Sense of morality

[Priscilla Jarman]

One of the classic examples is GM food. We all understand that for centuries people have been developing - basic grass has created grain, even by cross-fertilisation - we all understand the gentic side of it. When we get slightly worried is when they start putting animal proteins into it, because we know that somehow intrinsically that ain't right!

[Hilda Koester]

I'm for a lot of new technologies but I've got a lot of reservations about answers in the medical field in particular, in relation to cloning and stuff like that. Messing about with nature, reproduction, playing God

[Arlene Boss]

Interfering with the reproductive process (clonong and embryo gender selection) doesn't sit well with me. I believe in the natural forces of nature.

[Monique Ruffner]

Ten years ago, people said that IVF was wrong, you're playing God and you shouldn't be doing that. Now we take it totally for granted and we think it's marvellous.

[Gary Orosco]

IVF and organ donation have caused much controversy in the past, but obviously for the family of the person ill, you are going to go for it

[Guest]

[Guest]

[David N Anthony]

It is so easy to become emotive about issues where it might appear that man is interfering with nature. Man has been developing new strains of agriculture for thousands of years. Genes are genes. There is little difference between a gene in a plant and genes in animals when looked at from the genetic viewpoint. It is emotion and the understandable misunderstanding of those who are concerned about what might be considered to be unnatural manipulation by man. Without such manipulation we would not be able to feed the world's population. Nor would we be able to help solve the problem of blindness in many African countires. Who are we to decide that the manipulation of strains of wheat should not be allowed if that helps to prevent blindness in Africa? Nature has a way of ensuring that what might be termed as unnatural acts, cannot be undertaken through making their offspring infertile.

[Aleks Rokicki]

I think all of the above points are those of validation and of truth...but I do not agree with them. I am most definately transhuman orientated in my views on all subjects of modern technology, which by definition makes me fully behind every single experiment and process that can make our existence and our childrens existence better and more comfortable in the future...the way I see the subject, there is no god, no divine influence...just us, here, now with the technology to accomplish great things...all the elements of nature are tools that we can use, so I belive that genetically modifying, or enhancing as I prefer to call it, is a great achivement...but of course these delecate matters must be reaserched fully in the intrests of general safety.

[ho]

I am not against technological advancement for the benefit of people, but I have problems with the following:

* publicly funded university research resulting in patents for private companies.

* (patented!) GM foodsources overwhelming very important biodiversity. Maybe some people don't think this is important, but I just don't think that it's wise to put all of our eggs in one basket, especially where our food supply is concerned!

* existing technological advances that have yet to make it to much of the world.

This last point is, I think the crux of the matter; with the current "profit-drives-innovation" model, everyone should be dubious of this idea of technology being generally benevolent. Of course, technology is not inherently good or bad, it's just that it is naive to assume that any private business will ever put the good of humanity ahead of $$$.

If this wasn't true, then why are "we" talking about nanotech that allows our shirts to monitor our pulse, when millions of people don't have enough to eat every day! Will this technology ever benefit them? The fact is that much of the world is still waiting for the arrival of what is to us, antique technology. Why? Because they can't afford it.

I know that to some I sound like a reactionary left-wingnut, and to others I could be better informed to make these arguments... but hey, I am what I am, just like the world is what it is.

Take profit out of the equation, and I will trust it.

-mikey-

ho_ofbabylon@yahoo.com

[marty1]

I have read the many responses posted and have very many resplys. First, I'm not seeing the association of nanotechnology with our food supply, unless we are eating more cabon rings (balls) than I'm aware of? Secondly, the growth of innovation does create fear, fear of the unknown and this coupled with the best sci-fi writers of our time to create additional undue stress on our already stressed out populations.

The fact remains the creation of the new carbon ring or "Ball" (nanotechnology) has created one of the greatest innovations of the history of the world. The development of nanotechnology has ammended the laws of physics and has the potential to create greater advances in technology than any other time in our civilized history. This new technology has huge potential in not only high technology, but in mdeical applications beyond our belief. In turn, human suffering, illness can be reduced and benfit greatly by the research scientists are deidcating their lives on. Unfortunately, corporations sponsor much of the research because fund at university levels are low, so many times there is a right to the invention, since many times the corporations is the one which sponsored the research.