I really like this topic, as both sides have very valid arguments. However, when it comes down to it, I think the "Save your money!" option wins out for me. As mentioned in a previous post, it'd probably be more wise to invest in local produce rather than specifically organic. If the local produce is organic, then more power to you. However, you must consider shipping and other such things when looking at buying organic foods.

Also, if you bring genetically engineered foods into the conversation, the topic gets a lot more interesting. I have an acquaintance who is a strong advocate for GE'd foods, and can prove that the arguments against them are essentially false or baseless. Humans have been genetically engineering for a very long time. Selective breeding of animals, crops, and what have you are all genetic engineering in their most basic form. The difference with GE'd foods is that it's done in one swift step rather than many steps over generations.

If grains, vegetables, etc. can be genetically engineered to be larger, drought resistant, healthier, and contain more vitamins, then it should be done, in my opinion. It could help solve world hunger issues (which is a WHOLE other topic entirely), among many other things.

Here is a link to the wikipedia article on Genetically Engineered foods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Debate_around_ the_world

I'm not sure if something is missing. If it's anything, it's the ability to think clearly and independently. As a child I went to Sunday school, but one day I just got tired of it and asked if I could stop going, and my mother said "Sure." So, I stopped going. This didn't prevent me from believing in god, but what it did do was, over time, allow me to realize how ridiculous religion can be.

Over the course of time that Humans have been on this planet, Earth, there have been COUNTLESS amounts of religions. Most of the time, a person is brought up in a religion against their will, unknowingly accepting it without having a chance to fight or feel the need to exercise their ability to choose on their own. Some people will profess that their child was given a choice of what they want to believe in as a kid, but this is very hard to determine. A child will naturally want to copy the actions of their role models. If the person they look up to goes to church every Sunday, or bows to Mecca five times a day, they will want to do that as well, even if they are asked if they don’t want to. Once that seed has been planted and starts to grow, it can be hard to stop. It's like an addiction, almost. Without knowing if there is a god, you get withdrawal and begin to undergo a mental change that can be painful and hard to let go of, or at least worrying to you, not to mention your loved ones who still probably believe in god and are unwilling to accept your belief. I can’t say that last sentence stands true for me because my family knows what I believe, and we’re all very open and have our own individual beliefs, just as any person should be able to.

For all practical reasons, I am agnostic. At this point in time it is impossible for us to determine whether god is real or not, regardless of what some people say (on both sides). It is impossible to prove or disprove with any amount of scientific/tangible accuracy the existence of god. The universe is a very mysterious and confusing place, but over the centuries us humans have been doing the best we can to unravel it. We get further everyday, but like a point on an expanding balloon, the end seems to drift away in all directions, no matter where you are on it.

This question is a bit too open to address completely. What are the two "species" prevailing against? An asteroid hitting the planet? Simple uneventful life for the rest of eternity? There needs to be more criteria for me to have a solid vote on either side. However, in lieu of such information, it is my choice to vote for Humans.

I vote for humans mainly because we have a higher chance of surviving disasters. There are a couple points to consider with this in mind:

1. We know how to reproduce, communicate, learn, feed/energize ourselves innately. This means that we know how to do these things naturally. Of course, living in different environments changes our behaviour and knowledge level, e.g. people who live in the suburbs their whole life without camping MAY not have natural instincts on what food is appropriate to eat in the wild (what might kill you if you eat it) or how to hunt. However, in a disaster situation, we all come together as one unit and operate in ways we never have before for the sole purpose of survival.

A robot must be programed by something. Unless the creator of the robot teaches it how to do all the things we know how to do instinctually, then in a disaster a robot will continue to do whatever it does without batting an eye, presuming it has one.

2. A robot can easily be killed by an electromagnetic pulse. Yes, there are many things that can kill humans, but a lot of them can also kill robots. Robots cannot get a disease, but, like before, unless they are programmed to self-cure any virus or malfunctioning hardware, then they lose.

3. Power source. Robots need an input, and you can exactly find a power source input anywhere. Again, assuming a disaster situation, a robot would eventually need to plug itself in somewhere. Unless it is incredibly lucky and finds (assuming it knows how to find and recognize things) an entry to a building open and can access a plug inside it, then its days are numbered.

My whole argument hinges on the fact that a robot needs to be programmed to do something. With a robot, currently, there isn't any learning curve, at least not the type of learning we see in humans. It is true that there are robots out there being programmed with very sophisticated code that lets the robot learn, but what they learn is very limited, and mirrors things humans take for granted.

I will happily change my vote when robots reach the state to solve all the issues I have addressed (and no doubt I haven't mentioned plenty of other things that could be considered), but in the current state of affairs in the case of Robot VS Humans, I vote Humans. Remember, I'm talking current technology, not Matrix technology.

Also, if anything I typed up is false or inaccurate, do not hesitate to address it.