Should we push bioengineering?

[Norsefire]

I have always believed in and supported further development of genetic and biogengineering. Not limited to just genes.


Imagine what could be enhanced! To make the Human race more immune to disease, stronger, quicker, improve mental ability, allow for resistances to poision via stronger stomach acids, tougher bones, longer lives, perhaps even the ability to regrow limbs or perhaps to make injuries less of a problem.

The enhancements could be endless....and then there's bionics. Imagine, if we could implement technology into our bodies to further our perfection.

This could be necessary in ensuring the survival of the species.

But should we pursue this? And if so, to what extent?

 

[WyldCard4]

I have always believed in and supported further development of genetic and biogengineering. Not limited to just genes.


Imagine what could be enhanced! To make the Human race more immune to disease, stronger, quicker, improve mental ability, allow for resistances to poision via stronger stomach acids, tougher bones, longer lives, perhaps even the ability to regrow limbs or perhaps to make injuries less of a problem.

The enhancements could be endless....and then there's bionics. Imagine, if we could implement technology into our bodies to further our perfection.

This could be necessary in ensuring the survival of the species.

But should we pursue this? And if so, to what extent?

I agree with you there.

 

[Idle Mind]

Why should we consider only what is best for humans as a species? Is it really such a good idea to extend everyone's life by even 10 years on average? How much more strain is that going to put on the rest of the organisms on the planet?

 

[jessiej920]

What about genetic profiling for soldiers. Do you think that if it was possible to detect a gene that allows certain people to kill without remorse, no PTSD, or psychological breaks, that they should be reared to be soldiers? Just a random thought. And if such a gene was detected, how would you seperate nature versus nurture? Could such a gene lay dormant until something activates it? Would people be in the wrong to activate a gene that allows for merciless killing?

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

What about genetic profiling for soldiers. Do you think that if it was possible to detect a gene that allows certain people to kill without remorse

If we do find such a gene then maybe it could be eradicated forever. Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[Idle Mind]

Would people be in the wrong to activate a gene that allows for merciless killing?

Absolutely.

 

[draqon]

I would say the choice...it is dangerous...yes, but it is dangerous

 

[jessiej920]

Absolutely.

But think of all the soldiers who suffer major trauma due to PTSD and are unable to get the resources to help themselves. How do you erase psychological damage? Wouldn't it, in some aspects, be more humane to rear and recruit those who have the genetic propensity to not suffer from such a fate? If there were such a gene that could be manipulated into action and put to use (seeing as war is never going to be eradicated) wouldn't it make more sense to profile soldiers before hand? But then how would such a gene not be abused? It would lead to genetic profiling of all sorts of people, leveled as a weapon. And can you truly ever eliminate nurture? If nature created such a gene, how do you get around free will? These being all random thoughts, of course.

 

[Idle Mind]

But think of all the soldiers who suffer major trauma due to PTSD and are unable to get the resources to help themselves. How do you erase psychological damage? Wouldn't it, in some aspects, be more humane to rear and recruit those who have the genetic propensity to not suffer from such a fate? If there were such a gene that could be manipulated into action and put to use (seeing as war is never going to be eradicated) wouldn't it make more sense to profile soldiers before hand? But then how would such a gene not be abused? It would lead to genetic profiling of all sorts of people, leveled as a weapon. And can you truly ever eliminate nurture? If nature created such a gene, how do you get around free will? These being all random thoughts, of course.

We have wars due to choices we make as societies. We should be trying to find a way to peacefully resolve differences, even if you say it can't be done. The last thing we should be doing is trying to make fighting easier.

 

[Enmos]

Why should we consider only what is best for humans as a species? Is it really such a good idea to extend everyone's life by even 10 years on average? How much more strain is that going to put on the rest of the organisms on the planet?

He doesn't care about the rest of the organism on the planet.
Believe me, I've talked with him about this before.
He says humans are superior and it's keep up die for the rest.

 

[Enmos]

I think any entity which is self-aware and concious of it's being and surroundings, is alive.

Otherwise it is little more than a chemical reaction, and has little worth.

People that think like this make me sick.

That think like what? It's true. Without experience, consiousness, and self awareness, we humans would hardly be worth anything.

Without thought and wonder, an organism isn't anything more than a set of rules. Flies, for instance, are worthless. They can't think or know, they can't experience, they only do what their body tells them and then die.


Conciousness is what makes Human life valuable.

Think again pal. No insects means no humans.

Yes, I realize their importance but they are important only as functions of the ecosystem. They aren't entities. Their lives have no value; what they do, does, but their life as in, their being, doesn't.

They are little more than chemical reactions, and it is these reactions and actions that are important. As for them, they really aren't any more valuable than a rock.

Thus they have value to humans.


They are only as much entities as you or me.


To who ? Value is not an absolute, it's subjective.
Also, if what they do has value, how are they themselves not valuable ?
Can what they do happen without them being alive ?


Same goes for you and me.

What they do does, and therefore, they. But they as individuals are not valuable, but disposable.



No. We Humans can think and know and wonder and love.

That makes each individual valuable. With insects, a thousand of them are not as valuable as a single Human being.

They are each like robots: their purpose is to do what they do, but they are not abstract and thus, disposable.

They are as spiritually valuable as your blender.





No. They are alive, but not in the same way you and I are. We are knowing. If we die, it matters, because our personality and persona die.

They only exist to do what they do and have no feeling, only purpose. This makes them simple tools.

Tools are valuable but disposable.

So they do have value.
Humans are only valuable to humans.
Had you been an ant you would have argued that humans are worthless.




en·ti·ty
–noun, plural -ties.
1. something that has a real existence; thing: corporeal entities.
2. being or existence, esp. when considered as distinct, independent, or self-contained: He conceived of society as composed of particular entities requiring special treatment.
3. essential nature: The entity of justice is universality.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entity

Explain to me how insects are not entities.
Besides, animals can think and know, and probably love too.


Insects are individuals just like humans are. They are just different.


Our purpose is to do what we do.
In what way are humans abstract that doesn't apply to insects ?
How are they disposable, you admitted earlier that they are valuable to us. Disposing of them would be a disaster to humans, a BIG disaster.
Spirituality is as important as my blender. Actually, I take that back.. my blender is more important.


You ignorant bastard.

Etc, etc, etc...

 

[Yorda]

He doesn't care about the rest of the organism on the planet.

They are "useful for our species".

 

[draqon]

Exactly other organisms are useful for our species for: food, genetic shielding, ecosystem balanace...etc

 

[Enmos]

But we can kill them all off the moment we don't need them anymore, right ?
They are replaceable, right ?

 

[draqon]

But we can kill them all off the moment we don't need them anymore, right ?
They are replaceable, right ?

well not really...if we kill them all we are endangering ourselves greatly.

 

[Enmos]

well not really...if we kill them all we are endangering ourselves greatly.

Not if they can be replaced by technology..

 

[draqon]

Not if they can be replaced by technology..

technology cannot evolve by itself...even the best algorithm which mimicks evolution will one day halt itself.

 

[Enmos]

technology cannot evolve by itself...even the best algorithm which mimicks evolution will one day halt itself.

What are you talking about ?
I'm talking about the way horses were replaced by cars etc..

Norse and you argue that life (animals and plants etc) has no value other than to serve us.
So.. if we can find a way to survive without any other lifeforms would it be ok the eradicate them all ?

 

[draqon]

What are you talking about ?
I'm talking about the way horses were replaced by cars etc..

Norse and you argue that life (animals and plants etc) has no value other than to serve us.
So.. if we can find a way to survive without any other lifeforms would it be ok the eradicate them all ?

Enmos...currently across the states police are going back to using bikes and horses to patrol the cities, instead of SUV's.

horses were not replaced.

Why would we look for other ways to survive without other lifeforms? :bugeye: They dont pose danger to us.

 

[Enmos]

Enmos...currently across the states police are going back to using bikes and horses to patrol the cities, instead of SUV's.

horses were not replaced.

Why would we look for other ways to survive without other lifeforms? :bugeye: They dont pose danger to us.

We will Draqon.. more and more. It's an unmistakable trend..

Do me a favor and treat it as a hypothetical question.