Originally posted by CP5670
Yeah, it need to be emotionally appealing, but the nice thing in this case is that those who refuse to accept the new system will end up falling up behind and will be unable to compete. 
The old "once you've opened up Pandora's box..." argument. Imagine if somebody refused to use cars, like the most orthodox Mormons do - and as a result, you don't see them as a dominant force in, well, anything. The same priniciple can be applied to other technological creations and I have no doubt that unless (and probably in spite of) strenuous regulation of the cloning and biotech sectors is employed, it will prove no different. CP would find his views expressed to an extent in the film
Gattaca; an ordinary person in a world where people have moved beyond the ordinary would have to work very hard just to keep pace with their 'normality'.
Regarding what you said about what was natural, I assume that your line of argument is that since the dawn of our species humans seem to have had an innate ability and drive to innovate, create tools and use them. Therefore, the construction of spaceships, cloning technology or ball-point pens is just an extension of that first innate ability, and is therefore a product of 'nature'. Am I correct (or at least on the right lines?)
It occurs to me, CP, that we're not so different. I can see the merits of what you're saying with regard to manipulation of people's minds through propaganda, improving people's bodies, the fact that overarching society will crush inviduality, and even the criticisms of nihilism. However, the difference is that I'm still unwilling to accept them as the only option, or the best option. Perhaps you view my priorities and motivations as being in the wrong place, but at least I can understand your views to an extent - even if I disagree with them strongly on moral and ideological grounds.
I'm not saying that to start an argument - just observing it.
