With Dolly the sheep the Rubicon was crossed. No going back now. With nano-engineering running atom sized engines,and hyper-fast computers with terabytes in memory, will the mountain go to Mohammed? What Frankenstien can be created? Will Disneyland hatch a 7 foot orangotang, that can speak English like the Queen or sing, " I'm the king of the jungle" and tap dance at the same time? Will the result be more sinister? What do you think will happen when we tame the beast?
2006-11-07 06:49:27 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
This pervasive cultural technophobia in regards to cloning and bioengeneering is absurd. Ethics means prioritizing the needs of people, not avoiding things which seem vaguely disturbing-- I'd submit that surgery is no less disturbing, but bioengeneering probably has the potential to save more lives then the development of modern surgery.
edit: Um, but in response to the question you actually asked:
I think trans-humanism could happen- people might choose to significantly enhance or modify their bodies, or to create non-humans with human-like minds. I don't think either would result in sci-fi monsters or dystopic opression. Most likely, we'd just have take a hard look at how we define 'person', and then work out some legal protection.
2006-11-07 07:29:29 · answer #1 · answered by -artifex 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The question of ethics invariably springs to mind when you're talking about cloning.
Ethics, there's a tricky subject.
I wouldn't be surprised if we did start cloning, on a purely scientific well-intentioned basis. I doubt it would end happily, though.
2006-11-07 06:59:02 · answer #2 · answered by Lady Ettejin of Wern 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think so, yet you may even "attempt too stressful" to jot down a competent u . s . track. in case you do no longer quite be attentive to a thank you to make a competent u . s . track, you're guaranteed to jot down cliches with the intention to pump one out. same element is going for prog or different "complicated" track (Dream Theater somewhat is crammed with "prog cliches"). i'm thinking now that "technical" is perchance an inherently adverse term, because it implies bands that are only "technically" crafting track, "going during the motions", in case you will. this does not unavoidably propose it must be very complicated, yet is in all probability immaculately performed and extremely cliche... basically i do no longer think of the term has plenty use, certainly. A) Dream Theater (all too frequently), and tremendously plenty each "tech/neo-classical steel" band strikes me as track college sportsmanship. B) i do no longer think of you are able to nonetheless say that those bands "do no longer attempt stressful adequate" through fact who knows in the event that they're *attempting* to be something especially... yet as for bands that get mislabeled prog... Muse, Radiohead, any "placed up rock" bands... properly, besides, relies upon on your definition of prog. C) Any of those, at their ultimate, very properly pull off "innovative inclinations" in track: King pink, Genesis, specific, ELP, Jethro Tull, purple Floyd, Camel, Transatlantic, Porcupine Tree etc. BQ: It replaced into the Neo-Classical Tech-steel in 9/8 to Erowid's aimless, nondescript Psych jams... my Q&A's would be like an ELO track; i'm getting my component for the era of yet often times on the cost of soul and endearing errors. @Gesm: Van der Graaf is extra... "emotive" than GG yet has much extra "wankery" too. GG in no way got down to be all that resonant, yet imo they gain their purposes extra properly than VDGG, by potential of and massive.
2016-12-10 04:32:17 · answer #3 · answered by libbie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know......but it sure is scary!
Maybe this has already happened and we humans are that nano-tech hyper computers.
Interesting thought huh?
2006-11-07 19:21:08 · answer #4 · answered by clcalifornia 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋