So what are your thoughts? When should we stop?

In my opinion none of the examples shown are unethical, as none of them harm a sapient creature. Life is just like a machine, just more complex, it is not unethical to manipulate a machine to suit our need.

Every time someone misuses "sentient", a puppy unleashes a biohazard into their owner's face.

Most animals are sentient. The word you are looking for is non-sapient.

In my opinion none of the examples shone are unethical,

Shown. Past tense of "show".

1771588 My gravest concerns are if these technologies are used on ourselves, as a species, will we...

A: Leave people behind.
B: Make ourselves worse.

1771851 1772790 Looks like I'm the only one who's going to give a thought on the matter itself, eh?

1772936>>1771588

Why do you insist that the human genetic code is "sacred" or "taboo"? It is a chemical process and nothing more. For that matter -we- are chemical processes and nothing more. If you deny yourself a useful
tool simply because it reminds you uncomfortably of your mortality, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself.

-- Chairman Sheng-ji Yang,
"Looking God in the Eye"

We hold life to be sacred, but we also know the foundation of life consists in a stream of codes not so different from the successive frames of a watchvid. Why then cannot we cut one code short here, and start another there? Is life so fragile that it can withstand no tampering? Does the sacred brook no improvement?

-- Chairman Sheng-ji Yang,
"Dynamics of Mind"

While the guy himself isn't exactly what I would consider a good role model, he (or rather, his writers) has some interesting thoughts about the subject at hand.

1773169 In rebuttal, if one wants to make the comparison of the body to a mere machine, which I am fully willing to concede to keep this conversation going, this goes with the additional knowledge that a machine can be produce that performs badly at its task, or doesn't perform its task at all.

1773197
Solution: quality control!

Alternatively: diversity, I suppose. It's like accelerated natural selection! More mutations in a fraction of the time!

Or does that still count as normal natural selection? I dunno.

I'm for it, as long as everyone can have access to it regardless of their social or economic status. If we are able to genetically modify ourselves, let us not leave anyone behind.

1771588

When should we stop?

N/A.

Life is just like a machine [...] it is not unethical to manipulate a machine to suit our need.

Bingo.

Let's make sure we do it right for as long as possible, and make the bottom rungs as cushy as possible (there's going to be a period where the inequality of distribution shoots off the charts and people will think it'll be like that forever, but then comes back down to healthy levels to the point where everyone takes it for granted and they'll forget all about it), but ultimately it's nothing compared to what we can do with straight-up cybernetics and robotics technology.

1773169
What this guy is missing is something of vital importance. It is true that, so far as we know, a human being is a series of chemical processes. This does not make humans machines. A machine is an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work. It is typically assumed that machines in some way utilize mechanical energy in their tasks, but that is beside the point. A machine is for a function. Humans are not really FOR anything. We are not made to create stitches, or to produce on an assembly line. Also, another thing about machines is that they are specifically created and fully understood. You can hardly create a machine and not understand how it works- you just built it! Please do not give me 'what if' scenarios about that statement, it generally holds to be true that a machine is understood by its creator. Another point, machines do not adapt. They cannot grow, or learn, or feel, or anything else we tend to associate with sentience or sapience, take your pick. A machine does not become more than it is at creation. My final point is while we understand what can be found in life, we do not understand life. Science, so far as I know, can tell you what causes life, or define it, but science does not truly understand life. Only live things can create live things, except for when that isn't true. There is no definitive rule for how life works, so it is not a machine. When you cannot understand the origin of something, nor can you create it without using the *traditional* way, what you have is not really a machine.

1776009
He is not missing anything. You are randomly imposing restrictions on what constitutes a machine so that humans wont fit.

According to wikipidea: A machine is a tool that consists of one or more parts, and uses energy to meet a particular goal.

Human beings fit that description.

A machine is for a function. Humans are not really FOR anything

Sure they are. To house and spread DNA, just like all other living organisms.

science does not truly understand life [...] There is no definitive rule for how life works, so it is not a machine.

Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean one doesn't exist

When you cannot understand the origin of something, nor can you create it without using the *traditional* way, what you have is not really a machine.

By that logic a computer isn't a machine from the perspective of a medieval farmer.

1776134
What restrictions did I impose that were "random" in any way? I described machines as I saw them, unfeeling tools lacking sentience. Also, please refrain from using Wikipedia as a source, because it is not scientifically credible, because it can be changed. I used the definition provided on dictionary-reference.com, which I suspect to be Merriam Webster. Your first argument is valid to a point. To speculative science, an organisms role is to create more. All organisms must do this to perpetuate themselves. Does that mean that it is the purpose of life? No entity went out and designed life to create more life and so on, to our knowledge; it could go either way. All we know is that all organisms do it. All humans eat and breath, but does that mean that the purpose of a human is to eat and breath? Could there possibly be more to it than that?

I did not say that I did not know it, I said that SCIENCE did not know it. Despite this, what you said is true. Just because I do not know it, does not mean that it does not exist. However, this is cause for reasonable conjecture that science may be UNABLE to explain it. I am not 100% sure about these things, but I have a justification that, based on my observations, life is more complex than machinery. So far as science is today, it can explain the machinery, but it cannot explain the life in the machinery.

Your final point is a good one. I concede that statement was rather wacky. I was trying to find someway to attempt wrapping up my statement, and that is what I found on the screen. You win that point. I think that it should be noted that the computer would not be any recognizable form of machine, however. The medieval farmer would not be able to distinguish the computer as a machine, because it does not share the same characteristics as the machines of his day. The farmer would be completely stumped by the computer. Thank you for replying, I truly think that these forums can be really fun if done right, and so far, we are doing it right. My opinion, that last sentence was. It would be rather ironic if somebody chose to make a fight about how to do the forums correctly. Please don't be the person to do that, whoever now reads this.

1776411

I described machines as I saw them, unfeeling tools lacking sentience.

There's your problem. You're using your own definition which conveniently allows you to exclude, well... whatever you want to I suppose.

Question about what is and isn't considered to be life: if we were to create self-replicating machines... Would they be considered life?

All humans eat and breath, but does that mean that the purpose of a human is to eat and breath? Could there possibly be more to it than that?

We were not built for a purpose, we make our own purpose. If it turns out in some strange twist that we were designed for a purpose by aliens or something, I'd tell them to fuck off and go make my own purpose anyway.

However, this is cause for reasonable conjecture that science may be UNABLE to explain it

My personal belief is that nothing is inexplicable, only unexplained. I do not think that there is anything that cannot be explained given sufficient time and effort.

I am not 100% sure about these things, but I have a justification that, based on my observations, life is more complex than machinery.

That's like saying that a computer isn't a machine because it is more complex than most mechanical devices.
Really, the workings of a human body aren't all that mysterious. They function using rules that we understand pretty well by now. Just... all connected in really complex ways.

I think that it should be noted that the computer would not be any recognizable form of machine, however. The medieval farmer would not be able to distinguish the computer as a machine, because it does not share the same characteristics as the machines of his day. The farmer would be completely stumped by the computer.

That's... kinda the whole point we are making. To those who don't understand how something works it seem like magic, but to those who do... The human body is a complex machine that we do not yet fully understand, but that doesn't mean it is impossible for us to do so one day. Just like how the farmer THINKS that the computer couldn't possibly be a machine, but given enough time and education he would be able to learn otherwise. Just because he doesn't understand how it works doesn't change how it works, it doesn't change what it is.

1776411
This is called "the argument from personal incredulity," where you can't personally imagine how something could be done so you declare it impossible.
I can't figure out how most magic tricks are done, but magicians can.

I'm a transhumanist. I completely support bioengineering as a field. That being said I think there are 4 broad categories of things you can be bioengineering with different ethical considerations:

1) Sapient, sentient Individual currently capable of choosing (eg you or me, FIM ponies)
In this scenario I think it comes down to individual choice. The person should be modified as they wish to be modified, in the ways they wish to be modified. If a person wants to live longer give them biological immortality. If a person wants to die give them euthanasia.
To prevent someone from receiving a modification they want is to violate their morphological freedom and/or cognitive liberty. To modify someone against their will is to violate their morphological freedom and/or cognitive liberty.
Now granted there may be a couple of exceptions to this, such as an individual wanting to be modified such that they spray nerve gas everywhere, but these are edge cases.

2) Non-sapient, non-sentient lifeform (eg bacteria, plants)
Anything goes. As long as you're not doing something that is bad for other reasons (eg making a bioweapon) any degree of modification is fine.

3) Future sapient, sentient individual/sapient, sentient individual currently incapable of choice (eg baby in womb, person cryonically frozen, person in coma)
In this case the primary concern of modification should be to be likely in the individual's interests. So you can modify them to live longer, be smarter, be stronger, be more resistant to disease. But not make them great soldiers at the cost of dying at 30. Parent choice may play a role, especially in more trivial factors (eg hair colour, eye colour, etc) but it should never be permitted to harm the individual (eg some deaf parents also want deaf children).
Note that in the case of a future sapient, sentient individual it only counts if you plan on letting them become sapient. Abortion is acceptable, as then there is never a sapient being in existence who is harmed, as is any modification of the human embryo as long as you commit on aborting it before it goes too far along in development.

4) Sentient but not sapient individual (eg many non-human animals)
Any modification that does not cause the creature undue suffering is acceptable.
This may be overwritten if it is sufficiently important for sapient lives (eg growing replacement organs in pigs, medical research).

A factor to be taken into consideration here with the question of genetically modifying humans is that human children are born without complex thinking abilities, and are generally controlled by the primitive part of their brain. Of course, ethics are still a factor here.

Also- Speciesism (spelling?).
We as humans tend to like enslaving and killing off other species to benefit ourselves. If it is a non-sentient species, I'm fine with that, and I'm not a vegetarian although I don't like meat that much. But think about it. In the episode 'Bats!', Applejack and the rest of the Main 6 except Fluttershy want to kill and get rid of the bats, because they need food and they have the power and the dominance over the bats. Couldn't they eat the grass? They are ponies, after all. Maybe that's not the way it works. But we know that the ponies don't depend upon apples completely for food. Anyway. Do you know what the most destructive animal on the planet is? No, it's not a bear or anything like that. It's humans. We wipe out species every day with deforestation in rain forests, among a few other causes. We have engineered the land to fit our needs, disregarding the needs of other species in the name of big business.

Okay, time to end this comment, because I'm just babbling like an idiot at this point. Forgive me if I'm wrong about any of this.