Comment Re:Laws against science-fiction are stupid. (Score 1) 197
It's not up to me to decide what's legally right or ethically right or morally right, which is different.
Hell, I would be willing to consider cloning body parts if it was possible to be worthwhile.
I would be willing to consider genetic manipulation to eliminate genetic disorders to be worthwhile.
I would even be willing to consider genetic cloning of super soldiers to be worthwhile.
But I am not in a position intellectually to say what is or is not best for society. And hell, our politicians probably are not either, though they have the responsibility and obligation to do so properly.
But I do know, you pass laws restricting things BEFORE someone does it, if you want it kept from being done. Not sweep it away because people think it's not possible yet.
On your question specifically. I'm torn between natural selection and humanitarianism. I truly believe at some point, letting nature take its course is for the best. I would not want to be a vegetable on a machine. I would not want to spend hundred of millions to extend my life another month. The question is, where to draw the line, and luckily, that is also not my worry.
Reminds me of two sayings.
1. "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi
2. Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Socialite: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Socialite: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
Though Jack Sparrow stole this line.