Iran fires a missile (again)

CNN reports Iran test fired missiles in the strait of Hormuz on Monday during naval exercises, to which the world has responded to by condemning Iran for threatening to close the international passage that supplies the west with oil, a strategic resource which drives the economies that provide the resources that support the west's capacity for war. Smart move Iran, except for the fact you reported on your own news network you have no intention of closing the water way.

You heard me correctly. Iran is huffing and puffing, but he will not blow our door down.

While I agree with the strategy as legal in war time, I also see the act as closing the strait as an act of war and starting a war is an illegal act for any nation. While my American audience will feel morally at ease about war with Iran, please keep in mind sanctions on Iran are a prelude to war and the U.S. is quite aware of this. If the U.S. wants to start a fight with Iran, it knows exactly what it has to do. If you think of the U.S. and Iran as two kids bickering in the back seat of a car you are driving, the U.S. is keeping a pointed finger an inch from touching Iran and taunting 'Not touching, not touching!'

So the ethical dilemma the United States is faced with is what tool can it use to negotiate Iran way from a legal civil nuclear program to ensure Iran isn't pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Sanctions will right now lead to war. Pride will always keep the U.S. from humbling itself and forming a close tie with Iran within Iran's program. Is war ethical if humble diplomacy can keep the peace?

More important to me is how will this affect the development of human civilization as we reach for the stars. We are a type zero civilization who has yet to survive the transition to type one. How the world handles this crisis will affect how we handle this kind of situation in the future and have a say in how often we go to war. We also will give a bad first impression during our first contact with aliens who may decide to be our judge and jury.

I think the world should cry out, no against Iran at the moment, but against the world itself for how we are handling the very real crisis of Iran with nuclear weapons.

Censorship and Science

Arthur Caplan authored an opinion piece for CNN which advocated censorship in Science. While there is a strong backlash against the arguments he advocated and, disappointingly, strong support for, all three sides, the author, advocates and opponents, misses established ethical practices that already addresses concerns about potential harm from research. While I will acknowledge Arthur Caplan's fears about a terrorist in a well funded lab, or perhaps Iran, creating a flu virus that can result in a wildfire if released, I must point out to Caplan his reaction to his fears infringes on rights of individuals to both collect and develop knowledge, share and collaborate work as a form of free speech and stifles scientific progress by giving the keys to knowledge to a single authority, preventing scientists from advancing others' work.

Established ethical practices also prevent the release of truly damaging information by either self censorship or refusal to develop the knowledge. These practices are taught in universities and are by themselves subjects with project, research papers and majors for degrees. Aspiring scientists are taught the norms of ethical practice that range from the ethics of plagiarisation to the harm of weapons research. This is the only effective safe guard against the fears Arthur Caplan has expressed; scientists who disagree with the government will always continue their theoretical work which has the same potential harm as a scientist at the CDC with a grudge against the powers that be. Embracing them into the fold of good ethics works.

This study of ethics is a doubled edge sword for any government that wants to develop weapons; many scientists who worked on the first nuclear bomb would never have joined the project if they had known for ethical reasons. However, these same ethics also prevent the scientific establishment from cooperating with terrorists or rouge states. However, handing the keys over to the government wouldn't dull the edge Arthur Caplan intends. When the government is in control of access to knowledge, the government can also require scientists prove their loyalty or harmlessness, which can include working on government projects involving bio-weapons, chemical weapons or nuclear weapons. Michio Kaku's pinnacle, where humanity, my generation, will know if we survive the transition from a type zero civilization to a type one, categorizes these as serious threats to our transition. If the government were to censor science by means of security clearance, the very fears Caplan has would come much closer to reality.

Therefor Arthur Caplan, I must urge you to reconsider your opinion, renounce it and support the individual scientist's and journal's autonomy in ethical decisions.