The New Technology Can Save Lives

In both of their articles they anticipate GNR technologies will make great leaps forward in future decades and will bring with them a myriad of new possibilities. Joy and Kurzweil both describe a not too distant future of robotics,artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology. They anticipate ubiquitous nanotechnology and artificial intelligence in only two to three decades time; furthermore, Joy and Kurzweil portray a world in which computers have far greater computing power because of advances in nanotechnology, nanobots can be easily produced at feasible cost, and artificial intelligence rivals, if not exceeds, that of the smartest humans. Based upon all of this research done and the rate at which current technologies are being improved upon, this matter is not very debatable. What is, however, is what the rapid advances made in the near future will present, and this is where Joy and Kurzweil begin to differ. They disagree on the topic of whether or not all the anticipated advances will be more of a benefit or hindrance to society and how these new technologies should be treated. Joy presents a pessimistic view in his essay, providing many reasons why developing GNR will endanger humans greatly. He describes a dystopian future where nanotechnology will be used to create pathogens that will be incredibly hard to stop and artificial intelligence will become independent and outgrow the need for humans. Joy compares GNR to the nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC)

The acceptability of a certain form of technology can either be based on whether or not it improves the lives of humans and whether or not it is considered part of the social norm. It stands to reason that Genetic engineering can be accepted and subsequently refined to evolve the human race, as shown with its ability to improve quality of life through advancements in agriculture and medicine. Genetic engineering is the manual modification of an organism’s genetic composition by artificial means in order to transfer the specific traits, genes from one organism into a plant or animal of an entirely different species; in order to add a trait that would not normally be found within the species of the specific organism. According to Dr. Ron Epstein, professor of family medicine, psychiatry and oncology, Genetic engineering is a completely new kind of science that concerns itself with changing nature itself on the most fundamental level whereas previous science aimed to understand how nature works. As a result, there is a lot of controversy and worry stemming from the potential risk of bringing chaos and destruction to society that comes from the implementation of Genetic Engineering. Therefore, in order to come to an agreement on whether or not the benefits of Genetic Engineering are greater than the risks both sides of the argument must be weighed equally.

Gregory Stock, in his article Choosing Our Genes, asserts that at this point not ethics are important, but rather the future of genetic technology. Stock supports his conclusion by providing powerful examples of how genetic modifications can benefit our population anywhere from correcting genes at the time of conception to extending lifespan. He wants to inform his audience about all of the benefits of genetic technology in order to prove that there are way more advantages in this technology that are highly desirable by people of different ages. He reaches his readers by writing a very detailed yet coherent article that brings awareness to various groups of people from parents to be to older populations.

Humanity is always trying to find a way to make themselves better. In recent news, this has led to a moral debate on weather or not using performance enhancing drugs for sports is morally correct or not. But, what if we had already manipulated the human body to make it better before we were even born? This is what Bill McKibben is referencing in his essay “Designer Genes”, on the morality and the biological arms race that could result when dealing with genetic manipulation and engineering. Though the cat isn’t out of the bag for genetic engineering he references what scientists are doing to skim the fine line that laws and ethics have laid down for us. McKibben’s audience is people who can make laws

Genetic Modification is often perceived as the answer to humanity’s faults because it will enhance human abilities, prevent the survival of incapacitating disabilities, and guide the innovation of the future. Sounds pretty good, right? That is not the reality. Genetic modification is not the solution to the ubiquitous problems of the human race, but rather infringes on individual rights, decreases diversity, permits too much power to the human race, and contributes to overpopulation.

Through these “battles”, authors also display their rhetorical prowess. One eloquent example of these “rhetorical battles” is the bout between the progressive Ronald M. Green and the conservative Richard Hayes. In his article “Building Baby from the Genes Up”, Green advocates for genetic engineering- realizing the inevitability of this new technology due the potential it has in improving mankind. Hayes responds to Green’s stance on human genetic modification in his own article “ Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks.” Hayes’s own stance of the subject is polarizing to Green’s. Hayes believes that genetic engineering will not benefit society at all and in fact Hayes believes it would take away our humanity; claiming genetic engineering would “undermine the human community.”

Human genetic engineering is one of the newest scientific breakthroughs allowing DNA that is considered “bad” to be replaced using CRISPR. Due to this new technology discovered, many scientists around the world have agreed on banning the practice of humans and embryos, after China first was able to partially succeed in using CRISPR on embryos. The topic of human engineering is very controversial on ethics but also the benefits of the outcome on human genetic engineering and the fast pace that it is going in. Mary Shelley explains in Frankenstein that scientific progress is advancing faster than the human knowledge of science and shows this when Victor creates the creation and how he deals with the creation afterwards. Scientists are careful about transgressing ethical boundaries in the name of progress so that humans should

How far would you go to save human lives and to progress society for those in need? The benefits of genetic engineering have shown to outweigh the ethical and environmental consequences associated within the field. Genetic Engineering has shown to provide major benefits in the field of medicine and agriculture but is faced with extreme criticism and backlash, specifically on the basis of ethics.

One of the most famous quotes from the movie “Jurassic Park” states as follows, “Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they did not stop to think if they should.” This quote by Jeff Goldblum not only interprets his characters wit, but also sparks an interesting debate. “Jurassic Park” brings the idea of genetic modification to people’s attention in an entertaining way. Amazingly, scientists and geneticists are able to alter specific genes, much like in the movie. Many benefits from altering genes exist, but some are viewed as morally unacceptable.

Worryingly, there has been minimal public debate regarding this technology that could irreversibly alter the human race. Instead, ethical discourse has been largely contained to scientific and political circles. It is extremely problematic that a large majority of the general public is unaware of the research and debate regarding human gene modification. In addition, the current debate has stagnated, with researchers and politicians being unable to find any common ground. However, upon close examination of the three main ideological groups within this controversy, a key similarity becomes apparent: each group, regardless of whether they are proponents or opponents of human gene

The world we live in is advancing more and more every day. We are beginning to exceed boundaries and reach new limits. Science and Technology has come a long way since Copernicus said that the sun was the center of the universe. Science fiction is slowly coming to life. We are building robots that are extremely similar to humans, modifying genes, and creating clones. Authors wrote about these abstract ideas not too long ago, but at the time they seemed far-fetched. Scientific and technological advancement may be for good or for evil. The good side is the advancements in medicine that could limit the risk of a particular disease or even cure one. The potentially bad side is the steps we may take to get there without knowing the long-term effect. In Michael Bess’s article “Blurring the Boundary Between Person and Product,” he discusses the advancement of genetic

Humans desire perfection in everything, even if that means crossing the boundaries of natural life. A new looming untested technology, human genetic modification, raises questions as to whether it will advance human society or cause inconsistencies in the human genome. Essentially, this controversy will effect everyone since it is still early but it is an upcoming topic. Genetic engineering specifically effecting the next generations. Commentators on this debate argue that it will promote the positives of scientific advancements, but others dispute that this raises strong ethical concerns. Genetic engineering has the possibility to cure diseases while furthering modern medicine, but humans would abuse the process by creating a competitive

Scientists have projected there to be many benefits to gene therapy in the near future. For starters, gene therapy could cure diseases like cancer, aids, as well as thousands of genetic disorders (Will). Sara Goering, a philosopher concerned with biomedical ethics, argues throughout “Gene Therapies and the Pursuit of a Better Human” that germline therapy could mean disorders would be eliminated for good, leading to the relief of pain for many. It poses the possibility to eliminate human suffering at the root, and in turn, better humanity. Throughout society, people already focus on ‘enhancing’ their kids through vaccines and vitamins. Kids are out through surgeries because they are believed to be what is best. Goering points out that because of people’s willingness for treatments like this, there really are not many moral concerns prevalent (Goering 403-40). For many diseases, treatments that people already feel comfortable with will not work as effectively (“List”). Currently, there are no real cures for genetic disorders besides replacing defective

Just as there are different types of people who look at one glass of water and describe it as half full or half empty, the public has many different views on the future of our society. Gene therapy is also a glass that can be viewed in different angles – different perspectives. Some say it has great potential to shape the ideals of our future, while others believe it signifies intolerance for disabilities, imperfections that supposedly deplete from a person’s interests, opportunities and welfare (quoted by Peter Singer, xviii). This global issue has brought people with different opinions in the open, arguing their views using history,

Then you attack it” (Garreau 28-30). Organizations such as DARPA and CAP strive to make unstoppable human beings. For instance, take the well-developed movie Gattaca which came to theaters in 2010 and was about a man that manipulates his DNA to hide his identity to be a more advanced, genetically engineered, human being. No one is capable of stopping him from becoming a better meaningful species to society. Most Americans strive to build themselves up to become the best they can be. Americans' study the use of DNA manipulation in bodies and cells to help fight off diseases and illnesses such as the common cold or flu. Goldblatt proclaims, “We do not fear the unknown, and we relish exploring the unknowable” (Garreau 19). Americans should be more like this quote and strive to become the best species that has ever existed. DARPA is studying a vaccine that will help in pain management. Such vaccines will make milestones in terms of medicine. If someone is hurt they will feel the first trigger of pain but the pain will soon subside (Garreau 19-28). This pain vaccine will have many benefits to Americans dealing with diseases and to society.