Skip to main content

Week 10 [08.01.2018-14.01.2018] What do you know about bio-engineering?

Technology developed incredibly fast for the last 20 years. Today we are surrounded by smartphones, robots and other inventions. It includes genetically modified animals, steerable rats, creating brains artificially. When technology meets living organisms, there appears ethical questions. Should we modify these animals just for fun? What about the influence of genetically modified food on our organisms?






Questions:
    1.Do you think that modified animals, like fluorescent cats, fish should be forbidden?
    2.What is your opinion about mixing breeds? Should we interfere in nature?
    3.Should we use animals to carry out experiments such as third hand of monkey or steer rat’s brain? Where is the limit of use of animals?

Comments

I don't think that modified animal must be forbidden. There is a process in every kind of engineering called testing. Without testing we can't reach a top level of any kind of product,so it is better to test things on animals than on us.
I think,that mixing breeds is a good idea, but doing it without any bad influence on a nature would be better.
In some way yes, but of course, there is a limit and you need to feel this kind of border between normal part of experiments and overextended.
Unknown said…
What a sad life it would be to have been created by someone who can control me and would have determined my personality, my looks and my physical abilities based on their own opinion of what is beautiful, acceptable, and necessary for this world. People need to recognize the value lives of animals.
Jakub Lisicki said…
I don't think that any modified animals should be forbidden, unless it makes them (or seems to make them) suffer. Animals are not toys to be played with any way that we want. Fluorescent cats or fish are a pretty extreme example since it's completely against their nature - both of them are doing their best to be as unnoticeable as possible.
It's a little too late to think about our attitude towards mixing breeds. It's been happening for so many years that it has become natural to us. We see some species - we breed it to be better/funnier/prettier. Sometimes it doesn't end too well. Let's take a while to think about pugs - they're funny, cute, but I also think they suffer being the way they are.
I think conducting such experiments on animals is too cruel to be accepted. We should research some better ways of doing such experiments. That's already crossing the limits of what we should be allowed to do as a human race.
Let's imagine that other species on this planet would be sophisticated enough to communicate with us in the future. How would we possibly explain to them what we did to their ancestors? Absolutely barbaric.
Yevhen Shymko said…
The most fascinating thing about this video is publication date of 2013! As for me stoping progress by restricting something like this is huge step backwards for all the humanity since it's not only blocking the progress but rather preventing us from solving really important problems like fatal disease, artificial organs and so many more could be solve with technology... But there is always be someone to see danger in tech and it's our duty to do it with caution but still go forward.
Unknown said…
Fluorescent cats maybe should be forbidden, but, for example, hypoallergenic cats and dogs shouldn't. You see, only thing that matters is whether you think about how make people life easier or how to make money on indulgence of stupid people's wishes.

I don't like the most of artificially created breeds of dogs or cats, created by humans. In my opinion, breeding should support the evolution, replace natural selection with artificial, which increase the attachement of strong biological features in the population.

Again, if the animals are used for testing things that are made only with money-dragging purpouse - this is wrong. If the reason of the experiments hase some scientifical value - well, knowledge demands its payment, sometimes.
Unknown said…
What about modified animals..Hm, I think it's a crime, when change some vital genes of an animal and, as a result, a cat can shine. It seems to me that we have already gone very far.
I think it has its pros and cons. When we talk about GMO I really support this idea, but when we interfere in our bodies or animals' bodies it may have more severe consequences. However, I am not a specialist in this branch to make some serious conclusions.
I am inclined to believe that this process is out of our control and even if we don't reckon some experiments to be acceptable scientists would not stop do experiments.
Unknown said…
I don't think fluorescence should be forbidden. It is very fun to watch glowing animals. They are just animals. Maybe fluorescent human would be funnier but I think it would be to much too take for humanity. I think breeds shouldn't be mixed. It is not good for preserving thoroughbred of animals. Dogs sometimes are mixed and we have mongrels. They are not good. Doing experiments on animals is good, because we can learn a lot of how biology works.
Should we modify animals just for fun? No, for the same reason why we shouldn't kill or deal pain to the animals just for our own enjoyment. But yes, we should make use of it if there is a premise that it could make our life better in the future.
This comment has been removed by the author.
If having a fluorescent cat can save lives sure why not - but if its unnecesary i dont se a reason to meddle with nature.

Mixing breeds of animals is a bad practice, rarely it benefits such animal, and rarely it benefits humans, we started doing it for "fun" lately and its getting out of hands fast . Biggest no is that we rarely thing of what will happen to the animal besides it having prettier fur, or bigger nose...

I believe that everything that benefits humans in overcomin their disabilities should be accepted as a nessesary evil, on the other hand i think that we should start with us and our habits first rather than going for the "easiest"in some sense route ... Its relatively easy to make a liver farm from pigs instead of changing habits of the whole globe or even a nation.

We should start with ourselves but we sould not discard an option involving animals.
Unknown said…
It's as with the GMO - its the future we can't hide nor run away from.
>1.Do you think that modified animals, like fluorescent cats, fish should be forbidden?
Why so? If someone is willing to pay for, e.g. seeing his shiny cat poop in his boots at 2am then why not?
>2.What is your opinion about mixing breeds? Should we interfere in nature?
Yes, as the nature itself also adjusts itself - where did all those superbacterias came from, if not from mutations that allowed them to survive and outrun the antibiotics? "It's either them or us, sir"

>3.Should we use animals to carry out experiments such as third hand of monkey or steer rat’s brain? Where is the limit of use of animals?
I say there is no limit, as long as it is not pointless. Sometimes you just can't use anything different.
A lot of people say that bio-engineering is "just wrong and unnatural" and that we should leave nature alone, but if it weren't for us changing the nature of our planet a little bit, we wouldn't be where we are today. First, we harnessed the power of stones (The Stone Age) and we built tools and such to build, hunt, and survive. Then, we harnessed the power of coal and oil and silicon and so on and so on. Of course, during every major technological revolution, they were people who were scared, they feared change. It's called the "Cave Man Principle".
Unknown said…
As long as it helps humans or other animals, I think no experiments like those shouldn’t be forbidden. Some experiments will be cruel to the animals but it’s the price for better technology for us. It sounds terrible but it is what it is.
Marcin Górski said…
I have made a presentation about animal testing and yes.. it should be forbidden. We are not better than animals, we are living on the same world with the same nature.
I think that mixing breed is unnecessary. I read a lot about problems after dogs types mixing. They have a lot of illnesses.
As I said in my presentation, maybe we should start testing on bad people? Why we can't do it on serial killers? They are worse than animals for me.

Popular posts from this blog

Week 1 (09-15.03) VOD

http://www.vod-consulting.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/1.jpg

Week 11 [03-09.06.2019] The problem with ecological cars emission in UK

The problem with ecological cars emission in UK Since the adoption of the European Emission Allowance Directive in the European Parliament, all car makers have tried to submit. Since 1992, the Euro I standard has been in force, which limited the emission of carbon monoxide to the atmosphere. The Euro VI standard currently applies, which limits the series of exhaust gases. These include: hydrocarbons, nitrogen and carbon oxides, and dust.   The most significant change was brought by the Euro IV standard. For the first time it introduced the limitation of nitrogen oxides, which are responsible for the harmful compounds of smog.   What is smog?   Smog consists of sulfur oxides, nitrogen and carbon. In addition, solid substances such as suspended dust (PM). Dust suspend in atmospheric aerosols may be in liquid and solid form. These can be particles of sea salt, clouds from the Sahara and artificial compounds made by people. These compounds often come fr

Week 4 [06-12.11.2017] This is what happens when you reply to spam email.

James Veitch is a British comedian. In today’s Ted Talk James with characteristic for himself a sense of humor shows how he deals with spam emails and why responding to junk messages may be sometimes dangerous. Questions: What do you think about James’s  way of dealing with spam? Why are junk messages legal, even though it sometimes may be a fraud? Dou you have a problem with spam? How do you deal with with it?