We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Artificially Created Life
| 41 | 5248 |
source
i'm not sure if there was another such thread ever posted here or not...
Science can now artificially replicate genomes via machines and such... and in doing so they can "lay God" in a sense.
source helps if you read it
is it a bad thing?
is it a good thing?
should we further develop this technology?
should we forsake this technology?
could it be more beneficial then detrimental?
vice versa?
do you think science would limit itself to just producing beneficial (non-warfare related) products with this? or do you see the possibility that weapons with the potential magnitude for destruction as the atom bomb being developed?
if a human was created from an existing template by such a process... is it still cloning?
would the above just be furthering the acts of eugenics?
you don't have to answer all or any... you can just give your opinion by your own format.
- 41 Replies
Considering that, if the population keeps growing at the rate it has been, in 1000 years the Earth will be a ball of human flesh expanding at the speed of light, I'd have to say cloning machines aren't doing us much good in that department.
But on the other side, it could help bring back endangered or extinct species.
Maybe someday I'll get the messenger pigeon of my dreams! I'll name him Fluffy. Erm... Cluffy, 'cuz he was cloned.
I agree with the people that say it shouldn't be used to clean up pollution. Even with extensive testing and research you wouldn't be able to predict what could happen if you release a new bacteria(or whatever it would end up being).
However, if you keep it in a controlled environment for producing fuels or medicines, that could be good. As long as thats monitored and is efficient that would help people.
Considering that, if the population keeps growing at the rate it has been, in 1000 years the Earth will be a ball of human flesh expanding at the speed of light, I'd have to say cloning machines aren't doing us much good in that department.
That's like saying that the sea level has risen 3 inches since low tide - at this rate the world will be flooded by the end of the year.
Sorry, posted by accident. Anyway, I feel like people don't realize the potential this has for medicine and other things. Anyone who says this is a negative thing doesn't realize what a positive impact this could have. Let me pose the question - what's so bad about "laying God"
I see nothing wrong with it. When the heavens stand empty it falls to man to take command. The heavens and earth are ours for the taking and we may as well bend them to suit our will.
i would think the counter argument best posed for you einfach would be (as best as i can think of it :/)
we don't know the ramifications that will take place... to execute such actions without delving into the possible repercussions or just ignoring them may cause more harm than good.
would scientists stop at just healing? Or would the game BIOSHOCK's "Rapture" become a reality? ...if science directed its energy fully towards goals that were for learning everything and acheiving everything just for the sake of acheiving it unhindered, would that be ideal? or must we draw a line somewhere?
The whole "laying God" idea is stupid. There, I said it. Sorry for being blunt/rude, but it's silly to think that being able to do something extraordinary is bad because we're playing god. Obviously, if something is humanly possible, it isn't playing god to do such a thing, because it isn't beyond the scope of our abilities or the abilities of any gods that may exist. Creating life is obviously not the stuff of the gods if we can do it - and the phrase "laying god" just bugs me. We're not trying to be god, we're not attempting to go get our own cloudy throne in the sky - we're advancing civilization to heights some people have trouble believing. So, those people slap the play god tag on whatever the thing is to make it seem less silly to be in disbelief of it.
If artificially created life is a bad idea, it is a bad idea for reasons other than "laying God."
Science can now artificially replicate genomes via machines and such... and in doing so they can "lay God" in a sense.
I've known about this for a while now.
is it a bad thing?
We could potentially create completely new strains of viruses and bacteria that could kill us ten time over or finally bring about that zombie apocalypse.
is it a good thing?
It brings us closer to understanding life and how it comes together. We could develop new medicines and was of combating numerous health problems through further research.
should we further develop this technology?
Given the potential benefits and increase of knowledge I think we should.
should we forsake this technology?
Nope. In a way this is just taking genetic modification to the next step.
could it be more beneficial then detrimental?
vice versa?
Yes it could be more detrimental but if we shied away from all discoveries because of that we would still be living in trees.It can be more beneficial as well.
do you think science would limit itself to just producing beneficial (non-warfare related) products with this?
I'm pretty sure biological weapons are against the law in the places that would have access to such technology.
if a human was created from an existing template by such a process... is it still cloning?
You mean copying an existing persons genetic code and replicating it through this process? Yeah I guess that would be cloning.
would the above just be furthering the acts of eugenics?
No, just because you can clone someone doesn't mean we resort to eugenics.
I've known about this for a while now.
I did too actually.
I think it's awesome! We could make "superman" people. Bacterias that kill a certain desease... The possibilities are endless. And also, this proves that evolution theories about life starting as a bacteria possible.
Bacterias that kill a certain desease
yes, that is good, but, how do you know that the bacteria won't evolve or change into something that kills/harms other creatures?
And also, this proves that evolution theories about life starting as a bacteria possible.
i agree with you on that point
The whole "laying God" idea is stupid. There, I said it. Sorry for being blunt/rude, but it's silly to think that being able to do something extraordinary is bad because we're playing god.
no worries... it was no fault of your own. i'm the one at fault. I didn't explain my point enough and accidentally ended up deifying my example when it wasn't necessary... what i meant was man can now play ultimate creator with life.
i mean we may be closer than we think to having those ever so mythic dragons flying around (not sure about the fire breathing).... or at least veritable flying lizards.
I've known about this for a while now
ditto. but everytime i thought about making a thread I was away from my computer and by the time i had access to mine/one the topic had slipped my mind.
We could make "superman" people.
then u share the same
And also, this proves that evolution theories about life starting as a bacteria possible.
it also proves that the molecules found in a primordial ooze could be guided(rearranged) by an outside force to form life
>__> derp
"""We could make "superman" people"""
Hitler's goal was the very same
no worries... it was no fault of your own. i'm the one at fault. I didn't explain my point enough and accidentally ended up deifying my example when it wasn't necessary... what i meant was man can now play ultimate creator with life.
Oic. sorry about that DX, it just drives me crazy when it's used as a religious argument against doing something.
But yeah, stuff like this is huge. There was an associated story I wanna dig up about how scientists did a similar experiment and they found out that basic lipid molecules, when exposed to each other, will spontaneously assemble into a cell membrane, or something. It was a really neat article . . . .
its an experiment that they teach in college cell biology. the phosphate heads, i think are soluble with each other... or just attract each other... and the fatty acid tails attract each other. the heads are hydrophilic and the tails are hydrophobic which means the heads are on the outside and the tails are repulsed (insoluble ) in water so they're on the inside..... now you have a membrane
that was a very cryptic way of putting it. i hope it was understandable
You must be logged in to post a reply!