Fwd: "Forbidden" science
tsuki190
This is just my opinion.
I think almost all or all basic research is OK.
How do DNA and mRNA interact in cells?
Exactly what happens when egg and sperm fuse in a female mammal's
womb? How is the new genome built?
What more can we know about the interactions of subatomic particles?
Exactly how does energy propagate thru the vacuum of space?
How do some molecules become super conductors at near zero Kelvin?
And others at higher temperatures?
The first two questions might allow nanomachines to be built that
would remove defective genes from the new genome at the time of
conception or might allow designing souless super soldiers. So
engineering applications are another category. Build planet busting
bombs? Trigger super novas? Develop viruses to kill all warn blooded
life forms? ... Use your judgment there.
For energy how about massive solar arrays made with material from the
moon or asteroids and beam the power down? Maybe space elevators to
move materials between geosync orbit and earth's surface?
I suspect that the energy cost of converting lead to gold (or
plutonium) will remain high. Certainly it takes a lot of spiritual
work for me to convert my spirit from lead to gold! :-)
Tom
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:36 AM, mike3<mike...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> Is there some sort of scientific research that a Baha'i would be
> prohibited from engaging in? One thing that I think of here is what I
> call "hot" areas of research that involve possibly morally
> controversial practices. These arise most often in the area of medical
> science. Namely, stuff like research with stem cells of the embryonic
> type, which requires the destruction of human embryos to obtain the
> cells, something that seems like it would be considered wrong from the
> Baha'i point of view -- however what about less direct involvement,
> e.g. if one uses the results obtained from such studies? Are those
> results "tainted"? What about other forms of such controversial
> research such as that into cloning? Although I suppose "therapeutic"
> cloning to grow organs, for example, may be less "iffy" than, say
> "reproductive" cloning. And what about human genetic engineering, for
> example to genetically engineer ourselves to remove disease-generating
> genes from the gene pool, add more regenerative capacity (so, for
> example, to be able to grow a new arm instead of having to have a
> prosthetic)? Esp. the "germ line" stuff (see caveats about embryonic
> stem cells, for example, as it also involves the experimentation on a
> human embryo). Would it be non-permissible for a Baha'i to participate
> in attempts to develop such sciences and technologies due to these
> tricky bits? If not, then what exactly would be the correct manner of
> approach? Are there other sciences on this list of "bad" ones?
>
> Also, I saw this:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/msg/68c8124d6879e381?hl
en&dmodesource
>
> "This Day is the age of light and the age of gold, spiritually and
> physically. The physical realm reflects the spiritual condition of
> humanity. Just as this corrupt age is replete with all manner of
> illnesses and plagues, the Golden Age will be, first of all, an age of
> golden people, people with refined and exalted characters. As
> Baha'u'llah
> says, it will even be discovered how to make gold from other elements,
> so
> gold will become plentiful; a Golden Age physically, as well as
> spiritually. On page 116 of Gleanings, in a passage that may be more
> than
> hyperbole, Baha'u'llah speaks of buildings made entirely of gold.
>
> In the realm of science and invention, things are moving more towards
> light: Light-based computers and telephones, for example, will
> probably
> be standard in the beginning of the next century. And I believe that
> advancement in the knowledge and use of physical light and the other
> parts
> of the electromagnic spectrum will advance apace with humanity's
> spiritual
> illumination. "As above, so below."
>
> All of this is to say that I believe that just as the Baha'i Writings
> indicate that the science of medicine is in its infancy, and that the
> Baha'i System is in its embryonic stage, likewise the science of light
> is
> in its infancy. I think that the knowledge of the reality of nature,
> particularly as related to the greater use of light and magnetism and
> gravitational forces, are in their earliest stages. It may be
> centuries
> before the value of `Abdu'l-Baha's statements on ether, as applied to
> physical reality, are fully appreciated.
>
> It took science how many centuries to understand that the sun doesn't
> pass
> through the sky, we're turning? And how long for the greatest medical
> advancement of all -- the washing of one's hands -- to become standard
> practice among physicians?
>
> After we're long gone, science may advance to the knowledge that what
> we
> view as empty space is indeed filled with a medium, and that as
> `Abdu'l-Baha says, light and magnetism are the waves that travel in
> that
> medium. The key may well be hidden in a passage of Baha'u'llah's
> Writings
> that is applied by a scientist. But I think that for the present, we
> lack
> the data to back that up. So let's be patient with one another."
>
> However, regardless (keep in mind that this is also an opinion piece)
> of whether the present science is right or wrong, would it be bad to
> attempt to work to try and discover that new data, to throw effort
> into aiding in the process of propelling those science on beyond its
> infancy into the next stage (which need not be the mature stage, just
> the next step to it -- so the termination of such sciences' infancies
> may come far sooner than "many centuries", esp. considering the
> increase in the rate at which scientific progress has been made over
> the last couple of centuries. I've also heard of theories of
> "technological/scientific singularity". Though I am skeptical of how
> far one can take such ideas, it might at the very least mean the end
> of the infancy stage, and movement to the next one after that, may be
> sooner than "many centuries".), using clues and inspiration from the
> religious text? Say one wanted to try and investigate if that "aether"
> really exists, if it really is a literally existent thing (which is
> not a given. It may not be good to dismiss a literal interpretation
> for some things blindly, but it is also not good to go and insist on
> it. Testing is required to determine what's really up.). Would that be
> bad?
>
> Especially considering some of these technologies may be needed quite
> soon. If we have, for example, a way to make limitless gold, then it
> could also be a way to make limitless amounts of other elements, such
> as uranium, which means easy energy (suggesting that "Free Energy" is
> indeed possible.). And we're quickly running out of fossil energy...
> "peak oil", for example, may have already been passed (see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil for more.) So what about trying
> to develop some sort of "exotic" power source to help compensate for
> the loss of fossil energy?
>
--
http://livedesigning.books.officelive.com/default.aspx
Flexible document design and publishing for print, web, and video.
--
http://livedesigning.books.officelive.com/default.aspx
Flexible document design and publishing for print, web, and video.