Genetically Modifying Human Beings is Unethical.

First of all I would like to state the fact that my opponent is supposed to be arguing that GM is unethical. He has been straying from this point and I will illustrate. He keeps pointing out that we have a lack of knowledge and that there is the possibility for disaster. As I have already pointed out a lack of knowledge and the possibility for disaster is not enough grounds to claim something is unethical. I don't wish to rehash the same points but it seems necessary. At a point in human history we had a lack of knowledge about fire and fire had the possibility for disaster. We can see in hindsight however, that fire is not unethical. I brought up the example from quantum mechanics NOT to say, ""Screw it" and move full steam ahead without any forethought or care as to the consequences of our actions." But instead to point out that just b/c something is possible doesn't mean that it's cause is unethical. The burden of proof is on my opponent to demonstrate a high degree of probability that a destructive event will occur. Only then can we qualify GM as unethical. Furthermore the fact that such an event is seen as possible will force scientists to proceed with Caution! They will NOT proceed "without care as to the consequences" My opponent has definitely misinterpreted me if he believes that is what I meant. Rebuttals: Re: 1.) a.) Genetic Modification is a type of modification. Modification of any type is an action. Actions are not animate or living. Actions do not have millions of year's worth of genetically adapted DNA. Actions cannot think or reason for themselves. GM, indeed, is an action that deals with animate, living beings just as handguns/tools deal with animate, living beings. It is not flawed to compare them. b.) Scientists are discovering everyday how to manipulate specific genes. c.) When fire was first discovered if it raged out-of-control humans could not extinguish it. But fire isn't and never was unethical. d.) Society at large does not consider it unethical when civilians willingly volunteer themselves to the army and potentially sacrifice themselves for the general good of society. Likewise it wouldn't be unethical for people to volunteer and potentially sacrifice themselves for the general good of humanity in this cause. Re: 2.) This debate is not about the likelihood of gaining support for GE. I am not in anyway providing a plan so that the millions of people against GE will accept it. I am only arguing that Genetic Modification is not unethical in practice. This argument shows a failure to address the point of the debate. Re: 3.) Once again I am presented with a red herring. This is not an argument that GM is unethical but that people may use GM unethically. It in no way proves that GM is unethical. I may burn down my neighbor's house. That wouldn't be very ethical but fire is not unethical. I would be unethical. Re: 4/5) Once again in order to claim that GM is unethical on these grounds my opponent must show NOT just that said scenarios are possible but that they are probable. (For the case of #5 one could easily imagine volunteers devoting their entire lifetime to studies before GM was allowed to become widespread.) (#4 completely relies on the notion that nature has an intent. I debunked this notion in the first round.) It is quite possible that as soon as humans GModify themselves God will come down from the sky and proclaim, "Congratulations!!! You human beings have won the race. You see the meaning of life was to have all the species in an evolutionary race to see which one would be the first to g-modify itself. Human Beings have WON!! You beat all the other species so you get the ultimate prize; to become one with God for eternity." And so it is possible, no one can deny, but if I am to make any claims about GM being ethical on this basis I need to show that it is not just possible but probable. Luckily I don't have to prove that GM is ethical just that it isn't unethical. Either way I will provide two arguments that GM is not unethical.. Agrument [I] If God exists then GM is ethical. 1.)If God exists He intended for the creation of: - a.) The big bang - b.) the galaxy - c.) life - d.) multicellular organisms - e.) the Cambrian explosion - f.) the first mammals - g.) the first hominoids - h.) homo sapiens/ intelligence 2.)When all of the points a-h are plotted on a graph of time they form an exponential function. 3.)It couldn't be because of coincidence that they all fit perfectly into this function so if God exists he must of intended for them to progress in this function. 4.)The following points of human development also fit perfectly into the exact same function: - a.) First stone tools - b.) Domestication of fire - c.) Invention of agriculture - e.) the wheel/writing - f.) The Printing press - g.) Industrial Revolution - h.) Modern physics - i.) DNA structure described, transistor invented - j.) Internet, human genome sequenced 5.)Once again it could not be b/c of coincidence that all of these points of human development fit perfectly into the exact same function with all the other points God intended to occur. 6.)We can only conclude that God must have intended for all of these developments as well. 7.)The next logical point on the graph is Human Genetic Modification. B/c this point fits perfectly into the function we can only assume it is also part of His intention. 8.)B/c God must have intended for humans to GModify themselves it cannot be unethical. Ref: http://www.singularity.com... These charts were created by MIT professor and world renown scientist Ray Kurzweil. (Plz note the graphs are in a logarithmic scale: http://www.answers.com...) Argument [II] I am about to purpose an argument that is distasteful to many people. I would like to remind everyone that just b/c something is distasteful to you does not mean it's not true. Truth can be very painful. There are many atheists on this website but I wonder how many here are willing to push naturalism to its ultimate conclusion. a.) Contra-causal Freewill Does not Exist. (see below) b.) If freewill does not exist then objective morality cannot exist b/c everything that happens had to happen. c.) If objective morality does not exist than nothing is unethical. d.) If nothing is unethical then GM cannot be unethical. Argument against Freewill. a.)Everything an individual Thinks and Does either has a cause or it doesn't. b.)If any given thought or action has a cause then the individual was determined to commit said thought or action leaving no room for free will. c.)If the individual's thought or action doesn't have a cause then it was completely random and couldn't have been through the use of free will. d.)Therefore Free Will Does Not Exist. An Explanation of Morality: leading scientists such as Michael Shermer, Marc Hauser and Joshua Greene have done studies that provide ample reason to believe that morality is a sensation that evolved inside us. At a point in human evolution humans were no longer capable of surviving in the wild alone without the aid of other humans. We needed to form groups to survive and morality is a feeling inside of us that evolved so we could live together. Someone without morals; who would cheat and steal from his own tribe was removed from the tribe. Since such individuals couldn't live alone in the wild they didn't carry on their lack of morality. B/c morality is simply a sensation it does not exist objectively. So nothing is objectively unethical.