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.
Sorry for the political incorrectness of the following statement: Hitler's idea of not letting people with "bad genes" like people with a hereditary disease such as schizophrenia and stuff like that was not so bad as it would keep the world with less um... "special needs people". But since it was Hitler people think of it as politically incorrect.
I see what you're saying Ein, and i apologize for my unintentional attack. My reasoning was that in the op i asked if it was morally wrong. Hitler's ideals are generally considered bad because part of what he was doing was attempting eugenics.... creating "supermen people"... is the same concept of pursuing Hitler's "erfect race" ... and creating "supermen people" would be/is/has been the goal of some of those seeking out eugenics. this technology is another pathway that makes it possible. (similar to the clone factory off of starwars)
i made a poor attempt at trying to bring about discussion on whether eugenics would occur. in an earlier thread of mine i posed the question on whether or not people would opt to choose the gender of their children. i received multiple answers stating that the poster thought it would be a form of eugenics and they didn't approve.
since we could create superpeople... should we? would they just be made to be immune to disease and sickness? or would humanity push these super people into existence simply to dominate the battle field? (the whole faster, steadier, better eye sight, stronger, smarter thing)
those are the points I meant to get across.... no actual attack was meant. I meant to spur further debate. not silence an opinion. My apologies
But since it was Hitler people think of it as politically incorrect.
To me at least it has nothing to do with Hitlers views but the personal decisions that people can make, and having the freedom to make them.
it also proves that the molecules found in a primordial ooze could be guided(rearranged) by an outside force to form life
Not arguing that, don't think I ever did. Though we do have evidence that one was not needed and this further provides evidence that a supernatural agent is not needed.
but nor is there the req for a human agent either... but its no longer an impossibility... if there's a God then it would be plausible that he could do whatever it is that humans could
but nor is there the req for a human agent either... but its no longer an impossibility... if there's a God then it would be plausible that he could do whatever it is that humans could
Never claimed God to be an impossibility. But God is still very unlikely and unnecessary here. If we extend this to specific gods we can still rule many of them out based on the contradictory information of what these said beings have done.
Well, by creating superpeople, how would that hurt anybody?
It wouldn't. It would only help people. It would be purely voluntary.
It is not unethical to allow superpeople. However, it IS unethical to ban them.
Eh, I don't think that it would necessarily be detrimental in the long run, however I think you are rather naive if you think it will be 'voluntary'. If we begin assisting the growth of humans and giving ourselves attributes which we do not currently possess then eventually it will become the standard, and everyone without those abilities will be lesser class citizens. Furthermore, try getting a job when all the other applicants are genetically enhanced to live longer, work harder, and be more proficient. Sure, it will be 'technically' voluntary (maybe) but it will become a necessity.
Furthermore, try getting a job when all the other applicants are genetically enhanced to live longer, work harder, and be more proficient. Sure, it will be 'technically' voluntary (maybe) but it will become a necessity.
Many things that are helpful can be viewed this way - a car, for example.
but cars are refined manufactured combinations of plastics and metal...and other miscelaneous materials
as of yet they are not sentient beings. replacing a car and it competing against a normal car is arguably different from the competition for position of a job between a genetically enhanced person and one who is your every day average joe. and it is not the cars themselves that are competing, it is the manufacturer and/or just the people driving the cars.
Well, by creating superpeople, how would that hurt anybody?
It wouldn't. It would only help people. It would be purely voluntary.
It is not unethical to allow superpeople. However, it IS unethical to ban them.
I've seen the first film of Matrix again lately. People being bred for energy. People specifically bred for a purpose. Admittedly, they were not necessarily superpeople, but the principle is similar: you would create superpeople for a purpose. It is ethical to give superpeople the same rights than normal people, but is it ethical to produce them in the first place? Also, if they don't want to serve this purpose, what will happen to them? Would they really have a choice, because I think at least in the beginning they would be expensive manpower and people wouldn't want them to just say 'No, sorry, no way'.
Also, Walker is right, they would outcrowd normal workers, and even if the bosses would sincerely want to keep an equality, they would not be able to stand against those who would employ only superpeople. Laws of commerce would automatically lead to two classes of workers, with the subsequent consequences.
Many things that are helpful can be viewed this way - a car, for example.
For the purpose they serve, I doubt cars will ever be sentient.
Well, Idont say that artifically created life is a bad thing, but I am not saying that is a good thing ether.It hasent been used anything yet, so I cant say naything about it.I wait since it used for something and I answer then.
artificialy creation of life... not artificial life. there's a difference. it makes it sound as if sentient machines were running around. i know i'm arguing semantics... but i'm trying to show you the correct way to say it b/c if you do what you've done in real life people may not take you seriously or even ridicule your statment... if they have a firm grasp of the english language
