Genetic engineering is an absolute necessity for the further evolution of the human race

[AndrewR]

In essence, to me, we have retarded the evolutionary process by perfecting medical science to the point where children and people born with massive deformities and warped DNA are able to live and even reproduce, thus spreading their abnormal DNA further into the gene pool. I am not saying this is a bad thing because I do not advocate the wanton destruction of "imperfect" beings -- I'm just stating a fact. Many people alive today because of the grace of medicine, would have died at a younger age and would have had their genes removed from the "pool".

So, we, humans, are warping the evolutionary process and are basically weakening our gene pool. The solution? Gene manipulation? Since we cannot morally rid our gene pool of genetic mutations or imperfection by removing the person who carries them, the next logical step is to cure the imperfections or mutations with genetic engineering. Since we have stopped the natural process, doesn't it stand to reason that we need to continue the improvement through other means?

What say you?

 

[LadyJessica]

I think the next stage is in biomechanical enhancements which will eventually give way to the transition from humans as biological entities to humans as mechanical/electronic entities.

 

[thelanx]

If it is morally wrong to rid our gene pool of weak mutations, it is morally right to add stronger mutations? There are all kinds of effects that could result from doing this. I'm not going to list them all, but this isn't just a simple matter. Thats why there is so much controversy over this topic.

 

[BA]

We haven't retarded it. The selection factors have simply changed.

 

[Pastore]

Since I don' believe in the THEORY of Evolution, I shall call you a retard

LOL "Is a small penis a deformity"??

<---- is deformed

 

[vi edit]

Slippery slope. Slippery slope.

What is a &quot;deformity&quot;? Is a &quot;gay gene&quot; a deformity? Is &quot;stupidity gene&quot; a deformity? Is a small penis a deformity? Is down syndrome a deformity? Is a low amount of fast twitch muscle fibre a deformity? Ect....

Where does it end?

 

[Adul]

I do not think it is possible to complete stop the naturaly occuring evolutionary process. But it is entirely possible to slow it down, detour it, etc. But you have to think about the moral implecations of genetic tweaking of the human gnome. There will be people who feel that nothing should be done to the human genes for the sake that we shouldn't be playing god. We can also throw in the arguement of enhanced humans through genetic manipulation. Imagine the olympics decads from now having to deal with enhanced humans. And you though performance drugs where a problem now. Just imagine what can possiblybe done to a human through genetic manipulation.

Ok I am babling now

 

[JellyBaby]

Humanity will always seek to improve itself. Some women get boob jobs. They feel it's an improvement (to me it's a big turnoff but I digest). If I have a medical condition and I can get some bioengineering done to fix it, thereby enchancing my life, I will sure as hell do so.

Nearsighted people wear glasses. Short people wear high heel shoes. Those with heart problems get bypasses and replacements. So what's the problem throwing some nanites into the mix or bionic limbs or organs? No problems at all with this.

As for genetic manipulation, it's more philosophic. Here we're not only tampering with human bodies in this life but potentionally interfering with future lives. That's the scary part. But it will happen, legally or otherwise. As with anything else, we'll make mistakes, learn from them and perfect the endeavor!

 

[thelanx]

If you change the genes of humans, are the new creatures still humans? or have we made a new race that may cause our extinction? Will life be devalued when you can create a creature however you like just like those &quot;customize your own computer&quot; services? Where do you put the limits on how much gene manipulation you can do? What if it is used for evil purposes. Sure, that sounds childish, but it could happen.

Also, why would you want to become more mechanical? Robots have no emotions. Would humans just become robots that can think, but have to emotions? Sure, our bodies are imperfect, but that is what makes us human. Can people make a perfect electronic/mechanical body when Nature has tried son long to perfect our bodies?

(Sorry for the long post. I'm not trying to enforce my views on anyone else, I'm just expressing my thoughts.)

 

[Doggiedog]

Retard1284, Retard seems to be your favorite word. Did someone drill that into your head when you were young?

 

[IamDavid]

I really couldn't care what people would do with the physical aspects of Genetic Engineering. What scares me is what they could do with the mind. Think about it. What better way to control people. Create people with or without certain behaviors. Kinda scary.

 

[Dameon]

My main issue is an extension of the digital divide, along the plot line of GATTACA, the gentic rift. Essentially, due to the expense of genetic testing / manipulation, only the wealthy will be able to have the &quot;perfect child&quot;. Thus after a while, this create literally a division of the classes into seperate RACES completely, with those who are already subtly viewed as inferior now having a true biological inferiority.

 

[AndrewR]

To examine one aspect of the moral argument: Is it not completely immoral for us to ignore genetic engineering when its possible benefits encompass the eradication of some horrible genetic conditions that result in intense suffering and premature death? Isn't that in some way allowing pain and suffering to occur, much as in witholding lifesaving medical treatment for a disease (such as the removal of a tumor, for instance)?

Granted, there is a slippery slope involved in the indentification of what is &quot;abnormal&quot; or &quot;imperfect&quot;. However, I think it is perfectly acceptable to define certain genetic abnormalities like Down's syndrome as &quot;abnormal&quot;, the elimination of which would allow those destined to be born with Down's to rather lead normal, healthy lives (instead of limited, truncated ones -- their lifespan is shorter, isn't it?).

The problem arises when the line between &quot;curing&quot; and &quot;improving&quot; is reached. Certainly some guidelines could exist to define that line. While shortness of stature is not abnormal, dwarfism is, for instance. Obesity is a normal product of unhealthy living, but an underperforming thyroid is not normal if produced by genetic makeup.

I won't touch on cloning right now.

 

[BoberFett]

My objections are more logical than moral. We still don't even have a cure to the common cold, I'm wary of messing with human DNA. It seems dangerous to start messing with the gene pool until we understand even the most minute detail.

There are also a lot of things that would have to be decided. Would genetically altered humans be allowed to reproduce? Would these humans have the same rights as other humans? To deny them rights would seem unthinkable, because they are human. It seems that what starts as an experiment could quickly get out of control and do incredible damage to the human race.

 

[Athanasius]

One concern is that the generation that first instituted genetic engineering would then enslave all future generations to the standards used to decide what was better.

In one fell swoop, one generation, not by an esoteric and unfathomable natural process but by a clear and conscious bioethical choice, would dictate their terms on all future generations. And that dictation might be irreversable.:Q

 

[BoberFett]

On second thought, I'm all for it if I'd be able to create my own small army of women, 5'10&quot;, blonde, busty and only one thing on their mind - ME. That's my kind of genetics.

 

[AndrewR]

<< We still don't even have a cure to the common cold. >>


True, we haven't a complete understanding of the entirety of human genetics, but then we don't have a complete understanding of the human body (as you say) yet we work on various aspects of it. The progression of knowledge occurs through experimentation. Certainly, there is a the risk of some genetic abominations, but this wouldn't be something new in medicine/science -- they used to lop people's limbs off for superficial wounds until they realized they could just bandage them!



<< One concern is that the generation that first instituted genetic engineering would then enslave all future generations to the standards used to decide what was better. >>


Oh, stop fear mongering with words like &quot;enslave&quot;. There is nothing to say that what is first decided as the &quot;correct&quot; manner would be immutable by future decision makers. Ground rules would be needed to err on the side of prudence, but the laws of man are changeable by man and could reflect progress or a change of perspective later on.

Further (in anticipation of the argument &quot;See, the rules would change!&quot, the progress of science and understanding would not mean the destruction of common sense or views of the human being. The augmentation of people's abilities or appearances (I want my baby to be 6' with blue eyes) obviously falls under the category of the &quot;elective&quot; rather than the correction of inherent problems (my baby needs TWO legs).

People feared computers would take over the world back in the 1960's. They have to an extent, but we haven't seen HAL yet.

 

[ArkAoss]

hmm. . . To rephrase your topic. . . its a necessity yes, but not for evolution, its necessary to increase the quality of life for those people who will be born to those who carry those gene's. To affect the changes of the gene's in the people who contain them would require every cell in the body's genetic code to be changed within an extremly short period of time. Othere wise the body would reject the changed parts, that was discused in the series &quot;enders game&quot; by orson scott card (also:&quot;xenocide&quot; &quot;children of the mind&quot; and &quot;TO BE POSTED LATER&quot; <PM IF THAT ISNT GONE IN 1 DAY) I'm not a believer in the fact that all life resulted from evolution from primordial soup. But due to the way genetics are, and the way DNA works, living thing's could evolve, adapt, AKA stronger genes would survive. Thus, yes if a gayness gene does exist, and couples of that persuasion where able to rig a way to mix their genes as a Hetero couple can/does then maybe the resulting child might be predisposed twords that type of living. Or a better example a couple carries a gene which predisposes them to have less body fat, with the advent of coats, that couples children could become the founders of an artic colony of skiny people that survived because we &quot;tampered&quot; with natural selection.

That's just my idea, I'm pretty sure it'll be our childrens children that actaully come to day to day situations which require the morals associated with this topic.

 

[piku]

Who says that there is anything left to evolve into?

I mean, our we someday supposed to have bones made of stainless steel or something?

 

[Athanasius]

OK, I'll retract &quot;enslave&quot;. I'm not into fear mongering

My concern is that some choices might prove irrevocable. Our bioethical mess is complex as it is. I do agree that genetic engineering will happen. But I am highly dubious of the deepest motives that perhaps push the process. I believe I am well within the bounds of what was called erring &quot;on the side of prudence.&quot;

 

[BoberFett]

<< they used to lop people's limbs off for superficial wounds until they realized they could just bandage them! >>

An amputated limb isn't passed on to one's offspring. Genetic changes are.

<< There is nothing to say that what is first decided as the &quot;correct&quot; manner would be immutable by future decision makers. >>

There is also no evidence to say that once a change has been made, that it can be safely or easily undone.

 

[Zucchini]

hehe what about all the other countries in the world Imagine them gaining a massive advantage through this.

 

[Isla]

With human suffering comes growth.

Consider the parents of a child who was born with a fatal, progressive congenital defect. (Good grief, I start to cry just thinking about it)

This sort of situation may destroy some people, but others become stronger for it. Some curses end up being blessings in disguise. Who are we to decide?

I think that if there is technology that can allow carriers of such fatal diseases like Tay-Sachs etc. to bear healthy children, then hurray. Other than that, there is no other real purpose in genetic engineering, IMHO.

As for me, I would have been put to death for being born with crossed eyes if I had been born in the wrong place and time. Or at the very least, sent to live in an abbey or something. Yet it is my little genetic defect that, I think, has made my life interesting and yes, made me stronger.

I would not change that.

 

[thelanx]

What will prevent people from making a new race of workers or slaves?

Also, if you &quot;cure&quot; someone of down syndome, you have changed his/her genes. It can be viewed that the new individual is not essentially the same being, he/she is a different creature with similar genes. With this view, you are not helping the affected individual, you are eliminating it and replacing it with a better individual.

 

[desy]

Ever heard of Stephen Hawking?
Maybe one of the reasons he has been able to do so much in his feild is his physical limitations which enhanced his mental exertions.
Einstein used to wear the same clothes style everyday to eliminate &quot;extraneous&quot; thought processes.
Genetic Engineering may open a pandoras box that humanity isn't ready for we still have wars and poverty, vainity and eletism. Maybe we should grow up as a species a little more before we start changing our wiring.