Following the above line of reasoning:
If the technology is BST, and the function of BST is to increase milk
production, and there exists a general consensus (value judgement) that there
is already a surplus of milk, then where is the practical reason for using
this technology?
If we choose to restrict milk production, limiting technology may be
> dangerous, because it will not be too long before we limit all
> technolgy and wind up back as cave men.
Pardon me, but isn't this a bit extreme? It has to be all or nothing??
There are certainly practical, as well as ethical reasons for limiting
the use of certain technologies (for those who haven't been keeping up
with the media coverage of human genetic technology.)
Technology is neither good
> nor bad. How it is used depends on society's values.
Technology that sits on the shelf unused can be considered neither good
nor bad. Technology APPLIED in some way cannot be considered to be
neutral in its impact, since it is being applied by human beings who hold a
particular set of values which play a role in determining actions and behavior.
Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it should be done. The
examples of technological "mixed blessings" are many.
Life is a risk
> and we cannot make it riskless. I for one would rather have these
> things about bST hashed out in the market than have big brother tell
> me what my risk quotient is if I drink milk produced with bST.
>
Sure, life is full of risks, but those we willingly create for ourselves
ought to be well worth the possible dangers involved. As for hashing
things out in the market, perhaps the market-watchers/predictors could
benefit us all by giving more consideration to social impacts of
adopting certain technologies. Economics cannot be looked at in a
valueless vacuum. It's about time we started to look at all of our
activities as connected parts of the whole scheme of life, rather than as
separate, isolated events and decisions that have no effect on one other.
Lara Wiggert