Researchers Creating Life From Scratch

[GameMaster]

Need I say more?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9005023/

[Vampyr]

Awesome. I hope they succeed.

[Ginkasa]

They're going to burn in hell. In a fiery and painful hell.


/me shrugs and walks away

[Professor S]

There are all kinds of reasons to be both for and against this kind of research. On one side the scientific and immediate benefits are palpable: disease cures, understanding of life and its beginnings, etc.

But there are all kinds of ethical issues, much less the idea of a "butterfly effect" dealing with man's understanding of himself.

When man creates life, man becomes God. If man is God, what happens to our humanity?

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

never existed in the first place



*shrugs*

[Professor S]

never existed in the first place



*shrugs*

Thanks for putting so much thought into your post. Next time don't bother.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

i mean what i said, in the sense that humanity is something that all humans need to live. Putting importance on some obscure indefinate object like humanity doesn't coincide with the way that i view our race as a whole. The human mind is a complex computer that inputs data and outputs our actions, these actions are varied based on what the input is, not on what "humanity" is in us that has existed since created by either an omniscient being or otherwise. bothering to try and understand what i say often works better then outright dismissing it.

[Vampyr]

There are all kinds of reasons to be both for and against this kind of research. On one side the scientific and immediate benefits are palpable: disease cures, understanding of life and its beginnings, etc.

But there are all kinds of ethical issues, much less the idea of a "butterfly effect" dealing with man's understanding of himself.

When man creates life, man becomes God. If man is God, what happens to our humanity?

We would still be humans. Just humans with really cool technology.

God is constantly used to explain mystery. God used to be used to explain common happenings in nature and science, but as our knowledge of the world grew we learned exactly why certain things happened. We know why objects don't fall off the face of the earth, we know why hurricanes form and why it rains, we know what causes earth quakes and electric storms. Through the centuries God has been used to explain less and less things.

If we figure out how to create life, and then figure out how life was created, God won't be needed to explain that anymore. It's just how it is. Creating life will not make us Gods. It will just further our understanding of the world around us.

Saying that "when man creates life man becomes God" is a bit of an overstatement. A huge one, in fact. I don't believe in God, but I do understand that there is more to him/her than making life.



edit: My 3000 post. :)

[Professor S]

I mean what I said, in the sense that humanity is something that all humans need to live. Putting importance on some obscure indefinate object like humanity doesn't coincide with the way that i view our race as a whole. The human mind is a complex computer that inputs data and outputs our actions, these actions are varied based on what the input is, not on what "humanity" is in us that has existed since created by either an omniscient being or otherwise. bothering to try and understand what i say often works better then outright dismissing it.

I dismissed it because at first glance your original post was dismissive itself. Now that you actually explained your opinion instead of merely stating something as obtuse as "never existed in the first place", we actually have an idea of what yoiur opinion is, instead of your little nonsensical quip.

And I disaggree with you whole-heartedly and believe the cynical existentialism that your opinion reflects causes more problems with our global society than it does in shedding light on it.

Brains are NOT a computer. Brains are far more complex than that. They are an organic organ that CREATED computers and are capable of far more than any computer is. Brains are capable of love, hate, jealousy, sympathy, empathy, etc. These are the functions of the brain that made man the dominant species on the planet. It was our ability to care for one another that lead to such advances as fire, agriculture and other things that we take for granted.

I actually had a professor who once stated that agriculture was the worst thing that ever happened to the world. His argument was that once we began to alter the environment to suit our needs we began a downward spiral that we continue on today. He believed that we would be better off staying a species that survived on hunting and gathering. It would keep our population stable and and preserve the world for indefinite generations to come. Plus without agriculture there would be no sense of ownership and much of the world's violence would never take place, and that agriculture stemmed from an innate need for humans to gain power and lord it over others.

To my shock the majority of my classmates were nodding their heads in agreement. This comment that he seemed to throw out as common knowledge and fact, a comment that I immediately recognized as absolute balderdash, was being eaten up. I raised my hand and responded as such (this is not a direct quote, but its something along these lines):

"Are you ****ing kidding me? Agriculture came from man's need for power? Did you even think about this before you said it? Hunting and gathering cultures are reliant on the environment like any other animals. If there are a few good winters, which leads to abundance and therefore a spike in reproduction, followed by a bad winter you suddenly have too many people and far too little food. So people start DYING. Mothers watch their children starve and be eaten by disease. Sons watch their elderly fathers lose strength and whither. THIS is what made agriculture a necessity, not some sort of self-hating imaginary power-lust that is inherent in all of mankind. Its very easy to call agriculture a demon to mankind when we take our and our childrens health for granted and remove ourselves from the situation completely. As for agriculture being the cause of violence, Native American cultures were in essence hunters and gatherers and they constantly fought and were very warlike before modern agriculture ever arrived in America." He then stuttered something and told me I was disrupting his class. Dolt.

Agriculture stems from our HUMANITY. Our empathy towards people we don't know stems from our HUMANITY. Our need to see injustices righted and those that prey on the weak punished stems from our HUMANITY. Humanity is a very real and tactual aspect of our species, and I'm sad you can't see it.



We would still be humans. Just humans with really cool technology.

Would we know what to do with this technology or have a clue how to use it responsibly? The power to create life is one that creates ethical and human rights issues that I do not want to see us ever deal with.

God is constantly used to explain mystery. God used to be used to explain common happenings in nature and science, but as our knowledge of the world grew we learned exactly why certain things happened. We know why objects don't fall off the face of the earth, we know why hurricanes form and why it rains, we know what causes earth quakes and electric storms. Through the centuries God has been used to explain less and less things.

If we figure out how to create life, and then figure out how life was created, God won't be needed to explain that anymore.

If you really believe that then you are kidding yourself. Religion has always refuted science in simply that faith does not require empirical research or facts. Hence it is faith. If you said "See? We created life so that proves God doesn't exist", a mildly faithful person would immediately dismiss you by saying "God gave us the ability to create life, as He made us in his own image." Simple as that.

It's just how it is. Creating life will not make us Gods. It will just further our understanding of the world around us.

Saying that "when man creates life man becomes God" is a bit of an overstatement. A huge one, in fact. I don't believe in God, but I do understand that there is more to him/her than making life.

I worded the question in more of a philosophical sense that a religious one. God was my metaphor for the humility and wonder with which we examine our own existence. If we can create life, which to many is the last great question in the universe as well as state of being, what will that leave us? What will it benefit us in the long run? What dangers does it pose? My worry is not is simply having the knowledge of how life was created, but what we WILL DO with that knowledge.

More specifically my question relates to this scenario:

Man creates human life from scratch and therefore becomes the metaphorical God. What value does this life form have? It is human... but a human that was created by man. Does this lessen the value of that man? Is he even considered a man, or a biological android and we can tweak and alter before birth to serve needs? Could he simply be available to harvest for organs? We already do that with stem cells by creating life for the sole reason to destroy it for the good of those that are already walking so its not that far fetched. If we tweak him enough to look dissimilar in almost everyway, can we convince ourselves that he is not a man and therefore will have the right to choosing his own fate denied from him? Even if there is no God, can we become Him through this knowledge and what could be the ramifications of that?

These questions I'm posing aren't new by any means. They've already been posed by such people as Philip K. Dick, Aldous Huxley, Ridley Scott, etc. True, they are all science fiction artists, but their science fiction is on the cusp of being science fact if we choose to stumble forward with advances we have not taken the time to fully consider.

Just because you CAN do something, that doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. And until we do take the time to examine these advances scientifically, philosophically and yes, theologically, I don't think we should just blindly trust those whose research could do no less that change the world as we know it.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

I'm sorry i didn't explain myself better, Prof. S, but i stand by what i said.

the human brain is a very effective computer, it can be likened to a computer in every way shape or form, i'd love to have an msn chat or something along those lines and explain my beliefs on that to you. Furthermore "humanity" is no different than "dogality", "dolphinality", or "pigality". It is a word that is used to describe what the present society views as the morally right decision.

e.g. - "appeal to your humanity by pledging funds to a starving child in Africa". Whether its the right thing for you to do, debatable, whether its the socially acceptable thing to do, definately.

I personally have a very dark view on humanity (as a race :p), i believe that there is no such thing as altruism in any form, and that is what true human instict is, survival, first of yourself, then your family, then your friends. Obviously exceptions occure as there are no definates in this topic.

I still don't see what problems my view creates though, i thought as i reread your post.

[Professor S]

I personally have a very dark view on humanity (as a race :p),

Really? I didn't notice. :D

i believe that there is no such thing as altruism in any form, and that is what true human instict is, survival, first of yourself, then your family, then your friends. Obviously exceptions occure as there are no definates in this topic.

And I can't disagree with you more. You add in the exceptions like they prove the rule, and that is never the case. Are there selfish people, hateful people and down right nasty people? Yes. But there are 10 times as many people to are good and genuinely care for the rest of humanity. They just don't sell papers or get ratings.

I still don't see what problems my view creates though, i thought as i reread your post.

Wait, so you don't think that not believing that people are generally good and care for one another doesn't cause problems in society? Humans are pack animals and we have always relied on each other for our survival. If we all just decided that it's "everyone for themselves" we would be in chaos.

I just can't fathom your black view of the world.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

unfortunately, although you claim to not be able to fathom it, it still happens before your eyes, and its the reason why humanity is on a downward spiral. Mass Corporations are quite possibly the best way to provide an example in this area, i really don't have the mettle to go through the number of examples when there are enough publications that do it much better (the corporation is a really good one).

In anycase, nobody genuinely cares for the rest of humanity. i'm sorry to say it bluntly, and it sounds like a ridiculous thesis with no substance, unfortunately (yes, unfortunately because even though i believe i still acknowledge it sucks :P), i can provide logical arguments and proofs behind this matter.


First and formost, altruism displayed by real people (not in stories), is not altruistic at all, it is done for the satisfaction that you have helped someone, it is done to achieve that feeling of being good because your hand directly helped someone and you recieved nothing concrete in return (the "warm, fuzzy, feeling if you will). All things done, although most concious minds don't accept it, are done for a purpose that will eventually suit you. This is the truth i accept, people are no better than a pack of wolves, except we get what we want intelligently.


Second, THere are no "genuinely good" people, or "genuinely bad" people, creating two extremes on a scale that represents an entity that can make decisions is nonsensical in my opinion. actions can be garnered as good or bad, the person taht creates them is not. Thus is why people are persecuted on what they do, not who they are (or at least it happens ideally). Life is not like a video game, there are no bars indicating how far to the good side or dark side you are, and everything you do, is soley based on what criteria you consider. Everytime you make a decision it is based on what criteria you have taken into consideration, and upon that information, you come to a conclusion which best serves to meet you need or want. Labelling someone as bad or evil does nothing to enlighten anyone about why he/she did something, or how to avoid it. Thus good and bad are unjust rulings in rating a person.

[Professor S]

Relativism at its worst. There is no good or bad, only choices... thats the reason why the world is on the downward spiral you claim it is on. If people recognized good and bad, instead of explaining them away in a semantic boondoggle so they can excuse themselves of poor/selfish choices, the world would be in a much better state and the cynicism that you aspire to validate through your argument wouldn't exist.

Yes, there are bad corporations (and people) like you said, and they are the ones that get all the attention and in part is one of the reasons why I think you feel the way that you do. Meanwhile, companies and private organizations are also the single most generous philanthropists on the face of the earth, but like I said, that gets no press. When I worked for GlaxoSmithKline they averaged nearly $1 Billion per year in free vaccines given to third world nations. Its part fo that company's charter that they are too benefit mankind and not simply garner profit.

Altruism and even corporate altruism does in fact exist, but you have to look for it. But I guess its too easy to simply disregard your own humanity and responsibilities os being a member of a society if you first convince yourself that an idea like humanity and moral responsibility is simply a `construct of an inherently selfish and self-destructive species'.

I will repeat, if you really feel this way I feel sorry for you, and thats the last I'll say on this subject.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

hmm, i'm not going to continue on this subject either, but as a future reference, please do not put down the person with which you are arguing. I don't know whether you do it intentionally or by accident but it doesn't do much except anger them. Since i disagree with you, it doesn't mean that i'm wrong, but it doesn't mean that your wrong either, offering your pity because someone feels differently than you attempts to put them in a lower position than you are, which isn't purpose of a discussion.

In either case, you've made some good points, i haven't exactly abandoned my theories, but niether have i left no considerations for errors on my part. All in all, i bid you a good day.