Raja Clavata Posted May 23, 2010 Report Share Posted May 23, 2010 Been away so apologies if this has already been done... What are PW members views on the construction and subsequent replication of this first synthetic cell, do you think this is a good thing, bad thing, need help (like me) in trying to get your head around all the potential uses and mis-uses or just plain don't give a ****? For me in first hearing about this my initial reaction was great this could have so many practical uses but shortly afterwards the uncertainty about mis-use came to the fore front of my mind. Not being a terrorist or dictator I suspect I'd struggle to really come up with too much in the way mis-use opportunities though so my bias is towards the betterment of mankind. So my current feeling based on a little bit of reflection, and in reading every article I could in the papers on the plane home from India yesterday, is that I want to hear the views of all the great minds of today share their thoughts both in relation to use and misuse and what the development of this technology may mean for mankind. Theologians and Philosophers should of course be included too but I'm really interested in hearing from the likes of Dawkins, Strobel, Hitchens and others. I suspect the implications of this development will (or at least should) be difficult for dye in the wool personal God Theists to come to terms with, at least within their inner self, but I would be genuinely interested to hear their views. No doubt some will suggest this could have the apopalytic possibilities of the atom bomb but to me, from the macro viewpoint, the atom bomb has been a benefit to mankind and appears to be maintaining world "peace" or at least preventing a world war (cue North Korea!). In direct contrast to the atom bomb, which is far from covert, I suspect mis-use of further developments of this technology could be used in a much more stealthy / covert and therefore sinister manner. That said, for the benefit of the rampant Islamaphobes you're probably safe until someone discovers an Islamic gene which genetically distinguishes them from the infidels but perhaps there is a gene distinguishable to Islamaphobes only now that would be cause for concern Perhaps the most significant outcome from this breakthrough is that mankind may be taking another step towards abolishment of conventional religion and embarking on a globally aligned idealism based around our planet and the universe - not holding my breath on that one! But this is certainly an area where the likes of people such as Desmond Tutu have something to contribute on this subject. Anyway, what say the rest of you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shot shot Posted May 23, 2010 Report Share Posted May 23, 2010 If it leads to this, I welcome it http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raja Clavata Posted May 23, 2010 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2010 If it leads to this, I welcome it http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4003063.stm Interesting, I'd consider that a mis-use! Surely not everyone would be "allowed" to live that long (at least I'd hope not!), what would be the criteria? Would there be an exam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shot shot Posted May 23, 2010 Report Share Posted May 23, 2010 Interesting, I'd consider that a mis-use! Surely not everyone would be "allowed" to live that long (at least I'd hope not!), what would be the criteria? Would there be an exam very german.... I like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BattleFieldRelics Posted May 23, 2010 Report Share Posted May 23, 2010 Interesting, I'd consider that a mis-use! Surely not everyone would be "allowed" to live that long (at least I'd hope not!), what would be the criteria? Would there be an exam The criteria will be money of course! It seems to be the only thing that matters in life. I suspect the ageing cure will cost SO much that you will spend 1000 years 'mortgaged' just to pay for it. and imagine what it would do to the housing market if we all lived that long..... 1000 years of debt misery. (from a working class point of view) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vipa Posted May 23, 2010 Report Share Posted May 23, 2010 I'm all for it..... I'm not scared of dying.... I just don't want to!!! The biggest problem which seems to be another big elephant in the room (i.e. everyone can see it but no one dares say anything) is poulation control. The earth is struggling to cope as it is. Once the oil starts to run out in a noticable (and costly) fasion and we no longer have the petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides we wholly rely on to produce crops large enough to support the 6bn (and climbing) humans on the planet we are in deep poo as it is! Whilst over milennia, systems would develop to control population (i.e. no births without a death or to put it another way, one in, one out!) In the first instance we would pretty much stop death but births would continue at their current rate. There would be an uncontrollable spike in global population which in turn would lead to mass famine, population migration, food and energy wars etc... etc.... it certainly won't be pretty!!! As for this type of therapy only being available to the rich, I doubt that will be the case. I think it will be a little like statins are now... The government will see the cost benefits to the public purse of having an 'un-ill' population and will start to recommend that all adults over a certain age take treatment, price reductions will result from demand and the cycle will begin. (just think how fast the public spending deficit could be reeled in if 90% of the current NHS spending could be re-directed!!!!) In the words of Freddie Murcury and the boys..... "Who wants to live forever?" Yoohoo......... me..... I do....... over here...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuck. Posted May 24, 2010 Report Share Posted May 24, 2010 I dissagree with using it for extending Human life, for reasons explained above. The world needs population control, which happens automatically. You can't just extend Human lifetime unnaturally because you can't just take control of half of the problem. There are many more uses for this science but altering lifespan shouldn't be one of them. Unless they already have backup plans of colonizing on the moon of course. Anyway wasn't the main goal of this to help manufacture synthetic fuels? I vote no for disease prevention as the consequences are unforseeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzy Fudd Posted May 24, 2010 Report Share Posted May 24, 2010 look at it this way, over population wouldnt be a problem, as far longer lives would mean we could finally expand out into the rest of the universe and you never know, if that doesnt work they might invent a zombie plague to thin the numbers... now wouldnt that be fun!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RC45 Posted May 24, 2010 Report Share Posted May 24, 2010 (edited) Well if I have to give up the Stella, you can forget it... Edited May 24, 2010 by RC45 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuck. Posted May 24, 2010 Report Share Posted May 24, 2010 Well if I have to give up the Stella, you can forget it... Then again.. mass produced artificial livers, no more waiting lists.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.