Now that we know life is a chemical reaction and not divine creation, does that some how make life less special?

[Dennis Paul Renner]

 

Now that we know life is a chemical reaction and not divine creation, does that some how make life less special?  I think scientists have lost their empathy for living creatures when they think of life as only a cheap tool to manipulate, and to produce useful proteins.   What do you think?

 

[Dennis Paul Renner]

The video explains, What Scientists?  The video also questions the morasl and ethics of this subject.  I think it is important to watch the video before responding to this discussion

[Dennis Paul Renner]

.  I think it is important to watch the video before responding to this discussion.

[Reggie]

I throw my lot in with Nelson.

[Eoganacht]

Come on sevens!

[Dave]

*like* lol

[Dennis Paul Renner]

Yes for me it is a question of bioethics.  

[Heather Spoonheim]

It seems to me that you entirely missed the point of the video.  The speaker presents some rather shocking possibilities, but in a way that graphically pits intriguing wonders against cold-hearted amoralities.  He is obviously trying to engage a lot more dialog and thought on the implications of technologies that are rapidly surpassing our moral framework.  People are always excited to dive into new technology, but usually too lazy to consider the ethical dilemmas that might arise.  I think watching this video has likely set a nagging little reminder in my head that may pop up the next time I get exited about organic processor technology.

[Dennis Paul Renner]

I agree.  Through out history humanity has charged forward with little reguard to cause and effect.  Science along with corporate capitalism has not always acted in a responsible manner and as a result the whole of humanity is faced with some terrible problems. 

I think we have reached a point in science where we can no longer disreguard cause and effect or rush to market for profit genetically engineered life untill we have a full understanding of all the variables and consequences. 

[Heather Spoonheim]

I like to always point out the role of the consumer in the success of corporate capitalism. All this recent carbon-cap--limit bullshit treats corporate production like the factories are just having a big orgy together, but that's a huge fallacy because they don't act alone at all.  They are producing goods for the consumer, and until you get the consumer to absorb some of the blame (by considering the ethics of purchases, for instance) you'll never fully address the problem.

[Mallory]

I just have to ask: why does life have to be "special"? No, I didn't watch the video because I couldn't get past the opening question. Also because I'm on my phone.

[Arcus]

Agreed.

Life is 'special' only in the sense that it is more than a sum of its parts. But then again, so are most things. The human body is more than the sum of its internal organs, the earth is more than a sum of its individual peculiarities, and the solar system is more than a sum of the individual celestial objects.

As for ethics, I don't find myself too worried that we will decend into a state of moral mayhem. To me it appears we are becoming increasingly ethical as we develop and science progresses. I was the first child born to my family where my mother avoided cigarettes and alcohol during pregnancy. 35 years ago this was not concidered to be bad, but 30 years ago it was. Today we find it repugnant to see a smoking pregnant women. (I could probably write a book filled with similar evidence.)

The presentor is quite obvious in showing his opinion about the subject of which he is talking about, but he does not give any reasoning behind why what he percieves as wrong is wrong. He only makes statements and ask questions, and there are absolutely no conclusions except "We have a great responsibility."

After his statement "before too long we can create humans which glow in the dark (long pause for dramatic effect)", I find myself wondering 'So what?'. What specifically is unethical about glowing in the dark? Or genetetically engineer away childhood blindness? If we can supercharge intellect, why not? As for results which would be detrimental to society, there is already a tool in place to avoid such things. It's called the Law.

[Loop Johnny]

It is hard to think about life as a tool and just a mechanism since you, as a human being, operate from a living organism. A lot of ethical dillemas will be sprung from this but I actually love the way life works and I want to know more, even if it means modifying life for our use.