"Designer Genes": Should We Go There?

[Keer]

Or I should say "How far should we go?", because for some purposes this is already in practice.

Genetic Engineering : the manipulation of DNA to improve or eliminate specific traits in organic life.

eugenics: eu-gen-ics (yoo jen' iks), noun, the science of improving the qualities of a breed or species, especially the human race, by the careful selection of parents.

In some forms we've benefitted from the above practices for centuries. Before "Gengineering" our livestock and crops have been subjected to eugenics for human benefit, either practical or pleasurable. Bigger hoof-stock, larger foul, fortified vegetables, thicker wool sheep, have all been the result of selective breeding and, recently, genetic modification.

But what about us? Directly. Once again there have already been actions taken in some circumstances of medicine, but so far no public attempts at genetically engineered humans from "womb to tomb".

Under what circumstances would furthering our practices in these fields be acceptable? Or are any conditions qualified enough to begin along a path that could be a slippery slope?

My personal stance is set in caution. While ideally, I can imagine several impractical traits about humans in general that could be changed or eliminated entirely. But the brake on this is the road that we have to take to get there and the problems that this could cause in present civlization.

I'm not advocating "super powers" in humans but specifically, I think it would be practical for all of us to be ambidextrous, with 20/20 vision, and perfect hearing. Just that. Fundamental improvements on things that never made sense to me.

Why do we sometimes enter a room and forget why we went there? "Now what did I come here for?" Sometimes you can remember in a few seconds but other times you have to go back to where you were for a sensual trigger to spark the memory.

Can we be made to always remember where we put things? Not as radical as remembering 20 years ago, but 20 minutes ago. How many times have you laid your car keys, mobile phone, etc, down and it costs you time or as much as a chunk out of your bank?

Just those little things. But that's an ideal and end goal. What it takes to realize and live with these changes could be a different matter. It's really a blind corner. I want to eat, but I don't want to cook or wash the dishes :lol: . Eveybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die.

Questions:

1. What basic changes would you make to the human race as far as improving or eliminating present traits? ("Heat Vision", Teleportation etc., aren't choices :P ).

2. How far should we take Designer Genes? All, Some, or None?

3. Do you think that covert experiments are being conducted by some sanctioned or non-sanctioned program? (I do. With "Super Soldiers" being the first goal).

What else?

[Dwilah]

No.

[Keer]

No.

*eyebrows raise causing monocle to drop into glass of Bourbon*

You know, I've never considered that captivating and well constructed advocation. And the examples and precedents cited are faultless and well researched.

We all know how "No" has worked wonders in the so-called War on Drugs. Dare I say that your reasoning is the result of genetic improvements as it is?

"No"! What a dizzying leap of logic.

:lol: :P

[Dwilah]

For me, there's too much of a base moral discomfort in the issue for me to offer facts or evidence objectively. Yet, I still offer my opinion. Movies and books that explore aspects of this issue convince me and my young, relatively uninformed mind that while all science starts off with the best of intentions (and it could indeed be put to great and humane uses that I would perhaps agree with), there's also a part of me that argues Nature creates us flawed for reasons.

[Jerrel]

"Man was not meant to play God, for man is flawed."

I dont think we should go down this path. Hitler wanted to create a super race of blonde hair blue eyed super humans and he commited hendious crimes to humanity in his quest. Unfortunatly this is Pandora's Box. Egostistical scientist, who believe they are entitled to blow up the world itself in the name of science, will forsake all law, all sencibility in the pursute of DOING it. We already see this mentality rearing it's ugly head when the issue of clonning is brought up. When word of the U.S. wanting to ban clonning of humans and the possibility of suggesting a similar ban to be presented to the U.N. several scientific groups said that no one nation can curde scientific progession. They went on to say that science is not restricted by law and that their people will do what it takes to expand human knowedge and learn wheather or not it is possible. The simple fact that it is fesiable to alter the DNA of a human beings will inevitably lead to it happening and my God help us all for all it would take is ONE scientist in the feild to be bought by the next Hitler.

[Jabe Adaks]

all science starts off with the best of intentions (and it could indeed be put to great and humane uses that I would perhaps agree with)

Hitler started with good intentions, if you think about it. And so in lies my answer, left to be further interpreted..

Jabe

[Curse]

I agree with what's been said, it all just comes to "How far is too far?" And also should we modify everyone (or before birth, however it works) to have perfect senses and such then there would surely be SEVERE side effects. There is no one perfect person, there's a series of checks and balances in everything. Should someone's "rudimentary" abilities be perfect how would that impact everything else? Say I can see perfectly and hear everything, what about my immune system? With my body focusing so much in sight how well could it focus on destroying infection? Everything is connected, should we manage to "perfect" everything brand new problems would arise, I can't remember but there was some sci-fi or superhero show/movie that got the "Perfect Being" thing perfect but there was advanced cellular decay with it or something. Anyway.

If we start playing God then God is just going to play us.

[Keer]

all science starts off with the best of intentions (and it could indeed be put to great and humane uses that I would perhaps agree with)

Hitler started with good intentions, if you think about it. And so in lies my answer, left to be further interpreted..

Jabe

Hitler didn't start with good intentions at all. :lol: Really. Mein Kampf written over 10 years before he came to power was no happy book by any means. But then that would depend on personal definitions of "good".

So let's get away from Hitler. He used alot of things to ill purpose. Should we never use tactical air support again because Hitler used it? Or rockets? Volkswagens? His actions cloud this issue more than enlightening it.

And for the "God" argument, aren't we playing God to some extent already in some of our technical and medical capabilities and actions?

Some might even reasonably question whether God is even responsible or relevant to this discussion. But that is SOOO for another topic (somebody else's). I'm not taking a concrete stand, I'm just eliciting intelligent debate.

On it's own merits and demerits, what do you think of the question and why?

[MrDooo]

Humans, like all living organisms, must advance or die off. Who's to say genetic engineering or cloning isn't the next step in human evolution? Now, I'm not advocating working toward making a race of superhumans or making clones at all. But to repress scientific breakthroughs in the name of politics or religion is ignorance, in my opionion.

Side note: I'm taking the opposite stance here, but I probably won't be on to defend my position till tomorrow. So don't take my lack of response as anything other than being away from the computer.

[Keer]

Humans, like all living organisms, must advance or die off. Who's to say genetic engineering or cloning isn't the next step in human evolution?

Once again, not taking definite sides (because that's not my purpose and maybe there isn't a "side"), but that viewpoint has been discussed in some pretty heavy circles and, I think, has some merit.

There was a Discovery Science Channel show on concerning the futrure of deep space travel. Experts of several fields weighed in. One idea was that for humans to effectively explore deep space that the "extreme astronauts" would need to have their bodies altered in a way that would be radically different than human bodies.

Since zero-gravity may not be totally accounted for, it was suggested that human legs would become obsolete during long light in space. Perhaps even being replaced with another pair of arms to better manipulate the ship's controls (Hey, this is science. Their job is to think out of the box).

Also, slower metabolism was suggested to maximize food and air supply.

There was alot more that I can't remember but it was a very interesting show.

So if leaving Earth one day is inevitable as many people believe, and the idea of "Warp Speed" and artificial gravity is scoffed at by you (many of that show's scientists scoffed at it *shrug*) then humans may set down on possible habitable planets looking and existing very differently than their peers back home on Earth.

[X'an Shin]

Since zero-gravity may not be totally accounted for, it was suggested that human legs would become obsolete during long light in space. Perhaps even being replaced with another pair of arms to better manipulate the ship's controls (Hey, this is science. Their job is to think out of the box).

This idea was covered in a book called Terminal Cafe, where nanotechnology was used to ressurect the dead (and allow humans to live possibly forever). Politics aside of dead people living (they covered it *very* well in the book, and I *highly* recommend it), the dead guys in space would have the "Jesus Tanks" (the tanks they used to decompile and recompile the dead body) change the legs into a set of extra arms (among other improvements like increased lung capacity), so that the humans could run around the inside (and outside) of the ship more efficiently in a zero G environ.

And this gets me to where my stance on eugenics lies:

Good for the living, bad for the not yet born.

I think the only way general populaces will get "on board" with this idea is for nanotechnology (or chemicals) to "correct" errors in the human genomes in the parents, which can then be passed down to the baby through normal procreation. This way, a living, sentient, consenting adult allows the process to be done to them, thereby eradicating genetic diseases, defects, what have you.

Does it still open a pandora's box as to what's an error and what's an improvement? Sure. But I think that it's the only way that people will be okay with it. It gets rid of the nasty stigma of doing experimental research on fetuses or the unborn, and neatly avoids all politics of "unborn rights," and other grey areas.

I'm for it (if it were possible, safe, and affordable), but only on the consenting adult.

[Keer]

Good for the living, bad for the not yet born.

I think the only way general populaces will get "on board" with this idea is for nanotechnology (or chemicals) to "correct" errors in the human genomes in the parents, which can then be passed down to the baby through normal procreation. This way, a living, sentient, consenting adult allows the process to be done to them, thereby eradicating genetic diseases, defects, what have you.

Does it still open a pandora's box as to what's an error and what's an improvement? Sure. But I think that it's the only way that people will be okay with it. It gets rid of the nasty stigma of doing experimental research on fetuses or the unborn, and neatly avoids all politics of "unborn rights," and other grey areas.

I'm for it (if it were possible, safe, and affordable), but only on the consenting adult.

Interesting. That approach would get ahead of some of the issues that would arise. And nano-tech may become prolific as time goes on. You could have your own nano-R2D2's coursing through your system.

[Hashum]

As a Christian I have to say just stay away from it, as mentioned above, we as humans are flawed. To support my opinion however I'd suggest you look at our past history. Hitler, Rome, anyone read Frankinstein? Whenever someone really takes the time (outside the science arena) to look at what we as humans would do with such technology and power always ends up bad.

This doesn't make the technology bad, but the temptation to use it and then abuse it are far to great for any sinful, greedy, power hungry human to control and resist. There's just no getting around that simple fact, we as humans always mess it up. Look at the garden of eden, there were only two people there and they couldn't resist a fruit? How in the world can we expect everyone in the population to respect this kind of technology. Imagine what terrorists could do with that.

I'm sorry if this has offended anyone due to the religious remarks.

[Keer]

I'm sorry if this has offended anyone due to the religious remarks.

No offense, personally here. It's a Forum of opinion. Mine, I try to base in logic. Logic and faith don't really mix too well for me.

On a logical angle and "really taking the time to look at what we humans do with technology", we can also take the time to look at what we do with religion. It's only fair. Religion has been "used and abused" as much as any "ology", "ism", or "ics" in history. Crusades for just one example.

Using either field to judge the other, in my opinion, does both a disservice. Neither one is qualified to judge the other...based on history.

This is one serious jujitsu struggle to be sure. As always, I think we'll end up doing the best we can with the built-in flaws that we have.

[Jerrel]

My main point in my pervious post was that we as a people cannot be trusted with such power. Why? Because all it would take is for ONE human being to set into motion any number of Doom Day senerios. Unfortunatly as I staed above this is Pandoras Box. Genetic Enginering WILL go down this path there is no stoping it. Some one some where will do it for the simple reason that he or she can and nothing more and once that is out there is no closing the box and we all must live with what is to come.

I'm reminded of a quote by some French scientist back durrning Mapolion's campain in Egypt.

"Science always follows after millitary"

With this enevitable use of genetics those who will get first crack at it will be the millitary of what ever nation cracks the human genome first. Once all millitary applications are thurolly explored will the public get a chance to see what it can do. I only pray that when that time comes we're not looking down a barrel held by a super soldier.