John M. Francis, via Diane, wrote:

I should like to respond to your question.

(which was "I think that technology should have a moral basis specially when
its
environmental impact affects everyone. I agree that life is impossible
without changing the environment but the question is how we change it and
who
benefits from that change.")

In 1979 I presented a paper at an
MIT conference on the 'transition to a just, participatory and sustainable
society' which addressed a series of questions on the 'Freedom to Choose'.
Following the 1972 UN Environment conference in Stockholm, I found myself
seated next to Rene Dubos at a dinner in London.  We had along and
argumentative exchange of views but I recall that his starting premise to be
used as a moral basis for technological decision-making was as follows:

'We can do it, we can afford to do it, but we should not do it.'

My 1979 paper attempted to deal with the questions arising from this
statement of contemporary 'moral sentiment'.  In a subsequent review of my
paper Joseph Needham wrote -

'Knowledge cannot be refused, but applications can, should, and must be
subject to religion's conscience. Until mankind learns not to do all that it
is capable of doing, humanity will not be safe. And what it does must be
done in the light of justice and equality for all.'

I can already hear the squall of protest - but this is an accurate
quotation, even if not expressed in the politically correct language of
today.

I should be interested to have a response to this line of argument.

Bissell here:

I guess I started this with my question about why the protests over GM
and/or GE crops. Both Dubois's statement,
 'We can do it, we can afford to do it, but we should not do it.'

 and Joseph Needham's
 'Knowledge cannot be refused, but applications can, should, and must be
subject to religion's conscience. Until mankind learns not to do all that it
is capable of doing, humanity will not be safe. And what it does must be
done in the light of justice and equality for all.'

beg the question and can be answered simply; Why (not)?

Both seem to assume that technology and/or knowledge are inherently amoral.
I suppose this is a basic Christian tenet, the knowledge of good and evil
and so forth, but this is merely an assumption, and not at all obvious at
that. I admit that there are risks in much of technology, but certainly not
in all. To think that technology has to prove itself safe is reasonable, to
have to prove itself moral is another issue. If that were the case, we
wouldn't need ethicists out there. So, we are back where I started. What
*exactly* is the moral issue with GM and/or GE crops? or any technology for
that matter. If we can answer the question, fine, I'll line up on the picket
lines. But if the answer remains "there *might* be a problem and we distrust
all business decisions" then I'll have to stay home.

Steven

http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
 What we lost with that wild, primal existence
was a way of being for which the era of
agriculture and civilization lacks counterpoise.
Human life is the poorer for it.
                             Paul Shepard



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%