The first two questions face anyone who cares to distinguish the real from the unreal and the true from the false. The third question faces anyone who makes any decisions at all, and even not deciding is itself a decision. Thus all persons practice philosophy whether they know it or not.
This article discusses several key contemporary pieces which discuss the moral and technological implications of genetic engineering. I highly advise that a reader be exposed to the following before engaging with what I have to say: After all, it is clear we have an innate value for life, and any action that promotes life while its absence hastens death would likely get a societal stamp of approval.
Anderson was keen to point this out. And as good medical practice warrants, we should be seeking and providing treatments where the probable benefits do indeed outweigh the probable risks.
And Glannon too articulates several significant fears. The idea that discrimination may occur, that some attributes and resultantly specific types of people may dominate, and that money will dictate the recipients of the benefits which arise from enhancement are all probable if a system of genetic enhancement is left unchecked.
And, of course, what if we make a bodily change so detrimental that we lose our capacity to achieve happiness? While genetic engineering is, admittedly, a different kind of beast, and the above worries are indeed legitimate, there is, in my mind, absolutely no way to stop a societal transformer with such high prospects from making its way into the world.
People are too curious. If the US bans genetic enhancement, then China will do it. If China bans enhancement, then somebody else will develop the technology. And it may very well lead scientists to discovering a cheap and reliable way to alter both embryonic and adult somatic cells in vivo.
Just this last week, scientists in the US at OHSU, in fact completed the first genetically engineered embryonic stem cell as a preventative measure of disease.
The point should be clear.
Rather than avoid the technology, we should spearhead its development in order to control the manner in which enhancement is controlled and viewed. As far as the debate about changing what it means to be human, I cannot help but approach this from a purely secular manner.
From this, I could easily see how the characterization of human beings would change, though rather than suggest that we become something other than human, we would more likely change the definition of what it means to be human—and we change the understanding of dignity.
Within our discussion of involuntary euthanasia for children, we acknowledged that we had to account for the perception of the infant.
We could not judge the quality of a genetically defective life by standards of our own otherwise healthy lives. And now we are discussing enhancements, which if we are careful, may very well have an elevated quality by our current standards. Is that not something we should either prefer or, at the very least, choose not to judge, as different standards should continue to go un-compared?
Perhaps we could find a way to abstain from gender alterations? Perhaps our genetic enhancements could lead us to overcome whatever societal sexism we currently deal with, and there will be no desire to pursue one sex over the other.
But to this, I would only further stress the necessity for appropriate early control and adequate investigation. Establish the careful research now to prevent someone from haphazardly offering the technology later.The one process ongoing that will take millions of years to correct is the loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats.
Genetic Engineering - Genetics: Past, Present and Future. Essay on Human-Chimpanzee Divergent Genetics - Being human, we possess a quality that is unlikely to be found in other known organisms. [This was a paper hastily whipped together, some years ago, to be able to send an abbreviated background paper to correspondents.
The history prior to this paper runs from Hamilton and his quaternions to Maxwell and his quatemion theory, to Heaviside's vector curtailment of Maxwell's theory, to Nikola Tesla, to Whittaker, to Einstein and relativity, to Kaluza and Klein, and to the beginning of.
First, go to The Tough Guide to the Known Galaxy and read the entry "FUTURE HISTORY".
The read the TV Trope's Standard Sci-Fi History (you might also want to read the TV Trope's Standard Sci-Fi benjaminpohle.comyed, formulaic, derivative, and space opera; but very common).
Also check out this website's historical timeline of (mostly) real world events.. The 's flavored future history below is. Genetic Engineering, History and Future This Essay Genetic Engineering, History and Future and other 64,+ term papers, college essay examples and free essays are available now on benjaminpohle.com Autor: review • August 26, • Essay • 3, Words (13 Pages) • 2, Views.
Fideisms Judaism is the Semitic monotheistic fideist religion based on the Old Testament's ( BCE) rules for the worship of Yahweh by his chosen people, the children of Abraham's son Isaac (c BCE).. Zoroastrianism is the Persian monotheistic fideist religion founded by Zarathustra (cc BCE) and which teaches that good must be chosen over evil in order to achieve salvation.