Genetic Engineering - Good or Bad?

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

I have to agree with /)eathkiller here. Natural law dictates that only the strong survive. What we do with that strengh will determine if WE survive.Also,if it wasnt for religiuos freaks like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell crying hellfire and damnation over stem cells we wouldnt need to geneticaly alter ANYTHING !! Science can use stem cells to grow human parts in a lab without and external influences. I dont know about the rest of you people out there , but if I have a choice between having a heart cut from a pig put in me or a clone of my own heart grown for me with stem cells , I am going for the purely human parts.IMHO it is safer useing original parts and easier to live with knowing that something wasnt wastefully killed so that I could live. Killing for food = good , killing for just a heart or a lung and discarding the rest = BAD!! Morality has no place in the realms of new sciences. All these people jump on the anti stem cell bandwagon without being truly informed. The cell clusters they gather stem cells from arent any bigger than a ball of a dozen or so cells. Anyone who tries to convince me that a oval ball of cells is an embryo or an infant is going to have a hard row to plow.There is no guarantee that that ball of cells will ever be anything more than it is. Especialy since the cells they get from fertility clinics , if not wanted by the donors are just washed down the drain anyway. Why waste what can be put to good use?? I dont hear anyone bitching about that!! Where are all the anti stem cell people when clinics simply flush the cells down the sink??

I also agre with Neb on the useing prisoners for testing. They should select prisoners with death sentances and simply give them a choice. Life as a lab rat in some dark corner of the prison or the lethal injection that most of them deserve. At least then nothing would be forced on them.

If there are no experiments then there can be no research, without research there will be no new knowledge. Without new Knowledge stagnation and death will set in as we reach mental enertia.

[K T Ong]

Originally posted by /)eathKiller: Pigs dont have sentience they can't truley thing for themselves outside of instict, neither can labrats, I say that Natural law gives us the right to do whatever we want with such creatures. The only animal in the entire kingdom that we shouldn't test with is Dolphins due to their sentience and inteligence, all other creatures are fair game, no matter how endangered, because through genetics we can always re-create those creatures with the greatest of ease! We should just keep on experinmenting until we make uses for every little thing, the same should be done with all sciences like physics. We should keep designing machines and equiptment that will take us off of this world and we shouldn't stick byt he same ideas. Fuel consumption is another thing that I feel is being wasted too much. We shouldn't place dependencies on unreplinishable things any longer, we must better the world through science, and any ASPCA supporter who would rather place a lab rat over a person with Alzheimers, then I'm sorry, BUT THEY ARE NOT HUMAN. We should also allow human cloning! Forget about all restrictions Science should be a playing feild, like sports. We need to enter a new golden age and renesance by supporting Creativity RATHER than Questioning it or even mentioning Morality! The only Morality is Human Survival as a whole that is all we should care about and nothing more!

No offense, /)eathkiller, but I have to say I find myself compelled to disagree with you on at least a few points.

To begin with, I think the degree of sentience of an animal is just irrelevant when it comes to how animals should be treated. The relevant issue is whether they are capable of experiencing pain. John Stuart Mill said as much. And I think they can. It is just human arrogance to say that we have been given the right to do with animals what we please. (Yes, I think we should all be vegetarians. )

If we need to cut animals up at all to learn more about the workings of nature, then I say we should do so only if and when we can find no alternative means to increase our store of knowledge, and even then only with the least possible pain being inflicted on them, and as rarely as possible. Frankly, did we have to cut up people the same way we cut up animals before we could learn more about the human body?

There are certain things of greater value than the advancement of scientific knowledge -- and mere human survival. Surely we don't want to say that the advancement of science is so important that we should even sacrifice innocent human lives for its sake. (The mad scientist Capek from the FPS game Red Faction would say so, though. )

Coming to the issue of genetic engineering and its pros and cons, I say all knowledge of gene manipulation should come under the tightest control in its use and dissemination. This sort of thing is just too dangerous to fall into the wrong hands. I do think, though, that it will be only a matter of time before it does fall into the wrong hands. The human race is simply not yet of sufficient ethical maturity to be able to wield such knowledge with full responsibility. It really would have been better if we didn't have such knowledge, though by now it can only be wishful thinking. Can only hope no major genetic catastrophe will occur within my lifetime and/or near where I live.

The greatest possible danger of genetic engineering is that we might create a new type of organism which the biosphere wouldn't know how to handle. In nature, every species of organism has various natural enemies or predators to hold its populations in check. That way a balance is maintained between various species in an ecosystem. Introduce a new species not native to the ecosystem -- and for which there are therefore no natural enemies or predators to hold it in check -- and the new species would wreak havoc. The originally thriving ecosystem could be quickly reduced to a barren waste. This happened before, when European explorers either intentionally or unintentionally introduced into the Australian and American continents new species of organisms not native to them, such as rabbits or certain types of germs.

Imagine a new type of microbe being specially designed for military purposes. Being without any known natural enemies, it could decimate the human race, or even the entire biosphere.

My two cents.

[ 07-08-2002, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

[Nanobyte]

if God wanted us to play god he would have made us.. gods?.. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[ 07-08-2002, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Nanobyte ]

[Leonis]

Originally posted by Sir Kenyth: ... How do you think we get such high yields, large fruits, and ranges of growing climates?...

How do you think we get such low flavour, so little taste and plant foods that all taste blandly the same?

[/)eathKiller]

Originally posted by Nanobyte: if God wanted us to play god he would have made us gods.. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

God made us Imperfect, in his own image, and with that comes creativity, and creation itself, just as god created the universe he has given us the power to create the world around ourselves. Sentience. And he also gave us the fruits and trees and animals and gave them all TO US for use! but let's not get religeon factored into this, as Ziroc has dictated that he would rather not have arguments spring up again.

So Simply I must say that we as humans have the power and if we don't use it while we have it then we're going to lose it and revert back to the dark ages!

[Nanobyte]

you're taking it too seriously. here, let me modify.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Hunter,

I have to admit that I find your constant referral to "Natural selection favoring survival of the fittest" more than a little disturbing. It sounds too much like the same justification used by bullies everywhere - (I'm bigger and stronger than you, so I have every right to pound on you if I want to). But, aside from the "bully mentality", let's look at the practical application of "Survival of the Fittest".

One of the closest representations we have to that would be boxing. Two men go into a ring and face off against each other. Most of the time, the stronger or "more fit" of the two is the winner. That's great for the short term, but look at the larger picture. MOST boxers are suffering numerous physical ailments by their mid-30's due to the constant abuse thier body takes. Even if you look at the "choreographed alternative" to boxing (professional wrestling), the same conditions hold true. These paragons of male-fitness aren't actually hurting each other - at least not intentionally - but the same holds true for them. By their 30's and 40's, the physical abuse has taken a serious toll on their bodies.

In the wild, the same principal holds true. Lions are dominated by the strongest male. He is the king of the pride...until a younger, stronger lion comes along. Then he is cast out, or at least to the bottom of the heirarchy.

"Survival of the fittest" - where each member is only concerned with THEIR individual survival, ultimately leads to a shortened lifespan for the whole species.

You also mentioned everybody's two favorite Christian punching bags - Falwell and Robertson - but they aren't the only ones who object to "stem cell research" based on morality issues. The LARGE majority of Congress feels the same way - because that is how their constituents feel.

However, I am shocked that you would advocate stem cell research at all. Why do you endorse it? To find cures for diseases? Why would you want to do that?

Disease is Nature's way of weeding out the weak. It's Natural Selection. You say that, if you needed a heart transplant, you would rather have a human heart than a pigs. That may well be true, but if you truly beleive in "survival of the fittest", then wouldn't you agree that you don't deserve a heart transplant at all? After all, if your own heart is too weak to sustain your body, then you obviously aren't the "fittest", and Natural Selection dictates that you should not survive.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Deathbringer: I would hate to be a genetically engineered pig, waiting for some human to get sick so that they could kill me and steal my organs.

Er, how is this different from being a non genetically engineered pig, waiting for humans to get hungry so they can kill me and eat my meat and organs?

[K T Ong]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Er, how is this different from being a non genetically engineered pig, waiting for humans to get hungry so they can kill me and eat my meat and organs?

Silver Cheetah, Cerek posed the same question as you in a post that came a couple posts after Deathbringer's.

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by K T Ong: quote: Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Er, how is this different from being a non genetically engineered pig, waiting for humans to get hungry so they can kill me and eat my meat and organs?

Silver Cheetah, Cerek posed the same question as you in a post that came a couple posts after Deathbringer's.[/QUOTE]Um yes, that will teach me to read the whole thread before jumping in! Thanks, KT. By the way, I liked your post on the subject very much indeed.