"
Team:CIDEB-UANL Mexico/HP/Philosophy
From 2012hs.igem.org
(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "<html> <head> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://genobiotec.awardspace.info/testing/jquery.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://genobiotec.award...") |
|||
| Line 441: | Line 441: | ||
<div id="content1"> | <div id="content1"> | ||
| - | <h1> | + | <h1> A Philosophic dtfcyjvb </h1> |
| - | <p>The | + | <h2>Synthetic Biology</h2> |
| - | + | <p>The human has evolved in a way in which he chooses changing everything around him to make his living more comfortable. Medicines had helped people to avoid serious diseases, increasing life expectancy and having a better living. New technologies had helped the environment to clean waters and soil. Synthetic Biology is a science defined as “the use of living organisms by humans, [… it] manipulates the genes of organisms and inserts them into other organisms to acquire the desired trait, traditional biotechnology harnesses the potential of processes performed by living organisms” . This science has provided a wider knowledge of the microorganisms present in the world. Some of these organisms are bacteria. The same bacteria that my team and I are working with in order to genetically modify it to quantify metals. A good aim, the same good aim researchers have when dealing with these microorganisms. Synthetic Biology has been the answer for many situations: medical, environmental, industrial. It has saved lives and it has helped to save the world.</p> | |
| - | + | ||
| + | But some questions arise. To what extent can we modify organisms without affecting nature? Is there an order that we may be corrupting? Are we affecting the natural evolution? | ||
| + | |||
| + | There are some philosophers that have approach the idea of a metaphysical order in nature that controls everything. Schopenhauer established this idea giving it the name of: the Will. This idea is what Kant called the “thing in itself”. It is used to think that humanity is the responsible o damaging the world but for Schopenhauer, it’s the other way around. The nature itself is the one who generates the evil in the way of its effect on the people because, in a cosmos where the Will reigns, there is no good or wrong denomination because there is no neutral parameter. The Will doesn’t have any criteria. Somehow it can be thought that this Will is the chaos itself and not an “order”. In this way, the nature is the “evil” because it does what it wants with us. The Will is the answer for our well, for our sickness, for the bacteria being harmful for us… but is the Will responsible of people working with microorganisms and changing its genetic material in order to transform them into a specific biological machine that responds to our needs? Are we evolving in nature or are we making the world evolve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | In some way we know the natural world by science, by a method that limits us to the physical world. Heraclitus calls Logos to what cannot be known by science, but most importantly, this Logos, he claims it to be the “ruler” of the cosmos. According to his philosophy, everything is in a constant change. Therefore, how can we be defined by something if we aren’t the same all the time? Who can judge? He sets a ruler, and it’s not the same theological ruler that Descartes or Thomas de Aquino set in their philosophy, but it’s like the nature itself being behind everything and keeping things together so that an order can be kept. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Christian belief will surely set God as the dealer of everything. It is everything being everywhere, and its not just an unknown force behind everything, the Christians set it as a careful and lovely God. But, what we are doing with Biotechnology is questionable in this belief too. If God created everything, it can be thought that we are going against him. Although it can be thought that by manipulating bacteria we may be saving thousands of lives and we will be doing something good, a common good that I think God will not disapprove. In this way, we may be going against natural selection; those thousands that the biological discoveries may save were maybe the weaker ones who would pass those inadequate characteristics to its next generations. If God decides who lives and who dies, it may seem we’re playing God’s role. Are we modifying the microorganisms? Or is it God in us doing so? | ||
| + | |||
| + | These are the same questions so far. Heraclitus may be from the Pre-Socratic era (544– 484 a. C), while the Christianity started much later with the twelve apostles, and in the 18th century Schopenhauer rose with its philosophy. The need to set an order has being there and it has been defined in many ways. If we, the humans, deal with natural living things by changing their “purpose” or their nature, according to Heraclitus, we would be just part of the change, a result of the Logos taking place and not a corruption factor in nature. According to God, we may think we are not harming the nature; we are just saving the people. | ||
| + | |||
| + | According to the philosophers presented, whom didn’t follow a theological path, there’s no destiny or something written, new conditions came out as new needs were presented. Following Heraclitus’ ideas, It can be taught that we are against the natural order by altering microorganism’s nature but, as Schopenhauer states in its philosophy, it can be considered that we are just being part of life. It is not me; it is the will in me doing so. In this way, more questions arises… are we free? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Call it the Will, or Logos, or God, I think that the major problem isn’t the fact of altering the “natural order”, but to think that we, humans, researchers, Biotechnologists, iGEMERS, can actually be that order. | ||
| + | |||
| + | </p> | ||
<img class= "image-frame" src="http://i.imgur.com/gbud0.jpg" width="280" height="180" /> | <img class= "image-frame" src="http://i.imgur.com/gbud0.jpg" width="280" height="180" /> | ||
<img class= "image-frame" src="http://i.imgur.com/NzeFT.jpg" width="280" height="180" /> | <img class= "image-frame" src="http://i.imgur.com/NzeFT.jpg" width="280" height="180" /> | ||
Revision as of 20:15, 15 June 2012
A Philosophic dtfcyjvb
Synthetic Biology
The human has evolved in a way in which he chooses changing everything around him to make his living more comfortable. Medicines had helped people to avoid serious diseases, increasing life expectancy and having a better living. New technologies had helped the environment to clean waters and soil. Synthetic Biology is a science defined as “the use of living organisms by humans, [… it] manipulates the genes of organisms and inserts them into other organisms to acquire the desired trait, traditional biotechnology harnesses the potential of processes performed by living organisms” . This science has provided a wider knowledge of the microorganisms present in the world. Some of these organisms are bacteria. The same bacteria that my team and I are working with in order to genetically modify it to quantify metals. A good aim, the same good aim researchers have when dealing with these microorganisms. Synthetic Biology has been the answer for many situations: medical, environmental, industrial. It has saved lives and it has helped to save the world.
But some questions arise. To what extent can we modify organisms without affecting nature? Is there an order that we may be corrupting? Are we affecting the natural evolution? There are some philosophers that have approach the idea of a metaphysical order in nature that controls everything. Schopenhauer established this idea giving it the name of: the Will. This idea is what Kant called the “thing in itself”. It is used to think that humanity is the responsible o damaging the world but for Schopenhauer, it’s the other way around. The nature itself is the one who generates the evil in the way of its effect on the people because, in a cosmos where the Will reigns, there is no good or wrong denomination because there is no neutral parameter. The Will doesn’t have any criteria. Somehow it can be thought that this Will is the chaos itself and not an “order”. In this way, the nature is the “evil” because it does what it wants with us. The Will is the answer for our well, for our sickness, for the bacteria being harmful for us… but is the Will responsible of people working with microorganisms and changing its genetic material in order to transform them into a specific biological machine that responds to our needs? Are we evolving in nature or are we making the world evolve? In some way we know the natural world by science, by a method that limits us to the physical world. Heraclitus calls Logos to what cannot be known by science, but most importantly, this Logos, he claims it to be the “ruler” of the cosmos. According to his philosophy, everything is in a constant change. Therefore, how can we be defined by something if we aren’t the same all the time? Who can judge? He sets a ruler, and it’s not the same theological ruler that Descartes or Thomas de Aquino set in their philosophy, but it’s like the nature itself being behind everything and keeping things together so that an order can be kept. The Christian belief will surely set God as the dealer of everything. It is everything being everywhere, and its not just an unknown force behind everything, the Christians set it as a careful and lovely God. But, what we are doing with Biotechnology is questionable in this belief too. If God created everything, it can be thought that we are going against him. Although it can be thought that by manipulating bacteria we may be saving thousands of lives and we will be doing something good, a common good that I think God will not disapprove. In this way, we may be going against natural selection; those thousands that the biological discoveries may save were maybe the weaker ones who would pass those inadequate characteristics to its next generations. If God decides who lives and who dies, it may seem we’re playing God’s role. Are we modifying the microorganisms? Or is it God in us doing so? These are the same questions so far. Heraclitus may be from the Pre-Socratic era (544– 484 a. C), while the Christianity started much later with the twelve apostles, and in the 18th century Schopenhauer rose with its philosophy. The need to set an order has being there and it has been defined in many ways. If we, the humans, deal with natural living things by changing their “purpose” or their nature, according to Heraclitus, we would be just part of the change, a result of the Logos taking place and not a corruption factor in nature. According to God, we may think we are not harming the nature; we are just saving the people. According to the philosophers presented, whom didn’t follow a theological path, there’s no destiny or something written, new conditions came out as new needs were presented. Following Heraclitus’ ideas, It can be taught that we are against the natural order by altering microorganism’s nature but, as Schopenhauer states in its philosophy, it can be considered that we are just being part of life. It is not me; it is the will in me doing so. In this way, more questions arises… are we free? Call it the Will, or Logos, or God, I think that the major problem isn’t the fact of altering the “natural order”, but to think that we, humans, researchers, Biotechnologists, iGEMERS, can actually be that order.
Back in the early nineties (yeah, i'm old) i was tripping ballz on acid one night with some friends. At some point one of us got the brilliant idea to test out our clairvoyant abilities under the influence and we set up a nifty experiment where one of us would take a random card out of a playing deck and would try to 'send' the card telepathically to one of the others. When me and my best friend at the time were up, I ended up calling the exact card three times in a row. Pretty much left the room speechless. The weird thing is, when we talked about it later on we both sort of knew beforehand we could do this and couldn't stop smiling during the whole ordeal.
Latest News
March 25, 2012
Headline
Back in the early nineties (yeah, i'm old) i was tripping ballz on acid one night with some friends.
class="date"> March 26, 2012
Headline II
At some point one of us got the brilliant idea to test out our clairvoyant abilities under the influence and we set up a nifty experiment where one of us would take a random card out of a playing deck and would try to 'send' the card telepathically to one of the others. When me and my best friend at the time were up, I ended up calling the exact card three times in a row.
March 27, 2012
Headline III
Pretty much left the room speechless. The weird thing is, when we talked about it later on we both sort of knew beforehand we could do this and couldn't stop smiling during the whole ordeal.
