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
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.