This thought started with a jellyfish.

Not just any jellyfish, but Turritopsis dohrnii – the so-called “immortal jellyfish.”
When most creatures face injury, hunger, or age, they decline. This one does the opposite.
It reverts its cells back to a youthful state in a process called transdifferentiation, essentially pressing a biological reset button and starting life over again. In theory, it can repeat this forever.

Scientists study it not just out of fascination, but because it hints at something profound. The possibility of regenerative medicine and the slowing of human aging. The jellyfish is nature’s proof that complete cellular renewal is possible.

That’s where the conversation shifts.
What the jellyfish does naturally, stem cell research is trying to replicate. And with that goal comes one of the most polarizing debates in modern ethics.

Where Curiosity Meets Controversy

Stem cell research holds extraordinary promise: regenerating organs, curing paralysis, reversing degenerative diseases. But some forms, especially those involving embryonic stem cells, are met with fierce moral opposition.

For some, the debate ends at a single statement: “My faith doesn’t allow it.”
That’s the end of the discussion – not because all sides were weighed, but because faith was used as a wall against further thought.

And this, I believe, is where immorality begins.

Immorality as the Refusal to Think

Immorality isn’t about whether you’re religious or not. It’s about how you engage with ideas.
A moral person – religious or otherwise – remains open to questioning, reflecting, and considering other perspectives. Faith can be deeply held and still live in harmony with curiosity.

But when faith becomes an excuse to turn a blind eye, it stops being a source of moral guidance and starts being a barrier to it.

Our brains are built for curiosity. Evolution gave us the ability to imagine, reason, and empathize; tools no other species wields in the same way. Having the ability to ask questions gives us the responsibility to use it. Not constantly, but especially when moral dilemmas demand more than blind allegiance.

Faith can inspire kindness, but inquisitiveness ensures that kindness is applied consistently, even when uncomfortable.
Blind allegiance seeks to preserve belief.
Inquisitiveness seeks to preserve humanity.

The Moral Duty of Curiosity

If life is a circle – a constant flow of transformation – then thought is how we keep that circle unbroken. The spark of life, whatever it is, doesn’t disappear when it changes form. Just like the jellyfish reshapes itself to begin again, we can reshape our understanding when we allow new ideas in.

The greatest danger isn’t in people believing different things. It’s in people choosing not to think at all. Because when the door to thought closes, cruelty can walk through unchallenged, justified by the comfort of never having to question.

The immortal jellyfish shows us that regeneration is possible in nature.
Human morality can work the same way.
We can reset our thinking, let go of the walls we’ve built, and choose to engage again.

It’s not about discarding faith.
It’s about holding whatever we believe with open hands and open eyes.
Because the ability to ask questions is not just a gift, it’s a duty.