Is genetic modification playing god and therefor a unethical and a sin.
Debate Rounds (3)
Now, many people tend towards the idea that that genetic modification is blasphemy, a disaster waiting to happen because humanity is striving emulate god's grate power something that can only end in disaster, eg a zombie apocalypse. The general paradigm is that genetic modification will only be used for evil purposes eg. when GM companies produce sterile crops that cause other crops to become sterile in order for farmers to be forced into buying their seeds year and year again. The fact is that currently people are unsure of the dangers surrounding eating GM foods and prefer to stay as far away as possible. I admit that I too am a bit sceptical about the current GM food seeing that it rather untested and obscure. But once again im am not arguing whether GM can cause atrocities.
My argument is the following:
Saying that GM is blasphemy is in it's self blasphemy.
Humanity tends to view things we can not do as gods power. 400 years ago trying to replicate lightning would have been considered blasphemy and when somebody died of electrocution everybody would point to divine punishment. Confining gods powers to GM is it's self blasphemy. God's power is to do the impossible. To create the laws of physics not to to follow them. When we can do that we can start debating.
The fact is that changing iron into a spoon is as much sacrilege as editing life.
We can not draw the line beween god and humanity.
Yes like all basic human actions it can be used for unethical purposes but like all basic human actions it can be used for brilliance. Human actions are only ethically defined by the context in which they are performed.
Please forgive me if I have not followed correct debating format. I hope my argument is still valid.
R1: Acceptance (we are through that now)
R2: Main arguments (I wont mind rebuttals)
If you wish to accept this, please post your arguments accordingly.
I wish the very best for both me and my opponent.
This will be a bit of a repetition from my original statement but I have no points to argue against.
My main argument is that GM can not be unethical or a sin because no basic action humanity can do, if performed under the right conditions and for the right reasons, be deemed a sin.
GM is just part of humanities grate religious journey.
To change nature is what man has been doing since its birth. Gm is just that proces at a new level. Yes monters can be made but so can perfection on another scale.
To say that it is playing god is stupid. In saying so you are defining parameters around gods power. It is no more playing god than carving a statue or generating electricity .
GM is a amazing new force which could ether sink or elevate our society by a unimaginable amount, but so could the invention of electricity or steel. The best example of this is the power to split the atom. At the time it was also playing god. And it also had the potential to lift or sink society. It started with a little bit of dip ( Bombs) and for a while it seamed that it wold destroy society but then it raised our society to a new level providing us with a anything source of electrical power which we could not have developed without.
Yes we could create monsters that rip people in half in pain from their miss shaped organs (or a zombie apocalypse) but humanity subconsciously strives for goodness and I believe once we get there it will be the greatest monument to god humanity has ever built.
The power of god is to do what man can't. And with the advancements in GM I believe that religiously, morally, physically and philosophically we can genetically modify nature.
I once again apologise if I followed the incorrect format or went off topic.
Guarneer forfeited this round.
If anybody actually wants to debate on this topic just white on the comment bar and we can restart the debate.
Guarneer forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit. Wasted debates are not cool!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.