The Organisation Forums

This is a topic where we can debat the pros and cons of all things science, for example Genetic modification or Nuclear power, I realize that some of these things might fall under a more specific topic but here we can mix and match various things and argue what the global effect would be or some other such thing, keep the flames away or else. That goes for spam as well.

personnaly i belive that what they did in gundam seed was a good idea except for 2 things they did it too fast and only selectively (by too fast i mean there was a large difference between the cordinators and naturals) my contry has made genetic modafication manditory to prevent what happened in gundam seed all so the changes aren't as dramatic as in gundam seed .

Dan, you just had to turn this into an Anime thing didn't you?

chris i know you don't understand this but it was a valid example it's not my fault you don't know what i'm taking about

Cloning, I think, violates all things humanitarian. Why should we take upon the act of God and begin modifying our offspring to perfection? Soon, you will see what was portrayed in the movie Gattica (very good movie) where everyone is genetically perfect, and those who aren't are known as "Invalid."

We are born imperfect, that is certain. There is always a flaw in something or something, and it is unhuman for something or someone to not have an imperfection.

I think that cloning is herrendous, and that it should never be done, no matter the circumstances. We should not take the act of God, nor change the will of the fates.

Oh boy. Well, I sure didn't see that one coming at all... ouch.

"Let's talk about the will of God in a forum with an atheist majority!"

In any case, I think it's about time I made my opinion on cloning clearer - not to mention genetic modification, which seems to be the real main focus of Alexius' post. Clarification: Cloning does not necessarily involve genetic modification, or the creation of a 'perfect race'. Cloning is the creation of copies of human beings, be they modified or not.

On the topic of genetic modification, I wholeheartedly support the furthering of the human race. The 'Coordinators' that we saw in Gundam SEED portray a hypothetical situation in which cloning could go wrong, creating a war and leaving second-generation Coordinators sterile. Throughout known history, humans have bettered themselves through tools; what is genetic modification but a tool to end global suffering, hunger, and disease?

With genetic modification, we can create rice with Vitamin C, eliminate hereditary diseases, and develop our immune systems. The possibilities are endless; the only opposition are the moralists and the uninformed, who are practically the same in any case.

Cloning, in much the same way, could help us better our world, as seen in the movie 'The Island', as long as we don't leave it in the hands of a corrupt corporation. With new organs, we could easily extend the human lifespan by decades.

Of course, on the reverse side, either of these technologies could be exploited; genetically-modified super soldiers could be cloned, or clones could be mistreated. In any case, with careful management, these technologies may open the door to a new era.

I tend to disagree with the "God Card" since there is no proof of the said God. I agree with what Zenitrhan said.

Now, please let it be noted that I meant no actual regard to God himself, but I mean it against all human nature. Why should we take control of life in such a way, anyway? It goes against and violates any moral there is out there, and extinguishes any control we have over our own births, even like there are any.

Also, in regard to your petty speech, Zenithan, I think that your theory about so said cloning seems extremely well enough and I am a pro-activist of it, but something quite similar was said about Communism. Communism was beautiful in theory; imagine a system where nobody was above anyone else, and everyone worked in unity. Alas, human nature always gets the better of things, and corruption always has a way of going where there is least resistance.

So, this is put into place. Cloning of vital organs, applications to immune system, and the such for our benefit. Of course, this would happen for at least a year or less. Unfortunately, someone out there will become greedy, and then there will be corruption. He would use this to his/her/their benefit, and then begin to create a bioligical superhumans, or a superior species. Of course, the same thing that I had explained earlier would come to pass.

With responsibility, and the promise of an honor system which will allow such benefits, corruption can easily squeeze in-between, grasping such an easy target.

If your theory would work, and everyone who powers such said utilization are actually pure-of-heart and do as you say, I will be quite glad and be supportive of cloning. I just think that the knowledge of something that can be used for either good, or evil, and for something of such magnitude, should be learned, since it would not be able to be "unlearned".

and the battle of the super intelligent titans has begun...who will win?

Humans have always altered their own path via technology that is the way that things have always been and the way that they will remain throughout our existence. Genetic modification is the next logical step. I myself find no moral dilemma whatsoever about the betterment of the human race.

Not me. I have to agree with Alex on this one. Humans shouldn't use genetic modification to the extreme; it denies us what we are and erases our true identities. If we could pinpoint triggers in DNA of cancers, mental deffieciencies, etc etc. I'm not going to go on with a whole bunch of whatever because he basically explained exactly what I think.

As for cloning, people shouldn't be cloned. It is morally and ethically wrong. The only thing fit for cloning is internal organs and such from the tissue of the patient that needs the organ.

right on

I'm with Alexius and Mike to. Stopping cancer is one thing, but cloning humans and turning them into something like a Spartan off Halo or Robocop, or even Gadget. That's a little extreme, personally I'd stop at the Corrdonators (I'm tired don't bug me on spelling) mods. They're still human, but with higtened ability. William your right it's the next logical step, but say that we take that step and we go over board... what happens to the gini pig? He'll have to live his life with dog like hearing or is too strong to hold a normal everyday glass. I think that we don't need genetic modification, cybonetics, and nano-tech is what we shoul be looking at.

Cybornetics, will let us replace lost limbs, or create powered battle suits, it could allow us to modify the body without changing the body at all. If you under stand. Nano-tech, we could repair vehicles and machinery in seconds, stop tanks and construct bridges and rail ways faster and easier.

My opnion only.

Allow me to be a bit philosophical, if you will. Many of the posts against genetic modification and/or cloning seem to use "morals" and "ethics" as part of their arguments. I find that very interesting indeed, for how do we define "morals"? How do we define "ethics"? These supposed virtues are highly subjective, and most of them were created in the far past with no knowledge of the technologies and practices that arrive in this day and age. It is not "ethical" to abort a fetus. It is not "ethical" to change the work of nature. It is not "ethical" to clone a human being. What does this all mean? How does it really matter? Morals vary from person to person, from society to society. How can one take a single set of these "rules" as their "code"?

Here is the harsh reality: Closing your mind to an act only because it is "immoral" is one of the most selfish things you can do, much like accepting one religion as truth above all others just because you feel like it, or have been brainwashed into it. Yes, rape is immoral, but there is sound reasoning behind that decision, being that it brings pain to other people and asserts a dangerous amount of damage on their mind. What makes genetic modification immoral? How about cloning? Is it only the pre-conceived notion that changing "God's work" or "nature" is wrongful? What facts are these assumptions based off? Society. Look at society today. Is it a pretty picture? Not really. Is it a bunch of shepherds leading their flock of mindless sheep? Pretty much.

As for your comment on Communism, Alexius, almost anything can be compared to it in that way. The sheer scope of the statement negates any truth that it might hold. Everything becomes corrupted in the end; there is no stopping it. It doesn't mean we should stop advancing just to avoid it.

Now, to apply a bit of sarcasm. <sarcasm> Yes, cybernetics don't change the body any more than genetic modification, especially given the fact that your cells are not being changed; they are being replaced. I'm sure that getting miniguns installed instead of arms is far more moral than changing the colour of your hair, heightening your sight, improving the human mind, or annihilating hereditary diseases. Being only half-alive is far more ethical than modifying your cells.</sarcasm>

In conclusion, five points for Ravenclaw. Go to hell, Hufflepuffs! </somewhat veiled insult>

You asked about morals and ethics, Geoff. Morals and ethics are basically the same thing world-wide - when it all comes down to line one. No matter where you are in the world, as in a civilized society and most likely back woods tribes that are cut off, all share the same thing. Humans are considered to be the most advanced of all species on Earth, therefore it is up to us to try and keep our planet, that we have been destroying, under control. We have the minds, the means, and the power to stop deteriorating the world in which we, and millions of other species of life, call home.

Everything that we come into contact with has been formed by nature and the course of our universe's path. As I said, humans are the most advanced species on arth so it is really up to us to keep things well. Civilized humans have always had their morals and their ethics, first traces of studies on ethics date back to early Greece and Rome.

Who are we to decide that it is time for us to advance to the next level? Sure, some people would like it, but many don't. They don't, I speak for myself on this one, want to genetically modify humans because it would eliminate so many things that make us human. If you wanted someone to be some sort of genius, it could be done with a few modifications here or there. It would completely degrade others who couldn't or wouldn't be "modified" because of others around them that would be.

Is it right to pick yor perfect child? Sure, if a couple wanted a blonde girl with blue eyes, and to be a strong intellectual, with all of those other picture perfect properties, they could have her. That eliminates so much, though. The parents would be expecting their daughter to turn out as they had planned out for her. She doesn't really make her own decisions as they were technically made to think that way by having her genetically modified - I hope you can understand what I mean by that, otherwise ask and I'll try to explain it clearer.

Imagine living in a society that cheated at everything. That is how it would seem to me. Like cheating. You wouldn't have to study as hard, or look after your health as much as we do. You wouldn't have to exercise as much or as hard. You wouldn't be able to get certain jobs because others could just be modified to fit the standards of the job; making them superior to you. It would completely eliminate the concept of equality and certain human rights.

As Alexius said, there would be certainly huge corruption by superpowers; even more so than now. The U.S. would have the means to create the ideal soldier or politician to do their bidding. So could companies... they could get rid of the minimum wage or working hour laws by having people that wouldn't need to go home, eat, or rest as often. Things could quite easily be messed up... sex trade, sweat shops, governments (and all of its departments and affiliates), militaries, slavery, perhaps terrorism, the list goes on...

That is where the moral issues come into play; when it comes to the working world. Wouldn't it be morally wrong to employ people to work a 20 hour day with low pay, don't they have a life too? Or would they be shielded from those "modified" for high paying intellectual jobs? However those "intellectuals" wouldn't have earned their mass intelligence on their own. It would have been "acquired" by their genetic modification - making them what they were wanted - expected - to be.



In another way, it could completely and utterly destroy society. If parents could pick what they wanted their child to become, of course they're all going to say "A highly paid successful person who can carry on their genetic line.". Sure, that would be great in a perfect world... but who will make the world's consumer goods, grow our food, do the dirty work of society, work in factories, etc etc.

I think that you get my point. I must admit that in this case I sound pretty conservative. But certain things are best to be just let alone with, because as Alexius said, things can't be unlearned and once it was learned and possibly put into the wrong hands we'd all be fucked.