Tornado Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 So, I was looking for something historical to model the rise of genetic engineering in my SF setting on. Some piece of technology which was, at one point, considered immoral by a large number of people but is now ubiquitous and accepted by the majority? Nuclear power was suggested, but it seems a bit "work in progress" to model the acceptance on (alas, Australia). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustytomes Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? Cloning and organ-harvesting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost-angel Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? I don't know the full history of it - but I'd imagine it had a "OMG World Will End" kind of feel when the idea of replicating DNA was first introduced. Now it's common practice, heck a guy I know does nothing but create DNA to spec at his job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? I'd suggest vaccination. When it was first introduced it was not only denounced as immoral, but in sevral places there were riots. Even though it's well accepted today, you still have fringers who claim it causes all sorts of things (back in the day, it was claimed it would cause people to give birth to animals) and false claims can still cause riots in some undeveloped areas. cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L. Marcus Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? . . . Mind you, Jenner's (I think it was he) work on cowpox/smallpox would hardly be called ethical these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Boy Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? And there's a difference between vaccination and inoculation. I suspect that there's a subtext to early smallpox inoculation, too; but I'm only going to fart in the elevator about that in the Colonial Gothic thread. For a more out-there example, how about futurology? You used to be able to get a lot of publicity (sometimes more than you could handle) by predicting the apocalypse, deaths of kings and Popes, or triumph of Protestantism/Catholicism/Islam. Now, everyone is doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonus Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering and public opinion? So, I was looking for something historical to model the rise of genetic engineering in my SF setting on. Some piece of technology which was, at one point, considered immoral by a large number of people but is now ubiquitous and accepted by the majority? Nuclear power was suggested, but it seems a bit "work in progress" to model the acceptance on (alas, Australia). Contraception obviously. Dissection. Most other technologies are regarded as nuisances or risks to safety rather than actually immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoy Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? Industrtalization. See the history of sabotage and the Luddite movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonus Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? Industrtalization. See the history of sabotage and the Luddite movement. Not the same thing. The Luddites were just upset that their lifestyle was going down the tubes. They didn't think the factories were immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoy Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? Not the same thing. The Luddites were just upset that their lifestyle was going down the tubes. They didn't think the factories were immoral. No, they thought the factory owners were immoral for stealing their livelyhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonus Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? No' date=' they thought the factory[i'] owners [/i]were immoral for stealing their livelyhood. But in the case of human genetic engineering people think it's immoral even though it won't hurt them at alll. A situation analogous to the the luddite unrest would be one in which people whose parents could not or would not genetically enhance them rose up and rioted because employers preferred the more genetically endowed and all they got were the dirty poorly paid jobs, which is a situation that might arise in such a future history of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Weapon Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? Not the same thing. The Luddites were just upset that their lifestyle was going down the tubes. They didn't think the factories were immoral. Plenty of people did though, many of the upper classes thought that the comparative ease and riches it gave the lower classes corrupted their morals. You know, girls buying nice dresses and going out instead of sitting at home working a hand loam for hours. Boys getting their own money and not having to do everything their father says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Weapon Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? But in the case of human genetic engineering people think it's immoral even though it won't hurt them at alll. A situation analogous to the the luddite unrest would be one in which people whose parents could not or would not genetically enhance them rose up and rioted because employers preferred the more genetically endowed and all they got were the dirty poorly paid jobs' date=' which is a situation that might arise in such a future history of course.[/quote'] The movie Gattaca has a similar theme, although people were not actually genetically enhanced, just picked for optimum qualities in the embryo stage. Technically the discrimination was illegal but nobody cared. In reality genetic testing has been argued against as immoral for many purposes, due to privacy reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? Wasn't artificial insemination considered by some to be the equivalent of adultery when it was first introduced? I doubt anyone considers it immoral these days--even by those who oppose contraception or abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonus Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? Plenty of people did though' date=' many of the upper classes thought that the comparative ease and riches it gave the lower classes corrupted their morals. You know, girls buying nice dresses and going out instead of sitting at home working a hand loam for hours. Boys getting their own money and not having to do everything their father says.[/quote'] Comparative ease and riches? I don't think so. Longer working days under more dangerous conditions for less pay was more like it. There was a reason why the Luddites smashed machines and it wasn't because they were outraged at all the extra time and money they were getting. Wasn't artificial insemination considered by some to be the equivalent of adultery when it was first introduced? I doubt anyone considers it immoral these days--even by those who oppose contraception or abortion. http://www.recoverycan.org/node/256 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markdoc Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? . . . Mind you' date=' Jenner's (I think it was he) work on cowpox/smallpox would hardly be called ethical these days. [/quote'] Most of what passed for medicine back then wasn't ethical by today's standards. But then neither was the system of conscription, taxation, political representation or jurisprudence. We've come a long way. cheers, Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoy Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? I doubt anyone considers it immoral these days--even by those who oppose contraception or abortion. Why the Catholic Church is opposed artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comic Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? Pasteurization. Not only was it an added 'fussy step', 'not really needed', 'false sense of security', 'unproven', 'made food taste odd', 'ruined the healthfulness', but it was also an immoral intrusion, government and ivory-tower interference of the worst sort. So was hand-washing, for doctors. Education for children, taking them off the farms and out of the mills and filling their heads with numbers.. that outraged the Puritans, unless you at least beat the children with switches while they studied. It really depends whose morals you intend to outrage. Almost all innovations attract early adopters, who by definition almost are different morally from late adopters. See the example of the Web, with the flood of pr0n to suit any taste. Puritans are offended by labor-saving, reason-intensive developments. The US has a practically ubiquitous moral resistance to anything that deviates from a specific, narrow and perverse reading of the bible, without much concern for logic, sense, or internal consistency. See the current discourse on Evolution. Many cultures are offended by treating women like human beings; some are offended by failure to treat women like property, unless you at least abuse them physically. Not really a technology, to see women as people, of course. Just my ranting digression. Mind you, Eugenics was seen as a moral imperative, for a few brief decades, in most of the developed world.. until the concentration camp experiments and institutional horror stories of the 40's and 50's turned that around. Nylon was seen as immoral, though. Intrinsically linked to luxury, allure and illusion from the first, it was permeated with an attractive mystique of perversity. Movies, likewise, and even comic books. They kept having 'voluntary' measures of morality slapped on them, even to this day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinecone Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? Comparative ease and riches? I don't think so. Longer working days under more dangerous conditions for less pay was more like it. There was a reason why the Luddites smashed machines and it wasn't because they were outraged at all the extra time and money they were getting. http://www.recoverycan.org/node/256 I don't think thats a good handle on the luddites...I think they were smashing machines because they were getting thrown out of work by them ( more perception than reality...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonus Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? I don't think thats a good handle on the luddites...I think they were smashing machines because they were getting thrown out of work by them ( more perception than reality...) They were getting thrown out of work by them. The factories offered new jobs, but jobs with longer hours, lower pay and more dangerous conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmower Boy Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? I'm not an expert on the Luddites by any means, but I would suggest that you're trying on the wrong handle if you imagine them as living in a modern context of factory jobs. The modern social apparatus is very modern. There were factories around in the 1820s, but by far the majority of industrial work was being done in the home, and the issue with modern equipment was often that it was being issued by proprietors to individuals who had previously done their piecework on their own looms. The idea was impractical, to some extent, and this is one reason that the idea of the factory spread. But people had their own concerns about what would happen to them in factories, concerns that go to the religious politics of the era. I'm sure no-one wants to read eye-glazing blather about Nonconformists and Anglicans and blah blah blah blah, but if we want to understand the Luddites and their critics, we do have to investigate these things. Harold Perkins is the usual assigned reading on this subject, but I think the literature is also moving on as we begin to understand just how far "nineteenth century Liberalism" has snookered us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Weapon Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? Originally Posted by The Weapon Plenty of people did though, many of the upper classes thought that the comparative ease and riches it gave the lower classes corrupted their morals. You know, girls buying nice dresses and going out instead of sitting at home working a hand loam for hours. Boys getting their own money and not having to do everything their father says. The Weapon[/b]] Plenty of people did though, many of the upper classes thought that the comparative ease and riches it gave the lower classes corrupted their morals. You know, girls buying nice dresses and going out instead of sitting at home working a hand loam for hours. Boys getting their own money and not having to do everything their father says. Comparative ease and riches? I don't think so. Longer working days under more dangerous conditions for less pay was more like it. There was a reason why the Luddites smashed machines and it wasn't because they were outraged at all the extra time and money they were getting. http://www.recoverycan.org/node/256 Actually factory work was pretty safe and the days probably shorter than farm work for the same pay. The Luddites were outraged by the fact that they couldn't do their usual work on hand loams because other people were competing with them. The people competing were very happy with the fact they could get more money for less work. The cliche that the industrial revolution brought great suffering to the poor is the result of propaganda by rich people. The Sadler report for instance is taken as gospel when it was in fact the result of unsworn testimony that was not allowed to be refuted. Only ONE witness in it was prepared to repeat his words under oath. People who in fact pretty much never did a day's hard work in their life thought the factory system was horrible, but demanded longer hours from their own workers. http://mises.org/story/2443 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Weapon Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? Fixed the link for you . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clonus Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? Actually factory work was pretty safe and the days probably shorter than farm work for the same pay. I kind of doubt the farm labourers were working longer than 14 hour days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McCoy Posted July 19, 2008 Report Share Posted July 19, 2008 Re: Genetic Engineering? I kind of doubt the farm labourers were working longer than 14 hour days. High lattitude summers? Don't doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.