Artificial life .. do we subdue it also ?

zod

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6804599.ece

Artificial life will be created within four months, a controversial scientist has predicted. Craig Venter, who led a private project to sequence the human genome, told The Times that his team had cleared a critical hurdle to creating man-made organisms in a laboratory.
“Assuming we don’t make any errors, I think it should work and we should have the first synthetic species by the end of the year,” he said.

Eh .. not being strictly created by God is this to be treated in the same manner as normal life ?

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

gaynorvader

zod wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6804599.ece



Eh .. not being strictly created by God is this to be treated in the same manner as normal life ?

"Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

I suppose you could argue, from a religious perspective, that if it is allowed to be created by God, it should be treated as one of God's creations.

As an agnostic, I'd say that it deserves the same respect I give to any living creature.

Zombrex

I'm an atheist, but a common argument justifying God's actions, in books such as the Old Testament, is that if you create something you basically own it and can do what you like with it, even if it is alive and sentient.

So I would imagine that under Christian logic since we have created this artificial life we can basically do what we want with it. Roll on domesticated slavery and the inevitable A.L revolt

gaynorvader

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm an atheist, but a common argument justifying God's actions, in books such as the Old Testament, is that if you create something you basically own it and can do what you like with it, even if it is alive and sentient.

So I would imagine that under Christian logic since we have created this artificial life we can basically do what we want with it. Roll on domesticated slavery and the inevitable A.L revolt

In my debates with Christians, I often find the OT does not accurately reflect their beliefs.

Rev Hellfire

gaynorvader wrote: »

In my debates with Christians, I often find the OT does not accurately reflect their beliefs.

Now now we can't let a little thing like that get in the way of what we say they believe in...

Zombrex

gaynorvader wrote: »

In my debates with Christians, I often find the OT does not accurately reflect their beliefs.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a Christian who doesn't believe in the OT

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Now now we can't let a little thing like that get in the way of what we say they believe in...

Hey, don't shoot the messenger, I'm just repeating what I've been told. I'm sure the Christians are sharpening their knifes as we speak :pac:

Stark

Wicknight wrote: »

I think you would be hard pressed to find a Christian who doesn't believe in the OT

Other than the wackjobs, how many Christians actually believe that the world is only a few thousand years old and was created in 7 days?

Zombrex

Stark wrote: »

Other than the wackjobs, how many Christians actually believe that the world is only a few thousand years old and was created in 7 days?

That is some what irrelevant, since most Christians believe in the Old Testament but don't believe it states the world is only a few thousand years old and was created in 7 literal days.

They still believe the OT is a book of God and that parts of it are literal history, such as the Israelites genociding their neighbours on commandment from God.

Sam Vimes

Stark wrote: »

Other than the wackjobs, how many Christians actually believe that the world is only a few thousand years old and was created in 7 days?

They believe that the parts the parts they agree with are the direct words of god and the parts they don't agree with are metaphors or some such

Fanny Cradock

The age of the earth has nothing to do with this topic.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Now now we can't let a little thing like that get in the way of what we say they believe in...

QFT and all that!

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They believe that the parts the parts they agree with are the direct words of god and the parts they don't agree with are metaphors or some such

This speaks volumes. You really are wasting your time around here IMO. Unless of course you choose to enlighten yourself, gain some wisdom and loose your sweeping pre-conceptions.

Turtwig

JimiTime wrote: »

This speaks volumes. You really are wasting your time around here IMO. Unless of course you choose to enlighten yourself, gain some wisdom and loose your sweeping pre-conceptions.

Not meaning to nit pick but auld Sammy (:p) there's quite a wise fellow.

Anyhow, yes, of course, I too have sweeping preconceptions (I'm sure you still have some too...maybe about us) but perhaps you can help me out there.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

This speaks volumes. You really are wasting your time around here IMO. Unless of course you choose to enlighten yourself, gain some wisdom and loose your sweeping pre-conceptions.

Agreed. Avoiding blatant misrepresentations and untruths would help as well.

Anyway, back on topic. If mankind creates artificial life and doesn't subdue it then don't be surprised if it ends up subduing us.

Do we really want to create bacteria that we can't subdue?

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Agreed. Avoiding blatant misrepresentations and untruths would help as well.

Anyway, back on topic. If mankind creates artificial life and doesn't subdue it then don't be surprised if it ends up subduing us.

Do we really want to create bacteria that we can't subdue?

I'm not quite sure I follow...

I think you're confusing artificial life with mechanical AI?
Organic artificial life could in fact be mankind (potential Christians, but preferably atheists:p) itself.
By all means correct me if I picked you up wrong

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm not quite sure I follow...

I think you're confusing artificial life with mechanical AI?
Organic artificial life could in fact be mankind (potential Christians, but preferably atheists:p) itself.
By all means correct me if I picked you up wrong

I don't think I'm confusing anything. The link in the OP is about creating bacteria. I responded to the OP and the link it cited.

Nick_oliveri

Wicknight wrote: »

I think you would be hard pressed to find a Christian who doesn't believe in the OT

Really? I was led to believe differently...here.
Acknowledge but not follow, amirite?

PDN

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Really? I was led to believe differently...here.
Acknowledge but not follow, amirite?

Most Christians would believe the Old Testament to be God's Word - just as with the New Testament. However, they also believe that both Old and New Testament are to be read in context. There are principles in both Testaments which are obviously of universal application, based on the nature of God or on moral grounds, that are still obviously applicable to me today. For example, the Israelites were urged to show compassion to the foreigner living among them - and that should help me develop a godly attitude to immigration and racial issues in Ireland today.

However, there are other Scriptural passages (whether I personally like them or not is irrelevant - this should be a matter of applying scholarly principles of exegesis as objectively as possible) which were clearly intended for a specific person or group of people in a specific time or place. For example, Romans 15:1-2 says, "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant of the church in Cenchrea. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me."

While I acknowledge those verses as being part of the Bible, and as divinely inspired, I obviously can't follow or obey them. Am I supposed to go to Cenchrea in Greece and find a church containing a deaconness called Phoebe who once helped a guy called Paul? (That would be rather difficult since Cenchrea was destroyed by earthquakes centuries ago and now only contains ruins and the odd archaeologist). Of course not. These New Testament verses are obviously addressed to specific people in a historical context and do not apply to me.

The same applies to Old Testament passages that were specifically addressed to individuals, or to a group of nomads living in a camp at a specific point in history. We certainly believe in them, in the sense that they are part of God's Word, but we can hardly obey them since they weren't directed to us in the first place.

Sorry to give such a long-winded answer but, as previous posts demonstrate, some anti-theists have a particular knack of distorting and misrepresenting anything that is more concise.

Zombrex

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

Really? I was led to believe differently...here.
Acknowledge but not follow, amirite?

No you are not right. Though I'm an anti-theist, so what would I know :P

Nick_oliveri

Wicknight wrote: »

No you are not right. Though I'm an anti-theist, so what would I know :P

So im right then?
I assume there would be outrage at this from religious groups. The only words that really have to be used are "playing god".

PDN

Nick_oliveri wrote: »

So im right then?
I assume there would be outrage at this from religious groups. The only words that really have to be used are "playing god".

Not outrage, just concern that the scientists might make a cock-up of creating artificial bacteria and end up screwing the planet. I would fear their incompetence more than any evil intent or 'playing God'.

studiorat

Well there's nothing to say that someone with a similar mindset to those who would make a computer virus would not unleash it's biological analogy on us all, or even just through technical misadventure. But I it's being very naive to think that we can give up the dangerous kinds of science and keep the good bits. (Fine Grained Relinquishment) Any scientific discovery has benign consequences as well as dangerous ones, when a scientist makes a discovery they cannot know what the applications may be. I believe we must accept the hazards if we are to enjoy the rewards.

Turtwig

studiorat wrote: »

Well there's nothing to say that someone with a similar mindset to those who would make a computer virus would not unleash it's biological analogy on us all, or even just through technical misadventure. But I it's being very naive to think that we can give up the dangerous kinds of science and keep the good bits. (Fine Grained Relinquishment) Any scientific discovery has benign consequences as well as dangerous ones, when a scientist makes a discovery they cannot know what the applications may be. I believe we must accept the hazards if we are to enjoy the rewards.

Hey, I think it'd be cool if we were destroyed by a black hole.....just saying.
Probably not going to happen though


As for this bacteria posing a threat...jeez..it's miles away yet worry bout some maniac creating a severe air transmissable pathogen or something:)

studiorat

Malty_T wrote: »

As for this bacteria posing a threat...jeez..it's miles away yet worry bout some maniac creating a severe air transmissable pathogen or something:)

I'm not. 20 benson and hedges a day should I reckon smoke out even ebola if I did live long enough to see the likes. ) However, there's enough discussion on the subject of our own technology killing us by accident to make me think about it. As the futurist Ray Kurzweil put it "it's a double edged sword"... "We need to devise our strategies now to reap the promise while we manage the peril".

Read the article just the other day oddly enough.

http://www.cio.com/article/29790/Ray_Kurzweil_on_the_Promise_and_Peril_of_Technology_in_the_21st_Century

Turtwig

studiorat wrote: »

I'm not. 20 benson and hedges a day should I reckon smoke out even ebola if I did live long enough to see the likes. ) However, there's enough discussion on the subject of our own technology killing us by accident to make me think about it. As the futurist Ray Kurzweil put it "it's a double edged sword"... "We need to devise our strategies now to reap the promise while we manage the peril".

Read the article just the other day oddly enough.

http://www.cio.com/article/29790/Ray_Kurzweil_on_the_Promise_and_Peril_of_Technology_in_the_21st_Century

Right now the biggest threat that I've came across so far is unmanned robots soldiers. Basically because the robots themselves are classified the entire program code is modulated* leaving a sticky situation for both the pentagon approval team and system engineers.


*Very few programmers actually get to see the entire code so debugging can be a bit of a mess leading to many unforeseen errors with the AI.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Right now the biggest threat that I've came across so far is unmanned robots soldiers.

What happened to Asimov's Laws of Robotics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

Don't these Pentagon types read books?

studiorat

you can't believe everything you read in a book.

mind you just because the program is modulated doesn't mean you can't de bug it, or just let the batteries run flat...

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

you can't believe everything you read in a book.

Zing!

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

What happened to Asimov's Laws of Robotics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics

Don't these Pentagon types read books?

Perhaps, I have been a little unfair on the US as they're not the only nation pursuing robotics.

That books science fiction;) and the folks at the big P think that any machine loss is acceptable comparable to the politician situation of mass human casualties. Thing is, the idea of future warfares where robots are fighting on both side both puzzles me and worries me somewhat:(


@studiorat they'll get power from the energy contained within the human body:rolleyes:...personally I think it would be easier for them to just go after apes : no where near as intelligent and far easier to kill.

studiorat

Malty_T wrote: »

@studiorat they'll get power from the energy contained within the human body:rolleyes:...personally I think it would be easier for them to just go after apes : no where near as intelligent and far easier to kill.

I see, I thought we were still talking about BIG robots, army ones... My sci-fi doctrine is a little rusty.