A Paradox of Human Evolution or Advancement in The Sciences

Athen Goh

Right Or Wrong?-- The Questions of Human Evolution and Advancement in The Sciences
By Athen Goh
Introduction
We all know what a phone is. It's a piece of technology, isn't it? So is the television that sits in your home, and the smart watch you got for your birthday. We know that these were able to come to existence by the power of science. You may have heard that in the past decade (or so), it has come to light, that we were able to 'clone' a sheep, it was an amazing advancement in the eyes of the public, and a huge one it was.

You may or not have known about this following piece of intriguing trivia. The cloning of dogs, or as a wholle, pets, is cultivating into an industry in Korea. The purpose? Suppose your pet pooch were to die? They would take a swab, or rather, a sample of your dog's DNA, and proceed to craft a sperm cell out of it, impregnate a lassie, and boom! There you go, You have a dog! But most importantly, is that the sperm cell carries with it the genes of your past dog (I am so sorry for your loss), but the point is that, comes with this huge step in Biological Science, is a question of morals.

The Question
Upon a recent chat with my father, a very, very intriguing question alarmed me. By such actions, the cloning of animals, our power in the appearance of the animal, are we, by any chance, playing the role of God? It was a powerful question that had never crossed my mind! It does seem so, no? So this is the question of morals.
Should we not be the 'underlings' of God, or gods, etc.? Are we not inferior to such divine power? But at the same time, without such advancement, we humans may never, in the truest sense, evolve, am I right? So subsequently, we have conflicting conclusions to the problem, or more suiting, question. Therefore we have come across a paradox (two or more conflicting logical conclusions).
My Answer- Emphasis on The My
The conclusion which I present is most probably, the silliest, most childish conclusion that can be thought about the subject at hand. My only thought was that, what if, eventually, we, the humans, become the gods? What if in a few millenia, humans achieve immortality and become gods, in almost every sense of the term. We can already change plants to taste like other plants, so doesn't this conclusion seem not so far-fetched? Perhaps we will, one day, become the gods. Even though in the present, there seems not to be a feasible method of time travel to the past, there are still many methods, that technically might work, when the technology comes along.

Perhaps, it is stupid.

pls do not give me hate, I'm just a Chinese thirteen year old boii

Freya Rose

Ok, if we were to actually become gods in the future- which however seems highly improbable, for the argument I'll be optimistic- would we really be PLAYING god by cloning animals if, in fact, we were evolving to become gods. Wouldn't we just simply be involving into our future? And if we were to become the gods, then what happens to the ones we were supposedly playing or did they not exist in the first place?
Or perhaps is the human ego to blame for such, possibly immoral, experiments and then therefore the impatience to evolve technologically. If we didn't evolve technologically now, then it would be millions of years until biologically we would evolve and so the human race would be at a crossroads; whether to force evolution technologically or wait for a biological advancement over time. And even if we did advance, how could we become gods if we only advanced in one way: biologically or technologically. And perhaps even to become gods, if it was a religious god then we would need to advance spiritually as well.
So, could we really be playing at something we are beginning to become- if we could in fact- or just testing out using technology before our time caused by ego and impatience to evolve; arguably much like a child teething on a toy because they refuse to wait till they have teeth.

SethRy

There you go, You have a dog! But most importantly, is that the sperm cell carries with it the genes of your past dog (I am so sorry for your loss), but the point is that, comes with this huge step in Biological Science, is a question of morals. — Athen Goh

The defective in there is that identity would not be exactly the same. The memory theory, by British Empiricist and Philosopher John Locke, would not apply to this. Genetic material may be copied, but is the dog the same dog as before? That's questionable.

So for your answer, whether immortality would be prevalent to us contingent beings, we will still be labelled contingent beings. That is of course, if the God-existence problem will ever be decided. But such remarkably, being a god is more than just possessing supernatural abilities or immortality - it's having the capacity to uphold divine authority, and to do that for what a presupposed god has provided for us, is not so much of 'Divine Authority'.

The gradual growth of knowledge and technology in this generation does not and never will reach Divine Authority. Supported with the presupposition that God, exists.

Athen Goh

↪Freya Rose

woah! I didn't think of human ego at all!

Athen Goh

↪SethRy

true. I guess it depends on set qualifications to be able to be called a god.

whollyrolling

Cloning doesn't work that way.

Humans will never become gods. There are no gods to become, and you can't just become whatever you imagine.

Cloning doesn't conflict with morality, it only conflicts with religion. Oddly enough, the same people who would say that cloning is unnatural would be fine with inoculation or open heart surgery.

If we are human, and we behave in a certain way, then we're playing humans, not playing gods. No one knows what gods would do or how they would behave if there were gods. The reason people feel compelled to add so much fancy decoration to the concept of gods is because it's not a powerful idea. It requires nth degree embellishment in order to appeal to our urge to have the wool pulled over our eyes. We don't like reality, so we willfully bury it under layers of mythology.

The only thing that will end the process of evolution is extinction. If anything, technology is slowing evolution. There's a lot of nonsense rhetoric lately from otherwise seemingly intelligent people--rhetoric about technology being an extension of intellect and a next stage in our evolution. It's outright lunacy. The only thing technology is "evolving" is our dependence on technology. We will of course continue to evolve through or around technology, or despite it.

Freya Rose

↪whollyrolling

I agree with Ur pont of view about evolution and playing humans if we are humans; it's an interesting notion. However morality is a constant component in all decisions and is a large part of religion, although religious morality is based around the concepts of each religion.
And yes, becoming a god is highly improbable it was a discussionary concept for the possibility. The idea that would become gods is merely based on the perception of the qualities of a god; either to the extent mythological ideals or simply a more evolved race of human.

whollyrolling

↪Freya Rose

Morality has as many faces as humanity has. It varies even within a singular sect of a singular religion. There's a set of interpretive and often loosely-adhered-to ideals and morals that binds a group of people together, and it tends to undergo continual alteration. The natural tendency of the individual within a mob is to compromise its ideals and morals to such an extent that it necessarily sacrifices its identity for the sake of the greater good. This is plain to see in protests, riots, political parties, churches, etc.

Religious morality doesn't factor into the science of cloning, it opposes it from outside looking in. This moral holding back of scientific progress can be useful at times, although never sensible or practical, as a voice among many voices in the public domain, but religious morality certainly shouldn't be considered the only test or the most reliable test of the moral implications of a human endeavour. This is one way that democracy can fall flat on its face.

TogetherTurtle

Should we not be the 'underlings' of God, or gods, etc.? Are we not inferior to such divine power? But at the same time, without such advancement, we humans may never, in the truest sense, evolve, am I right? — Athen Goh

If gods truly want us to stay primitive, they will exercise their powers and keep us that way. Otherwise, I see no reason for us not to harness god-like power if it benefits us. Of course, this all relies on gods being real, which is debatable. So either gods are real and they will stop us if they wish, or they don't stop us and we continue OR they aren't real anyway and can't stop us. No matter the circumstances, it seems our current course is sound.

Possibility

↪Athen Goh

We’ve also had the capacity to completely wipe ourselves off the planet for a number of decades now - another opportunity to play the role of God.

While I question your example as a form of cloning (the clone is in the form of sperm to parent another dog - is this just getting around the red tape of cloning as a ‘moral issue’?), I do think in many ways our capacity to clone animals does enable us to play the role of God in some small way - but I don’t think we should prevent advancement because of that. I consider it an opportunity to learn.

When children play at adult roles, they learn about responsibilities, relationships, politics and expectations. When we’re ‘playing the role of God’ we’re also (hopefully) learning some practical lessons as a species, such as the responsible use of power and potential, or the Ancient Greek concept of praos as a balance between the capacity for and application of force. Of course, such practical lessons often come at a cost before we get the message, and some people prefer ignorance.

The capacity to clone a beloved pet is another opportunity to question the commodification of technology in promoting our desire to avoid suffering at any cost. Experiences of pain, loss and humility are the source of life itself. We don’t really prevent loss by trying to avoid loss, and we don’t succeed at living by trying to avoid death. Unfortunately, throwing more money or technology at the ‘problem of suffering’ won’t solve it.

A Paradox of Human Evolution or Advancement in The Sciences

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions