Are humans invaluable? | |||
Yes | 35 | 47.95% | |
No | 21 | 28.77% | |
For the moment, yes | 4 | 5.48% | |
See results | 13 | 17.81% | |
Total: | 73 |
For a few bucks, you can do whatever you want to me.
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
|
I think it might be morals are what we make up peoples morales are different but mine would still see it as correct to save a human
Wait... does this mean im not human?
PSN addy - mrx95
A good head and a good heart are always a formidable combination. - Nelson Mandela
A radical is a man with his feet planted firmly in the air. - Franklin.D.Roosevelt
TheSwordUser said: In the most literal sense, just a few bucks. |
LOL
Although, I disagree. Those numbers are estimated through the most basic components of a human (such as athoms), Zim had a better one where you take the organs into account as well. It's like comparing the price of a PC with the price of all its basic components (metal, plastic and all that stuff).
Yeah, I know. I'm being way too serious
Human's have a soul, this is the priceless part, even if you don't believe in said entity. The human life and existence is priceless. Human life is fragile and can be lost by the smallest of things.
What you described as potentially becoming more valuable is AI recreating life and a soul, or synthetics representing life. This is not real, it's pretend, a bunch of protocols or electronic signals telling itself it is alive, not knowing to begin with. It hasn't learned and developed as life should to exist.
That said if an extraterrestrial life was a common known part of our existence, that would be sacred too because of the intelligence involved and in how nature created such beings.
AI in fiction is the best example. Joss Whedon's piss poor attempted in his second story in Astonishing X-men is an example, A pure AI gained intelligence (from where this is unexplained, he's that great a writer) and he tries and pass it off like this 'life' is as important as any of the X-men. In the end it still an AI, artificial life.
Hmm, pie.
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
|
robots can't think for themselves whatever you do
as for species they come out of nature,we can't create them
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
The reason to this is probably because humans are more intelligent and sympathetic and therefore will have a more valuable life than an animal who would act just like any other animal of the same species: Purely on instinct.
|
snakenobi said:
robots can't think for themselves whatever you do
as for species they come out of nature,we can't create them |
There are already robots who can think for themselves (even though they have no moral or sympathy yet) and there are estimations that in a not too distant future there will be computers smarter than the human brain.
Yes, we can create new species. We came out of nature, like you said, and we can change the nature.
The Fury said: Human's have a soul, this is the priceless part, even if you don't believe in said entity. The human life and existence is priceless. Human life is fragile and can be lost by the smallest of things. What you described as potentially becoming more valuable is AI recreating life and a soul, or synthetics representing life. This is not real, it's pretend, a bunch of protocols or electronic signals telling itself it is alive, not knowing to begin with. It hasn't learned and developed as life should to exist. AI in fiction is the best example. Joss Whedon's piss poor attempted in his second story in Astonishing X-men is an example, A pure AI gained intelligence (from where this is unexplained, he's that great a writer) and he tries and pass it off like this 'life' is as important as any of the X-men. In the end it still an AI, artificial life. |
Even though I don't believe in souls existence, I'll try to debate on your level. If someone was to clone any human being (sheeps can already be cloned, humans will be eventually), would that human don't have a soul and therefore be less valuable than an animal?