I agree, but I have a feeling that we’ve come to a point where sometimes, our use of science rhymes with obstinacy, when it comes to keeping people alive. I wonder why it is that we insist on keeping people alive, even if they don’t have any quality of life anymore (and I mean the people who express that they’d rather die than keep living that way). While we put our pets to sleep when they face a similar fate.
Our scientific knowledge is still rather puny. We may meddle like toddlers with the toys in front of us, and perhaps we may learn some useful things in the process. But ultimately we are babes when it comes to our knowledge. It is concerning that at times there is a lack of humility and appreciation for fundamental principles in the practical application of some of our acquired knowledge.
To suggest that we manipulate evolution is to suggest that we stand outside the system, somehow removed from evolution. Our scientific knowledge is not acting upon natural selection, but natural selection acts upon our scientific knowledge. We have developed scientific knowledge in the same way that giraffes have developed long necks.
We are not always as smart as giraffes, of course, when it comes to putting our evolutionary alterations to good use.
How often do we hear of things ‘man-made’ being ‘unnatural’? And hence the inference that ‘natural = good’. Everything is natural. The atom bomb is just as ‘natural’ as a bird’s nest. Without evolution neither would be possible.
Cyranny's Cove 
Yes. Otherwise we would still be in the dark ages
>
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree, but I have a feeling that we’ve come to a point where sometimes, our use of science rhymes with obstinacy, when it comes to keeping people alive. I wonder why it is that we insist on keeping people alive, even if they don’t have any quality of life anymore (and I mean the people who express that they’d rather die than keep living that way). While we put our pets to sleep when they face a similar fate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have to agree with you in that
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course, as we should… just not to the Dr. Moreau point!
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree, Paula… The problem being, where do we draw the line?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly the issue
LikeLiked by 1 person
Our scientific knowledge is still rather puny. We may meddle like toddlers with the toys in front of us, and perhaps we may learn some useful things in the process. But ultimately we are babes when it comes to our knowledge. It is concerning that at times there is a lack of humility and appreciation for fundamental principles in the practical application of some of our acquired knowledge.
LikeLike
Yes, very much so, and NO it is NOT a good thing. Just because we can do something scientifically does not mean we are ready for the results.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I would say depends on the species and situation.
LikeLike
To suggest that we manipulate evolution is to suggest that we stand outside the system, somehow removed from evolution. Our scientific knowledge is not acting upon natural selection, but natural selection acts upon our scientific knowledge. We have developed scientific knowledge in the same way that giraffes have developed long necks.
We are not always as smart as giraffes, of course, when it comes to putting our evolutionary alterations to good use.
How often do we hear of things ‘man-made’ being ‘unnatural’? And hence the inference that ‘natural = good’. Everything is natural. The atom bomb is just as ‘natural’ as a bird’s nest. Without evolution neither would be possible.
LikeLike
Yes, and Yes!!! 😊✨👍
LikeLike