robertamgottlieb wrote:cthia wrote:I am not quite so sure that this is a question of morality. Or at least if it were, that ship has sailed.
My personal slant on regeneration. If I were a high-powered high falutin lawyer like, SWM, I would argue that regen does not, in any way compromise Beowulf's stance. Regen does not replace anything in or on the body that isn't already there. In fact, regen is nothing more than a highly skilled surgeon in a bottle, with bandaids.
If I lose a finger today, as long as I put that finger on ice and get it to a proper surgeon, it can be reattached. Giving me no more than I had before said accident. Regen, arguably, is just a high-tech scalpel and sutures. IMHO.
However, if that cure for the Heyerdahl mod exists outside the approved gene sequence, then that presents a problem. If you make a stance then you must be aware that if you step outside of your own parameters then you establish a precedent, eliminating your argument against, thereby opening the door. In that case Beowulf would have transformed their nonarbitrary limit to an arbitrary one, thus killing all that they stood for, by providing an exploitable legal and logical loophole.
It's akin to the SLN saying 'do as I say, not as I do.'
I think you miss my point. I wasn't talking about whether genetic mods for prolog are acceptable under the Beowulf code, but rather it is moral or not to use knowledge acquired through such an evil basis.
There was, IIRC, some valuable medical research on hypothermia acquired from experiments (i.e., scientific torture) on prisoners at Auschwitz. That was the first time I encountered this issue: what do you do with useful medical knowledge acquired from an atrocity? And I certainly consider the entire enterprise of genetic slavery as a way to acquire detailed knowledge of human genetics an atrocity.
-- Bob G
No, I didn't miss your point. I simply thought that my response inferred my take on that. I apologize, and should have responded directly. I'll respond in general.
In cases where scientific breakthroughs were received through atrocious means, should said breakthroughs be discarded? Absolutely not! To ignore worthwhile breakthroughs just because they were come by in less than savory means would represent at least as big an atrocity, in some respects. If certain atrocities were visited upon Auschwitz -#28578 then discarding the valuable medical information would kill #28578 twice. Would visit another atrocity upon #28578. I would personally not eliminate a chance for said victim's sufferings to not have been all for naught. The problem comes if this would be an encouragement for said atrocities to continue.
This reminds me of similar arguments here on Earth. [1]Blood diamonds. [2]Blood money. [3]Fur.
.
