Why do people object to genetic modification?

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by JBeukema, Jul 9, 2009.

  1. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Why do people object to a science that could make our species hiv-resistant, remove genetic defects, improve out overall health, increase life expectancy...
     
  2. Dis
    Online

    Dis Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    There's already too many damned people in the world.. You want to make sure there's more? :eek:
     
  3. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    Feel free to kill yourself and help save the earth [​IMG]


    There aren't too many humans on Earth; there are too many people in certain regions. It's kinda like how people say earth can't feed us all, when to actual problem is distribution


    Besides, genetic manipulation and transhumanism could, in theory, help alleviate Man's need for food in a n umber of ways
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618

    They object, I suppose, not to the good things it can obviously do, but to the amazingly bad things it can ALSO do.

    For example...suppose we could insure that every child was a superchild (according to our understanding of it at that moment) with excellent health.

    So we do that and over time the human genome becomes less and less random and more and more similar.

    Does that really sound like a good idea?

    I'll tell you why I think that isn't a good idea.

    Because we cannot KNOW what genes in combination we're going to need in the future.

    We'd have to know everything about every gene, and everything about how every combination of potential human genes plays out PLUS we'd have to know what combination of human genes will be needed in the future, too.

    There is something to be said for the haphazard random system of combining genes that created us as we are now.

    And I do not think mankind will ever be intelligent to know which genes we can eliminate from the gene pool.

    So the potential mistakes are all out there waiting to be made, aren't they?
     
  5. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705

    We know what genes cause weakness, and the development of this technology will give us the tools to confront future challenges that will arise. Your concern is unfounded, as we're simply talking about removing known defects and encouraging the spread of beneficial genes and mutations, not destroying hum genetic diversity (actually humans lack genetic diversity, although not quite as bad as the cheetahs)

    incorrect. By your argument, we must do what we can, for who knows how much worse our current flaws will get.

    You mean the random assortment of ancient viruses and 'non-human' DNA that causes us so many problems?
     
  6. sidneyworld
    Offline

    sidneyworld Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    362
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +29
    Isn't it remarkable that most atheists are on a never ending mission to perpetuate their mortality? It's a true indication that death is not something they either understand, or accept as part of life. Self improvement is a wonderful thing. It raises a person's self-esteem and general morale and confidence. But as with cloning, we are physically mortal human beings and death is simply a part of the end of one life, and the beginning of another. Getting an overhall should never evolve into physical immortality.

    The good news is, it never will.. no matter how hard non-believers defy this very fact.

    Anne Marie
     
  7. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705

    Which is why the religious receive more critical; care and fight death harder than non-believers:rolleyes:
    You're like this idiot at the other board who hates science and 'godlessness' and 'trusts god'- yet when his kid was born premature, he didn't go to church, but to a hospital :lol:He didn't trust god, he trusted science, when it really mattered
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    " and on the 10th day, God told Adam--'go invent science'.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. sidneyworld
    Offline

    sidneyworld Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    362
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Ratings:
    +29
    As human beings we have the ability to heal ourselves physically to a great extent. We actually have the responsibility to preserve life and to take care of our human form. It is absolutely ridiculous to not go to a hospital and seek medical treatment when it is necessary. Albeit this country is profusely overmedicated, which in itself, decreases life expectancy, but medicine, like science in general enriches our lives because it allows us to appreciate our existence on earth a little longer.

    Jehovah Witnesses have created endless controversy on matters concerning medical treatment, especially when children are involved. If a child is sick or injured the primary responsibility to that child is to get any available medical treatment. To do anything else is completely negligence and bording on abusive. The indocrination of religion practice to a child or a minor should never subject them to such negiligence.

    JB, your assumptions about my beliefs, based on idle supposition along with your colossal ego is losing you much credibility. And I'm certainly not the only member on this board who believes that.

    Anne Marie
     
  10. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,299
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,306
    Who are these people and what do they have against silicone breast implants???
     

Share This Page