Genetically Modifying Human Beings is Unethical.

This is my first debate as well, and I sure don't know of any rules. Good Luck and may the best one win! 1. Every step in human progress has charted unknown waters, taking several incalculable risks, without a guaranteed outcome. This is intrinsically a part of what it means to progress for if we already knew everything about a given development we wouldn't be progressing. There are incalculable examples. Tools, Weapons, Fire. Surely they have been used both benignly and malignantly. Yet no one would claim that tools, fire, and weapons themselves are unethical When fire was invented it was entirely possible for humans to burn down all of the vegetation on earth b/c no one knew what fire was. Yet fire itself is not unethical. It should be realized that technology, i. e. tools, fire, computers, or g-modification, is nothing more than having a greater degree of control over our environment. It is not accurate to claim that a technology itself is unethical. It is what people do with a technology that can be questioned ethically. 2. Religious Belief. My opponent claims that human g-modification is unethical b/c it would be interfering with God's work. First of all this argument is just rehashing the argument from nature and changing the word nature to God. However it has one extra disadvantage. In order for this to be true my opponent must first prove the existence of God. He has done no such thing so we cannot assume that the implicit first premise, i. e. that God exists, is true. If the first premise isn't true then the rest of the argument falls apart. Secondly my opponent claims that human g-modification would be interfering with God's work without any justification for this claim. The very definition of God prevents any human from knowing with certainty what interfering with His work would entail. I will propose that if God made everything the way he intended why then did he make genes capable of being modified at all? And why did He go one step further and give humans a brain capable of actually modifying genes? It seems far more likely that not g-modifying ourselves would be interfering with God's work not vise versa. My opponent could argue this point by saying something a kin to God gave people the ability to murder but murder is interfering with God's work. This is true but God's supposed ancient texts explicitly state that murder is wrong. There is no record of God condemning g-modification in any ancient text and since he is supposed to be omniscient he would have known that this would become an issue. (as a side note) My opponent has cleverly phrased the argument so that g-m would be unethical "For those with Religious beliefs. " If my opponent chooses to pursue this point he'd be implying that it wouldn't necessarily be unethical for those without such beliefs. This espouses a kind of ethical relativism and ethical relativism makes discourse about ethics irrelevant since they change from person to person. Besides my argument above has already clearly shown that it wouldn't necessarily be unethical for those with religious beliefs. 3/4. The third and fourth arguments posed by my opponent are just a restatement of his first argument. This is simply the Argument of Genetic Malfunction that I posed in the first round. I'm glad that I can address it now. My opponent poses a possible scenario, let's call it scenario X. I'm going to assume that if scenario X occurs it would be bad or destructive for humanity. This could be through genetic unraveling, mutant humans, environmental destruction etc. etc. My opponent doesn't provide any degree of probability for such scenarios occurring stating merely that it is possible. So the argument written out looks like this: a. ) Human g-modification creates the possibility for the destruction of humanity. b. ) Something that creates the possibility for the destruction of humanity is unethical. c. ) Therefore human GM is unethical. It's a rather absurd argument, consider: a. )Quantum Mechanics asserts that the nature of atoms is such that at any moment it is possible for all the atoms in planet Earth to simultaneously converge to form a singularity, i. e. a black hole. b. )If the Earth were to suddenly become a black hole it would be the destruction of humanity c. )The nature of atoms therefore creates the possibility for the destruction of humanity. d. )Something that creates the possibility for the destruction of humanity is unethical. e. )Ergo the nature of atoms is unethical. When arguing about possibility it is necessary to provide reason for probability. I will argue that the probability for scenario X is marginal. First we must realize that b/c we are weary of a catastrophe scientists will be sure to take all the necessary measures so that it doesn't happen. This alone greatly reduces the probability of such an event. Again, humans charted into unknown waters when they invented fire. It was possible for them to burn down their entire tribe, forest, etc. They soon learned that certain precautions were needed such as a stone circle to contain the fire. Knowing this greatly reduced the probability that they would burn anything down. Scientists will be sure to take the needed precautions. Another reason why the probability of catastrophe is low is that nature itself is constantly re-genetically engineering every species on the planet randomly. It does so all the time and no crazy mutants have popped up to destroy everything. (Ignoring the fact that everything is actually a mutant) Please note that humans with modified genes have simply changed their gene sequence. They still have human genes. We all have different gene sequences so there is no reason to suspect that they wouldn't be able to reproduce with "regular" humans. What has also been overlooked is that if we are going to discuss the probability of destruction we should only do so in relation to the probability that humanity will achieve a greater level of being. Eradicating almost all diseases, creating healthier, happier, more prosperous human beings and a higher overall standard of living. Since this is the goal of g-modification the probability is fairly large. Is it worth risking our future b/c of a small likelihood that something may go wrong? Just b/c a bad effect is possible does not make what could cause it unethical. Fire is not unethical. In order to make the claim that it is unethical the said effect must be HIGHLY probable. In fact that effect must have a higher probability than the probability that a good effect will occur. This is not the case for human g-modification. The fourth argument once again fails to mention the probability of such an occurrence. But moreover it demonstrates a clear lack of understanding for the way life operates. Life is not a fine tuned machine that fails to work if one component is knocked out. The very reason why humans and anything else exist at all is b/c they have gone through many environmental changes. When the environment changes dramatically nearly all animals within a given species will die off, but some will survive and those that do will live on to repopulate the gap that was left by the ones who died off. There are innumerable examples of this and it is completely natural. 5. ) Here we are with yet another possibility that is not very probable. Scientists will be able to choose which genes to modify. they are already doing this in other animals and plants. There is no reason to think that anyone would be able to distinguish a g-modified person from someone who isn't. Besides according to the law of accelerating returns human g-modification will become almost instantly ubiquitous within a few years from its conception. The law has demonstrated its accuracy with countless other inventions that are now ubiquitous. . http://en.wikipedia.org...