It's all too easy to dismiss the future. People confuse what's impossible today with what's impossible tomorrow.
George M. ChurchRead
At some point, someone will come up with an airtight argument as to why they should have a cloned child. At that point, cloning will be acceptable.
Interpretation
The quote emphasizes that societal acceptance of cloning will depend on the strength of arguments supporting it.
George M. Church highlights the idea that technological advancements, such as cloning, often face ethical scrutiny until a compelling argument is presented that aligns with societal values. As humans, we tend to accept new scientific possibilities when they are framed in a way that addresses our concerns and resonates with our morals, suggesting that the evolution of technology is often shaped by societal discourse.
In practice
In a debate about genetic engineering, this quote can be used to illustrate how public opinion can shift with persuasive arguments.
It's all too easy to dismiss the future. People confuse what's impossible today with what's impossible tomorrow.
You can't just hoard your ideas inside the ivory tower. You have to get them out into the world.
Clearly, we are a species that is well connected to other species. Whether or not we evolve from them, we are certainly very closely related to them. A series of mutations could change us into all kinds of intermediate species. Whether or not those intermediate species are provably in the past, they could easily be in our future.
We have a love affair with the idea of the 'natural,' even though we, as a species, are about as unnatural as you can imagine.
Most people are excited about themselves. Personal genome will deliver for inexpensively something about science to which you can relate. Just like computers are becoming something to which you can relate. It should be even easier to relate to your own biology, and I hope that will be one of the ways we get broader literacy in science.
Every cell in our body, whether it's a bacterial cell or a human cell, has a genome. You can extract that genome - it's kind of like a linear tape - and you can read it by a variety of methods. Similarly, like a string of letters that you can read, you can also change it. You can write, you can edit it, and then you can put it back in the cell.
Who would not have been laughed at if he had said in 1800 that metals could be extracted from their ores by electricity or that portraits could be drawn by chemistry.
Cancer was not disorganized chromosomal chaos. It was organized chromosomal chaos
The existence of these patterns [fractals] challenges us to study forms that Euclid leaves aside as being formless, to investigate the morphology of the amorphous. Mathematicians have disdained this challenge, however, and have increasingly chosen to flee from nature by devising theories unrelated to anything we can see or feel.
Fudging the data in any way whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science. I'm not religious, but I put it that way because I feel so strongly. It's the one thing you do not ever do. You've got to have standards.
I have had my results for a long time: but I do not yet know how I am to arrive at them.
But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.