How far can science and technology go before you think it's wrong?

[Radiation]

At the moment we can do a lot of stuff, some of it only the very religious or ignorant think is bad, nuclear power, genetic engineering etc but how far can a technology like augmentation and genetic engineering go before you say it's wrong?

Id imagine most on here being into tech would be up for some augmentation, new and improved senses, augmented/virtual reality in everyday life but genetic engineering for improved intelligence or to make us stronger and faster, still sounds reasonable?

What about when people want to change what it means to be human, perhaps adding extra body parts or changing their look completely, is that ok or is it going too far?

We may get to the point where anyone can buy a genetic modifier and turn themselves into allsorts, if everyone can be attractive or a freak of nature, what would happen to society as we know it, id imagine it would turn perverted and weird in some areas, a lot like you might see in a online virtual world?

There's far sicker possibility's like someone cloning an obedient human or mutant and messed up experiments etc.

 

[StriderX]

If it is wrong, you wont hear/see it.

 

[elmarko]

Define what you mean by "wrong".

It's a pretty subjective term.

 

[Azza]

Futurama style sex robots?

 

[Radiation]

Futurama style sex robots?

Sure except it's probably easier to clone a living human or create one in the computer to have any features you want, give it an artificial brain if need be, though id imagine the tech would devalue life quite a bit if it was that easy.

 

[Edrof]

Futurama style sex robots?

I'd wager that they are not that far away, and they'd certainly be one of the first uses for the appropriate tech when it is developed to an affordable degree. People love sex! That, death and taxes will never change. Cloning a human for sex is surely going to be ultra-taboo for a mass market.

 

[Judgeneo]

I'm all for a Deus-ex style humanity, its probably the only way we'll be able to compete with the AI/Androids we're going to make.

 

[stuman]

so far there is very little i am opposed to.

maybe something like what happens in the film "the island" would concern me somewhat. that is until i need a transplant, then i'm all for it.

 

[PondPikey]

Sure except it's probably easier to clone a living human or create one in the computer to have any features you want, give it an artificial brain if need be, though id imagine the tech would devalue life quite a bit if it was that easy.

Weird Science! Ill have a Kelly Lebrock please, make that 2!

 

[Rroff]

Its only really wrong if you force it on other people or use it to manipulate someone else into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do.

 

[Mr-White]

Cloning a human for sex is surely going to be ultra-taboo for a mass market.

MW

 

[uk_unbeliever]

Define what you mean by "wrong".

It's a pretty subjective term.

That's why the OP is asking where people would draw the line

 

[Skidder]

Three willies.

 

[Glaucus]

I don't think there is a technological line, just a consequence line, which can and will change.
The research should happen, but before its "released", it should be safe, throughly tested and well regulated.

For example to colonise new solar system, GMing our descents, would make life much easier.

In the event of an apocalypse systole event such GM or similar might be our survival route.

 

[JRS]

Technology is neutral - it's what we do with it that determines how morally right it is. Can't stop progress just because some prat would use the technology created to hurt someone else.

 

[Ilikeitblackplease]

Sure except it's probably easier to clone a living human or create one in the computer to have any features you want, give it an artificial brain if need be, though id imagine the tech would devalue life quite a bit if it was that easy.

Not upgradable.

 

[Fuzz]

We are starting to unravel the gene code and turn off the ageing process in certain cells and also get other cells to self repair more than they should..

When this is complete and you effectively don't die... that is too far.

Unless cancer kills you first (which is essentially cell repair error anyway) the more repairing you do, the more likelyhood of you getting cancer so that currently is the biggest wall for us to climb.

If we beat cancer then I think it's all going to hell in a hand cart.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

Morality is all a mater of perspective

 

[Radiation]

Not upgradable.

Im saying if we have a device that can rewrite our genetics and transform us into nearly anything, that means clones would be as upgradable and arguably easier and cheaper than a robot.

Morality is all a mater of perspective

Surely there's a logical form of morality which would conclude do no harm?

That's why the OP is asking where people would draw the line

Yeah where do people draw the line?

It looks like some are up for clones to do with as they please, seems the line of morality is stretched pretty far here?

 

[Nitefly]

I don't think that the human genome should be tinkered with at all and I expect I won't be.

I do however think that human genetics should be used to further medicine, if appropriate, and establish the effectiveness of various treatments. That extends to stem cell research, but is restricted against alteration of the genome, as aforementioned.