Practical Ethics

Would you rather be invisible or be able to fly? (Or: are you a sneaky superhero?)

If, like me, you were one of the kids whose preferred superpower was invisibility, you may soon be in luck. The BBC reports today that US scientists have created a material that could one day be used to make people and objects invisible. The material, which has so far been created only on a microscopic scale, neither absorbs nor reflects light, meaning that anyone looking at an object covered in it would see what lies behind the object rather than the object itself. It’s likely that such technology will be snapped up first by the military, but perhaps, in years to come, invisibility cloaks will be available to all.

For some, the idea of being invisible is distasteful. Being invisible means being able to get away with anything - and why bother to act morally when you can be sure that you’ll never be caught out? In this case, would a world full of people who can turn invisible at the drop of a hat be a world full of thieves, cheats, and sneaks?

Reproductive science: is there something we're missing?

Thirty years after the first test-tube baby, Nature asks various experts for their views on what the next thirty years of reproductive medicine will bring. Some of the more startling predictions are:

• No more infertility, with both children and 100-year-olds able to have children
• Embryos created from stem cells, increasing the ease of embryo research and genetic engineering of children
• … with the resulting greater availability of embryos making it easier to create cloned humans
• Artificial wombs, enabling babies to develop outside the mother’s body
• … which, some worry, could become compulsory as an alternative to abortion, or to avoid premature birth or fetal alcohol syndrome
• ‘Genetic cassettes’ implanted in embryos to counteract the effects of inherited diseases
• Increase in litigation following evidence that IVF babies may later suffer adverse effects from the environment in which they were grown as embryos

Unpopular policy and public rationality

The BBC reports that the Japanese town of Kamikatsu has become the first ‘zero waste’ town. Residents compost all of their food waste, and must sort the rest of their rubbish into 34 different categories—all of which they must take to public waste centres, since there are no rubbish collections from people’s homes. It seems that the inhabitants of the town are generally enthusiastic about the scheme, which offers small financial rewards for recycling, and has encouraged people to make an effort to reduce the rubbish they produce.

This is one of those relatively rare, uplifting stories about a scheme designed to reduce environmental damage that is not only successful, but supported by the community. Could something similar work in the UK? Recently, many UK councils reduced domestic refuse collections from once-weekly to once-fortnightly, with recyclable waste being collected in the intervening weeks. Whilst this has boosted the amount of rubbish being recycled, some news reports reveal that the new measures are unpopular, and some councils have bowed to public pressure by re-introducing weekly collections. Given the environmental impact of adding to landfill waste sites, ought the government to placate the public by relaxing measures designed to reduce waste, or should unpopular measures be enforced regardless of public opinion?

Here's why you're not smart enough

An interesting article in The New York Times describes how the way in which the brain forms memories can, over time, lead to false information from noncredible sources being reinterpreted as true. The article notes that this may explain why smear campaigns can be so effective in politics: those who spread misinformation ‘know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked’—and the rehashing of false information by victims during their defence simply adds to its plausibility in the long term.  It seems, then, that what we believe may often be based not on truth or credibility, but on repetition and emotional resonance. 

Same species, different needs: could 'genes for' improve the way we treat animals?

The New Scientist recently reviewed a variety of studies showing that many traits often supposed unique to humans are in fact shared by animals. There is evidence that apes, dolphins, songbirds, elephants, and monkeys share with humans some of the most important aspects of behaviour associated with speech; killer whales have distinct cultural groups; great apes and some monkeys have a degree of understanding of the minds of others, enabling them to deceive; chimpanzees, gorillas, and crows use tools; and there is suggestive evidence that elephants, magpies, baboons, whales, and chimpanzees demonstrate emotional behaviour, and that monkeys and rats are capable of drawing primitive moral distinctions.

Claims that animals have capacities usually thought unique to humans are controversial, and those who make them are often accused of anthropomorphising animal behaviour. Plausibly, there is often more to such accusations than concern for explanatory parsimony. As humans, we profit from using animals—for food, research, sport, and so on—in ways that we would not use other humans, and suggestions that animals are more like humans than we usually suppose place an unwelcome demand on society to rethink its ethical stance towards animals. This suggests that a clear division between humans and other species is important to us in justifying the discrepancies between what we view as ethical treatment of other humans and what we view as ethical treatment of non-human animals. Pragmatically speaking, if we humans wish to retain a privileged moral status, and if our privileged moral status is at least partly due to our being different to other animals in certain important (usually biologically-based) respects, then it is in our interests to resist attempts to draw similarities between humans and other animals.

A Second Human Singularity?

New Scientist reports this week claims that the reason human cognitive powers are so superior to those of other animals has to do not with biology alone, but also with our ability to interact with others and with the world.

Are artists, writers, sportsmen, academics, scientists, politicians, and businessmen addicts?

Various news sources this week, including Fox News and The Guardian, are reporting on an editorial published in this month’s American Journal of Psychiatry. In it, the author, Jerald J. Block, argues that internet addiction is a real psychological disorder, and that it ought to be recognised as such in DSM-V, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is currently being compiled by the American Psychiatric Association.

'Reasonable steps' to prevent gambling

The BBC reports today that a compulsive gambler has failed in a High Court bid to make the bookmaker William Hill repay £2 million of his gambling losses. The gambler, Graham Calvert, claimed that the bookmaker failed in its ‘duty of care’ by allowing him to continue to place bets after he had asked the company to close his account. The judge recognised that William Hill failed to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent Calvert from gambling, but said that it was probable that Calvert would have continued to gamble even had such steps been taken, meaning that William Hill is not responsible for his losses.

Does a bookmaker have a duty of care towards its customers? The judge in the case thought not, so let us pose a far more modest question: ought a bookmaker to take ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent its customers from gambling in certain cases? Answering ‘yes’ to the latter question raises a number of puzzling questions. For example, what counts as a reasonable step, and under what circumstances ought such a step to be taken? Consider the reasons we might believe that pathological gambling is bad: I suggest that three important reasons are (1) that it is irrational, in that the gambling behaviour of pathological gamblers is highly unlikely to help realise their goal of winning money and is highly likely to frustrate this goal; (2) that pathological gamblers gamble often, and gamble more money than they can afford to lose; and (3) because of (1) and (2), pathological gamblers are likely to suffer large financial losses, which can disrupt other aspects of their lives, such as their personal relationships, health, and career. 

Stairlifts, wheelchairs, and radium-powered toasters

The BBC has reported plans by the government to ensure that all new homes are built to accommodate the needs of an ageing population. Under these plans, new homes would need to include features such as stairs wide enough to fit a stairlift, downstairs bathrooms, and room for wheelchairs to turn. The plans are, reportedly, part of a wider initiative to make entire neighbourhoods more old-people-friendly, through—for example—building better pavements and kerbs, improving street lighting, thoughtfully positioning bus stops, and ensuring access to amenities such as toilets.

The plans have been welcomed by organisations such as Help the Aged and Age Concern, who believe that such measures will enable old people to live independently for as long as possible. A spokesman for Help the Aged is quoted as saying, ‘We live in an ageing population and our housing must meet the needs of older people, both now and in the future’.

Earache for teenagers

The BBC today reported calls to scrap an acoustic device designed to disperse crowds of troublesome teenagers. There are 3,500 such ‘Mosquito’ devices in use in England, which work by emitting a sound normally audible only to those under the age of 25. The sound is turned on for 20 seconds at a time, and becomes irritating after around 15 seconds, causing those who can hear it to move away. Typically, the devices are installed in areas where groups of teenagers gather, such as shopping precincts.