[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There's  difference between breaking a rule and being  caught. Crime pays at least as well as legitimate stock investment.

Usually, immoral actions don't immediately bring unwanted consequences to the perpetrators. Genocides, rapes and slaveries done by ancient people are some examples. It took other conscious agents to bring the unwanted consequences as punishment or revenge, to deter conscious agents in the future from committing the same immoral actions.
Many actions that immediately bring unwanted consequences to the perpetrators without the need for other conscious entities to bring them to reality, are not called immoral. Some examples are playing with  venomous snakes, drinking bleach, or touching a hot stove.

[alancalverd]

Theft pays. Fraud pays. Deception is the art of war. Misrepresentation is the art of modern politics.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's Alive, But Is It Life: Synthetic Biology and the Future of Creation

For decades, biologists have read and edited DNA, the code of life. Revolutionary developments are giving scientists the power to write it. Instead of tinkering with existing life forms, synthetic biologists may be on the verge of writing the DNA of a living organism from scratch. In the next decade, according to some, we may even see the first synthetic human genome. Join a distinguished group of synthetic biologists, geneticists and bioengineers who are edging closer to breathing life into matter.

This program is part of the Big Ideas Series, made possible with support from the John Templeton Foundation.

Original Program Date: June 4, 2016
MODERATOR: Robert Krulwich
PARTICIPANTS: George Church, Drew Endy, Tom Knight, Pamela Silver

Synthetic Biology and the Future of Creation 00:00​

Participant Intros 3:25​

Ordering DNA from the internet 8:10​
 
How much does it cost to make a synthetic human? 13:04​

Why is yeast the best catalyst 20:10​

How George Church printed 90 billion copies of his book 26:05​

Creating synthetic rose oil 28:35​

Safety engineering and synthetic biology 37:15​

Do we want to be invaded by bad bacteria? 45:26​

Do you need a human gene's to create human cells? 55:09​

The standard of DNA sequencing in utero 1:02:27​

The science community is divided by closed press meetings 1:11:30​

The Human Genome Project. What is it? 1:21:45​

Profound question about morality was asked in 1:00:00 mark. It's remarkable that this video was uploaded in 2016, as if it's foreseeing our current situation.

[alancalverd]

I don't see it as a moral question.

We choose our breeding partners with at least a subconscious idea of how we would like our offspring to be, and in civilised societies we choose when and how often to breed. We have numbers of tests already for predicting, avoiding and detecting significant chromosomal anomaly and other genetic traits that might be considered undesirable, and again in civilised countries we have an option of early abortion and a growing capacity for carrying out in utero surgery.

Probably more than most species, the success of any human depends as much on nurture (acquisition of knowledge, social skills and physical/financial capital) as nature (physique). We have no moral qualms about giving our children what we consider to be the best nurture available to us, so what's wrong with giving them the best physique we can afford?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In early stages of genetic engineering on human, people often worry about its safety and unknown side effects it could bring to the human subjects. When the technology is more advanced, people usually worry about amplification of social inequality. Wealthy people would benefit more from the technology, which makes the gap wider.
IMO, those worries are common among new technologies, such as computer, internet, cell phone, medicines, blood transfusion, organ transplant, cancer treatment, etc. As they get more mature, they get cheaper and more affordable to more people. So, if anything, the solution should be to make the technology mature as soon as possible, so the less fortunates can quickly catch up and close the gap before they get too far behind and driven into irrelevance.

[alancalverd]

Whatever the technology, from horse and cart to private jets, the wealthy will always benefit more than the poor. Right now, the early adopters of electric cars will always find their travel subsidised by those who come later. If you can afford to feed clothe and educate your children, they will probably be healthier and wealthier than those of the poorest for the rest of their lives.

But designer babies are a bit different: having a "perfect" child by choice confers physical advantages on the child but not on  the parent. Most people want to do the best they can for their children, and ensuring they have a healthy athletic body and a fully functioning brain before they are born, is surely not immoral. The test is to consider the converse: would it be moral to inflict disease or deformity on a fetus? Or to ignore the possibility of correcting either if discovered in utero?  In what way is it "wrong"  that I can run a mile in 4 minutes or solve differential equations when most people can't?   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Morality never complains about someone makes an improvement. It just can't accept when the improvement causes unwanted side effects to the society, outweighting the benefits.
Many technological advancements hurt someone by replacing their jobs. Telegram and telephone replaced horse riding mail carriers. Electronic controller replaced telephone switch operators. Machinaries replaced human workers. Robotaxis will replace taxi drivers. As long as the benefits outweigh the costs for the society, they are morally acceptable.
On the other hand, when the costs outweigh the benefits, we are morally obligated to stop them as soon as possible. For example, if they generate environmental pollution or destruction, or introduce health risk to the population.

[alancalverd]

Society does not suffer if I choose to buy a reliable car. Society (at least a civilised society) bears part of the burden if I have a sickly child. What could possibly be the unwanted side effect of my having a healthy child by intention rather than luck?  Nobody is replacing displacing or rejecting anything or anyone, just making what I want rather than what chance delivers.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Society does not suffer if I choose to buy a reliable car. Society (at least a civilised society) bears part of the burden if I have a sickly child. What could possibly be the unwanted side effect of my having a healthy child by intention rather than luck?  Nobody is replacing displacing or rejecting anything or anyone, just making what I want rather than what chance delivers.

It looks like we are on the same side in this issue. But I can remind you the objection often cited by the other side. Our improvement may cause our competitors to lose their  opportunity, which is not a good thing for them. But that's not necessarily immoral, as long as it does not make our society as a whole worse off. That's why I said that morality should be seen from the perspective of bigger system instead of individual agents.

[alancalverd]

Every time I teach anyone to swim, fight, play chess or rugby, or build a better machine, I am disadvantaging all those who can't. Life on a good day is about sex, food, sport and business, and on a bad day, surviving combat. I have no regrets about marrying the most beautiful woman on earth, thus depriving everyone else of the opportunity,  or teaching kids how to win a few competitions, thus making everyone else's kids look slow and dull.  There are no silver medals in a bar fight. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

By definition, morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior".
So it should be obvious that we need another concept to make distinction between good and bad moral principles. I have concluded that the concept is about existence and well being of future conscious entities.

[Eternal Student]

I have concluded that the concept is about existence and well being of future conscious entities.

   OK.  Actually, it does sound reasonable.
   Morality is like an organism.  It must survive and to do this it must preserve its hosts and/or future hosts.

[alancalverd]

we need another concept to make distinction between good and bad moral principles. I have concluded that the concept is about existence and well being of future conscious entities..

A good moral action is to comfort the dying, or to heal the sick, neither action having any consequence for future entities. Indeed healing the sick just means that there will be less food for the next generation.   

[Colin2B]

we need another concept to make distinction between good and bad moral principles. I have concluded that the concept is about existence and well being of future conscious entities..

Indeed healing the sick just means that there will be less food for the next generation.   

and often places the healer in risk of death or illness.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I have concluded that the concept is about existence and well being of future conscious entities.

   OK.  Actually, it does sound reasonable.
   Morality is like an organism.  It must survive and to do this it must preserve its hosts and/or future hosts.

We have a word for that already. It's called meme, while a group of memes in the same conscious entity is called memeplex.

Like the gene complexes found in biology, memeplexes are groups of memes that are often found present in the same individual. Applying the theory of Universal Darwinism, memeplexes exist because memes copy themselves more successfully when they are "teamed up".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memeplex

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

we need another concept to make distinction between good and bad moral principles. I have concluded that the concept is about existence and well being of future conscious entities..

A good moral action is to comfort the dying, or to heal the sick, neither action having any consequence for future entities. Indeed healing the sick just means that there will be less food for the next generation.   

It depends on who is dying. Someone who has no fear of death like Buddha doesn't need it. Nor does kamikaze fighters, nor suicide bombers.
The healed persons would be the future version of the currently sick.
Have you considered that the healed persons have the possibility to produce more food than what they consume?
Have you considered that the objective reality is not limited by a single planet?

[alancalverd]

Have you considered that the objective reality is not limited by a single planet?

There being no evidence of moral beings on any other planet, nor any likelihood that the actions of a moral being on this planet could affect anyone on another, I think it foolish to judge the obvious and important in terms of an irrelevant maybe.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Have you considered that the objective reality is not limited by a single planet?

There being no evidence of moral beings on any other planet, nor any likelihood that the actions of a moral being on this planet could affect anyone on another, I think it foolish to judge the obvious and important in terms of an irrelevant maybe.

Not yet. What makes you think that human can't live on other planet?

[alancalverd]

Not a problem, but we'd probably export our morality along with the rest of our baggage.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

That's why we need to develop a universal moral standard based on universal terminal goal, so it would be applicable anywhere, anytime, by anyone, any form of conscious entities. To do so, we must get rid of any superfluous assumptions which we can found in currently existing human moralities.
Moral rules are judged by how good they are to achieve their goals or purpose. It can be quantified by their effectiveness and efficiency in achieving their goals.