Hi all,

What do you all think about genetic engineering? Plz, i would appreciate critique from both sides of the issue. Is it good or bad?
Is it morally justifiable?

Thank you for your response:(



"La discipline mene a la victoire, victoire est la vie!"

Originally posted by Truenemo1889
Hi all,

What do you all think about genetic engineering? Plz, i would appreciate critique from both sides of the issue. Is it good or bad?
Is it morally justifiable?

Thank you for your response:(



"La discipline mene a la victoire, victoire est la vie!"

Umm... first morals are defined by the person and yes its perfectly fine in my opinion, as long as they only test on the stupid people:D

I think it's a good think and morally justifable for those, especially parents who wants to have a better life. In my opninion it's the religious who make genetic engeering look bad.

Okay, not alllll religious people are against genetic engineering and that kind of thing. It depends on the religion. I'm guessing that you're primarily reffering to christianity as it's one of the most technologically backwards religions of all.


And yes, I think genetic engineering can be a good thing. Although, there are many dangers attached to playing God. What happens when you engineer new organisms and they escape into the wild? It could mean ecological disaster. Really, all you need is a few experimental weeds, or insects and the entire food chain suffers.

It's ethically justifiable as long as we don't get into eugenics. I'm strongly opposed to the genetic engineering of humans.



One more thing. Many people will probably disagree with me on this one, but I think bringing animals BACK from extinction for purposes other than neccesary scientific study is wrong. It's nothing to do with "souls" or morals or anything, just the fact that science isn't advanced enough yet to monitor all of the environmental impacts. (I'm talking about tasmanian devils, dodo's, etc etc.)

I'd have to disagree there , it depends on the person, not the religion. Then again, the personality of the person will say how much they adhere to their religion, etc. It all boils down to a person's beliefs and morals - whether ludicrous or not, they are those people's morals and most people don't want to change them.

The most we (who have different views, ideas, and morals) can do is to tell them about our view, give them some unopinionated information about the subject, and that's it. The thing about morals is, you can't push yours on other people's. THAT, itself, is morally wrong. ;)

Elbaz: About the genetic engineered-weed thing, do we really need to use a Genetically-modified organism as an analogy? We could just use Australia as one. Domestic dogs, sheep, cats, rats, and TOADS, have taken over and dominated the local food chains since we set them there, accidently or deliberately, many years ago.

OH, and ELBAZ, you meant the Tasmanian Tiger aka Tasmanian Wolf, not the devil. The devils are still alive and kicking, but the Thylacines (Tasmanian Tigers) haven't been seen since the 1930's or something, thought there have been recent sightings...

Against eugenics huh? I'm sort of into it. If science can improve my mind and body, i say alright. But hey that's freedom right?

--Liberty means allowing other people to do things you disapprove of, if they will give you the same right.--

The world would be alot nicer if they modeled their views, morals, and lives after the above little saying.

Cheers :)

NenarTronian, you the man, and Transhumanism is the philosophy. :) I totally support careful genetic engineering as a way to create a better world - have any of you read David Pearce's page on the Hedonistic Imperative? It's at http://hedweb.com/ if you want to have a look. Its ideas, as he says, are "hugely ambitious but technically feasible." Hooray for ambitious ideas. :)

Never read it

Elbaz: About the genetic engineered-weed thing, do we really need to use a Genetically-modified organism as an analogy? We could just use Australia as one. Domestic dogs, sheep, cats, rats, and TOADS, have taken over and dominated the local food chains since we set them there, accidently or deliberately, many years ago.

Well, you got me there. It CAN happen naturally. All I'm saying is we have to be careful not to damage the environment even further. Modifying a strand of DNA that makes a plant resistant to alkaline soil could really screw up the environment if you don't know what you're doing - just as an example.


Against eugenics huh? I'm sort of into it. If science can improve my mind and body, i say alright. But hey that's freedom right?

Well ya. Improving the mind and body can always be a good thing. If were talking about growing organs like eyes or kidneys, or genetic predisposition to various ailments, I'm fine with that. But the problems occur when people try to make themsleves better than everyone else. So in the long run, we'd eventually have a rich upper class -- who would be the only people capable of modifying themselves to become even better than everyone else. And a poor, ugly, and relatively stupid class.

It's been proven that moderated gaps in classes usually result in better overall growth and sustainability. I think mankind would be much better off if we didn't try to tamper too much with what mother nature gave us genetically -- unless, it were to prevent genetic diseases or grow organs, etc. .

Genetic Engineering is a very deep topic. I think it has the potential to change human civilization as we know it, which is why I'm considering pursuing it as a possible career. If we research it responsibly, it could mean better for everyone. But like I'm trying to say, if we handle it wrecklessly, we might get burned.....

Elbaz,
Not a fan of "trendy" gen'gineering? The newest trends coming out every week, and people rushing out to get them? Eagle-eye vision, purple skin, a second pair of arms, wings, a frog-like tongue, bioluminescence, super-sex pheromones? The possibilities (?) are limitless really. Although i'm not sure where i stand on those types of ideas.

Although a second pair of arms, or modifying myself into a "Centaur-like" physique wouldn't be that bad. Enhanced eyesight, hearing, stamina and strength wouldn't hurt either - people aim to improve themselves physically everyday, is it that much different than improving oneself genetically?

I'm not sure. :bugeye: :confused:

Originally posted by Elbaz
So in the long run, we'd eventually have a rich upper class -- who would be the only people capable of modifying themselves to become even better than everyone else. And a poor, ugly, and relatively stupid class.


Hey! Who you calling ugly and stupid? Non-engineered people wouldn't be worse than people are today: they'd be the same people.

And if a few become, on average, somehow better than today's norm then why is that so bad? What's so bad about a few more Bethovens, Einsteins and daVincis around? We have "natural" outliers in terms of physical or mental characteristics already. Producing a few artificial ones wouldn't change things all that much. Plus, if you happen to believe in some sort of an eventual "trickle-down" effect, the whole of humanity could progress with a few at the avantguarde and the rest in the retinue. Alternatively, the same level of enhancement could apply to the poor as to the rich. Once the necessary set of mutations is known and corresponding apparatus and chemistry is mass-produced, it probably wouldn't be too expensive to introduce it into every single fetus or grownup through a virus, or nanomachines or something.

Problem is, as you said, to know what you're doing. This probably won't become possible for quite some time longer, as it's unethical to experiment with humans like that. One way it could be enabled is if a rapidly reversible form of genetic engineering is developed. Another way is through massive computer simulations of entire human bodies over large time spans at atomic resolution (but this has its own problems, as such digital "humans" would be sentient and might have to be endowed with the same rights as material humans.) The third way is unsavoury, by knowledge gained from unethical or even criminal research.

But anyway, genetic engineering of humans is only one way in which our species could direct its own evolution. An even more radical and potentially more powerful method would be through incorporation of artificial organs, taking the cyborg route and maybe eventually even transitioning to completely artificial body structure. Centuries into the future, but I hardly doubt it will happen.

People seem to often assume that, through genetic engineering, we will be able to "upgrade" our personal selves into something beyond the human capabilities of today. People think this would be great, but that's not the only possibility of what could happen.

Through genetic engineering, a new race of superhumans may also be developed from test tubes (ie. they would have no parents and would certainly not be "one of us"). This new race of superhumans could be stronger, faster, and more intelligent than the current human population, but it would start out as a small race of a few individuals. A significant change in their genetic makeup might mean that they could only reproduce with each other (ie. they'd be a new species), but they might reproduce at an extraordinary rate. One thing they are likely to have is an enhanced "survival" instinct. Given that this scenario comes about, the human population of the world needs to begin thinking about how it will handle it.


Is this new race likely to be accepted or rejected by the general human population? (Consider current prejudices...)
If rejected, how much discrimination is the new race likely to feel as it tries to intermingle with the rest of humanity?
How might the new race seek to "survive" in a potentially hostile environment?


In other words, stop thinking about how genetic engineering could "enhance" you or your life and start thinking about how it might go terribly wrong. The above scenario should show you that the "right" thing to do from a moral standpoint could be very difficult to discern. In this case, trying to get rid of the new race would be genocide, but the new race may not see it the same way if (or when?) they get the chance to reverse the situation. :eek:

Certain consequences are inevetable. Controls similar to those taken when selecting personell would reduce the occurence on unauthorized experiments, though this will have a negative affect in that certain talented scientists may not be able to work on it. I believe that it should be researched as I do not believe that colonization will be possible without it. We need to be able to produce crops that we can eat, that will be able to produce high yields in adverse invironments(This includes native competition). Apart from certain areas of medical research, that is the only area that can truly benefit mankind.

My concern with eugenics is: who should decide what traits are pallatable to change? At that point, it's an issue of everybody wanting to mold humankind in their own image. Is that a power we as human beings are wise enough to hold?

I figure genetic engineering is going to save all our necks one day. Think of it: Make it so your kids will never develop wisdom teeth, zits, arthritis, diabedes, or senility. Make it so you would never get sick in your life, be able to drink seawater, or live without protection in Antarctica.

All with just an injection of a retrovirus. Would the injection have to go into the testes? Ouch...

Originally posted by Clockwood
I figure genetic engineering is going to save all our necks one day. Think of it: Make it so your kids will never develop wisdom teeth, zits, arthritis, diabedes, or senility. Make it so you would never get sick in your life, be able to drink seawater, or live without protection in Antarctica.


Consider the consequences of not developing those things. It may have benefits in the short run for your kids, but what about the population as a whole?

Do we really know?

Well, unless you plan on eating bark wisdom teeth will not help. Having senility dosn't ever help ANYONE. Arthritis is just the wearing away of the ends of joints. Zits are the infections of sweat glands. Diabedes is the inability to produce vital chemicals with your pancreas.

I don't see your point...

Maybe I overreacted. Your list isn't as complicated as I first thought. I guess I was going for the overpopulation angle (by fixing all the deadly diseases).

Deadly diseases will always mutate fast enough to outmanuver our immune system no matter how far we enhance it. No worries there.

Age will eventually kill us as well. Our brains would run out of storage space after a while anyway.

Genetic Engineering is one of the things that should be put back up on the attic together with cloning and a few other tech's. And as for this Religious being against it...I think there's a lot of them that's for it, them sherishing life and all. Me on the other hand is far from Religious and I'm straight against it, I believe in "Evolution"...not "Genetic Engineering". Why eliminate the things that keep this already crowded planet under a little control and by doing this you are interfearing with evolution, and as for the power this type of technology brings...the human race has proved time and time again that they are not ready for it.

Th Grim Reaper shall be allowed to continue harvesting the souls of the fallen as the young rise to take their place.

I would personally like to be genetically enhanced to the point I am self sufficent from the rest of mankind. Basically so far so that I could live a productive life even if every other organism on the planet were gone.

Sounds like it could be very boring... :(

Being bored is infinitly better than being dead. And perhaps you could be modified so that the monotony would not get to you.

That sounds like a prescription for stagnation. After awhile, you could have the "been there, done that" attitude that leads to boredom.

Boredom is a perfect reason for somebody to do something new. New tech, new war, new culture.

Get somebody who wishes to know all things knowable and he will never be bored. The universe proceeds faster than you can learn.

Genetic engeneering can't be bad or god. Only people can.
It's an inevitable revolution. Our personal belif doesn't count very much here. It does't cout very much anywere to say the truth.

Forgive me, but that sounds like a very "NRA" (National Rifle Association) way of looking at things.

At what point do we judge a technology to be dangerous? After an example of the danger is there for all to see? And even then...

If people did not use guns to kill people we would use swords and bows. If we did not have svords and bows we would use rocks and sticks. If we did not have rocks and sticks we would use tooth and claw.

I think you should substitute "animal" for "people". The question is how do we, as people, distinguish ourselves from our animal instinct. Sometimes that entails removing sharp objects from our reach... ;)

I dont distinguish a person and an animal. We are simply animals that are just very good at what we do.

Nothing wrong with that. I have very high esteem for animals.

Okay, good point. Animals know the limits that nature has set for them.

Where are ours? :bugeye: :)

Its all relative.

Our current limits are seen in the world around us. THat is what we currently can accomplish. Five min from now we will be able to do a little more and a little more will be done.

It is like looking at a termite mound, only it is socially evolving fast enough to see with you naked eyes.

Originally posted by Delvinity
Its all relative.

Hey, don't pick on my relatives... :mad:

:D

Originally posted by Clockwood

It is like looking at a termite mound, only it is socially evolving fast enough to see with you naked eyes.

Does the termite mound contemplate what it means to be a termite mound? :confused: :eek:

Perhaps it could if it was complex enough. Perhaps it does.

In many periods of history human beings did little philosophising. We were still considered human.

"Little" is different than "no", don't you think?

Man began philosophizing when he looked up at night and saw the pretty lights and said "what're they?".

However, have we developed a reasonable philosophy for when we are not the top of the food chain? Can we handle a smarter alien intelligence (even if it's one of our own making)?

;)

Somehow a termite mound will improve itself steadally. It finds gradually how to optomize its cooling towers, prevent its bottom levels from flooding, and breeding its fungus farms for edibility. It must somehow be pondering about what a colony is supposed to be like without really knowing.

Elephants bury their dead. Koko the gorilla has speak coherently using sign-language and even communicate abstract concepts.

There is no individual "smart" termite. In this case, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Competition with other species (ie. survival of the fittest) is much older than the elephant and the gorilla. For them, their place in the world is well understood and accepted.

The human race (ie. homo-sapiens) is always asking the question "is there more?". What if the answers turns out to be "not for your species"?

Originally posted by BatM
There is no individual "smart" termite. In this case, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Competition with other species (ie. survival of the fittest) is much older than the elephant and the gorilla. For them, their place in the world is well understood and accepted.

The human race (ie. homo-sapiens) is always asking the question "is there more?". What if the answers turns out to be "not for your species"?


There is no such thing as an individual termite. A colony mind is made of multitudes just like a human is made of cells.

If there is no "more" for your species MAKE more, even if you must take the more from another species.

If we genetically create superhumans, how do we know their superior abilities will breed superior ego's? What if they turn on US?

If they are better than us they will outcompete us without any hostile action. They would take the slow and steady road and just let natural selection do the work.

Members of Homo Superior will interbreed with Homo sapiens and may not even know they are different.

Moo. I splice gene of cow. Haha. My brother no like gene splice. He is now half-cow. !haha. I splice him/cow. cow not amiable towards gene splice. I splice anyway. !haha. Funny is that cow that turn green. Sick? no. Was paint? Yes. I tried splice cow. But wasnt' gene splice juice. was color water. [[haha]].

cows not have rights. I eat cows. cows cant eat me. The intelligence quotia of mine is greater than the cow. Therefore, cow = stupid, cow = !Yum. If cowIQ > MineIQ = More, therefore cow eat me. But the > is a <, so cow deserve to be splice.

The End.

genetic engineering is a real good thing for a lot of biologists. Otherwise they would have to think of other ways to do an experiment. Now they can always make a transgenic mouse in which they either knock out their favorite gene or overexpress it.

wonderful

http://members.truepath.com/sapphoo/horse.gif

Scientists are looking in cases like this, for ultimate power (someone would call it "playing God") because well... it makes money. People will do anything for money, be it considered moral or not. Now, I'm not pushing an argument for wether or not genetic engineering is moral or not, but I am saying that it doesn't matter what scruples a given person has. The right person will do things lots of people consider immoral for the right amount of money.

So the question becomes -- what rights does the "mouse" have?

Today it may be only mice that are being used this way, but tomorrow it might be human clones.

Before you stop genetically altering bice stop extermination them.
I doubt many would accept that price. Squeak baby...

What if you created (from mouse origins) a creature with more worth? For example, a big mouse with the same intelligence as a chimp? A human?

What if you knowc out just one set of mouse chromosomes and replace it with the human anologue? (presumeing it dosnt automatically kill the thing)

you can also look at it from this perspective:

if a scientist didn't make a transgenic mouse, it would never have been born.

at least it was alive...

http://members.truepath.com/sapphoo/horse.gif

Human cloning bothers the hell out of me. Mice are one thing, but a human clone would be a member of our species. Then again, we have already decided in other issues that DNA is not a valaid argument for deciding the level of humanity of a given human being. It has to do with their IQ, wether or not they are disabled, age, ect at least, according to most things I've noticed.

We've also decided that animals have rights as exemplified by the ASPCA. In fact, you can see a regular program on Animal Planet about the officers of the ASPCA in NY and how some offenses lead to prison time.

It's a slippery slope we're on... :eek:

p.s. there are news reports that the first human clone is likely to be born in January, so the issue of rights is getting closer, faster... :eek:

As long as the clone is treated as a human being with the rights and privledges of anyone else I am ok with this.

Gee. Then why bother to create them? It's not as fun as the old tried and true method of creating new humans... ;)

Originally posted by BatM
Gee. Then why bother to create them?

money, fame, fortune (well for creating the first one).

http://members.truepath.com/sapphoo/horse.gif

Colonizing other planets perhaps. Just send a single unmanned probe with a cloning apparatus, some source dna, and some other crud and you have a new colony.

Easier than sending several hundred people on a trip they likly will not live to see the end of.

Genetic eng'g? Could aid in disease fighting, finding the cure to aging, space colonization like Clockwood mentioned.

Plus, for those that fancy it, an endless list of personal improvements can be made. That is, if genetic engineering comes about as much as everyone thinks it will. Wings, gills, green skin, echolocation, increased speed stamina agility endurance strength... list gos on

Now you are talking about Eugenics. So! Anyone here all for creating the true Aryan race?

No way - like tatoos, piercings, those burn-tatoos people do, hairdyes, and artistic scars - eugenics should be a choice made by the individual. ESPECIALLY not done by parents to a child - wait til the child's older and can choose what they'd like done. Playing with the genetics of an older organism would be really hard...but it might be able to be done.

Genetic engineering makes the very idea of eugenics obsolete. Anything eugenics can buy with many generations of human suffering those using genetic engineering can have for free.

One zygote and a little bit of labwork necessary. Little else.

I would gladly accept any modifications given to me before my birth if 1.it was to my benifit and 2. it didnt get me treated like a leper.