People
always wanted to be healthy and beautiful. Only the way they wanted
to do it changed. Our ancestors were sought favor from supernatural
powers, they practiced magic. They checked the healing properties of
plants and minerals. Today,
we no longer need the help
of
secret powers.
After all, we have science and a full arsenal of tools, including
those that allow us to play God, that our ancestors were could only
pray for. Along with the rapid progress of scientific development, we
are increasingly begin to wonder whether we are not yet too immature
for some inventions. Laboratory genetic modifications of organisms
from the pages of fantastic literature have entered the first pages
of popular scientific magazines. Is not it too early?
Genes
modifications raise a lot of controversies. It is mainly about
ethical differences in the approach of different countries. Changing
genes allows some benefits, but the risk is difficult to estimate. An
example is the modification of mosquito genes in laboratories. South
American societies, where mosquito-borne malaria is a serious
problem, may argue that the disease-carrying species must be
eliminated. However, citizens in developed countries may have doubts
about the effects of such activities on the whole ecosystem. Because
of new technologies, such as modifying genes, that usually are
created in developed countries, conflict may arise. Other problems
are related to the issue of modifying human embryonic genes. Chinese
scientists admitted that they are working on changing the code of
human DNA in order to exclude mutations responsible for genetic
diseases. These types of experiments are severely criticized in
Europe and North America, where ethical issues play a big role. In
many countries, Chinese experience raises enormous moral doubts.
Similar experiments cannot take place in Europe, where bioethical
regulations are much more restrictive. On the other hand, we can
wonder if it really is about moral issues. In the era of weapons of
mass destruction, is it not just a smokescreen spread by
pharmaceutical companies, which is the main source of income for
treatment, not for curing a person?
Undoubtedly,
the issues of genetic modification will raise many doubts in
developed countries, where social awareness is shaped by the broadly
understood Christian culture and moral issues are of a superior
value. Another issue, in turn, is the fear of too much interference
in the ecosystem and fear for one’s own health - as is the case
with GMOs, which may prove to be a panacea for the growing demand for
food or hunger in the third world countries. At this stage of
development, a man should take full responsibility for correcting
nature, but whether we are able to predict the effects of these
activities will show the experience of future generations.
1.
Do genetic experiments need to be judged through the prism of moral
doubt and why?
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
Comments
I think yes, because conscience is a unique thing and what happens of it if we duplicate and triplicate people or introduce genetic modifications?
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
I think cloning people is the border.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
I think people can have identity issues and that can lead to a serious distress. Also, things can go wrong and cause irrevocable damage to an individual, like physical handicap or worse.
If you have a backup then you can do what u want, right it something new, and people scare about new things, we had a car, internet, light, telefon, and in the past those things was scaring people to on the beginning.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
You can see the border only when you get it.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
If you have a backup of normal people, do what you want :)
2. Hmm that's a really hard question because I would say that we shouldnt be trying to change something in ourselves but we are already doing it with any plastic surgery. I think that we shouldnt try to change anything about dna of a person that is not born yet but of course there is a but... because what if a person is disabled in any way, should be change their dna to make their life easier or just leave as it is.
3. I think that we should try to improve ourselves and I want to go with a technology forward but we are really trying to change gods fill and we are forgetting about religion from year to year even more.
2. Well, if something was created by God, shouldn’t it be absolutely perfect? Curing diseases and getting rid of vulnerabilities is not an act of improving God, but dealing with effects of our sins. If we should not touch anything God had created, a lot of people would die which is definitely not something God would be happy about. I think that there is a border and it is located in the area of not necessary improvements that only rich people would afford. Just imagine that your children would have to go to school with people of extra ordinary intelligence in exchange of money. That would be a catastrophe.
3. Just like with GMO, there could be a long-term outcome of modifications which are not visible yet, and in the future, it could be too late to withdraw from bad decisions.
In my opinion genetic experiments need to be judged. I'm not sure about the fact, that genetic experiments that are done nowadays, are helpful.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
Such an interesting question! Scientists don't understand where is a border between learning and improving God. That's the problem. Everybody wants to be a part of revolution, to explore something new, unknown. But who can stop them from doing experiments? Nobody.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
I can't say what dangers will follow us in the nearest future, but it would not be a good experience. People need to think first before creating any kind of modifications. And again, who can stop them? Nobody.
They should certainly be judged through the prism of moral doubt especially if they could somehow harm participants of an experiment. When it comes to experiments on people we should keep a really strong caution.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
Sky's the limit. As long as it improves our life and doesn't harm anybody it's ok.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
I'm afraid that's the reason that the human modifications are not so developed - we don't know the risk and effects of it.
2. I do not think there is such a border. In the sense, we will determine them ourselves once we know some technologies or some way we can improve god. Every society will set their own. I think so, as with euthanasia or abortion.
3. Such as in the case of gmo, another object of endless disputes between people who doesnt understand the topic at all. Now seriously, everything can be used in a bad way if it is in the hands of unsuitable people. This means that people who have no power or money or are motivated by other motives can have another tool.
I think no. It is a revolution in many aspects of our life and it cannot be banned. Moreover, even if it will be banned or judged, it simple will be done on the side. Somewhere, without such strict rules and this could cause problems. Looking back on history, we cannot stop the progress and cannot ban it, we can only try to change the way it is going.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
I don't know, form the very start of our existence people were changing or improving something created by God. The main question is about our principles and moral. Maybe with time spent it should also change.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
The main danger, I think, will be, that at some point humans will lose control and then there will absolutely random or not predictable results.
We all want our heirs to be healthy and beautiful and there were no deviations. If it was possible to prevent genetic abnormalities in the embryo, no one would refuse, even opponents of genetic intervention.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
There is no limit to perfection. I'm all for experimentation and research. They made it possible to treat cancer and other serious diseases.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
No one has canceled the risks, especially at this stage, when they are just beginning to study.
I think morality inhibits progress. It isn't easy subject because there should be some borders but for me, if something could drastically as a species and improve life of everyone then we shouldn't stop.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
The saying 'improving God" triggers me so much. There is no entity in known universe that could be considered as god. There are only believes. We cannot evolve and unite all humans on the earth still using religions and old believes. There will be divisions as long as people will still be religious.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
I think it can lead to abuses from human greed.
I am afraid that the result will be different from what we expected.
In my opinion, morality and progress in some cases are mutually exclusive. Of course, experiments on children without agreement of parents are unacceptable. However, what was immoral 200 years ago is normal today, so morality is what constantly changes though years.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
I don't think that this border even exists, as we are already doing incredible things which earlier were thought to be a creation of God: we can fly, breathe under water, walk on water, create new parts of body etc.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
I am afraid about overpopulation of humans in case of success.
Yes, they should. First thing is simply pain brought to the subject. If scientists want to run genetic tests, then it should be ran in a safe and friendly environment. Second thing is that people tend to modify everything and not only things that are necessary. This leads to a situation that everything we eat, consume or drink will be modified and I don’t think that it is particularly healthy.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
I don’t really believe that any form of comparison to God might be an objective comparison but to simplify everything, I think that if something behaves correctly there is no need for improvement of any kind.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
Any kind, from simple diseases, weakening of the immune system, any form of disabilities to terminal diseases and death.
i dont think there is a clear line between improvising God and just being curious and i dont thin there should be one, im a man of science if i were to be constrained by God i would still believe flying is for birds only because they have wings and we dont.
Messing with human genome might bring us to human extinction, but there are a lot of things that might bring us there beforehand.
Of course it has to. Each case of genetic engineering should be well discussed. We should all be inform of all of the consequences, for example about all of the side effects of eating genetically modified food.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
It is a very hard question. I do not think cloning people or improving our DNA is a good idea, but it all depends on context.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
There are many dangers. We don’t really know what could be the outcomes and what side effects may occur.
2. If there is someone like God, he allows us to learn, so whoever is forbidden to develop.
3. It is difficult for me to answer this question. I do not know anything about genes.
I think the line between learning and improving God is very fragile. New ways of treatment, healing disabilities should be considered as learning but trying to expand human lifespan is kind of a God's case not ours.
I can't find any dangers that may be caused by interferencing with human genom as I am unqualified at this matter.
I think from a medical point of view genetically modifying children’s to not catch a deadly diseases might be a good idea, but I think we should draw the line in genetically editing your physical appearance or intellect.
If we start editing genes in humans, we are working from a very poorly defined area. We don’t know what most gene is doing, and trial and error method is too dangerous. We need more time to study and understand before interfering with the human genome.
Unfortunately, this question is very complex and ambiguous. This discussion is led by generations of scientists. We cannot allow experiments on people. This is terrible and inhumane. But at the same time, the numbers do not lie, and during the Second World War, the Germans made a very strong breakthrough in science. And thanks to this information, many lives can be saved now. So I can not unequivocally answer this question. But nowadays there are paid human trials, where people come voluntarily with the awareness of the consequences of their actions.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
This border does not exist. With each year of development, we ourselves push the boundaries of this barrier. For primitive people, attempts at the preying fire were also games of God.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
I find it very dangerous. Scientists are not able to calculate all the options for the outcome of their experiments. Problems may appear after several generations, and we will not be able to turn back.
1. In my opinion - yes. Genetic experiments have to be judged through the prism of moral doubt, because nowadays people are scary about changes in their life. They mainly seek stability. Every change must be informed, for their safety and good comfort.
2. Hmm a border between learning and improving God. In my opinion, the border could not exist. Some people like innovations, revolutions and experiments. We can't prohibit it because this is part of humanity, part of something big. And also there are people who do not believe in God - better for them - they do not have to think about the mentioned border.
3. In my opinion, interferencing with the human genome is in very early stage. There is a high risk of failure because medicine in this field around the world is not yet well developed. So we have to deal with certain problems, for example congenital diseases.
No, every day nature and evolution is experimenting with humans,
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
There is no such border.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
Rich people are going to be immortal thanks to genetic operations, and immortality is going to be expensive. so expensive that people would try to revolt for it. so the only option is to introduce a totally new way of control and terror.
2. I think that this border is when you start thinking that you are improving God.
3. In my opinion if we start to interfere in our genome there is danger of unknow mutation in the next generations. There is also risk of segregation of people with modification and without and this almost always leads to bad end.
It depends if the experiments can change human genome then certainly yes, but this topic is not clear and its hard to tell if changes to human genes would heavily impact a person.
But if we are speaking about changing genomes of plants, then we should be more thinkful. Vegetables and Fruts, genetycli modyfied is not that bad, it can provide large amounts of food to starving people all around world.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
As i mentioned above, i will put a thick line between human and plants. If we could actually improve/make a person by our taste, choose the best hair-color and body shape, i will say the creation should be given to the nature.
But if we could cure cancer and help other people fight with diseases then i think it is right thing to do.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
I think the most dangerous interference with the human genome would be the people behind it. What could stop them before creating "super human"? We do not know yet if such a technollogy will be impactful on other people minds condition.
2. We've improved out Creator since thousands of years. That's just a next step. The border lies where improvement changes to harm.
3. I'm not a biologist so probably I won't come up with any reasonable ideas. Many aspects could depend on authorities, which would conduct and regulate modifications. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theory freak, but maybe in order to reduce aggression and for security reasons gnomes responsible e.g. obedience could be used in a standard base of disease-proof human.
2. Improving God? Well we would have to find him first. As for improving his work – there is a lot to be done and we should get on it immediately.
3. Tinkering always carries a risk of failure. Fixing something usually involves breaking it more first. That’s why we need more research as fast as possible. A query arose in the video. The author expressed worry over shaping people to meet societal standards. Let me ask this then: If one is not willing to act upon what they consider to be good, how can they act at all? I think a much more appropriate question is: What are the desired standards? If we, as the global society manage to agree at some it would seem foolish not to seek them.
I think that they shouldnt, we must to learn about each body, humans or animals to better know our world , weakness, how to fight with deseases and other things, we must to test a lot of things and still learn. Some people saying that we must to care bla bla about us and animals every time and it is terrible to hurt them for learning or testing but after that they stayng to be sick and expect from us experience and knowing how to fight this that.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
Hah it's not a question for me , I don't believe in God so I don;t want to answer on it , sorry .
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
I think that we should try to improve ourselvesfor me this is very important and also this is important for our future childerns and grandchildrens. We should to improve our knowledge and skills
I think that it’s very hard question. We could help so many people with it but as many inventions it could be misused for many morally bad reasons, we don’t need another super-human-race or eugenics. I think that it should be reviewed by some kind of ethics committee.
2. Where do you think there is a border between learning and improving God?
I think that the line is very thin, and I fell that I’m not the person to try to draw one.
3. What dangers do you think of interference with the human genome?
We could possibly introduce new diseases by editing our genome too far while not fully understanding the consequences.
In my opinion, if we interfere in nature, it can have large side effects. On the question of the border between learning and improving the "god" I have no opinion.
But on the question of the last question, I think that if we are already combining something with the geneticist, we should be careful, mother nature does not like how it changes.
In summary, interference with genetics, according to me, can have huge consequences.
Human looking depends on people. On the one hand, genetic experiments are deadly for many creatures, but thanks to them many medications and mad solutions were created. Is it possible to speak of a lesser evil for the public good?
In my opinion, there is no such thing as a border. It is a contractual word that is mobile in time. For example, 2,000 years ago, the border was somewhere else. Our civilization is growing. It is difficult to develop without crossing borders.
In my opinion, people have little knowledge about processes in the human body. Let such interventions do not bring anything bad. Let no one die.
I'm sorry, that i post this answear that late.
2. In my opinion it's good to understand but to how far can we go before it's too much I believe that's a question that every person has to answer individually.
3. I'm not a biologist but the first thing that comes to my ming are unexpected mutations? Or some companies trying to use that knowledge to their own advantage.