Alot of people call the changing or creation of biological organisms, such as us humans, playing God, and in some cases I can see this as being true, such as a case I will detail below, but in others like genetic manipulation, I think it's just a determined improvement and can do great good. I am a bit iffy on cloning, but I wonder how iffy people will be when they can have a beautiful blond maid that doesn't ask for pay, and doesn't ask questions that was created in a lab. Would it's appearance make it human despite brain limitations (which are to the "owner's" benefit) or is it simply a robot that happens to use nerves and muscle tissue rather than wires and hydrolics. Where do we cross the line into the wrong category? Or is the line something that can be bent or shaped, or even erased in some cases. A scan from a popular science will give a few examples of some real experiments going on which are a bit less advanced than what I said above, but there may be a day when that could happen, and I leave it for debate.
Trekkie At Large.....
26th April 2004
I am a bit iffy on cloning, but I wonder how iffy people will be when they can have a beautiful blond maid that doesn't ask for pay, and doesn't ask questions that was created in a lab. Would it's appearance make it human despite brain limitations (which are to the "owner's" benefit) or is it simply a robot that happens to use nerves and muscle tissue rather than wires and hydrolics. Where do we cross the line into the wrong category?
That'd be like enslaving a retard... no, human life is human life...
22nd March 2006
I don't think it will be possible for humanity to hold back. If we don't destroy ourselves in a nuclear war or some other catastrophy then we'll have millions of years ahead of us to grow and learn. What won't be allowed to be done now will be done 10000 years from now. Some scientist will get the same idea at some point in the future and nobody will be around to stop him.
Part of the EPA's swat team
2nd January 2006
I dont think that there is any permanent line we wont cross. Once we pass this century(sorry, if), we will have avoided global warming, nuclear war, and energy crisis, come up with peace in the middle east, and computers will be 2^75 times more powerful. People's ideas about whats allowed or not change.
G®33N<@|>;3541856That'd be like enslaving a retard... no, human life is human life...
Ah, but the question is what is human life? Is it what looks human? What feels human? Our bodies are collections of complex interacting machines which have the purpose of living for the sake of doing so. What happens when you change the purpose? When you create something similar in complexity, but towards another end? One day your computer may have graymatter rather than microchips, would that be wrong?
Unleash Your Mind
13th February 2007
Well scientifically speaking, a clone would be human because it's biologically built identically, the skelital and organ structures are the same. It's kinda like green said, it's like calling someone mentally ill not human just because they can't think like other people.
I didn't make it!
A human is anything that has human DNA and has the capability(or already has) developed into an adult.
Okay, having re read my post I can see where this might come from, but for the sake of adding a dimension to this post that I intended, lets say that said maid, or organic machine, isn't a clone of a person that exists, it's artificialy created on the basic forms of human DNA yes, but no one's specific genes. Now in it's creation it's mind is... designed for certain purposes and not for others. Now it comes down to whether or not you would reguard this as a machine or a person. And also, if not put into use, what else would they do? Would it be wrong not to enable them to live a full life with every possible choice of a normal human? If that is the case, and arguing from this perspective, should we not do so if able to every device we own? Would we really want to ask our toasters if they want to make toast? Would we like to argue with our televisions over chanels? I doubt it, and in this perspective, the said creation is a machine like the others mentioned, just a more complex one.
7th December 2003
I don't mind genetical manipulation, it will save a lot of people. Cloned prostitutes is a different matter though, that seems a bit weird.
I pretend I'm cooler than AzH
10th June 2006
We mark our sins as a race with wars killing men and women and we still deem heaven as ours .
So why can't we create or give life to other beings ? That surely is not a bad or in-morale thing . Especially when soldiers consider themselves to still be able to go into heaven. Why is a man who is an efficent politicall killing machine to be considered heavenly bounded as opposed to a brillant scientist with God given gifts of intellect and vision are applied to create God's will of us being multiplitoudous in our science and in our nature? It's not like we are creating genetically superior killing machines. I dont think cloning is wrong untill it is abused. Creating farm cows and meat is fine by me and very praticall and it can lead to slove world hunger.
One could say that it is wrong or you are playing God even if you have a simple test tube baby where we dont use the God given intervene of sexual activities to create new life. Where as we simply use sperm in a tube from the male and have the female use this tube and well you can figure out the rest and honestly Im just sure how they do it from there on... Dildo ?
So why cant we use another un-convetionall means of birth and create life in this way ? We may be not creating infant life but it is simillar in its moralitiy.
This is only the desiried realization for future computer AI and of the greateast achievement of technology. As a race we can now mimmic our own selves and we can even be better than that. We will never be God though so why cant we evolve , it wouldnt be the 1st time we had to push to evolve would it ?
There is my summary at the end but I will gladly convo any other points I have brung up.