Printable View
where to begin.... technology is bad when people make it bad. "nuclear power"=good, "harnessing that power to destroy the world or at least millions of people"=bad. now to squelch anyone who is going to say "what if it is necessary" or "they deserved it", who has the right to judge? the misuse of technology makes the said technology bad.Quote:
Just one other little rem, when is technology EVER bad?
I ask this...please wake me up once there are 4 of me, then I can send them off
and finally enjoy a good vacation :D
Whenever someone says technology is to blame for our problems, take out your fist and hit them. Anything can be abused, twisted, perverted, and made to serve the less noble human aspirations. This does not make particular technological advance evil! People create problems, and, come to think of it, we're the only ones who perceive the problems, which is kind of interesting.
i agree... it is not the technology, but the people. but ultimately peopel are corrupt. so technology will ultimately be corrupted.
Lord_darkside,
Talking, not arguing.
What you are saying is only the pessimisstic side to technology. I will continue on with the nuclear power issue, nuclear power an extremely clean and efficient power production method. Since its only exhaust is pure water, it has no pollution into the air to destroy our already horrid environment. Nuclear power has also allowed us to drop energy rate across the us by being the cheapest form of energy production presently used. But with this great invention there have been bad side effects, but I would just like to remind you, that a nuclear bomb has never been detinated on the globe with the intent of killing people. I am not sure if they have tested it or not.
But still, when you say that something is good, and it can also be used in a bad way, I do not think that you should limit the technology in anyway. We should restrain the people who plan to use the techology against the common good. Another example would be a fork, very good useful invention, but someone can stab somebody with it and possibly kill them. So are you saying that we should not have forks? That is what is being brought up with the debate on human cloning. Jus because there are bad side effects from people irresponsibly using the technology, should we ban that technology. If we followed the idea to ban all techonology that could be used to the downfall of the human race, then we should ban ALL guns, knives, bombs, explosives, forks, spoons, shovels, medicine, antidepressents, morphine, medical research, cloning, the list goes on and on. But this is obviously not the choice we want to make. I would hope that most of you after considering the facts, would agree with me.
thesecretfire,
Sorry about that, I kind of just resaid what you just did. I was typing out my post, and yours was not there when I was typing. Didn't mean to copy you.
consider this, what you said above, is not what i said at all.... first, i said to limit technology, not abolish it. my nuclear weapoon point was to say we don't allow people to buy nuclear weapons. we should however allow nuclear power to exist. just a limit. as for this being applied to cloning. the positive outcome of cloning is not as obvious.Quote:
If we followed the idea to ban all techonology that could be used to the downfall of the human race, then we should ban ALL guns, knives, bombs, explosives, forks, spoons, shovels, medicine, antidepressents, morphine, medical research, cloning, the list goes on and on.
reasoning
#1-some people believe it is a way to extend their life. This is false. it does nothing more then create a new person just like you... it could extend a legacy to some effect, but just have a kid.
#2-"we can use it to harvest organs, like stem cell research" so we should destroy life to create it? i disagree with that. the ends do not justify the means. and who has the right to choose which life deserves to live?
#3-"we can breed perfect humans (genetically engineered people)" this i will break down into two reasons. 1st-who has the right to decide whether or not there should be perfect races and stuff. and don't you think that the system was set up this way for a reason? even in chaos there is order. 2nd-a few years back, hand sanitizing cream was introduced. a very strong version. it killed all bacteria. this upset a delicate balance and new disease sprung up. these "bad" things, bacteria, actually served a purpose. if you check the new hand cleaner and the old stuff you will find it is weaker. killing all bacteria is bad. how do we know the same does not apply to humanity? this also brings up the problem of super armies and stuff but that is a whole new idea not needing addressing.
cloning offers a few things, but at this point i see nothing warranting the use of it other then it "being really cool" and to flourish egos.... "there are 15 of me running around, i RULE!!!" and to me it all comes down to, should we sacrifice our ethics to progress? if it goes against the principle of human decency, then should it be allowed. if we allow scientists to decide who lives and who dies (through harvesting organs), then why is a murderer wrong? he is doing a simplified form of this, killing that which he feels doesn't deserve to live. harvesting organs is a possible way of industrializing bestiality. breeding perfect people would weed out our own kind, so i am not a fan of that. if anyone has any other things cloning would be useful for, let me know. i will be glad to listen, but i think i have sufficiently given a few reasons why we should at least consider the fact that these possible "goods" are not all that good or useful
Well okay then,
lord_darkside,
I understand what you are saying. I myself do not fully understand the benefits of cloning, becuase it is not something I study, but I would be willing to bet that you do not either. So, what I would suggest is that you are saying that the possible goods may not be useful to us at all. But if you think about it, everything that has every been invented or discovered has led to, or will eventually lead to some good and or bad. So, I guess the final question and decision that the UN are making now, would be, even though we do not know or see the aspects of good and bad completely from this study of human cloning, should we still percevere in it? And again, I would recommend to say yes. Because even though it will hurt our society, it will aswell help us. {I have never seen anything that has been pure good, or pure evil}
In the end I guess I would just pose this question to all of you. We know that every invention, discovery, or improvement upon an idea, will lead us to good and bad, but if we do not know what good nor bad we can get from it, should we still continue to build upon, and study and experiment with it?
There is so much talk of technology, but you must remember that we're talking about HUMAN LIFE, here. Human cloning can not be compared to previous advances in technology such as computers, or other machines. These things simply act as tools. Technology is a way of applying our knowledge to complete tasks more efficiently. Creating a tool out of parts, inanimate objects and substances. Human cloning is a technological advance like nothing before it. Never before have we had the ability or come close to having the ability to create life. Human life is something sacred. Look how much we react to murder. We punish people who take it upon themselves to end someones life. What about creating life? What right is it of ours to decide something like that? I'm not talking about technology here, or advancing our knowledge. Just think about how big an issue this really is. Don't group it in with technologies like power plants, or simple tools we use. We, as humans, value life too much for a "technology" like this to be useful.
first, you would lose that bet... i do my research before i talk.Quote:
but I would be willing to bet that you do not either.
i say the answer should be no, if it comprimises ethics. I think that if it takes away from the human nature we aspire for (justice, peace, no violence, no murder) then we shouldn't do it. and as i said before... who has the right to choose which life deserves to live? who has the right to create life to destroy it. even if this question is posed without any supreme being in the equation and no after life in the equation, could you live with the fact that you are killing lives?Quote:
, I guess the final question and decision that the UN are making now, would be, even though we do not know or see the aspects of good and bad completely from this study of human cloning, should we still percevere in it? And again, I would recommend to say yes. Because even though it will hurt our society, it will aswell help us. {I have never seen anything that has been pure good, or pure evil} In the end I guess I would just pose this question to all of you. We know that every invention, discovery, or improvement upon an idea, will lead us to good and bad, but if we do not know what good nor bad we can get from it, should we still continue to build upon, and study and experiment with it?
i think that if cloning were a less ethical issue, like nuclear energy and such, then it would clearly be a resounding Yes, but human life is involved. scientists are toying with nature, "playing god" if you will. trying to alter the way life is created. the creation of life is a natural instinct. if genetic engineering through cloning is used, we take nature out of it. we alter systems. i don't think ethics should be sacrificed for any purpose, good or bad.