Should we push bioengineering?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Norsefire, Jun 21, 2008.

?

Should we push bioengineering?

  1. Yes, it's better for the species

    14 vote(s)
    87.5%
  2. No, it is immoral/unethical

    2 vote(s)
    12.5%
  1. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    I have always believed in and supported further development of genetic and biogengineering. Not limited to just genes.


    Imagine what could be enhanced! To make the Human race more immune to disease, stronger, quicker, improve mental ability, allow for resistances to poision via stronger stomach acids, tougher bones, longer lives, perhaps even the ability to regrow limbs or perhaps to make injuries less of a problem.

    The enhancements could be endless....and then there's bionics. Imagine, if we could implement technology into our bodies to further our perfection.

    This could be necessary in ensuring the survival of the species.

    But should we pursue this? And if so, to what extent?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. WyldCard4 Registered Member

    Messages:
    5
    I agree with you there.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    Why should we consider only what is best for humans as a species? Is it really such a good idea to extend everyone's life by even 10 years on average? How much more strain is that going to put on the rest of the organisms on the planet?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. jessiej920 Shake them dice and roll 'em Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    What about genetic profiling for soldiers. Do you think that if it was possible to detect a gene that allows certain people to kill without remorse, no PTSD, or psychological breaks, that they should be reared to be soldiers? Just a random thought. And if such a gene was detected, how would you seperate nature versus nurture? Could such a gene lay dormant until something activates it? Would people be in the wrong to activate a gene that allows for merciless killing?
     
  8. PsychoticEpisode It is very dry in here today Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,452
    If we do find such a gene then maybe it could be eradicated forever. Wouldn't that be nice?
     
  9. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    Absolutely.
     
  10. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    I would say the choice...it is dangerous...yes, but it is dangerous
     
  11. jessiej920 Shake them dice and roll 'em Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    But think of all the soldiers who suffer major trauma due to PTSD and are unable to get the resources to help themselves. How do you erase psychological damage? Wouldn't it, in some aspects, be more humane to rear and recruit those who have the genetic propensity to not suffer from such a fate? If there were such a gene that could be manipulated into action and put to use (seeing as war is never going to be eradicated) wouldn't it make more sense to profile soldiers before hand? But then how would such a gene not be abused? It would lead to genetic profiling of all sorts of people, leveled as a weapon. And can you truly ever eliminate nurture? If nature created such a gene, how do you get around free will? These being all random thoughts, of course.
     
  12. Idle Mind What the hell, man? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,709
    We have wars due to choices we make as societies. We should be trying to find a way to peacefully resolve differences, even if you say it can't be done. The last thing we should be doing is trying to make fighting easier.
     
  13. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    He doesn't care about the rest of the organism on the planet.
    Believe me, I've talked with him about this before.
    He says humans are superior and it's keep up die for the rest.
     
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184

    Etc, etc, etc...
     
  15. Yorda Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,275
    They are "useful for our species".
     
  16. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    Exactly other organisms are useful for our species for: food, genetic shielding, ecosystem balanace...etc
     
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    But we can kill them all off the moment we don't need them anymore, right ?
    They are replaceable, right ?
     
  18. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    well not really...if we kill them all we are endangering ourselves greatly.
     
  19. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Not if they can be replaced by technology..
     
  20. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    technology cannot evolve by itself...even the best algorithm which mimicks evolution will one day halt itself.
     
  21. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What are you talking about ?
    I'm talking about the way horses were replaced by cars etc..

    Norse and you argue that life (animals and plants etc) has no value other than to serve us.
    So.. if we can find a way to survive without any other lifeforms would it be ok the eradicate them all ?
     
  22. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    Enmos...currently across the states police are going back to using bikes and horses to patrol the cities, instead of SUV's.

    horses were not replaced.

    Why would we look for other ways to survive without other lifeforms? :bugeye: They dont pose danger to us.
     
  23. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    We will Draqon.. more and more. It's an unmistakable trend..

    Do me a favor and treat it as a hypothetical question.
     

Share This Page