Man appears free of HIV after stem cell transplant

Orius said:

I forget the term, but technology is advancing at an exponential rate, racing towards a singularity point. I think new innovation is happening faster than ever and the social aspect of humanity cannot keep up with it, especially given that there are so many nations in the world where people are still living at a subsistence level.

Click to expand...

When you have any advancement as Lewis Mumford pointed out only certain technologies are developed out of those that could be developed and while this is often due to material pressures it is also certainly due to social and political ones as well. Those technologies that benefit the ruling classes in our society are far more likely to be developed than those who serve no obvious benefit or perhaps even seem negative, by reducing their power,

Going back at least to Durkheim there is evidence that rapid sociological change, which technology certainly helps to bring about, often has a great negaitve effect on society. Technology and it developed can both be slowed down to what is best for society and it can become more democratic and controllable by average people all over the world. This is what needs to happen as we quickly enter a world where so many technological advances seem to offer new weapons to tyranny.

Wessexman said:

You talk of science as if it does things on its own. Only scientists are acting in this way and they should act for society and not be treated as some kind of Gods who can work outside society. Science and technology must be made to serve society not society the interests of their practicioners and certainly they should not serve one section above all as they have for so long.

Click to expand...

You keep mentioning them being treated as gods. Why do you think this?

I do agree that science does not act as independently these days, and it is often used as tool by more powerful people... but scientists in general do not have unlimited resources on their own. They must partner up with some kind of parent organization that gives them money and tools, and sometimes that can form an agenda. In general though, scientists are in it for the research opportunities, and maybe a little prestige on the side.

Orius said:

You keep mentioning them being treated as gods. Why do you think this?

Click to expand...

Because you made phrases that gave that impression. You gave the impression that you think scientists and technology are something which is outside society, autonomous and unbounded by social factors.

I do agree that science does not act as independently these days, and it is often used as tool by more powerful people... but scientists in general do not have unlimited resources on their own. They must partner up with some kind of parent organization that gives them money and tools, and sometimes that can form an agenda. In general though, scientists are in it for the research opportunities, and maybe a little prestige on the side.

Click to expand...

Science and technology, and we are talking more broadly than scientific research, has never been independent completely. What I'm saying is that science and particularly technology should be made more decentralised and democratic.

Wessexman said:

Because you made phrases that gave that impression. You gave the impression that you think scientists and technology are something which is outside society, autonomous and unbounded by social factors.

Click to expand...

Can you be specific about the things I said which gave you that impression? I only ask because I didn't think that's what I was saying at all, or maybe I didn't explain myself accurately enough.

Wessexman said:

Science and technology, and we are talking more broadly than scientific research, has never been independent completely. What I'm saying is that science and particularly technology should be made more decentralised and democratic.

Click to expand...

How would you democratize science? Do you mean we should give the public a vote to give permissions to certain advancements? I was under the impression that science and tech. already wre decentralized. It's not like one organization holds all the chips... not even the government has the kind of control.

Orius said:

Can you be specific about the things I said which gave you that impression? I only ask because I didn't think that's what I was saying at all, or maybe I didn't explain myself accurately enough.

Click to expand...

Phrases which refered to science as something that operates on its own and as scientists and science as something outside society and social forces were where I got the impression from.

How would you democratize science? Do you mean we should give the public a vote to give permissions to certain advancements? I was under the impression that science and tech. already wre decentralized. It's not like one organization holds all the chips... not even the government has the kind of control.

Click to expand...

I was talking more of technology and scientific research. I'd decentralise them by decentralising society, industry and gov't. They are dominated, but not monopolised of course I'm not saying that, by the large-scale, authoritarian and centralist institutions that dominate industry and gov't specifically the ever-present centralised state and the large economic concern. By developing techology to aid a more decentralised industry and society and by developing this society I'd aim to overcome a centralised of power over technology and science that is as dangerous as any over such accumulation of power, particularly unaccountable power.

So I'm basically making two points: One that technology should be more decentralised working on the principles that E.F Scumacher put forth; and two we should not aim for as fast technological change as possible but one that is slow enough so that science and technology can really serve a stable, healthy society rather than making it unstable and where more and more technology is not looked upon as the solution everything.

Wessexman said:

Phrases which refered to science as something that operates on its own and as scientists and science as something outside society and social forces were where I got the impression from.


I was talking more of technology and scientific research. I'd decentralise them by decentralising society, industry and gov't. They are dominated, but not monopolised of course I'm not saying that, by the large-scale, authoritarian and centralist institutions that dominate industry and gov't specifically the ever-present centralised state and the large economic concern. By developing techology to aid a more decentralised industry and society and by developing this society I'd aim to overcome a centralised of power over technology and science that is as dangerous as any over such accumulation of power, particularly unaccountable power.

So I'm basically making two points: One that technology should be more decentralised working on the principles that E.F Scumacher put forth; and two we should not aim for as fast technological change as possible but one that is slow enough so that science and technology can really serve a stable, healthy society rather than making it unstable and where more and more technology is not looked upon as the solution everything.

Click to expand...

If you look particularly at nano tech there is a non profit group started to keep it out of what I think is amateur hands.

That is super dangerous considering the possibilities nano tech possess.

Harry Guerrilla said:

If you look particularly at nano tech there is a non profit group started to keep it out of what I think is amateur hands.

That is super dangerous considering the possibilities nano tech possess.

Click to expand...

Well personally I ask what is the point is developing nano technology at this time? It seems like we jump into these things without even thinking of the consequences while there are many other factors that need to be sorted out in our societies. It just adds one more heap of powder to the keg.

There seems to be this strange, and so far unsupported assumption, that technology, often as large and centralised as possible, that just by applying more and more technology as quickly as possible we can solve all our new problems. What often seems to happen is it doesn't completely work and then new ones suddenly spring up.

Wessexman said:

Well personally I ask what is the point is developing nano technology at this time? It seems like we jump into these things without even thinking of the consequences while there are many other factors that need to be sorted out in our societies. It just adds one more heap of powder to the keg.

There seems to be this strange, and so far unsupported assumption, that technology, often as large and centralised as possible, will solve all our current problems.

Click to expand...

That is my problem with it as well. The replicating type nano tech devices.
The possible gray goo end of the world scenario stuff is enough to convince me at this time we need to slow down on it.

I like amateur science. There is a lot of potential if the elitists in University's stop being snobs about it.

Harry Guerrilla said:

That is my problem with it as well. The replicating type nano tech devices.
The possible gray goo end of the world scenario stuff is enough to convince me at this time we need to slow down on it.

I like amateur science. There is a lot of potential if the elitists in University's stop being snobs about it.

Click to expand...

I'm very much into the decentralised, althernative technology movement. HAve you ever checked out authors like E.F.Schumacher, Kirkpatrick Sale, Murray Bookchin or Lewis Mumford?

Wessexman said:

I'm very much into the decentralised, althernative technology movement. HAve you ever checked out authors like E.F.Schumacher, Kirkpatrick Sale, Murray Bookchin or Lewis Mumford?

Click to expand...

Never heard of them. What do they write about? I like to cruise the amateur chemistry and electronics sites.

I'm trying to get a kit together for my son for chem reactions and biology experiments.

Wessexman said:

Phrases which refered to science as something that operates on its own and as scientists and science as something outside society and social forces were where I got the impression from.

Click to expand...

What I meant was, scientific curiosity takes precedents over the fears of groups that don't want advancements to happen. Scientists exist to discover new knowledge, but they aren't social policy makers. That is the function of government.

Wessexman said:

I was talking more of technology and scientific research. I'd decentralise them by decentralising society, industry and gov't. They are dominated, but not monopolised of course I'm not saying that, by the large-scale, authoritarian and centralist institutions that dominate industry and gov't specifically the ever-present centralised state and the large economic concern. By developing techology to aid a more decentralised industry and society and by developing this society I'd aim to overcome a centralised of power over technology and science that is as dangerous as any over such accumulation of power, particularly unaccountable power.

Click to expand...

I see your point, but I think it's a little too late for that... unless we have a global apocalypse that sets everything back to the point where we could rebuild in a different way. As it stands, new advancements will continue, and humanity will hopefully continue to have the ability to compensate for these developments.

Wessexman said:

So I'm basically making two points: One that technology should be more decentralised working on the principles that E.F Scumacher put forth; and two we should not aim for as fast technological change as possible but one that is slow enough so that science and technology can really serve a stable, healthy society rather than making it unstable and where more and more technology is not looked upon as the solution everything.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Too many people view science and technology as the solution, just like a lot of people view money as the solution. At the core, we need community and human ingenuity to examine problems and create sustainable solutions. Technology is simply a means of implementing our own thought processes, but it in of itself cannot generate ideas.

The problem is that the issues plaguing the modern world are huge. The population continues to rise, the climate is changing, new diseases are threatening to wipe us out, food shortages are starting to happen, etc. Technological advancement provides a solution to these problems, however, it is humans who must understand the problems first in order to implement a solution which is partly technological. I do think though that the core problem is human nature... fear and greed are the two human tendencies which are driving the world down a dangerous path at the moment.

RESIDENT EVIL.... SIIIIiiixx.

Orius said:

What I meant was, scientific curiosity takes precedents over the fears of groups that don't want advancements to happen.

Click to expand...

I see no reason for this. Surely the good of society should take precedent over all of them.

Scientists exist to discover new knowledge, but they aren't social policy makers. That is the function of government.

Click to expand...

Again who says?

I see your point, but I think it's a little too late for that... unless we have a global apocalypse that sets everything back to the point where we could rebuild in a different way. As it stands, new advancements will continue, and humanity will hopefully continue to have the ability to compensate for these developments.

Click to expand...

Well I certainly would not rule out such an event but I certainly think we can try and push technology like society in a more decentralised and democratic direction. The likes of Lewis Mumford and Kropotkin and Bookchin have some very interesting proposals that make a lot of sense. I do agree that the sooner the better is probably a wise maxim in this area.

I agree with this. Too many people view science and technology as the solution, just like a lot of people view money as the solution. At the core, we need community and human ingenuity to examine problems and create sustainable solutions. Technology is simply a means of implementing our own thought processes, but it in of itself cannot generate ideas.

Click to expand...

I agree.

The problem is that the issues plaguing the modern world are huge. The population continues to rise, the climate is changing, new diseases are threatening to wipe us out, food shortages are starting to happen, etc. Technological advancement provides a solution to these problems, however, it is humans who must understand the problems first in order to implement a solution which is partly technological. I do think though that the core problem is human nature... fear and greed are the two human tendencies which are driving the world down a dangerous path at the moment.

Click to expand...

Well firstly many of those problems were caused by reckless rushing into the use of new technological fixes to older problems or at least made worse by it, so while I certainly think a moderate, decentralised use of technology may aid in the solution of some I would caution against a view that puts our hope in new and particularly large-scale, centralised technofixes as these seem to create more problems that then need solving.

Wessex, this is getting too subjective for me, so I have to relate back to the topic at hand. Because you brought up science moving too fast and undemocratically, I can only assume that you think the "rebooting" of the immune system and using stem cells to reconstruct it is far too advanced for society it handle, or something along those lines.

I think this procedure is a good thing and will offer new hope to a lot of people with a lot of different illnesses. I'm just wondering how widespread it will truly become, not because of social pressures, but because of the pharmaceutical industry. If stem cells can potentially cure AIDS and cancer, then the need for expensive medications will decline.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds, but at any rate, the procedure, if it works, will only continue to be refined, and will not be tossed out due to conservative fears.

Orius said:

Wessex, this is getting too subjective for me, so I have to relate back to the topic at hand. Because you brought up science moving too fast and undemocratically, I can only assume that you think the "rebooting" of the immune system and using stem cells to reconstruct it is far too advanced for society it handle, or something along those lines.
.

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by subjective. The modern way of looking at technology is not absolute, independent or objective. I'm not sure what I think about this sort of thing. I don't think it should be top of our priorities. You talk of the cancer rate increasing, I'd personally like to try and sort out a less, stressful, more healthy lifestyle in the West which might bring down such a rate somewhat rather than flinging technology at the problem and hoping it goes away.