28 replies to this topic

[a1s]

I got thinking about genetic engennering last night, and the future of the human race as a species, and the Course of this was taking involved much genetics, but then I thought "just how likely is it that people would do this?" so I decided to ask you guys once I would get home (and offcourse forgot).

so here is how it goes:

scenario I

a reltively safe procedure has been devloped to help cure the most common genetic sicknesses (like the Down syndrome or type 1 diabetes). another thing that has been developed are treatments that should (and tests show they do) inncrease intellectual or physical capacity of a person. there are however risks, about 1 child out of 10000 ("ten thousand") can develop a new genetic disorder as a result. finaly there are even better procedures being put into effect which (at the present time) seem to have about 1 in 1000 safety, that improve other things too (like digestion, and even looks in a way), with the only problem being that they are fresh out of testing and the oldest test subject is at the moment only 5 years old.
none of these things are particularaly cheap. with the desiese treatment being cheapest, followed by Physical then mental upgrades and finaly the experimental thing costs about as much as 5 years of nation level colledge.
would you use the oportunity to improve your childs future? or would you play it safe?
//note: the first variant is meant to represent you being aginst it on moral/religious grounds, not factual errors- this is a "what if" scenario.

scenario II

pretty much as above. except that all the risks are 10 times higher (which is what you estimate it to be from reading governmetn propoganda, boastfull brochures of the clinics themselves and Foreign Biological Literature) and yielding to pressure from Religious groups the government bans this sort of thing. this allso causes the prices for this service to go up tenfold ('cos of the secrecy). The test for sickness (whcih BTW is more or less available right now- in the real world) is still legal though.
what would you do then?

Scenario 3

After spending several decades the Science coumunity has developed (and checked 100 times over for defects) a superior human, which is better at everyting- they are smarter, faster, stronger, can hold their breath longer and get more nutrients from food... you name it, and they'd be better at it. they still want these children to have parrents though. would you have one?
//Note: the first variant is about being aginst it on moral/relgious grounds ( f.e. "god didn't intend for this to happen"), while the second one is about being oposed for personal reasons (f.e. "I wouldn't be able to connect with a child going through completely different experiences").

[A. J. Raffles]

I can understand why somebody might want to try that sort of thing, but I personally wouldn't. So I suppose "it's wrong" is the option that comes closest...

[a1s]

A. J. Raffles, on Jan 28 2007, 12:46 AM, said:

I can understand why somebody might want to try that sort of thing, but I personally wouldn't. So I suppose "it's wrong" is the option that comes closest...

not even if you child will have a genetic defect? that is sad (but then again, I don't have any children, maybe whan I will I will view this differenly).

[greywolf]

I don't see what is *wrong* with genetic altering, and I would condone the use of it in nipping diseases in the bud, so to speak, like babies with Down's Syndrome and such. However, widespread use of genetic alterations to enhance people would easily lead to the domination of a "super" race of humans, if you will, and I believe that you can see where that train of thought leads.

Edit: Err, were you implying in Scenario #2 that its illegal to have genetic modification? In that case, I'd change my answer to #3 (I don't want to get into it).

[A. J. Raffles]

a1s, on Jan 28 2007, 01:10 AM, said:

A. J. Raffles, on Jan 28 2007, 12:46 AM, said:

I can understand why somebody might want to try that sort of thing, but I personally wouldn't. So I suppose "it's wrong" is the option that comes closest...

not even if you child will have a genetic defect? that is sad (but then again, I don't have any children, maybe whan I will I will view this differenly).

Well, but it's your child with the genetic defect, isn't it?

[Tulac]

Where do we stop the progress, why is this wrong, and using a tool isn't? Shouldn't we thought of the morals first time we invented anything? What is the difference between this and when a person goes through an operating procedure with all those machines, anesthetics and what not. Everything we make is unnatural, because we made it, I mean we have improved our life (not happines but physical life) with technology by so much already, what's wrong with the next step if we've already climbed half of the mountain?

[A. J. Raffles]

Tulac, on Jan 28 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

Where do we stop the progress, why is this wrong, and using a tool isn't? Shouldn't we thought of the morals first time we invented anything? What is the difference between this and when a person goes through an operating procedure with all those machines, anesthetics and what not. Everything we make is unnatural, because we made it, I mean we have improved our life (not happines but physical life) with technology by so much already, what's wrong with the next step if we've already climbed half of the mountain?

That you can fall off the top, obviously.

[Tulac]

That's why we take safety precautions.
And hey, with each step there were risks involved, but if we wouldn't take those chances we'd still be on the bottom.

[Juni Ori]

So Tulac you have this interesting view that we are somehow unnatural creatures? Haven't you noticed there are a lot of living creatures on our planet that use different innovations to improve their lives? Of course they can't do anything such as genetic engineering yet, but still they improve their lives voluntarily...

Anyways, Scenario 1: I would use both, risks are far too small and I have no moral or religious grounds not to use; Scenario 2: only to cure diseases, I'm not that easily going to anger people with real power and thus risking my and my offspring's health and lives; Scenario 3: I would have one, thank you, why not?

However, in all above scenarios, I'm not the one to actually carry the child, thus I'm not the only one to make decisions. But, those are my opinions.

[Tulac]

What we create isn't natural, we are, because we were created by nature, but since we are not nature ourselves obviously everything we create is artificial, it doesn't neccesarily have to mean a bad thing, but it affects the balance of nature.
Sure there are animals which create artificial structures (for example termites) but they're slow as natural evolution so they don't affect the balance, while we are much much faster in our progress than natural evolution. That's why we have technological evolution, which is more adaptive to the everchanging needs of society.

[Juni Ori]

And there's the big question: is technological evolution unnatural and why? Wherein you apparently have your opinion and I have mine. Then there's the other big question: is there actually such thing as a natural balance? This is because remember that nature itself and extraterrestial objects can radically alter the nature. Which leads to third, however not anymore that big, question: are extraterrestial objects part of the nature?

[a1s]

greywolf, on Jan 28 2007, 05:19 AM, said:

However, widespread use of genetic alterations to enhance people would easily lead to the domination of a "super" race of humans, if you will, and I believe that you can see where that train of thought leads.

yes and no. first of all yes "Superhumans" will most certinetly dominate. but since being a SH is availble to pretty much everyone I don't see why that is a problem. the Nazi analogy you were trying to make failed for one reason- Geramns just weren't superior (or at least not by much), had they really been better they would probably have won, and allso they would probably just take over all the worlds governments rather then start a big war- violence as you know is a sign of inability to resolve the problem otherwise.

[Juni Ori]

Small correction, if I may. It's not available to everyone, only to those not yet born.

[Tulac]

As I said anything created by any being (bee hive, bird nest) is artificial. With natural balance I meant ecosystem, which is something that exist for hundreds of thousands of years in the same shape and is slowly altered. Extraterrestrial objects aren't a part of our ecosystem (which I consider as nature, although of course you can use it as a broader term for the whole universe), so in that way they are not natural.

[Potatoe]

Genetic alteration = Awsome.

I'm probobly going to end up as a crazy scientist like in the movies where I conduct an experiment and unleash hell...