The Instigator
tahirimanov
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Perussi
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Should we start developing bioroids?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Perussi
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 413 times Debate No: 99463
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

tahirimanov

Pro

First round is for acceptance.
Bioroid - genetically engineered humans that are superior in overall biology, intelligence, and physical capabilities.
Perussi

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
tahirimanov

Pro

1. Introduction 
Bioroids are partially or fully biological humanoid organism genetically engineered from scratch. It does not include cyborgs, or genetically enhanced or altered humans. They are different specie from Homo Sapiens, but are in the same Genus, let's call them Homo Artificialis.

2. High Intelligence
With genetic engineering comes the possibility not just developing bioroids with high intelligence, but also with the knowledge of certain field, such as mathematics, philosophy, physics and their subfields. With this we can truly have "the expert their field" and achieve true technocracy.

3. Where Humans and Computers Meet
Humans are good at creating problems (I am talking about mathematical and scientific problems) and finding solutions, and computers are good and fast at finding answers, given the solution. With those two combined it will become easy to solve "unsolvable" problems.

4. High Physical Capability
With genetic engineering, bioroids can be built to live, survive at , and adapt to any natural conditions. They can be more resistant to radiation, live on low or high gravity planets, without fear of side effects. They can do research and work on any given condition.

5. Conclusion
With genetic engineering we can increase complexity of DNA, improve it, get rid of diseases and illnesses, achieve longevity. Now, imagine a brand new specie built on with above conditions, who can achieve what humans cannot.
Perussi

Con

Section 1: Too Far

Questions. Many questions. All of the answers: chaos. How will humans react to being replaced? Mistakes in playing with human life? How will they live when they find out they are not human? How many of them will we go through to perfect this technology? How many times will we create an abomination? More important question; With this level of disregard for life, where will we go next? We are already caring less and less for our own species lives. We will only get chaos out of this.

Section 2: Their Role

Slaves? Elite? How will they even be used? Hey there, you are a superhuman. Go live a normal life. Not going to happen. Obviously only the wealthy can have a bioroid for a child. What if we accidently made a serial killer? Why would we even try this? Usually new technology benefits human life, this would not. In one way or another everyone's lives would be centered around these bioroids.

Conclusion

Some advancements in science are not worth advancing to. Even though we can go forward and it is an advancement it can still be an obvious step backward in socially, politically, and morally. Public backlash would be horrific because people are ignorant idiots. All of the labs would be destroyed. Either that or bioroid supporters would bring about rule upon their own race. We would be slaves. Either way bioroids would not help the human race. And if rioters don't kill the scientists the bioroids will. They would not help humans, they would permanently scar our species.
Debate Round No. 2
tahirimanov

Pro

Step by step, I will analyse Con's objections and answer questions.

On section 1.
Firstly, how did dinosaurs react to be replaced by mammals. At least, 99% of all species are gone, and current extinction rate is 100 per million per year. It is one of prime laws of universe, every specie will go extinct without exception.
On the second question, developing bioroids cannot be classified as playing with human life, because they are not human, and they (bioroids) know that. If you mean how it will affect humans, who cares. You are assuming specieal superiority (I made it up), a specieism if you will, an upgraded version of racism. Neither racism, no specieism has a rational basis.
I didn't get fourth question, please explain.
On an abomination issue, using that logic, we should also classify white people as abomination. Although, I don't have any problem with that, it seems irrational.
On where we will go next, let's go to Alpha Centauri.

On section 2.
Think about a fictional universe, where exists a country on Planet NoStupidAllowed. And this country has a Senate, and it has Senate Science Committee. And instead of Ted Cruz on this committee, they have a bioroid called Ich bin Genie, who has knowledge of politics, law, science, and government spending.

On section 3.
Wouldn't it be great, if we get rid of stupid people, achieve and live in harmony?!
Perussi

Con

So you are saying destroy our race to create another? You don't have many people who side with you. We live in a democratic world. Nobody wants to be destroyed or taken over. And you would have a serious problem with the governments of the world because bioroids are a direct opposition to them. I just don't see the point of creating bioroids. We want to improve human life, not annihilate it. And if we did make bioroids by how they were created and their being based on human dna they would feel and believe they are superior to humans. Yes, humans are stupid, but any intelligent life is stupid. Wouldn't earth be great if humans never existed? If nature existed in balance? For any intelligent life there can be no harmony ever and no no stupid people. These will always be as long as there is organised life. And not even to mention how much failure on altering humans it would take. For something we have this little experience in and that is this complex we will create a lot of what shouldn't be created. Ugly mutations of humans. The idea of researching this is very unethical but applying it, that's idiotic. The human race has absolutely nothing to gain.
Debate Round No. 3
tahirimanov

Pro

Because of Con's objections, I assumed worst case scenario, and argued from that point in round 3. But there is rational reason, as to why bioroids and humans cannot live together, in harmony. And about destruction, with or without bioroids human race will cease to exist some day in the future, at least with bioroids we will leave someone behind to continue our work, good works, of course.
Secondly, we don't live in democratic world, and there is no democratic state on the face of the earth, at best we have representative republic. And opposition of governments is as good as its least open-minded person.
And you not seeing point doesn't mean there is know point. I say we research anything and everything about universe, and make and advance every possible technology.
Perussi

Con

There are some improvements that should not be made. I don't think it is necessary to make ourselves obsolete just for the art of science. We also need to solve problems, not make a world of new ones. We should not develop boiroids because it is self destructive and would cause much more harm than good.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by tahirimanov 11 months ago
tahirimanov
I made a mistake in last round, it should be "But there isn't rational reason". tnx
Posted by Perussi 11 months ago
Perussi
And if it works, it works. And that is for the voters to decide anyways.
Posted by Perussi 11 months ago
Perussi
*rhetorical questions
Posted by Perussi 11 months ago
Perussi
Ghey are actually rehtorical
Posted by tahirimanov 11 months ago
tahirimanov
I saw what you are arguing for, and those are semi-valid questions which I am going to answer. My point is you cannot make point with just posing questions.
Posted by Perussi 11 months ago
Perussi
My argument is we should not take this step in science.
Posted by Perussi 11 months ago
Perussi
Did you even see that i was arguing it is too far a place to go?
Posted by tahirimanov 11 months ago
tahirimanov
Posting questions is not how debate is conducted, you should also give answers and tell how it does support your claim.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by medv4380 11 months ago
medv4380
tahirimanovPerussiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar go to Con. Pro made an annoying consistent mistake if using "specie" instead of species. Pro's also missing a lot of "a, an, the" articles that make it hard to follow. Con needs to use commas more. I clicked on this debate because I remember bioroids from 80's era anime. It seems more like a Eugenics argument with Bioroids swapped in. Pro describes Bioroids as created from 'Scratch,' but in the same Genus. That is a contradiction since if they are in the same genus Homo, then they are a modified human. From scratch would they do not fit in the current Biology classification system. If these are modified humans or even modified apes, then cons point about their place in our world becomes necessary. Are they slaves? If we were making a Bioroid Cow, this isn't an issue, but a superior Human Slave then this is a problem. There were a lot of Eugenics points that just wasted time. Genetically modifying humans for "longevity" is controversial enough, and diver