Genetic Engineering

[devonin]

Re: Genetic Engineering

Genetic engeneering, from my standpoint, should only be done on animals

it is the parents choice the change the child before birth

How do you reconcile these contradictory attitudes?

Genetic engineering is too risky for us right now so we should either scrap the idea as a whole or wait and research better technology

What happens when we get to the point (Some argue we are already there) where the only way to advance our knoweldge of the technology is to put it into practical use to assess the strengths and weaknessess of theoretical techniques?

[lord_carbo]

Re: Genetic Engineering

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You're looking at guns, and a lot of violence and claiming that guns are responsible for the large amount of violence. Switzerland has mandatory military service for all citizens, everyone in the country has a military rifle and the training to use it, and they have one of the lowest crime rates on earth.

Coequally, England's crime rates have been skyrocketing ever since they "banned" all guns. Arguably though could be because they have failed to ban all guns, but certainly this would mean that guns are just something we need to deal with in this day and age.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Genetic Engineering

Think of it this way. When guns are banned, criminals are more likely to go to gun-free areas right? Well, since guns are banned, there is nobody to stop them from, say, robbing a bank or hitting a house. Armed. Therefore, crime rates go up as criminals are more likely to commit crimes. While I'm not saying that's the absolute truth, but IIRC it has happened in several places.

P.S England is also banning Samurai swords just like guns, due to the number of violent incidences occurring with them. There was an article on it a few weeks ago, but I think it may have been deleted.

~Bynary Fission

[Sullyman2007]

Re: Genetic Engineering

Think of it this way. When guns are banned, criminals are more likely to go to gun-free areas right? Well, since guns are banned, there is nobody to stop them from, say, robbing a bank or hitting a house. Armed. Therefore, crime rates go up as criminals are more likely to commit crimes. While I'm not saying that's the absolute truth, but IIRC it has happened in several places.

P.S England is also banning Samurai swords just like guns, due to the number of violent incidences occurring with them. There was an article on it a few weeks ago, but I think it may have been deleted.

~Bynary Fission

I don't understand what youre trying to say, do you mean that since guns are banned, people will use other methods to commit crime? I doubt that will cause an increase in crime rate. If guns are banned, crime rate should drop.

[Bynary Fission]

Re: Genetic Engineering

I don't understand what youre trying to say, do you mean that since guns are banned, people will use other methods to commit crime? I doubt that will cause an increase in crime rate. If guns are banned, crime rate should drop.

Criminals would most likely get their guns from illegal sources when guns were banned. And since nobody is allowed to have a gun, criminals can freely commit all the crimes they want with nobody being able to defend themselves with a gun. America has some of the worst crime rates in the world, mostly in gun murders (Over 10000 a year), yet weapons are illegal to carry in most places. Why is that you may ask? Well, since nobody can legally defend himself with a gun in gun-free areas, criminals can't easily be apprehended. And by the time police arrive, they may be long gone.


~Bynary Fission

[atalkingcow]

Re: Genetic Engineering

Criminals would most likely get their guns from illegal sources when guns were banned. And since nobody is allowed to have a gun, criminals can freely commit all the crimes they want with nobody being able to defend themselves with a gun. America has some of the worst crime rates in the world, mostly in gun murders (Over 10000 a year), yet weapons are illegal to carry in most places. Why is that you may ask? Well, since nobody can legally defend himself with a gun in gun-free areas, criminals can't easily be apprehended. And by the time police arrive, they may be long gone.


~Bynary Fission

QFT

Even tho we're now discussing two entirely different subjects at once. OH BOY!

[devonin]

Re: Genetic Engineering

If someone wants to make a thread dealing with the relation of guns and gun control to crime, I can split off the relevant posts from here easily enough.

Otherwise, lets get back on topic.

[andy-o24]

Re: Genetic Engineering

What happens when we get to the point (Some argue we are already there) where the only way to advance our knoweldge of the technology is to put it into practical use to assess the strengths and weaknessess of theoretical techniques?

Well, that's the thing. We eventually have to test this process on human beings or it's a complete waste of time. There is no reason that we can't find someone willing to let their body be experimented on. There has to be some people in this world that, despite the fact that they might lose their life, would willingly have a procedure(sp) done on themselves.

Who's to say we can't try this on a dead body before a liveing one as well. We could see the effects on a dead body and try to think of the different reactions a liveing body might have. Why can't we just go ahead and test it now, we have to have some bodies that are donated to science after death.

This topic really comes down to what-if's. What if this and what if that. We could say what if about anything on this subject but never really know what may or may not happen. I'm not saying it should not be done, but we should have a better knowledge and know the risks before hardcore testing.

-o24

[devonin]

Re: Genetic Engineering

A perfect willingness to subject humans to testing also does a really good job of silencing most objections to testing on cruelty to animals fronts, because one of their favourite techniques is to say "Everything that can feel pain should be treated the same with respect to enforced suffering, animals can feel pain, so can humans, so if you want to justify scientific experimentation on animals you have to justify experimentation on humans" with the hidden assumption that "You will of course, not agree that testing on humans is justified"

If your stance is instead "Yup, I would have to justify both of those, woudln't I" They tend to run out of legs to stand on pretty quickly.

Question is, do we strictly wait for volunteers? Do we offer people with death sentences a chance to be commuted to life if they agree? Do we take a page from the olden days and conscript the insane and vegetables? Offer huge sums of money?

If we're eventually going to -have- to test some of these things on humans, we owe it to ourselves to come up with a useful rubric of selection as early on as possible.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Genetic Engineering

If we're eventually going to -have- to test some of these things on humans, we owe it to ourselves to come up with a useful rubric of selection as early on as possible.

In all honesty, I don't think the breakthrough in genetic engineering will occur in the United States due to our government's intervention and regulations. I think a place like China, with it's huge population, Godless leaders, and horrible environmental and human rights violations, is more of a prime location for such a breakthrough. Or perhaps, Switzerland. They are always doing crazy things over in Switzerland. Inventing LSD, riding bikes, building a machine that could possibly create a black hole underneath the Swiss-Franco boarder. They are crazy mothers.

[atalkingcow]

Re: Genetic Engineering

In all honesty, I don't think the breakthrough in genetic engineering will occur in the United States due to our government's intervention and regulations. I think a place like China, with it's huge population, Godless leaders, and horrible environmental and human rights violations, is more of a prime location for such a breakthrough. Or perhaps, Switzerland. They are always doing crazy things over in Switzerland. Inventing LSD, riding bikes, building a machine that could possibly create a black hole underneath the Swiss-Franco boarder. They are crazy mothers.

Godlessness has nothing to do with it.And don't you dare say it has, unless you want to start another thread about it, where I will write huge essays on the subject.-.-

If we do decide that we want to start testing genetic engineering on humans, I feel we should definitely go with the "commute sentences for participation" idea. The thought behind this being.."they're gonna die anyway, so why not die from some scientist's mistake?"

The problem is..some guy will change his mind once he starts dying, and then say that it's "unnessesary(sp!) pain".

Which brings me to my main feeling about most things. The stupidity of the average american will cause this to go down the drain.

[devonin]

Re: Genetic Engineering

Godlessness has nothing to do with it

Traditionally Godfullness motivates a large amount of the outcry -against- genetic engineering, so it does seem to follow that Godlessness would help to remove a lot of that outcry.

Edit: Oh, I missed my 3,000th post sliding by...unfortunate.

[Reach]

Re: Genetic Engineering

I'm all for genetic engineering. It's an amazing idea, and the research that goes into it will inevitably go into forming other technologies that will do us a great amount of good from the knowledge gained.

I think all the extreme predictions of slippery slope and where it could go wrong is pure science fiction. On the most basic level, introduction of genetic screening to remove disabilities and increase the overall fitness of our population will do good for everyone. It's a benign form of eugenics, if you will. These will be basic things that are administered to everyone. However, we're not magically going to go from that to producing designer babies, super intelligent robot children etc etc.

The reason is fairly simple: the ability to do this is so far away it's not even worth worrying about. For example, the ability to increase intelligence. There is no 'intelligence gene' and the genetic modification of intelligence is not going to be something possible for a very long time, as it is a product of an amazingly complex set of interactions between the genes and the environment. The same goes with a lot of other things. Sure, we can modify relatively basic things like eye color and hair color but to go as far as making the child a super model isn't going to be something money can buy through genetic engineering.

Personally I don't see how anyone can reject removing genetic disorders from the gene pool, among other things that cause people grief. I think anyone that does is on cloud 9 and does not realize some of the terrible things people go through on a daily basis because something incredibly simple went wrong with the code. If we have the ability to change this, we should. I wish for all little boys and girls of this world to be born healthy with desirable attributes.

Edit: The only problem with cosmetic engineering is potentially turning it into a business, but if it is something reasonable available to everyone then I don't see why it's a problem. We're never going to be able to make everyone look perfect and exactly the same. It doesn't work that way. We will still have a diverse population of unique individuals.

If it is possible we should be able to endow people with desirable attributes, like nice facial features. Why not? We're not talking about making dolls, we're talking about giving out universally desirable attributes to everyone that most people take for granted, like nice teeth (assuming they have nice teeth). Why shouldn't all little girls be pretty? Do you know any that don't want to look good? What about men? That terrible jawline you have? Big nose that everyone makes fun of? Why do so many people today go through, often times terrible plastic surgery so they have more desirable attributes, like breasts, noses, hips? Obviously people are dissatisfied with features on their bodies. Might as well save them the pain and money.

Either way don't plan on this being some sort of miracle process any time soon that starts popping out 'Paris Hiltons'. The premise would be to remove traits that are universally seen as undesirable, not to make a Ken and Barbie factory.

[andy-o24]

Re: Genetic Engineering

On the most basic level, introduction of genetic screening to remove disabilities and increase the overall fitness of our population will do good for everyone.

I agree. This is something that would be mandatory after some time to increase the health of the overall public.

However, we're not magically going to go from that to producing designer babies, super intelligent robot children etc etc.

There is nothing holding us back from it once we perfect this skill. If it is what the parent wants then the doctors can do it.

The reason is fairly simple: the ability to do this is so far away it's not even worth worrying about.

That is true. We do not have far enough technology to do these operations yet.

Sure, we can modify relatively basic things like eye color and hair color but to go as far as making the child a super model isn't going to be something money can buy through genetic engineering.

I like and agree with the part about us being able to modify basic things but if you have the money, anything is possible. Like with Hitler, he wanted only a certain kind of person with certain attributes (blonde hair blue eyes for example). We can make our children have the genes are popular for the time period.

Personally I don't see how anyone can reject removing genetic disorders from the gene pool, among other things that cause people grief. I think anyone that does is on cloud 9 and does not realize some of the terrible things people go through on a daily basis because something incredibly simple went wrong with the code. If we have the ability to change this, we should. I wish for all little boys and girls of this world to be born healthy with desirable attributes.

I agree. I would assume that many others, including myself, would want the children to look good. If we can erradicate(sp) the "bad" gene then no child would look bad.

Edit: The only problem with cosmetic engineering is potentially turning it into a business, but if it is something reasonable available to everyone then I don't see why it's a problem. We're never going to be able to make everyone look perfect and exactly the same. It doesn't work that way. We will still have a diverse population of unique individuals.

I agree. This could become a bussiness making botox and plastic surgery obsolete. The only real problem would be making the price reasonable.

If it is possible we should be able to endow people with desirable attributes, like nice facial features. Why not? We're not talking about making dolls, we're talking about giving out universally desirable attributes to everyone that most people take for granted, like nice teeth (assuming they have nice teeth). Why shouldn't all little girls be pretty? Do you know any that don't want to look good? What about men? That terrible jawline you have? Big nose that everyone makes fun of? Why do so many people today go through, often times terrible plastic surgery so they have more desirable attributes, like breasts, noses, hips? Obviously people are dissatisfied with features on their bodies. Might as well save them the pain and money.

This is just something that would have to be seen over time. Whatever is the right style or fad for that time is what you would want your child to look like. You don't want your child to be the only person with acne and braces do you? Making everyone have these nice attributes would be something, like getting rid of the diseases, mandatory.

PS: First quote montage.

-o24