.♥.♥.♥.♥.♥.♥.♥.

Thursday, September 17, 2009 3:30 PM

Site visit at forrestfield. (the name describes the place so adequately)

流水潺潺~

after 800m walk uphill, we finally reached the site.

i super love the macro shots that my digicam can deliver la!!! XD

surveying the site.

i go 偷拍 one of my class people because i thought this was like a super artsy shot la!! >.<

***

if you think my fieldtrip was all scenic and picturesque...

think again~

there were heaps on millipedes along the river and all over the ground.

worst of all is i tried crossing the river and i crash landed on my elbow la!!! freak.

painpain~

Wednesday, September 16, 2009 11:40 PM

Ethical Considerations

Q. We could choose to have changes made to us, but we might also be making the choice for our children if the changes are carried through to the germ-line. Do we have that right, and how far should we take our ability?
A: If the changes made are beneficial, personally I do not see why we should not do that. If removing a particular DNA sequence that could be the cause of a hereditary illness, it will only do good and not harm to the generations thereafter. We definitely have the rights to make alterations to our own bodies but if changes made will affect not only us but also others then the pros and cons of the alteration should be weighed before actually executing it.

Q. Can the slippery slope argument be used to defend a prohibition of germ-line gene therapy?
A: Germ-line gene therapy has proven itself to be a major breakthrough in the world of medical sciences so why would there be any fallacy against it. Gene therapy if used appropriately can indeed prevent and cure many diseases, some of which are incurable. So in order to “cure” these incurable diseases, gene therapy is used to pre-empt it.

Q. Conversely, is it responsible and ethically acceptable to leave the potential of our children to the chance effects of the “genetic lottery”, if we obtain the technological capacity to make positive changes?
A: If we are capable of giving the child a better life, then I am for it. After all, parents wish only the best for their children. If we are able to prevent Down syndrome or dwarfism or gigantism, which are known to shorten the lifespan of individuals, then it is for a good cause. We could only alter the child genetically to perfect it as much as we could to minimise any harmful illness that may befall.

Q. If genetic engineering became the way of the future, would people whose parents could not afford to genetically ‘modify’ them while still in an embryo, have a chance of achieving with high standards compared to the people who were ‘modified’ to be perfect? Should government pay for genetic engineering to prevent this inequality?
A: It is this “inequality” that give rise to competition, hierarchies and individuality. If everyone is the cream of the crop then everyone will come out looking alike. Individuality is lost.

Q. Is it ethical to experiment on embryos that have yet to be born, but are endowed with a soul?
A: Ethically, it is definitely not approved of and stem cell research has always been a controversy, especially embryonic stem cell research. However, embryonic stem cells are capable of dividing indefinitely to form any part of the bodily tissue which contributes to cellular therapeutic solutions to many diseases. It is proven embryonic stem cells can be used to decelerate Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. To give up on a life that we have yet to see and save the lives of many others, cruel and selfish as it may seem, it is a definite worthwhile cause.

Q. How would genetic engineering be used to revolutionize warfare?
A: In the movie, “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”, genetic engineering was prevalent. It was a battle between the “normal” people and the mutants. However, the mutants proved to have more humanity than the “normal” humans. The various mutagenic gene of each mutant was taken and then combined to create the ultimate war machine. So my point is that super human genes can be collated and then gathered into a single human body to fashion the perfect weaponry. Soldiers can be constructed to have beyond human endurance and physicality.

Q. Does superior ability breed a superior ambition?
A: Being part of the Homo sapiens, I am always striving to do my best and to be the cream of the crop. I believe it is so for everyone. So even if a human is being genetically engineered to have superior abilities, I believe he will still possess the same ideals of the one who has created him.

Q. Should individuals be allowed to modify their genes if others see this practice as diminishing the human condition?
A: It is very subjective to determine what may be diminishing to the human condition. If incurable diseases can be prevented through means of gene modifications then it should be carried out. Otherwise, there is no need for gene modification I suppose. Plus, I am unable to provide an example of anyone who has modified their gene for the worst. It is rather pointless.

Q. Can we and should we eliminate the flaws in human nature that cause violence and conflict through genetic engineering?
A: Adolf Hitler was a loving husband. He does not drink nor does he smoke but that did not make him a good man in the eyes of others. He propagated warfare and genocide. Even if the flaws of an individual have been eradicated through genetic engineering, does that guarantee his original nature has not gone through any other forms of alteration. Hitler could have been a wretched man in our eyes, but in the eyes of some others, he could have been the ruler of all time.

Q. In gene therapy, does the government have a right to limit what people do with their own bodies?
A: I am sure that prior to making any changes to our own bodies, we have to sign several papers. This is the government’s form of relating the message that we do understand the risks and the after effects that may arise from having undergone genetic transmutation. In democratic countries, the government may not have the full rights of limiting what people wishes to do to their bodies but the government is always there to inform and educate.

Q. In combining human genes and non-human genes, and modifying non-humans with human genes, the question comes about what makes something human or not?
A: It is ironic to say that a being is still human when it has been modified with NON-human genes. That is when the word “chimera” comes into use. However it can be argued that what makes something humans is not its appearance but rather its nature. One can look like human but possess no humanity at all. So for that, I will have to take the stand that humanity in a being is eventually what makes something human.

Q. If gene therapy can ever prevent aging, how far does the moral obligation to save lives extend?
A: This is a question that only the rich can answer. If the cost of the youth elixir proves to be too much for the poor to bear then there will not be any moral obligations to begin of with.

Q. If a person’s genetics are ever drastically altered, should they still be considered the same person? See the ship of Theseus paradox.
A: This is a disputable that has no conclusion. One can alter his/her appearance and still remain that same person inside, while others alter their appearance to assume the title of others. Just like names are used to identify an individual, the appearances are used in similar ways. So whether or not the person is the same inside or out, it is up to him/her to decide and how others perceive it.

Q. Is it acceptable to counteract natural processes in this way? Might there always be a chance of unforeseeable and drastic consequences that result from interfering with nature’s original course? (For example, the Industrial Revolution seriously polluted the atmosphere at a time when the ozone layer was not at all known of or understood by scientists.)
A: Should there be any way of foreseeing the future then it is only right to put a stop to these activities that may eventually be of harm to the human body. However, if we do not try, we will never know. The Industrial Revolution has indeed caused major pollutions but we cannot deny that the benefits that the revolution has brought along with it.

Q. If our emotions will be genetically controllable some day, genetic engineering could potentially be a tool for reducing criminal and other evil emotional instincts. It could also be used by dictatorial governments to ensure complete and unquestioning obedience in its citizens by genetically suppressing independence. In other words, it could become a form of brainwashing, applied before or after birth.
A: I am definitely not in favour of this form of genetic engineering. No matter how perfect the human will turn out to be, it is the ideals of a single individual. Then there will be no difference from forging several individuals with the same ideals, because eventually what the dictatorial governments want are just people who are supportive of their thinking. To have no mindset of oneself is equivalent to not having any individualism. Then what difference will there be from these people and androids?

***

this is part of my assignment and these were the questions i was suppose to answer. i thought i signed up for architecture. O.o

Tuesday, September 15, 2009 3:09 PM

in response to my loves, i shall resume my blogging exponent.

27 Aug

besties sent me a package all the way from Singapore!!! thank you!! =D (love you all deep deep)
i've received the francis ching book as well. (:
though birthday this year is a little different(actually...alot), considering i'm away from home, birthday was not lonely...
received a rice-cooker. >.< (talk about practicality.)