Sorry But Your Soul Just Died

Life extensions are critically dependent on futuristic medical advancements. However, a strong noble compass is needed to ensure scientific advancements do not cross moral ethics of life. Brave New World, written by Aldous Huxley, and the movie Gattaca, directed by Andrew Niccol, propose technologically advanced societies that challenge ethical and moral views. Although Brave New World and Gattaca relate in genetic discrimination, they differ in technology’s powers and limits, as well as the resiliency of the human spirit.

Eugenics is defined, in some way or the other, as the process of reshaping the human race by determining the kinds of people who will be born. As such, there is much debate in the field of eugenics, with authors, like Philip Kitcher, who support laissez-faire or a minimalist approach of eugenics in which eugenic decision-making should be limited only to avoid neurological illnesses and in which parental free choice is valued. Gregory Stock’s essay, The Enhanced and Un-Enhanced, presents otherwise by supporting the position of maximalist eugenics, allowing individuals the full extent in the selection of genes. On the other hand, the film, Gattaca, raises major ethical problems by illustrating a dystopian society resulted by extensive

Fukuyama’s (2002) principal point in explaining his view of Factor X is: “…we are complex wholes rather than the sum of simple parts, then it is clear that there is no simple answer to the question, What is Factor X (p. 159)? Instead of one defining element, he believed that Factor X is made up of multiple aspects that make humans unique and create the basic human dignity that allows for a minimal level of respect. He also discusses how biotechnology could disrupt human nature and create political unrest between the left and right. Extreme advances in biotechnology could create a divide in the human race between the ”GenRich“ and the ”GenPoor“ where the GenRich would have highly modified genes whereas the GenPoor are without these

Throughout the world, many intelligent minds exist. One, in particular, had something to say about Human genetic engineering. “Nuclear weapons need large facilities, but genetic engineering can be done in a small lab. You cannot regulate every lab in the world. The danger is that either by accident or design, we create a virus that destroys us” (Stephen Hawking). Hawking is considered to be one of the most intelligent people in the modern world. For this reason, his statement is not to be taken with a grain of salt. The concept of Human genetic engineering is surrounded with danger and controversy. There are several different positions on human genetic modification. Conservatives, or Traditionalists believe such innovation or change would be detrimental towards the human race. Conservatives say that families are the foundation of society so changing how families come to be would ultimately tear society apart (Foht). Others say that innovation of such magnitude would act as a boon to the human race. Concerning the danger of genetic engineering, it could definitely become an immense detriment. However, with the correct limitation and government oversight, the human race will benefit from it. Genetically engineering a Human embryo is a step that science will eventually take. Whether it be decades or centuries from now, genetically modified humans will walk the Earth.

life by decades, biotechnology has the same potential to do the same. Therefore, most advocates argue that since the technology is there it should be used. For ages humans have been, enhance through education and biotechnology could be another method in order to continue to further develop human life.

So, too, related controversies over the benefits and costs, the legality and morality, of biotechnical innovations in reproductive technologies, genetic engineering, and cloning, to say nothing of the ecological consequences of new biological, chemical, and nuclear weaponry that constitute central preoccupations in contemporary society.” (Nature p.234).

The Biotech Century written by Jeremy Rifkin provides insight about the evolution of the earth. In our present time we are living in a pyrotechnology, Rifkin suggest that we are now heading toward a biotechnology age. There is a “new operational matrix” coming into play, which comes together from seven different variables. The biotechnology age represents a time when living material can be altered for economic cornucopia. The biotechnology era does promise a lot of advancement, but does not offer a predictive ecology. The advancement in science could cause a disruption in humanity, due to manipulation of living material. During the Biotech Century people are faced with Godly like choices, people will have the option to make a “perfect human” getting rid of all defects. While other people will be awarded patents for living material for commercial incentive.

Over the years humanity has experienced a significant increase in the world population, and today that number continues to rise. With an increase in people, the demand for food goes up tremendously. Agricultural science has continuously developed new technologies that have enhanced the efficiency and value of agricultural production. Although the enhancements increase the production of agricultural goods, it’s important to understand the impacts it has on our environment and food system. In this book review, I will discuss both the cultural and natural dimensions of Agricultural Biotechnology, and how it relates to our current problems in Human Relations. I will also provide personal insights and feelings in regards to the book titled

Techno-eugenics, you might call it – a way to customize humanity to satisfy the whims of an elite class. It seems innocuous at first – using stem cells to help women with fertility issues get pregnant, or to help develop a healthy fetus in a woman who has damaged DNA, but it isn’t something to be taken lightly, or without deep moral and ethical concerns.

Essay
 
As the world is becoming more and more populated we have to think of new ways to sustain life by possibly using cloning and genetic engineering. This text is going to examine how James Cameron and Nancy Farmer portray Cloning, Genetic Engineering and how sustainability is evident. Cloning and genetic engineering can both be used to sustain life on our planet but whether we can put behind us the ethical concerns relating to them in order to sustain life is another story. All three of these evident themes have a very similar underlying message in both of these examples.
 
Genetic engineering means the modification of of an organism by manipulating its genetic material. Both James Cameron and Nancy Farmer use some form of genetic engineering

The birth of a child is supposed to be a time of joy, the uncertainty of life leads to this one point in time. Will she or he be the next president, a star athlete, a genius or just fall into the crowd as another citizen. With recent advancements in science, this uncertainty has become a thing of the past. The human being is now seen as a commodity and no more is valued in the uncertainty of individuality. The parent can now choose how they want their child to come out or develop into. Sandel’s book The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Case of Modern Eugenics is a well researched look into examples of modern eugenics and the problems that arise from it. These topics range from the ethics of cloning, athletes using performance enhancing drugs, and other practical uses in everyday life. Sandel’s argument is that there is value in human nature (even with all its flaws), and genetic engineering will forever change human nature. Destroying the very essence of what it is to be human and scarring humanity. The main features of human nature that will be altered: are responsibility, humility and solidarity.

The idea of eugenics is today very controversial, because in the past it had been used in order to justify discrimination and injustice against people who were thought to be genetically "unhealthy". But now eugenics has become all so more popular with the discovery and invention of In vitro fertilisation (IVF), which consists of fertilising the female egg and male sperm ‘in glass’, thus a test tube baby. “We now have discrimination down to a science”, with the manufacturing of human life science has over taken the job of nature in producing a supreme, perfect and talented baby even before it is born, without even taking into consideration what the baby may want.

Annes says, the current state of things has opened an opportunity for humanity to “think seriously about what we would like [the future] to be.” However, when interrogated on the matter, the public opinion’s vision of the future appears to exclude human genetic engineering, at least according to the Center for Genetics and Society’s survey. In fact, 83% of Americans surveyed in May of 2013 disapproved of human cloning, with 59% standing in strong opposition to the creation of human embryos for the purpose of research ("CGS Summary of Public Opinion Polls"). These numbers may seem strange, especially when one considers all the possible benefits genetic engineering could yield, among those being fewer diseases, reduced (or even nonexistent) birth defects, and improved physical condition of offspring. The aforementioned NCBI speaks of bringing pluripotent cells to their full potential, and pushing humanity to the barrier of its capabilities. But yet, the general populace seems to be opposed to the prospect, most likely do to metathesiophobia - or the fear of change. Belgian poet Maurice Maeterlinck is quoted as saying “at every crossroads on the path that leads to the future, tradition has placed 10,000 men to guard the past,” and that would appear to be the issue here. The human brain is often in pursuit of pattern and meaning and subsequently is not all too ready to adopt a new pattern and adjust its interpretations of the world around it. While there are many logical oppositions to human genetic engineering (such as the possible consequences of a miscalculation), many of those concerns can be addressed and in fact overcome; however, the fear of change cannot truly be terminated. People prefer current class structure; those who wish not to be modified fear the worlds of Gattaca; but these preferences hinder scientific progress, as human emotion tends to

Gene therapy and by extension designer babies may be one of the most unethical, immoral human breaches within the scientific and medical field ever thought of by man. Altering and modifying the body into having artificial, synthetic traits like expansive height, bright blue eyes, blonde hair follicles may end harming the body moreso than contaminating it into the ultimate Übermensch. “Genomics may also one day enable otherwise healthy individuals to change their own DNA to improve athletic prowess or brain power, or allow the wealthy to artificially conceive genetically “superior” progeny.” (Tucker, par 3). That statement alone confirms the mortal yearning to possess superiority over the populace.

Biology is the science of life. Technology uses science to solve problems. Our society has progressed in its understanding of life to the point that we are able to manipulate it on a fundamental level through technology. This has led to profound ethical dilemmas. The movie Gattaca explores some important bioethical issues that are currently the focus of much dispute. The underlying thematic issue presented is the question of the extent to which biologically inherent human potential determines the true potential of a person. Perhaps the most controversial issue in Gattaca is the use of genetic engineering technology in humans to create a more perfect society; this is, essentially, a new