Thread: Advancement in Medical Science Important or Dangerous

Surley I would think nobody here wishes to be sick or worst, die. I origionally was going to call this thread "Medical Science vs Playing God". But there were some other questions I wanted to raise instead of just "playing god".

I am a biochemical engineering student. I hope to help develope and mass produce artificial organs for transplants in pateints. This would eliminate the need for a donar list and thus the wait time as well. With fields like genetic engineering and stem cell research, I definitly belive it is possible to create and replace any part of the human anatomy in a laboratory. Also the advancements could possibily cure many types of cancer and sexually transmitted disease.

My quesitons are these:

1. Do you ever ponder the idea that if we were able to make man nearly immortal, would we be able to come up with solutions to fix a population problem.

2. Do you think by replacing a man with artificial organs he is no longer human at some point? This can be broken up into two parts:
a) for mechanical replacements such as a metal leg, or a robotic heart (if thats possible).
b) for biological replacements such as the artificial bladder.

3. Finally, do you think it is unnatural and dangerous for man to step into the boundary of increasing life expectancy so high? Call it playing god if you'd like or just call it messing with nature depending on how religious you are.


The reason I didn't really provide answers myself is because I am honestly at a stalemate in my mind. I see valid points in all of these questions raised. But I thought it was be an interesting topic to challenge and debate.

Ok, I'll take a stab at your quiz.

1. If we have the technology to make a person's life span indefinite, why wouldn't we have devised solutions for any population problems?

2. Does it matter? Seriously? But anyway, what really defines us as human is our genome. If we get to a point where beings can exist without a single human DNA strand, then I suppose we can say that that being is no longer human.

3. No. Everyone should be able to make their own choice. If you want to die at a 'natural' age, then go nuts.

My answers from the Buddhist perspective:

1. Easy one, other planets, we would also evolve maybe return to the sea. The idea of an enhanced lifespan isn’t that farfetched. We get a new body every 7 years so all you would need to do is alter the DNA to produce newer parts.
I remember a study of mice that were only fed every other day; they lived twice as long as the mice fed every day, looks like there may be a biological clock in us all, and yes they are trying to find out how it works.

2. What’s human, everything is made of the same stuff. The apple you have for lunch at what point does it cease to be an apple and become part of you. Same with replacement parts it’s made of the same stuff.

3. Human is what you think not what you are, we all come from the same place and were all going back to be replaced as something else. Until the big bang then it starts all over again.

1) I'm not exactly sure how the two relate. Making man immortal will probably never happen, because there are two things in life that are certain, unless you are in power, 1. you will always pay taxes (in this modern day) no matter for what type of government or ruler, and 2. everybody will die, eventually, everybody has.

2) I'd like to keep this as one, organ or limb regeneration. Hopefully stem cell research will lead to this. As long as this is regulated correctly and the people doing so stay humane, this is the best thing ever to happen to humanity, who would want to object?

3) Studying and pursuing the increasing of life expectancy, creation of artificial organs and limbs, and the creation of life, is ok as regulated and done by the right people. In my opinion we start to play god when credit is not given where deserved.

In this case I will always vote that advancement in medical science is very important.I am a medical student myself and so I do know the limitation of modern medicine.I see here what the people are mostly talking about is, man being immortal by this advancement.why do we have to think in that perspective??..there are numerous disease out there whose proper treatment is not yet out.For example ..Respiratory syncitial virus..a virus responsible for pneumonia in child and common cold in adults...is a notorious one...every one must have caught cold once in a life time and it is not good ...is it? But the proper drug for its management is not yet out...what about leukaemia??? thalassaemia?? these genetic conditions are quite widely prevalent....some advancement has been made in this field..but we still need much more.And the last but not the least AIDS..the plague that is now ruining the world......???

Preventing apoptosis i.e programmed cell death..the reason behind senelity..is only a small branch of medical science...besides there are many variables to consider for preparation of such drug.....I am not saying its impossible..but how much do we really know about human biochemistry???..each day new information is being unearthed and new variables are added to consider...so we shall have to wait and watch.

Earths population is increasing day by day....if such a drug is discovered it will be total diaster.the worldwide population boom will be a real problem then earths ecosystem will collapse leaving it totally inhospitable.So i will vote against this particular branch of science.

As for artificial organs > The thoughts,the memory that make one person who he is is controlled by hippocampus, a part of our brain...so artificial heart,limb .....bladder will definitely help him to survive but will have nothing to do witrh HIM not being human.So please clear the misconception here.

So.in the long run ADVANCEMENT in medical science is definitely necessary.......whether someone likes it or not.

Originally Posted by subkar09

Earths population is increasing day by day....if such a drug is discovered it will be total diaster.the worldwide population boom will be a real problem then earths ecosystem will collapse leaving it totally inhospitable.So i will vote against this particular branch of science.

Booo! What you've just said is profoundly anti-science. There should be no limits to our search for knowledge and understanding.

Originally Posted by s2cuts

Booo! What you've just said is profoundly anti-science. There should be no limits to our search for knowledge and understanding.

I am not anti-science which you can surely understand if you read my whole post...But I certainly have some issues with some branches and ideology of science...so i dont support them.The reason I gave for the particular part you highlighted is undeniable.I am sure many members here will agree with me.You got to LOOK before you LEAP.

I'm a budding economist so i will answer according to that.


This new business of giving ailing people new and fake organs to keep them alive would be deter mental to the world economy.

Firstly the world is becoming overpopulated anyway due to advances of medicines and the huge birth rates in China India and Brazil.

This causes huge strain on the scarce resources of the world.

By keeping these older people alive this will effect the dependency ratio which is defined as the amount of working people supporting the non working.


This ratio will become top heavy meaning a small amount in the working age will have to pay for millions of older people staying alive due to these new organs which would be very costly.

This will eventually cause the world to overpopulate quicker and to overpopulate with the wrong age groups for its own survivial.


Everyone will sanction this if it saves there Granny or Granddad from dying but when taken on a large scale will actually cause some massive problems for Mankind.

All I can say is that you guys have a very myopic view of the issue. Knowledge is never bad. The application of such knowledge could be either disastrous or hugely beneficial. As an example, can we not agree that it makes sense to extend the life span of elite academics that are working on humanity's biggest problems? Curing fatal illnesses for one. And what about research into the very problems that pseudo-immortality poses? Not to mention the ability to implement very simple policies that would prevent anyone who chooses to extend their lives from procreating, at least until they're ready to enter the final stage of their lives. Think more broadly please.