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.
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.