Do you agree with genetic engineering?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

Um. Slightly off topic, and slightly awkward: I swear you were female a few days ago.

What are you talking about?

Reply 41

Juichiro

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

We already toy with human life. I read to much Sci-fi, I wanna live in The Culture already. I'm a transhumanist :yes:

The Dalai Lama is a tranhumanist apparently :lol:

Now that's an awesome quote. The Dalai just won the internet and ChaoticButterfly's heart today.

Reply 42

karmacrunch

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

Um. Slightly off topic, and slightly awkward: I swear you were female a few days ago.

We will never know. :ninja:

Ahaha...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 43

Rakas21

I'll respond to people individually when I get time but two things I noticed and need to be addressed..

1) I do not support aesthetic selection, there's no real advantage beyond vanity to selecting your babies gene that will give them F size breasts or blonde hair.

2) Healthcare systems would no doubt provide manipulation for health reasons so its likely that certain things like cancer could be eradicated across populations in the west.

3) The type of improvements purchased would be more along the lines of intelligence or the selection of a baby likely to be intelligent.

4) Those who don't breed have the option of adoption.

Reply 44

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

What are you talking about?

Very funny.

Reply 45

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by Rakas21

I support 2)

1) is a bit dubious.

Then rest I still find abhorrent.

Reply 46

Blue_Mason

Original post by anosmianAcrimony

Do you own a secret laboratory under a volcano? How many times a day do people say to you, "You'll never get away with this?" Do you have a goatee and/or a white cat that you stroke incessantly?

yes to all questions
Humanity is filled with stupid,ignorant,dirty "people" that must be herded and controlled or else

Reply 47

Rakas21

Original post by mackemforever

Personally it's an issue that I'm incredibly split on.

On the one hand I believe that mankind as a whole should do everything we can to improve as a species, and if that means genetic engineering then that is what we should be working towards.

On the other hand it is one of those things which could very easily become the plaything of the elite, only available to the wealthy, and instead of what we have now with a big financial split between the top and bottom classes it is entirely possible that genetic engineering could change society to the point where we have a genetically superior elite class and an inferior lower class.

There's also the issue of birth & death rates. If the birth rate globally doesn't drop significantly then the world as a whole is on course for a catastrophic meltdown in the not too distant future. The rate of population increase continues to grow and it will continue to do so at a rate which food production, energy production, and many other industries, cannot keep up with. So would it really be a good thing if a technology was developed that could potentially increase life expectancy even further, cure people of diseases that would otherwise stop them from breeding, keep people fertile for longer, and increase the global birth rate?

We already have a quasi genetic and financial lottery. Why not (especially as the cost falls) give parents and individuals the power to overcome this. Further, what happens when one countries population gets this. We may not be able to compete.

That's a common misconception. The global birth rate has been dropping for decades such that productivity growth is sufficient to ensure that perfectly distributed everybody would have enough food ECT.. The problem is regional birth rate distribution with Eurasia in large parts seeing a population collapse in coming decades while birth rates in Africa are far too high. If anything, the west would benefit from a birth rate increase.

Reply 48

anosmianAcrimony

Original post by Blue_Mason

yes to all questions
Humanity is filled with stupid,ignorant,dirty "people" that must be herded and controlled or else

Sadly, your grammar isn't good enough to be an evil genius. Try again later.

Reply 49

Comus

We should embrace genetic engineering for the benefit of the human species but we must incredibly careful in the way that we use it. For instance, GM has been incredibly beneficial regarding crop yields and the use of genetically modified bananas as vaccinations - both of which have proven useful in developing countries, though there is the danger of reducing biodiversity which could render such organisms vulnerable to diseases and the possibility of cross-pollination.

Human genetic engineering would need even more safeguarding, again there have been useful break-through's in this field (for instance oral sprays which ease cystic fibrosis by means of gene insertion using a lipid-based vector), and its hard to disagree that, ideally no one should ever have to suffer from Huntington's disease (which is caused by a single, dominant allele and is always fatal) ever again and perhaps one could look into the possibility of embryonic gene insertion for families with a history of the condition; but on the other hand, we risk making ourselves more vulnerable by decreasing biodiversity (which could potentially be the result of customised human genetic engineering - though obviously we are a long way off) and alleles for recessive conditions can be advantageous in certain situations (See Heterozygote advantage) which weakens the case for 'eradicating' these genes. On a related note, the deliberate removal or promotion of sets of genes in the human genome is ethically dubious - and veers disturbingly close to eugenics. With that said, gene therapy is a fairly safe bet.

Stem cell research however, and the manipulation of stem cells could be incredibly useful to us. The use of stem cells to produce meat for commercial use could potentially be far more efficient than current farming practises and could make more land available for the production of plants; it could be used to produce replacement organs; and perhaps most significantly, could be used to heal people who are paralysed by replacing damaged nervous tissue in the spinal cord.

Finally - one more ethical problem - who would have access to such services? Would gene therapy, stem cell therapy etc be available to all or just those that could pay? Would it be used for the good of humanity as a whole or just to raise the status of privileged elites?

Personally, I would hope to see a future resembling 'The Culture' from Iain M Banks' novels (though obviously it is just science fiction) that we could achieve by more research in these fields. However, the consequences of misuse could be disastrous so proper safeguards need to be in place and the knowledge we gain must be used responsibly and ethically.

Reply 50

SickBrah

genetic engineering is the future and no matter how many leftists disagree with it, the pioneering gropus of people will sort out this treatment for their children and improve the genetic stock of the human race.

Thanks to leftists the genetic stock of humans is going down the toilet. Only the lowest breed and are making a race of crappy humans. Thanks to benefits and the welfare state etc.

I just hope genetic engineering for babies becomes widespread enough by the time I want kids, because I will give my children superior intellect, intelligence, height, strength than the other kids.

Genetic engineering is the last hope for a humanity that is becoming an idiocracy.

I find it revealing that so many people are opposed to a new future where humans are beautiful, intelligent, have massive intellectual ability, great athletes. Leftists are obsessed with humans being low quaality.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 51

The Dictator

Wonderful!

We shall breed out the impure, and the inferior will die and perish. Then the weak and degenerate will die out, and the strong will survive! Humanity will be god-like in its conception.

Reply 52

myblueheaven339

Original post by Juichiro

The problem with eurgenics is when it is forced on other people. There is no such thing as a genetic flaw objectively speaking. In different contexts and according to different people, being genetically predisposed to violence can be an advantage or a flaw. Who decides what is a genetic flaw? And who appoints this person and under what criteria?

About personal genetic enhancements, why not? People enhance themselves already. Cosmetics, plastic surgery, skin care products, vitamin/protein supplements, etc. The only difference between that and genetic ehancements is that most genetic enhancements will likely be permanent.

The other big difference is hat these enhancements will be passed on to offspring, who have never given consent. We also cannot predict the interaction of these genes with others further down the line.

Posted from TSR Mobile