A groundbreaking new collection of papers in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics explores the ethical, legal and policy challenges of advanced biopreservation technologies
You write, "But from the get-go, the leaders of ATP-Bio realized that the technologies they were working on were potentially so transformative and disruptive that ignoring the social landscape which they would emerge into would be tantamount to setting themselves up for failure."
That sounds wise, but it seems there's more to it.
The social landscape can be managed by listening, communicating, information, adaptation etc. Ok, good, prepare the public for coming changes.
The human condition landscape is another matter. Human beings are very adaptable, but not infinitely so. Surely there is some limit to the amount and pace of change which we as a species can successfully accommodate. The fact that we can develop a particular body of knowledge does not automatically prove that we can also successfully adapt to that body of knowledge. Those are two different things.
The "more is better" relationship with knowledge which modern science is built upon is inherently in conflict with the built in limitations of the human species. No one can define exactly what those limits are, but whatever they may be, we are currently racing towards them as fast as we possibly can.
Oh my that was a great read, first thing in my morning. Jotted down my thoughts and finally commenting.
Though i haven't read the links mentioned, but the thoughts that came to my mind (among many) were:
A cultural shift where we focus on "fixes" rather than the holistic preventions. When it comes to transformative tech, feels like a recurring pattern
Legal frameworks around consent and ownership across multiple generations . Like who holds the rights to biological materials or maybe preserved data in decades ahead
Weaponization of these technologies and adaptable policy frameworks around them, while balancing innovation too
You write, "But from the get-go, the leaders of ATP-Bio realized that the technologies they were working on were potentially so transformative and disruptive that ignoring the social landscape which they would emerge into would be tantamount to setting themselves up for failure."
That sounds wise, but it seems there's more to it.
The social landscape can be managed by listening, communicating, information, adaptation etc. Ok, good, prepare the public for coming changes.
The human condition landscape is another matter. Human beings are very adaptable, but not infinitely so. Surely there is some limit to the amount and pace of change which we as a species can successfully accommodate. The fact that we can develop a particular body of knowledge does not automatically prove that we can also successfully adapt to that body of knowledge. Those are two different things.
The "more is better" relationship with knowledge which modern science is built upon is inherently in conflict with the built in limitations of the human species. No one can define exactly what those limits are, but whatever they may be, we are currently racing towards them as fast as we possibly can.
Oh my that was a great read, first thing in my morning. Jotted down my thoughts and finally commenting.
Though i haven't read the links mentioned, but the thoughts that came to my mind (among many) were:
A cultural shift where we focus on "fixes" rather than the holistic preventions. When it comes to transformative tech, feels like a recurring pattern
Legal frameworks around consent and ownership across multiple generations . Like who holds the rights to biological materials or maybe preserved data in decades ahead
Weaponization of these technologies and adaptable policy frameworks around them, while balancing innovation too
I hope no one makes an "NFT" around it 😅