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.

[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.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

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

We'll have to look then the best way to know how to do it without making something bad of it. Also, it's about the use we give to the discovery. Of course nuclear energy brings most part of the electricity to our homes; but it has also been used in nuclear bombs.

It is not only that we're facing the unknown and have no culture or science; it's about if we are responsible enough to carry on our backs and fix the consequences of the uses we make of our resources. And if we should stop if we can't.

Also, no matter how much you work on something; if it's useless it's not worth a thing. We'd have also to determine to where we should direct our progress, and what uses we can give to our resources without making an excessive damage to our environment.

It's late, I quit the debate until tomorrow. Need to sleep.

[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.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

We'll have to look then the best way to know how to do it without making something bad of it. Also, it's about the use we give to the discovery. Of course nuclear energy brings most part of the electricity to our homes; but it has also been used in nuclear bombs.

It is not only that we're facing the unknown and have no culture or science; it's about if we are responsible enough to carry on our backs and fix the consequences of the uses we make of our resources. And if we should stop if we can't.

Also, no matter how much you work on something; if it's useless it's not worth a thing. We'd have also to determine to where we should direct our progress, and what uses we can give to our resources without making an excessive damage to our environment.

It's late, I quit the debate until tomorrow. Need to sleep.

I would like to progress forward with these new discoveries without compromising my morality. I hope that's possible.

[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.