Do we NEED genetic engineering?

[Master of Ossus]

Can you actually demonstrate that as a species, we've got weaker because we've got more of us surviving?

Strawman. "As a species" has nothing to do with it. On average, an individual is weaker than he would be if the weak individuals were allowed to die off.

[Rye]

Can you actually demonstrate that as a species, we've got weaker because we've got more of us surviving?

Strawman. "As a species" has nothing to do with it. On average, an individual is weaker than he would be if the weak individuals were allowed to die off.

I see. Well if they're fit enough to survive in a society, that's evolution happening, right there.

[SirNitram]

We've altered our enviroments and are sliding to fit into them best. This is the very definition of natural selection. How could it be unnatural to change as we have changed the world?(Hint: How after there were lifeforms to make oxygen, lifeforms that breath oxygen appeared. Is this 'unnatural'?)

[Colonel Olrik]

I see. Well if they're fit enough to survive in a society, that's evolution happening, right there.

It certainly is Evolution (which doesn't care about the direction of the species characteristics, only if the beings reproduce) but the genetic code deteriorates nonetheless. I wear contact lenses, in a primitive world I wouldn't survive to propagate. I would welcome a genetic intervention to ensure my kids perfect eyesight.

[Master of Ossus]

I see. Well if they're fit enough to survive in a society, that's evolution happening, right there.

Mike's not saying that evolution is no longer taking place. He's saying that the way we are evolving in is bad. People these days are allowed to pass their genes on to the next generation even if they have congenital heart defects, retardation, or physical handicaps. Ordinarily, these individuals would be killed or at the last would be incapable of supporting themselves as well as their neighbors, and would be unable to pass on their genes. However, with modern technology and society helping them out, they can continue. While this is a form of evolution, it is also one that does not properly weed out inferior individuals, and so the gene pool as a whole is not improving.

[Darth Wong]

We've altered our enviroments and are sliding to fit into them best. This is the very definition of natural selection. How could it be unnatural to change as we have changed the world?(Hint: How after there were lifeforms to make oxygen, lifeforms that breath oxygen appeared. Is this 'unnatural'?)

Who gives a fuck whether it's unnatural according to your definition, as opposed to the common "without human technological intervention" definition? The real question is whether it's undesirable, not unnatural.

We can keep diabetics and asthmatics alive who would probably be dead without our technology. This increases the incidence of diabetes and asthma in the general population over time. Would you seriously argue that this has been a good change?

[SirNitram]

We've altered our enviroments and are sliding to fit into them best. This is the very definition of natural selection. How could it be unnatural to change as we have changed the world?(Hint: How after there were lifeforms to make oxygen, lifeforms that breath oxygen appeared. Is this 'unnatural'?)

Who gives a fuck whether it's unnatural according to your definition, as opposed to the common "without human technological intervention" definition? The real question is whether it's undesirable, not unnatural.

We can keep diabetics and asthmatics alive who would probably be dead without our technology. This increases the incidence of diabetes and asthma in the general population over time. Would you seriously argue that this has been a good change?

Pardon, a misunderstanding under the huge lumps of sidetracks in this thread.

Is it desirable? Not at all, of course, but it's also immoral to not help someone who we can(IE, not giving insulin to someone with diabetes). Of course, we run into morality problems on whether it's moral to increase the rate of diabetes and other such things in future generations. In short, it is a big ugly mess.

Only real moral decision I can figure is finding a way to correct it for future generations without denying improved life to existing individuals. Unless retroviral engineering works better than most here think so, that could be damn-near impossible.

Amusingly, since it creates questions like this, the existance of morality is an impediment to a species in the long term.

[Tom_Aurum]

On the other side of things:

- the human genome project has determined that there are XX cells and Xy cells in every human body, male or female, in traces. If Genetic therapy was perfected in our lifetimes, then, gender could be changed much more thoroughly, none of this piddly-shit making of prettier eunuchs.

- science has also found that genes are "activated" and "deactivated" given the exposure of an organism to certain environmental stressors. Sexuality may be innate in all forms, however, but how people are affected by their environment may make them straight or queer. Once the gene is activated, they're straight or queer (or bi)forever, mind you.

-I don't know about you, but the very first few things I'd get modified would have absolutely nothing to do with making myself stronger, or healthier (well, maybe i'd have a few minor things replaced.) Most likely I'd do some silly things like make my hair naturally green, or play around with my skin tone and eye color from an artistic approach.

-and actually, we'd have a world full of catgirls.... nothing but neko-women as far as the eye could see... purrrrrr. Sentient creatures just couldn't stand all being the same, so we'd see radical experimentation with the basic form. Elves, all sorts of anthropromorphic types. Then again, I have this theory that at least five scientists in Japan are being paid to figure out how to make neko.

[kojikun]

Tom, forget the catgirls, we'll eventually have full anthros. but that wont be genetic, neither will cat-peopleness. itll all be cosmetic, but not surgery, grown.

[RedImperator]

My only concern about genetic engineering is that it would be used too freely, and we'd end up with a bunch of Einsteins who look like Cindy Crawford.

What a boring world.

Oh yeah, that would suck.

[Darth Wong]

It's a good thing people weren't this creative when inventing reasons to avoid using electricity a hundred years ago.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Mike and I happen to be in total agreement on this issue, and I have to say that the reluctance to use GE technology is just another example of the usual ludditism of society which is displayed whenever a revolutionary innovation is discovered which can create widespread improvements but displace certain aspects of the current social order.

The simple fact is that we can either use technology to dominate our enviroment or our enviroment can dominate us, and that includes in the field of natural selection. We can either select ourselves or succomb; we can either shape our own enviroment or be shaped by it. The era of Industrial Society is the era of humanity shaping our own enviroment--and the ultimate progression of that is humanity shaping ourselves so that no aspect of our lives is ruled over by natural processes. The massive positive benefits such technology offers demands that it be exploited, albeit with due consideration and precautions for possible misuse.

[InnerBrat]

It certainly is Evolution (which doesn't care about the direction of the species characteristics, only if the beings reproduce) but the genetic code deteriorates nonetheless. I wear contact lenses, in a primitive world I wouldn't survive to propagate. I would welcome a genetic intervention to ensure my kids perfect eyesight.

I would still argue over your use of the word "deteriorates". The genetic code doens't give a flying fuck about whether you would survive in a primitve world. You can live perfectly happily in the world you live in, and that's all that counts. You don't have 'bad' genes just because you need corrective lenses.

if you want your children to have perfect eyesight, why not use LASER eye surgery instead of gene therapy?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I would still argue over your use of the word "deteriorates". The genetic code doens't give a flying fuck about whether you would survive in a primitve world. You can live perfectly happily in the world you live in, and that's all that counts. You don't have 'bad' genes just because you need corrective lenses.

if you want your children to have perfect eyesight, why not use LASER eye surgery instead of gene therapy?

Well, okay. Does this mean that we should engage in wholesale manipulation of the enviroment using technology to completely eliminate any danger of our being displaced by the evolution of another species? Would you support that? Say, we could eliminate all natural biospheres on the planet and turn it into a giant hydroponics farm to support large suburban population centres clustered around our current urban areas, with the seas converted into large "algae lungs" for atmospheric sustenence.

All rivers would be turned into large water collection and reprocessing canal systems by massive damming, and animals would only exist as pets, in factory farms, or providing segments of the food production cycle which could not be replaced by a technological means. Then we could all be fat'n'happy corpulent slugs taking an endless stream of diabetes pills and regular laser treatment for our eyes, with our four-bedroom, two-car garage homes in ever-permanent prosperity, relying on the orbital particle beam system to protect against incoming asteroids or comets.

Sound nice?

[Colonel Olrik]

I would still argue over your use of the word "deteriorates". The genetic code doens't give a flying fuck about whether you would survive in a primitve world. You can live perfectly happily in the world you live in, and that's all that counts. You don't have 'bad' genes just because you need corrective lenses.

Marina has explained what's wrong with this reasoning quite well. People have some defined ideas of what a healthy, strong human being is. While in modern society a person can pass an entire life without any form of exercising and become a fat, sick adult, people usually value strong, healthy bodies and an active lifestyle. A child with genetic problems (asmathic, with allergies, or worse) will not be able to enjoy those things. My problem is less limitative, to a degree. However, it prevented me, for example, of joining the military, a life that I think would suit me. I must take extra care when in an excursion, since losing my glasses/contact lenses while climbing a mountain or going 60 Km/h downhill in a bike can't be good for my health.

if you want your children to have perfect eyesight, why not use LASER eye surgery instead of gene therapy?

Corrective surgeries share a common group of problems. They are expensive, more violent to the organism (intrusive operations in organs that are used to work in a way) and can have complications. I'm 24 and I'm still not elligible to eye surgery, despite having simple miopy, because my eyesight has not estabilized yet. That means that I passed at least half of my active life wearing first glasses and then contacts, something I don't wish to my kids.

PS: not to mention the fortunes you (directly or through taxes) must spend in corrective measures (in my case, medical eye checks, glasses, contacts, an eventual laser surgery..). How many resources would be freed if you simply corrected genes before birth, avoiding the development of diabets, cancers, etc?

[His Divine Shadow]

Comments?

Yes, let's all become Nietzscheans, without their fucked up society ofcourse.

[His Divine Shadow]

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.

It's a free world, it's their perogative, if they don't like it, fuck 'em, it's a personal choice.

[InnerBrat]

PS: not to mention the fortunes you (directly or through taxes) must spend in corrective measures (in my case, medical eye checks, glasses, contacts, an eventual laser surgery..). How many resources would be freed if you simply corrected genes before birth, avoiding the development of diabets, cancers, etc?

Wait - how cheap and easy do you think it is to isolate all myopia-related genes (bearing in mind myopia is primarily environmetally caused anyway), and substitute them in your child? Are you talking about using a vector in a neonate/foetus or acting directly on your sperm or an embryo anyway- what would you prefer - to force your wife to go through ovarian stimulation or to expose your young baby to a virus, simply so that he can watch all the Telly/books/computer screens as he wnts and not have the pain and agony of putting a pair of glasses on everyday?

I'm not even sure I understand Marina's post. I'm not against GM, I'm against people implying that medical science is evil because it deteriorates our fitness, when it does nothing of the sort.

[Solauren]

Genetic Engineering could be the answer to a lot of problems, and the cause of more. Kinda like beer :wicked:

Okay, now seriously.

I am personally in favor of using Genetic Engineering to clean up the human gene pool, and even for augmentation and alteration. Provided it's done with intelligence.

What I mean is there

There are basically 6 categories of genetic engineering

Physical Health, Mental Health, Cosmetic, Military, Consumer

Here are my definations and takes on each one

Physical Health:
This refers to genetic engineering to elminate herititary biological disorders like Alzhiemer's, Diabetes, etc.
I am in favor of mandatory compliance with measures to remove them using Genetic Engineering (once feasible)
Such as mandatory alteration of embryo's with these genes, or mandatory genetic alteration later in life. This includes altering of the cells in the human body that produce sperm and 'eggs' (I forget the proper medical term)
I also think that anyone that is not willing to have these genes elminated from there body should be sertilized to prevent them from reproducing. Draconian, yes, but then again, so are most effective means of doing anything.

Mental Health
Anything that has a negative effect on social behaviour. By negative effect, this means you harm yourself or others (i.e pediphilia, stalking syndromes, etc). I again think removal of these genes should be mandatory, even if they are multiple-combination rescessive (i.e you have 6 genes of type Z to become a pediphile)

The exception is Homosexuality. Homosexual embryo's should be made bi-sexual, so later in life, they can choose which gender the like better for sex.

Cosmetic
This include stuff like getting unneeded, non-health related genetic alterations. (Consumer genetics IMHO are something else, see below)
i.e Getting some bull DNA to become a minotaur, extra limbs, penial and breast size increases, blue hair, etc

These should not be allowed until you are 18 or so. Furthermore, if you have this kind of alteration done, your reproductive cells should be left unaffected.
Personally, I'd be pissed if my parents had turned themselves into minotaurs and then passed that onto me. If they want to look like freaks, go for it. Besides, I want to look like a Werewolf!

Anyway...

Consumer
This is stuff like cloning of animals. Jurassic Park without the computer programmer causing everything to get loss would be an example. Or pygmy dinosaur's for consumer purchase, or other lifeforms for sale.
Basically High-tech pets.
And you think Pokemon were popular now... Imagine if you could actually buy a living Pikachu or Charmander (probably without the attack modes, but hey, ya never know)
Or germs that ate toxic waste
Or spiders that could make cables stronger then what they use to keep the golden gate bridge up
This would need to be fairly well regulated.


Military
Kinda of obvious; Biological weapons.
And I'm not just talking germ warfare.
Imagine if some Genetic Engineer created Godzilla. He could sell that for big bucks

[InnerBrat]

Homosexual embryo's should be made bi-sexual, so later in life, they can choose which gender the like better for sex.

And so should heterosexuals.

Freaks.

[Solauren]

Homosexual embryo's should be made bi-sexual, so later in life, they can choose which gender the like better for sex.

And so should heterosexuals.

Freaks.

Actually, if you get a straight man drunk, he'll do just about anyone and anything :wicked:

My idea for the bi-sexualizing homosexual embryo's is based on the number of homosexual men and women I know that honestly wish they were not gay, or that wished they could enjoy both etc.
Sure, those are more psychological problems, but it's a possible solution.
Also, I don't like the idea of simply changing a homosexual embryo to a homosexual one. This gives them the choice to go either way.

Heterosexual's would also have that choice.

It also depends on the underlaying cause of homo and bi-sexuality.
If it's genetic and causes no other problems, then there is no need to do anything to a homosexual embryo. My suggestion was just trying to find a common ground that most people would be like 'hmmm, okay, that sounds fair, give them the choice'

[Peregrin Toker]

As someone who has been diagnosticed (sp?) with a mild form of epilepsy, I support genetic engineering wholeheartedly if it means that epilepsy and other genetically inherited diseases can be entirely eliminated.

[Master of Ossus]

Look, guys, I was born with a heart murmur (although I've sense grown out of it). I was born with wisdom teeth that required a mildly painful surgery to correct. I was born with little attached gingive on my front teeth, requiring another round of significantly less comfortable surgery to correct. If I can prevent my kids from having these conditions, I would find it immoral not to do so. Why would I let them keep wisdom teeth that are only going to require them to undergo a somewhat painful operation? Why would I force them to undergo painful gum replacement surgery? The point is, if you can prevent someone from having to undergo a painful ordeal, I think you are morally obligated to do so.

Now, these disorders that I mentioned are miniscule compared to some of the other genetic diseases that exist in society today. If there's a kid who's going to have down-syndrome, I think you are obligated to step in and allow that kid to live a normal life, if you can do so. If you have someone who will have diabetes, who will be predisposed towards cancer, who will develop Alzheimers or Lou Gehrig's disease, I think you are obligated to do what you can to prevent these conditions from affecting their lives.

[Spyder]

You do realize koji that if GE becomes commonplace, homosexuality would probably disappear right?

Why?

Well the evidence I have seen leads me to think homosexuality is genetic... now what prospective parent is going to want a homosexual child??

You know, my second ever post to USENET was on that very subject. It ended up starting a 2 year flamewar. Seriously look up "Gayness is genetic" on groups.google.com and you'll find refferences from 1999 to 2001.

[PainRack]

Consider: our species, like all biological species, normally prevents unfit genetics from propagating and weakening the gene pool through a simple and elegant mechanism: death.

However, our technology has progressed to the point that our natural pack instinct has led us to protect the weak. This is not a bad thing; it is what we consider noble. However, it also means that our gene pool is steadily worsening. Anthropologists in developing nations and working with primitive tribes have remarked on being struck at how bright and inquisitive the children there were, while children in developed nations suffer from increasingly severe and common learning disabilities with each generation. The reason is obvious: we are interfering with the process of evolution.

Why is it that social welfare means lousy genepool? Is stupidity inherited? Learning disability? Down syndrome may seem to be a valid argument against this but damn it, its a natural mutation. How many Down syndrome patients do you know who have kids that also are suffering from Down Syndrome?

Considering that darwinisim is based on the premise that anything that allows for the surivial of the species and her members are good, social welfare is good.

Gene therapy is good. I mean, if we can, let's make sure that every kid born now will not be born blind, disabled, have a weak heart or a hole in the heart, be autistic or some other disability which will impair their quality in life.

However, saying that welfare contributes to genetic misfits appear to be an abuse of the phrase surivival of the fittest, which isn't a phrase Darwin used to describe natural selection but a term coined up by a newspaper.