Hmmm… what do we all think of IVFs?

This is yet another topic of discussion that I can’t seem to only agree with the one side. Im finding that there are good points and bad points.

On the one hand, we have the disadvantaged couples who strive to have children but never suceed. This is like a god-sent procedure for them, allowing such couples to have as many babies as they wish (but of course that is if the IVF were to work). But what of those couples who are simply using our current society’s fantastic technology just so they can create their own custom-made child?

I’m sure we’ve all heard stories about people picking the colour of their baby’s eyes, and maybe their height and hair colour. Outragous you say? Well its something that can’t be stopped anymore.
There may be controversy with such actions – I mean, how could such a person do that? Pick how their child looks like! They might as well buy a Barbie Doll and raise it as their child.
But of course, like i was saying, there’s no way of stopping this preposterous act. Because IVFs have all become a business. There’s no way of stopping someone picking and choosing what their babies look like anymore. Because no matter how much debate revolves around this act, the idea has already leaked through our society like the plague. Everyone knows of its existence and within our economically driven world, everything is run by money.

Not sure why I’m bothering with asking whether IVFs are ethically right or wrong anymore. Because no matter how much I contest against the negative aspects of this procedure, unless it is made illegal within the whole WORLD (because we can always fly to another country to make our pretty babies); there’s no way of stopping it anymore. And of course, the UN won’t be too bothered with such a multinational agreement when there are other more pressing problems like … war.

So I guess this ends my thoughts on IVFs. Half the time they’re decent. The other half = bad bad bad practice.

But like I said. There’s no point in arguing anymore on something that won’t change.



A.I.’s rights?

May 27, 2009

Artificial Intelligence. Do they have minds, consciousness, spirit?

Thinking into the future, I think we’d all assume that at some point there will be artificial intelligence swarming the streets of our cities. Presumably (though influenced by scifi movies), we’ll eventually be living side-by-side with robots and maybe even aliens.

But how about the ethics of dealing with artificial intelligence? Would we consider them worthy of the same rights and recognition humans receive? Will they be treated like ‘one of us’?

Personally, I believe that as long as any artificial intelligence has the capabilities of feeling and understanding like humans do… they’d be considered ‘alive’. And in this case, as long as this criteria is achieved, artificial intelligence should be no different to us. We should treat them the same, with respect and dignity.

But there are arguments against such views. For example, will you be murdering a robot if you were to ‘switch it off’ even though they feel and understand just as much as any of us? 
Or another argument: artificial intelligence is still artificial. Some believe that they will never be equal to humans because they’re man-made.

But if you think about it… artificial intelligence is engineered to do with man cannot. They are made to be more superior than the ‘naturally evolved’ humans that already exist. So if this is the case, then won’t the artificial intelligence be more worthy than any human?


This is of course presuming that artificial intelligence will be a permanent asset to society. 



I just snooped around Google abit and found two interesting images that related to the contrast between science and religion. There’s only one problem that I have with these two images… why don’t people ever show religion in a good light?





March 20, 2009

Has anyone seen the movie “Traitor”?
It was out in cinemas recently, and even though it wasn’t the most fantastic movie I’ve ever seen (quite dull actually – sorry to the fans out there); the underlying meanings of the narrative was very interesting.

The story basically revolved around an American spy who was placed in a group of Muslim terrorists, to try to report back all activites that could’ve threatened our society.
What I thought was interesting, was the way they interpreted the reasons behind Muslim terrorist acts.
Their thoughts were that even though these actions would deem them to their religious “hell”; they were actually providing a service to the community through “purification” – in a sense.
They believed that what they were doing was for the common good of their society – simply acting out to achieve what their God described as a better world.

But even though I do sympathise, in the sense that they believe they’re doing a deed for the world; it was still simply a wrong form of interpretation that caused all this damage to be done.
If they could simply act in different ways, though trying to fight for the same cause; would Muslims then be stereotyped as the better race within our society? Rather than now carrying the weight of a terrorists’ name on their shoulders?

Their initial belief was coherent. Understandable. Commendable even. But the path they took to help our world has infact caused a diservice to both our people and their religion.

I guess this is the same as many other disasterous acts that have occurred in the past – those related to ‘acting in the name of God’.
From medieval times of burning suspected witches at stake, to the era of Hitler; each revolution was once, right from the start, a belief stemmed from a good prospect of God. But all turned negative in the end.

So my question now is: who is to blame?
Some blame the religion in itself, for providing such beliefs that caused such tragedies. Some blame the interpreters for twisting a once positive belief, and interpreting it incorrectly.
Some just simply don’t care.

Though… I don’t think a general agreement will be made on this question.

Oh and by the way… I just thought to add the poster for the movie, just to lighten things up =]


Just an intro…

March 17, 2009

Hey all!!

This is Catherina Dang here. I’ve just mainly created this blog to express all the ideas that has come across my mind; but am not comfortable in sharing with my Science & Religions course.

Hopefully my views won’t offend anyone out there that may be reading – I am quite naive in the subject so please, anyone. Correct if you believe I am wrong.

I may include some videos or articles that I find relevent or interesting… who knows? We’ll just have to wait and see.

But all in all, thanks for reading this post & hopefully I’ll give you a little insight on what I think of religion & science