Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Enmos, Jan 24, 2009.
As long as the shadow isn't of this human!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Sorry but 'careful' doesn't seem to cut it, humans have a way of screwing things up bigtime. Look at the state the world is in today.
There are plenty of other areas we can grow in, for example learning to coexist with our environment. There still has to be done loads and loads of work in that area.
Is that a diet book ?
I agree with this post.
We have made enough mess on this planet already.
I'm not saying it isn't. My point was that the religious idiots' first instinct is to have scientific research banned, while completely justifying whatever evils their faith commits.
I wouldn't be too sure about that one, Enmos.
Ah ok. I'm not religious one bit though. I just want to be sure accidents like this one never ever happen again.
What do you mean ? The way this organism turned out was accidental as well, and they only discovered it by pure luck.
There's no such thing as luck ? Only statistics and alternate realities?
Luck refers to that which happens to a person beyond that person's control. This view incorporates phenomena that are chance happenings, a person's place of birth for example, but where there is no uncertainty involved, or where the uncertainty is irrelevant. Within this framework one can differentiate between three different types of luck:
Constitutional luck, that is, luck with factors that cannot be changed. Place of birth and genetic constitution are typical examples.
Circumstantial luck - with factors that are haphazardly brought on. Accidents and epidemics are typical examples.
Ignorance luck, that is, luck with factors one does not know about. Examples can be identified only in hindsight.
Another view holds that "luck is probability taken personally". A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability, and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck commits the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy, which argues that because two events are connected sequentially, they are connected causally as well:
A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens;
Therefore, A caused B.
In this particular perspective, probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections. A brick falling on a person walking below, therefore, is not a function of that person's luck, but is instead the result of a collection of understood (or explainable) occurrences. Statistically, every person walking near the building was just as likely to have the brick fall on them.
The gambler's fallacy and inverse gambler's fallacy both explain some reasoning problems in common beliefs in luck. They involve denying the unpredictability of random events: "I haven't rolled a seven all week, so I'll definitely roll one tonight".
Look, I can actually agree with Dragon a little bit - and let me just run off and shower before I continue - in that changing human genetics is probably ok, because humans are at least something we can control at some level. It would be entirely impossible for me to run out and "contaminate" other humans with messed-up genes and even if some gene replacement therapy went awry, it wouldn't wipe out all plant life on the planet, etc etc. But bacteria is, and always has been, a very sketchy issue, because we can't control them. They get loose. Same for much of agriculture. This is the issue.
I recently StumbledUpon an article about people genetically engineering new organisms in their garage. Apparently it isn't too hard to make your own glowing cat.
like enmos's perhaps?
Thinking that this bacteria would have wiped out all plant-life on a continent is ridiculous. There is too much diversity within even a single species for this to happen. It is why common infections are the greatest danger in hospitals today.
It is also why American Chestnuts and Hemlocks are still around. Despite 99% of each being wiped out by disease, there were enough that had mutations which made them resistant, which is allowing them to survive.
I find the extremist scares in this thread embarrassing, and Enmos' desire for the extinction of mankind to be the sickest display of fanatic evil I have ever witnessed on SiForums. And I spend a lot of time in the Religion forums... so that is saying quite a lot.
Still not a good idea. What's the demographic result of such a mangling? What if none of them are able to adapt; if it's a simple morphological incompatability? The development of such an organism is outside the realm of evolutionary likelihood. What are the ecological consequences?
Jack the Riper, John Wayne Gacy, Hitler, Stalin.....they were all pikers compared to you. Here, check out this website and you can chat with like minded people: http://evil-guide.tripod.com/
PS You'll be happy to note that there's already a discussion of your wipe out mankind via a virus plan.
Agree 100%, and this isn't the first time he's made this sort of statement.
I agree with what you're saying here. However, I don't think genetically engineering people would be in our species best interest.
I read that too, I believe it was dismissed as nonsense by the experts though.
If you knew anything about me you'd know I would never ever do anything like that.
Make your case for humanity then.
Separate names with a comma.