Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

You mentioned yourself that GMO requires determinism to be true: "The universe is perfectly deterministic else none of this (GMO) would work."

Determinism has as consequence that there is no meaning in the Universe which implies that there can be no morality.

False.
Free will has the consequence of no meaning, since, if you can do whatever you want regardless of cause or purpose what meaning can there possibly be? None!
But whether or not free will exists, this has very little to do with GMO.

Non-determinism implies that there is meaning in the Universe as precursor to empirical value. Free will is a concept relative to human choice as a derivative consequence from that fundamental nature aspect. The reason that the debate is framed as free will vs determinism is because the fundamental nature aspect of non-determinism requires to be defended on the basis of meaningful experience (conscious experience). Therefore, one will look at one's ability to choose as evidence for non-determinism and faces an inability to capture that apparent common sense ability within the scope of empirical value.

It does not matter how many times you say the same thing. Whether or not it is true is of no consequence to the issue.
Even if the universe had meaning, what is your point?
Maybe we are supposed to be here to genetically modify living things. Maybe our very meaning is to command the earth and the living things on the planet.?
I'm still waiting to hear is you have any concrete objections to GMO.

In a deterministic Universe empirical value is all that exists which implies that morality isn't applicable.

Again this is nonsense. Morality also relies on empirical information, else could you know harm from good, and how could you evaluate utilitarian morality?

As mentioned in my previous post, there may be many perspectives (arguments against GMO) that are applicable to the individual selves of animals and plants.

Name ONE!

The plausibility of the consideration of the concept vitality of meaningful experience, for one. That concept has far reaching implications that includes the foundation for human life.

WTF is "vitality of meaningful experience"; why does it matter; and how does GMO change that?

Therefore at question is: can morality for animals and plants be safely ignored? If so, what would be the justification for that or would it merely consist of a belief in determinism?

If free will exists then we are capable of ignoring, by choice, any moral questions.
I continue to submit that the determinism/free will argument is not relevant.

In a deterministic Universe, moral questions are irrelevant. With free will, moral questions can be considered in potential, which is all that is required to be able to argue that morality is applicable.

A search on academia.edu for plant morality provides 1 result with the term in the title dating 1999.

This is no surprise to me. Plants are not moral creatures for obvious reasons.

This is not true. Evidence for plant intelligence is fairly recent however.

We are talking about morality not "intelligence".

If you had a child or other relative with Type 1 Diabetes would you allow that child to use insulin? Insulin is made with GMO bacteria or would you let that child die?

Moral questions with regard applicability of GMO would concern whether GMO is good for the bacteria involved.

That is absurd.
It would be immoral to place the life of a bacteria above that of a human. Next time you do to the doctor with the intention of getting rid of an infection think about that.

Perhaps minor GMO is not a problem for bacteria, especially since they perform GMO themselves or are victim of it by viruses. That latter notion is impossible, bacteria would become victim of GMO and are destroyed by it. Therefore, in such cases GMO would not be good for bacteria.

When humans find a USE for animals that tends to guarantee their survival. Is that not "good". GMO bacteria that provides insulin to humans benefits from surviving.

When it concerns morality for animals and plants, it would concern the question whether GMO would be good from their inside-out perspective (e.g. their meaningful experience) on behalf of long term prosperity of the foundation of human life.

Compared to bacteria, plants, especially bigger plants and animals, may require more profound moral consideration to secure vital prosperity.

Bacteria, plants and lower animals cannot feel concern and so are not moral beings.

[Sculptor1]

The synthetic biology industry has been successful in framing the GMO debate around empirical value with a focus on denouncing a lack of belief in science by which opponents of GMO are declared 'anti-science'.

Well you have shown that you are anti-science in the most extreme way.
Thanks for playing.

[psyreporter]

It does not matter how many times you say the same thing. Whether or not it is true is of no consequence to the issue.
Even if the universe had meaning, what is your point?
Maybe we are supposed to be here to genetically modify living things. Maybe our very meaning is to command the earth and the living things on the planet.?
I'm still waiting to hear is you have any concrete objections to GMO.

The concern is primarily the theoretical foundation of GMO, which appears to be flawed.

GMO requires determinism to be true which is questionable to start with. That also provides the basis for excluding animal and plant morality (morality = an inside-out perspective on behalf of animals and plants or the consideration of vitality of meaningful experience).

When there is meaning at the fundament of the Universe, it would imply that addressing the question whether GMO is good for animals and plants is of vital importance to secure prosperity of the foundation of human life (this last part can be said to be egoistic and utilitarian/empirical morality, but it can help to provide substantial reason to explore morality on behalf of animals and plants).

In a deterministic Universe empirical value is all that exists which implies that morality isn't applicable.

Again this is nonsense. Morality also relies on empirical information, else could you know harm from good, and how could you evaluate utilitarian morality?

No, morality relies on the potential for empirical value to be possible, which is a priori and can be said to be pure meaning or 'good per se'.

Despite the wishful idea that subjective experience (and thus a subjective value claim) can precede the senses, simple logic shows that that is impossible. The senses logically precede subjective experience. Conscious experience is only possible on the basis of information provided by the senses. The senses are primary and for sensing to be possible the potential for a value judgement is primary, which implies that pure meaning ('good per se') must underlay conscious experience and provide the basis for a moral compass (moral sense).

The 'brain in a vat' idea is nonsensical. A brain is a posteriori in the face of the senses and the senses are a posteriori in the face of the potential required for sensing, which is moral valuing which itself derives its potential from what can be indicated as pure meaning or 'good per se'.

This logic is evidence that determinism cannot be true and would provide a substantiation for the argument that animal and plant morality is applicable.

The plausibility of the consideration of the concept vitality of meaningful experience, for one. That concept has far reaching implications that includes the foundation for human life.

WTF is "vitality of meaningful experience"; why does it matter; and how does GMO change that?

Those are very good questions, and the philosophical zombie theory may indicate that those questions are applicable.

(2022) The philosopher’s zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness?
The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can’t explain consciousness.
Source: https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-the-zom ... sciousness

We are talking about morality not "intelligence".

A priori (non-deterministic) intelligence would demand the same as morality. Besides that, my sources mentioned plant morality and altruism in the title.

Moral questions with regard applicability of GMO would concern whether GMO is good for the bacteria involved.

That is absurd.
It would be immoral to place the life of a bacteria above that of a human. Next time you do to the doctor with the intention of getting rid of an infection think about that.

When it concerns morality on behalf of bacteria, it does not concern 'a bacteria' but the bacteria as a specie, which is of a different nature. Besides that you may be able to make a case that GMO on bacteria, especially within a controlled industrial environment, can be morally justified, that does not imply that the same is the case for animals, plants and humans.

When humans find a USE for animals that tends to guarantee their survival. Is that not "good". GMO bacteria that provides insulin to humans benefits from surviving.

The bacteria case is special since bacteria and viruses (microbes) practise GMO themselves.

When it concerns human originating GMO, it could be profoundly driven by factors such as financial profit, which may not be optimal for successful evolution (prosperity of nature). GMO would be of a destructive (harmful) nature in such cases.

A base level of respect for animals and plants may be vital to secure longer term prosperity. The concept a priori (non-deterministic) intelligence would make that obvious, as well as applicability of morality.

Bacteria, plants and lower animals cannot feel concern and so are not moral beings.

The case for animal sentience is becoming stronger. The case for plant sentience is starting to achieve a foundation for potential plausibility.

When it can be said that plants and animals have meaningful experience, would you agree that it is important to prevent neglect of well-being on that regard?

Philosophy professor: Plants are sentient beings
His claim that a plant is a sentient “intelligent, social, complex being” has been contested by some biologists, but a stronger reaction has come from animal-rights activists and vegans who fear their cause is undermined by extending a duty of respect to plants.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/unth ... -1.1965980

[psyreporter]

I'm still waiting to hear is you have any concrete objections to GMO.

GMO can be seen as a form of eugenics and that concept gives rise to several philosophical concerns.

Based on simple logic it is obvious that GMO as practised by empirical science on behalf of empirical/utilitarian value (utilitarian morality if you will) or an 'outside-in perspective' results in a situation that is similar to inbreeding of which it is known that it causes fatal problems.

With eugenics, one is moving ‘towards an ultimate state’ as perceived from an external viewer (the human). That may be opposite of what is considered healthy in nature that seeks diversity for resilience and strength.

A quote by a philosopher in a discussion about eugenics:

blond hair and blue eyes for everyone

utopia

-Imp

With selective breeding, one works with real animals and plants – meaningful beings with a purpose – and a population of millions of individuals. The potential for shaping evolution in that way is limited and the individual animals and plants may be able to overcome problems. Despite this, selective breeding does cause fatal problems due to the nature of eugenics that resides on the essence of inbreeding.

cow.png (8.46 KiB) Viewed 6093 times

(2019) The way we breed cows is setting them up for extinction
Chad Dechow – an associate professor of dairy cattle genetics – and others say there is so much genetic similarity among them, the effective population size is less than 50. If cows were wild animals, that would put them in the category of critically endangered species.
Source: https://qz.com/1649587/the-way-we-breed ... xtinction/

While there are 9 million cows in the USA, from a genetic perspective, there are just 50 cows alive due to the nature of eugenics that resides on the essence of inbreeding.

“It’s pretty much one big inbred family,” says Leslie B. Hansen, a cow expert and professor at the University of Minnesota. Fertility rates are affected by inbreeding, and already, cow fertility has dropped significantly. Also, when close relatives are bred, serious health problems could be lurking.

With GMO, changes for an intended result can be applied on a massive scale, directly affecting millions of animals and plants at once.

The situation is quite different from selective breeding and the idea of the field synthetic biology is that the result of the whole endeavour will be that science will ‘master life’ and can create and control evolution of species in real time, as an ‘engineering approach’.

It can be seen in the quote from the special in The Economist (Redesigning Life, April 6th, 2019):

Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.
Source: https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2019-04-06

Can life have well defined standard parts for science to master and ‘redesign’ life? This idea at the core of GMO indicates that it is assumed that determinism is true, which is questionable.

In short: utilitarian driven GMO intends to create something that should remain as it is from an outside-in perspective (an ultimate state or a situation of inbreeding), which is unhealthy and likely results in disasters.

Further, the concept a priori intelligence may demand a level respect from the position of empirical value (which is at most a retro-perspective).

Using GMO to remove ‘unwanted genes’ and diseases from a purely utilitarian outside-in perspective logically promotes weakness due to the principle that overcoming problems results in strength.

The reason is the essentiality of resilience, the ability to overcome unforeseeable problems, not just the ones that can be predicted.

Overcoming problems is essential for progress in life. Some perceived defects may be part of a 300 year evolutionary strategy that is essential to acquire solutions for longer term survival. The fight to overcome the defects or diseases makes life forms stronger in the future. Filtering out genes (eugenics) would be like fleeing instead of overcoming problems and thus logically results in increased weakness over time.

It may be best to serve life instead of trying to stand above it.

Some hints:

Down syndrome: occurs 1 in 700 births, genome called "Super Genome".

(2018) The Down syndrome 'super genome'
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 090148.htm

Huntington's disease: 80 percent less cancer than the general population.

(2018) Huntington's disease provides new cancer weapon
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 084458.htm

(2007) Biologists Link Huntington's Disease To Health Benefits In Young
A new hypothesis has been proposed to explain prevalence of the disease by suggesting that people with Huntington's disease are healthier in childbearing years and have more children than general population. Huntington's strengthens the immune system during most fertile years allowing them to produce more offspring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 130029.htm

At question could be: would it be possible that the presumed (genetic) diseases/disorders serve a purpose? Perhaps in a time-span that is difficult to comprehend from the limited individual human's perspective?

It is logically good to intend to prevent disease. Perhaps there are good use-cases for GMO and eugenics when certain fundamental questions are addressed and kept in awareness. As it appears however, the idea that the human can 'master' life itself is based on a dogmatic belief in uniformitarianism (the idea that scientific facts are valid without philosophy), which could result in disastrous flaws in evolution.

An attempt to stand above life as being life logically results in a figurative stone that sinks in the ocean of time. The principle of eugenics and utilitarian value (financial profit) driven GMO resides on the essence of inbreeding of which it is known that it causes fatal problems.

[Sculptor1]

It does not matter how many times you say the same thing. Whether or not it is true is of no consequence to the issue.
Even if the universe had meaning, what is your point?
Maybe we are supposed to be here to genetically modify living things. Maybe our very meaning is to command the earth and the living things on the planet.?
I'm still waiting to hear is you have any concrete objections to GMO.

The concern is primarily the theoretical foundation of GMO, which appears to be flawed.

GMO requires determinism to be true which is questionable to start with. That also provides the basis for excluding animal and plant morality (morality = an inside-out perspective on behalf of animals and plants or the consideration of vitality of meaningful experience).

When there is meaning at the fundament of the Universe, it would imply that addressing the question whether GMO is good for animals and plants is of vital importance to secure prosperity of the foundation of human life (this last part can be said to be egoistic and utilitarian/empirical morality, but it can help to provide substantial reason to explore morality on behalf of animals and plants).

This is somewhat laughable. For some reason the mysteries of the universe which have puzzled humans for thousands of years you seem to have the answer to.
So what are your concrete objections to GMO?

In a deterministic Universe empirical value is all that exists which implies that morality isn't applicable.

Again this is nonsense. Morality also relies on empirical information, else could you know harm from good, and how could you evaluate utilitarian morality?

No, morality relies on the potential for empirical value to be possible, which is a priori and can be said to be pure meaning or 'good per se'.

Yes, but you are flouting that since you have decided to ignore the massive benefits of GMO and have nothing to put in its place.
You can't even show a single negative of GMO.

Despite the wishful idea that subjective experience (and thus a subjective value claim) can precede the senses, simple logic shows that that is impossible. The senses logically precede subjective experience. Conscious experience is only possible on the basis of information provided by the senses. The senses are primary and for sensing to be possible the potential for a value judgement is primary, which implies that pure meaning ('good per se') must underlay conscious experience and provide the basis for a moral compass (moral sense).

The 'brain in a vat' idea is nonsensical. A brain is a posteriori in the face of the senses and the senses are a posteriori in the face of the potential required for sensing, which is moral valuing which itself derives its potential from what can be indicated as pure meaning or 'good per se'.

I never mentioned a brain in a vat but I'm beginning to think that you are one.

[psyreporter]

This is somewhat laughable. For some reason the mysteries of the universe which have puzzled humans for thousands of years you seem to have the answer to.
So what are your concrete objections to GMO?

You are demanding an answer within the scope of empirical value (utilitarian value) while at question is whether morality on behalf of animals, which would concern their meaningful experience of which the philosophical zombie theory has indicated that science cannot grasp or explain it, can be safely ignored.

Essentially, it would start with your questions:

"WTF is "vitality of meaningful experience"; why does it matter; and how does GMO change that? "

The argument is that an answer to these questions could be of vital importance to secure prosperity of the foundation of human life.

I mentioned the following:

"When it concerns arguments against GMO, one should start with the question: can it be said that morality can be ignored? If a case can be made that the answer is no, then there may be a lot of intensive philosophical research work to make it certain that arguments related to animal and plant morality are discovered and addressed appropriately."

You mentioned the following as justification for GMO:

"Bacteria, plants and lower animals cannot feel concern and so are not moral beings."

The idea that animals and plants are meaningless bundles of matter is not plausible for diverse reasons. When it can be said that there is meaning, then it can be said that morality is applicable.

Despite the wishful idea that subjective experience (and thus a subjective value claim) can precede the senses, simple logic shows that that is impossible. The senses logically precede subjective experience. Conscious experience is only possible on the basis of information provided by the senses. The senses are primary and for sensing to be possible the potential for a value judgement is primary, which implies that pure meaning ('good per se') must underlay conscious experience and provide the basis for a moral compass (moral sense).

The 'brain in a vat' idea is nonsensical. A brain is a posteriori in the face of the senses and the senses are a posteriori in the face of the potential required for sensing, which is moral valuing which itself derives its potential from what can be indicated as pure meaning or 'good per se'.

I never mentioned a brain in a vat but I'm beginning to think that you are one.

It is an example to indicate that meaning is necessarily applicable as precursor to empirical value, which implies that determinism cannot be valid. If that were to be correct, then that would imply that morality can be considered of vital importance and that GMO based on an utilitarian value perspective (e.g. a short term financial profit motive) can be considered a form of corruption or rape (harmful) from the perspective of animals and plants.

Currently, morality is completely ignored and animals and plants are considered 'meaningless' bundles of matter for human exploitation.

GMO is considered an 'unguided practice' driven primarily by short term financial profit.

Reprogramming nature is extremely convoluted, having evolved with no intention or guidance. But if you could synthesize nature, life could be transformed into something more amenable to an engineering approach, with well defined standard parts.
https://www.economist.com/weeklyedition/2019-04-06

When it can be said that GMO is a form of corruption or rape then that would be an argument to claim that GMO is immoral and potentially catastrophic for longer term prosperity of the foundation of human life.

An example for potential catastrophe when morality is not considered is the fact that GMO for utilitarian value is a form of eugenics that resides on the essence of inbreeding of which it is known that it causes fatal problems (unhealthy).

GMO may merely provide short sighted profit advantages while on the longer term it would create a sort of dam behind which problems accumulate with an ever increasing potential for catastrophe for humanity.

Science may attempt to outrun any problems that GMO causes but the core of an eugenics practice may be set to cause fatal problems.

[Sculptor1]

This is somewhat laughable. For some reason the mysteries of the universe which have puzzled humans for thousands of years you seem to have the answer to.
So what are your concrete objections to GMO?

You are demanding an answer within the scope of empirical value (utilitarian value) while at question is whether morality on behalf of animals, which would concern their meaningful experience of which the philosophical zombie theory has indicated that science cannot grasp or explain it, can be safely ignored.

In other words...
I am asking if you have any evidence of any kind for anything you say, yes.

[psyreporter]

This is somewhat laughable. For some reason the mysteries of the universe which have puzzled humans for thousands of years you seem to have the answer to.
So what are your concrete objections to GMO?

You are demanding an answer within the scope of empirical value (utilitarian value) while at question is whether morality on behalf of animals, which would concern their meaningful experience of which the philosophical zombie theory has indicated that science cannot grasp or explain it, can be safely ignored.

In other words...
I am asking if you have any evidence of any kind for anything you say, yes.

Well, if the question cannot be answered by science, wouldn't that be evidence (that it cannot be safely ignored, simply because the concept safety would require an answer)?

In my opinion, neglect of the question 'why' life exists is not a justification for a belief in determinism, and similarly, such neglect would not be a justification for the claim that morality is merely subjective and that an animal or plant on a human's plate is all that one would need to consider.

[Sculptor1]

This is somewhat laughable. For some reason the mysteries of the universe which have puzzled humans for thousands of years you seem to have the answer to.
So what are your concrete objections to GMO?

You are demanding an answer within the scope of empirical value (utilitarian value) while at question is whether morality on behalf of animals, which would concern their meaningful experience of which the philosophical zombie theory has indicated that science cannot grasp or explain it, can be safely ignored.

In other words...
I am asking if you have any evidence of any kind for anything you say, yes.

Well, if the question cannot be answered by science, wouldn't that be evidence (that it cannot be safely ignored, simply because the concept safety would require an answer)?

No. I might mean it is no question at all, and just a figment of your imagination.
If you zero evidence as you seem to be admitting then science or not your problem seems to be nothing more than you personal fantasy, dreamed up in the middle of the night.
And no one should feel under any obligation to pay it any attention.

In my opinion, neglect of the question 'why' life exists is not a justification for a belief in determinism, and similarly, such neglect would not be a justification for the claim that morality is merely subjective and that an animal or plant on a human's plate is all that one would need to consider.

You opinion is of little use to anyone if not backed up by reason and evidence.

[Pattern-chaser]

You opinion is of little use to anyone if not backed up by reason and evidence.

Metaphysical speculation has its place and its value, but maybe not here, in a topic that is somewhat science-oriented.

[Sculptor1]

You opinion is of little use to anyone if not backed up by reason and evidence.

Metaphysical speculation has its place and its value, but maybe not here, in a topic that is somewhat science-oriented.

Even metaphysics implies physics, being a discourse on how best to describe and understand reality, and its underlying principles.

[Pattern-chaser]

Even metaphysics implies physics...

Metaphysics is beyond physics. Not in any sense that makes it superior to physics; it just covers very different, er, 'problem-spaces'.

[Sculptor1]

Even metaphysics implies physics...

Metaphysics is beyond physics. Not in any sense that makes it superior to physics; it just covers very different, er, 'problem-spaces'.

Metaphysics might be literally beyond physics but metaphysics refers to physics trying to understand what is going on.
Physics shows stuff falls down, but Gravity is a metaphysical proposition.

[psyreporter]

You opinion is of little use to anyone if not backed up by reason and evidence.

Metaphysical speculation has its place and its value, but maybe not here, in a topic that is somewhat science-oriented.

This topic concerns the fact that morality for animals and plants is ignored and that opponents of GMO are characterized as 'anti-science' (heretics of science). The primary explanation provided is that science cannot grasp and explain meaningful experience (consciousness).

Neglect of the question 'why' life exists is therefore relevant for the topic.

With regard the question 'why' life exists to be metaphysics and the claim that neglect of the question is an unsound foundation for a belief in determinism.

The source of life is unknown as of today. When it is unknown where life came from then it is not possible to claim that what has been observed is limited to what has been observed. The origin of life cannot be factored out because it hasn’t been observed.

Most logical in my opinion, is that life has a topical origin and that it didn't started randomly as a chemical process at some point in time. The idea that life is like a biochemical fire that can be taken with one during space travel is absurd.

[Pattern-chaser]

You opinion is of little use to anyone if not backed up by reason and evidence.

Metaphysical speculation has its place and its value, but maybe not here, in a topic that is somewhat science-oriented.

This topic concerns the fact that morality for animals and plants is ignored and that opponents of GMO are characterized as 'anti-science' (heretics of science). The primary explanation provided is that science cannot grasp and explain meaningful experience (consciousness).

Neglect of the question 'why' life exists is therefore relevant for the topic.

With regard the question 'why' life exists to be metaphysics and the claim that neglect of the question is an unsound foundation for a belief in determinism.

OK, maybe metaphysics has a place here too.