Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Miscellaneous

Thank God for Starbucks. If it wereen't for its blessed air-conditioned, coffee-aromaed, internet-connected (for only $4.99, though it only covers me for an hour) presence, I would not be able to throw my random sentiments out to my not-so-adoring (but oh-so-adorable) people. I'd like to apologize to anyone I confused the hell out of with my last post, seeing that I strayed from my topic just a little bit, but I'm told it was quite amusing. I'm not quite sure what to make of that.
So I've been reading a very good book called Spin. I'm sure it's positively famous or some such thing like that and that I'm just once again enclosed in my bubble of geeky ignorance, but I'd never heard of it. This is the only time in my memory when I've actually picked a random book off the Science Fiction shelf in Borders (the biggest frakking Borders you've ever seen!{Though, it still didn't have the music albums I was looking for; I'm starting to think that no one really likes the music I listen to}) and actually legit enjoyed it. Not that I've finished it. It could have a horrible ending as far as I know. Don't spoil it for me. If you want an outline of the plot, think of the Stargate Atlantis episode Epiphany. It's that, but a million times as good. Oh wait, Epiphany wasn't good at all. Except maybe for some good Mckay-Beckett bickering. Digresssion! But anyway, it brings up some great issues dealing with mortality on a large scale and whether it's right to "play the ball game when you already know the outcome". My only concern is that it's either set itself up for the coolest ending ever or the biggest cop-out finale in SciFi book history. Ok, so that's an exaggeration, but believe me, it would be bad.
It actually prompted some possible sermons for this post; I was excitedly planning during my sad, blogless nights, but after the mixed messages and slightly confusing nature of my last post I decided to just be boring and tell all about whatever the hell I want to talk about.
And here it is- the rebuttle. Genetic engineering is unethical, in my opinion, because it brings human life further away from a product of nature and more towards a product of desire. We've established that. But how exactly do you support the statement that humanity has already drifted from nature so far that it is a distinct separation? We are brought to considering the definition and ethics of human progress- We all have the line that we're afraid to cross: When do the detrimental effects that human progress (especially industrial) have outweigh the progress that is made? When is it unethical? My belief is that human progress is inevitable and, in the long run beneficial, but humans should do the best they can to lessen the blow on nature, even if that means practical sacrifice of their own. When dealing with genetic engineering issues this line is blurred- Are chosen-gender children (and clones, for that matter) more a product of nature or desire? Birth should remain a natural thing because it preserves the uniqueness of the person and makes them free of being molded as a person, as they would be if their gender or other physical characteristics had been chosen for them. Essentially, they would be bred for a purpose they themselves could not choose.

Just my two cents, sport fans.

2 comments:

gbz said...

genetic engineering need not lead to determinism (not being able to choose your life). people can simply be made better, and actualy have more oppurtunities opened up as defects get eliminated. theres also no reason that peoples uniqueness would nescesarily be lessened, because "nurture" still would play a signifigant role and people would be engineered to be unique since its something that we as a culture value.
Furthermore, unlike industrialization, genetic engineering does not harm nature (non-humans i mean).
also keep in mind the tremendous benefits of eliminating all inherited disorders, weak immune systems, susceptibilty to cancer, etc. certainly thats worth some risk.
and, saying that "closer to nature" is better than "closer to desire" is just an opinion, not an argument. in fact, theres more logic supporting the opposite.

OSK said...

"people can simply be made better"

Who are we to decide for an unborn child what 'better' is?

I support trying to eliminate diseases before birth, but what about gender selection and the possibility of choosing outstanding talents for people? Is that right?