Genetic Engineering and Ethics

[Shaggai]

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.

But nonhumans can still be sapient. Are their achievements somehow lesser?

[Northwest Slobovia]

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.

Well, that's a little better, I guess, but not much. I mean, suppose we had Einstein's genes in good shape; I think we do, since we've got his brain in a jar, or somesuch. You'd be OK with people making themselves or their kids smarter using his genes -- assuming this works; we don't know -- but not small variations on those genes (or others) produced in the lab? That still sounds entirely arbitrary: the end point is the same, the drive to do it is the same, and the risks are the same: everybody who wants ends up with the same genes because they're "better", and if there are any drawbacks, we find out about it the hard way.

(One would hope we would have the sense to archive existing human genetic variability, but that's another story...)

[Great Nepal]

I am all for it; in plants, in animals and in humans. If we can use it to eradicate disease, solve disability, enhance our genes then yes we must do it.
Will some people not have access to it? Yes. Will those people be temporarily disadvantaged? Yes. Will they eventually get similar technology? Yes. This is not a new issue, this is a issue we have faced when we have developed every technology; initially cost will be high and only few will be able to access it however as time progresses cost drops and it becomes much more widely accessible until it drops to such an extent that there is almost universal access to this technology. Not advancing because "its unequal!!!" is akin to world that existed in Harrison Bergeron.
As for this idea of "remaining human", I resonate what Ximea said.

[Conserative Morality]

Well, that's a little better, I guess, but not much. I mean, suppose we had Einstein's genes in good shape; I think we do, since we've got his brain in a jar, or somesuch. You'd be OK with people making themselves or their kids smarter using his genes -- assuming this works; we don't know -- but not small variations on those genes (or others) produced in the lab? That still sounds entirely arbitrary: the end point is the same, the drive to do it is the same, and the risks are the same: everybody who wants ends up with the same genes because they're "better", and if there are any drawbacks, we find out about it the hard way.

(One would hope we would have the sense to archive existing human genetic variability, but that's another story...)

Afraid not. I've admitted that the line is arbitrary - but it is necessary. If you can think of a better arbitrary line, by all means, tell me.

[Conserative Morality]

But nonhumans can still be sapient. Are their achievements somehow lesser?

Yes. I've never attributed any sort of value to sapience, unlike Volno.

[Dooom35796821595]

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.

As am I that some think that wanting to be better then we are is a bad thing.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

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.

Nature doesn't have a course to run.

[Utceforp]

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.

Fine. The brain, nervous system and organs that produce pheromones that affect our thought processes are what makes us human. Thanks a lot, you ruined my Doctor Who quote.

In any case, appearing human is not what makes one human. Is a person with no legs not human? Is a person with no limbs not human? Is a person with no musculoskeletal system not human? Any line drawn between human and not-human based on anatomy not related to thought is going to be arbitrary.

[Conserative Morality]

Fine. The brain, nervous system and organs that produce pheromones that affect our thought processes are what makes us human. Thanks a lot, you ruined my Doctor Who quote.

In any case, appearing human is not what makes one human. Is a person with no legs not human? Is a person with no limbs not human? Is a person with no musculoskeletal system not human? Any line drawn between human and not-human based on anatomy not related to thought is going to be arbitrary.

Haven't I already specified that the line I drew was arbitrary?

[Regnum Dominae]

I support genetic engineering for plants, animals, and humans.

[Utceforp]

Fine. The brain, nervous system and organs that produce pheromones that affect our thought processes are what makes us human. Thanks a lot, you ruined my Doctor Who quote.

In any case, appearing human is not what makes one human. Is a person with no legs not human? Is a person with no limbs not human? Is a person with no musculoskeletal system not human? Any line drawn between human and not-human based on anatomy not related to thought is going to be arbitrary.

Haven't I already specified that the line I drew was arbitrary?

Admitting to being arbitrary is admitting that your position is not based on any form of logic, so you are admitting that you are wrong.

[Ximea]

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

Fine. The brain, nervous system and organs that produce pheromones that affect our thought processes are what makes us human. Thanks a lot, you ruined my Doctor Who quote.

In any case, appearing human is not what makes one human. Is a person with no legs not human? Is a person with no limbs not human? Is a person with no musculoskeletal system not human? Any line drawn between human and not-human based on anatomy not related to thought is going to be arbitrary.

I'd go further than that. I would make no distinction of any ethical significance between your standard fleshling and any intelligence of any kind which could pass a Turing test.

[Conserative Morality]

Admitting to being arbitrary is admitting that your position is not based on any form of logic, so you are admitting that you are wrong.

Really? Tell me, what makes rational thought worthwhile, and not an arbitrary measurement of value?

[Utceforp]

Fine. The brain, nervous system and organs that produce pheromones that affect our thought processes are what makes us human. Thanks a lot, you ruined my Doctor Who quote.

In any case, appearing human is not what makes one human. Is a person with no legs not human? Is a person with no limbs not human? Is a person with no musculoskeletal system not human? Any line drawn between human and not-human based on anatomy not related to thought is going to be arbitrary.

I'd go further than that. I would make no distinction of any ethical significance between your standard fleshling and any intelligence of any kind which could pass a Turing test.

Agreed, though a more specific test than the Turing Test would be preferable.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Admitting to being arbitrary is admitting that your position is not based on any form of logic, so you are admitting that you are wrong.

Really? Tell me, what makes rational thought worthwhile, and not an arbitrary measurement of value?

Rational thought allows me to do irrational things.

[Trotskylvania]

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? The only problem is that if it doesn't exist in nature, it could be subject to intellectual property claims and cause a whole mess of problems for people having their genes owned by someone else under US intellectual property law.

Other than that, you don't really have a firm brightline. Does this mean a completely new protein coding (gene) that hadn't existed before? Or would you prohibit introducing mutations to existing genes?

[Ximea]

Admitting to being arbitrary is admitting that your position is not based on any form of logic, so you are admitting that you are wrong.

Really? Tell me, what makes rational thought worthwhile, and not an arbitrary measurement of value?

I have to admit, that's an interesting question - but it's the only thing that makes humans unique, and it's the only thing that will allow our survival when atmospheric CO₂ drops below the threshold at which photosynthesis is sustainable on Earth.

[EGAaDD]

I place little to no particular value on my DNA, so I am all for modifying it if it increases standards of living. Obviously safeguards and regulations should be in place so that nobody incompetent plays around with it, but the potential benefit outweights the potential risks. After all, so far nobody has used cloning on humans (to my knowledge).

Besides, humanity is probably not going to naturally evolve in a positive direction at this point. Natural selection has been too screwed up by love, romance and being able to judge people on values besides the strength of their genes for that to still be efficient. Guided evolution would be a good replacement, especially should we ever wish to inhabit the more extreme regions of Earth.

Real question for me is the ethics of germ line gene therapy and whether you have the right to modify the DNA of your offspring. I am honestly not sure here, as on one hand you already are forced to inherit a set of genes you did not chose and this wouldn't really change that, in fact it would be an improvement as it would clear up the possibility of inheriting genetic diseases. On the other hand, some people might choose some bizarre stuff that might make their children social outcasts if they inherit it. I lean more towards supporting germ line gene therapy, but I can see the logic behind arguments against it.

I fully support somatic gene therapy and fail to see any reason to oppose it in and of itself. However, it would have to distributed on an equal basis...which I don't see happening in modern society. So it's likely going to be available more towards the rich than anyone else, but that's an argument against capitalism in medicine rather than against gene therapy.

[Shaggai]

But nonhumans can still be sapient. Are their achievements somehow lesser?

Yes. I've never attributed any sort of value to sapience, unlike Volno.

So anything that isn't human has lesser value, no matter what its achievements, its thoughts, its consciousness? I thought that idea had been eradicated even longer ago than mind/body dualism.

[Conserative Morality]

Why? The only problem is that if it doesn't exist in nature, it could be subject to intellectual property claims and cause a whole mess of problems for people having their genes owned by someone else under US intellectual property law.

Other than that, you don't really have a firm brightline. Does this mean a completely new protein coding (gene) that hadn't existed before? Or would you prohibit introducing mutations to existing genes?

As I said before, the line is arbitrary, but where else is the line to be drawn?

I have to admit, that's an interesting question - but it's the only thing that makes humans unique, and it's the only thing that will allow our survival when atmospheric CO₂ drops below the threshold at which photosynthesis is sustainable on Earth.

That would assume human survival as a worthwhile value, as well as uniqueness/novelty. At some point, all values are revealed to be arbitrary, or, rather, born from the vagaries of the human mind.

[United-Islands]

-

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yes. I've never attributed any sort of value to sapience, unlike Volno.

So anything that isn't human has lesser value, no matter what its achievements, its thoughts, its consciousness?

Considering we haven't found a creature worth more than a human(Besides choosing between a dog and a serial killer), then that's true.

[Conserative Morality]

[
So anything that isn't human has lesser value, no matter what its achievements, its thoughts, its consciousness? I thought that idea had been eradicated even longer ago than mind/body dualism.

I could say that I thought that the idea that other creatures have equal value to human beings died with animism, but the fact is, while mind-body dualism is outright false, a judgement of what gives value cannot be true or false.

[Ximea]

Real question for me is the ethics of germ line gene therapy and whether you have the right to modify the DNA of your offspring.

You didn't ask to be born, and if you ever have kids, you won't be giving them the choice either. If you get to choose whether they exist at all, why wouldn't you have the right to choose the best genes on their behalf?

[Trotskylvania]

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.

Humanity is just population of intelligent apes that can interbreed and produce viable offspring. It cannot and will not last forever, and indeed anthropologists are finding our previous conception of Homo sapiens increasingly problematic. There is evidence to suggest that our cladograms of human evolution have been entirely arbitrary, and that humanity has been a single species for approximately two million years, and attempts to distinguish between H. erectus, H. ergaster, H. neanderthalis and H. sapiens are based on superficial morphological differences no more fundamental than the differences between breeds of dogs, and that it is highly likely that a specimen of H. erectus from East Africa 1.8 millions years ago and specimen of H. sapiens from right now could interbreed and produce viable offspring.

We'll change more in the future, and likely one day there will be different human population groups, genetic engineering or no, that will no longer be capable of interbreeding with each other and producing viable offspring. Your notion of human is far too restrictive, and is too fuzzy to be of any use.