Do we NEED genetic engineering?

[His Divine Shadow]

Aren't learning disabilities and intelligence and such are largely genetic, I thought there was no question about this?

As such I think it's our duty to get rid of all the genetic flaws we might have and improve ourselves.

[SirNitram]

Aren't learning disabilities and intelligence and such are largely genetic, I thought there was no question about this?

As such I think it's our duty to get rid of all the genetic flaws we might have and improve ourselves.

Indeed, but finding a way to get rid of those flaws that is ethical is the trick.

And some forms of LD are not genetic; mine comes from early brain damage due to encephilitus.

[His Divine Shadow]

Indeed, but finding a way to get rid of those flaws that is ethical is the trick.

Well as long as atleast adults can reap the benefits of genetic engineering to begin with.
How would one go ahead for unborn? artifical insemination or something? How could one help a fetus that has DNA damage?

[X]

I have observed that when genetic engineering is mentioned, everybody starts spinning horror stories, doomsday scenarios, nightmare dark future visions based on sci-fi films, etc. But has anyone considered asking what will happen if we DON'T develop genetic engineering?

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.

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.

Comments?

That in a nutshell is almost exactly what I say to people when discussing the future of genetic engineering.

[Crown]

So Mike, what changed your mind?

Or is this just an intellectual excerise?

Why do you believe I changed my mind? I said before that we're still evolving, and we still are. The problem is that the criteria currently being used for human evolution in developed nations will inevitably lead to a gene pool with an increasingly severe incidence of learning disabilities, inherited diseases, etc.

Sorry for mis-reprisenting you there, you are correct.

For my money, sure why not? Though it should be noted that I live (currently) in the mid-to-upper-middle class, so while I won't be on the first boat, I might be able to get a look in. My children (for their children) should definetly be able to afford it.

While I am all for eliminating genes which lead to health issues. In my case I am short sighted and also suffer from haematological disfunction where my blood doesn't carry Iron well (I am in the minor catagory, so I have no problems, however if my spouce was in the minor catagory and we had a child that was in the major, the child would suffer sever healt issues). The first one isn't too scary, I can function well with glasses/contacts (they are annoying though), however the second is potentially very life threatening.

In that sense I would definetly seek GE to ensure that my child doesn't suffer from these medical problems. And I don't think that there would be an honest person out there who could argue against this.

I also have another hereditary condition. Baldness. I an 23 in October, and my hair is already progressively thining out. I give myself till 30 before it all falls out. Now I would like to make sure my children didn't get this aswell, even though it isn't a healt issue. And I think it is here that the GE arguement really begins, and where ethics comes to play. While there would be few people who would argue to protect baldness, what if the issue was about say skin colour or hair colour?

These 'asthetic' uses of GE are frivolous, and yet, strangely, this is where the greatest controversy is brewing.

No one in their right mind will actively campaign against GE in terms of health and life or death situations, however when we are talking about pure cosmetic changes people's hackles are raised.

In one sense they are right. Who are we to decide what eye/hair/skin colour our children should have? What if we guessed wrong, and picked a combination that the child out-right hated. Could our children sue us for altering them into a 'design' that they never wanted? (please note, this is if you are black, for example, and designed your child to be white or vice versa)

Ethics are a bitch.

[Slowhand]

Could Genetic technology ever come back and bite the human race in the arse? I like Darth Wong likening the onset of the automobile as being unfair to those without, but the auto became one of the biggest revolutions in history and today has greatly helped to create our now shoddy atmosphere. Even though cars are now here to stay, and will not yield until something better and CHEAPER comes along, we now tinker with them to make them kinder to mother nature. At the dawn of the automotive revolution, few thought that they might ultimately cause more trouble then thet're worth.

After 100 generations of genetic engineering and the desired procedures are available to people of modest means, the possibility that GE brings with it its own set of adverse variables gives me pause in considering to embrace this technology. It is proven that eating real food is better than driving sustanance from pills and vitamins. Perhaps sexual intercourse is the "best" way to propogate the species. Our modern day smog might be analagous to creeping genetic errors in future society. Perhaps after an eon of genetic manipulation, humans will be an incredibly unisex civilization and the very organs that separate us today with no longer exist.

However, it could be that I'm blowing smoke out my ass.

[Aeolus]

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

It would also allow Gays and Bi's to design there own gay and Bi children

[Darth Wong]

How would one go ahead for unborn? artifical insemination or something? How could one help a fetus that has DNA damage?

Don't know, but when debating an issue of scientific ethics, practical implementation issues are somewhat secondary. The question is "should we do it", not "how do we do it".

[Darth Wong]

Could Genetic technology ever come back and bite the human race in the arse? I like Darth Wong likening the onset of the automobile as being unfair to those without, but the auto became one of the biggest revolutions in history and today has greatly helped to create our now shoddy atmosphere. Even though cars are now here to stay, and will not yield until something better and CHEAPER comes along, we now tinker with them to make them kinder to mother nature. At the dawn of the automotive revolution, few thought that they might ultimately cause more trouble then thet're worth.

And they haven't. If they genuinely caused more trouble than they were worth, we wouldn't still be using them.

After 100 generations of genetic engineering and the desired procedures are available to people of modest means, the possibility that GE brings with it its own set of adverse variables gives me pause in considering to embrace this technology.

Can you show that these "adverse variables" (read: fearmongering worries) should be taken more seriously than the continued degradation of the gene pool in developed nations?

It is proven that eating real food is better than driving sustanance from pills and vitamins.

Obviously, since pills and vitamins were meant to supplement real food rather than replacing it. Gross misuse of a product generally does not produce good results.

Perhaps sexual intercourse is the "best" way to propogate the species.

Irrelevant, since I'm talking about removing genetic defects which are currently allowed to spread unchecked through our gene pool, not replacing sexual intercourse.

Our modern day smog might be analagous to creeping genetic errors in future society.

Perhaps you missed the entire point of the opening post, which was that those "creeping genetic errors" you speak of are already here, and they're getting worse. You appear to subscribe to the ignorant notion that nature is inherently benevolent. It is not; the natural world's evolutionary system is based on KILLING THE WEAK. Since we oppose this, we have no choice but to find some other mechanism to replace that one, and GE is the only one that fits the bill.

Perhaps after an eon of genetic manipulation, humans will be an incredibly unisex civilization and the very organs that separate us today with no longer exist.

Strawman, slippery slope, and leap in logic fallacy, all rolled together in a nice little package. As Londo Mollari would say, "how efficient of you".

However, it could be that I'm blowing smoke out my ass.

Indeed.

[The Dark]

In my own case, I have some minor birth defects with very odd results. The physical ones are fairly normal: my teeth are abnormally small for my jaw size, my tongue is a smidgen wider than it should be, I had an overbite (orthodontics are great), and my palate is misshapen, all of which causes me to have a slight lisp.

Mentally, I'm somewhat aberrant. I hate the inaccuracy of IQ tests at high levels because depnding on test, I bounce around between 130 and 160 (I'm "officially" roughly halfway between them). In sixth grade they wanted to skip me up to ninth, because that was the level I tested at. When I took the ASVAB, my lowest same-sex score was a 55th percentile in auto mechanics, while my lowest other-sex score was a 72nd percentile in the same category. No other category was below the mid-80s on either gender. My SAT was a 1570 (stupid analogies that don't make sense), and my main "Giftedness" is spotting patterns. Don't play me at Mastermind; I've never lost a match. However, I'm ADD (possibly ADHD, since I'm no longer in public school I'm not tested), and have minor psychological aversions to both alcohol and non-natural caffeine (I get ill if I drink coffee, though I'm not physically allergic to it).

The only thing I would worry about with genetic engineering is if such things are tied together in a way that in order to lose my flaws, I would also lose the genetic benefits I have. As much as the aversions and inability to focus drive me nuts sometimes (the lisp I don't care about 99.9% of the time), I would prefer them and my analytical abilities over being average, even if that average were greater than the current average.

That said, it's unlikely that they are tied together, and I see no problem with corrective genetic engineering. Genetic manipulation to boost abilities, however, is something I personally am phobic about. Having seen first-hand how children that are told they can't succeed become self-defeating, I worry about what would happen if genetically "superior" children were told that they were superior to everyone else. I suppose my greatest fear is that of the Ubermenschen.

[Darth Wong]

That said, it's unlikely that they are tied together, and I see no problem with corrective genetic engineering.

I think that most people in this thread seem to feel that way. Now to convince the reactionaries in government and various universities who call themselves "ethicists" and fight such developments on the basis of slippery slope fallacies.

Genetic manipulation to boost abilities, however, is something I personally am phobic about. Having seen first-hand how children that are told they can't succeed become self-defeating, I worry about what would happen if genetically "superior" children were told that they were superior to everyone else. I suppose my greatest fear is that of the Ubermenschen.

That already happens. Don't you think that kids with superior genetics figure out quickly that this is the case? When I was moved into a different school for kids with a higher IQ as a child, don't you think I put two and two together and figured out what it meant? When I was a teenager and noticed that my mesomorphic frame packed on muscle far more easily than ectomorphs in my class, don't you think I recognized that this is a genetic advantage?

People have genetic advantages and disadvantages, and contrary to popular belief, there is no invisible arbitrator making sure that if you lose in one area, you gain in another. Some people just do better than others, and that's the simple reality. Mate a pair of Olympic gold-medal athletes and the resulting kid will probably blow the doors off most any kid in his class; that's reality. Genetic engineering would simply add another mechanism for achieving improved genetics, since existing methods (selective breeding and euthanasia) have rather shaky ethics themselves.

[The Dark]

I agree that most superior children do tend to realize it and often become problematic (I know I caused problems when I was first classified as "Gifted"). However, most (that I know, at least) eventually recognize this as a fluke of nature (or good parental genetics) and don't gain a permanent attitude of superiority. After all, very few are highly above normal in all physical and mental areas (I'm certainly not). For a child to be "created" superior would be an unknown for psychological effects. I'm not opposed to it entirely; I just feel it should be examined slowly, not jumped into as a full-fledged practice before the effects are understood. I'm not opposed to it on general principles, I'm merely...cautious would be the best word for it. But I'm also indoctrinated against messing with the "natural order" by my religious background (and I realize it), so a cautious from me is probably roughly equal to a "go for it" from someone else. I just don't like messing with stuff we really don't understand. I guess I would be in favor of it once we finish figuring out what each gene does and how it affects other genes. I think there would be too great a chance of unexpected side effects otherwise.

(And as an aside, I bloody well wish I was a mesomorph. The only place I pack on muscle is in my legs. I've got a mesomorphic lower body and ectomorphic upper ).

[TheDarkOne]

"O brave new world that has such people in it."

[Slowhand]

And they haven't. If they genuinely caused more trouble than they were worth, we wouldn't still be using them.

Perhaps "more trouble than they're worth" was over the top on my part, but you cannot seriously believe that automobiles are totally benign in terms of their impact on pollution? They ARE bad, yet we continue to embrace the tachnology.

Can you show that these "adverse variables" (read: fearmongering worries) should be taken more seriously than the continued degradation of the gene pool in developed nations?

No I cannot.

Obviously, since pills and vitamins were meant to supplement real food rather than replacing it. Gross misuse of a product generally does not produce good results.

It appears as though your logic is superior to my own...

Irrelevant, since I'm talking about removing genetic defects which are currently allowed to spread unchecked through our gene pool, not replacing sexual intercourse.

Losing sex will be horrible. I'm glad that you and I won't personally witness it. It will happen, given enough time.

Perhaps you missed the entire point of the opening post, which was that those "creeping genetic errors" you speak of are already here, and they're getting worse. You appear to subscribe to the ignorant notion that nature is inherently benevolent. It is not; the natural world's evolutionary system is based on KILLING THE WEAK. Since we oppose this, we have no choice but to find some other mechanism to replace that one, and GE is the only one that fits the bill.

I'm not bent against GE. None of my injuries or diseases have required gentectic intervention, but I would welcome it if I needed it to live. I subscribe to the notion that the strongest survive.

Strawman, slippery slope, and leap in logic fallacy, all rolled together in a nice little package. As Londo Mollari would say, "how efficient of you".

I think I'm beginning to understand why Dr. McCoy found it so hard to talk to Mr. Spock. I have just one question: Who is Londo Mollari?

[Trogdor]

If my understanding of gentics is correct (I'm not by any means positive that it is), then GE could have some very bad and unforseen results. I believe that some genes have more than one effect on a person, some even make a person more likely to develop one disease while greatly decreasing their risk to get another. If we begin weeding out the genes that give us certain defiencies, it's possible that we could permanently remove something from the gene pool that we might need someday.

If this is adressed or my understanding is incorrect, then I would support genetic engineering to correct deformites, birth defects, etc. However, I don't believe that we should use GE to try and turn humanity into a race of superhumans. I believe that overall it would be best to allow natural evolution to take its course while we merely work to keep it from going backwards. Natural evolution is mostly a response to the environment, favoring the traits needed to flourish in it. Artifical evolution would be us pumping up the IQs of physical abilities of everyone. These are survival traits, granted, but there's more to it than that. Natural selection, if for some reason it agains apllies to humans, would shape humanity into what it needs to be, excessive GE would shape humanity into what we think we need to be, which could possibly cause problems, although I admit there's a good chance that it won't.

Also, everyone being smart, fit, and talented could be dangerous for our society. As cruel as it sounds, society needs less than average people to run, to perform the unpleasant, low paying jobs that need to be done, but which smart people won't do because they can get better jobs. Ever read "Brave New World"? They mentioned an experiment once where they put a whole bunch of Alphas, alone, on an island. Chaos reigned in a short period of time, proving the need for the Betas, Gammas, Deltas, and Epsilons in their society. Our society needs people who are below the best and brightest just as much, but here and now it's not determined even before conception who'll go where.

Additionally, if we try to create a race of superhumans, some people will refuse to do it to their unborn kids, and those children will be left with the short end of the stick. It's even possible that these kids will be killed so as to avoid having the gene pool recontaminated, although it's more likely that they'll be shunted into low paying jobs like in the movie "Gatica." If it's the latter, then the people forced to work at fast food joints and cleaning bathrooms and such won't be able to get GE for their own children because of their low pay. This could continue for generations until it becomes cheap.

One last thing. Lord Wong stated that the technology would probably "trickle down" and cited the automobile as an example. However, GE isn't the car. The first to recieve GE, if used to make superhumans, could possible try and horde the technology for themselves. It's possible that the world's ruling elite could become a totally different species.

All in all, I'm of the opinion that GE should be used only for curing deformites and diseases, nothing else.

[Nova Andromeda]

--I would support genetic engineering if "all the bugs were worked out" and it was tightly regulated so that it wasn't abused (e.g., a sadistic bastard could not intentially create crippled kids). It should be noted that society needs to figure out the moral rules of creating conscious entities. The reason for this is that we will need to determine how G.E. can be used for "good" and what would be "evil." These rules will also be necessary once conscious AI's are developed.
-However, I don't think GE will solve our problems for several reasons. First, we won't have it anytime soon for all but a handfull of genetic problems. Second, stupid people (such as fundamentalists) are rapidly out breading smart people (such as scientists) and are unlikely stop doing so (I would consider the degradation of human intelligence the most pressing problem with respect to genetic deterioration). Third, the dominance of the U.S. and the power of the christian right there present huge obsticles to G.E. research and development. Fourth, we can eliminate the problems with deteriorating genetics by putting a little thought into who we choose to breed with in the first place.