Why do you say this?
it wasn't intended as a condescending remark, just to be clear. i said it because this discussion reminds me a great deal of my job. i work at a university in an interdisciplinary department. two things about the ways you and mystikmind are conversing specifically remind me of the way academics argue (argue in the sense of making claims supported by facts and reasoning, not in the sense of fighting).
i've only perused the recent developments in the discussion, so these may well be inaccurate perceptions on my part. for one thing, this seems like a proxy argument. on the surface you're discussing the relationship between genetic change and modern medicine. but i think more deeply, mystikmind is arguing that science will be the downfall of us all, and more deeply you're aruging that science can and will conquor all obsticles. academics are exceedingly prone to "proxy arguments" in my experience.
thing other thing i've seem to have noticed is that there's very little in the way of reflexivity. by that i mean, well, this: humans are never objective. we have indeed come up with the scientific method to reduce, as far as possible, the effects of subjetivity on our knowledge. but even if every human engaged in scientific research and analysis, i don't think our knowledge would be objective in any complete sense. that doesn't mean i think science is untrue, either. it's a fine line i'm talking. you're both using empirical facts, but facts don't mean much on their own. humans only care about facts because they mean something to us, and human meaning is where subjectivity comes into play. the same facts suggest very different implications to different people, including moral perogatives. how we each come up with meaning is a product of our unique experiences and minds. i think we should continue to expand our scientific knowledge, but i also think it's a responsible thing to do to admit your personal stake in the meaning of facts. i find the weakest arguments the ones where the proponent states everything in the third person and never states his/her own stake in the issue, shrouding their own unique perspective in unassailable logic and rhetoric of the "self-evident".
i don't know if that's clear or not. in my last big post, you'd asked me what my opinion of this issue is. i explained it, and connected it to experiences i'd had in my own life. while it seems the case that some people wouldn't want to disagree with me merely out of respect for a sensitive issue. but i also think it makes my reasoning clearer, so even if a reader doesn't agree with me, s/he still understands where i'm coming from. and that's more condusive, i believe, to building common meanings in the realm of human affairs. so reflexivity simply means that you try to see and openly acknowledge your own biases in your arguments - not to get rid of them, but to make the whole thing clearer.
this is another thing some academics are prone to doing (or rather not doing), though reflexivity tends to be very important in the more humanitarian branches.
so... again, just my perspective on things, and i'm sure i lack a full picture. but i guess i'm saying, i'd find the discussion more interesting if i understood the foundation of the beliefs that underlie your arguments.
and if that didn't make any sense at all, i apologize. i had a long day.
