Genetic applications in the near future?

[unknownmasterofnothing]

I think people take it too far, thinking they are going to make super people. That means I'm a perfect being, I have no illnesses or diseases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I think I've seen gattaca like 4 times in school... good the first two times...

[warri0r45]

As long as it's not for aesthetics or improving beyond the norm, aka only for combating disease, it should be used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's basically my opinion in a nutshell. Although I don't believe in some of the more gloomy predictions of the outcomes of selective breeding on asthetics, although obviously this is only in theory as genetics can be exploited extremely horifically by society. Imagine multinationals getting hold of the genetic print of your prospective child and genetically modifying them to have an increased appetite. Mass havoc and a moral nightmare. So basically, genetic engineering would only be practical for practical reasons i.e. preventing devastating diseases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for your morals on the issue Barihawk, I can see where you get them from and there's nothing wrong with that view, but would you agree that those who would want to do this purely to halt devastating diseases in thier children have morally good intentions?

[magekillr]

 

god help us when we reach the point of "Brave New World"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh? I'm guessing you are opposing this because of religion/morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

what's the point in life if every1 is a super person and people can pick and choose what they look like and what traits they have?

[assassin_696]

Bigtime against.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eugenics (the creation of perfect humans through genetic engineering) is just wrong. While most people may not agree with me, I see it as cheating God. Worse, playing God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What happens if these supermen/women find the rest of us inferior, and try to wipe us off the face of the Earth in the name of Eugenic Supremacy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So...you'd be bigtime against curing someone of a horrible degenerative disease before they were born?

[Tigra00]

I guess the perfect humans would have to be reminded of who created them perfectly, Barihawk. But besides that, it would never happen that way...They'd be created, and eventually, the rest of us "imperfect" people would be dead before there were even enough of them to find us inferior.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And really, we're not talking about creating people who can kill more efficiently or run faster or be stronger, we're talkin' about people without diseases.

[magekillr]

i feel you cannot bring this into effect because people will never know where to draw a line :\.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

you might think they'll be after just curing the diseases...sure maybe now they are. but what happens later on? people are corrupt..and they'd keep on going

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i don't think it's something we should be tampering with

[Faux]

So...you'd be bigtime against curing someone of a horrible degenerative disease before they were born?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you against [developmentally delayed]s? Do you believe that they shouldn't have had the chance to live?

[Tigra00]

 

So...you'd be bigtime against curing someone of a horrible degenerative disease before they were born?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you against [developmentally delayed]? Do you believe that they shouldn't have had the chance to live?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're talking about making it so people don't HAVE to go through life like that. Of course they deserve to live, but do they LIKE being mentally [developmentally delayed]ed? No.

[Will H]

Everybody, there are significant flaws here. A while ago (saw this on a program about genetic engineering), some geneically engineered rats were born, and were made to be muscly and physically superior. It worked, but the rats were now mentally inferior to their non-altered relatives, and would be shy and timid, and would refuse to fight or show any sign of aggression. You see, each gene controls more than one trait. This means that it is highly unlikely for there to be a combination that results in a 'super human' which is superior in every way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, I read an article in the news about how humans in the future will actually divide into two sub-species naturally anyway, one tall and strong, the other dwarfs who's lives are overtaken by technology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another flaw is that there is a confusion between genetic engineering which gives resistance, prevention (or possibly immunity) against a genetic disease and genetic engineering to make a 'super human'.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally think it wrong to use genetic engineering to make our lives 'superior', but it is right to use it to help people with potential diseases.

[mrmyk]

we've been doing cloning as a topic in biology..and "designer babies" are the worst case scenario..never will happen i think..although if it does..well it ruins the point of life for me

[Barihawk]

 

Bigtime against.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eugenics (the creation of perfect humans through genetic engineering) is just wrong. While most people may not agree with me, I see it as cheating God. Worse, playing God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What happens if these supermen/women find the rest of us inferior, and try to wipe us off the face of the Earth in the name of Eugenic Supremacy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So...you'd be bigtime against curing someone of a horrible degenerative disease before they were born?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wiping out diseases is one thing. But I simply do not trust the people who have this power to make the right decisions. It will eventually turn into Eugenics. And God help us all when that happens.

[Satenza]

I'd have to say I am against it, we should develop on our own we don't need any genetic help to speed up the process. As some people have pointed out - people can abuse this. We don't need this, all we need is liberty to progress.

[warri0r45]

You see, each gene controls more than one trait.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just wondering, but have you studied genetics? Each gene codes for one specific protien chain i.e. one trait, but genes can be inter-related (is that one word, two or hyphonated like I have it? :? ). One gene does not code for two protien strands. As is my understanding, a gene is a stretch of DNA which has x amount of codons and thus codes for one protien x amino acid subunits long.

[warri0r45]

 

 

Bigtime against.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eugenics (the creation of perfect humans through genetic engineering) is just wrong. While most people may not agree with me, I see it as cheating God. Worse, playing God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What happens if these supermen/women find the rest of us inferior, and try to wipe us off the face of the Earth in the name of Eugenic Supremacy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So...you'd be bigtime against curing someone of a horrible degenerative disease before they were born?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wiping out diseases is one thing. But I simply do not trust the people who have this power to make the right decisions. It will eventually turn into Eugenics. And God help us all when that happens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yet no medicine you have taken in your live has not served it's intended purpose? Medication can kill or make you act/behave in a certain way. If people haven't abused this, then I think people may not abuse genetic engineering. Although obviously, it would be incredibly risky to put your offspring into the hands of people who are potentially corrupt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Changing your genetic code would be like taking a specific medication permanantly. So it could be beneficial or it could be disasterous yet it could not be fixed or the 'dosage' removed. Risky? Of course. :?

[BlueTear]

Rebdragon, do you think that's fair though that people would be able to pay for better children?

Where's as what's - at best - described as the genetic lottery of birth is "fair"? Being born with a genetic defect causing [developmentally delayed]ation because your parents both have the recessive genetic is fair? The fact that little Albert over there was born with the genetic predisposition for a higher IQ than Johnny over there is fair?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Life isn't fair' is actually a pretty fitting argument.

That would create such a divide, possibly even culminating into two species of humans separated by genetics. You have your upper class genetically modified super humans, then you have your natural born humans. The super humans would probably only want to breed with fellow super humans for super children, and they'd leave the lower class even further behind with their super abilities that the lower class couldn't match.

 

 

 

So suddenly wanting - not required or forbidden by law, but wanting - to select a mate from the same "class" or whatever you want to call it, is seriously offensive to everyone else? Not really seeing the argument.

 

 

 

The lower class would be discriminated against and everything. Is it fair that only the rich would be able to have better children? With today's common accepted values of morality, the overwhelming opinion is no.

So genetic "superiority" automatically means discrimination? I'd like that leap of thought explained further.

[Adam007]

 

Rebdragon, do you think that's fair though that people would be able to pay for better children?

Where's as what's - at best - described as the genetic lottery of birth is "fair"? Being born with a genetic defect causing [developmentally delayed] because your parents both have the recessive genetic is fair? The fact that little Albert over there was born with the genetic predisposition for a higher IQ than Johnny over there is fair?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'Life isn't fair' is actually a pretty fitting argument.

 

 

 

It's only unfair as nature allows it to be, which is fine. It's not fair to the poor though that they would suddenly become a genetically inferior race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would create such a divide, possibly even culminating into two species of humans separated by genetics. You have your upper class genetically modified super humans, then you have your natural born humans. The super humans would probably only want to breed with fellow super humans for super children, and they'd leave the lower class even further behind with their super abilities that the lower class couldn't match.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So suddenly wanting - not required or forbidden by law, but wanting - to select a mate from the same "class" or whatever you want to call it, is seriously offensive to everyone else? Not really seeing the argument.

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be with someone in your class. But artificially separating the human race into two subspecies is wrong. You can't compare whether people would mate who are in different social classes to whether they would if they were almost at the point of being different species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The lower class would be discriminated against and everything. Is it fair that only the rich would be able to have better children? With today's common accepted values of morality, the overwhelming opinion is no.

So genetic "superiority" automatically means discrimination? I'd like that leap of thought explained further.

 

 

 

Maybe we're looking at this differently. Scientists might not draw lines at making everyone look like a supermodel. They might just start adding new genes to make people look entirely superior. The upper class might all be engineered to have blond hair, be 6 feet tall, and be incredibly built with brilliant minds. And again, for all we know scientists could add in genes we can't even imagine that gives them superhuman abilities. This new breed of humans would definitely discriminate. They would think they're better, which they are, and who knows what at that point could happen? I just don't think you're fully extrapolating what possibilities this technology has, and what problems this can lead to. I'm sure most scientists wouldn't abuse it, but there's the 1% that would, and that's 1% too many.

[BlueTear]

It's only unfair as nature allows it to be, which is fine. It's not fair to the poor though that they would suddenly become a genetically inferior race.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is that fine? Why accept the inequalities nature provides you with as if there is a reason for it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let's fastforward the doomsday scenario a bit; The genetic engineering technique's are commonplace, and the technique's are affordable to the vast majority of individuals. How is a system were you can remove the genetic deficiencies of yourself and your partner when creating a child to create a combination of your best gene's less fair than the genetic randomizer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That would create such a divide, possibly even culminating into two species of humans separated by genetics. You have your upper class genetically modified super humans, then you have your natural born humans. The super humans would probably only want to breed with fellow super humans for super children, and they'd leave the lower class even further behind with their super abilities that the lower class couldn't match.

Here I have to ask what your biggest problem with this whole scheme is; The fact that the "genetic transcendance" occurs, or the fact that people are left out of it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be with someone in your class. But artificially separating the human race into two subspecies is wrong. You can't compare whether people would mate who are in different social classes to whether they would if they were almost at the point of being different species.

Because...?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the comparision is perfectly valid. If I chose not to mate with someone I'd describe as ugly or unattractive - which would seem to imply having drawn a dud in the genetic lottery and having aquired gene's that are in my opinion inferior to my personal ideal - I'm making a regular, human, choice. If I were to do the same thing but with a set of manipuated gene's to enhance, say, my dexterity, intelligence, night vision and muscular control, my selection process is discriminating?

 

 

 

The lower class would be discriminated against and everything.

You keep saying that, yet I've seen nothing that would suggest that genetic enhancement - or plain genetic repair - would somehow magically inccur surges of discrimination. Unless of course, we count the selection process made above, immunity to certain diseases and probably a better overall health as disciminating. Personally, I'd call that inferiority jealousy.

Is it fair that only the rich would be able to have better children?

There you go with the fair again. Is it fair that, most of the time, pretty people manage to get pretty children due to their respective gene's? Is it fair that smart parents get smart kids because of their genes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides which, I'd still argue that these technique's will - like computer and most modern gadgets short of nuclear submarine's - become cheaper and more readily available over time.

 

 

 

Maybe we're looking at this differently. Scientists might not draw lines at making everyone look like a supermodel. They might just start adding new genes to make people look entirely superior. The upper class might all be engineered to have blond hair, be 6 feet tall, and be incredibly built with brilliant minds. And again, for all we know scientists could add in genes we can't even imagine that gives them superhuman abilities. This new breed of humans would definitely discriminate. They would think they're better, which they are, and who knows what at that point could happen? I just don't think you're fully extrapolating what possibilities this technology has, and what problems this can lead to. I'm sure most scientists wouldn't abuse it, but there's the 1% that would, and that's 1% too many.

 

 

 

Take a good look at what you're saying here; If they are superior, they will discriminate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So everyone with an IQ of 150+ discriminate against everyone else? Every blonde, good looking person on the planet, automatically discriminates against everyone else 'cause hey - they look better than the average! They had a more luck in the genetic lottery. Clearly, they must be discriminating!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cabbage]. Superiority, subjective or objective, does not automatically lead to discrimination.

[Adam007]

We're not talking a difference of being slightly stronger, more attractive, or healthier. We're not talking about getting rid of diseases. We're talking about the whole scope of this pandora's box here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So everyone with an IQ of 150+ discriminate against everyone else? Every blonde, good looking person on the planet, automatically discriminates against everyone else 'cause hey - they look better than the average! They had a more luck in the genetic lottery. Clearly, they must be discriminating!

 

 

 

Again, you're not understanding me. People discriminate when they choose their mates based on how attractive they are. But they're still picking out of the whole human race. Everyone genetically is on the same ground. People might be slightly different genetically, but overall we're extremely similar. Let me just give you an example, a somewhat weird one, but an example nonetheless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The rich are able to pay ridiculous sums to have an extra chromosome extraction that was specifically designed to turn regular humans into elves. They're taller, more attractive, more agile, and more fit. They're better at basically everything, so they push the regular humans out of society basically, since they can't even function close to what the new genetically engineered people function at and can accomplish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The other breed, the unmodified humans, are now, let's say, segregated to do manual labor in dark mines or something. Again, weird example, but I guess I have to draw a picture of the extreme to get my point across. These people are living lives in mines, and eventually they change. From living underground so long, they become dwarf-like.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, a really stretched out example, but now we have elves and dwarves. They have no attraction to each other whatsoever. They're not even able to breed together anymore. And next thing you know, the elves decide they don't need the dwarves on the planet anymore. They build robots to take the jobs the dwarves once had. Then they kill the dwarves since they no longer serve any purpose on the earth. But it's ok, because they're the superior race, and it's justified of course.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, I know the example is farfetched. But who's to say something like this wouldn't happen? Why can't we just leave genetic engineering to curing disease? Is it necessary to enhance ourselves? And who's to say we won't mess up while trying to design new people? We could end up making all kinds of creatures we didn't mean to with all kinds of side effects we don't want. What do we do with these people? What if they're too strong for us? What if countries create armies of brainless brutes to go on suicide bombing missions? I could go on and on with what-if's. Now they're a stretch, but they're a stretch that's possible. Since there's no way to draw a line, we just can't toy around with this like that.

[BlueTear]

Again, you're not understanding me. People discriminate when they choose their mates based on how attractive they are. But they're still picking out of the whole human race. Everyone genetically is on the same ground. People might be slightly different genetically, but overall we're extremely similar. Let me just give you an example, a somewhat weird one, but an example nonetheless.

No, we're not. Some people will be smarter, some people will be more beatiful. Apparently this is acceptable because of element of chance involved, but the moment we start choosing it, it becomes the preclude to a genocidal war. Huh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(And you just said every person who elects to marry someone over someone else discriminates. Can I sue?)

 

 

 

Again, I know the example is farfetched. But who's to say something like this wouldn't happen? Why can't we just leave genetic engineering to curing disease? Is it necessary to enhance ourselves? And who's to say we won't mess up while trying to design new people? We could end up making all kinds of creatures we didn't mean to with all kinds of side effects we don't want. What do we do with these people? What if they're too strong for us? What if countries create armies of brainless brutes to go on suicide bombing missions? I could go on and on with what-if's. Now they're a stretch, but they're a stretch that's possible. Since there's no way to draw a line, we just can't toy around with this like that.

 

 

 

Why would it happen?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your example isn't just farfetched, it's downright silly. First of all, if it costs such ridicolous sums of money, your "elves" will hardly number enough to take over a democratic society in the timespan that the technique remains ridicolously expensive. Second of all, what you describe pretty much requires the abolishment of democracy throughout any society that could afford the treatments on a large scale. How fiddling with the genes is going to make people abandon democracy, I just don't see. Third; Genetic difference automatically leading to a genocidal war? C'mon... We consider it morally wrong to perform euthanasia on people with mental [developmentally delayed]ations - even when the [developmentally delayed]ation involves their genes - but if we were to enhance ourselves genetically, we'd automatically lose all sense of morals in that direction and kill of the inferiors. Yeah, right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And weaponizing the technology? Hello, we've been weaponizing diseases, chemicals and whatnot for centuries. Every scientific discovery we've made can be applied in a military fashion. That does not mean we should shy away from making new discoveries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And as for is it neccesary to enhance ourselves... There's a lot of things in your lifestyle that isn't "neccesary", yet serve to enhance your quality of life. Large scale genetic engineering has a lot of appliances to offer humanity.

[trapical]

These biology topics are always awkward for me since I'm a Bio major, and hard to discuss these things without sounding like "Ha ha, you all know nothing, listen to me!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am actually ironically in the middle of my Genetics year right now, really ironically in the middle of doing a research project with my Genetics prof, in which we are genetically engineering the "perfect parasite". Interesting stuff if anyone's interested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyway, Genetics is pretty complex stuff. Just because we have mapped the human genome doesn't mean we can go in and make everything all better all of a sudden. Do you know the man-hours and cost to do unique sequencing polymerase chain reaction, just to map a host's genome? Were talking years of work here and an immense amount of funds. Anyway, thats hard enough but tangible. The real fun part is manipulating the nucleic acids to form what you want, but to do that you need to know what you want. Just because you found a the 500 genes that are responsible for inheritance facial design doesn't mean you know how to make the genes that grant a perfect complexion. This will take many decades and trillions of dollars. The easiest way would be to produce mRNA that expresses those genes and then extract a retro virus's reverse DNA polymerase and make it into DNA which you could use to replace the host's DNA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yea not easy stuff, trust me. The project my professor and I have been working on is 1/4 done and were not even making unique sequenced DNA, we're just doing selective breeding and then DNA analysis to find the ones with the best genes and logging them down. I suppose you could do that with humans, do a DNA analysis on all the embryos and find the one with the least mutations, but that wouldn't make any "super humans" that are really smart/attractive. That would just reduce the number of babies with down's syndrome and the like. Mind you this would still cost the couple several thousand dollars and it would destroy lots of embryos (the Church would not be pleased). My point is it would have little impact on the global population. All that would happen is celebrities would never have [developmentally delayed]ed kids. Those super smart, super attractive humans you guys are mentioning are literally, centuries away, trust me. People will be booking flights to Alpha Proxima before these superhumans will excist, and if they do come, it's going to cost a lot more then a flight to Alpha Proxima. Lol.

[Adam007]

 

Again, you're not understanding me. People discriminate when they choose their mates based on how attractive they are. But they're still picking out of the whole human race. Everyone genetically is on the same ground. People might be slightly different genetically, but overall we're extremely similar. Let me just give you an example, a somewhat weird one, but an example nonetheless.

No, we're not. Some people will be smarter, some people will be more beatiful. Apparently this is acceptable because of element of chance involved, but the moment we start choosing it, it becomes the preclude to a genocidal war. Huh?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(And you just said every person who elects to marry someone over someone else discriminates. Can I sue?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The word discriminate means to pick one over the other. Discrimination in that sense isn't wrong. People pick mates because they discriminate to their tastes and whatever's the most attractive to them. I guess we just disagree on principal here. I think people should be discriminate in choosing their spouse/mate. But it's just not fair to someone if they're born into a world where they're genetically inferior to other people only because their parents couldn't pay for them to be like the rest. Either have it available to everyone under a universal healthcare system that covers this, or have it available to no-one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and I thought I should mention I'm not fully decided on this issue. I'm just taking this side partially because I like being convinced by other people that it's ok, because when I talk to people about it, 99% of them are completely horrified/disgusted of the notion. If I do go into this field, which I'm seriously considering, I'm going to have to face this issue a lot.

[Necromagus]

There actually was an article in the newspaper today about using genetic engineering for pest control. Basically, they rig the fruitfly with a rewired gene that blocks development of female eggs, with male eggs still developing normally to spread that gene. Within a few generation the population completely dies out. This is probably one of the safest forms of pest control available, and definiately one of the most effective. There's basically zero risk of getting negative side effects for consumers and people that handle the produce.

[rushrock]

Ugh. I hope it never gets used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say goodbye to individuality. Besides the fact that it's a complete dump on human nature, it would probably have some bad side effects.

[anonimu]

 

 

god help us when we reach the point of "Brave New World"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eh? I'm guessing you are opposing this because of religion/morals.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

what's the point in life if every1 is a super person and people can pick and choose what they look like and what traits they have?

 

 

 

What's the point in life right now?

 

 

 

Umm... I really don't think it's that bad... What if everyone becomes the same, which they probably won't anyway...

[Satenza]

To learn and progress. If we just hand over an end product it would have les value than if we did it ourselves and learn't why it is so valuable to progress. Superhumans wouldn't value their progression because they went through nothing to get it.