Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Genetically Enhanced Humans

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    cavedave wrote: »
    I don't think we will be able to select for super humans. Pinker goes through the argument here. Basically all the genetic mutations that give you massive improvements in some characteristic also massively increase the risk of really nasty genetic diseases. For every Freud and Einstein there are a lot of people with Tay–Sachs disease.
    Just got round to listening to the lecture. It's the only valid objection raised so far that I can see. The diseases mentioned seem to be a trade off for possible better neuron development in the particular Ashkenazim population. However, that is supposed to be due to natural selection in action; maybe a more focused approach as would be the case in controlled genetic engineering would iron out these problems.
    BTW in a room full of Jews, there is a lot about natural selection and no mention of creationism. Aren't they supposed to believe in the old testament? :D

    Certainly we could easily reverse any of this genetic antagonistic pleiotropy which provided benefits in the past, but which are redundant now. Eg. if cystic fibrosis confers some immunity against cholera or typhoid, and sickle cell anaemia does the same for malaria, wouldn't we be better off using medicine to deal with any case of the contagious diseases and then eliminating the genetic ones permanently through genetic engineering?
    As Pinker says at the end, (in relation to genetic research) "Its when the objections are centred not on the activity of the research (that is who might be harmed), but by the content of the ideas, that makes any kind of prohibition dangerous".
    Its exactly the problem Copernicus faced when the flat-earthers saw what he was at.


  • Options
    #33
    Enkidu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    recedite wrote: »
    However, that is supposed to be due to natural selection in action; maybe a more focused approach as would be the case in controlled genetic engineering would iron out these problems.
    The only problem is a combinatorial one. The amount of genetic information in the genome is enormous because there is also information in the relation between the genomes and how they react to each others presence. This leads to a combinatorial explosion of possibilities (essentially every possible combination of genes in every order).

    Genetic engineering would involve a successful exploration of this space of genetic possibilities. However in exploring a space that large, quite often random processes (e.g. genetic mutation) with constraints (e.g. natural selection) are faster than a focused process. This is the power of random processes.

    So we may be stuck with only altering within a small margin of what nature has already produced. This is the only way to keep the number of free parameters you alter low enough to control. However it's so low it doesn't really give you the freedom to iron out the problems. At least that is my understanding.


  • Options
    #34
    DeBunny
    Closed Accounts Posts: 237 ✭✭DeBunny


    keppler wrote: »
    Does this mean you're ugly too..:D

    Yes. :uglysmily:

    Bu' me moh' lives on the greeyin loin so stick i' up yar howil. :pac:


  • Options
    #35
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    DeBunny wrote: »
    Yes. :uglysmily:

    Bu' me moh' lives on the greeyin loin so stick i' up yar howil. :pac:
    Excuse me sir, but how did you gain entry to this forum? Can I see your ticket please?


  • Options
    #36
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    recedite wrote: »
    You're making me nervous now of whats in store for us ...I hope He's not going to be like one of those burly prison gang leaders ;)

    Deity looks at our species thinking "Them human species got a purty mouth"     :pac:
    recedite wrote: »
    Seriously though, like all good relationships, its more about the company than sex;

    "My personal motivation is the desire to optimise the intelligence of the Univierse. In your own terms, I strive to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. A great deal of pleasure, however, arises from communications between separate entities. Once you’ve achieved my level, we tend to cease to be billions of separate entities and become one ecstatic whole. A single entity that cannot die unless it loses the will to live. Advanced and self contained though I am, or perhaps, more accurately, because I am so advanced and self contained, one of the pleasures we lose along the way is that simple joy of meeting new and unpredictable minds and either learning from or teaching them. Thus, in large part, the point of the exercise is to provide company. I am the first eternal in this Universe. I do not intend to be the last’

    The point of a parable I suppose is that it doesn't have to be true. It only has to be plausible, and then it should make you think.

    It certainly is good at making me think, just look down :).
    recedite wrote: »
    Re the pet comparisons; Dinosaurs were considered too aggressive, and dolphins (or goldfish) too passive. A certain duality of bad ass competitiveness combined with responsibility is required, and in this case survival itself is the selection process. So if we destroy ourselves in a nuclear war, or whatever, we will have proven ourselves too aggressive. But if we shun progress, and become extinct after a cosmic meteor strike (lacking the technology to do anything about it) we are too passive.

    BTW The internet itself in some ways facilitates a primitive hive mind.

    If you think about it though, current human progress is based on the same criteria - we use competitiveness to motivate our technological advancement and we rely on a sense of responsibility so that we dont just start using new technologies on people disregarding their safety (not that we are particularly good at that part). But we still interfere with each others progress, we have to as this maximises our ability to advance. When someone develops a novel and useful material, gagdet or scientific theory, they dont keep it to themselves for fear of affecting the advancement of others.
    I think the reason for non interference given in the story satisfies a lot of people because it explains it away as a kind of cosmic cheat, one which wouldn't ultimately succeed. Imo, though, all technological advancemnt can be seen a s cosmic cheats, humans taking advantage of the rules and running of the universe to make life easier for ourselves, essentially cheating on how nature would expect us to be.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Enkidu wrote: »
    random processes (e.g. genetic mutation) with constraints (e.g. natural selection) are faster than a focused process. This is the power of random processes.

    So we may be stuck with only altering within a small margin of what nature has already produced. This is the only way to keep the number of free parameters you alter low enough to control. However it's so low it doesn't really give you the freedom to iron out the problems. At least that is my understanding.
    Natural selection has ceased, and probably reversed for humans (see the movie Idiocracy :D)
    As the random genetic recombinations are still occurring, isn't it now up to us to sort out the good ones from the bad ones?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »

    If you think about it though, current human progress is based on the same criteria - we use competitiveness to motivate our technological advancement and we rely on a sense of responsibility so that we don't just start using new technologies on people disregarding their safety (not that we are particularly good at that part). But we still interfere with each others progress, we have to as this maximises our ability to advance.
    But we are all at an equivalent level. It might be different when there is a vast technological difference; this is the view taken by the author of Star Trek when he made the prime directive, I think it was called, when they weren't allowed to interfere with the development of any low level civilisations they encountered.
    Looking at it another way, early humans must have had a tough time, but if you could go back in time to make things easier for them, that interference would perhaps reduce the selection pressures on them, thereby making their descendants (us) less fit for purpose.


  • Options
    #38
    checkyabadself
    Registered Users Posts: 471 ✭✭checkyabadself


    It could be great. Most people are useless idiots. Then again, listening to Sheldon Cooper types correcting us all the time, might prove tiresome after a few days.


  • Options
    #39
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    recedite wrote: »
    Looking at it another way, early humans must have had a tough time, but if you could go back in time to make things easier for them, that interference would perhaps reduce the selection pressures on them, thereby making their descendants (us) less fit for purpose.

    By that argument, our technological advances, which reduce natural pressures on us, will make our descendants less fit for purpose, so should we not advance technologically? The way I see it (and its great, because it ties in with the thread), the issue here is whether or not its right for us to take natural processes (evolution, natural genetic modification (cross breeding), technological advancement etc) and speed them up.


  • Options
    #40
    Enkidu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    recedite wrote: »
    Natural selection has ceased, and probably reversed for humans (see the movie Idiocracy :D)
    As the random genetic recombinations are still occurring, isn't it now up to us to sort out the good ones from the bad ones?
    Unfortunately that may be a task beyond our computational capabilities, since most genes can be both good or bad, or bad relative to another gene, e.t.c.


  • Options
    #41
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    By that argument, our technological advances, which reduce natural pressures on us, will make our descendants less fit for purpose, so should we not advance technologically? The way I see it (and its great, because it ties in with the thread), the issue here is whether or not its right for us to take natural processes (evolution, natural genetic modification (cross breeding), technological advancement etc) and speed them up.
    That would seem to be the next logical step for us, as a species.
    Enkidu wrote: »
    Unfortunately that may be a task beyond our computational capabilities, since most genes can be both good or bad, or bad relative to another gene, e.t.c.
    I think we can make a start at it, taking the easiest or most obvious enhancements first. The Chinese seem to agree.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Enkidu wrote: »
    Unfortunately that may be a task beyond our computational capabilities, since most genes can be both good or bad, or bad relative to another gene, e.t.c.
    100 years ago we had almost no computational abilities. 50 years ago the computational abilities of the most powerful machines known to man were orders of magnatude less than the average mobile phone today. 3 years ago the CGI for the movie Inception was beyond our computational abilities. Give it time.

    MrP


  • Options
    #43
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    The issue with genetically enhancing humans is in the assumption that the goal of all humans is for a longer, disease and ailment free life.

    Not only that but it embues in utero humans with qualities that will invariably drastically dictate the personality they will develop. It assumes that it is better for a human to be stronger, faster and smarter.

    An additional caveat of said technology would be its use by even the noblest of societies. Everyone can't be an intellectual or be equal in abilities. In utero it will have to be decided whether a child will have a physical or intellectual job. It will create a caste system unlike any we've seen before.

    If, during an individuals life, an intellectual wishes to have a physical line of work or vice versa, they will now be limited by the choices that where made for them prior to birth. If you have enough people in this disenfranchised situation it will eventually lead to a revolt and an almost complete abolishing of the technology that sealed their faiths before they had the strength or will to fight against it.

    You could attempt to create everyone equal. But this would be disastrous imo. Why would an individual with savant like intelligence choose to spend his life in hard labour? You would need to create a system where a large majority of humanities maintenance is automated. But by then we'd merely be corporeal vehicles of flesh and bone transporting our brains from location to location. A living hell imo.

    "The arrow shot by the archer may, or may not, kill a single person. But stratagems devised by a wise man, can kill even babes in the womb."


  • Options
    #44
    Enkidu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Enkidu


    recedite wrote: »
    I think we can make a start at it, taking the easiest or most obvious enhancements first. The Chinese seem to agree.
    Oh, I agree. However I do believe the technology will not be able to progress as far or to the same degree that people often imagine, since most people's impressions are informed by science fiction.
    100 years ago we had almost no computational abilities. 50 years ago the computational abilities of the most powerful machines known to man were orders of magnatude less than the average mobile phone today. 3 years ago the CGI for the movie Inception was beyond our computational abilities. Give it time.
    I think this is pure techno-optimism. It is easy to take a trend in recent years and extrapolate it into the future until it is "just a matter of time" until we are capable of it. It also ignores limitations in the nature of the problem independent of its realisation on computers. Genetic manipulation is basically a seating problem (sitting guests at a table, similar to sitting the right genetic chemicals into the right part of the chromosome). A hard seating problem is equivalent to the travelling salesman problem, an NP-hard problem. Any NP-hard problem will not be improved on much even if computers improve by orders of magnitude.


  • Options
    #45
    gothicus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    cavedave wrote: »
    Until very recently people who were susceptible to measles, rubella and other childhood diseases dies in very high proportions. The creation of childhood vaccines has massively changed the selective pressures on humans. We are rapidly changing the genetic makeup of humans by not allowing children to die of measles. Is this immoral?

    Or to move it out a few years. If you childbirth used to be one of the biggest killers. Now due to better caesareans and such it isn't. We are artificially and suddenly preventing selection for child rearing hips. Do you run protests outside maternity hospitals because they are rapidly artificaly altering the selective pressures on humans?

    I dont believe medicine should be used to selectively engineer a human to be smarter than the persons own original genes, healthier ok yes, I can see possible benifits pre birth in making a baby healthier if a defect is found, but genetics like this are changing the way a person is naturally created which is disturbing.


  • Options
    #46
    gothicus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Er, I dont think the point of genetic engineering is to actual create heroin addicts. In fact, it may be possible to reduce the likely hood of people becoming heroin addicts through genetic engineering.

    Life is what can make a person become an addict, no amount of pre birth genitics will take into account 80+ years of living and experiences

    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Is stupidity not a disease? What about being prone to addiction? Or the parts of the body that are prone to failure (tonsils, the appendix, certian joints) should we not imporve them before they fail?

    A person can be 'stupid' at one thing but excel greatly at somehthing else, the blind person analogy of being actually blind yet been muscially gifted been an example.


  • Options
    #47
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    gothicus
    Life is what can make a person become an addict, no amount of pre birth genitics will take into account 80+ years of living and experiences

    Do you have any evidence of this. From what I have seen addiction seems to be a substantially inheritable characteristic.
    Depending on the study, the risk of alcoholism in siblings of alcoholics is between 1.5 and 4 times the risk for the general population. The identical twins of alcoholics (who share 100 percent of their genes) are more likely to be alcoholics than the fraternal twins of alcoholics (who share only about 50 percent). Adoption study data suggest that the risk for developing alcoholism for adopted children is influenced more by whether their biological parents were alcoholics than whether their adopted parents are alcoholics, suggesting that genes contribute to alcoholism more than environment.


  • Options
    #48
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    gothicus wrote: »
    genetics like this are changing the way a person is naturally created which is disturbing.
    The majority in Europe and China would probably agree with you. People naturally fear the unknown and are nervous of what they don't understand. We are getting back to the "playing God" thing which people don't like.
    The difference in China is that those in charge who believe they understand the risks and benefits, have decided to go ahead with it.
    Like when they decide on a plan to redevelop a city, they don't wait for permission from all the residents. They just do it.


  • Options
    #49
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    gothicus wrote: »
    A person can be 'stupid' at one thing but excel greatly at somehthing else, the blind person analogy of being actually blind yet been muscially gifted been an example.

    Being blind doesn't mean you are visually stupid, it means you are visually ignorant, you are simply unaware of the visual (in the same way as a seeing person is), so its not the same thing that I'm saying. The stupid I'm talking about is the lack of logical thinking, inductive or deductive reasoning, spacial reasoning.


  • Options
    #50
    gothicus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    cavedave wrote: »
    Do you have any evidence of this. From what I have seen addiction seems to be a substantially inheritable characteristic.

    I dont need to post quotes from some online book to have 'evidence of this'. Ive known friends who have had parents who were not drink or drug users yet they themselves did become dependant of drink and drugs, two of whom are dead because of it. People are born free, its the enviroment around them that is the only influence.


  • Options
    #51
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    gothicus
    Ive known friends who have had parents who were not drink or drug users yet they themselves did become dependant of drink and drugs, two of whom are dead because of it. People are born free, its the enviroment around them that is the only influence.
    That is a really bizarre claim. Are you claiming I could have been a wet nurse in spite of my genes if the environment had not gotten in the way?

    I have known lots of people who beat the odds. The race is not always to the swift or the battle to the strong. But that is the way you should bet.

    The evidence for genetic correlation with traits and beliefs is strong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    gothicus wrote: »
    I dont need to post quotes from some online book to have 'evidence of this'. Ive known friends who have had parents who were not drink or drug users yet they themselves did become dependant of drink and drugs, two of whom are dead because of it. People are born free, its the enviroment around them that is the only influence.

    "You silly people and your obsession with 'books' and 'sources' and 'evidence', ha! I have a personal anecdote, that's even better than evidence, right?"


  • Options
    #53
    gothicus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    cavedave wrote: »
    That is a really bizarre claim. Are you claiming I could have been a wet nurse in spite of my genes if the environment had not gotten in the way?

    I have known lots of people who beat the odds. The race is not always to the swift or the battle to the strong. But that is the way you should bet.

    The evidence for genetic correlation with traits and beliefs is strong.

    Dont be daft, we were discussing Drugs not becoming a wet nurse. Of course we take a hell of a lot from our parents genes but just because your parents may be drug users does not mean you will turn out to be one or vice versa.


  • Options
    #54
    gothicus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    Zillah wrote: »
    "You silly people and your obsession with 'books' and 'sources' and 'evidence', ha! I have a personal anecdote, that's even better than evidence, right?"

    another amusingly daft post. I dont take everything I read as fact. I take a lot of info from online sources like wikiepydia etc but all written material is written from the viewpoint of the writer so can be classed as biased. As for figures from polls or surveys, well, i never take them as an end all or be all answer, they are just suggestive. Having lived, grown up and worked in very run down areas ive found many examples that would suggest the contrary to what we are discussing.


  • Options
    #55
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    gothicus
    Of course we take a hell of a lot from our parents genes but just because your parents may be drug users does not mean you will turn out to be one or vice versa
    gothicus
    People are born free, its the enviroment around them that is the only influence.

    Do we take a lot from our parents genes or is the environment the only influence? No one is claiming the correlation between genes and drug use is 1. We are just saying the evidence (not just anecdotes) shows there is a reasonably strong correlation.


  • Options
    #56
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    gothicus wrote: »
    People are born free, its the enviroment around them that is the only influence.

    I'm sorry but this just can't be right, I know where you're coming from but
    the same arguments coming from the same place are responsible for a lot
    of the bigotry against homosexual people. I mean they were born straight
    too right? It was something about the environment that was causing
    teh ghey after all, most likely TV & the lack of religious influence on
    society, & shure it just takes some straight'nin' up in straight camp run by
    the preachers to set the straight off again right? Better environment after
    all, right?

    While I agree with you that the environment is a major factor for driving
    people to the bottle you can't be so brash as to rule out the importance
    of genes that determine a persons susceptibility, affinity & tolerance to
    drugs. If your argument was true then whole families, work colleagues
    under severe stress, all people shell shocked etc... experiencing similar
    stresses would become alcoholics but no, just some rather than others do,
    people are just made up differently. There are some crazy studies about
    twins & their similarities in minor everyday activities & quirks, amazingly
    even with twins seperated at birth    , so why is it that addictions are not at
    least partially determined by genetic make-up but personality quirks are?


  • Options
    #57
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    sponsoredwalk homosexuality is an interesting example. It does seem to have genetic causes but not solely to be genetic
    52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

    22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual

    11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
    from here but its easy enough to find other references. There are huge social and religious pressures on homosexuality but it does seem that homosexuality is significantly genetic but there is some environmental influence and some choice.


  • Options
    #58
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Some studies indicate that women who have given birth to more than one boy can develop a sort of reaction against the foreign male hormones present. Their own body has a way of "feminising" the foetus by producing more female hormones as a counterbalance. Similar to the way someone exposed to an illness develops antibodies for the next time they are exposed.
    So, if you caught teh ghey, blame your older brothers :D (at least in part).
    An interesting slant on this is that maternity clinic doctors could probably monitor the various hormone balances on each side of the placenta, and modify them if they so wished. Its only one factor though.


  • Options
    #59
    gothicus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    cavedave wrote: »
    Do we take a lot from our parents genes or is the environment the only influence? No one is claiming the correlation between genes and drug use is 1. We are just saying the evidence (not just anecdotes) shows there is a reasonably strong correlation.

    ive already stated (it doesnt even need to be stated!) that all humans take a lot from there parents. I believe that the majority of things we take are clearly evident; facial expressions, a sense of humour, the types of things that are actually generally inherint. A persons inability of not been a strong willed person can also be inherited from their parents but their addiction to a certain drug I belive is not an inherint trait. Most people will not experience drugs until the teen age years.


  • Options
    #60
    gothicus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭gothicus


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    I'm sorry but this just can't be right, I know where you're coming from but
    the same arguments coming from the same place are responsible for a lot
    of the bigotry against homosexual people. I mean they were born straight
    too right? It was something about the environment that was causing
    teh ghey after all, most likely TV & the lack of religious influence on
    society, & shure it just takes some straight'nin' up in straight camp run by
    the preachers to set the straight off again right? Better environment after
    all, right?

    While I agree with you that the environment is a major factor for driving
    people to the bottle you can't be so brash as to rule out the importance
    of genes that determine a persons susceptibility, affinity & tolerance to
    drugs. If your argument was true then whole families, work colleagues
    under severe stress, all people shell shocked etc... experiencing similar
    stresses would become alcoholics but no, just some rather than others do,
    people are just made up differently. There are some crazy studies about
    twins & their similarities in minor everyday activities & quirks, amazingly
    even with twins seperated at birth    , so why is it that addictions are not at
    least partially determined by genetic make-up but personality quirks are?

    it may sound obivious but ive dont believe a person can be born gay, the clear genitic make up of a man and a women confirms this. its hard to pin point how a person becomes gay but I would tend to believe their attraction to the same sex merely arises from a state of confusion due to possibly having poor life relationships.

    Like ive stated above, addiction is not something I believe can be transmitted through genes, unless you are talking about a severe herion addiction that has infected the child from birth.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    While I did think it was obvious that you'd also deny that people are born
    gay despite the fact most reputable mental health organizations would claim
    otherwise I'm always cautious & like to test the waters before I wade in ;)
    I didn't want to assume something so ridiculous but there you go.
    gothicus wrote: »
    Like ive stated above, addiction is not something I believe can be transmitted through genes, unless you are talking about a severe herion addiction that has infected the child from birth.

    The key word here, it's your anecdotal comments & personal beliefs versus
    hundreds of studies on the issues of addiction & homosexuality.
    I guess your anecdotal evidence is enough to convince us that all these
    scientists are in fact doing their jobs wrong & that the evidence they've
    found in favour of the conclusion that there is a significant genetic
    predisposition to addiction is explainable in every single case by some
    mystery phenomenon. +1 on the elitist perception of homosexual people
    too btw :cool: I haven't actually read anyone on this website, to my
    recollection, that's actually said something like "their attraction to the
    same sex merely arises from a state of confusion due to possibly having
    poor life relationships    " & been serious, I dare you to go to the LGBT
    forum and ask the people there about their confused & poor lives,
    but in a nice, serious & honest way so that they know you're not
    spamming but genuinely believe this seeing as it appears you do, I'm sure
    every 'excuse' they give will just be a cover but it's worth a shot just
    in case you might be wrong, though I don't mean to insinuate that at all.


Advertisement