With so much going on in the world it is easy to miss events that in hindsight are pivotal points in our history. We are nearing one of those places and there is not much being said even though it creates the opportunity for significant debate.
We are increasingly faced with opportunities to push the frontiers of science farther out with each passing day. As a result, we have benefited greatly as new technologies and discoveries have improved our lives.
However, this is a double edged sword. For every positive reward that we reap, there is usually the potential for greater evil. When I speak of evil it is not necessarily in the context of morally evil. Rather I use it to describe the negative consequences that are possible and could perhaps be used for moral evil. But these evils can occur with or without moral intervention.
For instance, nuclear power presents wonderful opportunities to provide mankind with limitless electrical power. But, the issues of nuclear waste and nuclear proliferation are the price that is paid for this seemingly limitless source of energy.
In this article in The Guardian, we read about a bio tech researcher who intends to create a new form of life. This in not life from nothing. He is using an already living organism to host a custom designed genetic sequence that is not related to the host cell. Basically, he is infecting one type of cell with a newly designed genetic code. This is similar to the mechanism used by viruses when they infect cells. They cause the cells to produce more of the virus rather than more of the original host cell.
This process could be used to develop many novel treatments and offers promise to end a great deal of human suffering. But, this could easily be used to create very nasty organisms instead of helpful ones. Funny thing about microorganisms, they have no morals. They just do what they do without regard to the impact on the host. A virus that infects a cell and reprograms it to reproduce more of the itself instead of the original is not evil. It is just doing what it is programmed to do.
It would be a great thing to create a microbe that eats hazardous waste and turns it into something more benign or even useful. But, what happens if the food supply runs out or a mutation occurs? Another funny thing about microbes is that they tend to adapt to environmental changes. A microbe that eats excess CO2 would be great. But, we need some CO2 to support life on the planet. How do you tell a microbe to stop? I guess the real question is "just because we can do something, should we do it?" I am sure that the response is that somebody will do it so why not me?
I love technology and I am fascinated as the frontiers of human knowledge are pushed further and further out. My enthusiasm is slightly tempered when I consider the story about the Tower of Babel. Most people read that story and think that Divine intervention spoiled the party. I think that a lack of Divine intervention is a much more troubling outcome. We may get just what we are asking for.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/oct/06/genetics.climatechange
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The following excerpt from the this article gets at the heart of the matter…..
"Hard disk pioneers win physics Nobel"
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL0923590220071009?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true
Surrounded by journalists in Paris soon after learning of his award, the 69-year-old Fert started chatting with some youngsters near the CNRS research centre he co-founded.
"You like physics?" he asked, telling them he had just won the Nobel prize. "If you are able to listen to music on your MP3 player, it is a bit thanks to what I've done."
Fert and Gruenberg, 68, figured out how to stack nanometre-thin layers of magnetic and non-magnetic atoms to produce the GMR effect.
"The story of the GMR effect is a very good demonstration of how a totally unexpected scientific discovery can give rise to completely new technologies and commercial products," the Nobel committee wrote.
------------------------------------------
The bottom line here is that nobody saw this coming. In this case the "unexpected scientific discovery" yielded neat little gizmos like cooler cell phones and MP3 players. People clap, cheer, lap it up and want more. Does anyone really think we're always going to be that lucky every time? Sooner or later, the something "unexpected" may not be so "fun" or "marketable".
I've always looked at Revelation as being largely symbolic. But….damn….reading this next story certainly gives me pause to reconsider how literally to take some of these things. Revelation 9, 1-11
human hybrid experiments in the UK
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paEmbryo_mon19_human_experiments&show_article=1
it looks like "1" was truncated from the end of the last link i copied. i.e......show_article=1
Very interesting indeed! I read an article a few days ago from the UK that was expressing concern that once GWB is no longer president, that Americans would seize the lead embyonic stem cell research. I guess this is one response.
The idea of producing a cure for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Diabetes etc. sounds great and is perhaps quite noble. However, assume that this stuff actually works (it probably will) and we create human/animal hybrids for research purposes. Since these creatures are created by humans, are they the property of humans to be used in any conceivable way? We give animals rights against being used in lab experiments. Yet we want to create human/animal hybrids for conducting experiemnts.
I am sure that it will be argued that these are just cells that reside in a dish or tube in a lab. That my very well be the case for sometime. Eventually, someone will create living and breathing creatures that are part human and part something else. Where does the line get drawn. We could theoretically end up with a human/pitbull hybrid that would make an excellent weapon. Perhaps a human/horse that would work in the fields and just eat grass. Would these creatures have rights or could we enslave them as we see fit?
I know my examples seem a bit outlandish. But, the question remains as to whether or not a human/whatever hybrid would have rights or could they be created, exploited and killed at will by the owner?
I have to say that over the past few months I have been continually convicted of the overwhelming arrogance of man (by man, by the way, I do mean humankind--not just those of the human race running around with lots of testosterone.) And the examples you have discussed evidence the complete lack of humility that marks our society today.
I know that every generation has thought that it just couldn't get any worse and that Jesus was coming back any moment, but does anyone else see where all of this is heading? All of our advancements and technologies and scientific mumbo-jumbo are leading us to the brink of another Tower of Babel moment in history. When mankind came together to build the Tower of Babel, God said something along the lines of "if they can get together and do this, there is no stopping them!" He then reasserted His lordship by making it so they couldn't understand each other when they spoke. They scattered and the crisis was averted.
Every time in Biblical history when God has acted in some huge way, it has been because man has gotten way too big for his britches and has started to think and act as if he is God. Creating life is about as arrogant as you can be. But why should this surprise us when "intelligent design" is considered a fool's proposition? If our human society no longer embraces the concept of a divine creator, why should we balk at the concept of creating life on our own?
This is just another example of what happens when we allow ourselves to pick and choose the parts of the Bible we want to believe in. Think the creation story is a little too unbelievable? That's OK--try evolution. Don't like all of those pesky "thou shalt nots"? No problem. Jesus loves you so much that you can ignore the ones you don't like. Afterall, God made you that way! Don't like the idea of a loving God also being a God of wrath who is going to send everyone who does not confess Jesus as Savior and Lord straight to the pit of hell? Well, you don't have to believe that! God loves you --He loves everyone and everyone's going to heaven.
I do understand that our society, while based on Judeo-Christian values, is surely not a Christian society. And it would be foolishness on my part to assume that those who do not call themselves Christians would choose to act like Christians. But where is the church in all of this?? Is it not our responsibility to separate ourselves from this and speak God's truth as loudly as we can from every roof top? But instead the church is largely apathetic, or worse, in on the arrogance. We make excuses and try to be more "seeker-friendly" but Christ never changes and if someone is truly a seeker, what on earth are we giving him to find??
Please forgive me for my religiously bigoted rant. I'm stepping down from my soapbox now!!! -jenn
Post a Comment