The advent of synthetic organisms

[Balagor]

With the huge summit COP16 envolving 180 leaders from all over the world, just ended here in Copenhagen today, with NO WILL AND OR ABILLITY to agree to do just a little, or to even face that we do have a major climate problem, i must ask this:

How on earth should we ever agree on rules about synthetic organism, even less to controle them.

All you who speaks for this issue, speaks about how it can save a lot of people. Well, we do not even have the will to save our selfes when disaster comes knocking on our doors.

Don´t you get it. Humans do have a six´th sense: Greed. And a seven´th: Shortsight

 

you do realize that the whole "global warming" thing is a complete farce do you not? the world is actually getting colder, not warmer. i have even noticed it over the last four years. where i live, the average temperatures over the last four years has dropped by about 3 degrees. it is getting really hot up here.

 

Wether the global temperature raises or not, does not belong here, but in a new topic.

Anyway you certainly pinned it out, by showing that we can not even agree if the temperature is raising or not.

How can we even then agree on some safety rules on synthetic organisms.

Or for what shall it be used.

What kind of ethical rules will we aply.

Will we use it only for our selfes, or should we impove live/health/welfare/ in the 3. world?

How to keep terrorists away from the knowledge?

How to define terrorist?

Can we agree on that?

[nosisab]

With the huge summit COP16 envolving 180 leaders from all over the world, just ended here in Copenhagen today, with NO WILL AND OR ABILLITY to agree to do just a little, or to even face that we do have a major climate problem, i must ask this:

How on earth should we ever agree on rules about synthetic organism, even less to controle them.

All you who speaks for this issue, speaks about how it can save a lot of people. Well, we do not even have the will to save our selfes when disaster comes knocking on our doors.

Don´t you get it. Humans do have a six´th sense: Greed. And a seven´th: Shortsight

 

you do realize that the whole "global warming" thing is a complete farce do you not? the world is actually getting colder, not warmer. i have even noticed it over the last four years. where i live, the average temperatures over the last four years has dropped by about 3 degrees. it is getting really hot up here.

You are misunderstanding the actual concept, evilkoal... it's not a localized phenomena... with the global warming the polar caps meltdown liberating 'cool water' what leads to the mistake from believing it is indeed cooling. At the global picture that cooling is a bad bad sign and it's illusory in the long turn.

 

It should not be confused with weather variations too, for more extremes they can be... it's the ' axis line' that ups. Variations compensate themselves but it's not the case here.

 

But we shouldn't have much to fear if the picture was not the complex it is. For centuries mankind is changing the world's face, changing flow and volumes of water, exterminating rain forests. Creating extensive and huge mono agricultural fields and many, many others things that do not have how to support themselves, in an equilibrium.

 

The fear is when the things begin really going wrong it will create a chain reaction of disasters by positive feedback.

[Robok]

Wether the global temperature raises or not, does not belong here, but in a new topic.

Anyway you certainly pinned it out, by showing that we can not even agree if the temperature is raising or not.

How can we even then agree on some safety rules on synthetic organisms.

Or for what shall it be used.

What kind of ethical rules will we aply.

Will we use it only for our selfes, or should we impove live/health/welfare/ in the 3. world?

How to keep terrorists away from the knowledge?

How to define terrorist?

Can we agree on that?

 

Do you honestly believe that a criminal mind will cease to exist because we don't have enough technology? I mean, people have been fighting eachother with sticks and stones, swords, poles, guns, bombs, missiles, even barehanded, do you think that if we removed all things that classify as "weapons" from the world, the killing will stop? Hell no.

 

You're getting yourself in a web of infinite looping questions that will ultimately get you back to where you started from. As it seems to me that you're opposed to technological advancement because of the possible criminal and inhumane applications, but have you ever asked yourself: does a criminal need technology to commit crime?

[Balagor]

Wether the global temperature raises or not, does not belong here, but in a new topic.

Anyway you certainly pinned it out, by showing that we can not even agree if the temperature is raising or not.

How can we even then agree on some safety rules on synthetic organisms.

Or for what shall it be used.

What kind of ethical rules will we aply.

Will we use it only for our selfes, or should we impove live/health/welfare/ in the 3. world?

How to keep terrorists away from the knowledge?

How to define terrorist?

Can we agree on that?

 

Do you honestly believe that a criminal mind will cease to exist because we don't have enough technology? I mean, people have been fighting eachother with sticks and stones, swords, poles, guns, bombs, missiles, even barehanded, do you think that if we removed all things that classify as "weapons" from the world, the killing will stop? Hell no.

 

You're getting yourself in a web of infinite looping questions that will ultimately get you back to where you started from. As it seems to me that you're opposed to technological advancement because of the possible criminal and inhumane applications, but have you ever asked yourself: does a criminal need technology to commit crime?

 

No, mankind certainly do not need technology to commit crimes.

On that i agree.

But some technologies can be used for worse, than others, if misused.

Sometimes the original intentions of use are not even good enough to outweigh

the risk of misuse.

 

I think of nuclear power.

We still have a problem with radioactive waste from nuclear power, wich is a con.

We also got the A-bomb, which is a con.

Terrorists can get acces to an A-bomb, indeed a con.

Since there are no pros in this particular example, it would have been better that all research

within nuclear technologi never took place, in the first place.

 

This may sound naive, and it also is.

It is stupid of me to think that mankind will ever cure is curiosity,

and just leave things as they are, when they discover something that can

get way out of hand.