NationStates Jolt Archive

I haven't seen an NS poll done on this yet, so I figured I'd make one.
Are you bioconservative or technoprogressive? Or something else entirely?

EDIT:
An explanation of the terms. Well, at this very moment I can't be arsed to write up my own explanation, so I shall borrow from Wikipedia:
"Bioconservatism is a stance of hesitancy about technological development in general and strong opposition to the genetic, prosthetic and cognitive modification of human beings in particular. Whether arising from a conventionally right-leaning politics of religious/cultural conservatism or from a conventionally left-leaning politics of environmentalism, bioconservative positions oppose medical and other technological interventions into what are broadly perceived as current human and cultural limits in the name of a defense of "the natural" deployed as a moral category."
"Techno-progressivism, technoprogressivism, or tech-progressivism, is a stance of active support for technological development. Strong technoprogressive positions include support for human practices of consensual genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification in particular."

I have no idea. What are they?

I have no idea. What are they?
Perhaps I should explain in the first post. That would make sense, wouldn't it...
*goes off to do so*

I would say I fall pretty cleanly into the bioconservatist side.

Thanks. :)

By that description, I am a very strong technoprogressive. I support almost all degrees of technological innovation, implementation, and involvement in our lives. The concept of modification of the human person and mind is absolutely intriguing and offers a wide variety of opportunities in many fields. We could have a legion of Einsteins, or Hawkings, or Riemanns.

crap i voted technoprogressive but i'm more other... in that i believe biomedical science has so many uses and we aren't even beginning to explore the range and benefits of these yet, but at the same time i'm something of an environmentalist, and realise there are ethical barriers that should still not be crossed. so i guess i'm somewhere in the middle or a moderate technoprog

By your definition of the terms, I'm a bioconservative. I'm generally in favor of tech development, but the idea of genetically, prosthetically or cognitively modifying humans gives me the willies. Keep my technology separate from me.

EDIT: ... but I'm not totally bioprogressive because I don't give a damn about all that environmentalist crap.

I like mutant fruits.

Does that make me "techno-progressive"?

I'm not sure I can fully support either of the positions. I tend to support technological advances, particularly in the fields of medicine and genetics, but I stongly prefer that changes which could impact the biosphere be proven safe before general use.

I would also perfer to see a baseline biosphere created which includes every possible living thing from Earth's biosphere, and which is totally self-contained and isolated. This would be the failsafe for preservation of unaltered species should we make an egregious error in the introduction of alterations to Earth's biosphere.

I'm bioregressive.

I'm bioregressive.

You want to be an ape? :D

I'm a technoprogressive, but am bioconservative in one respect: there is to be no intentional killing of any human that displays cognitive function, unlike today. Other than that, I'm fine with it.

You want to be an ape? :D
Yes, that is the way it was meant to be. We should be apes with cellphones and mp3s.

Yes, that is the way it was meant to be. We should be apes with cellphones and mp3s.

But that requires us to accept the Theory of Evolution!

Oh Noes! :eek:

Well, at last an interesting, thought-provoking question. Well done!

And I'd have to say I'm not fully either of the options. I generally support technical progress, but I'm not a no-holds-barred technoprogressive. I know enough history to know that their are always unintended consequences of technical progress. Sometimes these unintended consequences are good (who knew twenty years ago that the Internet would turn out to be such a widespread means of communication?), and very often they are bad (ozone depletion, anyone?)

With biotechnology, the unintended consequences could be catastrophic, but the potential benefits are enormous. So I'm not saying to halt bio-research altogether - after all, some wonderful things are possible (for example, the cancer that killed my mother 9 years ago is 80% survivable today, thanks to recent medical advances.) But biotechnology research does need some pretty stringent safeguards.

So I guess you can call me a bio-techno-moderate.

I'm bio-conservative. I don't like the idea of messing with all things natural for percieved benefits that could, one day, ensure, not only mankind's extinction, but also the extinction of everything else. Plus, there's the moral issue of where and when it ends. I'm not sure if I want people living past the 100 year mark more often than now. Based on the fact that there is, in fact, finite resources of material deemed vital for human life, advenced bio-technology will have to be accompanied with population control to prevent catastrophic famine, not only in third world nations, but also first world as well. However, if there is a way for me to have a pet foxy and a pet wolf without having them wear bullet-proof vests and with them living longer than usual with self-controlled mating based off of overall population and food supply, I might allow for some wiggle room. I have a weakness for foxies. I just want to hug them.

Anyway, let's have a traditional debate free from hate and flaiming, as well as that nasty spam. Don't need meat by-products right now.

Technoprogressive, with a strong environmentalist streak (eg, let's not run amuk doing things that will hurt the environment, but let's not sacrifice science in exchange for some environmentalist FUD)

Well, at last an interesting, thought-provoking question. Well done!

And I'd have to say I'm not fully either of the options. I generally support technical progress, but I'm not a no-holds-barred technoprogressive. I know enough history to know that their are always unintended consequences of technical progress. Sometimes these unintended consequences are good (who knew twenty years ago that the Internet would turn out to be such a widespread means of communication?), and very often they are bad (ozone depletion, anyone?)

With biotechnology, the unintended consequences could be catastrophic, but the potential benefits are enormous. So I'm not saying to halt bio-research altogether - after all, some wonderful things are possible (for example, the cancer that killed my mother 9 years ago is 80% survivable today, thanks to recent medical advances.) But biotechnology research does need some pretty stringent safeguards.

So I guess you can call me a bio-techno-moderate.

There's no way I could say the same thing better, so I'm just going to second this.

I haven't seen an NS poll done on this yet, so I figured I'd make one.
Are you bioconservative or technoprogressive? Or something else entirely?

EDIT:
An explanation of the terms. Well, at this very moment I can't be arsed to write up my own explanation, so I shall borrow from Wikipedia:
"Bioconservatism is a stance of hesitancy about technological development in general and strong opposition to the genetic, prosthetic and cognitive modification of human beings in particular. Whether arising from a conventionally right-leaning politics of religious/cultural conservatism or from a conventionally left-leaning politics of environmentalism, bioconservative positions oppose medical and other technological interventions into what are broadly perceived as current human and cultural limits in the name of a defense of "the natural" deployed as a moral category."
"Techno-progressivism, technoprogressivism, or tech-progressivism, is a stance of active support for technological development. Strong technoprogressive positions include support for human practices of consensual genetic, prosthetic, and cognitive modification in particular."I'm an environmentalist technoprogressive. As long as steps into sciences such as cybernetics and genetic/prosthetic/lifestyle-based enhancement of humans and/or species useful to humans are conducted by qualified scientists whose aims are clearly to learn more about the natural world and to improve the quality of life, I'm all for it.

I'm something of a bioconservative. In theory, genetic mutilation of things should be fine. In practice, however, it won't be. Why? Because once it becomes generally accepted, there will be a lobby for it to make it happen even more. If it's happening even more, most likely it will become less safe, and more exploitative than if we didn't have bioengineering.

Furthermore, somehow genetically mutilating an existing plant means that you can patent it under intellectual property laws. Then you can send it out into the world, and since there are few laws against your plant killing other similar plants, you (or your labortatory) could end up being the sole owner(s) to rice. Imagine the devastation to the Third World if one person owned rice.

As far as the lobby bit goes, I remember seeing a commercial a few years ago extolling the virtues of putting Vitamin A into corn and sending the corn to Third World countries. The commercial said how wonderful it was, that it improved eyesight and everything. The lesson from this commercial being that it's too difficult to send both corn and carrots to the Third World, apparently.