Human genetic engineering.

It can be used to cure and prevent a lot of diseases and plagues and also prevent deformed births. But it can also be used to alter our next generations to be however we like(ie: eye/hair color, body features, etc.), so that would very likely get out of hand.

I'm fine with using it to prevent birth deformities. Using it to create this super-immunity thing sounds like a good idea too, but studying phylogeny and co-evolution amongst organisms shows a strong evidence that virii(plagues) have helped shape the evolution of human beings. So basically we'd be affecting our natural life cycle by even making ourselves artificially immune to something like ebola or HIV. It sounds ridiculous to accept that plagues and diseases that wipe out tons of people are actually helping humans to evolve, but its true. We could make ourselves immune to every disease, but god knows what could happen then. The mortality rate of humankind would probably hit the floor and we'd be faced with monstrous overpopulation beyond your imagination in a matter of years, we'd consume all of the Earth's resources and probably all die of starvation within a few generations if this were to happen.

Did you know that the people who share partial immunity to HIV are all descendants of the people who survived the black plague that ravaged 2/3 of the population of Europe?

Can you tell that I'm a Biology major in college? :wacko:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xena

So far science has failed somewhat in this field. For instance, a biologist by the name of Lee Silver claims that our descendants will be smarter and more athletic and will live for hundreds of years. Yet John Horgan a Scientific author says Researchers hope they will be able to customize human personalities through genetic engineering. But so far not a single one of these claims linking genes to complex traits has been corroborated by follow-up studies.

---

What do you mean? It hasn't happened yet so it never will? I agree that we have much, much to learn about it before we can go off making vast improvements on our evolution. It's best to take baby steps and gradually improve our abilities.

Personalities are both nature and nurture, so I would say it's folly to think that we could cure the less scrupulous of human behavior with a shot of some magic liquid.

Quote:

---

On a personal level, Imagine you were choosing your own child. You can see your baby grow on a computer screen into a teenage girl or boy. You will be able to see what your child will become both physically and mentally. This isn't a religous viewpoint, but I'd rather have my child grow the way nature intended than pick it's future. You could imagine in 2100 A.D. You go into a clinic and choose either an organic baby or processed baby. But like I have already mentioned, it wouldn't be 100% guarantee of who the child will be, since external social factors build up our personality.

---

I'm probably biased here, because I've vowed to never reproduce because of my unsatisfactory genes. So I can't say I'd ever choose an organic baby if I could choose a synthetic variety.

Quote:

---

But, on the note of using genetic engineering to cure disease. It would be wonderful to live in a world free of pain, sickness, and disability. For example found a link between genetics and cancer. They isolated (on chromosome 13) and cloned a gene that they believe prevents a hereditary eye cancer called retinoblastoma. Suspect genes are also being investigated for possible links to bone cancer and chronic myeloid leukemia.

---

Yeah...

Quote:

---

The idea of making the human race better isn't a new one. Over 2,300 years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato wrote The best of either sex should be united with the best as often as possible, and the inferior with the inferior as seldom as possible. Though the true discipline of eugenics has been around since 1883, influenced by the writings of Darwin, Sir Francis Galton reasoned that it was time for humans to take control of their own evolution.

---

Definitely not a new idea, I agree. Gladiators were selectively bred, as were slaves.

Quote:

---

Even germany and the Nazi's took the idea of creating the "master race". Up to 225,000 people were sterilized by force, classing them as "undesirables". It is because of Hitler eugenics was starting to look ugly. For example, The biotech century comments "If diabetes, sickle-cell anemia, and cancer are to be prevented by altering the genetic makeup of individuals, why not proceed to other less serious �disorders�: myopia, color blindness, dyslexia, obesity, left-handedness? Indeed, what is to preclude a society from deciding that a certain skin color is a disorder?"

---

Already been addressed by Zephyr so I won't bother.

Quote:

---

On the religous view you asked for, well "Gods twisted will" as you eloquently put it, was perfect humans living forever on a paradise Earth. People say we shouldn't play god because they believe we don't have that right. That only the one who created us can bring us back to perfection. Yes I do believe on day we will be made perfect again.

---

Boy, religion is confusing. I'll stop trying to understand what you said.

The only catch with that, Soeru, is that we already greatly affect natural selection through conventional medication. Sickle cell again - its beneficial effects, resistance to malaria, have been circumvented since quinine was first developed. Similarly, we no longer select against congenital heart defects, as many can be fixed via surgery or catheter-delivered devices (my most recent research paper was the Angel Wings, treating secundum atrial septal defects - basically holes in the heart). The biggest consequence of intelligence is that we now reduce or alter the effects of evolution ourselves.

But yes, if any miracle-fix became readily available, it probably would cause quite a bit of trouble. But, if you think about genetic engineering in particular, the conditions required for genetic engineering on a mass scale (wealth, large knowledge/medical base, strong infrastructure) are probably only prevalent in the First World, which is actually beginning to see a population decline since people are having less children (Austria, for instance, is losing at least 1% of its population a year, I think). Similar things are actually happening in certain African countries, too, where AIDS in particular is pushing their population growth rates down by a significant factor - a cheap cure for HIV alone, for a different miracle-fix, would lead to a massive growth boom, and they can't even feed the population they have now in several nations. Another big problem, now that you have me thinking along these lines, is that it would basically greatly increase the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" of the world, and social stratification tends to lead to...unrest.

Genetic Engineering, like anything else has it's good points, and it's bad points. I'm only 14 so I don't know too much about science but I can determine from what's been said the general arguement against the benefits of longer life, immunity and whatnot against the possiblity of killing ourselves (U.S.A. to be the most likely to do it) and with religion. Personally, I'm for genetic engineering. If it develops far enough, people's lives could be bettered (if that's a word) and saved. There will be people who abuse this technology, that's for certain, so it's a balance between saving lives and making them better with the possbility of people abusing this technology. I'll ignore the religious debates for now because I'm tired and I don't like to debate against religion. Religion is tough to debate against because people are all for it but there's no evidence to counter against..... and with all the evidence we have saying there's no God or whatnot, the people will say it doesn't matter because God is omnipotent, or just waiting for the right time. So unless we can somehow prove God doesn't exist, which is impossible (I think) there isn't really much point debating it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zephyr

The only catch with that, Soeru, is that we already greatly affect natural selection through conventional medication. Sickle cell again - its beneficial effects, resistance to malaria, have been circumvented since quinine was first developed. Similarly, we no longer select against congenital heart defects, as many can be fixed via surgery or catheter-delivered devices (my most recent research paper was the Angel Wings, treating secundum atrial septal defects - basically holes in the heart). The biggest consequence of intelligence is that we now reduce or alter the effects of evolution ourselves.

---

True that. However imagine on how much of a larger scale we would be tampering with life cycles if we become immune to absolutely every disease. Mortality rate would be too low to for a balanced earth, especially as developed countries(ie:USA) consume up to ten times more resources than people in a country like China for example, and twice as much as people in Germany or Japan. That's a lot of resources, so imagine how much more it would be if our population kept on growing at an unimaginable rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zephyr

But, if you think about genetic engineering in particular, the conditions required for genetic engineering on a mass scale (wealth, large knowledge/medical base, strong infrastructure) are probably only prevalent in the First World, which is actually beginning to see a population decline since people are having less children (Austria, for instance, is losing at least 1% of its population a year, I think). Similar things are actually happening in certain African countries, too, where AIDS in particular is pushing their population growth rates down by a significant factor - a cheap cure for HIV alone, for a different miracle-fix, would lead to a massive growth boom, and they can't even feed the population they have now in several nations. Another big problem, now that you have me thinking along these lines, is that it would basically greatly increase the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" of the world, and social stratification tends to lead to...unrest.

---

Communism rules, wouldn't you agree? :wacko:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soeru

True that. However imagine on how much of a larger scale we would be tampering with life cycles if we become immune to absolutely every disease. Mortality rate would be too low to for a balanced earth, especially as developed countries(ie:USA) consume up to ten times more resources than people in a country like China for example, and twice as much as people in Germany or Japan. That's a lot of resources, so imagine how much more it would be if our population kept on growing.

---

True enough...on the other hand, in theory a larger population in the US would lead to increased demand for the products, and the companies raising prices to make a larger profit on consumer goods would lead to each individual person buying less. Not likely, though... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soeru

Communism rules, wouldn't you agree? :wacko:

---

Hmmm...to debate, or not to debate...nah, it's been done. Suffice it to say that theoretically yes, but in reality the stratification proved to be even more rigid and extreme under any Communist model between the rulers and the ruled, though there were only two levels and the difference led to a minimum of fuss...until glasnot and perestroika blew up in Russia, or until the Politburo started pandering to the capitalist world in China. Socialist democracy for the win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zephyr

Hmmm...to debate, or not to debate...nah, it's been done. Suffice it to say that theoretically yes, but in reality the stratification proved to be even more rigid and extreme under any Communist model between the rulers and the ruled, though there were only two levels and the difference led to a minimum of fuss...until glasnot and perestroika blew up in Russia, or until the Politburo started pandering to the capitalist world in China. Socialist democracy for the win.

---

Words can not possibly express my level of agreement with your stance. Take me now.

*ahem*

Well I can only hope we end up using genetical engineering wisely and lot let it get out of hand, but I'm not very optimistic about our future use of advancements because either a)the large uneducated masses wont give a fuck as it might not yield immedeate results and refuse to have such projects funded, or b) if it provides fast results it will probably become uncontrollable and everyone will jump on the "make your custom baby" bandwagon, a sickening misuse of gene therapy that the population will blame those quaint, curious young scientists for.

I'm all for it. Mainly because I'm a fan of the advancement of technology so long as it has nothing to do with robotics. I don't have some big moral objection or big theoretical praise for it--it's just something I like the idea of.

My only gripe with it is the fact that once we gain the ability to change our fetuses at will, where do we draw the line between vanity and necessity? For example, your child will be born with Down Syndrome. Do you live with it or change that fetus and get rid of it?

It's all ethical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightofNachos

What do you mean? It hasn't happened yet so it never will?

---

Nah, heed the "so far" ;)

We do have a way to go still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightofNachos

Yeah...

---

Yup. Just a bit of info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightofNachos

Already been addressed by Zephyr so I won't bother.

---

Zephyr was commenting on part, and merely intregued. But I won't be defending the words of the Biotech century publication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KnightofNachos

Boy, religion is confusing. I'll stop trying to understand what you said.

---

I'd always offer to help, I know it's not easy. But only if you want to of course. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zephyr

Whether or not it exists in truth or illusion, it is believed in by most people. As such, the assumption for the sake of this debate should be that it exists, since there isn't really a valid middle ground with a unique set of beliefs stemming from it (as there is in, for instance, the existence of divinity). Free will is...one of my problem areas. My seemingly-facetious question regarding free will in that debate may well be...just silly. Nothing more.

---

Well look at life like this. Before you was born, the world got on just fine without you, It didn't have to be you. It could have been any one in thousands that could have been born instead of you. Quite a miricle, and when you die, over time you will be forgoten like you never existed.

So you have a short slot in the time line. Eternity before you, and eternity after you. You can choose your own path in life, the path you choose may bring you to an early grave, or fame and fortune. That is why people focus on the now. In life there are people who follow, and people who lead. The ones who lead can sometimes shape the world to the way they want it. Your fate, you decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capt_Spaulding

It wouldn't matter. She's only in her pre-teen years so she's barely even started life, so it wouldn't matter if I gave her no choice in the matter.

---

so let me get this straight, not only would u have sex with your daughter, but if se denied you would rape her? cause thats basically what your saying


--- you are starting to fit the profile of a serial rapist--

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capt_Spaulding

I know what you mean, and I agree. I was just joking with the whole daughter thing :rofl: I'm 17 years old :rofl: Sorry, I just couldn't resist bringing it up. And I'm no pedo either :wacko:

---

sorry i dident read that, but seriously that not something to joke about, i was starting to take u very seriously

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xena

Zephyr was commenting on part, and merely intregued. But I won't be defending the words of the Biotech century publication.

---

You were using it to defend your words, so it must suit your ideas to a greater or lesser degree, though. The fact it contains a logical fallacy should be addressed, or this particular proof of your opinion dropped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xena

Well look at life like this. Before you was born, the world got on just fine without you, It didn't have to be you. It could have been any one in thousands that could have been born instead of you. Quite a miricle, and when you die, over time you will be forgoten like you never existed.

So you have a short slot in the time line. Eternity before you, and eternity after you. You can choose your own path in life, the path you choose may bring you to an early grave, or fame and fortune. That is why people focus on the now. In life there are people who follow, and people who lead. The ones who lead can sometimes shape the world to the way they want it. Your fate, you decide.

---

Millions, is closer, and without a fluke blind date, without a department of Sperry being founded for the Korean reconstruction and a random new employee being sent overseas, without the UN intervention in Korea, without my grandfather leaving the Joseon court and retiring to the countryside, it wouldn't even be that. I'm also unsure why you went off onto this tangent from my statement of assumption, even if you did run directly into another area I've had trouble reconciling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zephyr

You were using it to defend your words, so it must suit your ideas to a greater or lesser degree, though. The fact it contains a logical fallacy should be addressed, or this particular proof of your opinion dropped.

---

I hold no convictions towards my opinions on this matter. Mabye you misunderstood, the part wasn't conected to the rest of my post. :/

Lets see:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zephyr

Not the first two sentences, but everything after. It's a classical slippery slope fallacy. Society will not automatically decide, assuming all things become possible,

---

An assumption indeed. You are creating the Society conumdrum, I certainly wasn't thinking that, but sorry if I gave you that impression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zephyr

to start selecting for Caucasian children exclusively just because they started treating cystic fibrosis before birth. Just like, for a better example, the use of marijuana does not lead always to the use of harder drugs (the Gateway drug debate - the legalization debates are quite similar). Merely because a relatively smooth continuum exists in the trend of genetic traits from the harmless phenotypical manifestations to the most harmful, doesn't mean that society will still treat all of these equally

---

Exactly why I split my post up. But, with more an more people believing that the key to problems in behavior [Example, social abnormalities.] lies at the genetic level. And some now believe that genes play a more important role than environment in influencing individual and group behavior. Using genetics to try and change human traits [As opposed to physical deformaties.] Sounds inevitable.

It is also said that chemical, pharmaceutical, and biotech companies compete to patent genes and organisms as well as ways to manipulate them. The driving impulse, of course, is financial�to make money from the technology of the future. Many bioethicists fear that this could lead to "consumer eugenics," in which parents could be pressured to select "genetically approved" children. It�s easy to imagine how advertising could play a major role in such a trend.

Such trends may lead genetic therapy only open to the wealthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zephyr

that evolution will lead to moral degeneracy and the decay of human society into a primitive, animalistic state.

---

Already happened, alot would say. Many of the last generation [In my country, I might hazard] fear leaving the world behind to our generation. There are more and more youngsters who are labeled "Yobo's" who have no real future planed, ofter no employment, and often engage in criminal activities. The latest exaple was a chinese man who was bludgeoned to death and had is head stamped on till it burst in front of his wife. The sickos were but 15 boys, aged 15-17. And why did they kill him? Because they vandalised his shop and he stood up to them. Extreme I know, but common place are these types of youths now, where I live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zephyr

you did run directly into another area I've had trouble reconciling.

---

How queer. Thank you for letting me know.

i'd genetically engineer another xena. so we have one as a mod and the other as an admin princess :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey

i'd genetically engineer another xena. so we have one as a mod and the other as an admin princess :)

---

Another me? That's scary. :S

Though it would mean I'd have more time to myself. :)