Genetically Enhanced Humans

recedite · 18-12-2010 10:24pm #1

Yes folks, it's on the way; technology to make your descendants smarter and fitter. The type of genetic engineering currently practised in the western world (gene therapy) involves the making of changes to cells which are not involved in reproduction. So they may cure a disease, but the cure is not inherited by the next generation. The reason for this is ethics. The law does not allow scientists to play God.
But what if the law was written by atheists, as in China?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/sep/23/20030923-093050-1220r/

It brings to mind this parable about a guy who met Jesus on a train, but still remained an atheist afterwards.
http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

The point is, would this technology be morally objectionable, or is it a moral prerogative for us, as a species, to better ourselves by pursuing it?

Suppose the Chinese are seen to have become smarter, disease free and are winning in the Olympic games. I think the theistic societies (especially the USA who like to be the top dog) would drop their ethical objections. If they did that, and the population got smarter, would that be the end of religion?

There are some big questions to be faced by society soon, and I suspect the religious philosophers are not going to be much help in all this.

strobe · 18-12-2010 11:11pm

I invisage a world where the rich avail of this and the poor do not. Leading to a division in society that would make KKK style sectarianism and racism look like a bit of harmless slagging.

I think it will have no effect on religious belief and you're implication that the religious are religious because they are not intelligent is a little off the mark to say the least man.

5uspect · 19-12-2010 12:02am

Sounds like Gattaca.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7OYCmynrRU

sponsoredwalk · 19-12-2010 12:32am

Only genetic enhancement? Why stop there?

CerebralCortex · 19-12-2010 1:02am

5uspect wrote: »

Sounds like Gattaca.

FYI its just a movie. Sci-fi regularily gets it wrong even the great.

Rev Hellfire · 19-12-2010 9:38am

strobe wrote: »

I invisage a world where the rich avail of this and the poor do not.

So you're saying its business as usual then

5uspect · 19-12-2010 11:07am

CerebralCortex wrote: »

FYI its just a movie. Sci-fi regularily gets it wrong even the great.

Oh I know, the whole genetic determinism of it is just plain wrong.

recedite · 19-12-2010 12:06pm

Yeah, the idea that your future is pre determined is more a religious idea, eg it features to some extent in Islam.
Don't forget that "the poor" are not a fixed group. There is a good chance that your own grandparents occupied a different "position" in society to you; either being richer relative to their time or poorer. I accept that being rich at the start is a big help, but there is no absolute barrier, as with racism and the KKK as was mentioned.
Also, being poor in the EU is not the same as being poor in a really poor country. None of us will ever starve to death. By the same token, all of us could conceivably avail of genetic engineering if we should choose that path.

So, brushing aside any theistic objections, is it "a good thing" to take control of our own evolution?

mikhail · 19-12-2010 12:47pm

recedite wrote: »

Don't forget that "the poor" are not a fixed group. There is a good chance that your own grandparents occupied a different "position" in society to you; either being richer relative to their time or poorer. I accept that being rich at the start is a big help, but there is no absolute barrier, as with racism and the KKK as was mentioned.

Class mobility hasn't always been the norm. My grandfather was indeed from a different social class to me, but his great-great grandfather was the same class as him.

Additionally, things are already skewed - the children of the wealthy enjoy better education and contacts than the rest of us, and if they were also taller, stronger, smarter, tougher, less prone to illness, handsomer, etc. then class mobility could become effectively impossible.

recedite · 19-12-2010 1:28pm

mikhail wrote: »

Class mobility hasn't always been the norm.....
... class mobility could become effectively impossible.

Going back to an even earlier time, pre feudal times, class mobility was the norm. So it is a political construct, a choice made by society.

In the early days of transplant surgery, only a few (probably the rich or well connected) could avail of it. But now if your kidney failed, your chances of a transplant are dependent on a compatible donor being found, not so much on your financial situation. We made that choice as a society, to share the technology.

pH · 19-12-2010 1:53pm

It constantly amazes me how even non theists manage to spend a lot of time and energy figuring out what they'll let other people do - and to a certain degree it's all moot anyway - even if you succeed in inflicting your views on Ireland, someone, somewhere will do it, and what then?

Let's imagine a time when human cloning, and generic alteration is possible, and we "ban" it in Ireland (or even the EU) - but other countries (say China, or India, or even small Caribbean states) decide to allow it.

What then, economic sanctions or should be fight wars to prevent them?

And what of the clones and GM-Humans themselves, should be stop then entering the country? stop them breeding with "real" humans?, maybe they should all just be rounded up and shot perhaps?

When the tech is available it'll be used, at first probably to eliminate specific genetic diseases, but further down possibly to make people "better", smarter, fitter, less prone to obesity etc. The point is that everyone should have the right to decide for themselves what happens to them and their children, however arguments about what we're willing to let others do seem and relevant today as Ireland's once draconian pornography regulations once t'internet happened.

Mark Hamill · 19-12-2010 2:00pm

recedite wrote: »

Yes folks, it's on the way; technology to make your descendants smarter and fitter. The type of genetic engineering currently practised in the western world (gene therapy) involves the making of changes to cells which are not involved in reproduction. So they may cure a disease, but the cure is not inherited by the next generation. The reason for this is ethics. The law does not allow scientists to play God.
But what if the law was written by atheists, as in China?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/sep/23/20030923-093050-1220r/

I always laugh at the bizarre arbitrary lines theists draw in the sand when telling the rest of the world not to play god. Its not playing god to makes cures for cancers, develop transplant medicine to move a heart from one person to another, genetically modify plants to give greater yield and resistance, but it is playing god to try to help people before they are born, to try to ensure that they suffer as little as possible during their lives, to try to improve them and give them a better quality of life.

Even if this arbitrary line did constitute playing god, we wouldn't have to, if god got up off his arse and did it himself.

recedite wrote: »

It brings to mind this parable about a guy who met Jesus on a train, but still remained an atheist afterwards.
http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

Meh, read it before, thought the god in it had a piss poor excuse for not interefering with human life, given what he ultimately wanted out of it and given how human life progresses anyway.

recedite · 19-12-2010 3:29pm

pH wrote: »

And what of the clones and GM-Humans themselves, should be stop then entering the country? stop them breeding with "real" humans?, maybe they should all just be rounded up and shot perhaps?

I think if and when it happens, those who are excluded will be excluded because they chose to opt out, not because they were poor. They might be the religious fundamentalists, or equally they might be just technophobes; the same people who refuse to eat GM wheat.
Either way, they will risk creating their own underclass. I imagine they would be treated kindly though, much as the Amish are today. (The Amish occasionally call an ambulance and get taken to hospital when one falls ill; but they are generally not subjected to smart comments when this happens!)

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Meh, read it before, thought the god in it had a piss poor excuse for not interfering with human life, given what he ultimately wanted out of it and given how human life progresses anyway.

Well, I think his (the god's) point was that if we weren't responsible enough to deal with dangerous technologies, then it wasn't a great idea for us to progress further. Also, it wasn't particularly his job to look after our individual welfare.

gothicus · 19-12-2010 6:52pm

recedite wrote: »

Yes folks, it's on the way; technology to make your descendants smarter and fitter. The type of genetic engineering currently practised in the western world (gene therapy) involves the making of changes to cells which are not involved in reproduction. So they may cure a disease, but the cure is not inherited by the next generation. The reason for this is ethics. The law does not allow scientists to play God.
But what if the law was written by atheists, as in China?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/sep/23/20030923-093050-1220r/

It brings to mind this parable about a guy who met Jesus on a train, but still remained an atheist afterwards.
http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

The point is, would this technology be morally objectionable, or is it a moral prerogative for us, as a species, to better ourselves by pursuing it?

Suppose the Chinese are seen to have become smarter, disease free and are winning in the Olympic games. I think the theistic societies (especially the USA who like to be the top dog) would drop their ethical objections. If they did that, and the population got smarter, would that be the end of religion?

There are some big questions to be faced by society soon, and I suspect the religious philosophers are not going to be much help in all this.

Tampering with fetus's is just plain wrong. Whats the point in creating someone who may just end up a herion addict? IF a fetus has some sort of disease that can be cured by technology then it is ok but to modify a fetus to create some sort of superperson is wrong. Changing society and people is slow process which will not be helped by this sort of 'god playing'

recedite · 20-12-2010 11:15am

gothicus wrote: »

Tampering with fetus's is just plain wrong. Whats the point in creating someone who may just end up a herion addict? IF a fetus has some sort of disease that can be cured by technology then it is ok but to modify a fetus to create some sort of superperson is wrong. Changing society and people is slow process which will not be helped by this sort of 'god playing'

Not sure where to start with this, but basically you would benefit from a bit more science education.:)

CerebralCortex · 20-12-2010 11:37am

gothicus wrote: »

Tampering with fetus's is just plain wrong. Whats the point in creating someone who may just end up a herion addict? IF a fetus has some sort of disease that can be cured by technology then it is ok but to modify a fetus to create some sort of superperson is wrong. Changing society and people is slow process which will not be helped by this sort of 'god playing'

By that arbitrary token picking the best partner as possible for your kids coupled with educating those kids to the highest degree etc. is wrong.

CerebralCortex · 20-12-2010 11:40am

mikhail wrote: »

...Additionally, things are already skewed - the children of the wealthy enjoy better education and contacts than the rest of us, and if they were also taller, stronger, smarter, tougher, less prone to illness, handsomer, etc. then class mobility could become effectively impossible.

That says absolutely nothing against genetic enhancement though, does it? The argument that it's bad because only the rich can afford it is pathetic (if that's what you're alluding to?). Also I could just as easily envisage a world where GE/GM tech help to make resources more abundant.

Enkidu · 20-12-2010 11:56am

If the technology is developed then I would imagine that it would simply become part of everyday life. As pH said our worryings about it may simply be seen in the future in a manner similar to how medieval laws and ethics are viewed today.

However, I'm not sure that some of the proposed capabilities of genetic engineering are that realistic. Similar to AI, just because a very primitive version of the technology exists today doesn't mean the future will be full of a Philip K. Dick novel style projection of it. Similar to how Steam technology was advancing in the Victorian age and people imagined that the future would be full of steam powered machines that could do virtually anything.

cavedave · 20-12-2010 11:57am

gothicus

Changing society and people is slow process which will not be helped by this sort of 'god playing'

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 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.

Mark Hamill · 20-12-2010 12:35pm

recedite wrote: »

Well, I think his (the god's) point was that if we weren't responsible enough to deal with dangerous technologies, then it wasn't a great idea for us to progress further. Also, it wasn't particularly his job to look after our individual welfare.

This god created us for personal purposes (a kind of cosmic orgasm), so its in his best interests to have us advance as quickly as possible. If he is worried about us being irresponsible, then he should teach us to be repsonisble, its perfectly possible, people teach their kids (and each other) responsibility all the time and a deity should be damn good at it.

Mark Hamill · 20-12-2010 12:40pm

gothicus wrote: »

Tampering with fetus's is just plain wrong. Whats the point in creating someone who may just end up a herion addict?

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.

gothicus wrote: »

IF a fetus has some sort of disease that can be cured by technology then it is ok but to modify a fetus to create some sort of superperson is wrong.

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?

gothicus wrote: »

Changing society and people is slow process which will not be helped by this sort of 'god playing'

Changing society and people is only slow because we dont interfere. Crop growing used to be very slow, but through this "god playing", we now have very fast growing crops, without which a lot more people in the world would be going hungry every day.

recedite · 20-12-2010 1:42pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This god created us for personal purposes (a kind of cosmic orgasm), so its in his best interests to have us advance as quickly as possible. If he is worried about us being irresponsible, then he should teach us to be repsonisble, its perfectly possible, people teach their kids (and each other) responsibility all the time and a deity should be damn good at it.

Training has its limits though. You can have a friendly very well trained dog, but you can never be 100% certain that it won't bite someone. You can be 100% sure with a goldfish, but then they're not such good company. Having a pet can be a tricky balancing act.

recedite · 20-12-2010 1:46pm

Enkidu wrote: »

Steam technology was advancing in the Victorian age and people imagined that the future would be full of steam powered machines that could do virtually anything.

Nuclear submarines are steam engines, and someday you might be driving around in a fusion powered steam engine car.:)

Mark Hamill · 20-12-2010 1:51pm

recedite wrote: »

Training has its limits though. You can have a friendly very well trained dog, but you can never be 100% certain that it won't bite someone. You can be 100% sure with a goldfish, but then they're not such good company.

I'm pretty sure the entity that created the universe can overcome these limits. Most humans are smarter than a goldfish.

recedite wrote: »

Having a pet can be a tricky balancing act.

According to the story, we aren't pets, the entity is actually growing something to have cosmic sex with. Its basically this:

mikhail · 20-12-2010 1:56pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

That says absolutely nothing against genetic enhancement though, does it? The argument that it's bad because only the rich can afford it is pathetic (if that's what you're alluding to?). Also I could just as easily envisage a world where GE/GM tech help to make resources more abundant.

I was responding to a subdiscussion about that. I'm not making that argument: merely pointing out that a particular post dismissing a proposed consequence was incorrect.

Just follow the link to the post I quote and continue up that line for another three or four posts.

DeBunny · 21-12-2010 2:54am

mikhail wrote: »

Class mobility hasn't always been the norm. My grandfather was indeed from a different social class to me, but his great-great grandfather was the same class as him.

Additionally, things are already skewed - the children of the wealthy enjoy better education and contacts than the rest of us, and if they were also taller, stronger, smarter, tougher, less prone to illness, handsomer, etc. then class mobility could become effectively impossible.

This has already happened. Has anyone else noticed how hot the women on the green luas line are compared to those on the red luas line? :pac:

Seriously though, it's weird. Also, poor people are more prone to illness.

For those of you who don't know; the red line travels through "disadvantaged areas". Tallaght to the north side of town. And the green line travels through "well to do areas". Stephen's green to Sandyford and beyond.

(I live along the red luas line btw)

Dades · 21-12-2010 11:59am

DeBunny wrote: »

This has already happened. Has anyone else noticed how hot the women on the green luas line are compared to those on the red luas line? :pac:

The ladies on the red line aren't as hot as tracksuits really don't keep you warm in this weather.

robindch · 21-12-2010 12:51pm

Tracksuits? Pyjamas were de rigeur last time I looked.

sponsoredwalk · 21-12-2010 1:35pm

Hey! There are non-tracker-wearing buwds up in tallaghfornia I'll have you's
know

Story of heartbreak...

keppler · 21-12-2010 2:50pm

DeBunny wrote: »

(I live along the red luas line btw)

Does this mean you're ugly too..:D

recedite · 21-12-2010 5:11pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

According to the story, we aren't pets, the entity is actually growing something to have cosmic sex with.

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

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.

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.

Genetically Enhanced Humans

Comments