AP+Group+4

//After having read/viewed your respective source material, you should conduct your team debate using the DISCUSSION tab above. Click on the NEW POST link, give your post a subject name, and then type your comment. You will be able to click into the various post headings and reply to each other's comments. Feel free to make as many post categories as you feel necessary, considering the scientific, philosophical, and theological elements of your various scientific controversies. Each group member should post and respond to member posts on a daily basis.//

//Once you have reached a team position (not necessarily a consensus), click the EDIT button on this page and type your team's position in the space below the line. After finalizing your group position statement, please complete the project evaluation survey by clicking on the link at the bottom of this page.//

=**Type Team Position Here: Sara Forbeck- Synthetic Life | Emily Hutchinson- Gerontology | Lindsey Cron- Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs)**=

Frankenstein: Who's the Real Monster?  Do the ends justify the means? Has science gone “too far”? As technology becomes more and more advanced, we have to ask ourselves these questions. Research and technology today make us question the ethics of certain topics, such as synthetic life, gerontology, and the use of GMOs. They also force us to question the impacts they will have on our futures and whether or not it is acceptable to “play God”. As a group, we have researched these three different technologies and how they will affect humanity in the future. We believe that, for the most part, the ends do not justify the means for these forms of technology.

 On the issue of the morality of synthetic life, we do not think it is ethical to artificially create life, nor do we think we have the right or need to do so. In one of the sources on this topic, Dr. Craig Venter stated, "We decided that [by] writing new biological software and creating new species, we could create new species to do what we want them to do, not what they evolved to do" (Venter). This statement largely advertises the issue of "playing God". According to most major religions, including Catholicism, it is not our right to control life. Being Christians ourselves, we believe that synthesizing life is like trying to put ourselves on the same level as God, our creator. This is similar to treason; the reason Satan exists is because he tried to be more powerful than God. The statement made by Venter is also frightening because it opens the door to a slew of possible uses for artificial life. For example, what if this synthetic life was used as a new military defense? Creating life to kill life...It would almost seem as if we lost our humanity. Another morality issue with synthetic life deals with animal testing. The first source spoke about this issue, describing how human neural cells may be implanted into apes. The apes could potentially develop human emotions and thought processes. This is highly unethical; if the ape is part-human, and it knows it is part-human, it would be an outcast. The ape would be stuck in this “kind of horrible between land” (Chadwick). It would, essentially, be similar to treating a human like a lab rat. What if you were this part-ape part-human creature? We would not have the right to make decisions for this life form, including whether or not human neural cells are implanted into it. Synthesizing life is taking science too far, and the ends do not justify the means.

 Gerontology is another subject that raises controversy over “going too far” in science. It is the social, psychological and biological study of aging. Extending the lifespans of humans to a certain point seems okay, but people will never be able to agree on that point. Aging is a completely natural process, and over the past hundreds of years, we have been able to slow it down massively with new advances in medicine. The lifespan we have today is seen as normal, but 100 years ago it would have been seen as absurd. Aging will continue to slow down over the next few decades and will continue to be seen as the norm by new generations. The key point that the articles on this subject focused on was immortality. People do not want immortality; instead, they just wish to prolong their deaths. If this technology was to advance with no limitations at all, the ends--possibly living to be hundreds of years old--would not justify the means. These means would include starving yourself, the recurring use of HGH, and living in “laboratory” settings your entire life. People can live longer simply by taking better care of themselves their entire life instead of waiting until they are diagnosed with a disease or disorder. Some diseases are genetic and cannot be fixed, but in the U.S., 60% of diseases are preventable; that is where our key to living a longer life lies.

 The use of GMOs, or genetically modified organisms, brings about controversy in the modern world as well. GMOs are created when humans manipulate organisms, usually food sources, in their genetic makeup. We try to make them more efficient in growth, size, and number for both human and nonhuman use. This is, basically, making agriculture completely industrialized. This would not be a bad idea in the future, when all of the negative side effects are thoroughly tested and removed. The fact that the world is growing in population and shrinking in available living space means that we need to be more efficient with the small amount of area we have for agricultural use. Furthermore, to reduce world hunger problems, we would need to grow more food. According to worldometers.info, "it had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in less than 30 years (1959), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987)." With the rate at which we are growing, we are estimated to reach eight billion around the year 2024; that is only ten years from now. Will the planet still be able to provide for all of its human and nonhuman organisms then? If the only way we can provide for all these organisms is to make our food production more efficient, then GMOs are logical--but only if they are truly helping the planet.

 In theory, being immortal and unaffected by sickness seems like a great idea. In reality, there is no possible way our planet could sustain such ideas. Even with more efficient food sources, overpopulation would only take a few years--and then what? We do not need to live forever; all we really need to do is live healthier, more natural lives. This can be achieved from the beginning of a life by exercising, eating healthy, and maintaining healthy habits. If we do this, people will live happier, naturally longer lives. With the exception of GMOs, the ends do not justify the means for these technologies. Science is being taken too far.

Project Evaluation Survey