Science taking things too far.

Remove all ads!

I don't know, some people who are just heads are very nice. Take Morte for instance.

But seriously, being a head would suck. Assuming they could

A) keep blood flowing throughout you
and
B) keep your blood oxygenated,

Life would be dull.
Float in a tank, get experimented on, have reporters gawk at you. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Day in day out, and when they have no further experiments you either die or get put in a warehouse somewhere.

 

One cannot prove or disprove something as intangible as a soul. After all, killing something and then reviving it is a dodgy experiment to begin with. How does one measure a soul in a lab? The results are not measurable, therefore the whole experiment is just silly.

 

- Again, AIDS cannot be cured once it has taken over a body, stopped yes
- Cloning, etc.. is IMHO "playing God"

Absolutely not, since Satan is the oldest friend of knowledge and is banished for that

 

Agreed!

As for scientists these days I only want to say this, if it leads to something good (curing diseases stuff like that) it should go on. Most inventions are made for a 'good' reason but become 'evil' along the way.

Gunpowder can be used as a good way too --> mining.

But it also has a 'evil' way --> canons.

I think it doesn't even matter, even if for example gunpowder wasn't discovered there would have been a substitute.

My point, there is (not always) a good in every invention, even if it's just the intention of the inventor.

 

What so wrong with playing god? Is it playing god to cure a disease that god perhaps had decided for a person to get? Where is the line, and even is there is one what is so wrong about crossing it? As I dont see god doing much buisness down here we migth as well do it for him. Perhaps we can one day overthrow the tyrann!

 

For the first one. I believe this was a question of "will you be willing to sacrifice the life of a rat or two, should that sacrifice save the life of your beloved". And that doesn't mean that you loved one would still have to live her (his?) life as a crippled half-dead. The life of but a few rats and bunnies could eventually save the lives of thousands or even millions of loved ones of different people. It's easy to say that no you won't have it. It's a whole other thing when you're put to the situation.

I'm against the cruel experiments they do. But should the woman I love be infected with a terminal disease, then I would gladly snap the neck off a few vermins to make her heal. I would go much further than that even, were I given the choice. Only thing that would limit what I would do would be when she said "no, I don't want to anymore". And even then I would be hard-pressed to listen to her for my own fear of letting her go. There are too many "no don't step on the ant!" and "no you just breathed in a bacteria that will die in your stomach-acids!" type of people in this world for me to take on that attitude. I care for me and those close to me only. A rat's life means nothing if it has the possibility of increasing the chances of survival for anyone I care of even for a fraction.

Surely many of you don't agree. But ask yourself once still. Should you see your loved dying in front of you, and all that would be required would be to say "yes", and the life of a small vermin animal. Say a ray, from a trashpile, would be traded for hers? Would you look into her eyes and say "no"? If you would, then don't take it as a surprise when I call you a cold and cruel bastard whom I hope no-one will ever trust their lives upon.

...Oh yeah. About HIV. IIRC, it's still not proven how exactly it has come to pain the humans. Either through some african monkey-feasting, US (or other country) biological weapons experiment. Aliens. God. Or what you just said. So no point in jumping to conclusions based on vague rumours.

[ December 23, 2002, 15:10: Message edited by: Forashi ]

 

With letting her die, I meant not to life with a terminal disease.. I dont want my beloved to become like a plant.

Normally its not my choice to make, but if I have to make these kind of choices, she/he will most likely end up as a plant and I don´t her/him to life like that.. thats why I rather let her slip away than abusing her just for my feelings

[ December 23, 2002, 18:42: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

One thing on the whole cloning issue.

It seems wrong, very wrong, but if you think about it, clone's could be used to create organ transplants which are safer than using pig doners.

Im not positive on this, but if this would be the case, then it would bring more issues, such as sacrificing non-natural beings to extend the life of another.
***************
Another reason I think the human race can be extremly selfish is when deciding whether to let a person who cannot actively communicate with the outside world live or die.

On one hand, the person in question might be a family member. Some refuse to let them die, out of their own selfishness and greed. THEY want what they want, not what others want, or what the rather vulgerly named 'cripple' wants.

Alternatively, they can be given a peaceful release. Yet if they cannot communicate, how do we know if they want to live or die?

One issue which often decides is religion. I wil be complained to about what im about to say, but it is in my honest opinion that those with a firm belief in god would be more swayed into putting a loved one out of their misery, as they will go to the after-life.

Believers in science would rather let them live, as a new cure or method of revitalisation may be created. Perhaps more of a gamblers choice, no doubt.

You might consider it odd, but Metallica made a song called 'One' which describes someone who is not allowed to die, yet they barely exist. The music video of the song shows the person is a medical experiment, for immortality, who is only able to communicate through morse code.

He keeps asking to be allowed to die, but the researchist refuse. or so my understanding tells me. It is a sick cruel world that would allow this to ever happen, and for all we know, it could be taking place.

[ December 23, 2002, 18:47: Message edited by: Enthasius ]

 

Define non-natural

[ December 23, 2002, 18:45: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

 

I think he means created through cloning or other such methods which aren't the natural way to reproduce beings. As for the whole growing body parts thing, if it helps save lives then I'd be for it, but if it meant killing another to live then thats another story.

As for letting people decide when to die, I say it's their choice, no matter what others think and I've made my wishes clear to people if I am ever in a state where I can no longer communicate my wishes. No one, and nothing else should have a say, it's your life, not theirs after all.

 

Enthasius, I think I remember an interview with Metallica in which they said the video you're talking about shows clips from a film about a Vietnam war veteran. It's not a medical experiment as I recall, he's a soldier being kept alive by doctors despite horrific battle-wounds and against his wishes. Which is another valid bioethics complaint worth raising - aside from experimentation, how far should we go to keep the sick and injured alive? On the one hand, most people (some religious sects and Lisa-Marie Presley aside) think antibiotics and minor surgery are fine, on the other hand, most people would think keeping a disembodied brain alive in a jar (assuming the rest of the tissue had been destroyed) is not fine. So where do we draw the line? When has it stopped being medicine and started becoming the creation of a monster?

 

The film is called "Johny got his gun" and if I remember right, he is a WWI veteran.

 

I'd like to see that verified. I, for one, think you're full of crap. Sounds to me like thier doing cryogenic stasis experiments.

A careful review of the existing scientific community would reveal almost no work in trying to prove/disprove the existence of a deity/soul or whatnot. The definition of such makes it unprovable either way.

As for cloning: Some day its opponents will realize that the end goal is to be able to grow individual organs, not headless bodies for harvesting. This has already been done for some simple organs. Doing it on a large scale for any organ needed with ease is the next task. As for cloning full humans I see no purpose as their is already way to many of them as it is. Some may argue eugenics, however large scale planned breeding programs (a la Gattaca) would be far more effective, not to mention a lot more interesting than living in a world of a few thousand or so highly cloned super humans. (Super only would imply an incredibly powerful metabolism, slow aging, high immunity and above average intelligence; which is probably about as good as you can safely and consistently get our existing genetic code.)

 

@Alex

See the "Last I HEARD" part?? Maybe it already happened, maybe not..

[ December 25, 2002, 12:57: Message edited by: Morgoth ]