A Quote by Robert Lanza

I do not think that there is a reputable scientist on this planet who would advocate using this technology to generate a human child as was just announced. — © Robert Lanza
I do not think that there is a reputable scientist on this planet who would advocate using this technology to generate a human child as was just announced.
We need to be very well aware of the fact that China and Russia are using technology to attack us, just as ISIS is using technology to recruit those who would murder American citizens.
I love using the latest technologies to make life more efficient, but I don't want to advocate that technology replaces the need to get together and enjoy human connections with people.
Using virtual world, a scientist in Japan can conduct an experiment using a special facility in California, watching the entire thing via a live stream - and possibly controlling the experimental equipment remotely. We can use that same kind of technology to control a robot on Mars.
Science and technology have amplified the effects of the dysfunction of the human mind in its unawakened state to such a degree that humanity, and probably the planet, would not survive for another hundred years if human consciousness remains unchanged.
People represent their constituencies and have particular interests based on who they are and the experiences that have formed them. You don't have to be a child to be an advocate for children. You don't have to be a woman to be an advocate for women. You don't have to be Hispanic to be an advocate for Hispanics.
I think it's amazing when technology is used in a smart way, but the responsibility that comes with it... I think there's a lot of technology that we're using that we haven't thought through. It's a bit scary to put all your trust in technology and to think that that's what going to save us. We're going to have to make some compromises.
The process to generate energy using the Canadian tar sands is particularly dirty, producing one of the most noxious fossil fuels on the planet and leaving a devastated landscape in its wake.
All art is dependent on technology because it's a human endeavour, so even when you're using charcoal on a wall or designed the proscenium arch, that's technology.
All art is dependent on technology because it's a human endeavour , so even when you're using charcoal on a wall or designed the proscenium arch, that's technology .
Since I stayed in a colony where either one was an engineer or a scientist, everybody thought I would be a scientist. This was the expectation everybody had apart from my parents. Honestly, I, too, wanted to be a scientist. I think it was the way Dad would explain us scientific theories and concepts that made the subject more intriguing.
The general public doesn't know and probably doesn't care about punctuated equilibria nor indeed should they, or the greenhouse effect on some other planet - they barely have the ability to cope with the greenhouse effect on their own planet. So I think you have to distinguish between the broad visibility of a scientist when he or she is speaking to a general public and trying to address general issues and the continued position that a scientist may have into the history of a particular subject.
Isn’t every human being both a scientist and an artist; and in writing of human experience, isn’t there a good deal to be said for recognizing that fact and for using both methods?
Let's just say that if these scientist had been using their brilliance for good instead of evil, cars would run off water vapor and leave fresh compost behind them; no one would be hungry; no one would be ill; all buildings would be earthquake-, bomb-, and flood-proof; and the world's entire economy would have collapsed and been replaced by one based on the value of chocolate.
The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.
If I could relive my life, what I would do is work with scientists. But not one scientist, because they're locked into their little specializations. I'd go from scientist to scientist to scientist, like a bee goes from flower to flower.
When I was a child of four I wasn't really drawing like a child, I wasn't sketching as a child. I would sketch and I was using perspective, the good relationship of the subject.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!