Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why does Christianity have something against IVF?

124»

Comments

  • #92
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Lots of things would prevent this, not least lack of knowledge of how to engineer embryos appropriately, how many several hundred genes you'd need to engineer, how many women you'd need to carry the embryos, and so on.

    But mostly, I think the vast majority of the human race would object to it.

    Honestly, if you wanted to create a population of superhumans, you'd be better off pursuing an artificial selection route. And there is a historical precedent to show that this would be wholly unacceptable to the vast majority of the world.

    Yes, this stuff wouldnt fly right now. However, if we began to tinker with humans and shape them genetically to our own needs then no one knows where it could lead in the future.


  • #93
    Sycopat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭Sycopat


    jank wrote: »
    Yes, this stuff wouldnt fly right now. However, if we began to tinker with humans and shape them genetically to our own needs then no one knows where it could lead in the future.

    So what you're worried about is that the values of the people of the long-term future might differ from the values of the people of the present. And that those values might not find the same things(in this case: uses of technology) you find unacceptable, unacceptable. And so we should restrict the access of the people of the long-term future to technology we are developing now, by not developing that technology. Even if it can provide benefits to the people of the short-term future.

    Really?


  • #94
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    jank wrote: »
    I never said we should stay away from it. All I am saying is that before we jump helter skellter into using new technologies such as genetic engineering we should examime the consequences.
    I don't think we jump helter-skelter into using new technologies.

    How long has the debate about GM food been going on now? The scientists (and, indeed, the world community) are still deeply polarised over the issue.

    In theory, we can feed a continent of starving Africans, sounds fab, yeah? But at what cost to the rest of agriculture, will other plants be at risk? What of the ugly multinationals who make piles of cash out of dubious practices, that sounds a bit off, doesn't it? But, yeah, starving Africans, what do we do?

    If, after tens of years, we still can't reach a consensus on whether a drought-resistant strain of wheat should be used to feed the world's starving, how will it ever be acceptable to genetically-engineer your supersoldiers? :)


  • #95
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    jank wrote: »
    If you cant see the issue (pandora's box) with geneticaly designing or engineering babies to have an IQ of 200+ then again I cannot help you, your mind is already made up.

    This is one of your more interesting points. Allow me to see where your coming from. Please tell me how I'm a lost cause on this one. Being intelligent is a bad thing? Assume for a moment my mind isn't made up, what is the danger? That the smarter children will usurp existing institutions you value highly?

    PS I rather you didn't just dismiss me out of hand, and actually explain why my views are irrational.


  • #96
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,420 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    one concern would be that while it may be possible to tweak a few strands of DNA to boost intelligence, we don't understand the brain well enough to know if there would be any side effects. and we'd only find out after we were enslaved by our new megamind ultralords.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    one concern would be that while it may be possible to tweak a few strands of DNA to boost intelligence, we don't understand the brain well enough to know if there would be any side effects. and we'd only find out after we were enslaved by our new megamind ultralords.

    But that's an argument against our knowledge not against the value of intelligence augmentation.


  • #98
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,420 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    might make for an interesting thread, one specifically about which augmentations you would or wouldn't feel comfortable with.


  • #99
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Sycopat wrote: »
    So what you're worried about is that the values of the people of the long-term future might differ from the values of the people of the present. And that those values might not find the same things(in this case: uses of technology) you find unacceptable, unacceptable. And so we should restrict the access of the people of the long-term future to technology we are developing now, by not developing that technology. Even if it can provide benefits to the people of the short-term future.

    Really?

    Re read my posts, I shouldn't have to explain this again.


  • #100
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I don't think we jump helter-skelter into using new technologies.

    How long has the debate about GM food been going on now? The scientists (and, indeed, the world community) are still deeply polarised over the issue.

    In theory, we can feed a continent of starving Africans, sounds fab, yeah? But at what cost to the rest of agriculture, will other plants be at risk? What of the ugly multinationals who make piles of cash out of dubious practices, that sounds a bit off, doesn't it? But, yeah, starving Africans, what do we do?

    If, after tens of years, we still can't reach a consensus on whether a drought-resistant strain of wheat should be used to feed the world's starving, how will it ever be acceptable to genetically-engineer your supersoldiers? :)

    Oh I agree and I hope for the time being this will remain the case. However would one be 100% certain that the US, Russians or Chinese are not melding in secret labs in relation to Human cloning or genetic engineering? Of course we will never know..for now.

    It is worthy of debate of course and everyone should be made aware of the potential ramifications of using such technonlogy.


  • #101
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    jank wrote: »
    Re read my posts, I shouldn't have to explain this again.
    <cough>


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Sycopat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 308 ✭✭Sycopat


    jank wrote: »
    Re read my posts, I shouldn't have to explain this again.

    I have done so. Most of them are not related to my question. Those that are tend to posit hypothetical people, governments, societies and ,since my post, hidden conspiracies, doing things you don't agree with. Using technologies we don't have. To living systems we don't yet fully understand.

    ref:
    jank wrote: »
    .
    jank wrote: »
    .
    jank wrote: »
    .
    jank wrote: »
    .
    jank wrote: »
    .
    jank wrote: »
    .
    jank wrote: »
    .
    jank wrote: »
    .
    jank wrote: »
    .
    jank wrote: »
    .


    So I'll take your answer as a 'Yes'.


  • #103
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Take my answer whatever way you want.


Advertisement