Comments on: Moral Vertigo http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/11/moral-vertigo/ Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:44:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.1 by: aNYa http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/11/moral-vertigo/#comment-870 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/11/moral-vertigo/#comment-870 more than a 'moral vertigo' i would say stem cell research is protested against because of the potential hazards .. as it is very easy to misuse it. But then again - thats true of a lot of things isnt it? more than a ‘moral vertigo’ i would say stem cell research is protested against because of the potential hazards .. as it is very easy to misuse it. But then again - thats true of a lot of things isnt it?

]]> by: Ramnath http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/11/moral-vertigo/#comment-871 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/11/moral-vertigo/#comment-871 We people automatically resist change. Survival instinct, I guess. And, we give all sorts of arguments - and moral argument is just one of them - to let things go on as they are. This resistance has often slowed down development, and so its not all that good. But its also needed. You say, "new technologies have always had a rough ride in initial public opinion," and give examples of the technologies that have turned out to be after all good. But, really, there must have been harmful 'developments' that didnt come to pass, thanks to these rough rides. However, I am sure you are not against certain section of people saying biotech research or stem cell research is bad and so should be banned. These people act as society's conscience, make us pause and take midcourse corrections if necessary. We people automatically resist change. Survival instinct, I guess. And, we give all sorts of arguments - and moral argument is just one of them - to let things go on as they are. This resistance has often slowed down development, and so its not all that good.

But its also needed. You say, “new technologies have always had a rough ride in initial public opinion,” and give examples of the technologies that have turned out to be after all good. But, really, there must have been harmful ‘developments’ that didnt come to pass, thanks to these rough rides.

However, I am sure you are not against certain section of people saying biotech research or stem cell research is bad and so should be banned. These people act as society’s conscience, make us pause and take midcourse corrections if necessary.

]]> by: Gautam http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/11/moral-vertigo/#comment-872 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.yazadjal.com/2004/03/11/moral-vertigo/#comment-872 Ramnath has a good point. And I was about to say the samething before I read his post. I remember reading something in <a href="http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=Why+I+am+not+Conservative&btnG=Google+Search" rel="nofollow">"Why I am not Conservative"</a>. Hayek talks about how Liberals are not change lovers neccesarily but are cautious about change, taking things a step at a time, evaluating the emerging consequences of emerging technologies and ideas to determine whether they are to the detriment or benefit of the fundamental ideals of liberty. I am beginning to think that this is a very academic definition of Liberal attitudes to change, or atleast one primarily applicable to Liberal Academicians, who stand outside the process of change as observers as it were. By this definition change-lovers would not be liberals, that throws out the entrepreneurs and the Schumpetarian Knights of Innovation. A better way of saying it would be, that liberals recognise that it takes all kinds of people to make this world,and the brave ought not to be needlessly straight jacketed by conventions, that were meant for another kind of people. Ramnath has a good point. And I was about to say the samething before I read his post. I remember reading something in “Why I am not Conservative”. Hayek talks about how Liberals are not change lovers neccesarily but are cautious about change, taking things a step at a time, evaluating the emerging consequences of emerging technologies and ideas to determine whether they are to the detriment or benefit of the fundamental ideals of liberty. I am beginning to think that this is a very academic definition of Liberal attitudes to change, or atleast one primarily applicable to Liberal Academicians, who stand outside the process of change as observers as it were. By this definition change-lovers would not be liberals, that throws out the entrepreneurs and the Schumpetarian Knights of Innovation.

A better way of saying it would be, that liberals recognise that it takes all kinds of people to make this world,and the brave ought not to be needlessly straight jacketed by conventions, that were meant for another kind of people.

]]>