| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/9/2008 11:30:09 AM | As many of you already know, the human species is no longer truly evolving in the biological sense. I'm not talking about the appearance of new alleles and their propagation within our species. I'm talking about evolutionary pressure so powerful that those without a particular trait die out such that ultimately a new species emerges. For various reasons, this isn't happening any more for Homo Sapiens.
Genetic engineering is still a relatively new field in science; much younger than say physics or chemistry, but in time, creating and selecting genes that can be delivered to germlined haploid cells to be expressed in offspring without any adverse effects will be possible some day. As many of you know, proposals (U.S.) to ban genetic engineering have existed for years now. I've heard the arguments against GE and some arguments for it. My question is this: if our species is no longer evolving, might GE be our only way to introduce genes that truly improve our species? Now before you say IT, let me hit it up really quick: I'm not talking about creating babies with blonde hair, pale skin, and blue eyes or even genes that might protect against cancer. I'm talking about completely new genes here; genes that HAVE not already evolved naturally within our species. If such genes could be introduced would this be such a bad thing? Your thoughts... | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/9/2008 1:10:46 PM | | Well some peoples ideas of improving our species might be going to far. For some it may be creating perfect babies .Now if we are talking about removing inherited diseases like Parkinson's or being able to correct a problem with a baby at a very early stage , then I would be all for it. Being able to reverse downs syndrome at the babies earliest development would be a truly amazing thing. | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/9/2008 2:41:59 PM | Therapeutic uses aren't bad its not like it will have unexpected consequences.
OP: Your wrong about the lack of selective pressure. Its just shifted from survival to social pressures. The increasing trend of having children at older ages for example. The effect of drug use on infant mortality. Think creatively and your find others. | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/9/2008 4:27:45 PM |
I'm talking about completely new genes here; genes that HAVE not already evolved naturally within our species. If such genes could be introduced would this be such a bad thing? Your thoughts...
I'm waiting for the day when DNA is fully mapped so we can identify the specific gene sequences for neuronal networks that control aggression and impulsiveness. Lessen the psychopathic burden on society. But I also think electromechanical control will come sooner than genetic engineering of the brain. | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/9/2008 9:19:29 PM | Before we can dance, we gotta learn to walk. Before writing a letter you gotta learn the alphabet. The genetic code is our construction plan.
I agree with NoseyNeighbor in the sense that we should learn how to correct our genetic problems before attempting to create other related species.
Criminality is a disease, scientist will soon prove this, and should hopefully find the cure, once our genetic code is free of any of this and other defects than we should become true creators, hopefully. | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/10/2008 4:46:57 AM | >>>I'm waiting for the day when DNA is fully mapped so we can identify the specific gene sequences for neuronal networks that control aggression and impulsiveness. Lessen the psychopathic burden on society.
Couldn't Governments use that knowledge against their peoples, though? | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/10/2008 5:18:08 AM | I agree that just removing the nasty bits of DNA might have repercussions. For all we know, having that DNA integrated in the strand is neccessary even if by it's self is bad. Like taking a piece out of a puzzle, it's not complete. Nature abhors a vacuum.
As for controlling aggression and impulsiveness. It is not likely genetic. But for every person growing up in a bad environment and turning bad, there are two or three growing up under the same circumstances who turn out okay. I doubt that a genectomy and pulling out the bad DNA is going to do much in either case.
All of this is just taking eugenics to a new level. Build the perfect beast sort of thing. Many times when man "improves things" nature comes back with something nastier. Witness antibiotics giving rise to more potent and resistant disease. You take two cents out and mother nature will likely put her two cents back in and who knows what you are going to end up with. | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/10/2008 10:41:04 AM | As for controlling aggression and impulsiveness. It is not likely genetic. But for every person growing up in a bad environment and turning bad, there are two or three growing up under the same circumstances who turn out okay. I doubt that a genectomy and pulling out the bad DNA is going to do much in either case.
Mounting evidence suggests a biological rather than an environmental cause for psychotic and psychopathic behavior:
1. Manipulation of serotonin in the orbital prefrontal cortex (OFC) supresses aggression. (Ferris, et. al. 1997).
2. Patients with damaged OFC show irritability and angry outbursts (New et al., 1998b)
3. Lesions and tumors of the OFC results in antisocial and aggressive behavior in adulthood (Bechara et al., 2001).
4. Electrical stimulation of the OFC and amygdala has been associated with rage attacks (Blair, 2004).
5. Reduced OFC glucose levels has been associated with autonomic deficits and aggression (Raine et al., 2000).
6. Phineas Gage, nice guy railroad construction worker became aggressive and anti-social following a massive OFC damage.
It would be cheaper to genetically engineer a non-aggressive society than it would be to change the environment. As changing society would entail massive social engineering. | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/10/2008 11:41:20 AM | That refers to an injury I'd guess and not some genetic tampering. It doesn't specify how or when the damage occured. How would genetic manipulation help? Make babies with tougher orbital prefrontal cortex? Armoured brainpans?
looks like something that a pharmacutical would remedy easier actually.
Not much of a connection to the topic. A nonaggressive society? That would require a homogeneous population where all are essentially programmed to be the same. Eugenics at it's best. Leave me out | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/10/2008 9:07:04 PM | OP: I think it really IS such a bad thing. We've been there before. First it's the nucleus of an atom that was to be split. We barely survived THAT one, and it's not over yet. Knocking on wood. Now before we are done with the nuclear crisis, we are beginning to do the same with the very essense of life? Scary! We are messing with something we know nothing about.
Even assuming the best of intentions (and that's a big assumption), to this computer geek, GE experiments are akin maintenance programmers messing with the code of a program, patching stuff they don't (and can't) fully understand, to achieve some short-term goals. Enough of that patching, and software is to be trashed and re-written from scratch. That's software, uncomparably more trivial stuff than what we are talking about.
My best job offer ever was with a bio-informatics project of a biotech company. I turned it down and am still kicking myself in the butt for it, because, darn it, it's fascinating stuff, I doublt I'll ever be offered to be PAID for messing with something so interesting again... coming from two generations of scientists, it's in my blood to want to crack the code... But, got to walk my talk... hope I did the right thing. | |
|
| |
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/11/2008 5:23:45 AM | | One way to mitigate the risk of catastrophic changes is to make the changes in such a way as they're not passed on to the offspring. That way if an individual decides to do something risky we don't end up with a population of mer-people. | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/11/2008 6:39:39 AM | If you ask me I think genetic engineering is going to become a natural part of our everyday lives at some point. Im really more frightened with how it would be used than if their going to do it at all. Sure it's too early at the moment to mess with those things.
Yet when they perfect it and make it safe to play around with these kind of things. There definately has to be laws and rules to it.
The real question in my opinion is what laws and rules.
Genetic engineering might lead to us branching into different species of humans and honestly im fine with this since to me image or apperence of our species is not so important. It's our minds and our emotional make up that make us human.
If anything im more frightened by the effects on the human mind and it's emotional make up that could come about through genetic engineering.
I mean it's one thing to make more intelligent individuals or humans that are less stress prone. Improving our sense of compassion without diluting our ability to defend ourselves and without crushing our individuality would be good things in my opinion.
Im frightened by the opposite though. What if a group of people want to re-engineer themselves to not have any guilt, or empathy. Thats the equivalent of losing the physiological equivalent of the human soul to me. What if some choose to go for a hive like structure where there isn't as much ability for individuality by messing with the right genes.
Thats what concerns me the most.
Not whether we end up altering ourselves so much that we no long look human. We might need to do so. When space travel kicks of genetic engineering might make better astronauts. People who are more suited to survive on other planets that have different gravity and other differences in comparision to our world.
We might be able to create more resilient humans that can heal better, live longer and survive enviroments that would kill us.
That said im so superficial that if they could alter us I wouldn't improvements that wouldn't be at the cost of the staple the human form has now. Yet I can see future generations being fine with playing around with the human body and appearence. I don't have a problem with that.
Im more worried about the effect engineering can have on human thought processes and to me thats the territory I have concern with.
Anyways I think the best things are introducing genes into people that help better deal with stress, help the body better fight cancer, or to heal, maybe improve the bodies natural ability to make antioxidants. Making the brain better at self repair and healing itself would be cool.
I like those kind of things but I don't think they should mess around with everything regarding the brain. Only in areas where it might improve resilience and ability to survive.
The possibilities are endless though. I mean imagine being able to change your hair color or eye color at any time you want. If you want tattoos they could just alter your dna to produce an image on your body. That would be kind of freaky.
I also like the idea of improving our ability to produce chemicals naturally that help us to feel better. Maybe they can make the human brain better at producing dopamine so were less addicted to sugar, ciggarettes, alcohol and drugs.
Heck maybe the pharmaceutical industry would be frightened by genetic engineering. I mean someday they could just make you body more adept at healing itself and survival. Would we need to pop pills all that much in that kind of future. Maybe instead we would collaborate with a geneticist to constantly alter our bodies to help us live longer and healthier lives. Imagine a doctor naturally improving your immune system to better fight new diseases instead of giving you an antibiotic.
As for natural selection pressures I think we still have them. I wonder what the current human lifestyle would affect our future. Natural evolution is still going on but it's so gradual that no one could predict the changes that are coming. | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/11/2008 6:50:38 AM | Some of those points fall under the nature vs nurture concept. Would it really be possible to produce a human with no empathy for others? Essentially a sociopathic individual?
Would producing a clone of hitler mean that it would automatically be the same person?
I don't think so but more importantly, would someone that radically altered still be human? Selectively removing human elements wouldn't constitute improvements in my book, taking away would make them considerably less human. Can someone explain to me what need mankind would have for something like that to be accomplished?
Forget about IF it could be done and think more about if it should be. Frankenstein has already been done in literature and in the movies. | |
|
| |
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/11/2008 8:08:30 AM |
Forget about IF it could be done and think more about if it should be. Frankenstein has already been done in literature and in the movies.
This is the real question I was trying to adress. At the end of the book doesn't Frankenstein say something along the lines of "You can't kill me. I will exist as long as mankind exists." Not the exact words in the book, I know.
His point though (or Mary Shelley's point) was that men will always be tamperng with nature and not always for the better. Sometimes "monsters" might inadvertently be created, but if you think about it, we might not have a choice if we wish to survive. In a way, we will be constantly trying to stay one step ahead of nature. In the past, this was done with evolution involving natural selection. If that isn't happening any more, then shouldn't we do something to chnage the frequency of alleles from on egeneration to the next? | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/11/2008 8:34:27 AM | I think that we are already separated from the natural world far enough as it is. Contemplating designing an altered human species is just asking for trouble. The adage, "don't f*** with mother nature" keeps coming to mind.
As far as mankind not evolving. Who says that evolution is something that you can sit, eat popcorn and watch it happen before your eyes? It is possible that the reason we aren't evolving is because we are so far removed from nature. Our societies are artificial and we minimize the effect that nature has on us. Wouldn't that imply a sterile stagnant environment? Not much reason to make wide evolutionary steps.
Pushing evolution in a laboratory only moves us farther from nature and ourselves. | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/11/2008 9:28:47 AM | "Some of those points fall under the nature vs nurture concept. Would it really be possible to produce a human with no empathy for others? Essentially a sociopathic individual? "
What I mean here is this. If you alter the dna of a human being you can also alter the kind of brain chemicals and proteins that get expressed in the brain. When this happens you can alter the level of feeling and emotion that human being are capable of feeling and expressing. If for example a persons brain dosen't produce the amount of serotonin that humans naturally produce right now. That could have a large effect on the emotional disposition of the human being.
I agree nurture has a big part too. Obviously if a person is bullied or not nurtured correctly by the parents it could affect which genes get expressed in their brain and what chemicals get produced as a result. So someone who was bullied or not properly nurtured by their parents my be more prone to stress and depression than others. Lonelyness may have more of a detriment to such a person. The same for someone who's abused I guess.
"Would producing a clone of hitler mean that it would automatically be the same person?"
It definately wouldn't be. He was always at odds with his father and I think it had a big effect on his character. Though I do think some of his qualities were also genetic too. I just doubt he would have been so much as extreme as he was. I mean he wanted to be an artist and in the end he ended up doing something that made him the same like his tyrannical father who was a customs official. It's almost like having a customs official running the government. Sometimes I wonder if he had the genes of a customs official and ended up a politician because of weird circumstances. So yeah he probably would have been an real piece of work either way.
Still that begs the question of whether if he hadn't had a father like his would he have just been a poor and struggling artist and would he had been nothing like the father. Or was the fathers nature inherently in him and his relationship with his father just spurred him to do what he would have done anyways on a higher scope than he was meant to.
So yeah some things are just inherent while others are taught. The man probably would have become a customs official like his father instead of the fuhrer of Germany if he wasn't at odds with his father and ended up rebelling against him his whole life.
"I don't think so but more importantly, would someone that radically altered still be human? Selectively removing human elements wouldn't constitute improvements in my book, taking away would make them considerably less human. Can someone explain to me what need mankind would have for something like that to be accomplished?"
It depends on your definition of human. What I consider to be human is the nature imbued in our psyches. Were always going to be changing and evolving. Us having teeth we don't need alone says we are always unfinished creations.
I can see how tampering with things are dangerous and I don't completly advocate it. I just think that in future generations it will be a normal part of live and that our descendants would see it not all too different from us using a car for transport instead of a horse.
Thats why I've come to look at it as what prices are we willing to pay and which ones we shouldn't. I mean if conditions on earth changed for example that the earth go so hot a human couldn't survive without altering the genes. I can understand the need of us manipulating our genetics for extreme survival conditions. I just don't think we should mess around with our brains that much. Making us have a different kind of skin is not the same like altering our psychological makeup.
That said I do think some alterations are okay. Like I said if they could use it to cure mental illness or if people could have their IQ and memory improved if they so desire or be rejuvenated. I think stuff like that is okay. Tampering with people against their will would be disgusting and tampering with people as a means of imposing control on others would definately be something we have to worry about.
The real problem is we go into the territory of what is mental illness. People need to have freedom to be unique individuals as well. Theres so much to work with on this issue but I think it's something our species has to face. | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/11/2008 9:40:10 AM | Its terrible. Imagine the class structure. It also makes us highly susceptible to unforeseen environmental changes. Particularly in a capitalistic society such as hour where presumably the best access to the genetic modification will be afforded to the wealthy. Think of a society where there are not only social, monetary and systemic benefits afforded on the basis of class, but one wherein the people in the higher class are actually, on a genetic level, better people.
Genetic discrimination is highly possible and in fact probabl.e Imagine a world where your entire life's work is mapped out from conception. In fact, don't, just watch Gattaca.
Its already happening by the way, its highly influential in the insurance field, where people are already being, effectively, refused insurance for their predetermination for such genetic diseases. In fact, the potential for genetic disease is more relevant than actual HISTORY of disease. Think about that, think about how much faith these corporations are putting in our genes.
Plus theres that whole privacy issue... | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/11/2008 2:12:07 PM | Yeah thats is one of the few evils that will come about because of it and what bothers me very highly. Those that can enhance themselves can lead to a stratification of other people even if the people with the non altered genes are still considered equal.
If a group of people can become more intelligent than everyone else or more stronger it could lead to many problems.
Areas where it's not too different from what we do now is stuff all related to money. I mean if I work a job where I can have my health ruined by toxic exposure im still going to have weaker genes because my dna has become damaged and i've now become more succeptible to cancer. Or if I get less sleep because of work hours the same problem or issue could happen. Though that tends to even out in our society because everyone is exposed to pollution and the diet isn't as healthy as it could be. With all the processed foods and such. Some jobs can make people in active which is a detriment. So really theres so many factors. Our genes already get effected by life experiences and it decides how long we live and how resilient, and even possibly our intelligence is affected.
It's the same like if one child is better nurtured and one is abused maybe the abused child became less intelligent due to inability to cope while the better nurtured child may now have better genes and can better cope through adversity. Though this is a wildcard since sometimes some people are just better at adapting to situations no matter what they are.
Lets say someone can't afford a house or car or dosen't have access to expensive clothing or can't afford to go to a gym or dosen't have the time.
So really we already have this as a result to money issues. It's just not directly linked to our bodies. The divide that could happen would be exponential though and it could lead to some disaterous problems.
Yet we wouldn't be against people improving themselves with mechanical devices. Technically the military is more stronger and superior to us, men and women that have access to tanks, jets, guns, nukes etc. That in itself is like being in a higher class above everyone else.
If anything though I think we should avoid playing with the crops and our food. Unless the food being made is going to be isolated and seperated from the naturally grown foods.
As for humans I think we should avoid directly altering ourselves. I think if anything we should leave humans alone to breed normally unaltered until they reach the age of 30. After that I think offering the older people gene modification to extend their lifespan and improve their health. Slow down the decline caused by aging is something noble and fair. I really don't like the idea of children being messed around with so much.
If they were to alter us genetically, I would opt for massive upgrades for the whole species that are equal like immunization. Like if they can improve the human code to be more resilient to disease and it's proven safe and dosen't have a bad effect on us. It might be something good. This depends on whether the people doing it for society are honest in their intents and whether the side effects have a negative price.
Now if anything though my exceptions would be gene modification would be okay for astronauts, underwater explorers or anyone that has to work in harsh conditions and would need a higher level of resilience for survival.
With the normal population I think it should only be with the intent of curing disease or to slow down the aging process. Which in my opinion would be more creating medicines through biology and only giving people modifications when their at a much older age and only if they fully understand whats being done to them and the process is safe.
I mean im all for things like finding ways to make it so a person could have the beneficial chromosomes activated in their brain so that way they don't end up developing alzheimers. Or a modification that allows people to produce more antioxidants naturally.
Just that this is all something that cannot be tread upon lightly. Maybe biology is better suited to making indirect treatments for humans and keeping us in our natural state. For example, just curing cancer, repairing cell damage when it happens, having access to better medicines and machinery.
If we do tamper with ourselves though, I say they start a seed bank that banks all our sperm, eggs, and the dna of each human on earth. That way if we ever screw anything up we can always go back. Secondly if someone dosen't want to have a family their family line can still be continued if desired. Also it would keep our species genetically diverse.
Speaking of genetic diversity this is a big problem if we engineer ourselves we still need genetic diversity for survival. So if anything I think that everyone will have importance and value and we shouldn't end up blindly discriminating people based on their genes. Even if one gene makes a family smarter than the other another family might have a gene that makes them more resilient towards disease. If we want to always have healthy offspring we need to maintain diversity. No matter how much we want to mess around with whats already there in it's unaltered state has to be highly valued and respected. | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/11/2008 2:24:39 PM | The worst we have to worry about has already happend in the past century. The ideas that the eugenicists had with the back up of actual knowledge and experience in how genetics works can be pretty dangerous.
Considering people like Stalin wanted to beleive he could raise communist children which wasn't possible. What would the future rulers of countrys want to do to their people.
Things like this are worrisome.
Yet if we have strong rules, a proper ethical system and the right people working in the field of biology to use it to increase the human species chances of survival and to greatly improve the quality of life for everyone. That in my opinion would be good.
I mean in general I see things like people paying to have their eye and hair color altered genetically as no big deal if the process is safe.
Adding the gene that makes certain bacterias resilient to radiation is more questionable. Sure it could help us but we first have to know the cost to benefit ratio of such a thing.
Either way I think this will be the new immunization to some point. Hopefully they won't use it to turn the masses of society into easily controlled sheep. Thats my biggest worry. | |
|
| |
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/11/2008 7:00:10 PM | Not to mention a diet that probably damages our brains and our bodies, a high level of stress, the amount of radiation we get exposed to and the lack of sleep.
The problem is with genetics that can be rendered permanent.
I mean sometimes I wonder if the Eugenecists wanted to break down human society into three different races.
I mean Hitler had no interest in giving the men of germany any intellectual training he just wanted soldiers, and he wanted the women to only give birth to more children. Women actually dropped out of the colleges during his rule of the country. Plus with how they were wiping people out and wanted to make anyone that wasn't german a slave. I sometimes wonder if they thought at the time that after a few thousand years they would have succeeded in natural selection pressures that would have created a slave race, a race of soldiers and a small cadre of elites.
Probably not but I keep wondering about that. I mean if you had most of the people in the world working in labour camps and killed all the smarter ones that would try to break out of prison, do sabatoge or try to find ways to escape. As well as the outspoken ones, would you eventually be dwindling the people more likely to fight back out of the gene pool. Maybe not but it seemed like they would have taken everything into the territory of selective breeding.
They didn't want germans that could question things and it seems like they didn't really want anyone who was intelligent.
The worst of it is I think the scientists that started the whole eugenics movement. Actually were listing likelyhood to commit industrial sabatoge as a genetic flaw. This was before germany adopted this program and when it was starting out in the US.
When you associate that with the prison camps it's pretty scary.
Of course communism was big at that time and there were unions coming to power. I think a lot of the rich and the businesses were scared and wanted to find a way to control the human populace. Thats probably not so much of an issue in a massively consumerist society like ours. Just give enough money to people to buy whatever they want and to have all the food they need and they become compliant.
Though thats the thing, I wonder if corporations are still afraid of the masses and we just don't realize it today. You can definately wonder if they would back up any nut that had any idea of how to control the human populace and keep it pacified. Yet that can go into nutty conspiracy theory. | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/11/2008 7:09:02 PM | I don't think its bad, but it would have to depend on the genes they are creating.
I'll go out on a limb here, say they created a gene that made the human body super resistant to flame. Open flame did nothing to us, we could get light on fire and not feel a thing. People would think it's a good thing, which sure, if you ever get lit on fire it would be nice. But, are there side effects for genetics? what if the fire-resistant gene also makes us very aggressive? | |
|
| Genetic Engineering. Is it really such a bad thing?
Posted: 7/11/2008 7:14:36 PM | Exactly and that would be like paying the price for an enhancement with your soul.
Im pretty much an atheist so the mind is a material object to me. Yet that means that you can view the human mind as the soul. If our playing around has a bad effect on our psyche that in my opinion is not worth playing with our genes. Though considering how refined techniques can become it might not be an issue if they know what their doing. Yet that depends on what kind of rules and limitations there are.
Either way there always has to be some sort of price for something. We would just have to make sure we're paying the right ones. | |
|
Home
login 
