Ignorance Breeds Disease - The Hybrid Embryo Debate May 19, 2008
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Blog, Philosophy, Science, Technology , add a comment
I have been shocked by the backlash by ‘ethical’ and ‘religious’ pundits to the Hybrid Embryo research who’s fate is currently being determined in the House of Commons. Simply put, the research is to examine degenerative diseases and requires the combination of human and animal cells mixed within embryonic stem cells. These embryos will not become mature or allowed to develop within a long time frame. Much like stem cell research the embryos are no more than simple cells where the genetic changes can be closely examined to help fight diseases such as Motor Neurone Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, and Alzheimer’s.
The general argument from the clergy and from ethical zealots is that we are ‘tampering with nature’. An example of many of these ill-informed opinions I think is summed up in this truly dangerous knee-jerk reaction from people such as Rebecca Bradbury from Exeter who says on BBC have your say:
This has just confirmed my fears…humans have become so arrogant that they are playing God. We have diseases for a reason; to stop the population becoming so large the earth can not sustain the numbers. I can not see any good reason why hybrid embryos are created in the first place, it is leaving the door open for the unscrupulous to exploit and potentially cause irrevocable damage to the human race. When are scientists and the government just going to leave nature alone?
This is a perfect example of the twisted mirror that the anti-science conservatist lobby adopts as an argument against scientific progress. So lets look at what Rebecca actually states:
1. Humans play god.
Now I’m not sure that Rebecca has quite grasped the idea that it is surely pure arrogance to assume that she knows these seemingly invisible barriers that mankind should not cross. What exactly determines when man becomes ‘arrogant’ or attempts to become what she considers ‘god’. She obviously knows the limit that we should not cross and this is it. Hardly an arrogant assumption is it?
2. Diseases for a Reason and Natural Balance
Diseases have no reason. They exist due to a number of environmental and genetic factors. The human race has successful rid ourselves of a huge swathe of diseases over the last 100 years and we will continue to do so as long as people suffer with terrible afflictions.
The Earth with science is quite capable of supporting many more multitudes of people as long as we are careful not to ruin our habitat beyond a livable threshold. There is NO ‘natural balance’ in nature. Nature represents a constantly shifting, changing and developing system that may accommodate humanity or not. Science generally tips the balance in our favour and it is politics, money and greed that drive science into becoming a destructive force, not science itself. Maybe Rebecca would like to return to the more ‘natural’ Medieval period where peoples lives were incredibly short, hard and disease ridden?
3. No reason for research.
Often people who punt the ‘no reason’ argument have not informed themselves of the very research they are witch hunting. If Rebecca had bothered to read the papers she would realise that this research is to investigate whether particularly awful diseases can be cured. Simple. She even acknowledges this in her previous sentence.
4. Unscrupulous Use.
Now this is when the arguments against research become simply absurd. What do people think will happen, clones of hybrid humans and tigers roaming around killing people? Nazi style camps holding mutants that will need to be contained as the human race plummets into some zombie style survival episode? What exactly is this ‘damage’? Again another loaded sentence full of hyperbole.
5. Leave Nature Alone.
If we had adopted this idea we would never have developed civilisation or risen above our competitors to carve out our niche within what is an intensely hostile environment. Real survival which many of us do not have to face on a day to day basis is not a pleasant experience. Starvation, disease, short brutal lives with no justice system, no government, no sanitation, no food stocks, no culture and no survival. If we left nature alone this is exactly the world we would be living in, no future, no hope, no progress. The human race would indeed be short lived and Rebecca would not have the privilege to assault intelligent minds with such banality.
The Hounds of the Dyke January 9, 2008
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Blog, Brighton, Science , 3 comments
Comet Holmes was a pretty understated but important example of how we are surrounded by a huge variety of stellar objects. Expanding to become the largest object in our solar system whatever happened to this comet must have been pretty dramatic.
Knowing that Comet Holmes was visible to the naked eye myself and some friends decided to go out on the Downs to do some star gazing. We found a great spot in a car park near Devils Dyke and started setting up. A couple of dubious cars were already lurking and we guessed this must be a dogging spot. When two women and three men got out of the car, the lonely sexual desperados must have thought their luck was in. As I got out my tripod they must have really got excited at the kinky potential of what we could all be doing. Unfortunately this must have been shattered when I setup my astronomical binoculars; and tea, biscuits and a hip flask of lovely whisky were passed around.
One of the doggers immediately left in obvious disgust, then after about ten minutes the final car departed but what was truly astonishing was that as the last car past us a bloke leaned out and shouted “GET A LIFE”. After an ironic chuckle, we continued to waste our lives looking at the infinite wonders of the Universe rather than participating in the fulfilling act of sticking our cocks through car windows.
Richard Dawkins - A fundemental rationaliser. October 15, 2007
Posted by Mark Mitchell in : Blog, Philosophy, Science , 3 commentsI have struck this article off as I think it is not factually correct and was a bit of a rant, however, there are points relevant to my overriding uncomfortableness with RD’s current PR approach.
Like Richard Dawkins, I am myself an atheist, that is, I do not believe that divine beings exist, let alone influence our lives. I have been fascinated to see the rise of Richard Dawkins over the years and have been a fan of his approach and work until the last couple of years. There is no doubt that this known but hardly celebrity level academic has suddenly exploded into the public eye through a number of TV programmes and of course through the controversial book ‘The God Delusion’. With the establishment of the Richard Dawkins Foundation of Reason and Science (RDF), he is now the figurehead of a movement to rid the world of the superstitious and ignorant views of religious zealots and lazy thinkers.
Richard has questioned representatives of most faiths and has exposed clairvoyants and spiritualist charlatans for what they are, and although his arguments are solid and completely rational, I wonder what his objectives really are? Let us not forget Richards background. He is from a privileged landed gentry background and certainly represents the intellectual elite in our country. From the lofty heights of academic supremacy there is no doubt he can look down upon the teeming masses, scrutinize their illogical actions and dissect them into a palatable example of how ignorant many people truly are. Ignorance is often the result of poor education/cultural influences and is also the result of choosing to be ignorant as a coping mechanism to deal with emotional trauma. An erudite and accomplished academic will find it incredibly easy to overturn most orthodox religious assumptions as well as dissect the fickle modern interpretations that seem to constantly evolve to cope with modern changes. Yet, within the madness are reasons however banal or poignant. The reasons why people choose irrationality over reason is often due to a survival or coping mechanism. Dealing with the death of close relative or adapting to a harsh theocratic dictatorship. This is obvious, but what may not be so obvious is that poverty plays a massive role in the establishment of the uneducated, traumatised and terrible life experiences that people have to deal with. The disparity between rich and poor is extreme and I will not venture to explain what most people know to be the truth.
This is where my admiration of Richard Dawkins starts to curdle as I watch him simply argue in a rather self-satisfied way that rationalism and scientific methodology can give wonder and hope to everyone in the same way that is does to him and no doubt as it does to myself. The truth is that atheism is a luxury, something to treasure and respect. It is predominately found in rich liberal western societies and has no doubt freed many people from the constrains of dogma and superstition. I argue as much as Dawkins against supposition and assumptions believing in a Socratic method to weed out untruths and delusion. Yet, like Socrates, I believe that personal development should over-ride financial aspirations, something I’m not convinced Richard Dawkins completely agrees with, especially with BUY NOW buttons plastered all over his website. As much as Dawkins seems to understand rationality he seems to be incapable of understanding the importance of self-delusion. There is no doubt that lying is fundamentally important to every-one’s sanity and forms a fundamental part of our creative and imaginative tapestry as a species. Embellishments, exaggerations, and lies are creative processes and no doubt form a hugely important part of every day lives. From fiction books to films, urban myths to legends their prevalence and importance cannot be understated. We all allow ourselves these escapes, yet it is most evident in areas where poverty stricken people live life in a way most westerners would find intolerable. It is here Dawkins fails to deliver a fair case for an idealised secular world through evangelised atheism. To truly enlighten the ignorant he needs to tackle its main cause, poverty. It is this irony that strikes at the heart of Dawkins argument. How can a man of so much privilege and obvious intelligence fail to recognise that the very wealth and liberality that allows him his freedom to study, scrutinize and communicate his ideas is formed directly from the capital which drives these people into poverty and ignorance. Dawkins is a perfect example of a bourgeois, intellectual bully boy.
To sustain my interest I would like to see him become a braver man and address the socio-political reasons why people turn to religion or fundamentalism. I know empirical data to Dawkins may just seem like filler in an already won argument but I think that Dawkins needs to challenge his own cultural inheritance and its contribution to keeping the plebians ignorant. Understanding and facing the reality of poverty and the inevitable poor educational standards this creates should be his priority now and would certainly give him far more credibility than slamming average Joes who never had the chances he had. Dawkins should be addressing why people turn to religion and supernatural beliefs rather than proceeding to duck shoot the ignorant.
