Playing God.

[ZenitYerkes]

Who are we to make the rules of this game? Who are we to decide what organisms we put at our service, what plants we make benefit of, what animals we kill to keep our interests? Who are we to decide what is exchangeable for pieces of metal and paper?

Who are we?

Are we God?

Or are we playing a game we would regret soon?

Because we, ladies and gentlemen, are not alone on this planet. Just because they don't speak our language, we are not going to take them out of our deals.

[Woodsprite]

We're humans, and we have a right to dominion over everything on this planet. It just depends on how we use that privilege. Some use it for bad, others for good. Hunting isn't wrong, as long as we do it responsibly (like drinking alcohol). Same goes for using plants for whatever we will.

That's my position.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Woodsprite

We're humans, and we have a right to dominion over everything on this planet. It just depends on how we use that privilege. Some use it for bad, others for good. Hunting isn't wrong, as long as we do it responsibly (like drinking alcohol). Same goes for using plants for whatever we will.

That's my position.

Of course hunting, by itself, it's not a bad thing at all -in fact, omnivores and carnivores species are constantly doing so. However, is it fair to put that a price and sell it? And just let the ones with money eat?

We've got a great power, what comes with a great responsibility.

But, are we strong enough to carry on our back the responsibility of genetic manipulation perhaps? Cloning? Are we ready to fix the damage we can produce?

Remember thalidomine, we didn't know what we were handling then; and thousands of babies were born limbless.

[Sonoran Na'vi]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

Of course hunting, by itself, it's not a bad thing at all -in fact, omnivores and carnivores species are constantly doing so. However, is it fair to put that a price and sell it? And just let the ones with money eat?

I think it is only natural to put a price on most goods. Different goods are worth different amounts according to need/want. Determining this need requires us to evaluate the worth of the good. Putting a price on the good is generally a measure of its worth. Money, whether commodity or fiat money, just makes the exchange of goods more efficient and allows us to set up a more standardize system of price/cost to represent the worth of goods (this applies to services, too). I think the issue of letting "the ones with money eat" is a separate topic from whether or not food should be priced and sold.

[Isard]

And we learned from those mistakes, and are stronger for it. Its all part of discovery.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

And we learned from those mistakes, and are stronger for it. Its all part of discovery.

We're stronger to previous mistakes; are we ready for the consequences our new and failed experiments will produce?

[Isard]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

We're stronger to previous mistakes; are we ready for the consequences our new and failed experiments will produce?

If we don't try it, we'll just sit here wringing our hands wondering what would have happened.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

If we don't try it, we'll just sit here wringing our hands wondering what would have happened.

I'm not talking about that; I am just asking if we really know what we're working with. If we could repair the damage we have made if anything goes wrong. If we really need to take risks.

If all what we do has an actual goal, apart from obtaining more money or improve even more our live standards (if you can call those real, vital and necessary goals).

It's not that we stay arms crossed without touching anything saying "It'll fall down, better not f*ck it". I say, we have to know what we are working with to make that fall not happen.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

I'm not talking about that; I am just asking if we really know what we're working with. If we could repair the damage we have made if anything goes wrong. If we really need to take risks.

If all what we do has an actual goal, apart from obtaining more money or improve even more our live standards (if you can call those real, vital and necessary goals).

It's not that we stay arms crossed without touching anything saying "It'll fall down, better not f*ck it". I say, we have to know what we are working with to make that fall not happen.

But you cant know what your working with, without actually doing something with it.

[josie20]

I have to ask, why play God at all? Why progress? Why not live on what the earth provides for us?

Sure, we wouldn't have medical science and people would die more often and not live as long, but why is that a bad thing? I don't understand the desire to avoid death. Dying isn't that big of a deal to those who die, only to the people who miss their dead loved ones. Death is only part of the journey, and I, for one, don't wish run from it.

Yeah, without progression we wouldn't have technology. Who cares? Technology has done nothing but suck so far. It hasn't really improved anything but ease of communication, which is ironic, because now that we have so many ways to communicate, we've lost all ability to do so. Perhaps I'm generalizing, but when was the last time you had a really deep conversation with someone face to face? We've played God, and look what it's done to the environment. We've become dependent on oil and we have no viable alternative, and before you say we do, I ask that you do some research. We may have a viable alternative some time in the future, but as of now, it's out of reach. "Technology provides 'convenience'". Not really, convenience is nothing but a deferred payment. How long until this payment is due?

Of course, technology is not inherently evil or destructive. We just haven't been responsible with it.

But I guess this doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand.

End rant

[Spock]

Originally Posted by josie20

I have to ask, why play God at all? Why progress? Why not live on what the earth provides for us?

Sure, we wouldn't have medical science and people would die more often and not live as long, but why is that a bad thing? I don't understand the desire to avoid death. Dying isn't that big of a deal to those who die, only to the people who miss their dead loved ones. Death is only part of the journey, and I, for one, don't wish run from it.

Yeah, without progression we wouldn't have technology. Who cares? Technology has done nothing but suck so far. It hasn't really improved anything but ease of communication, which is ironic, because now that we have so many ways to communicate, we've lost all ability to do so. Perhaps I'm generalizing, but when was the last time you had a really deep conversation with someone face to face? We've played God, and look what it's done to the environment. We've become dependent on oil and we have no viable alternative, and before you say we do, I ask that you do some research. We may have a viable alternative some time in the future, but as of now, it's out of reach. "Technology provides 'convenience'". Not really, convenience is nothing but a deferred payment. How long until this payment is due?

Of course, technology is not inherently evil or destructive. We just haven't been responsible with it.

But I guess this doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand.

End rant

One answer. Progress is inherant in our nature. Not in all of us, but enough to make the world move forward for better or for worse.

[josie20]

Well, hopefully we can start making it for the better.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by josie20

Well, hopefully we can start making it for the better.

Ah, that's right. But there is always a risk present and there always will be.

[josie20]

Originally Posted by Spock

Ah, that's right. But there is always a risk present and there always will be.

True, but this is why forethought is important, to be able to acknowledge the risk and avoid damaging consequences. Of course, they may not be 100% avoidable, but most of the time they can be with proper forethought and a good set of morals. Morals may seem irrelevant, but they're not really. Maybe it's just me, but sometimes it seems like people don't think about consequences.

ZenitYerkes mentions thalidomide, this could have been totally avoidable. People where using this drug for illnesses that could have been treated by natural means. Instead people were taking this drug and the results were devastating. Of course most people were legitimately ignorant to the side affects, but again, could have been avoided if they would have used natural cures found in nature.

I've mentioned these books before over at AF, but I highly recommend them. The pharmaceutical industry is a bad joke...worse actually. Nature provides the things we need...no need to "play God", if you want to call it that.

A couple pharmaceutical related links:Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists
Drugs Kill More People Than Ever, Report Finds


Well, that's all from me for now.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by josie20

True, but this is why forethought is important, to be able to acknowledge the risk and avoid damaging consequences. Of course, they may not be 100% avoidable, but most of the time they can be with proper forethought and a good set of morals. Morals may seem irrelevant, but they're not really. Maybe it's just me, but sometimes it seems like people don't think about consequences.

ZenitYerkes mentions thalidomide, this could have been totally avoidable. People where using this drug for illnesses that could have been treated by natural means. Instead people were taking this drug and the results were devastating. Of course most people were legitimately ignorant to the side affects, but again, could have been avoided if they would have used natural cures found in nature.

I've mentioned these books before over at AF, but I highly recommend them. The pharmaceutical industry is a bad joke...worse actually. Nature provides the things we need...no need to "play God", if you want to call it that.

A couple pharmaceutical related links:Statistics prove prescription drugs are 16,400% more deadly than terrorists
Drugs Kill More People Than Ever, Report Finds


Well, that's all from me for now.

Yes I didn't dispute the need for forsight, that's another thing that will always be necessary for technological advancement.

I'm not going to debate pharmaceuticals right now, I've had 10 page debates over that on A.F with brianct. It's not fun.