Genetic engineering & longevity, it begins.

Typedef

From http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992969

Apparently tampering with a particular gene associated with ageing at a particular stage of a worm's development will double the lifespan of that worm.

Interestingly knocking out the daf-2 gene used to make worms infertile, however, it would seem that if the gene is knocked out after the onset of adulthood, fertility is not affected.

But now her team has shown that if daf-2 is switched off at the onset of adulthood, about four days after birth, the worms live twice as long as normal but reproduce normally.

As a rule I opposed genetic engineering, mostly because it creates comodities of the organisms that have to suffer to advance human medicine. It's a catch 22 that I like to piously rain derision on the medicial industry from, whilst still enjoying the fruits of their labour.

Again in keeping with this hypocritical attitude I would most certainly take medication to knock out my own daf-2 genes say at the age of 30, if that would mean I could live to 160 or even 180, just ageing slower than I normally would, while at the same time I find the thought of genetic engineering and the releasing of genetically engineered organisms into the biosphere as repugnant and an anthema to some 'purity' of nature that I can't really describe.

Ripper: Mandrake, Mandrake. Have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rain water, and only pure grain alchohol?

Mandrake: Well, it did occur to me Jack, yes.

Ripper: Have you ever heard of a thing called flouridation, flouridation of water?

Mandrake: Ah, yes I have as a matter of fact, Jack , yes.

Ripper: Well do you know what it is? Do you realize that flouridation is the most monstrously concieved and dangerous communist plot we've ever had to face? (...) Do you realize that in addition to flouridating water, there are studies underway to flouridate salt, flour, fruit juice, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream...ice cream Mandrake, children's ice cream.

Mandrake: Good Lord.

Ripper: You know when flouridation first began?

Mandrake: Ah..no...no I don't

Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946. How does that coincide with your postwar commie conspiracy huh? It's incredibly obvious isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore commie works

Jak

If people start living twice as long, this world will have serious issues in my view.

However, on an individual basis survival instinct will generally push people to do whatever they can to hang about.

Things could get very competitive though.

mike65

Painly this is madness!" If you could apply this technique to humans, resourses will be spead ever thinner, the idea of a bunch of rich westerners living into thier 150s is more than I can bear to think about! Anyway think of all the moral and socirty implications, just something as simple as your spouse not wanting to live so long, do you say "suit yourself, I'll just find someone else after you drop dead"? The mind boggles.

Mike.

Planet Potato

I have a lot of difficulty understanding the arguments of people who oppose genetic engineering. I'm not here to cause a fight, I really just want to know why you do oppose it (so I can counter the arguments better ).

I want to live forever - let's just get that out of the way. If you don't, I don't understand why - is your life so empty that you'd rather face obliviation than continue it indefinately?

Genetic engineering is a classic example of a technology that has some downsides with massive upsides. It's classic in that certain people will play up the fear of downsides so as to curtail, if not kill research.

I don't see why 300,000 sentient beings dying every day is acceptable. I see genetic engineering as a technology that can prevent this. I see genetic engineering as something that can cure many of the afflictions that face us. I can see genetic engineering improving quality of life for practically everyone on the planet.

I can understand why people can have concerns over certain aspects of GE, and I agree it needs to be controlled. I don't understand those who would seek to see it stopped.

mike65

It good that people are born and then die its the way of the world, if this did'nt happen we'd all have starved to death eons ago!

Imagine a world like Soylent Greens' New York or Blade Runners'
Los Angeles for everyone! Yeuk, nope its good to die...

Mike.

Typedef

Gattaca or a Brave New World, these are reasons to oppose Genetic Engineering for humans. It will most likely lead to eugenics, people might well be discriminated against on the basis of the genes engineered into them before birth.

Paper ads could read "Must have an ability to withstand 8 gravities of pressure at a genetic level" for deep sea diving or for space work or similar.

Engineered organisms released into the wild could over run natural species by way of human enhanced genes. Examples of this notion of foreign species being introduced into a unsuspecting biosphere would be rabbits in Australia, where introduced rabbits ran wild and reproduced exponentially, because there were no natural predators for the rabbit.
http://www.csiro.au/promos/ozadvances/Series5Rabbit.html

In the same ilk genetically engineered species could be like rabbits being introduced into Australia for indegenous creatures, by this I mean non-genetically engineered creatures would through natural selection become marginalised, a substrata of existance, pushed toward extinction. Thus people who could afford to reengineer their progeny would have a Darwinian advantage to those who could not. Eugenics and genetic engineering are in some respects the exact same thing. So there would in the end be a master race to borrow a phrase, of the genetically superior (by design) who would live longer, think quicker, be better off, have more access to jobs and so on then other humans.

That is not progress towards a melting pot society, it is a retrograde darwinian iconoclasm.

Planet Potato

Originally posted by Typedef
Thus people who could afford to reengineer their progeny would have a Darwinian advantage to those who could not. Eugenics and genetic engineering are in some respects the exact same thing. So there would in the end be a master race to borrow a phrase, of the genetically superior (by design) who would live longer, think quicker, be better off, have more access to jobs and so on then other humans.

That is not progress towards a melting pot society, it is a retrograde darwinian iconoclasm.

A darwinian what?? Are you accusing Darwin of being retrogade because he challenged the established wisdom?

So you would prefer to allow millions of people to die every year, and resist all attempts to allow the human race to develop other than through "natural" means because this upsets your world view? Should evolution be stopped? Should the practice of medicine be banned as it interferes with the natural process? Should the development of AIDS vaccines be stopped because not everyone can afford it? Should those who can afford to go to school be excluded because they have gained an unfair advantage over those who haven't? Should genetic medicine developments that would potentially cure multiple ailments be stopped from proceeding? Should we all go back to living in caves? Should those of us who want to see humans develop utilising all the tools science can give us be stopped?

Biffa Bacon

May I?

Originally posted by Planet Potato
So you would prefer to allow millions of people to die every year, and resist all attempts to allow the human race to develop other than through "natural" means because this upsets your world view?

I would rather millions die than allow genetic engineering.

Should evolution be stopped? Should the practice of medicine be banned as it interferes with the natural process? Should the development of AIDS vaccines be stopped because not everyone can afford it? Should those who can afford to go to school be excluded because they have gained an unfair advantage over those who haven't?

No to all the above.

Should genetic medicine developments that would potentially cure multiple ailments be stopped from proceeding?

Yes.

Should we all go back to living in caves?

Not if you don't want to.

Should those of us who want to see humans develop utilising all the tools science can give us be stopped?

Yes.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I would rather millions die than allow genetic engineering.

Well, thats very high minded of you.

Care to explain exactly what it is you have against genetic engineering, that you would be willing to allow millions to die who could be saved?

And if you're answer is simply going to be a one-word "no" post, then save us all the dandwidth of having to download such contentless drivel please.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
It will most likely lead to eugenics, people might well be discriminated against on the basis of the genes engineered into them before birth.

Actually, thats a completely hollow argument.

If and when mankind obtains the detailed knowledge to be able to perform genetic differentiation on such a common scale as would lead to eugenics, then the existence (or lack thereof) of genetic manipulation is irrelevant.

If you can scan for defects, then you can implement eugenics regardless of whether genetic engineering is actually present in society or not.

Or, put differently, people might just as well be discriminated against on the basis of the genes they naturally have.

Paper ads could read "Must have an ability to withstand 8 gravities of pressure at a genetic level" for deep sea diving or for space work or similar.

As opposed to today, where people must have an ability to withstand 8g of acceleration for space work, and the ability to withstand high pressures for deep-sea diving without suffering from the various hazards that already exist???

Genetic engineering, at such a level, would simply make more people qualified to perform these tasks. The level of discrimination would not be any different to what it is today - you already need the genetic disposition for such demanding tasks.

jc

Typedef

If and when mankind obtains the detailed knowledge to be able to perform genetic differentiation on such a common scale as would lead to eugenics, then the existence (or lack thereof) of genetic manipulation is irrelevant.

Assuming that genetic engineering and eugenics arising from the same are not simply the article of the elite then yes you are correct, however I think, that in the real world that is is highly likely that only the rich will have access to genetic engineering techniques and in any case not everyone would want to tinker with their genetic inheritance.
On both of these points I'd find compelling evidence to suggest that genetic engineering will not be common place or rather will not be universally ascribed and accepted and that this divergence will lead to discrimination based on gene makeup.

Genetic engineering, at such a level, would simply make more people qualified to perform these tasks. The level of discrimination would not be any different to what it is today - you already need the genetic disposition for such demanding tasks.

It would if the engineering was mandatory and universal, if it was not then the re-engineering of the human genome could create an untermenchen of society, who are not genetically engineered and are precluded from jobs on the basis of race for all intents and purposes. In this instance you have a trade off of enforcing universal re-engineering to promote social equality and negate a stratafication of society based on percived prowess engrained at the genetic level, or you (one) allows for such genetic stratification. Such a stratification could lead to in my opinon a very twisted form of Darwinism.

bonkey

Originally posted by Typedef
It would if the engineering was mandatory and universal, if it was not then the re-engineering of the human genome could create an untermenchen of society, who are not genetically engineered and are precluded from jobs on the basis of race for all intents and purposes.

That depends on whether or not people used genetic enhancement to make them "super-human", as opposed to simply choosing which existing human traits an individual was supposed to have.

Consider - there are people today perfectly capable of handling the rigours of space-travel (in today's limited form). The question which is unanswered is whether or not we could create people who are more suitable, or simply more people who are equally suitable. I'm not necessarily convinced either way...I'm just suggesting alternatives that I see as feasible.

At the end of the day, I find myself favouring genetic engineering, under a proviso - that it never be utilised until we know exactly what we are doing. At the moment, for example, a genuine criticism of GE-foodstuffs is that we have not performed sufficient studies to determine the long-term effects - we are simply assuming that there are none, or that they will be small. A terribly dangerous risk.

As a comparable example, I would suggest that mankind is only now approaching the knowledge-level to use nuclear fission theory safely....yet we have used it for the last 60 years almost. Had we not, then we possibly would not be at that required level.

Of course, given our current trends of capitalism and enough peoples' willingness to rush and embrace all shiny new technologies, I expect that this proviso of mine means that I will end up opposing the use of genetic engineering in humans for quite some time.

Having said that, I would point out that I am talking here about the deliberate tampering of genetic material within a human being. There are other areas of genetic manipulation which may be acceptable to me - for example, the ability to "grow" tissue/bone/whatever for use in certain types of surgery.

I would have no objection in principle to someone being able to "clone" me a fully-compatible eye, were I to lose one of my own, as long as the final product was a genetically stable, unenhanced, unmodified eye.

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Care to explain exactly what it is you have against genetic engineering, that you would be willing to allow millions to die who could be saved?

And if you're answer is simply going to be a one-word "no" post, then save us all the dandwidth of having to download such contentless drivel please.

a. It's dehumanising.
b. No one knows what the long terms effects could be.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
a. It's dehumanising.
b. No one knows what the long terms effects could be.

I'd agree with the second one....for now (as per my previous post).

As for the first, I'm not sure I follow the logic. You're saying, for example, that the use of genetic engineering to clone replacement organs and tissues, and/or alleviate/cure/prevent physical and mental ailments is somehow dehumanising?

Even so, I'm sure there's a lot of people who would rather this "dehumanisation" than the early death which they might be facing due to some hereditary disease they have, or blindness, deafness, etc. etc. etc.

Still....if thats how you see it, I guess thats your perogative.

jc

Jak

An issue I would have with pre-engineering certain traits or abilities into babies would be that just because you make someone genetically suited to being the best astronaut ever, does not mean the child will actually want to be an astronaut.

I'm not sure I'd like to be born and subsequently told I was going to be a figure skater, cuz mommy paid good money to make me a dancer.

My ideal concept for all this would be selctive use of genetic engineering. Use it for medicine, use it to cure ilness or replace limbs and organs.

The problem is, if the tech. is there, it will be used for whatever - legal or otherwise.

As I said above, I can see the problem with people living longer and not ageing as quickly - but it is human nature to cling to life - and that is the big problem. It is happening already with modern medicine to a lesser extent.

It'll be alright though, when things get too competitive and people aren't dying from natural causes - we will just have a war or a few riots to redress the balance.

JAK.

Typedef

In a fairly unrelated light Stephen Hawking thinks that humans should re-engineer themselves or artifical intellegence will supplant human intellegence as the pre-eminant form of life in society.

http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,545653,00.html

netwhizkid

Hmmmm,

Genetic Enginering, i'm in favour, if it was used for the right reasons, e.g design people to be immune to cancer, aids, etc. and to live to about 150 yrs old. But to use it for designer babies and to create a "super race" would be wrong. Very wrong,

Well people will critisize me for my comments but i stand by my opionion,

Regards netwhizkid