Do we NEED genetic engineering?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Do you have any evidence on that? Genetic controls on sexual behavior support my position, what of yours?

[Darth Wong]

You dont seem to really get it.

All life is, is a series of chemical and electrical responses to stimulus. Your genetics, and conditioned responses, determine how your body rects to that stimuus.

How you interact with your surroundings is not predetermined. The mind is primarily a blank-slate, waiting for information to provide context.

It's easily programmable but it's not a blank slate. There are certain instinctive behaviours even from birth.

[ArmorPierce]

My problem with it is the same with when I compete against someone that is taking steroids (last time it was was back in highschool when I came second place at city champs to someone taking steroids). I may be working harder at something than the other person is but I'll still won't be able to beat him. In the long term of genetic engineering that wouldn't be as much of a problem but when it is first to be introduced there will be a lot of people that isn't genetically engineered and it would be very unfair.

[Howedar]

If fairness is the biggest problem with this, then by all means lets engineer everyone.

[Darth Wong]

My problem with it is the same with when I compete against someone that is taking steroids (last time it was was back in highschool when I came second place at city champs to someone taking steroids). I may be working harder at something than the other person is but I'll still won't be able to beat him. In the long term of genetic engineering that wouldn't be as much of a problem but when it is first to be introduced there will be a lot of people that isn't genetically engineered and it would be very unfair.

When the car first came out, it was very unfair to people without cars. The arguments being made to resist genetic engineering could be made against myriad technologies throughout history.

[ArmorPierce]

True, I'm probably am biased though as I hold resentment against people that were just handed everything in life while I had to work hard for it so I feel for the people that was born into shit that won't be able to get out of the shit since they have to compete with GE people and that can't afford it for themselves.

[Enforcer Talen]

if it becomes common, wont it become cheap? say, like laptops?

[The Third Man]

Genetic engineering as a substitute for Darwinian evolution?

Don't the two have different mechanisms? As I understand it Darwinian evolution works because of a widely diverse collection of traits, which may or may not come into their own and be favoured as the environment changes. The genetic engineering alternative would be to have less diversity, and engineer an ad-hoc response to environmental changes. This strikes me as risky - unless there would be some attempt to predict the environmental future, or maybe simultaneously modify the environment to suit the modified species.

You'd have to guarantee one or more of three things to convince me the GM-ing approach is safer:
1. That any and all environmental changes can be accurately predicted, in sufficient time to allow the implementation of a suitable genetic change.
2. That the environment can be modified to suit the species that is being created via GM, and that these moifications can be guaranteed to be sufficiently successful and permenant.
3. That in the event of an unplanned environmental change, or a failed environmental modification, a GM solution will be possible and can be implemented rapidly enough to cope.

Darwinian evolution hasn't collapsed in failure as a result of our meddling in the evolutionary process - admittedly, some traits aren't being selected for, as was pointed out (we can sustain people with medical conitions etc) but the diversity (and potential for it) is still there. This diversity is the insurance policy against environmental changes which we can't mitigate with our technology/intelligence. I would not be happy at all about putting control over this diversity into the hands of short-sighted humans.

[UltraViolence83]

Well, we may need it one day as we will only become weaker in all areas as the unfit genes do not die off as readily as they would back when we didn't have medicine. Keeping a watch out for myopia and other inherited troubles is a good thing.

Aside from that, I don't like it much. I harbor a disgust for almost all methods of 'artificial' enhancement like silicone and botox, and birthing kids with purple raver hair counts amoung my grievances. But hell, I'm not delusional. I know people are going to do it but that doesn't mean I have to like it or partake in it.

[Mayhem]

Human G.E. isn't likely to go beyond fixing obvious genetic defects for a very long period simply due to how much time it takes to map genes... after that they'll start working on the genes that make us more predisposed to cancer and other harmful conditions of similar nature... after that it'll move on to correcting things like eye-problems and other non-lethal but still obviously harmful traits... and after that they'll start on the silly stuff like making sure everyone has a full head of hair, or nice skin... he simple nature of the science involved means it's gonna be a slow and gradual process.


By the time ppl start deciding what hair color they want their kids to have the tech and practice is going to be so common that pretty much everyone will be able to afford it.


But back to the original question... do we need it? Dunno, but just as long as we don't go overboard and start trying to do more than correct obviously harmful defects and purely cosmetic stuff... it wouldn't hurt.

[UltraViolence83]

Good point, Mayhem.

Another thing that bothers me is that the person had no say in what it's parents do to the embryo. My perferred method is of this "vector" thing I've read about. Where they put the genes into virii and inject it into you. Gradually it takes over while you're alive (as opposed to not being born yet.) This would ensure that the people undertaking it at least have a say in it. They should have to be legal adults to use it for non-medical purposes; a responsibility thing, like tattoos or cosmetic surgery.


And hey, some people look good bald. I couldn't imagine Patrick Stewart without his trademark chrome-dome.

[Mayhem]

Hey, I am bald (and only 24) and think I look better chrome-domed than I did with hair... but it would have been nice if it'd been more of a choice y'know?

[UltraViolence83]

Hey, I am bald (and only 24) and think I look better chrome-domed than I did with hair... but it would have been nice if it'd been more of a choice y'know?

Yeah, no arguement there. Still, I just hate seeing vain people. I hate combovers. If you're bald then fuckin' SPORT it man! Have some dignity! (Not to you, just in general.)

See if I were bald I'd increase my intimidation factor by a high margin. Moreso if I were also black, as I am large.

Marcellus: "I'm gonna get medival on your ass."

[Crown]

So Mike, what changed your mind?

Or is this just an intellectual excerise?

[Baron Mordo]

When the car first came out, it was very unfair to people without cars. The arguments being made to resist genetic engineering could be made against myriad technologies throughout history.

Yeah, but a car never directly affected the performance of a human.

[InnerBrat]

Please excuse me jumping in so late (bloody timezones), but I want to address issues raised in the OP - mainly the concept of 'gene pool quality' on which your (Mike) argument appears to be based.

You talk about the worsening of the gene pool - which I would instantly contend. In biological terms, 'quality' of the gene pool is measured in terms of fitness and diveristy - fitness being defined as the ability to survive selection, and diversity being an important basis for long term fitness in an unpredictable environment.

Fitness is defined by selection, not improved by it. Anyone that is alive and breeds, is by definition, fit. If we change our environment so that an 'unfit' trait ceases to be a hinderence to survival, (such as inventing LASER eye surgery or insulin injections), we don't cause fitness to decrease, we change the parameters of Selection.

The only real way we can cause our gene pool to deteriorate is not thorugh altering the parameters of selection, (which is what medical science does) but by decreasing diversity. This is the major flaw in eugenicists' plans, and has the potential to be a major flaw in GM technologies - genetically similar organisms are very prone to epidemics - wasnt' there a blight that swpet through US corn a few years back? - or just look at the way computer virii tunnel their way througfh Micrcosoft networks.

I'm not against genetic technologies, by any means, but the loss of diveristy is a serious issue that should be kept in mind.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yes, the benefits this tech will bring us are untold and it will also give me a career.

[HemlockGrey]

I've always wondered...if a person, already alive and, say, twenty-six, got his genes modified to give him the aforementioned blue hair, would he start growing blue hair, or is it too late?

[Admiral Valdemar]

I've always wondered...if a person, already alive and, say, twenty-six, got his genes modified to give him the aforementioned blue hair, would he start growing blue hair, or is it too late?

Only the DNA in hair follicles on his scalp would need to be altered (CAREFULLY) for that to happen. The same way gene therapy of cystic fibrosis uses the CFTR virus to affect the necessary areas in the pulmonary system.

[Solamnus]

we are interfering with the process of evolution.

I have thought the same. But if a person would say this, of course there would be a giant backlash...perhaps even being accused of being a Nazi. Although I agree with your statement Mr. Wong.

However, the alternative (allowing nature to take its course, and employing a harsh, unforgiving, and brutal environment in order to eliminate children who are weak or who have learning disabilities) is unacceptable to a moral people. Therefore, the development of genetic engineering technology is a moral imperative if we are to avoid progressive deterioration of our gene pool in developed nations.

I agree. Yes genetic engineering *can* be used for evil purposes, but so can a great multitude of technologies. On a personal note, I have diabetes, Cycstic Fibrosis, and elevated liver enzymes (it could be cirrosis (sp?)). I am 26 years old and pretty damn healthy because in spite of the complications. However, I do not want to have children because I do not with to pass on the genes. Of course, that does not mean my children will have my problems, but I feel I am saving my desendents major problems by not having any to begin with. If they could genetically engineer cures and eliminate disease for similar situations like my own, I think it is worth while.

[kojikun]

Do you have any evidence on that? Genetic controls on sexual behavior support my position, what of yours?

In flies. As I said, Aly, flies do not have conscious knowledge of sex, they just fuck whatever theyre programmed to fuck. if humans are the same, then there needs to be a chemical means of identifying what were supposed fuck. Thats why i said you dont pop out of a vagina longing for dick, you long for inherently male chemicals like testosterone. The fact that youre gay comes about by associating testosterone with dick. If you were surrounded by females but were receiving inherently male chemical signals, you would associate those signals will FEMALES and be straight. Its associative (pablovian) conditioning, but on a more basic and intrinsic level.

[LordShaithis]

Quote of the day:

The fact that youre gay comes about by associating testosterone with dick.

LOL

[kojikun]

Quote of the day:

The fact that youre gay comes about by associating testosterone with dick.

LOL

Its true tho! If you grew up craving testosterone, but only found testosterone around women and their vaginas, you can bet that youll be craving vagina, because thats where the testosterone was. But then, when you go out into the world and find guys with testosterone, you're going to be a confused little boy. Which might explain why some bisexual people have sexual attractions that differ from their emotional ones. Then there would be bisexual people that are attracted to both testosterone and estrogen but in varying amounts for each. Then there would be people attracted to neither, or to something entirely different. Who knows.

But my point was, Prawn, that it has to be chemical in origin, psychological in practice, because Testosterone != Teh Cock.

[Rye]

Well innerbrat interjected with what i wanted to state..so i'll just say my opinions on

we are interfering with evolution

Well...i don't think we are. We evolved to have this capacity for self change. We are products of our evolution and where we take it will just be more evolution, no matter how we do it.

[Master of Ossus]

How do you know this scenario is true? If genetic engineering to correct problems becomes commonplace, it would be covered by health insurance plans, thus producing entire nations which are smarter and healthier.

But theres always going to be people who refuse to be modified. Some people wont even eat GM food and they already partake in terrorist actions. You can bet that a shitload of people will fight tooth and nail to preevnt GM people.

There's people now who refuse to allow their children to be educated or innoculated against diseases. They will eventually die out, and their genes will eventually disappear (as well as their way of life). While in the short term they will be far worse off, in the long term they will be nonexistent.

True, but its not just a disparity of power, its a social conflict resulting from people refusing to let their children be tampered with. Can you honestly say that everyone will be GMed? Or that non-GM people will be hired in place of clearly superior GM people? I can imagine it now, "Not hiring sub-150 IQ" or "No health risks hired".

First of all, the IQ scale is weighted so that no matter how smart people become, the median score will always be 100. Do you know that people in the US today who score a 70 on the IQ test would have tested at 100 at the turn of the century? Moreover, the fact that they would face difficulty in getting jobs is irrelevant. That's why they should have submitted to GM.

People get fired today for being hospitalized too frequently, what'll happen when companies dont need to pay medical? Or when they can hire smarter people for the same money? Theres going to be a shitstorm between pissed of and fearful non-modified people and modified people. The only problem is, while in schools the nerds are picked on cause they're weak, the modified people will be stronger then the bullies.

And this strikes you as a problem?

Surely, Mike, you've wished to kick the shit out of some dumb fuck who thinks hes better then you, but didnt cause he could probably break your arm in two like it was childs play, right? Everyone has. But the mods will be able to fight back, and they will. Theres going to be hell from genetic modification, and the mods wont back down. They'll be scapegoated but unlike scapegoats of the past they wont be helplessly herded into traincars, theyll fight back.

Did you know that there are people who are smart and popular? Did you know there are people who are strong and smart? Just because GM'ed people will have advantages over non-GM'ed people does not mean that GMing is bad.

I would argue that genetic engineering could remove every single disparity of power that may exist between members of the human species, rendering all such arguments over such disparities effectively irrelevant.

Could, yes. Will, no. You think fundies or PETA or ELF or half the planet that thinks gentic engineering is bad will allow their kids to be engineered? No, they won't, they'll fight it.

It doesn't matter. This is the way of natural selection.