A fringe group of scientists and tech moguls think their closing the fountain of youth. TheWeek.com writes about weather it is humane to use bioengineering, although most scientist do not approve of this movement, the author doesn’t seem to either through negative connotation.
Ethical issues were brought up throughout the passage, the author explains there are “equally alarming possibilities of success”. He also begins to explain there are serious threats to the outcome of surgeries comparing them to the Tv show botched, saying there are potentially disastrous consequences. The author also compares individuals with a fantasy comic book, where “cyborgs install hardware in themselves to gain superpowers of a sort.” He then goes on to say “We need to think about the implications before it’s too late.”
Is the ultimate goal to genetic engineering to make life easier and to possibly live longer? Is it easier with all of the implications? A downside the author repeats with of the technology is when hardware needs to be updated surgery is needed, Is everyone willing to get a surgery every once to twice a year? Another downside leading to the authors negative opinion of the subject is the expenses in genetic engineering, costing about $180,000 including replace keys, passwords and e-tickets. The evidence from – Are Scientists On Board? Is mostly negative input from the author revealing his opinion on the subject, he says “most scientists are either skeptical or firmly opposed to any effort that supports to reverse aging or extend human life spans indefinitely.” The author writes A Michigan professor conducted a study in which 28 citizens apposed to Grey’s life-span goals saying “it’s so far from plausible that it commands no respect at all within the informed scientific community.”
The author reveals his opinion by including Harvard doctors opinions, Silicon Valley standards, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerburg, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and even a fictional comic book imitating what people are doing in real-life to explain the dissatisfactory of the subject. Overall the author explains many complications and evidence of opposed doctors and professors giving many opinions on how bioengineering is unethical and that there are many downsides to the genetic hacking proving that his negative opinion is made known.