I feel very strongly on the issue of restricting scientific or technological advances. I am of the opinion that it is the people that ask "what's the benefit of this" at every turn who are being short-sighted. It is impossible to predict the direct benefit of a lot of "pure science" research. Many people feel strongly about the cloning issue. But banning research in cloning isn't the way to regulate what you might feel to be "bad usage" of cloning technology.

People who are deathly afraid of technological advances scare me almost as much as people who revere technology as a savior. The Unabomber wanted to return civilization to the pre-industrial period. Many other (more mentally stable) people would want to do the same if asked. Some people think that the pre-industrial world was somehow nicer and more leisurely. The simple fact is that life in almost every age of the world before this one was brutal and short. Disease was rampant, work was physically back-breaking, and the average life expectancy was half or less what it is today. You have to go back to the Garden of Eden (if you believe in such things) to find a time when life was "better" in any qualitative way than it is today.

The statement "we can do something, therefore we must" is too broad to even consider rationally. It is obviously false in the sense that I am not now compelled to jump up and down on my desk just because it is physically possible for me to do so. A better question, in my mind, would be "should be do research into something just because we can," or "should we implement a certain technology just because we can?"

These are two very separate questions. The answer to the first is, in my mind, almost always yes. Should we research human cloning? Yes--it may lead to the ability to grow transplant suitable organs in a vat. Should we do research into biological pathogens that could wipe out the human race? Sure--with care, such research could lead to a better understanding of diseases and human physiology and immunology. Should we researh ways to create higher-yield hydrogen bombs? Yes. In fact, were it not for the fact that it is against international law (and not to mention the backlash you'd get from crazed eco-warriors) to detonate nuclear weapons in space we might already have built and flown inter-stellar space probes powered by nuclear explosions.

So, should we automatically implement all technologies we discover? Obviously not. We shouldn't go and drop all the nuclear bombs we have manufactured just because we can. We shouldn't push new drugs onto the market before they're tested. We shouldn't put together annoying all-girl pop bands who shout inane slogans without any cognitive thought process just because we can.

I don't want to argue from a false dichotomy here. I don't mean to say that everything is all cut and dried and that there are easy answers to all questions. But I do feel that looking for immediate gains in scientific and technological research and development is short-sighted. R&D is *supposed* to be speculative--that's the whole point of it.

Also, many people bemoan the loss of our "culture" because of gains in technology. Some people seem to think that "culture" is a static thing that somehow never changes (or never should change, at least). This, I think, is one of the major problems we face today. Culture is not static. It never has been, and it never will be. What is part of our culture today may cease to be of any import in ten or fifty or a hundred years. Anybody who tries to argue that we should curb technology because it has a negative impact on our "culture" is too late. Technology has already ingrained itself irrecovably into our culture. It cannot be removed without destroying what we all think of as a normal way of life. Should we not develop virtual reality because it will create more couch potatos? Well, radio and TV already did their fair share of that. Besides, VR will have so many more useful uses than just getting an oil massage from Cindy Crawford and her simulated twin sister. If it changes our "culture," so what? Everything we do every day effects that. We can't stop it--it's part of being a social animal.

I've already gone on far longer than I wanted to. Let me close with a quote from Larry Niven which may or may not be relevent to what I've been trying to say. "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program." Think about it.