Playing God!

[SilentScope001]

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/health/56395.html

 

We have just played God! We managed to create mosquitos that are resistant to a formto a mouse strain of malaria, and once we duplicate it to handle the human form of malaria, we will release it to the wild, and let nature takes its course. These harmless mosquitos will breed and be more effienct than regural mosquitos, driving them exictn, and with it, malaria! If this is not playing God, I do not know what is.

 

I have to say, Horray! We have crossed the line, and we will one day march towards the day when we can call ourselves dieties! I personally believe that God wants us to 'play God', to go and intimidate him, and manlipuate the world as we see fit. The 'main' God would watch over us, and monitor what we are doing, and if this God hates us for "oversteeping the boundaries of being demi-Gods", he'll smites us. Other than that, we're allowed to contorl the Earth as we see fit.

 

...yet, I have a bad feeling that position will be quite unpopular, amongst religious and non-religious folks. So, let us hear your view on us finally crossing that line. Good? Bad? No comment?

[Jae Onasi]

Uh, we've been 'playing God' for quite some time, then, with antibiotics, IVs, surgery, respirators, anesthesia, immunizations, etc., etc., etc.

[SilentScope001]

Uh, we've been 'playing God' for quite some time, then, with antibiotics, IVs, surgery, respirators, anesthesia, immunizations, etc., etc., etc.

 

I know that. What I meant is that we were playing God, as in, we were modifiying God's creation of the enviorment, by creating new animals to help modify the enviroment. We got GM cows and GM crops, but they were done for profit and effiency...Never have one thought of modifying the enviroment on such a large scale using mosquitios to elimante Malraia.

 

The other cases, you can say, are medical technologies that help us adapat to the enviroment. This technology helps us contorl the enviroment.

[Darth InSidious]

I dispute your definition of 'playing God'.

[EnIgmA_XX]

Well, I don't happen to find this "playing God" bad. What these scientists are trying to do is eliminate malaria, and hopefully make the world a better place for it. The only possible problem would be that these new mosquitos affect the very fine balance in nature somehow, but otherwise I'm all for this.

[JediMaster12]

I agree with Jae that we have been playing God from the get go with the development of our medical technology like the immunizations ecetera. I think what makes people tend to classify this differently is ethics. Yes ethics plays a big part in how we justify our actions. I think what really has people going into a funk is when scientists cross the line involving humans like cloning and embryonic stem cell research. There are also some of the religious reasons coming from Christian conservatives but that is a different topic.

The production of these mosquitoes throughly puts into perspection our ethics. We know we have the technology to create these new and wonderful things and heck we can even create life in the form of a new species like these mosquitoes. The real question is to stop and think if we should. Nature has its own way of doing things and maybe we should step back and let it take its course.

[Jae Onasi]

I do think we need to be extraordinarily careful about what we do--we're playing on a new field, now, and there have been times we've royally screwed up because we didn't anticipate potential bad outcomes adequately or just because the experiment failed catastrophically.

[HK-42]

So if mosquitos go extict, drangon flies and other bugs that eat them will go extinct. And things that eat those bugs could go extinct, and so on.

[SilentScope001]

I dispute your definition of 'playing God'.

 

Playing God: the act of impersonanting a diety (in this case God) by ursuping or legimtenatnly taking up the roles that is traditonally assigned to that diety. For example, creating mosqituos with the expressed purpose of changing the enviroment and removing malaria would count as playing God, as you are impersonating a diety and his role of changing the enviroment.

 

I do think we need to be extraordinarily careful about what we do--we're playing on a new field, now, and there have been times we've royally screwed up because we didn't anticipate potential bad outcomes adequately or just because the experiment failed catastrophically.

 

Like the Indurstial Revolution accidently created CO2 that starts up the whole global warming crisis?

 

Don't worry. We'll invent new technologies to deal with the bad outcomes.

[Darth InSidious]

Actually, the industrial revolution did not 'create' CO2. It simply generated a hell of a lot more than there already was.

[Trex]

Actually, the industrial revolution did not 'create' CO2. It simply generated a hell of a lot more than there already was.

 

Well said. I would even go so far as to comment that it is an integral part of our atmosphere. It's just having too much of it that causes the problems.

 

As for interference with nature's/God's design of what we should be doing, I've always regarded it as something of a grey area. Does a beaver building a damn cross this line, diverting the natural course for a river? Where is the limit?

By comparison, where do we draw the line at interference with the natural order? Where is the limit? Is our true affinity with the natural way only when living in caves?

 

Personally, when we start raising the dead a la Frankenstein's monster, then I'll start worrying.

[Samuel Dravis]

I don't consider that which is 'natural' necessarily good. If elimination of the scourge of malaria means we use measures unknown thousands of years ago, then I really could care less. We do that all the time. Sure, I am afraid of what nano- and biotech could possibly do, but that simply means we need to be very careful. "With great power comes great responsibility." - Spider-man.

 

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke.

 

It may be indistinguishable from a God's handiwork to some, but it's still just science. Nothing more-- and nothing less.

[SilentScope001]

Actually, the industrial revolution did not 'create' CO2. It simply generated a hell of a lot more than there already was.

 

My bad, but it did help produce a lot of CO2, which is pretty bad for the enviroment, what with global warming and smog and pollution and allegeries and such.

 

I don't consider that which is 'natural' necessarily good. If elimination of the scourge of malaria means we use measures unknown thousands of years ago, then I really could care less.

 

Well, I think one could be quite worried of "overpopulation", altough this issue can be brought about with all forms of health care. "Why bother treating these people, making them live longer, using up more resources and food, destroying the enviroment, letting more wars be fought?"

 

I also dislike this feeling thinking that fixing nature is going to make us 'better'. It merely transfers responsiblity of our ecosystem from Nature to Human Beings. If we takes contorl of our ecosystem, and in extension, our evolution, then any mistake that happens...is OUR fault. Before, if a malaria outbreak occurs, it's all Nature's fault and we can curse it end on end. But now, if there is a diease outbreak, or if animals go excinit, or if something terrible happens, it's now our fault, and we have to curse ourselves.

 

Yeah, nature may not be "good". But, it at least works. Remember, nature was responsible for evolution, who did select traits that is suited for us. If we are willing to take contorl of our own destinty, let us at least do more research and get prepared for more responsiblity.

 

Another thing I fear: Suppose we create a perfect world, with perfect everything. No malraia, no diease, no nothing. So, basically, nobody has the gene that protects it against malraia, or any drugs to protect against Malraia. And then, somehow, terrorists, aliens, or a freak occurance...brings malraia back. The result: Everyone dies. We have gotten rid of the natural selection process, so we all are living perfectly in an enviroment that we have created...but what if we lose the ability to create the enviroment? What if some external forces come in, disrupt our process, and ends up destroying all of humanity. Prehaps, had we NOT tried to get rid of malraia, we would have lived, but since we did, we ironically written our own death certificate.

 

But: I am a big, big fan of Playing God, but I do realize that there are bad side-effects with any new technologies. There can be something that will be bad...and technology can't solve everything, like say, that overpopulation problem that will result, with more people living.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Personally, when we start raising the dead a la Frankenstein's monster, then I'll start worrying.

 

You should start to worry. I'm perfecting a method to create zombies and mind control them to do my bidding. The world shall soon know my wrath!

 

 

Another thing I fear: Suppose we create a perfect world, with perfect everything. No malraia, no diease, no nothing. So, basically, nobody has the gene that protects it against malraia, or any drugs to protect against Malraia. And then, somehow, terrorists, aliens, or a freak occurance...brings malraia back. The result: Everyone dies. We have gotten rid of the natural selection process, so we all are living perfectly in an enviroment that we have created...but what if we lose the ability to create the enviroment? What if some external forces come in, disrupt our process, and ends up destroying all of humanity. Prehaps, had we NOT tried to get rid of malraia, we would have lived, but since we did, we ironically written our own death certificate.

 

I assume that you mean that evolution eventually gets rid of our bodies' ability to defend itself against bacterial and virus threats because there is no such thing. If aliens are capable of reintroducing an inexistent virus or bacteria, they can destroy us through other means. I also assume that since there is no disease and that it's a perfect world, there's no conflict among humans either, so no terrorists, only aliens. The thing is, if we consider that everything we do can have a bad result (which we should), there would be no scientific progress. I understand that we must be mindful of our actions, as it sends echoes (ahem) into the future and that our actions have consequences but there's no way to predict the future, especially as far as that. If the world is destroyed because I squashed a bug that contains a secret that could save us in 300 years, then the world is destroyed. That's it.

[Vaelastraz]

If our genes had no resistance against Malaria and someone releases Malaria in that perfect world, yes, most people would probably die.

 

Most people. There would most likely be people who still have a natural resistance. Those few people would not die, and humans survive...

 

I don't mind if we cross some imaginary border with gene bio and nano technology. It is obvious that we have to take great care, but just because something is dangerous doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

[JediMaster12]

There still would have to be some sort of set of rules and regulations that would keep things from getting out of hand. Just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should. You have to consider all the possibilities before coming to the decision to mess around with stuff like that. I'm all for scientific achievements but I do believe that there should be some limits to it. We've already seen how far the public in general is willing to go with the stem cells and cloning things.We do have to have some limitations.

[Achilles]

We've already seen how far the public in general is willing to go with the stem cells and cloning things.

Could you please clarify what that means?

 

If our genes had no resistance against Malaria and someone releases Malaria in that perfect world, yes, most people would probably die.

I haven't seen much of it in the news lately, but a few years ago, there was a great deal of concern surrounding small pox. After we erradicated it, we stopped immunizing for it. Apparently someone realized that there was a potential terrorist threat for small pox and the U.S. gov't was on the fence re: immunizing emergency workers, the military, etc. Immunizing for small pox could potentially reintroduce it while not immunizing for it left everyone susceptable.

 

The more diseases we erradicate, the more potential for this form of warfare exists. This is not an argument for not erradicating malaria, but rather for caution.

[jonathan7]

I'm back!!!! Had loads of Uni work hence you not seeing me around here much! (I promise Achilles I will eventually post that reply to you in the ethics and religion thread... I haven't forgotten bro!)

 

I don't think getting rid of mosquito's is really playing God. From a Christian point of view God to give us control of the world as its head, so I would argue the above if succesful will be great and will save the lives of millions of under 5's in Africa! On stem cell's I personally think stem cell research is very important for curing diseases in the future. My Dad who is a Doctor and Christian thinks stem cell research is extremley important (he is however completely against abortion) and is delighted that in the USA the extremist Christians there have currently got it outlawed as it means us Brits can do the research there and then sell the Americans what we've done, helping our NHS

 

I haven't seen much of it in the news lately, but a few years ago, there was a great deal of concern surrounding small pox. After we erradicated it, we stopped immunizing for it. Apparently someone realized that there was a potential terrorist threat for small pox and the U.S. gov't was on the fence re: immunizing emergency workers, the military, etc. Immunizing for small pox could potentially reintroduce it while not immunizing for it left everyone susceptable.

 

The more diseases we erradicate, the more potential for this form of warfare exists. This is not an argument for not erradicating malaria, but rather for caution.

 

Malaria is the biggest killer of under 5's in Africa. So although I understand your concern, I think we have got to try to do something to stop it.

[Achilles]

I'm back!!!! Had loads of Uni work hence you not seeing me around here much! (I promise Achilles I will eventually post that reply to you in the ethics and religion thread... I haven't forgotten bro!)

No worries. Studies come first (now if I could only practice what I preach in that regard )

 

My Dad who is a Doctor and Christian thinks stem cell research is extremley important (he is however completely against abortion) and is delighted that in the USA the extremist Christians there have currently got it outlawed as it means us Brits can do the research there and then sell the Americans what we've done, helping our NHS

Yep.

Some argue that allowing adult stem cell research has kept us in the game, however these people don't seem to recognize that we've forced ourselves into the rear position in the world medical community. Look forward to Americans having to buy medicine from Singapore for the rest of their lives.

[JediMaster12]

Could you please clarify what that means?

I was referring to the attacks made by the religious conservatives and those that aren't even for religious purposes.

[Achilles]

I'm having a hard time associating your response with the question:

 

We've already seen how far the public in general is willing to go with the stem cells and cloning things.

<snip>

I was referring to the attacks made by the religious conservatives and those that aren't even for religious purposes.

You original statement invoked the general public, while your follow-up specified conservatives. I'm still a little lost.

[ALIEN_JL]

We have just played God! We managed to create mosquitos that are resistant to a formto a mouse strain of malaria...

 

I don't think we made those damn blood suckers appear from thin air in

any miraculous and godly fashion or anything like that...

 

I am sure we did that creating within and according to all the laws and

boundaries of this "god's creation" by modifying some existing creatures.

Nothing miraculous and or divine there...

 

So how is that "playing god" ? (And what god ? Is there such thing ?)

[JediMaster12]

Achilles, you have a good mind. I thought it would be easy to see that while I generally specified a general public, the ones that stand out the most are the religious conservatives. There are even people who are atheist that do think that there should be limits on what we do in science like gentics and the like. I have no specific names of people but I have come across comments and people who voice similar opinions.

[Achilles]

Hi,

 

I think we may have missed each other at some point. Let me go back for a second and reframe the question:

 

You said, "We've already seen how far the public in general is willing to go with the stem cells and cloning things."

 

What does this mean? Where has the general public "gone" with stem cells and cloning things? You were discussing limits and then said the above, so my question is: What limits (real or implied) have been surpassed (encroached upon, threatened, etc) by the general public?

 

My apologies for not being clearer earlier.

[Emperor Devon]

Personally I don't see what's wrong with man acting like or defying God in the first place. If he is worthy of such recognition I fail to see the problem.