Podcasts about savulescu

I spoke with Susan Hall about the ethics of human enhancement. Activities such as physical fitness routines and taking music lessons do not seem to raise any philosophical problems. However, a current example that elicits debate is Elon Musk's Neuralink, his neural technology company that is developing an implant designed to interface directly with the human brain. Our discussion covered the types of enhancements that are considered in the philosophical debates and the various arguments that arise. Dr Susan Hall is a lecturer in the Philosophy Department and Centre for Applied Ethics at Stellenbosch University. She completed her PhD dissertation, “Harm and Enhancement: Philosophical and Ethical Perspectives” in 2012, and her research interests include Bioethics and the ethics of technology. She is currently working on the ethics of biotechnological human enhancement and bioethical issues related to the participation of intersex athletes in sporting competition. Further reading: The Stanford Encyclopaedia entry on human enhancement provides a useful overview of the debate: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enhancement/ Buchanan, A.  2008.  Enhancement and the Ethics of Development.  Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 18 (1): 1-34. (Summarises some of the central arguments that appear in his book below.) Buchanan, A., 2011. Beyond Humanity?: The Ethics of Biomedical Enhancement, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Harris, J.  2007.  Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kass, L. 1997. “The Wisdom of Repugnance”, New Republic, 216(22): 17–26. Sandel, M.  2004.  The Case Against Perfection: What's Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athletes, and Genetic Engineering. The Atlantic Monthly, 293 (3): 51-62, available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-perfection/302927/, and his later book (2007),  The Case Against Perfection.  Cambridge & London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Earp, B.D. & Savulescu, J. 2020. Love is the Drug: The Chemical Future of Our Relationships. Manchester: Manchester University Press.  

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let's turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let’s turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let's turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let's turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let's turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/drugs-addiction-and-recovery

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let’s turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Consider a couple with an infant (or two) whose lives have become so harried and difficult the marriage is falling apart. Would it be ethical for them to take oxytocin to help them renew their emotional bonds, or would this be an unethical evasion of the hard work that keeping a marriage going requires? What if someone has sexual desires that they consider immoral – should they be able to take a drug to suppress those desires, or alternatively can society force them to? Debates about the ethics of using drugs for enhancement rather than treatment usually focus on the individual, such as doping in sports. In Love Drugs: The Chemical Future of Relationships (Stanford University Press, 2020), Brian Earp and Julian Savulescu consider the case for using drugs to alter our love relationships. Earp, who is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and and Health Policy at Yale University, and Savulescu, the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, note that drugs that alter sexual desire and attachment are already available, although are restricted or illegal. What is needed, they argue, is more research into the interpersonal effects of drugs, and more discussion of the ethics of their use for non-medical purposes. Let’s turn to a fascinating interview on a complex topic with no easy answers. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode features: -Are people with autism spectrum disorder more utilitarian? -Do utilitarian judgments in trolley problems predict interest in effective altruism? -What is the “identifiable victim effect” -Why empathy is bad for morality -Are effective altruists more empathetic than average?  Less empathetic? -Why do EAs disproportionately study STEM subjects and work in STEM fields? -Why is EA mostly male? -Why does gender predict cause preferences?   Full transcript   -References- Apply Psychology: Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 34(2), 163-175.  Batson, C. D., Klein, T. R., Highberger, L., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Immorality from empathy-induced altruism: When compassion and justice conflict. Journal of personality and social psychology, 68(6), 1042. Bloom, P. (2017). Empathy and its discontents. Trends in cognitive sciences, 21(1), 24-31. Brewer, R., Marsh, A. A., Catmur, C., Cardinale, E. M., Stoycos, S., Cook, R., & Bird, G. (2015). The impact of autism spectrum disorder and alexithymia on judgments of moral acceptability. Journal of abnormal psychology, 124(3), 589.  Cecchetto, C., Korb, S., Rumiati, R. I., & Aiello, M. (2018). Emotional reactions in moral decision-making are influenced by empathy and alexithymia. Social neuroscience, 13(2), 226-240. Conway, P., Goldstein-Greenwood, J., Polacek, D., & Greene, J. D. (2018). Sacrificial utilitarian judgments do reflect concern for the greater good: Clarification via process dissociation and the judgments of philosophers. Cognition, 179, 241-265. Gleichgerrcht, E., Torralva, T., Rattazzi, A., Marenco, V., Roca, M., & Manes, F. (2012). Selective impairment of cognitive empathy for moral judgment in adults with high functioning autism. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 8(7), 780-788.  Gleichgerrcht, E., & Young, L. (2013). Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PloS one, 8(4), e60418. Greene, J. D. (2015). Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (neuro) science matters for ethics. The Law & Ethics of Human Rights, 9(2), 141-172. Hein, G., Silani, G., Preuschoff, K., Batson, C. D., & Singer, T. (2010). Neural responses to ingroup and outgroup members' suffering predict individual differences in costly helping. Neuron, 68(1), 149-160.  Kahane, G. (2015). Sidetracked by trolleys: Why sacrificial moral dilemmas tell us little (or nothing) about utilitarian judgment. Social neuroscience, 10(5), 551-560. Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & Savulescu, J. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125(2), 131.  Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193-209. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual?. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157-167. Levant, R. F., Hall, R. J., Williams, C. M., & Hasan, N. T. (2009). Gender differences in alexithymia. Psychology of men & masculinity, 10(3), 190. Patil, I., Melsbach, J., Hennig-Fast, K., & Silani, G. (2016). Divergent roles of autistic and alexithymic traits in utilitarian moral judgments in adults with autism. Scientific reports, 6, 23637. Patil, I., & Silani, G. (2014). Reduced empathic concern leads to utilitarian moral judgments in trait alexithymia. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 501. Ruzich, E., Allison, C., Chakrabarti, B., Smith, P., Musto, H., Ring, H., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2015). Sex and STEM occupation predict autism-spectrum quotient (AQ) scores in half a million people. PloS one, 10(10), e0141229. Singer, P. (2015). The most good you can do: How effective altruism is changing ideas about living ethically. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Vyas, K., Jameel, L., Bellesi, G., Crawford, S., & Channon, S. (2017). Derailing the trolley: Everyday utilitarian judgments in groups high versus low in psychopathic traits or autistic traits. Psychiatry research, 250, 84-91. Check This Rec: Nesse, R. M. (2019). Good reasons for bad feelings: insights from the frontier of evolutionary psychiatry. Penguin.

In this episode I talk to Phil Torres. Phil is an author and researcher who primarily focuses on existential risk. He is currently a visiting researcher at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at Cambridge University. He has published widely on emerging technologies, terrorism, and existential risks, with articles appearing in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Futures, Erkenntnis, Metaphilosophy, Foresight, Journal of Future Studies, and the Journal of Evolution and Technology. He is the author of several books, including most recently Morality, Foresight, and Human Flourishing: An Introduction to Existential Risks. We talk about the problem of apocalyptic terrorists, the proliferation dual-use technology and the governance problem that arises as a result. This is both a fascinating and potentially terrifying discussion.You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher and a variety of other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes0:00 – Introduction3:14 – What is existential risk? Why should we care?8:34 – The four types of agential risk/omnicidal terrorists17:51 – Are there really omnicidal terror agents?20:45 – How dual-use technology give apocalyptic terror agents the means to their desired ends27:54 – How technological civilisation is uniquely vulernable to omnicidal agents32:00 – Why not just stop creating dangerous technologies?36:47 – Making the case for mass surveillance41:08 – Why mass surveillance must be asymmetrical45:02 – Mass surveillance, the problem of false positives and dystopian governance56:25 – Making the case for benevolent superintelligent governance1:02:51 – Why advocate for something so fantastical?1:06:42 – Is an anti-tech solution any more fantastical than a benevolent AI solution?1:10:20 – Does it all just come down to values: are you a techno-optimist or a techno-pessimist?Relevant LinksPhil’s webpage‘Superintelligence and the Future of Governance:
On Prioritizing the Control Problem at the End of History’ by PhilMorality, Foresight, and Human Flourishing: An Introduction to Existential Risks by Phil‘The Vulnerable World Hypothesis” by Nick BostromPhil’s comparison of his paper with Bostrom’s paperThe Guardian orders the small-pox genomeSlaughterbotsThe Future of Violence by Ben Wittes and Gabriela BlumFuture Crimes by Marc Goodman The Dyn Cyberattack Autonomous Technology by Langdon Winner'Biotechnology and the Lifetime of Technological Civilisations’ by JG Sotos The God Machine Thought Experiment (Persson and Savulescu)  #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

Management of shoulder pain has been estimated to account for 4.5 million visits to the doctor and $3bn (£2.3bn; €2.6bn) each year in the US alone. 44-70% of patients with shoulder pain are diagnosed with shoulder impingement syndrome. Although various non-operative treatment modalities are recommended as initial treatment for patients with shoulder impingement, subacromial decompression has become one of the most frequently performed orthopaedic procedures in the world...BUT DOES IT ACTUALLY HELP? On this week’s episode, Prof. Teppo Järvinen (@shamteppo) joins BJSM’s Daniel Friedman (@ddfriedman) to discuss the results from his latest clinical trial – the FIMPACT trial - that was recently published in the BMJ. Teppo is a Professor of Orthopaedics and Traumatology at the University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, and is head of the Finnish Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics. He recently organised the 2018 Too Much Medicine symposium that took place in Helsinki, Finland. http://too-much-medicine.com/ In this 15 minute conversation, Prof. Järvinen addresses: ∙ shoulder impingement and subacromial decompression ∙ a brief overview of the FIMPACT trial ∙ the results of the trial and how to integrate the findings into clinical practice ∙ what does too much medicine mean for orthopaedic surgery ∙ the future of sham surgery Further reading: Paavola Mika, Malmivaara Antti, Taimela Simo, Kanto Kari, Inkinen Jari, Kalske Juha et al. Subacromial decompression versus diagnostic arthroscopy for shoulder impingement: randomised, placebo surgery controlled clinical trial BMJ 2018; 362 :k2860 https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k2860 FIDELITY infographic: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/362/bmj.k2860/F1.large.jpg Beard, David J., et al. "Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial." The Lancet 391.10118 (2018): 329-338. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32457-1/fulltext Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A, et al. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear. N Engl J Med 2013;369:2515–24. https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa1305189?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov FIDELITY study video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaDWkJHmEB0 Savulescu, Julian, Karolina Wartolowska, and Andy Carr. "Randomised placebo-controlled trials of surgery: ethical analysis and guidelines." Journal of medical ethics (2016): medethics-2015.https://jme.bmj.com/content/42/12/776

 In this episode I talk to Brian Earp. Brian is Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy at Yale University and The Hastings Center, and a Research Fellow in the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford. Brian has diverse research interests in ethics, psychology, and the philosophy of science. His research has been covered in Nature, Popular Science, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Atlantic, New Scientist, and other major outlets. We talk about moral enhancement and the potential use of psychedelics as a form of moral enhancement.You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe to the podcast on iTunes and Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes0:00 - Introduction1:53 - Why psychedelics and moral enhancement?5:07 - What is moral enhancement anyway? Why are people excited about it?7:12 - What are the methods of moral enhancement?10:18 - Why is Brian sceptical about the possibility of moral enhancement?14:16 - So is it an empty idea?17:58 - What if we adopt an 'extended' concept of enhancement, i.e. beyond the biomedical?26:12 - Can we use psychedelics to overcome the dilemma facing the proponent of moral enhancement?29:07 - What are psychedelic drugs? How do they work on the brain?34:26 - Are your experiences whilst on psychedelic drugs conditional on your cultural background?37:39 - Dissolving the ego and the feeling of oneness41:36 - Are psychedelics the new productivity hack?43:48 - How can psychedelics enhance moral behaviour?47:36 - How can a moral philosopher make sense of these effects?51:12 - The MDMA case study58:38 - How about MDMA assisted political negotiations?1:02:11 - Could we achieve the same outcomes without drugs?1:06:52 - Where should the research go from here?Relevant LinksBrian's academia.edu pageBrian's researchgate pageBrian as Rob Walker (and his theatre reel)'Psychedelic moral enhancement' by Brian Earp'Moral Neuroenhancement' by Earp, Douglas and SavulescuHow to Change Your Mind by Michael PollanInterview with Ole Martin Moen in the ethics of psychedelicsThe Doors of Perception by Aldous HuxleyRoland Griffiths Laboratory at Johns Hopkins #mc_embed_signup{background:#fff; clear:left; font:14px Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; } /* Add your own MailChimp form style overrides in your site stylesheet or in this style block. We recommend moving this block and the preceding CSS link to the HEAD of your HTML file. */ Subscribe to the newsletter

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, papers by Williams and movies from Sweden. Long graphic novels that celebrate being. These are a few of our favorite things. Dave and Tamler offer some moral psych-themed recommendations to help you get your summer off to a good start. Plus, is porn bad for you now that it doesn't come in brown paper packages tied up in string?LinksPornucopia by Maria Konnikova [aeon.com]Maria Konnikova on Twitter [twitter.com]Zhana Vrangolova [zhanavrangolova.com]BooksDaytripper by Fabio Bá and Gabriel Moon [amazon.com affiliate link] [comixology link]Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro [amazon.com affiliate link]MoviesForce Majeure [imdb.com]Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter [imdb.com]Academic PapersKahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015). ‘Utilitarian’ judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193-209.Williams, B. A. O., & Moore, A. W. (2006). Philosophy as a humanistic discipline. Princeton University Press. [verybadwizards.com]TV ShowsMr. Robot [usa.com]Louie [imdb.com]Deadwood [imdb.com]The Americans [imdb.com]Sherlock [imdb.com]Podcast (David's Extra)Robot or Not? Podcast [incomparable.com]

feeder sound 41 mixed by @Vlad-Savulescu http://www.feeder.ro/2015/06/15/feeder-sound-41-mixed-by-vlad-savulescu/ www.feeder.ro/categorii/sound/

--{ It's Numbing, It's Coming: "Eugenicists Push for Designer Babies, No, Not Ramblings of Kooks or Crazies, Prof. Savulescu says Without Humility, Humans Must accept Social Responsibility, The Oxford Boys Want Compliant Personality, Enough of Individuals and Versatility, They Want to Remove Various Traits Such as Freedom Genes which Elite Hates, Bio-Ethicists are Trained Toward the Goal To Create Standardized Serfs, Without a Soul" © Alan Watt }-- United Arab Emirates Signs Nuclear Power Plant Contracts - Russia Passes Series of Laws - Wind-Power Turbine Delusion - Barbecues Destroying the Planet? - Paypal Founder Backs Synthetic Meat - Global Temperatures have Dropped - Ecuador Grants Asylum for Julian Assange - US Army Surveillance Blimp - Crimes of 1-Percentors - Tony Blair Returns to Politics - Federal Judge Throws Out Lawsuit over FBI Spying on Muslims - Facebook Profiles used by Gov. - Quebec Coalition Leader says to Students "Be More Like Asians" - NHS has Revenge on Whistleblower - Warrantless Tracking of Cellphones - Left and Right Controlled at the Top - Genetically-Engineered Babies. (See http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com for article links.) *Title/Poem and Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt - Aug. 16, 2012 (Exempting Music, Literary Quotes, and Callers' Comments)

Nigel Warburton interviews Julian Savulescu on the topic of moral enhancement.

Should we base our morality on our emotional reactions of disgust? We all have a sense of 'yuk' at some activities or situations. Julian Savulescu of Oxford University discusses the relevance of revulsion to our moral judgements in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.