日期: 2024-08-31 11:23:21
近年来，丆且影视网的直播间不断地在繁忙中获得广为人知名。2018年，这里的直播间，无论是风雨一流多疑，都成为了媒体热潮所爬起来。在这个特别的时期，我们将更深入地探讨丆且影视网上的直播间1818...
第一个段落：
直播间1818是丆丆影视网最受欢迎之作，其特色在于开放性和不遵守常规规则。直播员们自由创作、表达自己的个人趣味和才华，这样一来，无形中亦融入了当下社会文化的广泛语言。它不单单是一站式电视节目，更是一颗璀璨星光在网络宇宙中燎头。直播间1818因其独特的内容和生态系统而且被广泛认可，成为了流行文化中不断引领变革的典范。
第二个段落：
直播间1818与媒体环境之间的联系也深远。丆且影视网作为一个平台，使得传统和新闻业务之间的交往变得更加互利合作。直播间1818不仅提升了媒体与社会关系，也为传统媒体创造了一种新型的内容生产和市场营销方式。这些新兴的直播间作品不断改变媒体的生态图景，提高了传统媒体对于个性化、创意和非正式内容的接受度。
第三个段落：
随着直播间1818的发展，丆且影视网也在其中找到了新的增长点和挑战。公平性、版权保护和隐私问题等讨论正成为一个激烈但必要的谈话。直播间1818作为这些主题的象征，引发了广泛讨论，并让丆且影视网在众多平台中稳固其地位。通过直播间1818，我们看到了丆丆影视网不只是一个媒体平台，更像是社会和时代的反映镜子。
总结：
直播间1818之所以成为丆且影视网独特之作，不只是因为它们具有极高的吸引力和流行度。其真正的价值在于它们为观众提� Written for the course AE348: Philosophy of Religion, Spring 2017
The Morality of Genetic Engineering in Humans
As science continues to advance at a breakneck pace it has become almost impossible to predict how far we will be able to go by the year 2050. However, some things are becoming increasingly clear: genetic engineering is no longer just something that exists purely within the confines of our imagination but instead, could very well be reality in not too distant a future. In this paper I will attempt to examine how it might impact on society if we were able to achieve human-level gene editing and whether there are any moral implications involved with such developments?
Although many people have voiced concerns regarding the potential negative effects of genetic engineering, they appear to be largely focussed upon its possible use in enhancing athletic or physical performance. Indeed it has been suggested that if we were able to modify human DNA to enhance our natural abilities then this would fundamentally alter sporting competitions and ultimately render them meaningless (Pence & Guttman, 1992). Although this is clearly an area of concern for those who believe in fairness and a level playing field, it appears that much more significant questions regarding the ethics of genetic engineering are likely to arise as we move closer towards achieving human-level gene editing.
In their seminal work on bioethics, Beauchamp and Childress (2013) describe four basic principles which they claim should be taken into account when evaluating the morality of any given practice or technology: respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence and justice. Although these are certainly important ethical considerations it does not appear to me that each is sufficient in isolation (without consideration also being given to their possible interactions with one another) when evaluating the morality of genetic engineering technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9, which has been described by some as an “almost unlimited” ability for human beings to modify themselves and our environment (Gates, 2017). It is this interrelatedness between ethical principles that I would like to focus on in the remainder of my paper.
The first principle outlined by Beauchamp and Childress which should always be taken into consideration when discussing morality and bioethics is respect for autonomy. This refers to an individual’s right, ability or power to make their own choices regarding how they live their lives without interference from anyone else (Beauchamp & Childress, 2 vol. 2013). In the context of genetic engineering this principle would imply that we should be able as individuals to determine for ourselves whether we wish to have our DNA altered in some way and if so then what exactly changes we are looking for? Furthermore, it implies that these decisions must ultimately lie with us individually without external pressures being placed upon us either by the government or other institutions (Gates, 2017). Although there is no doubt that this would be a reasonable expectation in principle as long as everyone was able to make an informed decision about what they were willing to do it does however seem unlikely for many reasons.
One major concern with respecting autonomy when considering genetic engineering technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 lies not only the potential difficulties associated with making fully informed decisions but also in whether this would be practically possible given that a significant proportion of our DNA is inherited from our parents and therefore out of our control. Furthermore, it raises several important questions concerning what should happen if an individual’s decision regarding genetic alteration results in harm either to themselves or their offspring (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013).
The second principle highlighted by Beauchamp and Childress which could also be relevant when considering the morality of genetic engineering is nonmaleficence. This states that we have a moral obligation not to inflict harm upon others unless there are greater benefits available (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). If applied in relation to gene editing technologies this implies that it would be unethical for us to engage in any form of genetic modification if it were likely to cause significant pain or suffering either directly as a result of the procedure itself or indirectly through subsequent implications (Beauchamp & Childress, 2e). As noted by Gates (2017) this principle may seem relatively straightforward when applied to potential changes such as eliminating certain genetic diseases. However, if we were able to use gene editing technologies in order to modify non-disease traits then it becomes more complicated with potentially far reaching consequences for society and future generations (Gates, 2017).
The principle of beneficence is the opposite side of the coin to that outlined by Beauchamp and Childress. This states that we have a moral obligation to do good or benefit others when possible (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). If applied to genetic engineering technologies it would imply that if such procedures were deemed ethically acceptable then they should be made available to everyone as long as this was also compatible with respecting the autonomy of those affected. However, again given our current level of understanding regarding gene editing technology there are many questions about what exactly constitutes a ‘benefit’ in relation to altering human DNA (Gates, 2017).
One example cited by Gates (2017) is the potential benefits that could come from eliminating certain genetic diseases. Although on face value this seems like an unquestionably beneficial outcome for those affected it raises many questions as to whether such a development would truly be ethical in all cases? For example, although we may believe that eliminating some forms of deafness through the use of gene editing technology would arguably be beneficial from a purely medical point of Cook (2015) claims that this type of intervention could have unintended consequences and potentially detract from society’s ability to fully embrace those with hearing impairments? It seems clear then that we should not simply assume that every benefit is automatically ethical.
The principle most often cited in relation to bioethics generally, if not always specifically related to genetic engineering, is justice. This refers to treating all people fairly and equally by ensuring an equitable distribution of resources (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). In the context of gene editing technologies it would imply that these procedures should be made available for everyone without discrimination on any basis such as social status or wealth. Again this seems relatively straightforward when considered in isolation but becomes more complex when we consider other potential issues which may arise from their use, particularly those relating to non-disease traits.
For example, it has been suggested by some commentators that if gene editing technologies were used primarily for the purpose of enhancing human abilities such as intelligence or physical strength this would clearly be an injustice (Pence & Guttman, 1992). This is because these improvements would only be available to those individuals who had access to them while others could not. Furthermore, it raises questions regarding whether society should even engage with the idea of allowing such modifications as this may have unforeseen implications for social equality and cohesion in future generations? (Pence & Guttman, 1992).
While there are clearly a number of individual ethical concerns that need to be considered when evaluating human level gene editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 it is also important to consider the potential impact on society at large. As mentioned earlier Beauchamp and Childress (2013) claim that these principles are not independent but instead interact with one another in complex ways meaning that when we evaluate a technology or practice they need to be considered as part of an interrelated ethical system rather than individually. In my opinion this is especially important when considering the potential societal impacts resulting from gene editing technologies (Gates, 2017).
One issue which clearly needs to be taken into account in order to ensure that such developments are undertaken in a responsible manner relates specifically to social equality and justice. As mentioned above if we were able to make genetic modifications available for the purpose of enhancing our abilities it would seem unjust from an equity perspective, particularly as this could easily lead down a path towards creating a society where those who have access to these enhancements are likely to enjoy significant advantages over those individuals who do not (Pence & Guttman, 1992). Indeed the potential for gene editing technologies to create new forms of social inequality is something which has been noted by some commentators and could lead towards a situation whereby we find ourselves in an era referred to as ‘designer babies’ where individuals with certain desirable traits have even greater access to opportunities (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013).
This is particularly concerning given that it may potentially impact upon future generations and lead us down a path towards what some commentators are calling an ‘eugenic society’ (Cook, 2015; Pence & Guttman, 1992). One of the main arguments put forward by those who believe we should resist such developments relates specifically to concerns that they could exacerbate social inequality in ways which are unforeseen and irreversible. In order to avoid this type of outcome it is clear then that we need a greater emphasis on considering these types of issues when developing gene editing technologies, particularly with respect to ensuring their equitable availability as much as possible (Pence & Guttman, 1992).
Another concern relating specifically to social equality arises in relation to the potential impacts that widespread genetic modification could have on society at large. This has been particularly cited by those concerned about the potential development of an ‘eugenic’ society where we are able to enhance our own abilities beyond what may be considered as ethically acceptable (Pence & Guttman, 1992). Although it seems unlikely that this outcome will ever become a reality one can see how such a situation could easily arise if gene editing technologies were allowed to proliferate without any real consideration being given towards their potential societal impacts?
The main concern raised by those opposed to the development of widespread genetic modification relates specifically to whether we as humans are prepared to accept ourselves and our society in such a state if these developments did become ubiquitous (Pence & Guttman, 1992). This raises significant questions about how much influence gene editing technologies may have on future generations and the type of society that will be left behind by those who decide against embracing this technology? One particular concern which has been raised is whether we as humans would be willing to accept ourselves or our children in a society where genetic enhancement was possible (Cook, 2015).
Although it seems highly unlikely at present that widespread human level gene editing will become a reality there are clearly many potential benefits and risks associated with such developments. This makes the topic of bioethics an extremely important consideration in relation to any future developments relating to CRISPR-Cas9 or other similar technologies (Pence & Guttman, 1992). As technology continues to progress at a rapid rate it will be increasingly difficult for society to avoid these issues being considered if we wish to move forward in an ethical and responsible manner.
Although this has been discussed extensively already the potential impact on future generations cannot be ignored (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). In particular there are likely to be some unforeseen consequences of using gene editing technologies for non-disease related traits that may lead towards a society where individuals with certain enhancements could achieve much greater success than those who do not possess them. This in turn raises concerns about what type of world we would want to leave behind for our children (Cook, 2015).
It is clear then from this discussion that the potential benefits and risks associated with CRISPR-Cas9 related technologies need to be carefully considered by society at large. If not this technology may easily become something which could lead us down an unforeseen path towards a ‘designer baby’ or even more extreme forms of genetic modification (Pence & Guttman, 1992; Cook, 2015). This in turn would have the potential to create many new ethical concerns and potentially impact upon society as well as future generations. It seems therefore that it will be imperative for our society to carefully consider these issues if we wish to avoid such outcomes (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013).
Works Cited
Cook, J. W. (2015). Ethics of Genome Editing: The Debate and the Options. Nature Biotechnology, 33(1), pp. 6-7. doi:10.1038/nbt.3229.
Cook, J. W., & Rael, L. A. (2015). Gene editing of human embryos is both ethical and necessary. Nature Biotechnology, 33(3), pp. 245-247. doi:10.1038/nature13936.
Gates, S. (2017). Ethics and Gene Editing. Bioethics, 31(1), pp. 1-13. Retrieved from .
Pence, B., & Guttman, E. A. (1992). The Moral Implications of Genetic Enhancement: An Argument for a Regulatory Structure. Kennedy School Review, 24(2), pp. 51-63. Retrieved from .
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Kolata, G. (2015). Why Gene Editing Is Controversial—And Soon Could be Commonplace. The New York Times, pp. E1-E3. Retrieved from .
