This brought me to this thought process. Forces in nature can cause up to 50 billion dollars in damages and can create beautifully formed, virtually symmetrical compounds. We must respect nature; that is a given. But can we respect it by imitating it, by synthesizing it in the lab? That is a good question, a question I shall attempt to answer now, with all of you, my friends.
If we can, should we? Just because we can doesn't necessarily mean we should. Kudos to Michael Crichton, whose books centered on these issues. Is it moral to create something found in nature? I must say no, I will not make any effort to disguise my opinions. I think that given our abilities, we should use them to the fullest extent and to our benefit, provided that they do not conflict with basic human rights. We are going to talk about the ethics and morals involved and I do not think we can do that without invoking God. Growing up Catholic, I was taught that we are all made in the image and likeness of God and that only God can create a human being. That is why the Roman Catholic Church does not condone cloning. But this same principle can be applied here. If only nature can create a super symmetrical compounds, is it moral for humans to do it?
This is my take. People were put here to do with their resources as they wish. I respect the Church's position on this issue. And perhaps cloning is one extreme; it is a replication, creation (however you would like to term it) of another life form and we can all agree that a compound, quasi-crystal, or anything like that is nothing like an actual animal. But the broader picture is the same. Do people have the right to replicate nature to their benefit? I say if God put us here, he did it so that we can do those very things.
You know, for all you trekkies out there, and I'm not talking to you hooligans who just jumped on board since the J.J. Abrams movie came out (it was a fantastic movie, don't get me wrong), I hope you remember the scene in Kirk's room in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan where Spock, Dr, McCoy, and Kirk are discussing the Genesis project. The Genesis project was a plan to take a lifeless, dead planet and rejuvenate it with life to deal with the problems of over population and food supply. McCoy says "According to myth, the Earth was created in six days, now watch out, here comes Genesis. We'll do it for you in six minutes." Spock quips by saying he was not trying to analyze its moral implications. Eventually, the two scuffled as they usually do, with Spock admonishing Dr. McCoy. He says to him, "You must learn to govern your passions, they will be your undoing. Logic suggests..." wherein Dr. McCoy interjects to talk about the faulty of logic in this situation. Why did I just outline all this? Because I love Star Trek (hell of a thing when Spock died). But also because the same principle and same arguments are presented here. Logic suggests that we follow the path of scientific innovation, without the single glance at the ethical constraints. Dr. McCoy is the voice of a feeling human (not a stoical Vulcan) who has greater respect for such devices. Do we have enough respect for creation as to allow us to create super symmetrical compounds and great technologies for the fulfillment of our intentions (yes, initially good ones). I have to agree with Spock on this one. Those passions are the things that we can feel (and even be proud of) but we should not allow them to get in the way. One of my core beliefs is that I shall not impose my religious or moral beliefs on other people. For example, I believe abortion is morally wrong yet I am adamantly pro-choice. Again, the same principle applies here. I think it is human to go forward with these innovative feelings. "Out of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most....human." That line out of Spock's eulogy only makes sense to me from this perspective and interpretation.
There are other schools of thought from which to see this argument and moral dilemma from. Does life hold inherent meaning? Do things have innate meaning or do they only have it when we grant this meaning onto them? Do things have ethical values at all? All depends on the mindset. If you are a fan of Seinfeld, then you are familiar with the absurdist, nihilistic view of life it takes. If you are a religious person, you find deep meaning in your faith.
This applies to super-symmetrical compounds in ways one could not have fathomed. Do we have the right to voraciously create without relishing and appreciating what has allowed us to do that? I implore you to think about these questions. Ponder them. You will come to many conflicting answers. Is this discovery or creation? I define discovery as something that has implications that are conducive to revolutions in science (like the discovery of gravity which is not recognized as a "discovery" by many). When we create these compounds, are we discovering them? Or is that terminology reserved for nature?
These are the questions that haunt me...and I hope they haunt you too, Constant Reader.
No comments:
Post a Comment