Lets allow genetic engineering for humans

[Nadin]

what you say has no meaning, the word two, and the symbol 2 have no meaning, they are simply vibrations and light, until we attach a meaning to it, 2+2 could equal fish, it could be gibberish, until we attach the meaning to the words involved, just because you SAY 2+2=4 does not mean it is true, as the word four could have any meaning we want it to

 

Did that make sense?

People are so quick to come up with ideas they do not fully understand

 

edit: are the moderators always this involved in a discussion?

also, what would be the PRICE of this enginering? we could end up with a genetically superior race, and the rest of us who could not afford the improvements end up as slaves.

Congratulations. You've watched gattaca.

When a toddler says "da-da" the first few times, it means nothing, but then the toddler learns the meaning. In real life, we have to learn the meaning AND the thing itself. This would just eliminate a step.

And 2+2 was just an example. It wouldn't actually be like that.

Please also bear in mind, it was only a semi-formed idea while I was in low blood sugar, so...

[IndorilTheGreat]

From what I've read of the posts on here so far, I'm going to put in my two-cents:

 

The human brain does not come pre-programmed with data - everything we do and see is based off of a stimulus response - it is not (currently) possible to simply "upload" information to the human brain, if you will. However, it could be possible to genetically modify the human brain to react differently than a "normal" brain would. Think of it as a sort of "genetic hypnotism," if you will.

 

Sorry. I'm a bit of a biology geek. :yes: I'm going into Bio-Medical Engineering, but more for pharmaceutical stuff. Still, similar concepts.

[monkybuttface]

what id gattaca? i just came up with that on my own

 

edit: i have also been thinking and i realized that all creaturers are born with an understanding of math, and an understanding of what things are, when we "learn" 2+2=4 we are simply learning how to express something we already know, just like a baby saying "da-da" already knows his father, he just did not know how to express that his father is his father

wow, long edit, sorry

[Nadin]

From what I've read of the posts on here so far, I'm going to put in my two-cents:

 

The human brain does not come pre-programmed with data - everything we do and see is based off of a stimulus response - it is not (currently) possible to simply "upload" information to the human brain, if you will. However, it could be possible to genetically modify the human brain to react differently than a "normal" brain would. Think of it as a sort of "genetic hypnotism," if you will.

 

Sorry. I'm a bit of a biology geek. :yes: I'm going into Bio-Medical Engineering, but more for pharmaceutical stuff. Still, similar concepts.

Thank you. Genetic hypnotism sounds about right for what I'm trying to say.

[kidwitthafro]

i haven't read this topic in its entirety yet, so if this was already said forgive me; but i think the problem with genetic engineering is that we cannot predict the future. there are genes that produce traits that we may perceive as unfavorable, when in reality they are not. if we then go so far as to alter these traits, then we could face dire consequences. take sickle cell anemia for example-its effects are generally unfavorable, people who suffer from them are frequently exhausted and have problem transporting oxygen in their blood because their red blood cells are more "sickle" shaped. however, this same gene also results in an extremely high resistance to malaria. now, consider if we had the ability to alter genes at the time sickle cell anemia developed but did not have the ability to fight off disease at the same technological level, we would "cure" sickle cell anemia, but then malaria would come along and wipe us all out. now this example is a little extreme, but the point is that there are just too many variables. we may all perceive weight as an unfavorable trait, remove it, and then when an ice age come along face dire consequences. simply put, it's too risky.

[Zephyr2011]

This thread caught my eye because I, like gman, am going into Biomedical engineering. I find it hilarious how people just blow off genetic engineering as "too risky" yes there are downfalls, pitfalls, hurdles, problems, and inherent dangers to it however very few have been presented. Simply labelling it "too risky" is a gross simplification. True enough if we genetically engineer our DNA to no longer carry the genes that dispose us to things such as sickle cell we might lose disease resistence however there are other means of prevention and people can (and do) have resistences without sickle cell (homozygously or heterozygously, as it is codominant however only part of its traits are inherited heterozygously ex: someone with SS has sickle shaped cells, difficulty carrying oxygen and a high resistence to malaria. someone with NN has "normal" shaped cells, carries oxygen normally and [well to simplify it] little resistence to malaria. someone with NS has "normal" shaped cells, carries oxygen normally and has a high resistence to malaria but I digress) because the immune system can build up resistences on its own, sickle cell just means you have a higher resistence out of the gate however one could toy with the genetic mutation and eliminate the sickle cell deformation of red blood cells while maintaining the malaria resistence or alter the immune system's genetic makeup to make it naturally more resistent to malaria. Also if one argues that by genetically removing a deformation we might be eliminating a future adaptation that makes us more hardy or better suited to our environment. We can also alter our DNA to do this and at a faster rate than nature and without the lost lives from the diseases. Also considering many birth defects kill the offspring or the afflicted do not have children (of course there are many that do) it would take nature exponentially longer than us if we simply introduced retroviruses (with extreme precautions and modifications. it is possible to make viruses that alter DNA safely however 5-10 yrs of testing would be the bare minimum for the FINAL retrovirus to ensure it has not malign side-effects and also a possible programmed death/permanent dormant state would be likely necessary to prevent spread and mutation of the virus itself and complications that way) and we eliminate the deaths while hopefully being able to engineer the mutation that would later result from the abnormality anyway of course wed need to know what said mutation would be but that's another long story. And to conclude body fat is not genetic and if an ice-age occurs we will likely have to be so active in our gathering of food to survive that fat would be burned to very little anyway body fat would really not be all that helpful in an ice-age it provides a degree of warmth and some reserve energy stores but thatd be a one time tool (like a grenade, poor example but eh.) then doen. The warmth wouldn't be as valuable as the mobility gained from the muscle tissue that could be there instead of fat as it means you can do things faster and better and speed would be the name of the game if you can hunt animals with fur and are fast enough and agile enough to catch them you can easily get warmer by making clothing or covering homes. Just thought I'd point that out... plus an ice age doesn't happen in a day and if one was happening losing weight would be the least of anyone's worries we wouldn't all be bean poles by the time it rolled around.

[MonsterHunterMaster]

could it be possible to manipulate the brain cells so one person could steer another one by tiny microchips which send out some electromagnetic waves or stuff and connect with the other persons thought like they do in the movie gamer?

sorry for the weird :blink: question, but i thought about it and somehow im interested in it.. :happy:

[Zephyr2011]

theoretically through microchips one could transmit signals through their brain to another persons where the chips would act like nerve cells and begin the reactions needed for muscles to move at the other person's whim but you'd need an incredibly small chip (the same size as a nerve cell) and it'd have to be able to recieve messages from nerve cells as well as deliver them that kind of tech probly won't be possible any time in the near future unless some company throughs billions of dollars and thousands of workers at it. The research needed to even get the chip small enough with coding for how to send the impulses alone would be daunting to say the least. But theoretically it's possible and I stress theoretically. It probly wouldn't happen though mainly due to ethical reasons.

[MonsterHunterMaster]

thanks for your explanation!

man, they have real masterbrains in the forum! :thumbsup:

[desperado2008]

With some stipulations, of course, as to avoid certain ethical issues that no one likes very much. But first, the why of it. There are a number of paths I could follow to support the proposition, Ill just choose one.

 

Almost all creatures employ their own natural abilities to the fullest of their potential in order to survive and reproduce.

 

The application of a species natural abilities to the fullest of their potential generates the most good for that species. (here good only means what most of us would intuitively consider as the greatest benefits with the least detriments. This would be true even if these abilities werent enough to save a species from extinction.)

 

Humans commonly desire the greatest good possible on an individual basis as well as for all humanity in many cases, and much individual benefit can be derived from the most good for all humans, and vice-versa.

 

So Humans ought to employ their own natural abilities to the fullest of their potential in order to achieve that end.

 

Part of doing that would be to allow genetic engineering to stifle negative traits and promote positive ones, something we are capable of doing as a result of our own natural abilities.

 

Therefore, we ought to allow genetic engineering.

 

Now for the stipulations, which I add at the end only as my own personal feelings about the matter. Since the argument obviously doesnt touch them at all and I think they are needed to protect and preserve certain values I (and many others) possess.

 

Only the engineering of traits which inherently contribute either to the detriment or benefit of an individual should be allowed. So changing eye color, hair color, sexual orientation, etc. would not be allowed. Those things do not inherently contribute to either the detriment or benefit of any individual. They are neutral traits. The only time they do cause detriment or benefit is under certain social conditions. Most of which, if not all, are arbitrary.

 

However, things such as intellect, physical strength, speed, and stamina, as well as a strong immune system are all inherently beneficial to all individuals. While things such as down syndrome, and other genetic disorders are things that do not contribute to the benefit of any individual, and often cause a great deal of detriment to those who suffer from them. These are the sorts of things on which genetic alterations/manipulations should be allowed to be performed.

 

I see no immediately apparent ethical issues with this stance. Any disagreement/agreements?

 

according to your theory, the gene pools of Van Goth, Nietzsche ect ect ect...could be eliminated for inherent mental illness, F.D.Roosevelt's for physical diseases.