Firstly: They aren't actually trying to define life. You've just said they're trying to create life. |
|
Firstly: They aren't actually trying to define life. You've just said they're trying to create life. |
|
I'm not a Lurker - I prefer to frighten people from the front.
I'm a Member now - my signature's in for the chop.
Nothing in life can be said to be unfair - everything is the result of freedom and where would freedom be without the feedom to take the consequences?
This is pretty cool i must admit, i mean this means that so much more can be done around the world like it said in the article. |
|
Even if we won't be able to create a monster. Something could go wrong. You see, if we make all these little critters and let them "cure" us, couldn't it be possible that they turn on us... perhaps by mutating and eating us all. The same thing with nanobots. You could program it to fix or eat "broken" cells, like cancer, but what if it eats all the cells? |
|
|
|
That's what I just said. You aren't talking about defining life, you're talking about creating it. Wholely different discussion. |
|
I'm not a Lurker - I prefer to frighten people from the front.
I'm a Member now - my signature's in for the chop.
Nothing in life can be said to be unfair - everything is the result of freedom and where would freedom be without the feedom to take the consequences?
Ah, I see. I think maybe the word "define" was not meant as "the meaning of..." but rather the other definition of "define" - which is "to mark out the boundary or limits of". I guess by being able to create life from scratch, we'd be either breaking or creating new boundaries to what the possibilities are. |
|
Bookmarks