Some contemporary technologies seem to open new and deeply troubling ethical issues, issues of a kind that humankind has never had to address before. The emerging technology of genetic engineering, for instance, creates the prospect our designing our own children and turning humanity itself into a kind of artifact. Some authors seem to welcome this prospect, but others believe that we are at a crossroads that requires that we relinquish the opportunity to acquire the knowledge that would enable us to create such a brave new world. Others believe that we can place reasonable limits on how biotechnology and genetic engineering will be employed on human beings that will allow some uses but prohibit others. Genetic engineering of plants and some animal species is already in widespread use, and it may already be impossible to put this particular genie back in the bottle. Hans Jonas believes that technologies such as the capability to alter nature in fundamental ways should be approached with a sense of long-range responsibility and, above all, a sense of humility.

We are such social animals that we are completely preoccupied with what others think about us. The social pressure to conform involves being valued by the group because, after all, most success is really defined by what others think. This preoccupation is all too evident in our modern celebrity culture, and especially with the rise of social networking, where normal individuals spend considerable amounts of time and effort in pursuit of recognition from others. Over 1.7 billion people on this planet use social networking on the Internet to share and seek validation from others. When Rachel Berry, a character in a hit musical series about a performing-arts school, said Nowadays being anonymous is worse than being poor, she was simply echoing our modern obsession with fame and our desire to be liked by many people - even if they are mostly anonymous or casual acquaintances.

According to one theory, within certain limits the more similar the communicators are, the more effective their communication will be. One limiting condition is that if the similarities between people are so pervasive that they have the same attitudes and beliefs about every subject, there is no need for communication. For example, the dull conversation might be dull at a party in which every person was in agreement about every subject from movies to politics. On the other hand, people who are dissimilar in almost every respect lack a common ground, a base from which to share experiences and exchange ideas. According to this theory, the ideal situation is one in which people have many similarities but are dissimilar enough in their attitudes about the subject at hand to interact and perhaps to influence one another's attitudes. Similarity clearly prevails, however. After all, the goal of attitude influence is to change the other person's attitude so that it more closely resembles your own.