Ruk Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 The day will come when humans will know enough to actually start "improving" humans. One would be able to weed out genetic diseases, and probably greatly increase the odds of intelligence, beauty, lifespan, etc. We might even be able to improve on ineffeciencies in humans by adding new abilities. So what are folks thoughts on this? Assuming laws preventing discrimination ala "Gattaca", and also the horrors of the past where folks killed the unworthy, ala nazi's, do you think humans should be messing around with our genes? I'm all in favor myself. I can't wait for the Human 2.0 versions to start being born, and am hoping that upgrades are available for us original designs. While there will undoubtably be indirect discrimination (smarter people will naturally do better in life and get better jobs), I don't think this is inherently bad if its just a matter of ability and not law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antipodean Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 I reckon there's an issue of personal rights (of the unborn child) and the potential for class divisions to become entrenched if the genetic modification/engineering of progeny were to become legally permissable or a widespread practice. I'd hate to see a world where most people, or a ruling genetic elite simply ticked a set of boxes -uber smart, uberattractive, uberefficient, uber atheletic, etc - only to end up with an entire generation that is pretty much homogenous. It is DIFFERENCE that makes cultures, communities, and societies rich. HOWEVER, I am very interested to hear about the research on tailoring retroviruses to alter existing DNA for living beings. To my mind, genetically modifying one's self would become a matter of personal autonomy. Any of you who dig this topic and havn't seen Gataga - WELL HOP TO IT! It's a fantastic movie and a fantastic peice of Sci-fi that deals with these issues and more. Like Ruk, I gotta say that I'm also looking forward to Human 2.0, though I reckon there'll be cybernetic enhancements involved too, particularly with regard to Information networking. I'd hazard to suggest that such a future is inevitable. But that world would of course include a population of new amish, that is to say people who refuse to go that extra genetic or cybernetic step. The trick will be to sustain a society that accomadates both populations and with safeguards put in place to prevent discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 All in all I think it's a bad idea, but I would be in favour if some issues were completely dealth with: - The technology is available to everybody, meaning not only the rich/powerfull, but also the poor/masses, and not in such a fashion that the poor have to work for 2 years to get it done and the rich would have to work for 1 hour... - Nobody is regarded with less respect than someone else (example: "ooh I've got brain upgrade 2"; "hehe, I've allready got brain upgrade 3";...) - It doesn't make the genome weaker (ie more susceptible to specific viruses and such because diversity goes down....) - ... Now, why I think it's a bad idea, is becasue I think the set values will not be met, hech, they aren't even met for things that are allready available today.... So I've got no reason to think that they will be for this issue... But, if it weren't for that, I would say it's a good idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 If you begin to genetically enhance certain portions of a human it is in a sense like programming. Would you really want a society to think and act like everyone else. This type of modification would open up a floodgate of possibilites, as well as destroy whatever shred of humanity we have left. I suspect that in some genetics lab there are scientists tinkering with this right now, but if you can program a person with certain things, who knows what you could download/upload into a human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Ummm... most neurological development has nothing to do with genetics, philly... Nurture has far more effect on the development of the human mind than nature... unless you literally rewrote the genome to redesign the basic brain... and even then, it's still up to experiences to determine what a person really will be like. I think that genetic engineering will be useful to humanity in the coming years and fully support the idea of cleaning us of genetic diseases and improving our minds and bodies. What I don't support is the process that we call 'eugenics', whereby 'lesser' people are sterilized or killed in favor of 'better' people... Eugenics is NOT genetic engineering, but a form of SELECTIVE BREEDING for humanity, and THAT I totally oppose! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psheldrake1 Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Kwan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Ummm... most neurological development has nothing to do with genetics' date=' philly... Nurture has far more effect on the development of the human mind than nature... unless you literally rewrote the genome to redesign the basic brain... and even then, it's still up to experiences to determine what a person really will be like.[/quote'] Certainly, more recent research suggests this is probably true. Human beings are extremely pliable creatures. Recent evidence even shows that it is possible for environmental impacts to be passed on to the next generation genetically, and the next one after that, and so on. I think that genetic engineering will be useful to humanity in the coming years and fully support the idea of cleaning us of genetic diseases and improving our minds and bodies. Actually, there is a problem with this too, because sometimes those characteristics we might view as 'defects' might actually be advantageous to the survival of the species. The difficulty is that in our ignorance we probably don't know which ones. If we therefore eliminate the wrong ones, we could be in trouble. The same applies to introducing so-called 'improvements.' Who makes the judgement about what's an 'improvement?' Except for very extreme cases, this will depend on the perspective of the people making these decisions, and such choices could have catastrophic impacts as well as beneficial ones. Eugenics is NOT genetic engineering, but a form of SELECTIVE BREEDING for humanity, and THAT I totally oppose! I am glad you pointed that out, and I too am opposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostShadow Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 "man kind does not know 1 one 1,000,000,000 of a grain of sand on a beach that streches for infinity" But i think that its high time we look god in the face, we have broken out of our shell and have proven that we have the ability to survive, and thrive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 But i think that its high time we look god in the face' date=' [/quote'] Who? we have broken out of our shell and have proven that we have the ability to survive, and thrive. Well, some of us think we have, anyway. Others aren't so sure we aren't just about to wipe ourselves off the planet. :rolleyes: Then again, if you look at history, we always seem to be just about to do that. Hmm. Now that we've broken out of the shell, anybody care for an omelette? ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruk Posted November 19, 2005 Author Share Posted November 19, 2005 Eugenics is NOT genetic engineering, but a form of SELECTIVE BREEDING for humanity, and THAT I totally oppose! Actually the word eugenics means just "well born", and was used to imply a better human being. Historically that was through selective breeding, because the eugenics movement predated genetic engineering as we know it today (the word was coined in 1883), but it isn't limited to that. The "new" eugenics movement as its known today has nothing to do with selective breeding, and I'm not asking about that. FYI, Star Trek's Eugenic's War (Khan!) also described a race of genetically engineered humans, and not just selectively breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 Star Trek's 'Eugenics War' also had an element of a 'greater race' filtering out a 'lesser race' by execution... so I'd argue that it also has an element of selective breeding. After all, one doesn't breed when one's dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcant Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 In theory yes in practice probably no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruk Posted November 19, 2005 Author Share Posted November 19, 2005 Star Trek's 'Eugenics War' also had an element of a 'greater race' filtering out a 'lesser race' by execution Just curious, but are there any books that detail this time period? Anyway, as my subject heading states, I'm really only talking about the "good" type of human improvements... although some might argue that its impossible to have new improved humans walking side by side with us mundane types without war of some sort eventually being the result due to natural imbalances. In other words, by creating human 2.0, we might very well guarantee we go the path of the neaderthal - out performed by the better species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 ... UNLESS we make a point of making sure that the modifications are dominant, so that they'll filter into the gene pool (and eventually throughout the populace). If we do it gradually enough, there doesn't have to be conflict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruk Posted November 19, 2005 Author Share Posted November 19, 2005 Well, there will always be a set of humanity that refuses to be "improved" and wouldn't allow interaction or marriage to those who are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Anyway' date=' as my subject heading states, I'm really only talking about the "good" type of human improvements... [/quote'] Who decides what's good or an improvement? How do we know what may be good or not in the long run? The difficulty is that we really don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruk Posted November 20, 2005 Author Share Posted November 20, 2005 Who decides what's good or an improvement? I'd say thats not difficult to determine. Changes made willingly and freely chosen by an individual for themselves are the most desirable. Thus the individual obtaining the change evaluates its merits. Obviously this is the least controversial type of change as it doesn't impact anyone else directly. Changes made for the newly born would be the next level. A baby born with certain gifts would not know what its like not to have them. And obviously changes forced upon unwilling participants would be the least desirable and considered the most "evil". As for the long run... only time will tell. But once we have the ability to directly alter our genes, we should still have the ability to undo changes we make if necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Who decides what's good or an improvement? I'd say thats not difficult to determine. Changes made willingly and freely chosen by an individual for themselves are the most desirable. Thus the individual obtaining the change evaluates its merits. Obviously this is the least controversial type of change as it doesn't impact anyone else directly. I don't agree. First of all, free choice is actually a very rare commodity. People are subject to influences. For example, unnecessary plastic surgery based on unrealistic and distorted images of how society thinks people are supposed to look is already rampant in our society. It's also anything but uncontroversial. If we can't even make responsible decisions on such a superficial level, I'd hate to see what we will do when our powers increase. Another issue is cost. Those who can afford to access this technology will have the choice. Those who can't probably won't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
str82u Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Good intentions have screwed up so many times that history hasn't even recorded it all. I'm not talking about purely insane behaviour, but just well meanning plans to improve things that went the wrong way. Who's to say that if we alter a baby to withstand all disease and to not develop abnormalities that something else in nature won't come along and get them. AIDS may not be a good example, but here we were, well on our way to perfect health (outside of dumbasses like me smoking) and all of a sudden >WHAM< something we can't fix, and not only that, but something a bunch of people are spreading because they don't really care enough to protect themselves. GorunNova made a point about modifying the brain, we would have to give people the will to resist killing themselves with reckless decisions like unprotected sex. And you know this could go on for hours and years trying to decide what compliments what, and how each change would effect something else possibly creating new issues. Yeah, I'd have to say leave well enough alone and whatever you believe in God or no god all, let things be. OR As was mentioned by RUK and anyone else, let modifications be made to living willing people to dispose of preexisting conditions or as a preemtive measure against future problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StitchInTime Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 And you know this could go on for hours and years trying to decide what compliments what' date=' and how each change would effect something else possibly creating new issues. [/quote'] Yes, and I am sure people will, too. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now