Antaletriangle
09-18-2008, 04:36 AM
http://www.projectavalon.net/forum/picture.php?albumid=17&pictureid=1373
'Pandoras Box' is an exposition of the supposedly controversial scenario that genetic engineering has put us in. James Watson seems to think there's nothing wrong with almost every form of modification , from making women prettier to making children smarter. I'm sure he would support allowing people to grow sex organs with fingers, ears with nostrils and a single heart lung device instead of the bulky twos...but he doesn't mention that directly. But we also get to see that some of society's most remarkable artists were deeply troubled , manic depressives...traits that are viewed negatively and hence,which could be fixed. So in introducing this, the argument goes, a lot of society's great figures may never be born.So who has got the right point here?
There are two serious caveats in the last argument: First, it is not being imposed by society on all people, it is just a choice, thus ALL manic depressives won't be eliminated. Secondly, we could state that it's a shame Louis De Broglie didn't have kids and enrich society, or that Albert Einstein didn't produce children with someone other than Maric, which may have led to healthier and smarter kids...but the fact is a lot of could have happened , should have happened scenarios from society pops up..we just have to deal with the fact that reality as far as we can tell is random and out of our control as far as forming a utopia goes.People make decisions every day, and in MOST cases it results in them ensuring what's best for them and not society in general...it involves playing it safe and not fearlessly taking risks to improve oneself and consequently improve society. On the time scale of seconds we allow individual choices to be given very high priority in most democratic societies, and this is a very wise position society has indeed.
I see no controversy in allowing the choice out there for people to opt for. Society should be such that it provides facilities for most people and be as liberal a framework as possible, i.e least imposing on other peoples lives. Abortion, stem cell research and genetic engineering are not really controversial, as the supposed harm that it does is vastly outweighed by the actual good. By aborting a fetus for instance , if we really weigh the two sides what you will see is it makes more sense to allow for abortions than the opposite. The baby feels virtually no pain, even upto the 2nd trimester ..as the brain cells to experience it aren't developed yet. It is highly improbable that this child would have grown to become something "great", but it is CERTAIN it allowed a mother to go back to a state she wanted for , and not live with unfortunate circumstantial consequences...anything from the consequence of being raped , to having done it without a condom. In this regard I do agree with Watson who states that the needs of the individual should be given preference. It is hard not to agree, for the individual is real, exists and should have the power to allow for his/her life to be run in any way the person chooses, provided it does not come at too high a cost. In this sense, by giving all individuals a higher weight for their opinion and choice, than fetuses and stem cells ..or an unborn childs genetic makeup, all controversy disappears and once again society becomes a structure to serve individuals of that society and nothing more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIkhOMdx2pg&feature=related part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLejm0skG8Q&feature=related part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MnJkN9gacs&feature=related part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DsctYQk3ug&feature=related part4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqw8HEYLa6s&feature=related part5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKI7cyGVOJs&feature=related part6
'Pandoras Box' is an exposition of the supposedly controversial scenario that genetic engineering has put us in. James Watson seems to think there's nothing wrong with almost every form of modification , from making women prettier to making children smarter. I'm sure he would support allowing people to grow sex organs with fingers, ears with nostrils and a single heart lung device instead of the bulky twos...but he doesn't mention that directly. But we also get to see that some of society's most remarkable artists were deeply troubled , manic depressives...traits that are viewed negatively and hence,which could be fixed. So in introducing this, the argument goes, a lot of society's great figures may never be born.So who has got the right point here?
There are two serious caveats in the last argument: First, it is not being imposed by society on all people, it is just a choice, thus ALL manic depressives won't be eliminated. Secondly, we could state that it's a shame Louis De Broglie didn't have kids and enrich society, or that Albert Einstein didn't produce children with someone other than Maric, which may have led to healthier and smarter kids...but the fact is a lot of could have happened , should have happened scenarios from society pops up..we just have to deal with the fact that reality as far as we can tell is random and out of our control as far as forming a utopia goes.People make decisions every day, and in MOST cases it results in them ensuring what's best for them and not society in general...it involves playing it safe and not fearlessly taking risks to improve oneself and consequently improve society. On the time scale of seconds we allow individual choices to be given very high priority in most democratic societies, and this is a very wise position society has indeed.
I see no controversy in allowing the choice out there for people to opt for. Society should be such that it provides facilities for most people and be as liberal a framework as possible, i.e least imposing on other peoples lives. Abortion, stem cell research and genetic engineering are not really controversial, as the supposed harm that it does is vastly outweighed by the actual good. By aborting a fetus for instance , if we really weigh the two sides what you will see is it makes more sense to allow for abortions than the opposite. The baby feels virtually no pain, even upto the 2nd trimester ..as the brain cells to experience it aren't developed yet. It is highly improbable that this child would have grown to become something "great", but it is CERTAIN it allowed a mother to go back to a state she wanted for , and not live with unfortunate circumstantial consequences...anything from the consequence of being raped , to having done it without a condom. In this regard I do agree with Watson who states that the needs of the individual should be given preference. It is hard not to agree, for the individual is real, exists and should have the power to allow for his/her life to be run in any way the person chooses, provided it does not come at too high a cost. In this sense, by giving all individuals a higher weight for their opinion and choice, than fetuses and stem cells ..or an unborn childs genetic makeup, all controversy disappears and once again society becomes a structure to serve individuals of that society and nothing more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIkhOMdx2pg&feature=related part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLejm0skG8Q&feature=related part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MnJkN9gacs&feature=related part3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DsctYQk3ug&feature=related part4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yqw8HEYLa6s&feature=related part5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKI7cyGVOJs&feature=related part6