Human cloning can produce an exact copy of the person that it was cloned from, meaning that asexual reproduction can be possible in the near future. The idea of human cloning is becoming a nightmare as this wanton act is turning to a reality because it will take the beauty of life and the differences among each individual away. And it is argued that human cloning is against human rights because everyone should have the right to live as a unique individual being on this planet, and not just a industrial product to help
natural catastrophes, climate related) – as nature has been tamed and is no longer at war with herself. The only catastrophes left are human ones. These obstacles do not come from other human groups, either. They are purely internal to existing human relations, namely: effects of a generalized state of war, inner competition, and the constant threat that every individual feels hanging over his person victories, his foods, his liberty, and his life (Althusser, 1967:119). This “state of war”, as opposed to the “state of nature”, is defined by the very condition, where individuals are subject and condemned to it.
There is a big argument among the world discussing the issue of evolution verses creation. The evolutionists believe that everything has evolved from similar ancestors, and over time they changed into the different species we have today. Creationists believe that everything that is on the earth was put here by a higher being that put all of the complexity and variation of the animals that are here today. I believe that everything that on the earth today was created by an intelligent being because evolution is just a theory, evolution is no longer happening, and it is unscientific based on the scientific method. Science says that in order for something to be a fact it needs to have many accounts of observable and repeating evidence that supports
There are two main ways in which natural evil operates to give humans those choices. First of all, natural evil provides chance for humans to learn how to bring the evil. For example, I can choose to ignore my sick friends instead of showing compassion towards the sufferer. If I get sick, I can either choose to spread it to others or subdue to disease and prevent it from spreading. Humans have the free will to choose to be good or evil.
For too long have we lived in our comfort zone without realizing the reality of our world is. For too long have we took the earth for granted when the earth now is dying due to our reckless behaviour towards the environment, yet we dare to look on the other side. The global concentration has never been as focused on taking the responsibility for the environment. Basically, the term ‘environmental friendly’ can be defined as reducing infliction and minimizing the harm upon ecosystems or the environment. All parts of our society, be it the government, business or individuals are encouraged to operate in more environmentally friendly ways, to aid sustainability for the world.
Nature is perfect and acts so its perfection can be preserved and maintained. Idealistically it should be unadulterated and kept under our protection and idealistically we should live under its reign. Instead, we have manipulated its creations and have intervened in its plan of action. We have acted upon its manufacturing and have altered its designs. We human beings have interfered with natural selection and have pandered natural order.
Technology has domesticated us in all ways. It is up to a person to decide whether technology is mechanistic or organic (Arthur 2013:208). Having no technology at all makes us not human enough because technology takes a large part of what makes us human (Arthur
Experts say it is extremely challenging, if not impossible, to accurately predict the effects of a single extinction on an ecosystem.” The alleged highly effective gene drive has never been tested in the natural world, omitting whatever dangerous consequences the gene drive flourishing in real world populations could elicit. Moreover, Carl Zimmer contends that “[Scientists] created a detailed mathematical model describing what happens following the release of Crispr-altered organisms. And they discovered an unacceptable risk: Altered genes might spread to places where the species isn't invasive at all, but a well-established part of the
Western civilization and industrialization brought this to whole world through uncontrolled exploitation of resources. To Gandhi, nature is a sine qua non of existence and if interfered with, it would be at cost of its existence. He was not an environmentalist to analyze cause and consequences of environment degradation, but was a believer in remedy rather than cure. He was a propounder of kind of life which will never lead to environmental problems, today what we call as sustainable development. And these ideas of him made him to say, 'Nature can serve man 's need but not greed. '
Sustainable development is defined as development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own( Brundtland Report, 1987). It is an area of environmental philosophy that faces a lot of conflict due to the various subdivisions in terms of ethical perceptions. For traditional and religious views, some people believe they were given dominion over nature’s plants and animals to serve their needs.The techno-centric ideology is centered is centred on technology and it’s ability to control and protect the environment, it is almost arrogant in it’s assumption that humans have control over nature. The ‘ecological footprint’ (Gaston 2005, p.239) that resulted from humans’ greediness has lead over the decades to massive alteration in nature’s balance, as well as many recognizable environmental crises the world is facing today. By contrast, eco-centrism recognizes a nature-centerd systemof values and extends the inherent worth to all living thigs regardless of their usefulness to humans (Mackinnon 2007, p. 336).