»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Gene Therapy --> Cloning
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Gene Therapy --> Cloning |
|
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration 
|
Hearing more and more about this lately, I see a natural progression from gene therapy to cloning. This brings on the original question of "should we clone humans"? |
||
| © Copyright 2004 C.G. Ward - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Why not? The only danger I see is that we still don't know what the process actually does. We shouldn't be reckless. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I assume by cloning you're talking about the implanting of a complete chromosome set onto an ovum and not merely twinning a zygote. There are some real questions right now about if it will even be possible with humans. But, I think there are some applications that should be pursued post-haste -- namely -- the cloning of organs for transplanting. I'm not talking about cloning a whole body and hanging it in a meat locker and cutting out organs -- I mean growing hearts, livers, kidneys, etc. in a laboratory environment. Cloning for reproductive purposes is a sticky issue. There are some people that it would be just WRONG to clone.  |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
nope not now, not ever not unless you clone me since I am the perfect speciwoman  that would be so scary....a clone of myself |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Cells yes, full clones no, it's bad enough certain humans foul the earth through one lifetime is it neccesary to have to suffer them a second, third time? The only exception I'm willing to make is the cloning of supermodel Alessandra Ambrosio or Angelina Jolie. Purely for scientific purposes of course. mmmmmmmm anatomy |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What if we could clone Stephen Hawking? Einstein? Mother Teresa? Ghandi? I've heard medical arguments against implanting chromosomes -- such as the copying errors that could occur due to the age of the chromosomes -- this was manifest to an extent in Dolly the sheep clone. But, assuming the medical part of it was fixed and there were not health risks for the clone -- I haven't actually heard an argument against it other than just ick factors. I don't comprehend the revulsion. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
That's assuming the clone would have the same vision, drive and gifts as it's predecessor. From infancy to adulthood, the clone would have a different set of life experiences and would therefore develop differently. Consider that Stephen Hawking's clone might not necessarily develop ALS or that it's onset might come earlier or later than the original. Under these new circumstances there are no guarantees the cloned Stephen Hawking would have the same determination and drive to continue with study and research in his poor state of health. And that's assuming he'd even develop and interest in science in the first place. There's nothing stopping the clone from being content staying at home and watching Jerry Springer. Better cell cloning in order to prolong the real deal then create a clone. 'Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?' ~Gluteus Maximus |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
Michael and I agree that cloning should not be permitted as the world could not handle two Christophers. 'Nuff said. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
There is no earnest reason or need to clone a human. Therefore, NO. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Who gets hurt? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Who gets healed? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't think I assumed anything Raph. But you're making some of the right observations. Is there any reason what we already know about naturally occuring clones (identical twins) isn't going to apply to medically developed clones? Or, the more familiar dynamic of just having any offspring? We know that identical twins raised apart often develop many of the same interests and talents. Those raised together often pursue seperate paths -- perhaps in search of making a unique identity. Same goes for children of famous/talented/brilliant people -- on the other hand -- there are those who follow in their progenitors footsteps and excel. Ron -- that's the question I've always asked -- and I can think of a few issues -- but I'm not going to say they categorically suggest cloning shouldn't be allowed. The first isn't a who -- but a what -- diversity. That may or may not be a bad thing. The second is the clone itself -- assuming there aren't medical risks -- what are the developmental/psychological risks of knowing everything your genome has accomplished in the past? What kind of pressure does that apply? What kind of expectations? Third -- we already have a system that favors empire building -- what does the prospect of cloning do to the opportunities for everyone else? To an extent medical science already injects itself into several of these areas -- cloning would push that envelope a little further. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ess -- persons with spinal injuries, alzheimers, cancer, parkinsons... um the list is long. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Local Rebel I'm not sure what you mean. How may people with those problems you mention benefit from the cloning of humans? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Potentially all of them, if you're talking about therapeutic cloning. What do you mean by 'healed' otherwise? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I meant a complete human. Scientists may clone the right human cells, can't they? Why then do they need clone whole human beings? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I know this isn't on topic, but I wonder if this topic distracts from a more pressing concern. There is some evidence that we are going through a mass extinction right now. Perhaps our focus shouldn't be on ourselves, but on developing a kind of genetic ark whereby we can save as many species as possible through cloning. I don't know, human cloning may simply be on offshoot of such a project, but it seems a relatively small price to pay for another tool to save the current eco-system, another tool that helps us help ourselves. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Local you read me wrong, I wasn't claiming that it was your assumption, just how I began the sentence. Perhaps I should have used "If we assume," or something of that nature. All apologies, it was a matter of semantics, not accusation. |
||
|
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
One aspect of human cloning that needs more thought is the legal one. The notion of burden of proof - particularly as it applies to alibis in criminal trials - may have to be reconsidered one day. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
People can't tell for sure if "part" is not missing when an organism is cloned. It may look complete but something more inward and complex may not be there. If something is missing now, something more may be miss then, and something more even later possibly from any kind of, even any most minor, inadequacy. I don't think we should put evolution into that possible danger. Humans should influence Mother Nature, not try to take over her offices. If we may make better changes to harmonize more with nature, then nature shall harmonize more with us. But as long as we continue to try to engineer and manipulate so much, and put so much force upon everything, the native manners of things shall be lost and replaced, with manmade artificialnesses, and unable to do well on their own, for always needing extraordinary force . [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-11-2004 06:35 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: And people will always ask this question because it can never be answered. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Yep. And the first child you have, even after you've counted the fingers and all the toes, will still raise those questions. |
||
|
gemjop Member Elite
since 2002-11-18
Posts 2587Pencilveinia, USA |
It's a scary thing, with the growing desire for 'perfection' especially in recent times with growing amounts of plastic surgery going on. People wouldn't neccessarily clone for good reasons...there are always people willing to use technology for darker reasons. Cloning would be the perfect opportunity for the next step, although its a huge one, from surgery. creating the perfect person. the perfect baby perhaps? I personally don't see that as a good thing, i see it as something would make the world an even more damaged and superficial place than it already is. Imagine people being able to select their perfect combination for a child...blond blue eyes....thats a scary thing. Even more scary is the amount of people who would probably go for this idea, pay for it. In my mind, if it ever went to that extreme, thats just interfering with nature, for reasons due to greed rather than curing illness, and in the end, natures gonna show you what a mess you've made. As far as recreating organs for medical purposes, i'm not sure how i feel, as i know little about either subject, so I'll just keep reading you guys. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Nodding with gemma here-- what scares me is just "whose" definition of perfection might be the standard. I couldn't help but think of the obvious example of Hitler. But then? at the same time? I sure wouldn't mind a new liver...yanno?  Sure ya'll do. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
A perfect child isn't necessarily a bad thing. You know, one without sickle cell anemia, congenital heart defects, Muscular Dystrophy, that sort of thing? |
||
|
gemjop Member Elite
since 2002-11-18
Posts 2587Pencilveinia, USA |
Yes, butlike karen pointed out everybody's got a different view of what perfection is. I can see what youre saying, but I would not define a child who didnt have say sickle cell anaemia, perfect. once you've got rid of that problem, what next? Where do you draw the line, and stop. Surely many people with illnesses, long term or not see their lives as just as worthwhile as someone without one? what if their illness made them someone they could never have been if they didn't have it? what would the world be like without disease, survival and death? Gah, i could never debate like you lot manage to, i get so torn between ideas, and end up ranting, asking unanswerable questions like i just have... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
If everybody's got a different idea of perfection, what's the problem? Think about what you're saying though. What would it be like to live in a world without disease or death? I don't know, let's find out. Personally, I don't think cloning or genetic engineering will create such a world, but if we can get a little closer, why not? Hey, maybe we can make ourselves immune to mosquitos? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Nature does best what is best for nature. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Personification is a delightful tool in poetry, Ess, and can sometimes offer surprising clarifications. Taken literally, however, it only serves to cloud reason. Still, let's try it your way. Science isn't the enemy of nature, but rather is its agent. All that nature is and does, it does through science. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Then get out of its way. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Raph, no apology necessary. I didn't think you were accusing me of anything -- I just wasn't sure exactly what you thought I was thinking. Ess and Brad; I don't understand these statements; quote: and Brad's response; quote: Unless I'm missing something? The map of a genome can tell us if everything is 'there' or not. I'm not sure what 'everything' means though. berengar -- I'm actually more concerned about the privacy issues that may be involved in an era of DNA omniscience as discussed here /pip/Forum8/HTML/000254.html more later |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ess; Isn't it natural for birds to build nests? Beavers dams? Rabbits to dig holes? Why then isn't it natural for humanity to develop technology to exploit nature? I suspect the conundrum comes from contemplating that we may be the only species that ever engineers its own evolution. I'm not sure what's scary about that -- except that perhaps it stirs a notion in us that we may already be obsolete. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
I'm surprised nobody has looked at it from a spiritual point of view so to sling this in another direction, how many believe that 'souls' exist? Can a soul be carbon copied? Is there a finite amount of souls to go around, and does cloning therefore disturb the natural or 'devine' order of things? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Science isn't the enemy of nature, but rather is its agent. All that nature is and does, it does through science." Ron I can't find myself able confuse the two like that. All you need to do is imagine the world without humans. No nuclearplants, no bombs, no cities, or computers or cars, or pollution. It shows a difference. It shows that the human's scientific hand is far from being or doing what nature is and does. It is a big difference, I think. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"The map of a genome can tell us if everything is 'there' or not. I'm not sure what 'everything' means though." But that doesn't tell you if the unnatural proccess chimes into doing everything that growing should do, and what it does most naturally. Yet, that is where there may be the biggest blank space. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Sure. Now imagine the world without any bugs. That, too, would be very different. And neither world would be any more natural or unnatural than the other. Bugs are part of the natural order. So are we. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Life is naturally occuring. Weapons, pollution, toxic waste, garbage dumps, manmade clones, are not. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Then, Ess, a beaver building a dam isn't natural? I was definitely thinking along the lines of disease elimination / reduction when I posted this. Even now, we have some technology (stem cell research in its infancy) that holds some mighty potential toward this end. As to whether cloning a human would be possible... it seems very likely: http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1672523 |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Local "Isn't it natural for birds to build nests? Beavers dams? Rabbits to dig holes? Why then isn't it natural for humanity to develop technology to exploit nature?" Because the plan humans have and "engineer" is really not a worldly--for the whole world, it is a human one for the human sphere of things, full of human excesses that show more and more discord with nature. Rabbits dig holes, but not in the ozone layer. Beavers make dams, but they don't explode and leave radiation. It is not technology that is completly unnatural, they are the vices and extremes that humans go to; and the worst of those is continuing them when they continue to make the world less safe. Nature does best for nature. If only humans did. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-12-2004 03:39 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"I was definitely thinking along the lines of disease elimination / reduction when I posted this. Even now, we have some technology (stem cell research in its infancy) that holds some mighty potential toward this end. " This is a respectable end. But how does it necessitate cloning whole humanbeings? If scientists can clone the right "bits and pieces" It seems a needless play with fire and risk to clone a whole organism. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-12-2004 03:33 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You think they're supernatural, then? If it occurs in nature, Ess, it is by definition natural. That doesn't necessarily make it beneficial, of course, but it is illogical to call the results of a natural process unnatural. |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:Humans aren't the only beings given to excess or selfishness. Ever seen a fat dog? Ever seen a lion attack a cub who was trying to get in to feed? Ever hear of a wolf driving off an injured/crippled pack member? Not a one of these creatures are looking at a "worldly view." They're all acting selfishly, because it is base nature to do so. I think what you're arguing against are some of the "bad" things we as humans have done. I applaud that, but suggesting that cloning is going to propogate that is like suggesting we shouldn't utilize a scalpel during surgery because someone could use it as a weapon. quote:Wouldn't it be better to prevent the disease in the first place by cloning a disease-free individual than to treat it after the fact? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"You think they're supernatural, then? If it occurs in nature, Ess, it is by definition natural. That doesn't necessarily make it beneficial, of course, but it is illogical to call the results of a natural process unnatural. " I just think there is a more native state of things that must be preserved, an integrity of nature. All machines and tools come from "parts" of that; but the more we become detached from that and minimize the natural world amidst our engineered world, the more that shall be smothered and fall down; and in an age hence, when the world is all manmade of structuralism, all we shall need and want is a more natural world back. But it shall be too late. We shall have to control almost everything made so dependant on our ability to use extraordinary force; but we won't be able. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
LOL. Take off all your clothes, Ess, and go find somewhere isolated to live. No fire. No tools. Just you and nature, communing as one. Then, when you get hungry or cold, neither of which I suspect will take very long in Canada, come on back to the computer and let us know how it went. Humanity's only survival trait is the ability to control our environment. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"Humanity's only survival trait is the ability to control our environment." Ron? sigh? Explain that one? |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
That's easy midi-k: Mo' Nature wins EVERY time if there's no measure of control. This goes for humans and animals. Every organism on the planet (or off it, I would imagine) controls the environment in some fashion. Whether it be manufacturing a fire to stay warm, or utilizing the scenery as camoflage to stalk prey, there's a measure of or attempt at control. Life's about control. Heh, told Meegun so. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ess, I think it's common to fear what we don't understand. That you don't understand the process of cloning or the scientific knowledge of human DNA is understandable. Perhaps it would be better to learn more about the things you fear. Without a cursory knowledge talking about the process itself is of questionable value. If you want to talk to the ethical issues I think you might have more ground to cover. What Ron is talking about when he says that we have to control our environment is the very thing that makes you afraid. It is something you don't understand. If you don't understand it -- it seems uncontrollable. On the other hand -- the sun comes up by itself -- streams flow towards the lowest possible ground -- flowers bloom -- and trees grow. These are comfortable zones. It is our inborn (survival) need for control that sends us on a quest for knowledge. Knowledge becomes power to control. Some religionists think this instinct is also the need to find God. Perhaps they are right. At some point we recognize what we can't control. We can't change our environment, or other people to what we want or need them to be to survive. We can't even change our own nature. To fill in the answers of what we can't control or know -- we use metaphors and myths of God. Some would even say truth. Instead of cursing the darkness -- light a candle! |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
C? I guess I was contemplating the beginnings and endings of life. The embryo has no control over its environment... oh. well. Till it wants out. (and sheesh) And LR? I like this very much: "It is our inborn (survival) need for control that sends us on a quest for knowledge. Knowledge becomes power to control. Some religionists think this instinct is also the need to find God. Perhaps they are right. At some point we recognize what we can't control. We can't change our environment, or other people to what we want or need them to be to survive. We can't even change our own nature. To fill in the answers of what we can't control or know -- we use metaphors and myths of God. Some would even say truth. Instead of cursing the darkness -- light a candle! " *shaking my head* still yet another one of those moments that startle me... so in sync it was like deja vu all over again. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Chris is right, of course, that all animals and organisms seek to control their environment, but my statement that it was our only survival trait runs deeper. Physically, we are incredibly slow, weak, cumbersome creatures. We can't fight, we can't run, and we're too dang naked to hide very well. As omnivores, we don't even have enough stomachs to be a good cow. We are very, very poorly adapted to our environment. So we survive, instead, by adapting our environment to us. Should Ess be willing to run naked through Canada in April, I think he will better understand that. Of course, in New Orleans, such an experiment would likely teach a somewhat different lesson. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Because all of Canada is snowbound and we rarely even see the sun beneath the snowdrifts..yeesh |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Humans only control more because they are not equipped with the instincts to control less. As we are only lesser able to do things by instinct we are greater bound to control, to make up for all we can't do instinctually. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-13-2004 02:19 AM).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"We can't fight, we can't run, and we're too dang naked to hide very well. " If this is so? We all sure waste a lot of time trying...  and it's very bad news for someone with an adrenal malfunction.  |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
quote: What? Using a binary opposition like this one won't wrap things up all neat and tidy like you want them to be Essy. It's already been pointed out that control and instinct aren't mutually exclusive. Think apes and sticks for tools. Instinct and control over an environment working rather nicely I think. I'm thinking of those poor, manipulated monkeys from the sixties (I think) who were offered the choice of two surrogate mothers - a cloth monkey, or a wire monkey with food. The instinct for comfort overrode the instinct for food - most chose the cloth mothers to cling to. Wouldn't you think that a 'lesser' being such as a monkey would obey its survival instinct first and foremost? Nature works through science, Essorant. Go study mushrooms. I'm sorry, but it does. For every natural process there is a scientific explanation. Perhaps the key is choice. We have the ability to think outside our instinct (yes, we have as much instinct as other creatures)...we also have the ability to choose. Simplified examples: We have chosen the convenience of agricultural harvesting over the hunter-gathering lifestyle. More and more we are chosing the convenience of cities over a rural\feudal lifestyle. We find pollution in cities - but the convenience that vehicles offer is more important etc etc. It comes down to choice. I believe we will clone humans one day. Of course we will. If not in our generation, then the next, or the next. It will happen. How many scientific possibilities have we abandoned? There are real advantages, such as the ones that have already been mentioned. However, as with most things there are cons to the pros. I consider choosing a baby based on the way that child might look a shallow con. But it's a choice that we might make...alongside the choice to have children without genetic diseases...alongside the benefits that stem cell research produces... That seems logical. (And Raph - I can hear you and your indignant huffing. Hahaha ~poke~ Settle down man. I'm sure there are patches of dry ground amongst all that snow. Just like ~gasp~ there are phones where I live! And even tv!)  K |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Yes I hear New Zealand also has fancy foods now, like salmon and crackers. lol |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
quote:Ever seen the movie Gattaca, k? This statement immediately brought that to mind. As you said there would be cons... i wonder at the likelihood of a Gattacan society. |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Raph - ROTF! Omg I'd forgotten about that...oh the humiliation... Well C I actually thought of mentioning Gattaca and er..couldn't remember the name of the movie heh so decided to forgo a long explanation of 'have you seen the movie where ____ happens?' Despite its hollywoodism - it's still a scary concept... K |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
K I remember everything As for the Gattacan society I agree, isn't this part of the reason we viewed Hitler as a monster? His ideal and quest for the 'perfect' Aryan Man? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
The Gattaca problem, as I see it, isn't really one of genetic engineering as a beast -- it is the application of it as a tool to discriminate that is the problem. Same thing with Hitler -- his goal was to be superior (which he thought the Aryans were already). The monstrous experiments he had conducted on living human subjects were the really ghastly part. |
||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
I think it was all ghastly, the man literally drew plans for the perfect Aryan, from facial features to hair colour. I understand you're point, I simply don't think the human race capable of the kind of restraint this sort of technology/science should be handled with. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Conclusion: For every excellence of increased wit and control in the human, there is an excellence of increased features and instinct in an animal: Bird's wings and feathers <=> Human's aircrafts (airplanes, etc) Fish's gills and fins <=> Human's watercrafts (ships, etc,) Horse's speeds and force <=> Human's landcrafts (wagons, etc) Therefore, animals make up for a lack of insight or increased wit, with instinct; and humans make up for a lack of instinct, or increased instinct, with insight. The only thing, is that humans crafts are not already made. Metals do not naturally occur as machines, or jewellery, etc, etc. and they don't evolve as those on their own. Therefore Human's need to observe the rest of the natural world, and learn from what does best, so they may do better, and better meet its instinct, with adequate insight. In other words, humans need to do better because they do not best. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-17-2004 03:55 PM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Ess, you never fail to astound me. Think of a beaver's dam... the dam is not a natural extension of pre-existing formations, but rather a made construction formed from intent. That said beaver is responding out of instinct doesn't promote your analogy of metal to machine, but rather contradicts it. As Ron said, humans do have and respond from instinct. Like the beaver, however, we expand upon that past survival to develop things that will further make us comfortable or happy or productive... on and on. Reverting back to base instinct would convert our world not to the Edenistic ideal you seem to be suggesting, but rather a chaotic mass of individuals and packs vying for survival... much like the animal world you speak of. Not much of an incentive (not to mention, I'd hate to live without access to a hot shower). LR - I agree with you completely. Genetic engineering isn't a beast. Neither is nuclear engineering, or gunpowder, or any other idea. It is, as you say, the use of such tools that determines the good or evil. I guess what it comes down to is the old Spock theory: "The good of the many outweight the needs of the few." That it has the potential to do great good for many, while possibly damaging a few (I just have a hard time seeing a Gattacan society coming into being... diversity is possibly one of the greatest propellants for scientific reasearch/discovery) suggests to me that it should be utilized. As someone (I think it was Jim, but am too lazy to go back and look to confirm, lol) it is GOING to happen. Whether now or later, we will see. The research is already being done, with funding not being a problem from what I've been able to learn... who knows, maybe it'll lead to our next problem... dramatically increased lifespans. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: If the ability to adapt to different environments is any sign of superiority, then this is a good example of human superiority. Fish have a hard time flying, horses don't breath very well underwater, and birds, well, they don't run very fast unless they lose the ability to fly. We can do all these things. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Christopher, That is a good example. I'm not trying to suggest an animal like the beaver has no control over his enviroment. But I believe he has more instinctual "flow" and more features that come with needing to behave in that; and remaining fairly stationary in a niche. He doesn't need to make a machine to do what he does. He doesn't need to do better: that is because he is already doing best what he ought to. He doesn't need more control because he is has it all in what he has already. Brad, But all those creatures do better than the human at doing what they need in their specific enviroments. Fish swim better than humans. Birds fly better than human's in airplanes. Horse's run swiftlier than human's in vehicles. For all man's ability to adapt to different enviroments he still can't do anything as well as those that do it all the time in that same one. He can only always do better in nature; that is because he can never do best. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
No, Essorant, that is simply untrue. By any standard other than the idea that birds, fish, and horses are the standard, we do better in all areas. Hell, we've even left the planet. But you haven't realized the not so subtle point I was making, you don't compare fish to horses, horses to birds, or fish to birds. The only comparison you made was to us. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
My point was that each does best in his own enviroment. Each does as well here as the other does there. But human is basically tainted a bit from everywhere it seems, therefore he he less adapted to any specific "spheres" as any specific animals are. There is nothing wrong with that. But he can even less adapt to things natural and evolutionary on their own when he diminishes those and puts things there that are based on his own plan that needs to be more controlled and forced. The more control and force man puts on the world, the more the natural enviroments are reduced, and the more the animals therewith are reduced as well. The "spontanous" world is decreased, therefore all worldly things become more dependant on human force, as well as human force may do. But human force, as we see, is not especially attuned to any specific enviroment. Human force, is often only as good as human insight. But even human insight is not as faithful as human instinct; and now we return to how well humans adapt: not as well advancedly for any specific nooks of nature as specific animals that abide in those nooks most thoroughly and fixedly. What are human choices being moved by? What are we trying to do? The world looks more like a city every age, so are other animals supposed to somehow remove themselves from the spheres they adapt to best to take residence in the city? No, they don't and they can't. They die. The main interests are not in the whole world, they are in the human world. But the human world will collapse if the natural world decreases because there is no thing that was artificially reared, but it branches originally from the bosom of the natural world. Most of all it is not that complex, if you look at it like a tree. A tree needs it roots. [This message has been edited by Essorant (04-18-2004 03:30 PM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Human ways become savage of nature with too little structure, they also become savage of structure, with too little nature. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But, Essorant, you're under the illusion that Nature is somehow nice. It's not. Actually, you're under two illusions: 1. Nature is nice. Spontaneously, nice things happen. 2. We aren't a part of nature. We are still the only species that has brought another species back from the brink of extinction. We are not the only species to bring another species to extinction. [This message has been edited by Brad (04-19-2004 04:09 AM).] |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Ess, you confound me sometimes. |
||
|
Skyfyre Senior Member
since 1999-08-15
Posts 1906Sitting in Michael's Lap |
Mankind's greatest asset is not how he adapts to his environment ... but how he is intelligent enough to adapt his environment to himself. That is what sets us apart from the animals. Beavers build dams ... but they do not review them with peers, discussing the merits and weaknesses of this or that method of their construction, nor postulate on ways to improve them by altering the way in which they are made. It is, as as been said, instinct ... which is slow to change, doing so usually only in response to some drastic, unavoidable occurance in the ecosystem which threatens the survival of the species (or gives a member of the species with a certain adaptive mutation a significant edge over others of its kind). Instinct might drive a human to build a house -- a shelter to protect him from the weather. It would not, however, lead him to build a library. Or a school, or a concert hall, or a baseball stadium ... surely these buildings have their own merits whether their origins were "natural" (read: instinctual) or not? Humans don't need this sort of impetus to affect changes in their environment. They choose to change their environment because it is safer, more comfortable, more durable, or simply more pleasing to them. The end-product of human evolution may well be the absence of what we call 'instinct,' as it will no longer be necessary in such a highly developed intelligence. We already practice a great deal of control over these basic drives, as they often urge behaviours which are discouraged in civilized society. Wouldn't the next logical step on the ladder be to eliminate them entirely? Reverting back to a primitive state is simply not an option for the human species; not only does it run contrary to our nature (there's a paradox for you!) but it would doom a good many of our number to death as thei lives are maintained by the evils of modern medicine and technology. Environmentalism, like all other vices, is best taken in moderation. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
