rebootedrock Report post Posted March 29, 2005 DO you think cloning is an acceptable practice with the original person's consent? And is it acceptable to transfer that person's conciousness (if or when its possible) if they are dead/injured/coma? also, Is biological enhancement (cyborgs, etc.) a moral right? or is it just the human want to be better at something than someone else? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SirKillAlot Report post Posted March 30, 2005 I think it is all wrong, scientists shouldn't play god. He will get angry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeone3000 Report post Posted March 30, 2005 Not without their consent, no. Bionics and stuff... if they can get it, they can get it. I don't have a view there. (I wonder why quick reply isn't enabled) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AuricRal Report post Posted March 30, 2005 yes it should be allowed, some ppl think too much sci-fi >.< and being god, i give them permission ^^ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xavier1 Report post Posted March 30, 2005 I think cloning organs to improve the life of people is fine. The real moral dilemma is when they clone a entire human in effort to live forever. There is a very delicate balance in nature that relies on the old dying and young taking their place. If people are cloned over and over it halts the progress of evolution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasberrybeard Report post Posted March 30, 2005 I think cyborg like enhancment to the already existing human body are perfectly acceptable, but as far as cloning, it is a split dillema issue with me. <_< Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Korgan Report post Posted March 30, 2005 I'd love some implants that would make me (even more) superhuman. Cloning a human seems inherently wrong, but it might have some uses if there was a way to accelerate growth somehow, to get "spare parts" and blood that would be 100% compatible. In any case, if cyber implants were possible, we wouldn't need "spares". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Malaclypse Report post Posted March 30, 2005 I think none of what you asked is moral and acceptable. The problem imo is, anything that is doable (or thinkable?) by mankind will get done, whether some people want it or not. This is our mercy and our curse. I think nature is perfect and men shouldn't bother and trying getting even more perfect. It's the doom of mankind if they do (and they will do ). Btw. what do you yourself think about those topics reboot Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mad_Raven Report post Posted March 30, 2005 Remember,about 100 ppl die every MINUTE while 200 are born! So,if cloning was to be legal,we would have to kill ppl just to have living space-BUT about the cloning organs/implants stuff i say YES! Conclusion: Cloning-bad Implants-good Our chances of survival with cloning are pretty grim...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dent Report post Posted March 30, 2005 So far, cloning is a dead end, and therefore not an issue. Cells accrue damage as tissue ages, and so cloning older tissues only preserves the damages. Until they learn to repair DNA, cloning will be useless for humans. As it stands, the process for altering DNA is with viral activators. The question then, it seems, would be what do you think of tailoring viruses to play with the human genome, so that cloning may be feasable in the future? One of the benefits of repairing the DNA will be that cell damage will be reversed. That means that aging will be retarded, stopped or even reversed. This means that the base premise for so many of the objections to cloning would be moot. Cloning then becomes an issue, not of spare bodies, but of organs and tissue. Most people support having spare organs in case of injury or illness. As for biological enhancements, we have that already. No-one seems to be up in arms over pacemakers. The type of enhancements that most people associate with this are the sci-fi type cyborgs. They make me giggle. As it stands, the human body can not handle much more physical stress. Body builders run the risk of doing serious damage to themselves after a certain point. Tendons tear away from bones and joints. Bones break. Skin tears and breaks from pressure injuries. Unless a cyborg was tuned down so that the implant was only as powerful as the rest of the host body, then it would only do more damage to the host. Also consider that the implant (with what is known about the field today) is nowhere near as stable or strongly attached to the body as the original part would have been. I consider this issue as moot as well. So. My opinion on cloning and enhancement? I have no worries that this will present a threat or issue anytime in the near future. I do worry that folks playing with viruses will screw up. If they haven't already. To me this is much more relavent and insidious. Good thought provoking topic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rebootedrock Report post Posted March 30, 2005 Basically I thought of cyborgs as basically humans with extreme modifications to their body, basically only leaving the face, organs, and.. heh, the lower parts. Imagine jason X . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SirKillAlot Report post Posted March 30, 2005 Apocolypse is coming soon anyways, so I don't really care. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grum Report post Posted March 30, 2005 It's been coming soon for the last 2000 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Leeloo Report post Posted March 30, 2005 In any case, if cyber implants were possible, we wouldn't need "spares". Hmm, "cyber implants"... I am electrical engineer of Borg, resistance is voltage divided by current Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mad_Raven Report post Posted March 30, 2005 Apocolypse is coming soon anyways, so I don't really care. Who?Apokalypse?Oh he's been in my guild for over 2 months now.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Entris Report post Posted March 30, 2005 Life is like it is 4 a reason and i dont think humans should mess with that. We r born 2 die and what we do inbetween that it's up 2 us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SirKillAlot Report post Posted March 30, 2005 I was born rich, to be frozen right before I die. So I can be unfrozen in 1000+ years when everyone is alive, they can keep me from dying, give me youth again, it will all be a OK. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paladin Report post Posted March 30, 2005 (edited) I think cloning organs to improve the life of people is fine. The real moral dilemma is when they clone a entire human in effort to live forever. There is a very delicate balance in nature that relies on the old dying and young taking their place. If people are cloned over and over it halts the progress of evolution. This is not true, any species that becomes sentient stops evolving in the 'natural' way, because we help and even encourage all the invalids and the less physically and mentally adapted individuals to breed (for example we can provide artificial limbs for some1 that has a genetical defect and was born with no/ deformed limbs). The only way to evolve as an inteligent species is by our choice, and it is starting now, when doctors can fecundate cells 'in vitro' from parents that would've been predisposed to geneticaly diseases, but eliminate or lower the risks for some of those diseases. Remember,about 100 ppl die every MINUTE while 200 are born!So,if cloning was to be legal,we would have to kill ppl just to have living space-BUT about the cloning organs/implants stuff i say YES! On the question of overpopulation, we are indeed already half way to a terrible crisis, but it's stupid to try to solve that crisis by not using medicines that are availble to us. We could say next that there is no point to treat some1 over 60, or that we should not use antibiotics to save some1 because the world is already overcrowded. The only way we can ease up and stop the overpopulation is to stop beeing egotistical and near-sighted and breed more responsible. Edited: Entris, and all others that say death is natural and other crap like that, what you say is just plain stupid. Do you favour the opinion that we should've stayed in the trees or on the savanah, not using any kind of tools? Because that's how humankind was born, you know Edited March 30, 2005 by Paladin Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sian Report post Posted March 30, 2005 (edited) DO you think cloning is an acceptable practice with the original person's consent?And is it acceptable to transfer that person's conciousness (if or when its possible) if they are dead/injured/coma? also, Is biological enhancement (cyborgs, etc.) a moral right? or is it just the human want to be better at something than someone else? Hmm.. you're not using this as a term paper are you? <_< I'm pro both.. although I think the cloning issue is just another excuse for mankind to search for a way out of death.. I don't believe it will lead to a way out of death.. cuz I don't think you can transfer your "self" into another body - althoughit would be interesting to see what a human "clone" would be like. My feelings on that is mankind hoping to quell the natural fear of death by use of the cloning devices... If this is your term paper you should definetly link that in there somewhere Edited: On Paladin's Edit .... My thought on evolution/spirituality is .. hmm.. how do I explain in words.. How many animals have you seen bow down to worship some sort of god? Or fear growing old? Or live in constant fear of death? Or kill others just for fun? (well.. beside my cat chasing moths) anyhow it seems to me the more evolved animals get, the stupider they get. As humans we teach our children to fear everything from the light socket to water (drowning,ect), to eachother.. then we teach em to spend the majority of their time trying to impress others and striving to work hard to get a good job to pay for all their bills that they aquire because of all the material goods they buy.. and we work to feed ourselves and we poison our water supplies with insectides, chemical waste, ect, then spend billions of dollars on water filtration systems so we can drink "healthy" water for free, which is being pumped from rusted pipes which have been in ourhomes and in the lines for god knows how long.. then we pay more money to buy bottled water which is prolly the same smeg from our tap water.. ect, ect.. So anyway, yes, I favour the freedom of the animal life over the massive confusion and stupidity of mankind It may seem lazy, but animals are much more energetric and they don't spend the majority of their lives thinking of ways to use up all the earths resources to make smeg that no one needs. They also don't smeg up the world as much as we do and they don't have bombs or chemical warfare Edited March 30, 2005 by sian Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dent Report post Posted March 30, 2005 Edited: On Paladin's Edit .... My thought on evolution/spirituality is .. hmm.. how do I explain in words.. How many animals have you seen bow down to worship some sort of god? Or fear growing old? Or live in constant fear of death? Or kill others just for fun? (well.. beside my cat chasing moths) anyhow it seems to me the more evolved animals get, the stupider they get. As humans we teach our children to fear everything from the light socket to water (drowning,ect), to eachother.. then we teach em to spend the majority of their time trying to impress others and striving to work hard to get a good job to pay for all their bills that they aquire because of all the material goods they buy.. and we work to feed ourselves and we poison our water supplies with insectides, chemical waste, ect, then spend billions of dollars on water filtration systems so we can drink "healthy" water for free, which is being pumped from rusted pipes which have been in ourhomes and in the lines for god knows how long.. then we pay more money to buy bottled water which is prolly the same smeg from our tap water.. ect, ect.. So anyway, yes, I favour the freedom of the animal life over the massive confusion and stupidity of mankind It may seem lazy, but animals are much more energetric and they don't spend the majority of their lives thinking of ways to use up all the earths resources to make smeg that no one needs. They also don't smeg up the world as much as we do and they don't have bombs or chemical warfare Giraffes are afraid of heights. Bacteria cultures will grow until they kill themselves off from their own waste products. Ants regularly strip their immediate area of resources, and have to go farther afield for new sources of food. (as do most rodents) Most predators kill off their own species in order to preserve territories. Most predators also 'play with their food' including killing it more for fun than sustenance. Humanity does not have a monopoly on any of these traits. We are better at them than most, sure. They are affected by our intelligence. But for the most part, the only thing you could say about us that is truely worse than any other animal is that we should know better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rebootedrock Report post Posted March 31, 2005 Hmm.. you're not using this as a term paper are you? <_< nope, good starter topic for this forum. What about genetic alteration that would improve the human lifespan/abilities/health? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lobonar Report post Posted March 31, 2005 I was born rich, to be frozen right before I die. So I can be unfrozen in 1000+ years when everyone is alive, they can keep me from dying, give me youth again, it will all be a OK. would you really want this, i think you would go crazy if you would be woken up in the year 3000, everything has gone forward so much you prolly wouldn't recocnise(srry for the bad spelling) the world, there would have been so much progress you i think you wouldn't be able to cope with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mad_Raven Report post Posted March 31, 2005 I was born rich, to be frozen right before I die. So I can be unfrozen in 1000+ years when everyone is alive, they can keep me from dying, give me youth again, it will all be a OK. would you really want this, i think you would go crazy if you would be woken up in the year 3000, everything has gone forward so much you prolly wouldn't recocnise(srry for the bad spelling) the world, there would have been so much progress you i think you wouldn't be able to cope with it. Like taking Vercingetorix(the leader of the Gauls-about 100 B.C.)in modern France... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lobonar Report post Posted March 31, 2005 jup, i think you would go crazy if that happens Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sian Report post Posted March 31, 2005 "Giraffes are afraid of heights." --- Hmm. didn't know that .. "Bacteria cultures will grow until they kill themselves off from their own waste products." ---Sounds like a natural process/uncontrollable process - the bacteria cultures would have no awareness of their situation, ect, and I don't believe they have thought processes "Ants regularly strip their immediate area of resources, and have to go farther afield for new sources of food. (as do most rodents)" --- Uh, but they use all their resources for food, housing, ect, and don't burn out all the resources. --- Also, most critters contribute in some way to the growth of nature and new resources.. bees and birds pollinate plants and... animals help spread seeds from trees (mostly through their digestive tract. yech).. course animals naturally fertilize the soil (again through their digestive tract), some critters feed on plants, others control the overpupalation of other species.. anyhow, on an overall animals contribute more to the environment then humans.. and they contribute more then destroy the environment "Most predators kill off their own species in order to preserve territories." --- Hmm.. funny most animals I can think of travel in packs (ex: Lions, Tigers, Deer, ect).. and the killing off your reffering to is prolly where the males often battle to death to become the new leader of the pack, get the females, ect.. there are terrotorial battles betwen species as well, but that would be protecting their pack by warding off the other pack.. "Most predators also 'play with their food' including killing it more for fun than sustenance." --- How, now that I think about it, I've seen dogs and cats jump up to catch birds, moths, ect, and often kill em without eating em.. but I think in the wild they eat whatever they kill.. hmmmm.. "Humanity does not have a monopoly on any of these traits. We are better at them than most, sure. They are affected by our intelligence. But for the most part, the only thing you could say about us that is truely worse than any other animal is that we should know better." --- I agree, I think humanity doesn't have a monopoly of these traits.. and we should know better, but with our growing technologies, ect, mankind has been more focused on creating smeg then on the potential impacts of our new creations, ect, on the environment.. Hair sprays, pesticides, insectisides, bombs, ect.. Whoohoo! got to use my English skills some more! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
