Should we push bioengineering?

Should we push bioengineering?

  • Yes, it's better for the species

    Votes: 14 87.5%

  • No, it is immoral/unethical

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • Total voters
    16
I want no involvement in this new wave of "bioengineering" and implementation of technology into our bodies. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't want any foreign devices within my body significantly altering my abilities. There is a fine line, I think, between glasses which support vision (easily reversible), for example, and something like microchips in our brains. I think the "robotification" of humans has the potential to be catastrophic. Sure, it makes for great science fiction literature, but I prefer not to witness its implementation in reality. There comes a point where technology no longer serves us, but rather, we serve technology. Humans don't need "technology" to survive, especially to the extent of installing revolutionary devices into our bodies.

Kadark the Conqueror
 
Kadark said:
I want no involvement in this new wave of "bioengineering" and implementation of technology into our bodies. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't want any foreign devices within my body significantly altering my abilities. There is a fine line, I think, between glasses which support vision (easily reversible), for example, and something like microchips in our brains. I think the "robotification" of humans has the potential to be catastrophic. Sure, it makes for great science fiction literature, but I prefer not to witness its implementation in reality. There comes a point where technology no longer serves us, but rather, we serve technology. Humans don't need "technology" to survive, especially to the extent of installing revolutionary devices into our bodies.

Kadark the Conqueror
Click to expand...

Kadark...at some point the implementation of technology within our bodies will become essential to our survival...
 
draqon said:
and emmm...what is your question? :bugeye:
Click to expand...

The question posed in the following post:

Enmos said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

And:

Enmos said:
Do me a favor and treat it as a hypothetical question.
Click to expand...

Below your "answer"..
I'm not satisfied.. lol

draqon said:
stop demonizing people!...I am a very much the core of the human appraisal civilization yet I suggest this: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=82956

how do you figure?
Click to expand...
 
I voted no but not because it is unethical. Because it will be abused, and when it is, on a large scale, shit hits the fan.

Examples/problems:
inequality of super-humans compared to non-engineered humans
affordability (if the technology is expensive, only a small part of the society will be able to afford it, thus putting the rest of society at a much larger disadvantage)
abuse (super soldiers)
 
s0meguy said:
Examples/problems:
inequality of super-humans compared to non-engineered humans
affordability (if the technology is expensive, only a small part of the society will be able to afford it, thus putting the rest of society at a much larger disadvantage)
abuse (super soldiers)
Click to expand...
All of these problems already exist with current technology. Dont't think we're quite at the stage of 'super-soldiers' yet, but Western militaries are certainly advanced enough to put them well-ahead of the game.

Will I volunteer for microchip implants? Yes.
Will the technology be exploited by megalomaniacs? Yes.
Will the divisions you note be exacerbated? Yes.
Are these developments inevitable (assuming that we don't annihilate oursleves in the process)? Yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top