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

[JellyBaby]

I hate to go political here but regardless of what we think, politicians, legistlators and lawyers will combine to interfere with our personal beliefs, opinions and choices. Example: right now the US has "no human cloning" laws (except for the covert creation of perfect human government fighting machines in Area 51 of course).

This is pretty cool stuff. Humans determined basic morality thousands of years ago. They never even considered ideas like this. Now we have the chance to lay the foundation on which future generations will base decisions and rules! Kinda like Asimov writing his rules of robotic behavior (Rule 1: don't harm humans).

Basically it's simple: you weigh the benefits of doing Activity X with the negatives and then say "yea" or "nay". If you don't have all the facts or if the decision involves a complex risk assessment, it's a bit more murky. So, if there's not enough information to form a decision you wait until you have the facts. Pretty standard really.

 

[zogar]

yeah I agree with thelanx

 

[LadyJessica]

thelanx,

In the case of down syndrome there really is no cure short of altering the genetics at conception or somehow using neural enhancements after birth. So you are helping the individual (or the individual-to-be). Along the same lines, you're not the same person you were when you were born because many of your cells were replaced many times over.

 

[xaigi]

I'm terrified at the idea of leaving technologies like genetic manipulation and cloning to fools that run the world right now. How can you expect them to handle genetic manipulation if they haven't yet mastered handling an election?

Of course, banning genetic manipulation would be futile. It would only ensure it's availability to the rich and unscrupulous.

I wonder if this is why no other species has survived/grown long enough to (and wanted to) make contact with us humans.

 

[StageLeft]

Sadly I may agree with the thread title if I had to think about it; thus I don't want to. Its an inevitability in the future - it truly is.

 

[AndrewR]

Excellent -- some points I hadn't considered.



<< that survived because we &quot;tampered&quot; with natural selection >>


We have already tampered with natural selection!! Don't you see it?? In all likelihood, my wife would have died at an early age had she been born in the 1800's. Her immune system is rather weak, and she is prone to sickness -- primarily due to a less than perfect thyroid gland. So, previously she would be removed from the gene pool, and the genetic code which predisposed her to sickness would be gone, too. Fortunately for me and the rest of the world, modern science (antibiotics in particular) kept her alive long enough for her body to adapt a bit better and to survive. Now, it seems that in order to maintain the beneficial aspects of natural selection, we need to use genetic engineering to eliminate that part of her genetic code which would produce offspring also at risk for persistent illness. See my point?


<< Who says that there is anything left to evolve into? >>


An easy example to point this out is the average size of people has been steadily increasing. 100 years ago, I would have been average height at 5'6&quot; -- now I'm short. I remember reading something which said that the size of the cranial cavity is increasing, meaning larger brains and more brainpower. Another example.


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


Point taken. My intent was to show that trial and error has ruled the day though I understand your concern. The idea of human guinea pigs disgusts people, yet it happens every day with new medical procedures. Aren't genetics but an extension of that?


<< With human suffering comes growth. >>


Oh, Isla, that's a dangerous thought. Are you saying it's justified to allow a boy to die when a simple blood transfusion would save him? Is the growth from a senseless death worth the life that is lost? Are we not under a moral obligation to save a life, or IMPROVE a life, if we have the means? By an absurb extension of that logic, I could execute twenty people and allow their families to &quot;grow&quot; from the experience. We can find reason for many actions, but the prevention of human suffering, to me, is a moral imperative. People can certainly grow from suffering, but senseless and preventable suffering is a tragedy, not a learning experience. While I might learn a great deal from putting a bullet through my thigh, I think I shall decline that lesson.


<< With this view, you are not helping the affected individual, you are eliminating it and replacing it with a better individual. >>


Sophistry. Does the genetic code affect the soul of that person? Or, are we defined by the biological entity which contains the soul (assuming, of course, that you believe in the concept)? When is an individual's identity defined? At conception? At birth? At adulthood?


<< 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. >>


Now, this is an intriguing one. Quite true that this might be the case. Conversely, you mention Einstein, and I could also bring up Newton or da Vinci -- all three unencumbered with a disability yet all three equally deserving of the title of &quot;genius&quot;, just as Mr. Hawking is. I tend to belive that Hawking was born with a mental capacity and an unfortunate physical condition. Perhaps his work output would actually be far greater if he had the means to communicate more rapidly? We'll never know. Good point though.

 

[Isla]

<< Oh, Isla, that's a dangerous thought. Are you saying it's justified to allow a boy to die when a simple blood transfusion would save him? Is the growth from a senseless death worth the life that is lost? Are we not under a moral obligation to save a life, or IMPROVE a life, if we have the means? By an absurb extension of that logic, I could execute twenty people and allow their families to &quot;grow&quot; from the experience. We can find reason for many actions, but the prevention of human suffering, to me, is a moral imperative. People can certainly grow from suffering, but senseless and preventable suffering is a tragedy, not a learning experience. While I might learn a great deal from putting a bullet through my thigh, I think I shall decline that lesson. >>



Boy, did you take what I said out of context! I think you misunderstood me, and looking back I realize I was not clear enough about my meaning.

Do you really in a million years think I meant anything that extreme? LOL, me, deny a kid a blood transfusion in the name of growth! What do you think I am, a Christian Scientist?

I said that in cases where it could alieve pain and suffering (I used Tay-Sachs as an example) it was a good thing. Just the thought of children suffering sends me into a fit of weeping, and I said that as well in my original post.

However, when it comes to less than perfect but not life-threatening genetic variations (such as my monocular vision) it is best to let nature be. The world would be boring if everything was perfect.

Perhaps if I said &quot;Challenge brings growth&quot; instead of suffering you would not have misunderstood me. (I should ahve said that because it is really what I meant, but hey, sometimes I think one word and type another.)

BTW, do you work in the medical field? Have you ever worked with people who are physically/mentally challenged? It's actually quite rewarding and a wonderful example of the strength of the human spirit.

My perspective comes from working with parents who do have special needs children. They have expressed that, despite the difficulties, they feel blessed.

I guess you would just have to experience what I am talking about to understand what I mean.

edit: No matter what I think, I'm sure it will eventually be a reality. And honestly, we really won't know if it is a good thing or a bad thing until it's too late, because only hindsight is 20/20.

 

[SackOfAllTrades]

I don't think GE is good for me, there will just be more people that can beat me up.

 

[AndrewR]

Isla: I didn't think you were implying what I wrote, but I was taking part of what you did write to a logical absurdity to prove the &quot;slippery slope&quot; aspect of it. I understand your perspective, but I'm not entirely sure that I agree. By your standards, my nearsightedness makes my life more interesting. By mine, it prevented me from becoming a military pilot, has reduced my ability to participate in some physical activities (I hate contacts -- really bother my eyes), and has generally degraded my life by a small amount. Has it made me stronger? Not really -- it's just pissed me off most of the time.

No, I have not worked in the field that you mention. I can see the point that adversity makes one appreciate what one does have, but again I have to mention that though good may come from adversity, the prevention of it should be paramount (to me, anyway). There is a girl with Down's syndrome in our church who also works at the local grocery store. She is as sweet as can be and wonderfully friendly and great at her job (a bagger); however, I would rather her be just as able as everyone else so that she not be cheated out of every opportunity everyone else has in terms of physical and mental capabilities without mention of lifespan. Certainly, she is a wonderful person, and her genetic condition doesn't diminish her worth as a human being. I just cannot abide by the notion of allowing Down's to occur if we had the means to prevent it simply for the fact that there is some good in adversity.


<< What do you think I am, a Christian Scientist? >>


Ah, I was hoping someone would catch that.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

Wait... so let me get this straight. AndrewR wants future generations to be engineered with my genes?

 

[AndrewR]

Yes, I want all offspring to be engineered in labs so that they can actually read a thread before contributing nothing -- that's my ultimate goal.