ISSUE 2: OCTOBER 30, 2019
October 30, 2019
2 Responses to “ISSUE 2: OCTOBER 30, 2019”
Thank you for adding your voice to the conversation. Please note that all comments are moderated. Metea Media will not publish comments if they contain the following:
▸ Rude or obscene language (i.e. swear words, sexual jokes, violent threats, etc.)
▸ Hate speech (i.e. racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.)
▸ Insults towards a specific student or a teacher
▸ Content that is irrelevant to the article or does not add to the discussion
▸ Submitting comments under somebody else's name
Refer to the student handbook for further specifics on what is considered appropriate.
The Social Media Editor will read and evaluate all comments. Should there be any issues with a particular comment, the Social Media Editor will consult the newspaper adviser and Online Editor-in-Chief.
If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.
This was quite the well written stampede. Happy Halloween!
uh gmo food isn’t unhealthy?
What’s the difference between growing out of the Earth, which is made of chemicals, and being fed those chemicals directly. While farmers are incentivized by profit, safety could still be a priority, and the government does regulate it, as far as I know. Isn’t tlike soy the only GMO? I don’t think there’s anyone out there making GMO apples.
Ward claims that it’s healthy to assume that if something still has an element of random chance, it’s morally okay. Obviously, you don’t mean that drunk driving is okay. I usually think of morality as benefit and harm: under this definition, I don’t see how morality can, in any way, be implied by randomness. In fact, if you had a 50% chance of saving someone’s life, or a 100% chance of saving someone’s life, the moral choice is obvious. Similarly, it shouldn’t make a difference whether a process is natural or not — if one helps more people, then it’s more moral. A natural thing *might* help more people or have less harm, but it’s not a logically necessary.
Also, how would saving the Wooly Mammoth be beneficial to today’s ecosystems? Though I agree that a) it would be cool and b) de-extinction in general might be helpful.
Regarding cloning humans, if it costs nearly 2 million, then no one would do it in the first place. If 2 million dollars are wasted, that isn’t a moral failing, that’s just a bad financial decision (which might be bad if it were funded by the government, though). The other reasons make sense though.
I’m pretty sure we invented bananas in their current form before GMOs. I don’t this is any different than fruit domestication in general. Unfortunately, IIRC bananas are all sort of clones of each other since they don’t have seeds, which could be dangerous if a plant disease killed off all the bananas, but I’m pretty sure that has nothing to do with GMOs.
Regarding writing, I think you don’t have to use different words every time, if you’re talking about a specific topic (cloning).