Genetic Modification? Just? Or unjust?

[Sorgan]

Do you think genetic modification is right? Cloning? Using clones just for taking organs and labor? What are you're thoughts on these subjects?

[Treznor]

Once you open the bottle, you can't stuff the genie back inside. Cloning and genetic manipulation is already here. It's just a matter of time before our moral sensibility catches up with it.

These things are tools. They can be used for good or ill. It's up to us to decide where the boundaries lie. I see no problem with using these tools to make positive advances in human evolution, but I can see how they can be used for oppression and tyranny. The difficulty will be in promoting one while guarding against the other.

[Iron Chariots]

So why care for these petty obsessions?
Your desired heart still beats with common blood!
And what if you could have genetic perfection?
Would you change who you are?

....

Sorry. I know it's only slightly relevant, but the thread title made me think of it.

But yeah, I think Treznor is correct on this issue.

[The Great Lord Tiger]

It's cool.

[South East Europe]

Its immoral to produce babies to use for replacement parts for other people. Stem Cells are a much better and much more moral way to cure problems. Making a perfect human race with no genetic problems would promote a very racist people.

[Sorgan]

Once you open the bottle, you can't stuff the genie back inside. Cloning and genetic manipulation is already here. It's just a matter of time before our moral sensibility catches up with it.

These things are tools. They can be used for good or ill. It's up to us to decide where the boundaries lie. I see no problem with using these tools to make positive advances in human evolution, but I can see how they can be used for oppression and tyranny. The difficulty will be in promoting one while guarding against the other.

Indeed but using clones for labor sounds unjust to me. Its a rather Grey area of science as some would call it.

[Sorgan]

I also heard on the science channel scientist want to cut skin from every baby that is born from now on to use the skin and DNA for cloning which is totally against Civil rights.

[Iron Chariots]

Incidentally, I recommend, if this subject interests you, that you watch Gattaca. It's quite a good movie on the subject.

[Treznor]

Once you open the bottle, you can't stuff the genie back inside. Cloning and genetic manipulation is already here. It's just a matter of time before our moral sensibility catches up with it.

These things are tools. They can be used for good or ill. It's up to us to decide where the boundaries lie. I see no problem with using these tools to make positive advances in human evolution, but I can see how they can be used for oppression and tyranny. The difficulty will be in promoting one while guarding against the other.

Indeed but using clones for labor sounds unjust to me. Its a rather Grey area of science as some would call it.

I would classify that as "oppression and tyranny." Creating people with one purpose and no opportunity to pick another is about as tyrannical as you can get.

[Treznor]

I also heard on the science channel scientist want to cut skin from every baby that is born from now on to use the skin and DNA for cloning which is totally against Civil rights.

So, what's your stance on automatic circumcision? A lot of hospitals don't even give the parents the opportunity to object.

[Ifreann]

I have no problems with cloning, as long as its well regulated. Ditto gene therapy.

[Iron Chariots]

I also heard on the science channel scientist want to cut skin from every baby that is born from now on to use the skin and DNA for cloning which is totally against Civil rights.

So, what's your stance on automatic circumcision? A lot of hospitals don't even give the parents the opportunity to object.

And nobody gives the individual in question a say.

But... to avoid too much of a threadjack, I'll avoid going too much into the issue.

[Ashmoria]

Do you think genetic modification is right? Cloning? Using clones just for taking organs and labor? What are you're thoughts on these subjects?

genetic modification is fine but will need to be regulated when we get good at it. no "genderless" children need be made, to take an example from another thread.

cloning for organs is a good idea as long as you dont make a full human being. a full human has its own rights just like an identical twin does.

so no making clones for slaves. they would be as human as anyone else no matter what modifications you may have made to them (heavily regulated).

[Northwest Slobovia]

genetic modification is fine but will need to be regulated when we get good at it.

Fortunately, we've got plenty of time to think about it, because we suck. The state of the art in gene therapy is a hand-built Model T that's hard to start and breaks down every couple of miles, when gasoline is available at all. We can take our time thinking about what to do when we get traffic jams.

[Concurria]

Genetic modification is bad. It completely eliminates human potential. Potentially, the ability to modify one's genes will make the human being unequal at the most basic level; those who have the resources will be able to make their children (and potentially, themselves) superior to others: Healthier, Happier, Stronger. It'd be a blessing of modern technology but it'd be a curse if we couldn't offer it to all. Given the state of medicine in places such as Africa and Asia, it goes without saying that it is more likely modification will be afforded to the privileged few.

Opponents may retort that humans are already "unequal" so far as: Some of us are taller, more stable, or happier because we were simply born luckier. To which I respond: Exactly. We can get over luck. But it'd be loads more difficult to get over the idea that an entire eschelon of society is superior to you, without argument, by design.

Gattica is a good movie on this subject. It is Science-Fiction; it has its limits. But it really drives the point home in a theatric way.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

As I intend to develop nanomachines that I will release upon the world to alter the genetic code of every human being on Earth to transform them into demented chaotic individuals like myself in an attempt to cause sweet sweet Chaos to reign supreme on Earth, I have to say that I am in favor of further research into genetic modification.

[Concurria]

As I intend to develop nanomachines that I will release upon the world to alter the genetic code of every human being on Earth to transform them into demented chaotic individuals like myself in an attempt to cause sweet sweet Chaos to reign supreme on Earth, I have to say that I am in favor of further research into genetic modification.

Can we release the nanomachines into our bodies with cool little syringes?







(MGS4 reference. You get it or you don't.)

[Treznor]

Genetic modification is bad. It completely eliminates human potential. Potentially, the ability to modify one's genes will make the human being unequal at the most basic level; those who have the resources will be able to make their children (and potentially, themselves) superior to others: Healthier, Happier, Stronger. It'd be a blessing of modern technology but it'd be a curse if we couldn't offer it to all. Given the state of medicine in places such as Africa and Asia, it goes without saying that it is more likely modification will be afforded to the privileged few.

Opponents may retort that humans are already "unequal" so far as: Some of us are taller, more stable, or happier because we were simply born luckier. To which I respond: Exactly. We can get over luck. But it'd be loads more difficult to get over the idea that an entire eschelon of society is superior to you, without argument, by design.

Gattica is a good movie on this subject. It is Science-Fiction; it has its limits. But it really drives the point home in a theatric way.

Genetic modification is another point of validation for the theory of evolution. It says that species can change according to certain triggers, and by the way, here's how the mechanism works. So if you're saying that it's wrong for the human genetic code to be modifies, you're saying that natural evolution is immoral.

Once we figure out the quirks in the system, what's really wrong with optimizing ourselves or figuring out ways to expand beyond our current limitations? Yes, it needs regulation. Yes, it will probably be the plaything of the rich at first. What if we discover that our social failings and inequalities can be corrected with genetic manipulation, particularly given how we're learning how biochemistry affects personality? Suppose we can learn to modify our genetic code so the children we produce aren't hamstrung with greed and jealousy, but still free to choose their own paths? How does this limit us?

Gattica is a good example of one way to explore the potential abuses of genetic manipulation. If we can think of these things, we can plan ways to try to avoid them. So, if we can guard against these abuses, is there a real objection beyond how difficult that will be?

[Ifreann]

Genetic modification is bad. It completely eliminates human potential.

What? How?

Potentially, the ability to modify one's genes will make the human being unequal at the most basic level; those who have the resources will be able to make their children (and potentially, themselves) superior to others: Healthier, Happier, Stronger. It'd be a blessing of modern technology but it'd be a curse if we couldn't offer it to all. Given the state of medicine in places such as Africa and Asia, it goes without saying that it is more likely modification will be afforded to the privileged few.

A perfect argument for universal healthcare. Modern medicine allows people in the West to live into their 80s. A lack of it in Africa prevents that. There are other factors, of course, but the point stands.

Opponents may retort that humans are already "unequal" so far as: Some of us are taller, more stable, or happier because we were simply born luckier. To which I respond: Exactly. We can get over luck. But it'd be loads more difficult to get over the idea that an entire eschelon of society is superior to you, without argument, by design.

Gattica is a good movie on this subject. It is Science-Fiction; it has its limits. But it really drives the point home in a theatric way.

This is already the case in a lot of situations. Rich parents can get a better education for their children, or better healthcare, or what have you. You think there isn't an echelon of society that's 'superior' to you or I because their parents, by design, sent them to the very best schools, got them the best equipment and trainers for any sport they cared to play and in every way possible, paid for the best doctors when they were sick, even got them LASIK/LASEK? Plenty of people have an advantage over the average person because of who they were born to.

[Surpsainia]

Modifying babies so they don't suffer from genetic deficiency, good. Genetically upgrading people, i.e making them stronger and faster, good. Developing a clone workforce, BAD!!!!!!! Cloneing a slave workforce will just lead to problems. Eventualy they will learn what is going on. Even if you condition them from birth, they will still eventualy learn the situation for themselves and start demanding fairer treatment. Or it could lead to a full on rebellion.

Modify people to make them better. Hell clone yourself if you want to. But don't make a clone slave labour force.

[Ifreann]

Modifying babies so they don't suffer from genetic deficiency, good. Genetically upgrading people, i.e making them stronger and faster, good. Developing a clone workforce, BAD!!!!!!! Cloneing a slave workforce will just lead to problems. Eventualy they will learn what is going on. Even if you condition them from birth, they will still eventualy learn the situation for themselves and start demanding fairer treatment. Or it could lead to a full on rebellion.

Modify people to make them better. Hell clone yourself if you want to. But don't make a clone slave labour force.

That depends on the slave force. If we're just cloning humans and putting them to work I agree with you. But if we're engineering a whole new lifeform then I struggle to see why we can use non0biological machines for our benefit, but not biological ones.

[Concurria]

Genetic modification is bad. It completely eliminates human potential. Potentially, the ability to modify one's genes will make the human being unequal at the most basic level; those who have the resources will be able to make their children (and potentially, themselves) superior to others: Healthier, Happier, Stronger. It'd be a blessing of modern technology but it'd be a curse if we couldn't offer it to all. Given the state of medicine in places such as Africa and Asia, it goes without saying that it is more likely modification will be afforded to the privileged few.

Opponents may retort that humans are already "unequal" so far as: Some of us are taller, more stable, or happier because we were simply born luckier. To which I respond: Exactly. We can get over luck. But it'd be loads more difficult to get over the idea that an entire eschelon of society is superior to you, without argument, by design.

Gattica is a good movie on this subject. It is Science-Fiction; it has its limits. But it really drives the point home in a theatric way.

Genetic modification is another point of validation for the theory of evolution. It says that species can change according to certain triggers, and by the way, here's how the mechanism works. So if you're saying that it's wrong for the human genetic code to be modifies, you're saying that natural evolution is immoral.

Once we figure out the quirks in the system, what's really wrong with optimizing ourselves or figuring out ways to expand beyond our current limitations? Yes, it needs regulation. Yes, it will probably be the plaything of the rich at first. What if we discover that our social failings and inequalities can be corrected with genetic manipulation, particularly given how we're learning how biochemistry affects personality? Suppose we can learn to modify our genetic code so the children we produce aren't hamstrung with greed and jealousy, but still free to choose their own paths? How does this limit us?

Gattica is a good example of one way to explore the potential abuses of genetic manipulation. If we can think of these things, we can plan ways to try to avoid them. So, if we can guard against these abuses, is there a real objection beyond how difficult that will be?

Natural evolution isn't triggered by human interference. Working in a laboratory is not evolution; it's natural adaptation by a select few. If all humans took the next step towards evolution together, that'd be different. That isn't what we are discussing. We are NOT discussing genetic evolution, we are discussing genetic modification. One noun is far, far more active. (As active as a noun can be).

What is wrong with optimizing ourselves? Nothing. But it's a falsehood: We aren't optimizing ourselves—as in—mankind. We're optimizing individuals. And if we can't share the love, we will have the largest conundrum in human history: A clear set of superior and inferior entities, both with a sense of awareness to feel and contemplate the consequences. People aren't lab animals. A bottom-feeder and a dolphin don't wreathe at the news that one is higher up on the evolution chain.

You say "It will be the plaything" of the rich for awhile. Awhile? Class struggles are as old as time. They haven't gone away. We see though, now, class struggles in the forefront. We have the media for that. Nothing has changed. Our sympathies haven't exponentially increased. On the contrary, we have focused our attention on different things. How do you know that the rich (or the privileged—there's a difference) will share this eventually? We have no precedent.

You also speak about ridding ourselves of "greed" and "jealousy". Last I checked, that'd take human subjects. Are you willing to put up your kids for this type of experimentation? Furthermore, how do you know it will do anything? What if you rid a sense of greed and jealousy and simply find that a whole other set of emotions is what triggers a sense of entitlement? We don't understand emotions. We don't understand personality. If we want to strike Point A, we have to actually know that Point A is the problematic spot. It could be several or some other. To correct a human personality "defect" what do you address? No one has those answers.

[Concurria]

This is already the case in a lot of situations. Rich parents can get a better education for their children, or better healthcare, or what have you. You think there isn't an echelon of society that's 'superior' to you or I because their parents, by design...

I am well aware of the echelon. My question to you: That's something you want to exaggerate? Something you want to codify bodily?

Class is a social construction. Would you like to make it a biological one as well?

[Izeckistan]

You people realize that cloning has around a five percent success rate right?

So if your willing to throw your money into essentially a furnace for genetic mods, then go ahead.

[Minnas]

Class is a social construction. Would you like to make it a biological one as well?

Class is a social construct. What makes you think biology will be any different? If the class is created, it will also be a construct. Class doesn't exist. Period. We, societal creatures, create it.

Clonings isn't a problem, the problem is that we have the ''awesome'' tendency to moralize and fear what we don't understand. A huge hindrance to humanity's advancement, if you ask me.