Genetic Engineering and Ethics

[Conserative Morality]

Also, does this mean you oppose creating human-animal chimeras or are simply opposed to "adding" stuff that does not yet exist in nature?

Both.

Why though?

Because there has to be a line drawn where we differentiate between human and non-human, and I choose to place my distinction there.

[Northwest Slobovia]

The title explains it all, is using genetic engineering on human, plants and animals ethical?

[spoiler=OP Opinion]Humans: No, I don't think we should be changing our genetic code and making fake evolution for our own desires, when this happens science has gone too far. It will also remove genes deemed unattractive or useless which is superficial but not part of the greater problem.

It will? It just kinda happens?

This really sounds like a throwing out the baby with the bathwater arguement: rather than trying to put in safeguards to preserve human genetic diversity, you're against the whole thing, despite the obvious advantages treating or eliminating genetic diseases would provide humanity.

It's like what happened with potatoes in Ireland, there was only one type of potato and they were all destroyed in a disease that affected that potato and I don't think we're going to become Burbank potatoes without a lot of issues along the way, so let's play it safe and let nature run it's course.

...

Plants: Go for it, just make sure they're safe.
What do you say NSG?

A strange series of reasons: you worry about the potato, but then say "go for it" in plants? Uh...

The thing is, the tater is usually reproduced by cloning -- cutting up one potato and planting the pieces -- not sex (y'know, flowers and seeds), which eliminates a lot of genetic variation without halfway trying. The little Irish problem predated genetic engineering, so clearly there are ways to badly screw up species without genetic engineering* which seems to make focusing on it as a special cause of loss of diversity odd.

*: Cloning is one, for those species for which its easy, inbreeding is another.

[Benuty]

Let the ethicists and moralists deal with those issues. While we let rapture deal with the progress of genetic engineering.

[Volnotova]

Because there has to be a line drawn where we differentiate between human and non-human, and I choose to place my distinction there.

Why? Why is that line neccessary?

I suspect this might be in regards to attributing rights? If so, why can't sapience (and not racial classification) be the line?

[Northwest Slobovia]

My only problem would be adding genes that did not exist before the advent of genetic engineering to human beings. That's my arbitrary line, and I'm sticking to it.

Why?

Drawing a line on the calendar and saying "any gene before now but nothing after" seems odd. In any case, what people are playing with now -- treating genetic diseases -- replaces defective alleles (gene variations) with working ones already found in people. I don't know of anybody proposing to add entirely new genes; it's not like we're all that good at designing them.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Also, does this mean you oppose creating human-animal chimeras or are simply opposed to "adding" stuff that does not yet exist in nature?

Both.

So, you're against us, 'cause we contain genes from Neanderthals as well as H. saps?

[Pagan Hungary]

I think genetic engineering is positive in order to remove defects / diseases in organisms; a lot of engineering is already done on plants and animals. I don't really desire to see humans altered in any kind of bizarre way, I think we are capable enough with what we have. The most important thing is to remove defects before considering improvements, that's for when we get invaded by xenos.

[Conserative Morality]

Why? Why is that line neccessary?

I suspect this might be in regards to attributing rights? If so, why can't sapience (and not racial classification) be the line?

What is the value of sapience as opposed to the value of humankind? Why do you suggest sapience be the line as opposed to being human?

[Volnotova]

Why? Why is that line neccessary?

I suspect this might be in regards to attributing rights? If so, why can't sapience (and not racial classification) be the line?

What is the value of sapience as opposed to the value of humankind? Why do you suggest sapience be the line as opposed to being human?

I am trying to find out why being human is so relevant. Hence my suggestion (as in my opinion that is really what generally sets apart humans from other animals and life forms).

I don't really attribute a value to humankind (nor do I see why I would have to).

[Celephas]

If we had the ability to eradicate disabilities and diseases by modifying genetics and didn't do it, that would be unethical in my opinion. I don't see why genetic engineering would be unethical.

Being able to eradicate disabilities and diseases brings with it the ability to inflict them as well. Don't like your opponent? Give him a hunchback. Your neighbours dog is barking too loud? Shrink his voicebox. The uses (and abuses) are endless.

[Conserative Morality]

I am trying to find out why being human is so relevant. Hence my suggestion (as in my opinion that is really what generally sets apart humans from other animals and life forms).

I don't really attribute a value to humankind (nor do I see why I would have to).

Then we stand on opposite ends of this matter. What makes humanity what it is is everything about humanity. Materialist reductionism means nothing in the face of the horror, the beauty, the strength and the weakness of mankind.

[Utceforp]

Genetic engineering will not make your kids crazy mutants. That's the first thing you think of? Mutants? Not curing cancer or something?

We have no idea what could happen. The destiny of our evolution is not ours to decide. No, it's not because I'm religious I had this belief when I was an atheist. Nature should run it's course.

Evolution has no destiny. Evolution is a random, often circuitous process which depends on the environment that the evolving population is in. Careful, you're staring to sound like a luddite, or that guy from the thread about primitivism.

[Utceforp]

I am trying to find out why being human is so relevant. Hence my suggestion (as in my opinion that is really what generally sets apart humans from other animals and life forms).

I don't really attribute a value to humankind (nor do I see why I would have to).

Then we stand on opposite ends of this matter. What makes humanity what it is is everything about humanity. Materialist reductionism means nothing in the face of the horror, the beauty, the strength and the weakness of mankind.

No, the brain is what makes us human. That's the be all and end all.

[Chalybs (Ancient)]

Ethics hold back human advancement.

[Northwest Slobovia]

If we had the ability to eradicate disabilities and diseases by modifying genetics and didn't do it, that would be unethical in my opinion. I don't see why genetic engineering would be unethical.

Being able to eradicate disabilities and diseases brings with it the ability to inflict them as well. Don't like your opponent? Give him a hunchback. Your neighbours dog is barking too loud? Shrink his voicebox. The uses (and abuses) are endless.

Uh, no. Genetic engineering is a lab technique requiring hospitalization, not a magic wand.

[Solaray]

I don't know about genetic engineering on us humans, but genetically engineered crops and livestock are pretty great.

[Volnotova]

I am trying to find out why being human is so relevant. Hence my suggestion (as in my opinion that is really what generally sets apart humans from other animals and life forms).

I don't really attribute a value to humankind (nor do I see why I would have to).

Then we stand on opposite ends of this matter. What makes humanity what it is is everything about humanity. Materialist reductionism means nothing in the face of the horror, the beauty, the strength and the weakness of mankind.

I fail to see how not attributing a value to mankind or drawing a line as to what constitutes a human being or not would rob the many facets of human history and its achievements of their beauty, horror, glory, etc.

In fact, in a way, I find them (those events and accomplishments) great on their own, not because their participants happen to comply by an arbritrary standard of "humanness".

[Totally Not Leningrad Union]

We have no idea what could happen. The destiny of our evolution is not ours to decide. No, it's not because I'm religious I had this belief when I was an atheist. Nature should run it's course.

Evolution has no destiny. Evolution is a random, often circuitous process which depends on the environment that the evolving population is in. Careful, you're staring to sound like a luddite, or that guy from the thread about primitivism.

It doesn't, let things run their course without being primitive.

[United Christian America]

There are some good intentioned people who say that genetic engineering on humans is beneficial because it removes genetic diseases.

However, how far will the definition of 'genetic disease' be before we start having Übermenschs and a genetically-engineered 'master race?'

It would be like playing God.

However, for things like preserving species used for food genetic engineering will be a must as our environment gradually dies. For the sake of the survival of God's creations genetic engineering will be vital.

For that reason, I personally support genetic engineering on non-human life, if only to preserve it.

[Conserative Morality]

No, the brain is what makes us human. That's the be all and end all.

Mind-Body Duallism died with the 19th century. Get with the times.

Why?

Drawing a line on the calendar and saying "any gene before now but nothing after" seems odd. In any case, what people are playing with now -- treating genetic diseases -- replaces defective alleles (gene variations) with working ones already found in people. I don't know of anybody proposing to add entirely new genes; it's not like we're all that good at designing them.

I'm speaking from a purely hypothetical point of view. Perhaps I should have said 'any gene designed with the use of genetic engineering' or somesuch.

[Formic]

I personally think that general engineering of humanity is a bad idea, eugenics can achieve better results through time, but the improvement of individuals to determine their ideal careers based on the societal needs strikes me as an excellent idea. You would have geniuses in the fields that call for intellect, giants where strength is vital, and if a combination is called for, then both are possible. As for animals, they are already far enough specialised that all that could be done is to remove genetic defects and improve the already present characteristics. This could bring the German Shepard back form the verge of destruction due to hip problems. Finally, plants, I think that plants should be genetically engineered only when necessary and should be allowed mainly to adapt on their own. Plants are unable to defend themselves the way that animate life forms can, this means that they are better off adjusting slowly and carefully, as they have up until now. That said, some adjustments to better the plant itself and make it more capable of adapting are a brilliant idea.

[Conserative Morality]

I fail to see how not attributing a value to mankind or drawing a line as to what constitutes a human being or not would rob the many facets of human history and its achievements of their beauty, horror, glory, etc.

In fact, in a way, I find them (those events and accomplishments) great on their own, not because their participants happen to comply by an arbritrary standard of "humanness".

Then you don't attribute them to humankind, you attribute them to a narrow quality found in several creatures and hold little respect for the importance of the totality of the qualities of humankind driving these achievements, despite mind-body dualism being a leftover from archaic ideas of souls and spirits within the human body.

[Ximea]

One important distinction is the difference between germ line gene therapy and somatic gene therapy. Germ line is fine as it only affects the required cells in one human and won't be passed on to future generations. Somatic is way out of our league as we don't understand what the side affects will be, not to mention the potential for abuse and inherited superiority.

You've got it backward. Germ line modification will modify the subject's offspring and can be inherited. Somatic will modify the subject only, and cannot be inherited.

On the question itself, I say throw the floodgates wide open. This business about "staying human" is nothing more than tribalism and traditionalism and fear of the unknown. The only thing we need to preserve is the capacity for rational thought.

[Conserative Morality]

You've got it backward. Germ line modification will modify the subject's offspring and can be inherited. Somatic will modify the subject only, and cannot be inherited.

On the question itself, I say throw the floodgates wide open. This business about "staying human" is nothing more than tribalism and traditionalism and fear of the unknown. The only thing we need to preserve is the capacity for rational thought.

Glad to see some people value the idea that we are no better than glorified calculators.

[Dooom35796821595]

One important distinction is the difference between germ line gene therapy and somatic gene therapy. Germ line is fine as it only affects the required cells in one human and won't be passed on to future generations. Somatic is way out of our league as we don't understand what the side affects will be, not to mention the potential for abuse and inherited superiority.

You've got it backward. Germ line modification will modify the subject's offspring and can be inherited. Somatic will modify the subject only, and cannot be inherited.

On the question itself, I say throw the floodgates wide open. This business about "staying human" is nothing more than tribalism and traditionalism and fear of the unknown. The only thing we need to preserve is the capacity for rational thought.

Arghh, on some level I knew I would get them mixed up...I stick to my statement with the words flipped, somatic=good, germ line=Ethical debate requiring more knowledge on human development from zygote to adult.