Genetic engineering

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Truenemo1889, Jul 25, 2002.

  1. Truenemo1889 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    "La discipline mene a la victoire, victoire est la vie!"
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Increan Sage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    358
    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ltcmmdr Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    129
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,830
    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.)
     
  8. NenarTronian Teenaged Transhumanist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,083
    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    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

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. JSMill Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    NenarTronian, you the man, and Transhumanism is the philosophy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. NenarTronian Teenaged Transhumanist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,083
    Never read it
     
  11. Xerxes asdfghjkl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,830
    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.

    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.....
     
  12. NenarTronian Teenaged Transhumanist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,083
    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:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. overdoze human Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    310
    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.
     
  14. BatM Member At Large Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    408
    Transhumanism: another look

    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.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Gifted World Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,113
    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.
     
  16. Xevious Truth Beyond Logic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    964
    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?
     
  17. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    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...
     
  18. BatM Member At Large Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    408
    There is no free lunch...

    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?
     
  19. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    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...
     
  20. BatM Member At Large Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    408
    Hmmmm

    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).
     
  21. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    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.
     
  22. Assasin001 Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    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.
     
  23. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    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.
     

Share This Page