Exnihiloest wrote:Ethics and morals are mechanisms for regulating societies. They accompany their development, in particular by their transposition into laws as the need arises, for various reasons, to channel societal practices and facts which are gaining importance. It is part of legitimate regulation.
But today, we pretend to direct, orient, constrain societal developments in the name of a moral even before they take place, before any attempt, so as to prevent the functioning of society from emerging from individual activities and their diversity, but that it conforms to the ideology of the censors.
It's suicidal. You never know in advance how you can benefit from our experiences. I will be told that we do not know all the risks either, but then this is one more reason to try, to be able to decide on the interest or not to continue. This is how Nature has progressed for millions of years, with the success we see in it. Attempts / success / failure / selection is the right method.
That the selection includes moral criteria when it comes to human activity, it is understandable, but still it would be necessary that there are concrete things to sort out, tried, tested, and not the smoky ideas that would be made one or the other on such or such possibility which one could henceforth access thanks to the progress of our knowledge.
So it's "normal" to make "bombs", to try them out while you are doing it (without asking anything from anyone if possible), and even if that should destroy everything, it is progress .... " with the success we see him ".....
And once the bomb is done, especially not to prevent the funders from getting into their money, so now that it is there, we use it, if possible, it's more profitable ..... The enriching a few irresponsible bastards is far above the general interest. By the time the legislation follows / frames the irresponsible, it will already have become commonplace ....
With methods of this kind we are not close to solving our social problems (global warming, pollution etc ...)