Furrykef wrote:
Not the strongest argument for those who don't believe in God...
For some of us who believe in God, it's not a strong argument either.
I personally don't see why God would not allow genetic engineering. My understanding of Genesis is that, as the sentient species of this planet, God's given us stewardship. He specifically says to grow or subdue as we see fit ... the commandment as I read it felt very general.
We are indeed God's creation, but if this were a company, I feel that our divine CEO is allowing us line managers free-reign in the affairs of our world. (You can tell that my college education is driving me nuts ... ) It's not like we're voting to fire God or plotting to have Him overthrown.
StrongRad wrote:
That's why I think most people are against it... They don't understand it.
Kinda like genetically modified food. People are all "I don't want that stuff in my body!" but they go to the garden store and buy hybrid seed corn or hybrid beans or something similar. Hybrid vegetables are just plants that have been cross bred. It's a low tech version of genetic modding.
Here's the funny thing, concering environmentalists/naturalists who know little about a technology ... Greenpeace is protesting against
research in fusion reactors. FUSION REACTORS!!From Wikipedia:
Quote:
The project experienced large opposition from environmental groups such as Greenpeace. "Pursuing nuclear fusion and the ITER project is madness," said Bridget Woodman of Greenpeace. "Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident." [9] "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy," said Jan Vande Putte of Greenpeace International. Instead, they should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today".[10]
Quote:
Proponents believe that much of the ITER criticism is misleading and uneducated, in particular the allegations of the experiment's "inherent danger". The stated goals for a commercial fusion power station design are that the amount of radioactive waste produced will be hundreds of times less than that of a fission reactor, that it will produce no long-lived radioactive waste, and that it will be impossible for any fusion reactor to undergo a large-scale runaway chain reaction. This is because the amount of fuel planned to be contained in a fusion reactor chamber (about one-tenth of a gram of deuterium and tritium) is only enough to sustain the reaction for about a minute, whereas a fission reactor contains about a year's supply of fuel (100 tons of uranium and plutonium). Proponents note that large-scale fusion power, if it works, will be able to produce electricity on demand and with virtually zero pollution (zero gaseous CO2/SO2/NOx by-products are made)
Greenpeace calls fusion reactors ... "
Toys?!" What the snick?! Besides--compared to fossil fuels and even nuclear fission reactors, why are they so adamant about opposing fusion?! If we don't develop potent alternatives for power plants before fossil fuel runs out, the consequences will be far more severe than anything Greenpeace imagines will happen with fusion ...
It makes me wonder just how much they understand GM crops, too ... e_e
Quote:
It does scare me, though when people start talking about picking your child's hair color, eye color, etc. Choices like that are for the sake of vanity, and that's heading toward the "perfect child"... It's not a far cry from "perfect child" to "supreme race".
Pfft. The racial supremacists have been doing this long before we could even poke at DNA strands. If you ever get the time, look up what happened in the U.S., Germany, and a mess of other European nations at the turn of the last century concerning eugenics.
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
