If we can play god? Should we?

[Lucifurian]

 Hello, random people of E.

Lately I've gotten into the habit of watching, or listening to the T.E.D talks while I work or play. Strangely enough I was playing the newest expansion of starcraft 2, when a thought accord to me. That in a few more decades to a few more centuries, our technology will be so advance. That we will have the ability to create multiple forms of life. We might be able to take control of said life forms with our minds. That we can even manipulate our genetic code into what ever we desire through use of bioengineered viruses. It's even possible to make some sort of tube with a train that can travel up to 99% of light speed, that will send people into the future.

Mind you this is mostly theory, but I thought this would be a good thread to discuss such a thought.

My question is how do we handle that. Will our civilization rise or fall because of the advances. Are humans ready to have a 200 year life span? If one person can control another persons body through a machine. Taking away their free will, should that method be used as a form of capital punishment? If so what crime qualifies for such a punishment? Murder? rape? An act of terrorism?

That being said, I love science and technology. I love the natural course of a species and will embrace the end of the human race just as I marvel it's beginning. The same with our current civilization. This is not a anti advancement thread or the like. I would like to hear (or in this case read) other people pros and cons on this issue.

Thank you for taking your time to read it.

P.S Below I'm putting some links to some T.E.D talks videos where various scientist show their progress on their projects. These are great advances in science and technology, in my opinion. And I will like to get the opinion of others. I'm not sure I'm allowed to post these links. So if not then someone please tell me through pm or on this thread. If i'm not allow to put the links there then I will remove them.

http://www.ted.com/talks/miguel_nicolelis_a_monkey_that_controls_a_robot_with_its_thoughts_no_really.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/harvey_fineberg_are_we_ready_for_neo_evolution.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_the_dawn_of_de_extinction_are_you_ready.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life.html

[meikle]

If we can play god? Should we?

Yes, why should we not?

I can't think of any good argument for ever halting human development.

[Shjade]

Ask the Pope. Hasn't that been his job for a while now?

[DarklingAlice]

The funny thing about advancement and playing god is that...mmm...it's sort of like the grass is always greener on the other side. The human mind has what I expect is an infinite capacity to become jaded. A great examples is how we're basically currently living in the cyberpunk dystopia everyone was writing about in the 80s, but unless you stop and actually dissect that idea you would never notice.

Playing god is fun. I play god for my job (and get paid less than the median annual wage for doing so <_<). People stop caring though once that ability to play god is within their grasp. The average man on the street doesn't have any idea what we are doing and what we are capable of (and doesn't care to find out), and the government is fighting to put as little as possible into funding things that would have seemed like sorcery ten years ago. We're fascinated by the idea of advancement, but don't as individuals want to work for it and lose the awe of it once it has arrived.

If the number of people that listened to TED talks actually got up, went out, and worked on or supported the ideas presented in them, we would be much better off.

[Caehlim]

We've "played god" quite a lot already. We have already made new species (cats, dogs, cows, etc), altered the geography of our world (irrigation, the panama canal), destroyed diseases (smallpox), cured the disabled (cochlear implants) and much much more.

It hasn't always worked out for the best in every case. I think we're regretting moving the cane toad or kudzu out of their natural habitat and similar mistakes. However despite the mistakes and set-backs overall these actions have done a lot to improve the quality of life.

Yes of course we should continue to advance but we do need to occasionally be a little more careful.

[Vanity Evolved]

We've "played god" quite a lot already. We have already made new species (cats, dogs, cows, etc), altered the geography of our world (irrigation, the panama canal), destroyed diseases (smallpox), cured the disabled (cochlear implants) and much much more.

It hasn't always worked out for the best in every case. I think we're regretting moving the cane toad or kudzu out of their natural habitat and similar mistakes. However despite the mistakes and set-backs overall these actions have done a lot to improve the quality of life.

Yes of course we should continue to advance but we do need to occasionally be a little more careful.

Even then, to 'play God', we need to define the aspects of which God we're talking about. If we're talking about the Christian god, isn't everything we do either playing God or doing what he intended? You have the one camp that God determines everything. When we die, when we live, etc. So, doesn't us even attempting to save ourselves from even the common cold or simple cuts count as 'playing God'? I mean, if we're intended to live or die, isn't that God's job? If he wants us to live, a simple cut won't kill us.

On the flip side, you have the camp that believes God is omniscient and omnipotent. So, if we have the power to extend lifespans, save lives that could be previously lost and restore sight to the blind, wasn't that part of his plan all along? Nothing happens without God's say so. He made it possible for these things to work, for us to discover it, and for us to use it to better our lives.

[Lucifurian]

We've "played god" quite a lot already. We have already made new species (cats, dogs, cows, etc), altered the geography of our world (irrigation, the panama canal), destroyed diseases (smallpox), cured the disabled (cochlear implants) and much much more.

It hasn't always worked out for the best in every case. I think we're regretting moving the cane toad or kudzu out of their natural habitat and similar mistakes. However despite the mistakes and set-backs overall these actions have done a lot to improve the quality of life.

Yes of course we should continue to advance but we do need to occasionally be a little more careful.

While I agree we need to be more careful with our advancement. Gods know how much damage we cause during the centuries of developing new technologies. I'm just wondering if we should do these things. Example: If we make a wonder drug that will cure all diseases. (Either by mutating our genetic code, or using some form nanites that can kill all viruses.) Then how do we deal with the following population explosion, the food shortages? Now that I think of it we might actually need to plan to mass produce Soylent green....hmm people.

I recently read an article about some scientist claiming that 99% of human D.N.A was introduced by various natural viruses. That being said will such a cure will be worse than the diseases? Or will it be one of many steps to our self controlling evolution?

[Caehlim]

Even then, to 'play God', we need to define the aspects of which God we're talking about. If we're talking about the Christian god, isn't everything we do either playing God or doing what he intended? You have the one camp that God determines everything. When we die, when we live, etc. So, doesn't us even attempting to save ourselves from even the common cold or simple cuts count as 'playing God'? I mean, if we're intended to live or die, isn't that God's job? If he wants us to live, a simple cut won't kill us.

I'm an atheist, so I was using the phrase somewhat idiomatically to simply mean awesome world-shaping science that makes you go "Wow". The idea of 'playing god' has no literal meaning for me.

[DarklingAlice]

While I agree we need to be more careful with our advancement. Gods know how much damage we cause during the centuries of developing new technologies. I'm just wondering if we should do these things. Example: If we make a wonder drug that will cure all diseases. (Either by mutating our genetic code, or using some form nanites that can kill all viruses.) Then how do we deal with the following population explosion, the food shortages? Now that I think of it we might actually need to plan to mass produce Soylent green....hmm people.

Well, last time that happened we developed the process of nitrogen fixation and suddenly had a way to feed many more people as well as efficiently blow up many would-be hungry mouths. The fact that people are ignorant of that makes me sad. And the fact that so many people are actively fighting further advancement in agricultural biology makes me sadder.

I recently read an article about some scientist claiming that 99% of human D.N.A was introduced by various natural viruses. That being said will such a cure will be worse than the diseases? Or will it be one of many steps to our self controlling evolution?

We already self control our evolution (and that of a number of other species, go research what corn looked like before we stepped in). And your article is wrong. Though ERVs are pretty cool, and the basis for how we do things like have placenta, they are not 99% of your genome, and they are even less of a portion of your coding genome. And viruses are not the only basis of disease (indeed viruses are not behind any of the leading causes of death).

I can't understand how you can chatter away about human advancement without actually knowing where we are, how we work, where we have come from, or what that advancement entails.

[Vanity Evolved]

I'm an atheist, so I was using the phrase somewhat idiomatically to simply mean awesome world-shaping science that makes you go "Wow". The idea of 'playing god' has no literal meaning for me.

Yeah; I myself am an Atheist, I'm simply quoting two of the major ideas I can think of, when I think of Christianity that could oppose the idea of 'playing God'.

And yeah, if you want to talk about controlling evolution, the perfect example of an ignorant man with little understanding of how far we've come, look at Ray Comfort and his example of the 'how the banana is perfectly made and shows theres a God', when the modern banana is an invention completely guided and created by man.

Well, last time that happened we developed the process of nitrogen fixation and suddenly had a way to feed many more people as well as efficiently blow up many would-be hungry mouths. The fact that people are ignorant of that makes me sad. And the fact that so many people are actively fighting further advancement in agricultural biology makes me sadder.

Yeah, I remember when I discovered the kind of advances agriculture made and just how brutal the 'organic' food groups had been in pretty much assaulting one man's hugely selfless act of developing crops which'd feed billions which we couldn't before. :/

[TaintedAndDelish]

Well, worst case, if we utterly screw up and wipe ourselves out, then "mother nature" will just continue her work with what's left over ( if anything manages to survive). Business as usual. Not all species will survive the test of time. That's not really good for us though :-)

[Chris Brady]

Yes, why should we not?

I can't think of any good argument for ever halting human development.

It's slipperier than that, actually.  The moment we conceive of an idea that might change humanity at a deep level, the mere choice of whether or not we should is 'Playing God', no matter what we choose to do with it.

[Hyena Dandy]

I have no idea what the concept of 'playing god' means, and it's always been sort of... I feel that, if there's something people are capable of, we need to look at it from ethical perspectives. If it's something major, we need to give it a lot of thought into all the possible results.

A lot of stories about why we shouldn't 'play god' tend to be "There was a scientist. He did a thing. It didn't go like he expected. Everyone dies. The end." That's not really an argument about why you shouldn't 'play god,' it's an argument on why you should do your best to properly analyze your capabilities.

Now I'm a religious person, but I'm guessing many people here aren't. From what I can think of, the Christian objection to 'playing God' would be putting yourself above God, disrespecting His creation and His people, and that isn't done with telepathic robot-monkeys. You could "Play God" from that perspective as much as a forum moderator as you could as a scientist. Actually, would probably be a lot easier.

If you're not religious at all, I don't know what the possible objection to 'playing God' would be. From what I see in movies, it always looks like there's some sort of "This far and not further" being imposed on people. There's only so much we should dare to do. That's ridiculous. A classic "Don't play God" movie would be Jurassic Park (with the vague line "Nature... Nature finds a way") but in the end, it's not 'nature' or some outside force that messes things up in Jurassic Park. It's that they didn't remember that the animal they took their DNA from could change genders if it was with only one gender, so some of the dinos switched, oh, and also, there's an asshole who knocks out all the power. The problem wasn't that they had shown their hubris or offense to Nature (Which is basically invoked like God by Dr. Malcolm) and were punished for it. The problem is that Nedry was a greedy prick and the scientists apparently didn't think of testing this plan on the less murdery dinos before stocking the whole park with 800 pound murder beasts.

It's ridiculous to have some sort of Line In The Sand that science Should Not Cross. If we can make telepathic robot-monkeys, we should carefully test this. We should make sure that we do not create telepathic robot-monkeys in a way that is likely to get people hurt. We should conduct experiments to ensure that the necessary modifications, and use models and projections for the telepathic robot-monkeys to ensure that the modifications don't make the monkeys, say, super intelligent, ninety feet tall, and have a lust for human blood. And when we've done all that, and ideally made sure that creating telepathic robot-monkeys does more for us than not creating telepathic robot-monkeys... Go for it.

And yes, I know that wasn't EXACTLY what the article was talking about, and there is a reason to do that, but... Come on. We shouldn't put some big wall in front of science and say You Shall Not Pass.

[Caehlim]

Hyena Dandy,

That's very well put. I like your ideas there.

The one thing I'd add to it, is that when it comes to science fiction the reason that everything goes horribly wrong in the 'playing god' stories is because otherwise there's not much of a story. Would you read Jurassic Park if it was about a group of people who visit this great dinosaur theme-park, have a good time and return home to receive their celebrity endorsement cheques?

[Hyena Dandy]

Hyena Dandy,

That's very well put. I like your ideas there.

The one thing I'd add to it, is that when it comes to science fiction the reason that everything goes horribly wrong in the 'playing god' stories is because otherwise there's not much of a story. Would you read Jurassic Park if it was about a group of people who visit this great dinosaur theme-park, have a good time and return home to receive their celebrity endorsement cheques?

I wouldn't. And I know that the "Something has to go wrong" thing is true for any story (though I'm working on an RP setting with a powerful, controlling AI that doesn't go evil) but I also tend to see things like "Oh, we shouldn't have played God!" in movies, and it's not that you shouldn't have played God. It's that you shouldn't have made your killer salt shaker want to kill everything without checking to make sure that they had an off switch.

(I count Genesis of the Daleks as a "Don't Play God" story, though quite honestly it's the best version of that story ever told.)

The other thing I wanted to mention

It's slipperier than that, actually.  The moment we conceive of an idea that might change humanity at a deep level, the mere choice of whether or not we should is 'Playing God', no matter what we choose to do with it.

Here's an idea. Ethics.

Don't let people do scientific procedures on other people without the other people consent. If we had an ability to all upload our consciousnesses to become one single conscious on a collective computer, I wouldn't do that. I would be quite upset if someone made me do that. That would be bad. However, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't, if they choose, be able to upload their consciousnesses onto a single computer.

The Borg aren't evil because they have a hive mind and robot bits all over them. The Borg are evil because they force people to join them or die. If instead of "Resistance is Futile," a Borg cube showed up at the Federation's doorstep, and said "Hi, my name is 8 of 12, and I would like to talk to you about the joining the Borg Collective. You'll be immortal, meet tons of new people, learn from thousands of species, and all you have to do is give up the very concept of individuality and emotion to join us." and then left when Picard said "No, thank you" They wouldn't be bad guys, they'd just be door to door missionaries with a skin condition.

[Caehlim]

The other thing I wanted to mention

Here's an idea. Ethics.

Don't let people do scientific procedures on other people without the other people consent.

I definitely agree and think that scientific ethics are one of the most important considerations for a society as technologically progressive as our own.

There are some very difficult questions that we have to face with this sort of ethics. Just around consent, How does consent apply to the underage? Someone with disabilities or mental health concerns? Someone whose life is at risk and might be willing to try anything for a cure?

Then we also have the issues of placebos, double-blind testing and control groups. How do we create scientifically valid trials with appropriate double-blind protections and maintain informed consent at the same time? Particularly within medicine.

There are the issues of externalities. How will this technology affect people outside of the situation and how should their consent apply? With vaccinations this becomes a large issue, because one person not vaccinating their children can create a health risk to others. I don't want to touch on the vaccination issue in this thread (please start a new one if you want to comment), but it's a good example of a situation where this is relevant.

You also have the Gattaca scenario. In a world were the majority of people are genetically engineered to be superior, how does that affect those who are not genetically engineered. Will prejudice exist?

All of these raise massive complications to the issues of ethics. Despite having gone on about it for paragraphs though, I will say this. I think we're doing well. Yes, ethics committees delay research and increase its costs, but I think it's helping to moderate the risks that we've been talking about in this conversation.

The Borg aren't evil because they have a hive mind and robot bits all over them. The Borg are evil because they force people to join them or die. If instead of "Resistance is Futile," a Borg cube showed up at the Federation's doorstep, and said "Hi, my name is 8 of 12, and I would like to talk to you about the joining the Borg Collective. You'll be immortal, meet tons of new people, learn from thousands of species, and all you have to do is give up the very concept of individuality and emotion to join us." and then left when Picard said "No, thank you" They wouldn't be bad guys, they'd just be door to door missionaries with a skin condition.

That could actually make a fascinating story. Imagine if lots of people around you were taking up the offer and becoming Borg, how would you react? What would it be like to remain human as thousands were leaving your society attracted by this offer. There wouldn't be an enemy in that story, but I think it still would be full of juicy conflict.

[Hyena Dandy]

It would be a very complex issue. Which as far as I'm concerned, means it would require a complex amount of study.

Yes, there would be prejudice. Prejudice is a universal human trait. We can fight to suppress it, but it's hard to completely remove. It's incumbent on us to ensure that the discrimination is illegal, and as difficult as, well, possible. 

There would be, in a Gattaca world, people who want to work with modified people, and there would be people who are modified who don't like normal people, and people who are normal who don't like modified people, and that's not even getting into who can and can't GET it.

It's the job of ethicists to work out the ethics, and ethics are an important part of progress. But when it comes to the question of "Should we play god?" or "Should we change the nature of humanity?"

The question isn't about IF we should 'play god,' but HOW we should.

[Chris Brady]

Hyena Dandy,

That's very well put. I like your ideas there.

The one thing I'd add to it, is that when it comes to science fiction the reason that everything goes horribly wrong in the 'playing god' stories is because otherwise there's not much of a story. Would you read Jurassic Park if it was about a group of people who visit this great dinosaur theme-park, have a good time and return home to receive their celebrity endorsement cheques?

And Star Treks Prime Directive is also about 'Playing God'.  The problem lies in that believing that not helping or helping a non-spacefaring culture IS playing God no matter what you choose to do.

[Qt]

We here... wouldn't exactly be us without our advancements so the idea of halting advancement is quite futile, things will always change over time.

As for the "playing god" part. God is in essence... a human concept... any capability of "god" is given by us upon the word. So I think the phrase should be... should we try to become more powerful... and I'd think yes, though I'd argue as we need to be cautious that our moral standings also need to advance.

[Beguile's Mistress]

As yourself two questions.  Can I guarantee that nothing will go wrong?  Am I willing to take responsibility if I make mistakes and bad things happen? 

If you can answer yes to both - a definite and unequivocal yes without qualification - then go ahead. 

Otherwise go out and find a good deed that needs doing and do it.

[Vanity Evolved]

We here... wouldn't exactly be us without our advancements so the idea of halting advancement is quite futile, things will always change over time.

As for the "playing god" part. God is in essence... a human concept... any capability of "god" is given by us upon the word. So I think the phrase should be... should we try to become more powerful... and I'd think yes, though I'd argue as we need to be cautious that our moral standings also need to advance.

This. My problem is the term 'playing God' is horrid, because not only can no-one define what 'God' implies, they can't even agree on what a god they both believe in is capable of!

Are natural disasters sent by God? Does this mean we're 'playing God' by developing ways to detect and protect human lives? Are we playing God by curing cancer and HIV, diseases which lead to death? Does our selective breeding of bananas count as 'creating new life'?

[Hyena Dandy]

And Star Treks Prime Directive is also about 'Playing God'.  The problem lies in that believing that not helping or helping a non-spacefaring culture IS playing God no matter what you choose to do.

Especially in some of the early TNG episodes. Where someone asked if there was some sort of grand design for these cultures, and Riker said "We have to consider that."

This. My problem is the term 'playing God' is horrid, because not only can no-one define what 'God' implies, they can't even agree on what a god they both believe in is capable of!

I think the term is used to imply something like hubris. Doing more than what we are 'supposed' to do. Changing 'fate.' But I honestly think it's all just people thinking of Greek stories, where that was actually a bad idea. If God is supposed to 'decide who lives and who dies,' people have been doing that since they started putting herbs on wounds or hitting each-other with rocks. I see no difference between doing that for one person, a hundred people, a million people, or a whole species.

[Sethala]

All of these raise massive complications to the issues of ethics. Despite having gone on about it for paragraphs though, I will say this. I think we're doing well. Yes, ethics committees delay research and increase its costs, but I think it's helping to moderate the risks that we've been talking about in this conversation.

Ethics are good, but it's important to not let ethics from religious dogma interfere with ethics from society.  Sadly, a lot of our possible technological advances were delayed not because of ethical concerns, but because religious zealots decided that it's not part of "God's plan" for us to do something like this.

[LordHarketh193]

Hello, random people of E.

Lately I've gotten into the habit of watching, or listening to the T.E.D talks while I work or play. Strangely enough I was playing the newest expansion of starcraft 2, when a thought accord to me. That in a few more decades to a few more centuries, our technology will be so advance. That we will have the ability to create multiple forms of life. We might be able to take control of said life forms with our minds. That we can even manipulate our genetic code into what ever we desire through use of bioengineered viruses. It's even possible to make some sort of tube with a train that can travel up to 99% of light speed, that will send people into the future.

Mind you this is mostly theory, but I thought this would be a good thread to discuss such a thought.

My question is how do we handle that. Will our civilization rise or fall because of the advances. Are humans ready to have a 200 year life span? If one person can control another persons body through a machine. Taking away their free will, should that method be used as a form of capital punishment? If so what crime qualifies for such a punishment? Murder? rape? An act of terrorism?

That being said, I love science and technology. I love the natural course of a species and will embrace the end of the human race just as I marvel it's beginning. The same with our current civilization. This is not a anti advancement thread or the like. I would like to hear (or in this case read) other people pros and cons on this issue.

Thank you for taking your time to read it.

Hello :)

In my opinion we should not play god.
Its like signing your soul right to the devil.
I am a Christan though i disagree with most of the Christians beliefs.
For example that homosexuals are going to hell and that you need to be christened to be a Christan.
Though back to the topic, playing god in my opinion is wrong and is the gateway to hell.

While I agree we need to be more careful with our advancement. Gods know how much damage we cause during the centuries of developing new technologies. I'm just wondering if we should do these things. Example: If we make a wonder drug that will cure all diseases. (Either by mutating our genetic code, or using some form nanites that can kill all viruses.) Then how do we deal with the following population explosion, the food shortages? Now that I think of it we might actually need to plan to mass produce Soylent green....hmm people.

I recently read an article about some scientist claiming that 99% of human D.N.A was introduced by various natural viruses. That being said will such a cure will be worse than the diseases? Or will it be one of many steps to our self controlling evolution?

Well that is slightly true look at people who suffer from cancer.
Is kemo therapy better than suffering with hair loss and illness?
What about the addictive long lasting effect causing the other to suffer more from that then they did from cancer or another illness?


Human development can be stopped but only by nature or god.
No one can stop humans evolving or adapting, unless their god or nature.

I definitely agree and think that scientific ethics are one of the most important considerations for a society as technologically progressive as our own.

There are some very difficult questions that we have to face with this sort of ethics. Just around consent, How does consent apply to the underage? Someone with disabilities or mental health concerns? Someone whose life is at risk and might be willing to try anything for a cure?

Then we also have the issues of placebos, double-blind testing and control groups. How do we create scientifically valid trials with appropriate double-blind protections and maintain informed consent at the same time? Particularly within medicine.

There are the issues of externalities. How will this technology affect people outside of the situation and how should their consent apply? With vaccinations this becomes a large issue, because one person not vaccinating their children can create a health risk to others. I don't want to touch on the vaccination issue in this thread (please start a new one if you want to comment), but it's a good example of a situation where this is relevant.

You also have the Gattaca scenario. In a world were the majority of people are genetically engineered to be superior, how does that affect those who are not genetically engineered. Will prejudice exist?

All of these raise massive complications to the issues of ethics. Despite having gone on about it for paragraphs though, I will say this. I think we're doing well. Yes, ethics committees delay research and increase its costs, but I think it's helping to moderate the risks that we've been talking about in this conversation.

That could actually make a fascinating story. Imagine if lots of people around you were taking up the offer and becoming Borg, how would you react? What would it be like to remain human as thousands were leaving your society attracted by this offer. There wouldn't be an enemy in that story, but I think it still would be full of juicy conflict.

I half agree there.
But do any of you agree with the list i will place below?

1 - Animal testing? - agree or disagree?
2 - Human testing? - agree or disagree?
3 - Whale killing? - agree or disagree?
4 - Animal Poaching? - agree or disagree?
5 - Gun and crime laws? - agree or disagree?
6 - Playing God? - agree or disagree?
7 - Sin/s? - agree or disagree?
8 - Abortion? - agree or disagree?
9 - Embryo testing? - agree or disagree?
10 - Survival of the fittest, human and animal world? - agree or disagree?
11 - Slavery? - agree or disagree?
12 - war? - agree or disagree?
13 - Rights for people and animals? - agree or disagree?
14 - Torture? - agree or disagree?
15 - law and order of criminals? - agree or disagree.


what is your ethic's?
What do you agree with and what do you disagree with?
That will show you what kind of ethic you would allow and disallow.

[Inkidu]

It depends:

Ultimately, I believe God is about mercy, forgiveness, and beneficence. We are made in God's own image, and that's something so far beyond a mere ascetic thing.

The question that has to be asked when we make choices that are seen as "playing God" we have to ask ourselves if in doing so we deny someone or something mercy, forgiveness, or are we being cruel in doing so. If the answer to any of these area is yes then we shouldn't.

Because then we're not playing God, we're playing the other guy.

That's my personal thoughts on it.

[Deamonbane]

Man learns through mistakes made and grows by it... well, that is the idea, anyway. The idea in the question being that just because man can do it, does that mean that he should? Depends entirely... It's like," Shall we play god and see if we can go ahead and destroy all life on earth just to make sure that our new little toy is working?" That, in my opinion, is obviously not good... when we create something powerful, like travel, like nuclear energy, like the ability to harness power and use it, like always, with power comes responsibility...So long as it is used responsibly, sure, why not?

[Moraline]

If we can play god? Should we?

Should we allow science to continue on it's natural course of development is the real question and the answer to that is, Yes.

A second thought on that is: It can't be stopped.

Can someone like the US outlaw some sort of genetic experimentation? Sure it can. Can it stop other nations from doing it. No, not at all.

Science will advance no matter what. Nothing short of an apocalyptic disaster can stop it and even that would most likely only set it back unless the disaster managed to wipe out all of humanity. The human population has survived a few near apocalyptic disasters already and those didn't stop us.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Replacing the word "god" with a more suitable word or phrase might offer a little more clarity on the question. The phrase "playing god" seems to inherently suggest that whatever proceeds it is wrong.

If we can "makes changes that dramatically affect the course of people-kind", should we?

- We can't help doing this, can we? Everything we do, big or small leads to further changes. Our past advances in technology have had a cumulative and compounding effect on us already. I would say yes, definitely; its our nature to do so.

If we can "make changes that have a high likelihood of jeopardizing our existence", should we?

- No, we should take measured steps when dealing with risk. Risk is ok so long as you are well prepared and capable of dealing with the downside. Unmanaged risk is unwise for mortal creatures like ourselves.

Our planet/universe on the other hand, is quite adept at working with unmanaged risk and at processing in parallel.

[Beguile's Mistress]

What happens if when someone is playing god you are the one eliminated?

[TaintedAndDelish]

What happens if when someone is playing god you are the one eliminated?

How might someone get eliminated in your example? Here the term "playing god" is kind of ambiguous.

[Beguile's Mistress]

It's not about the how but the results.  It is not an example.  It's a question.  Perhaps a philosophical one, but still a question.

We think about adverse effects on other of playing god but people have this "thing" about recognizing they might be the one adversely effected.

[TaintedAndDelish]

So... for simplicity, lets say that X years ago I had to choose between my current wife and another woman. If I had kids with woman A, then I end up with one set of kids. If I had kids with woman B, then I end up with a different set of kids. Either way, a set of kids did not to come into existence as a result of my choice. I think its erroneous to say that I am at fault for the consequences of my choice ( set of kids A or B not existing ) as that which has not yet happened does not exist.

Our choices will steer fate (for a lack of better words ) one way or another and have consequences. Isn't that completely unavoidable or am I missing the point?

[Beguile's Mistress]

You are making it more complicated than it needs to be. 

Someone is out there playing god in some way just because they can and as a result you, your child, parent or spouse dies.  Is it right or wrong when the results of what someone else chooses to do just because they can means death for you or a loved one?

[Sabby]

Were these consequences foreseeable? Were the proper precautions taken?

If yes to both, the harm done is unfortunate, but every step was taken to avoid it.

If no to both, then the issue is not the experiment in question but the methods of the experimenter.

In both cases, 'playing God' was not the issue.

[Silk]

Keeping in mind that like the distance of god from us (From a mountain, to the sky, to space, then to a different dimension) the powers he exclusively had have been dropping by the day, electricity, bio manipulation, artificial selection all these things were considered gods domain and something man shouldn't touch.

If theres such a thing as playing god, we've been doing it for a hell of a long time.

[Inkidu]

Were these consequences foreseeable? Were the proper precautions taken?

If yes to both, the harm done is unfortunate, but every step was taken to avoid it.

If no to both, then the issue is not the experiment in question but the methods of the experimenter.

In both cases, 'playing God' was not the issue.

Ah, and now you're getting to the essence of what it is to "play God" Sabby. In fact you're one of the closest because of one line.

"Where the consequences foreseeable?"

God by most people's standards is an omniscient, omnipotent being. He has incalculable foresight. We human do not have anywhere near the level of foresight. We're worms in dirt plowing ahead by comparison. Our brains would melt to mush if we really tried to comprehend every possible path ever action we ever took had.

Ultimately "playing God" is presuming that you know better than an omniscient, omnipotent being. I don't. I can barely decide what I'm going to eat for breakfast in the morning. Science... is really just another religion as far as I'm concerned, it's built up on faith at its very core because ultimately we're faith-based creatures. I hardly think science is the problem, the problem is that science is just a newer facet of the same old issue: humanity. :\

[Mathim]

Just for the sake of saying it, can doesn't imply should; but I think we're giving ourselves WAY too much credit as far as technology. With our dwindling resources we'll never get close to any of that stuff before we return to the stone age.

[Sabby]

Science is not a religion. Science is the process by which observed phenomena is broken down and understood. It is the one and only process by which we find the answers. Religion is more concerned with ritualizing ignorance. They are night and day.

I think the essence of this question is more "If we could drastically change the world around us, should we?" Sure, getting a flu shot is technically Playing God, but it's a simple thing that we understand, with immediately apparent consequences and repercussions. It's not exactly an upheaval of all we know. Getting a flu shot doesn't make your brain recoil from the concept. Let me give an example of time I actually did recoil from a choice.

Years ago I was playing Deus Ex: Invisible War, and as I was getting to the end, one of the choices I could make was to connect every mind on the planet together, to create one being. This would end all forms of war and discrimination, and considering the state of the world at that time, I could easily make an argument in favor of the choice. But the sheer scale of the change, the upheaval of everything, at the press of a button, thrust on me just like that... I could debate as much as I want for the pros and cons of the decision, but my point was it felt wrong. At a primal level, this felt wrong.

That is Playing God. I did do it, because it was the best ending available, but afterwards I was left doubting and questioning my decision.

[Inkidu]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/god-does-not-play-dice

At the end of the day, it's faith. Like I said, different facet of the same old problem.

[Sabby]

How are you using the word faith? It's a dicey word I avoid using, since it can mean "I know He's real, because I have faith" to "Based on our current findings, we have faith in the coming results"

There is a huge difference between blind faith and trust based on predictable results. When I buy headache pills, I have a reasonable expectation they are not poison because of the system in place that would stop poison from getting into my hands, and that if it were poison, so many people have already bought it, it could be removed from the shelves within hours of a confirmed case. If I have to use the damn word as an example, yes, I have 'faith' that this box of Panadol will not kill me.

I really hate the 'you have faith as well' argument. It's nothing more then an attempt to make a level play field where one doesn't exist.

[Vanity Evolved]

Ah, and now you're getting to the essence of what it is to "play God" Sabby. In fact you're one of the closest because of one line.

"Where the consequences foreseeable?"

God by most people's standards is an omniscient, omnipotent being. He has incalculable foresight. We human do not have anywhere near the level of foresight. We're worms in dirt plowing ahead by comparison. Our brains would melt to mush if we really tried to comprehend every possible path ever action we ever took had.

Ultimately "playing God" is presuming that you know better than an omniscient, omnipotent being. I don't. I can barely decide what I'm going to eat for breakfast in the morning. Science... is really just another religion as far as I'm concerned, it's built up on faith at its very core because ultimately we're faith-based creatures. I hardly think science is the problem, the problem is that science is just a newer facet of the same old issue: humanity. :\

As Sabs stated, using the term 'faith' is awkward, as it's a very loaded word. Faith implies belief in something without evidence, which is not what science is; science is belief in what has been observed through independent observation and study. I always find it rather offensive to say that a doctor, with all his years of medical training and knowledge has the same credibility in his field as a random bigot in the street picketing a pride parade. Would you allow a Westboro Baptist Church member to bless your kidney insted of a doctor? I mean, as science is just another form of religion, then prayer is just as valid as kidney surgery. Would you fly in a plane built by a priest who's never studied aeronautics? His knowledge of the Bible is just as valid, and equal to that of an engineer.

I've never liked the term 'playing God', because it encapsulates a lot depending on circumstance. Some believe God has a hand in everything, so does that mean we -can- play God? How can we play God if he's already determined this would happen? Where does medicine cross over from fine to 'playing God'? Is it like the Amish, where after a certain period, all technology becomes evil... except the technology before

• ? Why does bandaging a wound, insted of letting it fester and rot count as fine, but heart replacement surgery is an abomination and playing God, when both are the same thing: Human intervention to prevent death?
  
  By most standards, people think the Christian God is omnicient. And if so, then it seems we're doing a much better job; we humans know that stabbing each other in the gut in not a good thing to do. God, in all his infinite power, apparently can't figure out basic things like expecting people to understand the difference between right and wrong, by making sure the knowledge of right and wrong wasn't available to them. Kind of like shouting at a three year old for messing up a triple heart bypass.
  
  

[Inkidu]

As Sabs stated, using the term 'faith' is awkward, as it's a very loaded word. Faith implies belief in something without evidence, which is not what science is; science is belief in what has been observed through independent observation and study. I always find it rather offensive to say that a doctor, with all his years of medical training and knowledge has the same credibility in his field as a random bigot in the street picketing a pride parade. Would you allow a Westboro Baptist Church member to bless your kidney insted of a doctor? I mean, as science is just another form of religion, then prayer is just as valid as kidney surgery. Would you fly in a plane built by a priest who's never studied aeronautics? His knowledge of the Bible is just as valid, and equal to that of an engineer.

I've never liked the term 'playing God', because it encapsulates a lot depending on circumstance. Some believe God has a hand in everything, so does that mean we -can- play God? How can we play God if he's already determined this would happen? Where does medicine cross over from fine to 'playing God'? Is it like the Amish, where after a certain period, all technology becomes evil... except the technology before

• ? Why does bandaging a wound, insted of letting it fester and rot count as fine, but heart replacement surgery is an abomination and playing God, when both are the same thing: Human intervention to prevent death?
  
  By most standards, people think the Christian God is omnicient. And if so, then it seems we're doing a much better job; we humans know that stabbing each other in the gut in not a good thing to do. God, in all his infinite power, apparently can't figure out basic things like expecting people to understand the difference between right and wrong, by making sure the knowledge of right and wrong wasn't available to them. Kind of like shouting at a three year old for messing up a triple heart bypass.
  

Watch the video that's all I'm going to say on that.

[Sabby]

I did, and they immediately made two claims that they then didn't address.

1. We all rely on faith, even scientists.
2. Science and religion can learn from each other.

Considering they did not elaborate on these two points, I can only say they are dead wrong.

1.The 'faith' that the laymen employs in their daily tasks, and the 'faith' that a person employs while in prayer are two entirely different things. 
2. Provide one single, solitary example of a scientific venture benefitting from a religious influence. This does not include religious scholars also being astronomers, for example, I'm talking about a scientist benefitting from a process that is exclusively religious.

Really, all this confusion comes down to the word itself. As I've already laid out, Faith is used in different ways, and some uses of it are disappearing because of the confusion of other uses. There was a time when it was okay to use the word faith in a scientific context, but thanks to the efforts of apologists, the word just opens up backdoors in discussions for the religious angle to sneak in, in hopes of being a part of things it has no place in. Trust in results based on predictive models and repeatable results is NOT the same thing as blind faith. Never has been, never will be.

[Chris Brady]

If theres such a thing as playing god, we've been doing it for a hell of a long time.

This, so much this.

How do you think beef, chicken and pork came about?  Especially the modern versions of these animals?

Among other things.

[Ephiral]

Science... is really just another religion as far as I'm concerned, it's built up on faith at its very core because ultimately we're faith-based creatures.

Your premise here is extremely faulty, frankly kinda offensive, and the conclusion you draw on it is more so. As to the video:

-"You must have faith that your observations are accurate." This... is a very rocky start, as it appears they've never heard of peer review, replication, or accounting and adjusting for bias. One could argue that we're taking it on faith that all of humanity isn't having the same hallucination, but... no. No need to take anything on faith, just recognize that accepting observations that match all available evidence is the only way we can ever know anything about anything. Either our observations are accurate, and we've made progress, or they're not, and we've lost nothing compared to the other route.

-Descartes as their only source on epistemology and information theory? He's... a touch out of date.
-Euclidean geometry, their example of "incorrect" observations... actually "correct within limited circumstances."
-Einstein acting "unscientifically" and trying to disprove quantum theory? Uhh, actually the heart of science. Trying to disprove things is how we know they're probably true.
-Their core argument was that science and religion can learn from each other. They completely failed to support the idea that science can learn from religion in any way at all.

So... yeah, your ultimate "that's all I have to say about that" evidence is... pretty weak and unconvincing. And, like you, makes the assumption that human beings cannot operate without faith - which I guess makes me inhuman through no fault of my own.

As to the larger question of "playing God": I'm in the "define it" camp. In particular, you'll have to define it in such a way that it does not include things we've already been doing for centuries.

[Sabby]

As to the larger question of "playing God": I'm in the "define it" camp. In particular, you'll have to define it in such a way that it does not include things we've already been doing for centuries.

I'll throw an example at you for fun. There's a button in front of you, and if you press it, the energy needs of the human race will be met forever. However, if you do press it, the world will change drastically. Even if you can come up with a good assumption of the changes that will follow, are you even capable of predicting it accurately, and if so, do you have the right to upheave everything, even for the undeniable good it will do?

[Moraline]

In context of the original post the question is not "If we can play god? Should we?"

That question raises the point comparison of someone with an atom bomb trying to determine if they should blow up a city. Should they? Can they? What are the ramifications of that? (It's a man with a gun and asking if he should use it. It's irrelevant to all of the bits and pieces of different sciences that went into the creation of the gun.)

But... That question is irrelevant when taking into context of the actual original post... Which is about science and advancement.

The creation of nuclear fusion was an inevitability. It was a natural step in the evolution of physics. The original poster is asking if we should do this? I say, how can we not?

Of course we can't stop it... It's unreasonable to expect that humanity will not advance it's scientific studies. How we choose to use these advances is another thing entirely. Whether that's for an atom bomb or extending a human life.  In the end, the world has 7+ billion people in it and growing steadily... We will advance and we will inevitably sort out every use for everything we discover as part of our constant forward progression in science.

The question of "Should We" is irrelevant. We should be asking, "How are we going to handle it and how are we going to best use it."

You can't stop a river from flowing. You can divert it and you can dam it but the water will keep coming somewhere and in some form. Eventually the water will overrun you. To stick with the metaphor, it's best that we just flow with the scientific advancement and use it in the wisest ways that we can.

[LordHarketh193]

Yes the water may keep coming but soon it has to run out then what?
We can't live without it but we can't live with it, drinking too little can kill us drinking too much can overflow our bodies and kill us.

Its like saying though a valley is deep you just stop climbing, though a mountain may be high its brave enough to touch the sky.
Why do we not do it?
Why do the mountins form from east to west?
Whys the sky blue?

science may be an explanation but so is faith and faith is something that keeps us standing tall and hoping all the day long.

So Science and God can exist but for some people its just not right.
If you watch "Joyful Noise" and "Sparkle" you'll see the world with many eye opening religion shows.

God is everywhere and god is us. Where his dawn and his sunset a valley without its snakes can't be a desert and a snake without fangs is like a worm with no eyes.

Science didnt make the world, science didn't make us, science didn't bring animals to the planet.
God didn't create nucular war, god didn't make Cars, god didn't teach us to curse and sin.

they may work together but they sometimes work apart.

[Sabby]

Okay, this is where I get off guys.

[Ephiral]

I'll throw an example at you for fun. There's a button in front of you, and if you press it, the energy needs of the human race will be met forever. However, if you do press it, the world will change drastically. Even if you can come up with a good assumption of the changes that will follow, are you even capable of predicting it accurately, and if so, do you have the right to upheave everything, even for the undeniable good it will do?

What quality of this example, exactly, makes it "playing god"? As to the "right" to do this, I humbly submit that it is not and has never been a matter of "rights". Did Guglielmo Marconi have the right to completely change the way we interact with the world forever? How about Alexander Graham Bell? Alan Turing? Bob Taylor? Keep in mind that you are, at this very second, benefiting from their decision to make that change.

science may be an explanation but so is faith and faith is something that keeps us standing tall and hoping all the day long.

Wrong. Faith has absolutely no explanatory power whatsoever, and there are plenty of people who get the exact sense of wonder that your faith gives you from... well, just from the universe as it is, with no need to resort to the supernatural.

[LordHarketh193]

Ephiral people see things diffrently.
There is no right or wrong answer.

People believe in god for a reason others in science because they believe it backs up everything or because they have no wishes or need to believe in god.
There is no right or wrong answer.

I believe in god, so do many others.
Many believe in science to be behind everything, so do others.
There's never been and never will be a right or wrong way of belief, faith is a choice like believeing science is behind everything.

That is my point.

[Ephiral]

Ephiral people see things diffrently.
There is no right or wrong answer.

Wrong. "Snow is white" is true iff snow is white. "Faith explains things" is true iff faith provides an explanation.

People believe in god for a reason others in science because they believe it backs up everything or because they have no wishes or need to believe in god.
There is no right or wrong answer.

I don't "believe in" science. I don't need to. The same goes for others who familiarize themselves with it. We accept that it is a useful tool, because it can explain and predict the evidence found in the world around us. If the question is "which is a better tool for understanding the universe?", then yes, there absolutely is a right answer.

I believe in god, so do many others.
Many believe in science to be behind everything, so do others.

And? Popularity does not determine truth. I say again: "Snow is white" is true iff snow is white.

There's never been and never will be a right or wrong way of belief, faith is a choice like believeing science is behind everything.

Yes, there very much is a right way to believe, if by "right" you mean "correct": Believe that which is true, and reject that which is false. This is an extremely difficult project, and one you are unlikely to be completely successful in - but by completely disregarding evidence as a metric, you are unlikely to be successful at all.

EDIT: Toned down a bit.
DOUBLE EDIT: For the record, no, faith is not always a choice. There was a period in which I actively and sincerely sought out evangelical types and asked them to please convert me. I remain an atheist, because I was and am simply incapable of accepting a premise as true without evidence or question. It's just not something my brain does.

[Qt]

Belief in god has no relation to "belief"  in science... Why do people try to equate them and somehow try to make them a level ground.. It's not.

Science is about discovery... It's a process.. People constantly try to prove each other wrong so we can have the right answer.

Religion simply shoves you and answer and make your accept it.

There's also no concensus on the definition of God... So in a way we can't even begin to argue about its existence until we can agree on what it means of implies.

[Mathim]

Faith provides an explanation? A lucky guess, occasionally, perhaps, but...anyway, this seems a little off-topic what with the whole faith vs. science debate-isn't there a thread for that already?

About the choice to play god, ethics does have to enter into the equation in some way. Pros vs. cons, many vs. few, etc. We're not perfect but we can do research, think critically and band together to share our knowledge. Is it always going to be the right choice to utilize advanced technology? Considering a lot of it is for the sole purpose of killing people, obviously the answer is no. I think if we become more civil and disciplined as a species, we will 'advance' in step with our technology and be more responsible with what we develop and how we use it. Problem solved...if only it were that easy for us psychologically.

[LordHarketh193]

1 - Snow may ne white and the sky may be blue but that is a pointless arguemnt as its not about faith or religion.

2 - There is no right answer its like saying Slavery was acceptable or that all religion should be baned. There is no right or wrong way to believe in anything, its peoples views and beliefs thats it and just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean everyone has to.

3 - yer and? snows white, the skys blue and grass is green so what, that has no point in an arguement over faith and belief and religion.

4 - No there isn't.
People believe what they want and that is whatever they wish to be right or wrong but openly and honestly there is NO wrong or right answer to anything, except murder and other things like that.
Faith and belief happens in everything we do every day.
Its like you telling a preist there is no god, he/she would stand there and argue with you till the moon was blue and the sky was pink if he/she had to.
Just as i will state the whole snow is white and sky is blue thing is invalid in a arguement over faith and religion.
Like if you went to the pope and said there is no god.
I bet he would argue with you until the whole world was gone, there's no right or wrong but he wouldn't stand their if and argue if you said a valid point to do with science or your belief in whatever you believe in f you do.

as i said no wrong or right way to belief in anything and theres no explanation for everything.



I'm sorry for the off topic, i'm just a very passionate believer.
I believe in science such as for new treatment and ways to help people when thier ill, like cancer and MS.
But i also believe in god and he's there to help us when we ask for it.

Faith provides an explanation? A lucky guess, occasionally, perhaps, but...anyway, this seems a little off-topic what with the whole faith vs. science debate-isn't there a thread for that already?

About the choice to play god, ethics does have to enter into the equation in some way. Pros vs. cons, many vs. few, etc. We're not perfect but we can do research, think critically and band together to share our knowledge. Is it always going to be the right choice to utilize advanced technology? Considering a lot of it is for the sole purpose of killing people, obviously the answer is no. I think if we become more civil and disciplined as a species, we will 'advance' in step with our technology and be more responsible with what we develop and how we use it. Problem solved...if only it were that easy for us psychologically.

I dunno if there is, but what about the world being made what's the belief of that, 7 days by god or about 10000000000 billions years from ash and gas?

yes i surpose you are right about that.
yes i agree with the killing people, thats wrong and so is other things.
i agree with you, if only it were that simple.
But i think it'll take a few more decades before we truely ever become completley civilized and dicaplined as a species.
But if there was a way maybe it could be through science or through a new religion perhaps?
I dunno i'm not god and have no intenction of ever playing god.

[Ephiral]

This was the point I was originally driving at, Mathim: Technological advances will continue to happen. Guidelines for how to handle things ethically are far stronger as taboos, and far more adaptable to new situations and technologies, than blanket "We do not do this!" statements. The same research that gave us the nuclear warhead gave us the nuclear reactor, after all - and now warheads are being decommissioned to fuel more reactors.

[Ephiral]

1 - Snow may ne white and the sky may be blue but that is a pointless arguemnt as its not about faith or religion.

You have completely missed the point here. The statement was not about snow, it was about truth. More generally: A statement is true if and only if it accurately reflects the real world.

2 - There is no right answer its like saying Slavery was acceptable or that all religion should be baned. There is no right or wrong way to believe in anything, its peoples views and beliefs thats it and just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean everyone has to.

If you really think that, then answer me this: Can you cross a busy highway safely by believing that cars cannot harm you? Can you go without food or water by simply believing yourself above such petty concerns? Can you respond to this post without a computer by believing hard enough?

There are absolutely correct and incorrect beliefs. A correct one makes a statement about reality that matches that reality. An incorrect one makes a statement about reality that does not match that reality. It's really that simple.

For the record, your habit of ascribing things like war and slavery to the godless? Really fucking offensive. Please stop.

3 - yer and? snows white, the skys blue and grass is green so what, that has no point in an arguement over faith and belief and religion.

Really? A definition of truth has no place in a discussion of beliefs? I... find this confusing.

4 - No there isn't.
People believe what they want and that is whatever they wish to be right or wrong but openly and honestly there is NO wrong or right answer to anything, except murder and other things like that.

Um. If you truly believe that factual questions do not have factual answers, I wonder how you are typing this. After all, your belief in your computer can't possibly be right, can it?

Faith and belief happens in everything we do every day.

Belief, yes. Faith... maybe in everything you do. Stop assuming your experience is universal.

Its like you telling a preist there is no god, he/she would stand there and argue with you till the moon was blue and the sky was pink if he/she had to.And would the length of the argument affect its truth value? Or is the truth of the argument determined by whether or not there is actually a God?
Just as i will state the whole snow is white and sky is blue thing is invalid in a arguement over faith and religion.
Like if you went to the pope and said there is no god.
I bet he would argue with you until the whole world was gone, there's no right or wrong but he wouldn't stand their if and argue if you said a valid point to do with science or your belief in whatever you believe in f you do.

You are wrong on two major counts here. First: There is a right or wrong. Either God exists in the form the Pope or the priest asserts, or he does not. Either way, one of us is right, and the other is wrong. Our inability to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt which is the case does not affect the fact that one of these two things is true, and one is not. Second: Yes, people do routinely argue valid points. In fact, when presented with hard-and-fast irrefutable evidence that proves them wrong, most people tend to double down.

as i said no wrong or right way to belief in anything and theres no explanation for everything.

Except you've completely failed to make your case, and you have failed to make it using a machine that is powered by a quantum-mechanical explanation of reality as we know it.

You're welcome to your passionate beliefs. Just stop trying to pretend that literally all evidence has no effect on truth value or our estimations thereof, and please stop the incredibly offensive treatment of atheists.

[LordHarketh193]

Whatever you say Ephiral, but i'm not saying everything i believe in is correct.

For example how does a scientist show his work of he does not have faith in his results or any belief that it is correct?
Or how does a religous man explain god is real?

Its faith and belief.
And facts.
The bible is god's facts by christians.
The science of today and the last few centrys is what facts science has.

I'm saying theirs no right or wrong way to believe in anything, there is wrong things to believe in but theres no wrong way to believe in anything.

And i apologies to the atheists but i am not saying i am correct or wrong.
Its a opinion and belief.

I have said i have no arguement with any religion or kind of person, people believe what they want that is what i am saying theres no right or wrong to believe in anything.

[Ephiral]

Whatever you say Ephiral, but i'm not saying everything i believe in is correct.

No, you're saying that absolutely no belief of any sort can possibly ever be correct. Which is, frankly, wrong.

For example how does a scientist show his work of he does not have faith in his results or any belief that it is correct?

"Belief that it is correct" does not necessitate faith. He doesn't need to "have faith" in his results; he can check the actual process and data acquired, and then put it out to his peers to check for errors. This is how science works.

Or how does a religous man explain god is real?

In my experience, poorly, relying on demands for blind faith instead of evidence.

Its faith and belief.
And facts.
The bible is god's facts by christians.
The science of today and the last few centrys is what facts science has.

No. You get your own opinions. You do not get your own facts. The Bible's geocentricism is not correct just because the Bible says so, for example; it is provably (and proven) wrong.

I'm saying theirs no right or wrong way to believe in anything, there is wrong things to believe in but theres no wrong way to believe in anything.

I suppose that depends on what your goals are. Mine is to hold beliefs which are true.

And i apologies to the atheists but i am not saying i am correct or wrong.
Its a opinion and belief.

And your "opinion" is both factually incorrect and incredibly offensive. I'd suggest you refrain from ascribing evil and only evil to other, substantial demographics on E, especially when doing so is provably wrong.

I have said i have no arguement with any religion or kind of person, people believe what they want that is what i am saying theres no right or wrong to believe in anything.

I believe you are actually a swarm of 13 926 487 tiny chartreuse devils pretending to be a single person. Is this belief right or wrong?

Also, it's really hard to accept both "I have no argument with you" and "nuclear war and slavery are your fault, nyah nyah!" as true. They're kinda contradictory.

[LordHarketh193]

And your "opinion" is both factually incorrect and incredibly offensive. I'd suggest you refrain from ascribing evil and only evil to other, substantial demographics on E, especially when doing so is provably wrong.
I believe you are actually a swarm of 13 926 487 tiny chartreuse devils pretending to be a single person. Is this belief right or wrong?

Also, it's really hard to accept both "I have no argument with you" and "nuclear war and slavery are your fault, nyah nyah!" as true. They're kinda contradictory.

If thats what you believe then thats what you believe, i can not say it is wrong or right.
There is no right or wrong way to believe anything.

I never said they are YOUR fault, its humans who caused it (well the americans who started the civil war because of it) and thats it.

[Ephiral]

I'm going to handle this in inverse order because holy shit.

I never said they are YOUR fault, its humans who caused it (well the americans who started the civil war because of it) and thats it.

2 - There is no right answer its like saying Slavery was acceptable or that all religion should be baned.

So your assertion is that this is equally valid as a religious position? And which religion holds that all religion should be banned, hm?

Moving on to the first half of your post:

If thats what you believe then thats what you believe, i can not say it is wrong or right.
There is no right or wrong way to believe anything.

...really. Seriously. This is your position. You cannot say whether or not it is factually correct that you are a swarm of tiny devils, because that would be assigning truth value to something.

Okay, I think I'm done here.

[LordHarketh193]

So your assertion is that this is equally valid as a religious position? And which religion holds that all religion should be banned, hm?

Moving on to the first half of your post:
...really. Seriously. This is your position. You cannot say whether or not it is factually correct that you are a swarm of tiny devils, because that would be assigning truth value to something.

Okay, I think I'm done here.

None. it was just a point.

Nope. We're made up of particals, water and skin with fat and tissue and bones.
So i'm sure i'm not a devil though we all have devils inside us. Its life.

okay.

[Kythia]

If I might, I think you're separated by a common language here.  I think you're using words like "right", "correct", "valid" and so on in two subtly different ways.

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here, but reading it through:

Harketh seems to be saying that everything/a lot of things are valid as a belief system.  That is to say, Christianity, Chartreuse devils and anything else you might think of fulfils all the criteria to be a belief system.  Which is fine (from my point of view here, Ephiral is more than capable of deciding whether she agrees with it or)

Ephiral seems to be arguing that some belief systems - or, rather, one in particular - conforms to reality.  Or, if we want to be super pedantic, is focused around refining itself until it does, I don't want to give the impression I think science is "finished."  So when he talks about correctness and suchlike he isn't focusing on the belief system per se but rather how well the results of that system conform to reality, and a "valid" one is one which conforms as well as possible.

So.  After stating I didn't want to put words in anyone's mouth then proceeding to do exactly that, I shall bow out.  Just observations from an onlooker.

Welcome to E, by the way, LordHarketh193.  Congratulations on your approval.

[Ephiral]

Yeah, that's pretty much where I was going, Kythia. As you say, science is, of course, not finished - and is sometimes not the best tool (it's glacially slow for important decisions, for one thing, and it says not one damn thing about morality without outside help). I don't uphold it as the be-all end-all. But... I hold that any belief which says something about reality should have its validity measured by its accuracy. That which we know does not conform to reality should be discarded. That which has no credible supporting evidence should not be considered equally valid to that which does. That which does not say something about reality... well, then we get into confusing territory quickly, since there's no such litmus test for validity - though there are still some beliefs in this category that are demonstrably horrible ideas.

[Cthonig]

    Should we play "god" by ... hmm, wait, god really doesn't have a good record. So, play "god", no. Advance technology to save lives, improve ourselves, etc.? Yes, definitely.

    As others have mentioned, we need to use our ethics. Bad scripting of movies aside, scientists generally have good ethics so they aren't the problem. It's what gets done with the technology that we need to worry about and put a stop to sometimes. For example, cars and cell phones. Cell phones aren't a danger in and of themselves. Cars ... well, they are a danger but one we've chosen to have in our lives. But the best thing right now would be some ethical choices on the part of car manufacturers: installing (short-range) signal jammers in all vehicles which are automatically switched on when the vehicle is in gear. No calls or texting cuts down on possible accidents. Testing has confirmed that phone calls and texting while driving are as dangerous as drinking and driving.

It hasn't always worked out for the best in every case. I think we're regretting moving the cane toad or kudzu out of their natural habitat and similar mistakes. However despite the mistakes and set-backs overall these actions have done a lot to improve the quality of life.
Yes of course we should continue to advance but we do need to occasionally be a little more careful.

Indeed. But it's not just technology as you point out here. We thought asbestos was a good thing but, as it turns out, not so much. I think we should study genetically modified plants and animals over a long period so we only use the safest ones but should not ban them outright.

There would be, in a Gattaca world, people who want to work with modified people, and there would be people who are modified who don't like normal people, and people who are normal who don't like modified people, and that's not even getting into who can and can't GET it.
...
The question isn't about IF we should 'play god,' but HOW we should.

Indeed. Some people have speculated that if we could engineer our children then some people might decide to not have any gay children. But (and this goes back to the idea of unforeseen consequences) what if the potential for being gay is too closely tied into beneficial traits like creativity and performing? (There has been some evidence that this might be the case.)

Science... is really just another religion as far as I'm concerned, it's built up on faith at its very core because ultimately we're faith-based creatures. I hardly think science is the problem, the problem is that science is just a newer facet of the same old issue: humanity.  :\ 

To the average person who has no clue about science, it could be considered to be a matter of belief but it is not a religion. I know that until I read up on evolution I believed in it but really had no clue. Once I learned more, I no longer believed in it, instead I understood evolution. Since I've always been interested in physics and dabbled in other sciences, if I can fail at understanding something then it's almost certain that someone who doesn't have an interest only believes.
    That said, there is still a huge difference between science and religion: science can be proven and people can be educated as to what it actually entails while religion has no facts to be proven and involves blind belief, not education. This is part of the danger of religion: if taken too far, it blinds people to reality. "Faith" in science is normally trust while faith in religion is just blindness.
    Unfortunately, there are a lot of anti-science people – usually religious – out there who really have no clue what they are talking about but they talk loudly, often, and throw around a lot of money it seems.

-Their core argument was that science and religion can learn from each other. They completely failed to support the idea that science can learn from religion in any way at all.

I can think of things science can learn from religion: how to manipulate people, how to indoctrinate people, the denial people engage in for societal companionship and  reinforcement, the unifying effect of music in a group, and a few more things. Wait, you did mean scientific study of religion as a social phenomenon, right?

For example how does a scientist show his work of he does not have faith in his results or any belief that it is correct?
...
I have said i have no arguement with any religion or kind of person, people believe what they want that is what i am saying theres no right or wrong to believe in anything.

No, a scientist does not have faith in his work. He knows whether or not he has tried to do the best he can to perform all the experiments correctly and report the results accurately.
    There are wrong beliefs. If a mother believes her children are suffering and that killing them is the best thing for them, that is a wrong belief – very, very, very wrong. So there are wrong beliefs.

    Moraline brings up the subject of fusion – not only should we develop it, we desperately need it. If we can develop self-sustaining fusion reactors, we will have an alternate energy source which is cleaner than fossil fuels and fission but more reliable than solar, wind, etc. Humanity desperately needs this a decade ago but since we can't time travel, now will do. This is an example of "Heck, yes!" for should we keep advancing our technology.

[LordHarketh193]

    There are wrong beliefs. If a mother believes her children are suffering and that killing them is the best thing for them, that is a wrong belief – very, very, very wrong. So there are wrong beliefs.

    Moraline brings up the subject of fusion – not only should we develop it, we desperately need it. If we can develop self-sustaining fusion reactors, we will have an alternate energy source which is cleaner than fossil fuels and fission but more reliable than solar, wind, etc. Humanity desperately needs this a decade ago but since we can't time travel, now will do. This is an example of "Heck, yes!" for should we keep advancing our technology.

Yes you are right, that is wrong but if their religion says its right then to them its right.
There are some things that are wrong but to others their right.

Yes we should have had this deacade of new clean energy before it became too late, btu i assume its better late than never right?
But adaption is always good, like the foxes that live in the north pole their smaller and white and the one's in forests or nature reservse are brown and orange(ish) and bigger.
if only humans could continue to adpat well and quickly.

If I might, I think you're separated by a common language here.  I think you're using words like "right", "correct", "valid" and so on in two subtly different ways.

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth here, but reading it through:

Harketh seems to be saying that everything/a lot of things are valid as a belief system.  That is to say, Christianity, Chartreuse devils and anything else you might think of fulfils all the criteria to be a belief system.  Which is fine (from my point of view here, Ephiral is more than capable of deciding whether she agrees with it or)

Ephiral seems to be arguing that some belief systems - or, rather, one in particular - conforms to reality.  Or, if we want to be super pedantic, is focused around refining itself until it does, I don't want to give the impression I think science is "finished."  So when he talks about correctness and suchlike he isn't focusing on the belief system per se but rather how well the results of that system conform to reality, and a "valid" one is one which conforms as well as possible.

So.  After stating I didn't want to put words in anyone's mouth then proceeding to do exactly that, I shall bow out.  Just observations from an onlooker.

Welcome to E, by the way, LordHarketh193.  Congratulations on your approval.

Yes that's what i was getting at.
Thank you Kythia :)

and thank you for the welcoming :)

[Sabby]

Yes you are right, that is wrong but if their religion says its right then to them its right.

Dude, could you please keep a consistent stance? You change your position every post. It's making it very hard for us to follow.

Is there right and wrong beliefs or is everything up to personal choice? Pick one and stick to it.

[Mathim]

Yes you are right, that is wrong but if their religion says its right then to them its right.
There are some things that are wrong but to others their right.

Yes we should have had this deacade of new clean energy before it became too late, btu i assume its better late than never right?
But adaption is always good, like the foxes that live in the north pole their smaller and white and the one's in forests or nature reservse are brown and orange(ish) and bigger.
if only humans could continue to adpat well and quickly.




Yes that's what i was getting at.
Thank you Kythia :)

and thank you for the welcoming :)

That's the point I was making. Our technology advances faster than we do (culturally and psychologically, not physically, that's kind of irrelevant to this sort of thing) and that's going to create problems. It'll influence the types of technology we come up with and how it's used even though alternatives with a more positive effect can be produced instead. If only, IF ONLY, we were collectively wise, critically-thinking and compassionate enough to move forward in accordance. Sadly that is not the case. Now if only most of us were not actively lobbying against that sort of cohesiveness, that would still be fantastic. But we don't even get that as a consolation.

You sound kind of nihilistic or solipsistic rather than theistic, actually. Like you subscribe to the belief that we can't concretely prove anything is true but not for the same reasons as, say, that we can't prove we aren't just brains in a jar dreaming that this is reality; it's hard to figure out exactly the reasoning behind your indecisive view of objective reality.

Admittedly, uncertainty is a given. We can't know anything for 100% certain, we can only do research and experiments to enhance our finite understanding of things and have reasonable expectations of how things work or how things will unfold. But this pertains to tangible things like is grass green or is there enough oxygen to breathe underwater. Going by the other methods is understandably a bit weird and unsettling when, as Ephiral was kind enough to point out, other methods have been proven false. No amount of belief is going to make those true. Even the supernatural, if proven by science, will be believed with enough evidence but then they wouldn't be supernatural anymore, would they? Science is not intransigent. Blind faith and beliefs of that nature ARE intransigent. Which is usually the one that is going to be better in the long run? Is a person who never changes their mind about anything going to be generally happy, have a lot of good friends, healthy relationships and a bright future? I'm not going to answer that. I have a feeling certain beliefs will inevitably lead anyone who reads this question to come up with their own, and there will be a broad spectrum of answers.

When it comes to ethical questions it gets muddy. While there are 'yes' or 'no' questions (is it wrong to murder? Is depriving people of live-saving treatment because they can't afford it permissible in today's world?), unlike in science there are usually loads of grey areas and exceptions and whatnot from every point of view. No one can claim absolute moral authority, that is derived from societies. Logic dictates that 'right' comes from different criteria, such as whatever promotes greatest societal health (interestingly enough, most societies with the highest concentrations of atheists have the highest levels of societal health...funny old world, isn't it?) or what causes the greatest amount of well-being and the least amount of pain. Can anyone claim with utmost certainty that these are absolutely correct? Of course not. There is simply no way to know such a thing, barring a creator admitting its existence openly to the entire human race in an undeniable way and saying so, which to my knowledge has yet to occur.

All we can do is make choices. Wrong or right, we make them all the time, and rationalize them so we don't get eaten alive by guilt when we make ones we feel are wrong. Are we always right? No. Are we always wrong? No. We're human. We need to accept we're at this current stage of evolution and we need to keep moving forward. Now that we have a firm grasp of the concept we ought to be taking steps to speed up the process. We're now the dominant life form on this planet, it's our responsibility to become worthy of that for more than just our ability to outsmart our animal counterparts. With great power comes great responsibility. It's almost poetic justice in things like Terminator or The Matrix or I, Robot where our own creations turn against us and punish us for just being who we are since we can't pull it together ourselves. It shouldn't take that kind of apocalyptic wake-up call for us to finally pull our collective heads out of our asses and become what we need to be, the responsible caretakers of the planet we live on. I may claim to have a solution that will work and fix most if not all our problems; I believe it will work but I don't expect any single other person in the world to agree with me, but I can believe I'm right, and that makes me feel content. It's not a religious belief (quite the opposite, in fact) but I am very aware it is only a belief and should be treated as such. I'm not going to live my life as though my belief is true because I understand reality is something that renders it moot. If only more people could follow that example. It also doesn't mean I'm closed-minded about listening to others' ideas, yet another nice example more people could stand to follow.

If we continue on the current path all we'll get out of our technology is the ability to kill more effectively and record it in resolution that makes real-life look unsatisfying compared to the screen.

[littlerooster]

Perhaps if there is a God we were given higher intelligence so we could fix our own problems and improve things. So yes, why pray to a God to cure a disease or stop famine when we have the power to fix these things ourselves.

I always think of this story, when I hear arguments about playing God.

A man is walking home one day, it is a long distance but he is fit and willing, it starts to rain, the rain gets worse and soon he is up to his knees in water, he prays to God, "please let me get home before it gets too deep" he asks God.

A man on a horse comes along and offers him help,  "No, no, God will not let me drown" the man says and waves the horseman off.

He keeps walking and now the water is just past his waist, a man in a boat comes along and offers him a ride. "No, no, God won't let me drown" and he waves the sailor off.

And the water reaches his neck, a man in a helicopter comes along and throws down a ladder "No, no, God won't let me drown" the man yells and waves the pilot away.

And then the water rises past his neck and the man drowns.

The man goes to heaven and is speaking with God "I asked you for help and you let me drown, why?" he asks confused.

"What do you mean I let you drown? I sent a horse, a boat and a chopper, you waved them all away!" God responds.

The point of course being is that people think some hand is going to come down and help them but we don't live in a disney movie.

[Caela]

Looking at this question from the perspective of someone who does believe in Diety...my answer is still yes.

We "play god" all the time. When medical scientists starting making vaccines an all but eradicated (at least in first world countries) things like smallpox and polio, we were playing god and to good effect. When other scientists figured out how to split the atom and the military used that to create nuclear weapons that was us playing god to some very negative effects.

We play god all the time. It's human nature to be curious, to experiment, to discover and innovate and create new things. It's my personal belief that "God" (in whatever form a person may, or may not as the case may be) created us with those traits, that Diety wants us to learn and grow and expand. Do we screw up sometimes? Yes. Do our discoveries and innovations sometimes gallop along faster than our social mores? All the time. Does that mean we should put a halt on experimentation and discovery? No. It means we, as a people, should work harder to educated the next generation, to raise our children with the knowledge, understanding, and mores needed to try and keep up with the discoveries that will come along in their lifetimes and maybe be able to answer some of the questions we can't.

[alextaylor]

As long as it's voluntary to be the victim of playing god.

GM food? Sure. Just don't make me eat it.
200 year lifespan? Sure. But I'm opting out of it.
Cloning? Probably not, unless you can make sure the clone isn't prone to getting cancer.

We've already played God plenty. Life expectancy took a massive spike in the last half century alone, thanks to medical progress. But it comes at a major cost. Medical bills are crippling economies. My parents are practically living on life support... one has failed organs all over, the other is living on a plastic bag full of pills every month. Compare Gen X to the Baby Boomer generation.

I have a relative who's a nurse in a very good hospital. She was a proponent of medical pills, took them for everything. 30 years later, she's the unhealthiest in the family, allergic to so many things that she had to retire early because she couldn't be around drugs.

Should we stop? Probably not. But we should be wary of the side effects.

Personally, one thing I am worried about is that there'd be some super steroid 'with minimal effects' that everyone takes, and later on realizes that the effects kick in unexpectedly. I think that one of humanity's strength is its weakness - people are slower and weaker than animals, and developed better tools and tool usage as a result from it. A tiger or gorilla is physically superior to any man, but the man will win because of tools. If we could engineer super-soldiers, we might be reverting socially after a few generations, because we'd no longer need as many tools. Many empires fall when their citizens become too comfortable and decadent.

[Ephiral]

GM food? Sure. Just don't make me eat it.

This one in particular strikes me as a bad example: Try finding a food that wasn't genetically modified before we knew what genes were. You don't really have a choice here, and this was not an issue before people started making completely unfounded allegations.

We've already played God plenty. Life expectancy took a massive spike in the last half century alone, thanks to medical progress. But it comes at a major cost. Medical bills are crippling economies. My parents are practically living on life support... one has failed organs all over, the other is living on a plastic bag full of pills every month. Compare Gen X to the Baby Boomer generation.

None of these are actual costs. Citation sorely fucking needed on medical bills crippling economies (as opposed to bankrupting individuals and households, which is a problem with an economic model and not with medicine). As to your parents? They would have been dead at a significantly younger age without medicine. Something that gives you more is not a cost. If they're forced against their will to continue living, that's a different matter - but again, that's not medicine's fault, that's a societal taboo problem. The answer here is more "playing god", not less.

I have a relative who's a nurse in a very good hospital. She was a proponent of medical pills, took them for everything. 30 years later, she's the unhealthiest in the family, allergic to so many things that she had to retire early because she couldn't be around drugs.

The plural of anecdote is not data. Do you have any evidence that people who rely on modern medicine, on average, are less healthy than people that don't? (Hint: Look at quality-of-life and life-expectancy values for nations where medicine is freely and widely available vs ones where it is not.)

[Cthonig]

GM food? Sure. Just don't make me eat it.

That's your option - sort of. As Ephiral said, we already eat (genetically) modified food. I'm not worried about the GM food as long as sufficient testing is done. I'm worried about the growing tread towards monoculture - the overuse of only one crop/plant species. And I'm guessing that GM foods could lead to even more monoculture agriculture which will be very susceptible to being wiped out by disease/pest.

Life expectancy took a massive spike in the last half century alone, thanks to medical progress. But it comes at a major cost. Medical bills are crippling economies. My parents are practically living on life support... one has failed organs all over, the other is living on a plastic bag full of pills every month.

That's not an issue of playing god. That's an issue of people with distorted morals deciding for everyone that continued existence is "life" and is "sacred". We treat our pets more humanely at the end of their lives than we do other humans. People should have the option - without others making them feel bad - of not going to extremes for continuing their lives. The fact that money can be made off of the nearly dead being kept alive doesn't help the matter either.

I have a relative who's a nurse in a very good hospital. She was a proponent of medical pills, took them for everything. 30 years later, she's the unhealthiest in the family, allergic to so many things that she had to retire early because she couldn't be around drugs.

That sounds very much like someone who went too far with the pills. One doesn't normally develop an allergy (which you implied) with normal usage.

Personally, one thing I am worried about is that there'd be some super steroid 'with minimal effects' that everyone takes, and later on realizes that the effects kick in unexpectedly.

Well, that scenario is unrealistic, even if characteristic of too many (bad) movies. There is always something someone won't take. But going with the idea of many people taking it: such a situation would depend upon how thorough the testing was. If the testing requirements are "streamlined" too much, such a situation is remotely possible. But it will affect people at different rates and with different severity. Additionally, there will be those who are more susceptible as well as those who are more resistant. And we will be able to use those extremes to help determine how to deal with it.

[alextaylor]

As to your parents? They would have been dead at a significantly younger age without medicine. Something that gives you more is not a cost. 

Death isn't the worst thing that can happen. It's a choice between living a life full of pain (or living on painkillers) and dying. Of course, as long as you're allowed to keep someone alive, you're compelled to by ethics and culture, even if death is an end to suffering. I know it's a horrible thing to say. But when I'm old, I wouldn't want to be living with chronic pain, lying down 80% of the time, forced to eat bland food, taking day-long trips to the hospital.

Citation sorely fucking needed on medical bills crippling economies

It's common knowledge. E.g. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/a-world-of-rising-health-care-costs/ "Crippling" might be a little dramatic, but nobody can deny that they're a significant cost.

(Hint: Look at quality-of-life and life-expectancy values for nations where medicine is freely and widely available vs ones where it is not.)

Compare Cuban healthcare expenditure to American healthcare. America spends significantly more, and yet their life expectancy is only slightly higher. I would dig up the data for you if you asked nicely, but you seem to be argumentative, so would probably be a waste of time. But when looking at statistics, note that life expectancy does not tell the whole story. Accidents and violent crime reduce life expectancy greatly. A country with not enough money to spend on health will likely not spend on infrastructure or crime prevention, and those are the things which reduce quality of life and life expectancy.

That's your option - sort of. As Ephiral said, we already eat (genetically) modified food. I'm not worried about the GM food as long as sufficient testing is done. I'm worried about the growing tread towards monoculture - the overuse of only one crop/plant species. And I'm guessing that GM foods could lead to even more monoculture agriculture which will be very susceptible to being wiped out by disease/pest.

No such thing as sufficient testing. Tests on rats are better than nothing, but not sufficient. You'd have to test it on humans (like early adopters), and test it over a long period of time for long term effects. I'm actually fine eating the stuff, but there should be an option for people not to, so that the human race doesn't die out in case it turns us into zombies or whatever.

That sounds very much like someone who went too far with the pills. One doesn't normally develop an allergy (which you implied) with normal usage.

Depends on what you mean by "normal usage". Used sparingly (like once a year), fine. But most of them have side effects. A lot of the pills given to very sick people are there to counter one side effect after another. Pharmaceuticals work because it's designed to do one specific thing. Any doctor will tell you that any medicine that does anything has a side effect, but whether or not that side effect is hazardous is up for debate.

[Cthonig]

No such thing as sufficient testing. Tests on rats are better than nothing, but not sufficient. You'd have to test it on humans (like early adopters), and test it over a long period of time for long term effects. I'm actually fine eating the stuff, but there should be an option for people not to, so that the human race doesn't die out in case it turns us into zombies or whatever.

It depends upon how you define sufficient. You seem to be using a more conservative concept in your definition. Yet you finish the paragraph with a reference to zombies - lol.
    Even if someone custom designed a pathogen with the right blend of contagion, delay of onset and lethality, the pathogen still would not wipe out everyone. Sure, such a disease would be devastating. But it would be difficult to wipe out humanity. So, GM foods will not wipe out humanity.

    As for zombies, some of us explored that topic in this thread: After the Zombie Apocalypse. No one has posted in it since March 5th since we pretty much beat the subject to death but you might find it an interesting read.

[Ephiral]

Death isn't the worst thing that can happen. It's a choice between living a life full of pain (or living on painkillers) and dying. Of course, as long as you're allowed to keep someone alive, you're compelled to by ethics and culture, even if death is an end to suffering. I know it's a horrible thing to say. But when I'm old, I wouldn't want to be living with chronic pain, lying down 80% of the time, forced to eat bland food, taking day-long trips to the hospital.

Again, the solution to this is more "playing god", not less: We need to support voluntary end-of-life measures, not force an involuntary end that many would not find acceptable.

It's common knowledge. E.g. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/a-world-of-rising-health-care-costs/ "Crippling" might be a little dramatic, but nobody can deny that they're a significant cost.

Not just "a little dramatic", but "completely unsupported by your source". America in particular is a poor example, since it's insanely wasteful, and you'll note what the article says happened when the economy couldn't support continued growth: It stopped growing. This isn't killing economies, and isn't projected to, by what you've presented. Rather, it grows when economies grow, and doesn't when they don't.

Compare Cuban healthcare expenditure to American healthcare. America spends significantly more, and yet their life expectancy is only slightly higher. I would dig up the data for you if you asked nicely, but you seem to be argumentative, so would probably be a waste of time. But when looking at statistics, note that life expectancy does not tell the whole story. Accidents and violent crime reduce life expectancy greatly. A country with not enough money to spend on health will likely not spend on infrastructure or crime prevention, and those are the things which reduce quality of life and life expectancy.

A single case is not the whole picture, particularly when the nations in question aren't particularly comparable. Take a look at the US vs, say, most of Europe. Or Canada. Or other wealthy industrialized nations. Or look at other nations of about Cuba's wealth level that don't make medicine freely and widely available, as compared to Cuba.

No such thing as sufficient testing. Tests on rats are better than nothing, but not sufficient. You'd have to test it on humans (like early adopters), and test it over a long period of time for long term effects. I'm actually fine eating the stuff, but there should be an option for people not to, so that the human race doesn't die out in case it turns us into zombies or whatever.

The problem is that, once again, this is not an option and has not been since before we discovered genes. Every single thing we eat is genetically modified; it's simply that some of it is done the old-fashioned slow way with unpredictable and often undesirable results, vs the modern faster more predictable way that generally gets us at least some of what we want.

[JadeArwen]

Yes, why should we not?

I can't think of any good argument for ever halting human development.

Yes and I agree with Meikle