potentials of new technology and advise governments what to be concerned about?

[stedape]

No doubt, every new innovation has it's pros and cons. Now it's on us how effectively we use the particular technology for the benefit of mankind. Gun is an important innovation. But it is the negative use, which is devastating society. There should be an effective control on gun's usage to avoid its harms.

I totally agree. Additionally, this is where laws come in. A society without laws would only become chaotic. I believe laws are the primary way to guide technology and its use in the right path.

[Emie Cuevas]

I think this question is really irrelevant. Scientific innovation will always happen. I think it would be better addressing the morals of the people doing the innovating.

If the scientists are brought up with a clear set of morals that include harm no-one, then they will create things to help everyone. Unfortunately, in a world that still thinks it needs a military presence in every country that is not going to happen.

Perhaps it's time the human race became extinct and let the machines have a go.

[HouseOfAtticus]

I think we must avoid excess. In a capitalistic world, it makes sense to understand what you are consuming and how much.

[sepicatt]

Love your thoughts on AIs. We already have them- Cortana, Siri, etc. And those are the AIs accessible to the general public. Cloning is possible as well. I mean, for $50k, you can clone your dog so human cloning is doable. It's an ethical issue in the US not to do it. But who knows if it is being done elsewhere. And how far off does that make the the technology of Altered Carbon? Plus, you will get those who create technology to help but then those who will want to use it for war. I don't think we will be able to stop it but I do see we are losing our empathy and humanity the more advanced we become.

[Mouricia Allen]

Recognizing that yes we can, but asking ourselves, should we? Scientists tend to do things just because they can, not thinking about the negative impacts..

[Samy Lax]

You're absolutely right. Scientific innovations are all around us.

Balancing innovation with creating a better world, I think, should involve changes in the forces that drive
scientific and technological innovations—the funding systems, the military, and business
interests, and consumers. What's also needed is greater transparency of scientific and technological
enterprises, enabling societal actors to better monitor, assess, forecast, and influence
developments at an early stage. Maybe I am asking for too much too soon. But then, if not now, then when?

[AbbyGNelson]

This is a question that's been (and will be) posed for a very long time. Certain technologies can alter human life completely, but at what cost and to what reward? When do things go from natural to unnatural? I think it really depends on the technology. I'd love to be able to choose the hair and eye color of my future child for example, but I would never want to be involuntarily resurrected as a cyborg. It really comes down to who has the final say in whatever that technology is, I think, and how much will it alter their life for both the positive and the negative, to answer whether or not a technology is ethical.

Genetic manipulation and actually building a robotic human are a bit different. Also, I understand why you would want to choose you child's hair and eye color, we live in an age of choice and customization. But even in that scenario I don't think you've thought about all of huge potential downsides to genetic manipulation. I really don't want that to become a thing.

If you can choose eye and hair color, can you choose for you child to not be pre-disposed to any diseases, can you choose for them to be stronger or smarter, etc. What about people who cannot afford to *update* their child. This will make class divisions more striking and make it more impossible for impoverished people or third world countries to catch up, so to speak. If you've ever seen the movie, Gattaca (great movie) then you'll know what I'm talking about. These are some of the unintended consequences that people don't think of just like in this book Final Notice.

[AbbyGNelson]

There are so many things we could take away from people because they don't use them properly, for the greater good, or in moderation. The government could ban the production of donuts because of how much sugar they have and they could cause obesity which leads to other health issues which leads to death. Should everyone be denied donuts because some people can't control their physical urges? I'm of the belief system that guns don't kill people and forks don't make people fat. Unfortunately the benefits do not always outweigh the negative outcomes but that is a result of CHOICES.

Oh I completely agree with you, I don't want to make everything illegal. But have you heard about some states/or cities make sugar taxes so that soft drinks are more expensive, or maybe banning bump stocks/other devices that make guns able to kill people faster. I think there are a few more nuances than yes you can have it or no you can't. There are incentives you can give people to change their actions, or peripheral objects that can be made illegal.

Currently in some states you can go to a court, argue that a person is not in the mental state to have guns, and the court can order their guns to be removed from them for a time while they figure out if that person is in the right place to keep them. In this universe of Final Notice could they do something similar, once you find out you are going to die you have your guns taken from you? What do you need them for in the last weeks of your life?

[CheyenneR]

I think that if we spend too much time thinking about what bad things could possibly happen, we will never actually reach out and try to invent things that could have the potential to help. I think there should be a moral limit to what we do and how we do it but I don't think we should just stop or slow down our scientific research and discoveries because of what might happen.

[AbbyGNelson]

I agree that technology can and will be used for both bad and good. It seems to be human nature. Some people try to do evil when ever they can . Technology is just another tool for them to use.

I completely agree with you! Is there any way we can try to think ahead and see potential bad behavior before it happens?

[Scottrita0729]

We allow scientific innovation without ruining the world by somewhat technology and many other reason. Sometime it is good to have technology sometime it not depend of the situation.

[MrsCatInTheHat]

I feel like this is an age old question that there's really no good answer to. People didn't even want credit cards when they first came out because they thought they were the "mark of the beast" or unsafe or something. There has to be a happy medium between allowing scientific innovation and educating people on the horrors what some of the inventions can do.

I just don't think that we can throw the baby out with the bath water on this one. There will always be evil people. We could get rid of all scientific innovation, and they would find a way to be evil.

Well said! I remember hearing my parents talk about the people fearing credit cards for those reasons. I can also remember people being concerned about cell phones causing communication issues.... there are some, but the good far surpasses the bad.

[kandscreeley]

I feel like this is an age old question that there's really no good answer to. People didn't even want credit cards when they first came out because they thought they were the "mark of the beast" or unsafe or something. There has to be a happy medium between allowing scientific innovation and educating people on the horrors what some of the inventions can do.

I just don't think that we can throw the baby out with the bath water on this one. There will always be evil people. We could get rid of all scientific innovation, and they would find a way to be evil.

Well said! I remember hearing my parents talk about the people fearing credit cards for those reasons. I can also remember people being concerned about cell phones causing communication issues.... there are some, but the good far surpasses the bad.

Thanks. I kind of felt like I was babbling at the end.

[AbbyGNelson]

I think that if we spend too much time thinking about what bad things could possibly happen, we will never actually reach out and try to invent things that could have the potential to help. I think there should be a moral limit to what we do and how we do it but I don't think we should just stop or slow down our scientific research and discoveries because of what might happen.

Thank you for this comment, and this is why I'm asking. I agree that slowing down invention and innovation really seems like the wrong way to go. All we can do is set our own moral limits and try to do the best we can to just be good people. And vote for people/politicians who believe similarly to how we do.