Want this question answered?
determine exactly what the conclusion is
One argument: Evolution is caused by a need to adapt to the world around it. It is fair to say that in a society so advanced that its technology allows human beings to live on Mars, 99-100 percent of people will be able to reach the stage of reproduction and bring up a child. In such a society, the concept of 'survival of the fittest' will be rendered obsolete and therefore so will evolution.
no Yes It depends on your definition of ethical. Is it unethical to clone cattle for food? Is it unethical to clone mice for pharmaceutical study? Opponents say "it's playing God", but they said that about almost every medical advancement from birth control pills to heart transplants, and even to genetically-modified foods. (Humans have been genetically modifying food and animals forever through selective breeding. In-vitro and DNA manipulation simply speeds up the process). Why would or should cloning humans be any different? Identical twins are a result of cloning in the womb. Take religion out of the picture and you would have a hard time making the unethical argument. What would be unethical would be cloning for spare parts. If the cloned person was treated no differently than a twin, a complete human person, then where is the problem?
Yes. Even though Darwin called the Origin " one long " argument " the book was well supported by the evidence of the day and gave ways to falsify the material in the book,. hypothesis for testing and predictions on what would be found that turned out to be quite accurate. So, scientific.
Because every argument they make in support of creationism / denial of evolution is demonstrably false.
Using cell phones while driving
It depends on how you relate to him during times of a non argument. If he usually iniates contact then after an argument will be no different. Keep in mind it could be hours, days, weeks, etc but if has ever or currently does care he will contact you.
Industrialists' support for technology benefited the economy.
Industrialists' support for technology benefited the economy.
Industrialists' support for technology benefited the economy.
Industrialists' support for technology benefited the economy.
Industrialists' support for technology benefited the economy.
Carr's main argument is that as the ubiquity of information technology grows, and costs lessen, the overall advantage decreases. He originally published his argument in the Harvard Business Review, and it caused a backlash from those who disagreed.
I think the argument can be made that EVERY modern dog breed has been created/"genetically altered"/specifically bred soley to benefit humans. Every dog breed has evolved to suit someone's role in life, such as: guarding, herding, hunting, companion, etc.
Yes. I agree that it is a valid argument. But then it is the usage rather than the terchnology. This way one can argue about any technology. Automobiles kill tens of thousands of people every year all over the world. One has to control the usage of technology in a proper environment and responsibly.
A counter argument is an argument made against another argument.
It could be said that the burden of technology is that once something has been invented or discovered it cannot be "uninvented" or "undiscovered" again. This argument has been used in the description of atomic and nuclear weapons. As much as we might like to uninvent them, we simply cannot. Technology cannot be re-gressed, it must always PROgress, and that is what makes it a burden.