Genetically modified people - the atheist view

antiskeptic

In light of the recent referendum, where the embryo isn't considered a person and whether or not to carry to term was a seen as a matter of individual choice, what do posters here think of the idea of genetically modifying embryo's in order to grant them favourable characteristics?

Let's assume the promise (favourable characteristics) are achievable, that we wouldn't end up with unforeseen negative consequences for the resulting individual.

I'm posing the question here because I think the answer over in Christianity would be obviously against the idea. Views here might be expected to vary somewhat more.

magicbastarder

i'm curious as to what other people's reactions will be too - and looking forwards to the pro/anti arguments as i've not got solid opinions on it (mainly because it's a topic i've not considered a lot).
my own gut reaction is one very much of caution. i like the idea of being able to genetically modify away things like cystic fibrosis, but i suspect genetically modifying for things like general looks, etc., is a hornet's nest.

Glass fused light

What's a favourable characteristic to you may not be to me. It's not the genetic modification which worry most people but the social implications and outcomes of our ability to manipulate genetics and the ethics of how we view life and other humans.
Embryo eugenics is happening at the moment to screen for genetic defects. Donor embryos are already being created by parents with sick childern.
Sex selection as a favourable characteristic ie being male, is/was as common in China under the one child policy. Anecdotally years ago some hospitals in the UK stopped sexing at scans when they realised a correlation was occurring in specific populations.

magicbastarder

that's a related but separate issue though - that's not actually modifying the genes, that's selecting (or terminating) based on characteristics which are considered unwanted.

One eyed Jack

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's assume the promise (favourable characteristics) are achievable, that we wouldn't end up with unforeseen negative consequences for the resulting individual.

If the negative consequences are unforeseen, then that would mean the argument would heavily be in favor of the idea, given that we wouldn't be aware of the negative consequences?

We are aware of the potential negative consequences both for individuals and for society, but it depends largely on the circumstances in each individual case as to what is or isn't morally or ethnically justifiable.

Cultural factors also play a role in just how far the current technology is allowed to go, but the boundaries of what is morally or ethnically justifiable in law are constantly being pushed back and forth, largely influenced by politics rather than society at large.

antiskeptic

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If the negative consequences are unforeseen, then that would mean the argument would heavily be in favor of the idea, given that we wouldn't be aware of the negative consequences?

By negative consequences, I mean on an individual basis. For example: modifying for intelligence won't, as an unforeseen by-product mean prone to schizophrenia.

We are aware of the potential negative consequences both for individuals and for society, but it depends largely on the circumstances in each individual case as to what is or isn't morally or ethnically justifiable.

I was just wonder why not the right of an individual to decide? If unto destroying the embryo, why not modifying it?

Franz Von Peppercorn

It’s pretty hard to argue for termination in cases of Down’s syndrome (say) and not accept that could be cured by a pill, if possible.

This is however where some of the bodily autonomy rhetoric falls down.

magicbastarder

i think one concern would be that such advancements wouldn't be a 'levelling the playing field' development.
what i mean by levelling the playing field is that we could potentially ensure that people are born without disabilities or health problems.

a concern would be that if you could, say, boost intelligence - such an option would probably only be available to the better off. so wealth could literally bring intelligence, and potentially create an underclass not only economically, but also genetically.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was just wonder why not the right of an individual to decide? If unto destroying the embryo, why not modifying it?

Well from my perspective on abortion, which you probably know quite well at this stage, we have no moral or ethical obligation to non-sentient entities. So we are morally ok terminating them and as such I have no issue with the pro-choice position on abortion.

End Of the Roads ongoing failure was to assert, and fail to substantiate, the concept that such entities have some "right to become sentient". I do not think it does. We have no obligation to help (or not prevent) an entity with the potential to develop that faculty to actually do so.

When the entity becomes sentient, or we have cause to think it has, then we have moral and ethical obligations to it.

That was my position on abortion. When it comes to THIS topic however an extra layer of nuance has to be added between A and B as it is relevant here, but not there.

That is to say at some point between A and B we have committed to the production of a sentient agent. We have decided that is what we are going to do. As such I think a certain level of moral and ethical obligation comes with that choice. And we are morally and ethically obligated to do our best to makes choices that will maximize the well being of the agent we are intending to produce. Such as, for example, not drinking and smoking insane levels of alcohol and tobacco during pregnancy.

TLDR: The answer to your specific question above therefore is that in the case of destroying it we have no sentient agent AND we do not intend to produce one. In the case of modifying it we have no sentient agent BUT we do intend to produce one. And that changes the moral playing field for me.

One eyed Jack

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was just wonder why not the right of an individual to decide? If unto destroying the embryo, why not modifying it?

Because destroying it means it presents no further risk, whereas modifying it, presents unknown potential risks. However if the premise of your argument is that there are no potential unknown risks, then as I said that skews the argument heavily and unfairly IMO in favor of the idea. It's then a thought experiment, rather than a conversation about what's already a reality:


Scientists genetically modify human embryos in controversial world first

UK scientists edit DNA of human embryos

Franz Von Peppercorn

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well from my perspective on abortion, which you probably know quite well at this stage, we have no moral or ethical obligation to non-sentient entities. So we are morally ok terminating them and as such I have no issue with the pro-choice position on abortion.

End Of the Roads ongoing failure was to assert, and fail to substantiate, the concept that such entities have some "right to become sentient". I do not think it does. We have no obligation to help (or not prevent) an entity with the potential to develop that faculty to actually do so.

When the entity becomes sentient, or we have cause to think it has, then we have moral and ethical obligations to it.

That was my position on abortion. When it comes to THIS topic however an extra layer of nuance has to be added between A and B as it is relevant here, but not there.

That is to say at some point between A and B we have committed to the production of a sentient agent. We have decided that is what we are going to do. As such I think a certain level of moral and ethical obligation comes with that choice. And we are morally and ethically obligated to do our best to makes choices that will maximize the well being of the agent we are intending to produce. Such as, for example, not drinking and smoking insane levels of alcohol and tobacco during pregnancy.

TLDR: The answer to your specific question above therefore is that in the case of destroying it we have no sentient agent AND we do not intend to produce one. In the case of modifying it we have no sentient agent BUT we do intend to produce one. And that changes the moral playing field for me.

That’s a good response and (even better) isn’t a wall of text.

It does however come up against the arch feminist view that a uterus and its contents is of no concern to anybody but the person to whom it is attached.

Bodily autonomy should imply that a woman can take a pill to terminate and a pill to turn her future child’s skin blue. My Uterus My Choice.

We will probably create laws that actually don’t agree with that position (as we do with late term abortions) while the proponents of it continue to ignore the reality of the statement.

magicbastarder

how did this thread so quickly swing to an abortion discussion?

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm curious as to what other people's reactions will be too - and looking forwards to the pro/anti arguments as i've not got solid opinions on it (mainly because it's a topic i've not considered a lot).
my own gut reaction is one very much of caution. i like the idea of being able to genetically modify away things like cystic fibrosis, but i suspect genetically modifying for things like general looks, etc., is a hornet's nest.

I agree with this sentiment. The problem lies with the probability that certain traits such as autism and ADHD which many consider disabilities at a personal level are potentially important traits as a species. There's an interesting video here discussing this; https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/2046138535476260/?t=0

That said, I've no more issue with using genetic modification to cure or prevent a disease any more than a pharmaceutical one. For example, gene therapy looks very promising for treatment of breast cancer. I would be concerned that narrowing diversity at a population level could expose that population as a whole to greater risks.

There's also the issue that few people seem to face that if we reduce disease, increase survivability and hence longevity, we further stimulate global population growth. This is clearly unsustainable.

Franz Von Peppercorn

magicbastarder wrote: »

how did this thread so quickly swing to an abortion discussion?

The two are obviously linked. We are talking about modifications during pregnancy. And the op mentioned it in the first paragraph.

nozzferrahhtoo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Bodily autonomy should imply that a woman can take a pill to terminate and a pill to turn her future child’s skin blue. My Uterus My Choice.

Post length is subjective. People tend to perceive posts as longer when they are disagreeing with them, they are too strong for you to rebut, or they are kicking the ass of someone you agree with. For example the last time you moaned on the subject you contrived to only notice my posts and ignored the posts you were more in agreement with which were in fact longer and less well structured.

Bodily autonomy for me means something subtly different that the third party version of it you vicariously describe here. It means to me that I should be allowed do anything with and to my body and it's contents until such time as it impacts on the rights and well being of another sentient agent. Either an agent that is currently sentient or one that I intend to cause to be sentient in the future. Kind of the old "My right to swing my arms around wildly ends at your face" adage.

While it is not sentient however, and we have no intentions of allowing it to be, then I see no reason to be concerned for it. But if we tend to make it sentient, then what mortification we make to it first do become morally relevant.

magicbastarder wrote: »

how did this thread so quickly swing to an abortion discussion?

I suspect it was the main intention of the OP from the outset to be honest. Especially given the opening few words of the opening post and then the end of the second post they made. I suspect the OP thinks there is a "gotcha" or an inconsistency in the world view between abortion and modification, and intended to highlight it rather than start an actual conversation on this particular topic.

But that is, as I said, merely my own suspicion / gut feeling. Nothing I can substantiate.

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

a concern would be that if you could, say, boost intelligence - such an option would probably only be available to the better off. so wealth could literally bring intelligence, and potentially create an underclass not only economically, but also genetically.

If you take intelligence as being a combination of nature and nurture this already happens. Similarly, rich people are more likely to be healthier and live longer than poor people regardless of genetics.

Franz Von Peppercorn

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Post length is subjective. People tend to perceive posts as longer when they are disagreeing with them, they are too strong for you to rebut, or they are kicking the ass of someone you agree with. For example the last time you moaned on the subject you contrived to only notice my posts and ignored the posts you were more in agreement with which were in fact longer and less well structured.

Bodily autonomy for me means something subtly different that the third party version of it you vicariously describe here. It means to me that I should be allowed do anything with and to my body and it's contents until such time as it impacts on the rights and well being of another sentient agent. Either an agent that is currently sentient or one that I intend to cause to be sentient in the future. Kind of the old "My right to swing my arms around wildly ends at your face" adage.

I dont think I engaged in that discussion at all except to criticise your post length. In general the other long post lengths are in response to you.

Your definition of bodily autonomy there runs a coach and horses through what would reasonably be understood by the phrase. I dont disagree with the argument though - a woman who takes a pill that harms the embryo’s future life should be guilty of an offence. However that’s a world away from My Uterus My Choice.

nozzferrahhtoo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I dont think I engaged in that discussion at all except to criticise your post length. In general the other long post lengths are in response to you.

My point exactly. People get singled out for doing what others are doing, generally on a subjective basis. 2 5 or 10 people do the same thing, and you get snide at one of them. And ignore the rest. Pretty telling. Especially given weeks later it still irks you enough to make another unsubtle snide side comment about it too.

If you think MY post length is an emotional issue affecting you for weeks however.... I can only hope you never get into a discussion with OldrNWisr

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Your definition of bodily autonomy there runs a coach and horses through what would reasonably be understood by the phrase. I dont disagree with the argument though - a woman who takes a pill that harms the embryo’s future life should be guilty of an offence. However that’s a world away from My Uterus My Choice.

Reasonably understood by who where when? You have not cited any definitions or who these "reasonable" people are or what their reasoning even is. So I am forced to take your word for it. Which I don't. Nor have you shown anything unreasonable about my understanding of it either, which is intentionally or unintentionally seemingly implied.

I certainly thinking harming the future of an embryo should be considered an issue. ENDING The future of the embryo however I would not. And that is because I see a distinction between an entity that is not sentient AND we do not intend it to be............ and one that is not BUT we intend it to be.

We have no obligation, despite the protestations of at least one user of the forum, to help a potential sentience realize that sentience. However if we intend to allow it, aid it, or make it realize that potential..... then this forms some moral and ethical obligations on us I believe.

Hotblack Desiato

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was just wonder why not the right of an individual to decide? If unto destroying the embryo, why not modifying it?

Because the end product of a destroyed embryo is nothing, the end product of a modified one successfully going to term is a person?

Anyway this thread is just a transparent attempt to open up a second front in the abortion war...

Hotblack Desiato

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Bodily autonomy should imply that a woman can take a pill to terminate and a pill to turn her future child’s skin blue. My Uterus My Choice.

Either you are misrepresenting that position, or you don't understand it.

Pat Mustard

antiskeptic wrote: »

what do posters here think of the idea of genetically modifying embryo's in order to grant them favourable characteristics?

There are genetic blood disorders such as sickle cell anaemia and haemophilia for instance. I think that there is a strong genetic element in age-related macular degeneration, which can cause loss of vision.

If these conditions could be eliminated through genetic modification, then it would assist many people and improve their lives. I would be in favour of that.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm posing the question here because I think the answer over in Christianity would be obviously against the idea. Views here might be expected to vary somewhat more.

Perhaps the Catholic Church is against genetic modification. It is an organisation that tends to change its views very slowly over time. It took some time for Galileo's findings to be accepted, for example*. Perhaps it will come around eventually.



*EDIT - I think that the Church has not definitively agreed with Galileo at this stage!

magicbastarder

smacl wrote: »

If you take intelligence as being a combination of nature and nurture this already happens. Similarly, rich people are more likely to be healthier and live longer than poor people regardless of genetics.

oh, agreed - but this would be more likely to extend that gap.

smacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

oh, agreed - but this would be more likely to extend that gap.

Maybe, though the healthiest dogs are mongrels, not thoroughbreds

Things get bad enough when people believe they are some form of übermensch, I really don't think it would be in any way good for society to make people who actually are

Sofiztikated

Can anyone tell me what the difference is in gene selection and pre or post natal surgery, Results wise?

I mean, I've got a condition that meant a **** ton of surgery, starting hours after birth, right through until 16, and continued procedures to date and for the foreseeable future. There's a significant chance any children I have will have the same condition. Now, there has been no defective gene identified with it, but if there was, I don't see what the difference is in correcting it at growth stage, and surgically correcting it afterwards.

seamus

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the difference is in gene selection and pre or post natal surgery, Results wise?

I mean, I've got a condition that meant a **** ton of surgery, starting hours after birth, right through until 16, and continued procedures to date and for the foreseeable future. There's a significant chance any children I have will have the same condition. Now, there has been no defective gene identified with it, but if there was, I don't see what the difference is in correcting it at growth stage, and surgically correcting it afterwards.

In terms of gene repair, the significant difference is that it's permanent. The genes are fixed, so whatever surgery is required pre or post natally, or into adulthood, is not required. And the genetic defect cannot be passed onto children.

Many genetic disorders are "fixed" by surgery which basically adjusts for the condition and keeps it at bay for a time period. Then surgery is performed again when needed. And so on for life.

If the genes are repaired in utero, the condition never develops and the individual lives an uninterrupted life.

There are many variations on when gene therapies can or should be performed. Since every single cell in the body contains a copy of your DNA, derived from the original fused gametes, then in effect every cell in your body contains a copy of any defective genes. For something like Down's syndrome, you would need to repair the issue early on, or there's no point.

However, for other things, like Epidermolysis bullosa, the defect only affects certain tissues of the body, so post-natal gene therapies only need to target those tissues. That is, it doesn't matter if your brain cells contain the defective gene, so long as you have repaired it in the skin cells and mucous membranes.

It does go without saying though that the ideal time to repair defects is before or just after fertilisation. This limits the number of cells that need to be repaired and eliminates any chance of the disorder expressing itself.

In pre-natal -v- post-natal surgery, my understanding is that the former is trickier but has better outcomes than the latter - a neonate in an incubator needs far more attention than a foetus in the womb.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Either you are misrepresenting that position, or you don't understand it.

Generally I dont find it informative when someone suggests that I don’t understand a position without explaining the position.

In practice this isn’t a useful form of argument.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Because the end product of a destroyed embryo is nothing, the end product of a modified one successfully going to term is a person?

Anyway this thread is just a transparent attempt to open up a second front in the abortion war...

It might be but it’s a perfectly valid question nevertheless.

Hotblack Desiato

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Generally I dont find it informative when someone suggests that I don’t understand a position without explaining the position.

Right then. The "my body my choice" argument concerns the choice to proceed or not with a pregnancy, that's it. You just added something else onto the argument which has nothing to do with it.

In practice this isn’t a useful form of argument.

The irony.

the_syco

Either a) we start getting more fcuked up medical issues from mating with what is probably a rapidly decreasing gene pool, or b) we eliminate known medical issues, I'd say B. One known medical issue would be hemophilia. But if they figured out how to prevent people from needing glasses, that'd be handy.

After that, we get into genetic soldier territory. Having people burn fat to keep a low fat percentage, and to allow easier building of muscle, as well as faster reflexes, and eliminating depression, etc.

Personally, as someone with a hearing loss and sight loss, I'm very much okay with "super soldiers" being the norm.

Oh, and also most importantly, make everyone brown. Or black. But with at least some skin tint, to reduce skin cancer, which I say will become a lot more common with the global warming scenario.

recedite

the_syco wrote: »

Oh, and also most importantly, make everyone brown. Or black. But with at least some skin tint, to reduce skin cancer, which I say will become a lot more common with the global warming scenario.

Hows about chamaelyoid skin. Turns black in hot sun, but reverts to white in winter. Blue at parties.