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.
If your economy grows [by] 4 percent, you ought to reduce child mortality 4 percent.
A scientist is no more a collector and classifier of facts than a historian is a man who complies and classifies a chronology of the dates of great battles and major discoveries.
If you think about the impact of climate change, [it should be how] a doctor would deal with the problem. A scientific hypothesis is tested to absolute destruction, but medicine can't wait. If a doctor sees a child with a fever, he can't wait for [endless] tests. He has to act on what is there. The risk of delay is so enormous that we can't wait until we are absolutely sure the patient is dying.
And there is a lot of idiosyncrasy. But there are also regularities and phenomena. And what the data is going to be able to do - if there's enough of it - is uncover, in the mess and the noise of the world, some lines of music that actually have harmony. It's there, somewhere.
All sorts of computer errors are now turning up. You'd be surprised to know the number of doctors who claim they are treating pregnant men.
Science, at bottom, is really anti-intellectual. It always distrusts pure reason, and demands the production of objective fact.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.