Team:Toulouse/ethics

From 2014.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
Line 125: Line 125:
-
<p class="title1">Human intervention in the nature/p>
+
<p class="title1">Human intervention in the nature</p>
<p class="texte">The main question would be to understand the purpose of taking actions in nature. Does the mankind have the proper right to operate in nature? </p>
<p class="texte">The main question would be to understand the purpose of taking actions in nature. Does the mankind have the proper right to operate in nature? </p>
<p class="texte" style="text-align:center"><B> The nature </B>
<p class="texte" style="text-align:center"><B> The nature </B>
Line 151: Line 151:
 +
<p class="texte" style="text-align:center"><B> Natural and artificial</B>
 +
</p>
 +
 +
 +
<p class="texte">Talking about the nature refers to the whole world with an exception: all the transformations made by mankind. Thus, the nature consists in the real without all the artificial elements created by humans. The nature is existing regardless of men and his interventions whereas artificial is everything that exists thanks to humans.
 +
However, pretending that natural and artificial are opposite does not seem to be true. Indeed, when a man creates something it becomes possible to discover naturel elements. Man cannot create without elements provided by the nature, he is just transforming the nature, changing the shape.</p>
 +
 +
<p class="texte"><I><CENTER>Thus we may wonder: is there a true difference between natural and artificial?</I></CENTER></p>
 +
<p class="texte">Men already changed nature: they are surrounded by animals and plants which are not wild anymore. So can we still consider them as natural? They come from human wishes and not from natural selection, so what is the limit between natural and artificial? An important aspect for us is the ability to think about the involvements of their choice regarding changes in environment for example in our project. </p>
 +
<p class="texte"><I><CENTER>One question can be asked: isn’t it our duty to use our unique position in the history of life and our human approach to try to replace the evolutive processes?</I></CENTER></p>
 +
<p class="texte">By all means, the natural world and its organization would be drastically changed to reduce the different kind of pain that the organisms can feel such as the infection of Ceratocystis platani with the plane trees. Indeed, promoting the idea that even non-human organisms pain in the nature is a serious ethical problem becomes a major goal to be taken care of. Furthermore, cancer, depression, malaria are natural results of evolutive processes that we consider to be life threatening and we need to fight. Why would it not be the same for our plane trees? It becomes ethicaly intolerable to realize the cruelty of the nature for the plants and our purpose is to encourage people to realize this.</p>
 +
<p class="texte">Of course, men are responsible for their mistakes such as the introduction of Ceratocytis platani and should fix it by any way. But is it too stupid to think that nature will respond to this threat? Since ages nature was able to keep its balance, if one specie dies another takes the place. So if all plane-trees die by this disease, there will be another species which will be able to take up this ecological niche. This project just shows the wish of humanity to interfere in the nature. </p>
     </div>
     </div>

Revision as of 11:40, 12 October 2014