Genetic Engineering

Palomar · 2004-01-17 09:31:45

*The topic has come up twice in the past 24 hours (in the "ExtraGalactic Migration" and "New Discoveries *2*" threads).

I thought it might be interesting to get a discussion rolling. It's not one of my "strong-suit" topics, unfortunately, so I don't know how much I can contribute...but I'm curious as to thoughts about it by New Mars participants.

My impression to date is that it's like anything: Could be used for good or ill. Images of Nazi Germany are often connected to it by persons opposed to genetic engineering, in the few articles I've read (no one here has yet used such a reference).

It would be nice (understatement) if humankind no longer had to suffer from cancer, diabetes, cerebral palsy, etc.

Do most genetic engineerists have a humanitarian scope, i.e. are they interested in the benefit for mankind as a whole? How many might be elitist (i.e. only certain groups would benefit based on race or wealth, etc.)?

My thoughts so far.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-01-17 09:58:04

Do most genetic engineerists have a humanitarian scope, i.e. are they interested in the benefit for mankind as a whole?

Based on my experience with scientists and engineers I've known (a few) I'm not sure the geneticists (never met one) really look at the long term implications so much as just progressing with the work. Certainly some are looking toward curing diseases and extending life (for profit) but my impression is that for many it's just a job. Time to splice the genome...

Looking at it from a political/philosophical viewpoint I have some thoughts on it. Eliminating genetic disorders is good. I also have no problem with screening fetuses for such problems and correcting them before birth, and I mean "correcting" in the sense of repairing the problem so the child will be born healthy, not the more sinister "correcting" by eliminating a defective individual that should not exist. This may be where some of that Nazi vibe comes from, never quite knowing for certain what words mean.

But how far should this correcting go? life-threatening or immobilizing diseases clearly should be fixed, and most would say that parents shouldn't be able to arbitrarily meddle in such minor details as eye color. This isn't a a new car, everything affects everything else. But then what if the data suggest the kid will only be 4' 9" when fully grown? Is that a health problem or simply a cosmetic problem? And if we allow all sorts of cosmetic fixes at the genetic level they will most certainly be based on standards of beauty at the time, so everyone will be having the same mods done. What does this do to the gene pool? After a few generations of this behavior everyone might be the genetic equivalent of first cousins.

My biggest concern is actually this: If we can correct defects at the genetic level, then presumably we can correct damage later in life from radiation, etc. Likely by doing so we can extend human lifespans considerably. Now, as much as I'd like to live forever, once everyone can we have problems.

To again invoke the Nazi angle, we need lebensraum!

Being that Earth is working towards critical mass already, we'd better get moving on Mars and maybe that hyperdrive too. 20 billion healthy people who each live for 250 years packed together on this planet won't be pretty, just feeding them all is a daunting prospect.

Have you tried the Soylent Green?

Byron · 2004-01-17 11:02:33

Have you tried the Soylent Green?

Nope, but I watched the movie not too long ago...lol. What an awesome movie! What shocked me was a reference to greenhouse warming...although it was made over 30 years ago. Talk about foresight...lol. I've also read Harrison's "Make Room, Make Room!" on which the movie was based...I think it should be required reading of every student in secondary school. I'll never forget reading about the New York Thruway being busted up to free up precious land for farming.

Anyhow, back to the subject of genetic engineering...I am reminded of a news piece I saw not too long ago about the use of human growth hormone in children to increase their height. Formerly, the use of this substance was restricted by the FDA for children for extreme growth deficiencies (like growing up to be a foot or more shorter than average). Recently, however, the FDA has loosened the restrictions on its use by prescribing doctors to include children who are merely shorter than average (to bring them up to normal height, etc). The news segment I saw featured a family with a very tall father and a very short mother, who have 3 children. The first two obviously took after their father, and are growing up to be very tall. The youngest child, however, apparently inherited his mother's genes, and was turning out to be the shortest kid in his class, not to mention being dwarfed by his older siblings. So, the kid's parents sought threatment for his "condition," and they now have him on a daily regimin of shots of human growth hormone. It is expected that the boy will grow to a height of at least six feet, with little or no side effects. I can't help but to wonder what might be next...parents pumping their kids with this stuff so they can grow up to be NBA stars?? ???

This is the sort of thing that we (as a human race) have to be extremely careful about. It's one thing to have clear definations of disabilities, disorders or disease, but when you start changing the parameters a little at a time...see where this might lead? Same thing with the "explosion" of children diagnosed with AHAD...is it really because kids are increasingly hyperactive, or is it we have lowered our tolerance for energetic behavior in children? Some schools these days actually *require* the use of Ritalin if they determine that the child has AHAD. To me, this is immoral to both the child and the parents, not to mention society in general. Do we really want a whole generation of children raised on a diet of behavior-altering drugs?

When medical science reaches the point in which people can be treated by way of altering their genetic profile, like "fixing" the genes that make children prone to being hyperactive, etc....I think all of us really have to be on our guard in regards to our standards and ethics on the use of genetic treatments. There's a fuzzy line between what's good and not so good...not only do we need to define what that boundary is, but we need to make sure that it doesn't get shifted too far in the direction of "not so good."

B

Palomar · 2004-01-17 13:22:51

Being that Earth is working towards critical mass already, we'd better get moving on Mars and maybe that hyperdrive too. 20 billion healthy people who each live for 250 years packed together on this planet won't be pretty, just feeding them all is a daunting prospect.
Have you tried the Soylent Green?

*Cobra Commander, you are one of a few people I've seen who can calmly and rationally discuss this topic. I previously (years ago) participated in a forum which discussed similar topics (not exclusive to life extension or "immortality")...most people there would fly into rages at the mere mention of the difficulties involved, i.e. "Well, won't everyone want to live longer? And how will we manage a huge world's population with people living very extended lives?" As if those questions were absurd or insulting, and a few people behaved as though they were somehow being told they couldn't.

Here are some random thoughts and questions (rhetorical):

I saw a news article today wherein a 35-year-old woman has been impregnated with a cloned embryo. The doctor who performed the procedure and the scientists involved came forward with this news. I understand the desire to procreate and have children, but why not adopt? Why not use an egg or sperm donor? Cloning humans seems pointless to me; the natural method of reproduction isn't going to massively fail any time soon. Aren't there enough starving people in the world already, born by natural means?

Rodney Dangerfield wants to be cloned. On the one hand I'm touched by his love of life and wanting it extended somehow. But on the other hand, I'm a bit turned off. He had his chance. Someone died the moment all of us were born; we when die, someone will take our place. Besides, the original human will die. The clone is a separate entity growing up in a different society, different time, with a separate memory and experiences...the original won't live that in any respect.

There are people who are interested in cryogenics (right word?). They want to be put into suspended animation, to live forever. What, live forever ASLEEP? They will be awakened periodically...okay, but during the awakened periods the aging process will kick in again, they will have to orient themselves to all the changes in the world around them; I wake up in 2075, go back into SA...am awakened in 2139, go back into SA...awakened in 2202, go back into SA. I think that would be disorienting to say the least. It's not continuity of life *consciously*...

Speaking of cryogenics, I saw a TV documentary about the research and process, etc. At the tail end of the documentary was a young woman, perhaps 30 years old. She struck me as haughty, especially at the end when she said (with a slight sneer): "Some day I'll be asleep in a cryogenics lab when everyone else I've known is dead and in the ground." I have little doubt that was saved for the end, deliberately, by the editors of the documentary.

If everyone can't have access to immortality or longevity, on what basis WILL it be accessible? Once enough people have access to it, most everyone will want it. Won't that create the ultimate class division?

Someone who is greatly wealthy like Bill Gates could live off his money for many decades. But what about middle-income people? Who wants to stand in grocery lines, wait at stop-lights, pay taxes, pay the utility bill, see if you've got enough month at the end of the money for another 200 years? "Ralph, only 175 years more with the company and I can retire." Oh, yippee!

I'd rather have been Wolfgang Mozart, who died at age 35 a legend -- with all his brilliant work enjoyed for centuries now -- than a 210-year-old on a pension trying to decide do I want that tuna sandwich or my medicine?

I understand the desire to live, etc.; I have a pretty healthy sense of it myself. But I don't fear death, and I understand it is part of the natural cycle of life. And I prefer quality of life over quantity of life.

Erm...soylent green...is that a new flavor of Jell-O?

--Cindy

Byron · 2004-01-17 14:01:31

Good post, Cindy You brought up a lot of pertinent issues to ponder. I'm certainly aware of the major problems associated with greatly extended lifespans. The world really can't support many more people than it has now...ideally, the global population should be far lower than it is currently. If a longevity treatment is ever invented, it would behoove governments worldwide to ban it *immediately*, or the vast majority of people would want it...at public expense, of course. It could very well spell the end of modern human civilization if the use of such a treatment becomes widespread. Again, the movie "Soylent Green" comes to mind...hehe. I still can't get over the scene of that old man breaking down into tears at the sight of *real* meat...

As for the idea of cryogenics...it doesn't appeal to me, either. Besides, there's a *very good* chance the cryo center would fail at some point or another (leaving the clients...high and dry, i.e. very dead...lol), like simply running out of money in the next economic depression, or getting attacked by an angry mob of Luddites, suffers a power failure, etc. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind subjecting themselves to that kind of risk...not to mention being utterly alone if you do manage to make it to the next century.

What we really should focus on is healthy and productive living...I agree, quality beats quantity, hands down.

Oh, if you're wondering what "soylent green" is....it's food supposely made of soybeans and lentils. But what it's
really made from...well, you'll just have to watch the movie and find out...hehe...

B

Mad Grad Student · 2004-01-17 14:29:13

Rodney Dangerfield wants to be cloned. On the one hand I'm touched by his love of life and wanting it extended somehow.
There are people who are interested in cryogenics (right word?).

First off, I believe it's cryonics you refer to, that's just a technincality. Secondly, I think a flaw in Dangerfield's plan for immortality is somewhat flawed when you consider that one, he's still gonna die, and two, in all likelyhood his clone will be nothing like him. I think movies like Attack of the Clones have given people the wrong impression of what clones are. Clones are merely genetically identical copies of another person, like identical twins. I've seen plenty of twins that are nothing like each other, different personality, different build, and they're definatley not mindless zombies that are easy to brainwash.

[http://www.glofish.com/default.asp]GloFish

The above is a link to how you can support genetic engineering. GloFish are zebra fish modified to glow red under white light. Originally this was developed to keep tabs on water pollutant levels, the flourescence only turned on in the prescence of toxins, but then someone found a way to make them flouresce all the time. I believe is a gene taken out of bioluminescent jellyfishes that's been spliced in, and it's turned out to have another application, domestic aquariums! Now you can buy one (As long as you don't live in California) and watch it glow in a home aquarium. Naturally, the proceeds go to the genetic engineering company that patented them, so in a way you're donating to research.

I don't think we have to worry about any ethical ramifications of gentic engineering, it's just media hype. More than likely the FDA will imeadiately make a list of what conditions you can slice out and which ones you can't. Diabetes, Huntington's Disease, risk of alcoholism, out, but no tampering with shortness, pattern baldness, or hair color. I personally think we should be allowed to do what wish here, leaving the ethical questions up to the parents.

Cobra Commander does bring up an interesting point, though. What do we do when everyone lives to be 200? Perhaps this will be reason to terraform other planets, or to build colonies in space. Hey, that's we did when we overpopulated Europe and Asia, it may be feasable in a few decades. Otherwise, I don't like the alternatives, either a lifespan limit or maximum children cap. If you prevent all women from having more than one child that would arrest growth, but you'd get a lot of opposition for supporting this. The other way, what do you do to someone who turns 150? Just show up and say "Hi, you've reached the age limit, time to go to the gas chamber!" That idea seems leas t appealing to me.

Cobra Commander · 2004-01-17 14:42:48

If everyone can't have access to immortality or longevity, on what basis WILL it be accessible? Once enough people have access to it, most everyone will want it. Won't that create the ultimate class division?

Several years ago I started writing what was meant to be a short story, but quickly ballooned into an as yet unfinished monstrosity of Tolkienesque proportions, that addressed this problem. What I came up with was a sort of rationing of life-extending genetic manipulation based on the actions of the person in question. Longevity by merit. For example, military service entitled one to a basic set of treatments. Distinguishing oneself in the field leads to a more extensive effort, superb generalship more still, etc... Which could make promotion difficult for the next generation.

The real question (which I'm still chewing on) is how do you set the requirements in every form of labor, and are there any which should be exempted? Success in the military, scientific or engineering sectors is easy to quantify. Politics gets a bit fuzzier, and what about the arts? Certainly one shouldn't automatically forfeit life extension by becoming a painter, writer or musician; but what defines greatness in such cases? Many would consider van Gogh a great artist, though I never really cared for his work, who makes the call? And the prospect of Britney Spears living for 200 years fills me with dread.

Such a scheme may not be compatible with a democratic society as we understand it, though it can be quite reasonable. you can do essentially nothing and live a normal lifespan, work to better society in some way and live longer, or become a criminal and have it reduced.

Rambling on, I have often wondered whether virtual immortality would tend to breed cowardice and a general aversion to risk taking. Some balancing force might be needed for that reason, a sort of you only get more life if you can risk what you've got mechanism. No sense having some rich hermit live in his mansion for centuries like a vampire.

Again, this requires constant expansion.

If a longevity treatment is ever invented, it would behoove governments worldwide to ban it *immediately*, or the vast majority of people would want it...at public expense, of course. It could very well spell the end of modern human civilization if the use of such a treatment becomes widespread.

Once it is invented, people will want it regardless. Some will get it.

Still, I'm not sure we have the option of just not inventing it. We may be approaching the point where our collective technology and knowledge makes the method of extending lifespan obvious to so many people that it can't be contained. Rather than the end of civilization we may be approaching the point at which we have to make some difficult choices. Will we die out, or will be become a spacefaring, expansionist species. I prefer the latter myself, but my own imperialistic leanings are no secret here.

This could be akin to the argument currently waging over the US oil supply. Do we conserve and run out a little later, or do we exploit more sources to buy time until we face the same choice again. One way it's all over, the other we get another shot.

Oh, I can't resist...
Soylent Green is people! It's people!

jadeheart · 2004-01-19 18:20:22

Here's my .02 worth.

Cindy, yet another reason for you to read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy. The longevity issue is central to the plot in several ways. (You will get no rest here at NM until you've read these books! :;): )

Wow, tons of other SF tie-ins here. Larry Niven used Cobra's merit-based idea to interesting effect in his "Known Space" series. (It actually determined who got to reproduce, but the ideas are similar.)

Orson Scott Card explored the moral ramifications of the cryonics idea in his Worthing Saga. I highly recommend these stories, as there is some pretty hard-hitting philosphy concerning human suffering there. He also deals at great length with the social class issue Cindy mentioned.

But I wouldn't want to be a Mozart and die at 35 a legend. If that had happened I wouldn't be seeing all these great pics from Spirit! I want to live and see what path history takes. I guess this is what drives a lot of the cryonics folks too. (Count me out of that though. I'll take my lumps and die naturally. We get a certain amount of time to watch & participate in the Big Show but at some point I want to bow out to make room for other players.) Niven had some fun with this idea too, in "World Out of Time."

Getting back to the genetic side of things. I agree that we should not shy away from this technology just because it has potential pitfalls. (What technology doesn't?) But it should be kept under tight controls. Parental greed for their kids' competitive edge would run rampant otherwise. Cure real diseases such as cancer and cystic fibrosis, but not disadvantages like shortness or acne. We would run the risk of losing genetic diversity (as already mentioned) otherwise (this may happen anyway, see below). This is why I tend to take a socialist view toward things like this. The Grover Norquists of the world would tell you to let everybody alone and let market forces make things work out peachy. But without some kind of institutional & ethics-based control, unchecked genetic engineering would be disastrous.

Here's something to chew on: How many "diseases" are actually evolution in progress, adaptation to some environmental condition? An example that comes to mind is sickle cell anemia. Apparently, this is a facet of evolutionary adaptation to malaria-- the deformed blood cells are less susceptible to the malaria parasite. Unfortunately the adaptation has its own negative effects. While it's certainly better to use biotech to cure BOTH of these diseases, you have to wonder what will happen to our adaptive ability once natural evolution has been pre-empted by our control of our genome. Natural evolution will pretty much be over.

I will now rein in my speculative demons...

Palomar · 2004-01-19 21:16:53

Here's my .02 worth.
Cindy, yet another reason for you to read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy. The longevity issue is central to the plot in several ways. (You will get no rest here at NM until you've read these books! :;): )

*Uh-oh...looks like I'm going to regret that little confession! :laugh:

Really interesting feedback from everyone. Yes, Mad Grad: Cryonics was the word I was looking for. Thanks (my wires were crossed that day).

I've got a lot to chew on here, thanks to all the terrific responses. I'll try (the operative word here) to muster up more indepth responses...(again, this subject matter isn't one of my "strong suits").

A movie keeps coming to mind, relative to this issue: "Death Becomes Her," starring Meryl Streep, Bruce Willis (his finest performance ever, IMO, as "Dr. Ernest Menville"), and Goldie Hawn (I'm a big Streep and Hawn fan...those goddesses!): When offered the elixir of eternal youth, Dr. Menville exclaims, "This isn't a dream -- this is a nightmare!" Of course, the real nightmare would have been doing spray-paint touchups on mega-vain Madeline and Helen for centuries.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Mad Grad wrote: "The other way, what do you do to someone who turns 150? Just show up and say 'Hi, you've reached the age limit, time to go to the gas chamber!' That idea seems least appealing to me."

*I know it's before your time, but have you ever heard of "Logan's Run"? On your 30th birthday you get to take a ride on Carousel...

Byron · 2004-01-20 07:12:33

but have you ever heard of "Logan's Run"? On your 30th birthday you get to take a ride on Carousel...

I certainly have...that movie had a huge impact on me when I first saw it at the age of 10. It was one of those movies that stuck with me for a long time...lol. It certainly made me appreciate having a *real* family and the right to live a full, natural life...in the natural environment. Honestly, that is what worries me the most about Mars colonization....you'll have all these people trapped inside a self-contained environment with no place else to go...and you get some leaders with a few nuts and bolts loose inside their heads (but with great "salesmanship" abilities)....what's that stench I smell?? Trouble, perhaps? Maybe every settler should be issued a gun and taught how to use it properly, just to prevent this sort of thing...lolol...

I really wish they would start using more science fiction in the public schools to teach children about the pitfalls of technology and so-called "perfect" societies...there is certainly a great deal to be learned from these types of stories, such as Fahrenheit 451, as well as many other SF classics. (Any of you seen the movie version of that book? That's a good one too.)

B

Palomar · 2004-01-20 12:05:56

The real question (which I'm still chewing on) is how do you set the requirements in every form of labor, and are there any which should be exempted? Success in the military, scientific or engineering sectors is easy to quantify. Politics gets a bit fuzzier, and what about the arts? Certainly one shouldn't automatically forfeit life extension by becoming a painter, writer or musician; but what defines greatness in such cases? Many would consider van Gogh a great artist, though I never really cared for his work, who makes the call? And the prospect of Britney Spears living for 200 years fills me with dread.

*Yes. A book I read years ago (can't recall the title...I do a ton of reading) touched on this (although longevity, cryogenics, and related topics were not the thrust of the book). What happens when dictators want to live another 150 years? Bin Laden anyone? Or Fidel Castro? Dubya could afford advanced technologies, so could his cronies...who's to say they wouldn't stage a coup and become a dictatorial body?

Death is the great renewer, isn't it? The old generation dies, a new generation commences. This is healthy and is why, IMO, aristocracy/nobility/royalty is such a joke (longevity of a ruling class/family via hereditary succession -- it stifles creativity, progress, etc).

In the book I mentioned above, a very good reason (IMO) was given in opposition to cloning: Nature always intends to make a *new* organism. Cloning is anti-nature.

Byron: I saw both "Logan's Run" the film (Michael York, Farrah Fawcett) on late-night TV in the late 1970s, and for a while there was a television series. It's definitely a cautionary tale.

And Cobra Commander: Aw, you spoiled it for me!

--Cindy

::EDIT:: Byron, have read _Fahrenheit 451_ (excellent); have not seen the movie.

jadeheart: "Here's something to chew on: How many "diseases" are actually evolution in progress, adaptation to some environmental condition? An example that comes to mind is sickle cell anemia. Apparently, this is a facet of evolutionary adaptation to malaria-- the deformed blood cells are less susceptible to the malaria parasite. Unfortunately the adaptation has its own negative effects. While it's certainly better to use biotech to cure BOTH of these diseases, you have to wonder what will happen to our adaptive ability once natural evolution has been pre-empted by our control of our genome. Natural evolution will pretty much be over."

*Yipes. That's a very good point and yeah, "something to chew on" (understatement). How do we know that what we think is helping us will only hang us in the end? Who possesses that sort of long-term vision? Who can know? "The road to hell is paved with good intentions..." ?

Hazer · 2004-01-20 12:21:46

I highly recommend that anyone interested in the effects of genetic engineering watch Gattica.
In Gattica, you have a society that has become prejudiced against genetically imperfect people. Thus, those without access to the technology, are relegated to a lower class-as companies heavily favor individuals with no genetic flaws.
Even with genetic discrimination outlawed, it still proceeds, because the companies will still find a way to NOT hire individuals who are not genetically qualified.
A national genetic database makes it all but impossible to slip through the cracks and "Borrow a ladder"
The protagonist is a man who wants to go into space. With the help of his disabled, but genetically perfect brother-he manages to slip into a company which is sending a manned flight to Titan.
He is impeccably qualified in every area, except that he's myopic and genetically impure. He also happens to be one of the only genetically unregistered individuals in the Nation.
The story unfolds, as he fakes his way through a work environ rife with genetic tests.

Cobra Commander · 2004-01-20 17:32:04

Here's something to chew on: How many "diseases" are actually evolution in progress, adaptation to some environmental condition?

Actually, it has occurred to me that our entire approach to treating disease is bass-ackwards. We try to kill the organism causing it, thereby ensuring that only the strongest survive. Those are usually the most damaging.

Why not work with evolution and encourage the weaker, less damaging strains. We should be engineering new strains of malaria, influenza and every other bug that afflicts us and intentionally release them. Make a strain of Ebola that just gives you a mild cough, that sort of thing. The more dangerous natural strain kills its host while the closely related engineered strain eventually dominates due to it's mild effects.

Death is the great renewer, isn't it? The old generation dies, a new generation commences. This is healthy and is why, IMO, aristocracy/nobility/royalty is such a joke (longevity of a ruling class/family via hereditary succession -- it stifles creativity, progress, etc).

Yes, that and every family produces a blithering fool from time to time. Of course, genetic engineering could remedy this. It is possible that it may allow a hereditary line of kings who really are smarter, wiser and stronger than everyone else. A better monarchy through technology, hail to the king.

Of course I'd still be happy to encourage the malcontents

And Cobra Commander: Aw, you spoiled it for me!

I'm sorry, I just couldn't hold that in. Still, you really have to see the movie to get the full effect, it really needs to be said with full Charlton Heston over-acting. It's people!!

....what's that stench I smell?? Trouble, perhaps? Maybe every settler should be issued a gun and taught how to use it properly, just to prevent this sort of thing...lolol...

Why Byron, that's an wonderful idea! I promise a soy-based chicken substitute in every pot and a 9mm on every hip. Thank you Mars, and good night.

jadeheart · 2004-01-20 19:24:36

Logan's Run! A golden gasser. I think that was the first movie I went and saw by myself. I came home raving about it and was a hopeless sci-fi junkie after that. Looking back, I keep remembering how Michael York could just dial up and have a svelte lass quickly materialize in his apartment. Wow! The wonders of technology...

Why not work with evolution and encourage the weaker, less damaging strains. We should be engineering new strains of malaria, influenza and every other bug that afflicts us and intentionally release them. Make a strain of Ebola that just gives you a mild cough, that sort of thing. The more dangerous natural strain kills its host while the closely related engineered strain eventually dominates due to it's mild effects.

Very good idea. I'm thinking the devil's in the details, though. With every new disease that pops up they'd have to be able to do a QUICK mapping of its genome and then identify what each sequence does. Then it could be modified for mildness and distributed. This approach would double as a vaccinatory strategy too. It's just a question of how easy to identify & make the proper mods. Since I'm not a geneticist I don't know how hard that would be. But natural selection would certainly favor the less harmful version. Hmmm.

Palomar · 2004-01-20 20:26:24

Death is the great renewer, isn't it? The old generation dies, a new generation commences. This is healthy and is why, IMO, aristocracy/nobility/royalty is such a joke (longevity of a ruling class/family via hereditary succession -- it stifles creativity, progress, etc).
Yes, that and every family produces a blithering fool from time to time. Of course, genetic engineering could remedy this. It is possible that it may allow a hereditary line of kings who really are smarter, wiser and stronger than everyone else. A better monarchy through technology, hail to the king.
Of course I'd still be happy to encourage the malcontents

*Mmmmm, I don't know..."a blithering fool from time to time (occasionally/rarely?)." Thomas Paine said it best, IMO, when he said (regarding hereditary powers): "One of the strongest natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings is that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule, by giving mankind an ass for a lion."

Can wisdom and common sense be genetically engineered? I seriously doubt it.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-01-20 21:04:05

Cobra writes:

Actually, it has occurred to me that our entire approach to treating disease is bass-ackwards. We try to kill the organism causing it, thereby ensuring that only the strongest survive. Those are usually the most damaging.
Why not work with evolution and encourage the weaker, less damaging strains. We should be engineering new strains of malaria, influenza and every other bug that afflicts us and intentionally release them. Make a strain of Ebola that just gives you a mild cough, that sort of thing. The more dangerous natural strain kills its host while the closely related engineered strain eventually dominates due to it's mild effects.

That is why feeding antibiotics to cattle in their daily feed is so damn stupid! Sorry for the strong word there but it just is.

Its a way to grow super-bugs.

Yet raise the issue in a public forum and the Republican cattle ranchers will shoot you down for being a junk science leftie Greenie-Meanie who just hates business.

Adding antibiotics to cattle feed increases meat producers profits by 5% or 10% and therefore the practice is sacrosanct. There are idiots on both the left and the right.

= = =

Edit added 1/21/03:

Cobra, I am proud of you. Now lets talk global warming. :laugh:

clark · 2004-01-21 08:33:35

There are idiots on both the left and the right.

They make great bookends!

Anyway, let's play with fire...

What if genetic engineering allowed us to make sure everyone turned out heterosexual? Science indicates a genetic predisposition and environmental influences during the mothers pregnancy. Would it be right to 'correct' them? Could you even consider it a correction? How do you make that determination?

If you guys want some good scifi on genetic manipulation. lookk for Nancy Kress and her 'Beggar's' series. What if we didn't need sleep? (Kress uses this idea)

Byron · 2004-01-21 08:58:59

Anyway, let's play with fire...

Yeah, that's one of the things I mentioned earlier about my concerns with genetic engineering. If "shortness" can be considered a fault, then it's a short step to thinking that way about homosexuals...just ask *any* parent out there who has a gay child if they would rather they be "straight," I can almost guarantee that they would answer in the affirmative. What parent out there that doens't want a "normal" (as defined by common social norms) child? Not many I can think of, that's for sure.

Of course, those people who believe that homosexuality is a "choice" would disregard any attempt to genetically program it out of children, so those people probably won't be clamoring to get their kids "innoculated" against gayness...lol, but then again, who knows? Pretty interesting what Bush mentioned last night about the "will of the people" in regards to "the sancity of marriage." But then again, 30 or 40 years from now, when this technology might be widely available, it might be such an accepted thing that most people won't care one way or another, although I personally doubt this.

In any case, this sort of thing will surly cause a political firestorm if and when this technology does come about... ???

B

Palomar · 2004-01-21 09:17:00

*Yeah, let's express our cherished value of individuality by ensuring everyone becomes a Cookie Cutter Person totally conformed to societal expectations and demands!

--Cindy

clark · 2004-01-21 09:57:56

Of course, those people who believe that homosexuality is a "choice" would disregard any attempt to genetically program it out of children, so those people probably won't be clamoring to get their kids "innoculated" against gayness...lol, but then again, who knows?

Put in place social restrictions that prevent homosexuals from developing an equal relationship to that of heterosexuals (marriage), add in social laws that prevent homosexuals from rasing children (adoption), and then provide government funds for free 'innocullations' that will ensure that your child is born heterosexual. What do you get?

The way I see it, I wouldn't want to be a heterosexual in a predominatly homosexual world. I see what the kind of descrimintation that occurs here and now is like. We all do, to some degree. That said, I still wouldn't want my sexuality mucked up with, even if it meant I would be in a persecuted minority.

I point to this, becuase it is a subtle issue (at least in my mind), and there are no clearly defined answers. Byron, your 'shortness' example is but another.

What does religion, philosophy, or science teach us about issues like these? Is it right not to give a child every possible chance to have a happy and productive life? Will the parents of the future send little Timmy to therapy to get over his issues about how his parents did or did not give him certain gene mods? Frued would have a field day!

How about White parents wanting a black or brown child? What do we make of ethnicity when we can start ordering a la carte? "Give me two parts Irish, one part Dutch, four parts superman".

Maybe the Amish do have it right... :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2004-01-21 17:25:46

That is why feeding antibiotics to cattle in their daily feed is so damn stupid! Sorry for the strong word there but it just is.
Its a way to grow super-bugs.
Yet raise the issue in a public forum and the Republican cattle ranchers will shoot you down for being a junk science leftie Greenie-Meanie who just hates business.
Adding antibiotics to cattle feed increases meat producers profits by 5% or 10% and therefore the practice is sacrosanct. There are idiots on both the left and the right.

Bill, on this one we are in complete agreement. That's partly why I pay the extra money for the grass-fed beef. When I can't get buffalo.

Cobra, I am proud of you. Now lets talk global warming.

Nah, that's still just a bunch'a tree huggin' hippie crap. :laugh: Global warming.... freezing over here, I'll tell you what...

Can wisdom and common sense be genetically engineered? I seriously doubt it.

Probably not directly, but it remains to be seen whether the traits that make one more inclined toward wisdom and reason can be influenced. As for common sense, I never much cared for that term. It's so often an oxymoron.

Not that I'm defending the divine right of kings by any means. Unless the Most High thinks I should be king, then I'll waffle a little.

Hmm, being an atheist, I suppose claiming the throne under such pretense would make me insane, thus disqualifying me. Doh!

Oh, right. Lie. You just can't trust the authorities on anything.

What if genetic engineering allowed us to make sure everyone turned out heterosexual? Science indicates a genetic predisposition and environmental influences during the mothers pregnancy. Would it be right to 'correct' them? Could you even consider it a correction? How do you make that determination?

Or, fetuses found to have uncorrectable defects could be made homosexual, thus cutting them out of the gene pool. Somebody had to say it.

As for the heterosexual population, if genetic "modding" becomes widespread, it could undermine the entire point of sexual reproduction. If everyone's genome gets too similar, natural reproduction will become all but impossible. Any human born through the natural process would be, essentially, inbred. In which case we will either have to specifically formulate the genome of every new human, impractical and detrimental to the survival of the species, or the deliberate creation of viral agents with the sole purpose of scrambling small sections of DNA for purposes of genetic diversity.

Or, we can really work on opening that ozone hole, let the radiation in, and everything will sorta work itself out. The King hath decreed it, so let it be done.

Hey, If Scott can be Emperor of Mars...

Byron · 2004-01-22 10:40:49

Or, we can really work on opening that ozone hole, let the radiation in, and everything will sorta work itself out.

At least that won't be a problem on Mars...there's a lot a DNA-scrambling radiation to go around...lol

Yet another reason to get humans to Mars ASAP....

B

clark · 2004-01-22 10:47:47

As for the heterosexual population, if genetic "modding" becomes widespread, it could undermine the entire point of sexual reproduction. If everyone's genome gets too similar, natural reproduction will become all but impossible.

No, I don't think so. If we have the technology to mod our genes, then we surely have the ability to correct any irregularities caused to the genome due to messy inbreeding. Besides, the issue of inbreeding has to do with reccessive genes- there is a greater chance through inbreeding that you will get an expression of a reccessive gene, which are often the bad things we don't want (like three headed blue babies) :laugh:

Or, fetuses found to have uncorrectable defects could be made homosexual, thus cutting them out of the gene pool. Somebody had to say it.

Well, that is the other side of the coin- people choosing to have their children be homosexual. Is that wrong? hehe.

In which case we will either have to specifically formulate the genome of every new human, impractical and detrimental to the survival of the species, or the deliberate creation of viral agents with the sole purpose of scrambling small sections of DNA for purposes of genetic diversity.

We only need genetic diversity as long as we don't fully understand all the genes. If we do, then we can control, and direct our very own make-up. It becomes a danger if we start mucking things up, then lose the ability to make further changes.

Hey, If Scott can be Emperor of Mars...

You can be Queen of Sheeba.

Cobra Commander · 2004-01-23 16:10:49

Quote
As for the heterosexual population, if genetic "modding" becomes widespread, it could undermine the entire point of sexual reproduction. If everyone's genome gets too similar, natural reproduction will become all but impossible.

No, I don't think so. If we have the technology to mod our genes, then we surely have the ability to correct any irregularities caused to the genome due to messy inbreeding. Besides, the issue of inbreeding has to do with reccessive genes- there is a greater chance through inbreeding that you will get an expression of a reccessive gene, which are often the bad things we don't want (like three headed blue babies)

But if we have to go in and tweak the genome, it isn't really natural reproduction anymore. And if we have to have tests done and mods applied, why not just start the whole process in the lab and skip the whole messy biologic process altogether? And if we're going to go that far, then why not make a few cosmetic changes too? Hell, why don't we just make a template set of ten "perfect" human genomes and keep making those with minor cosmetic mods. Give the model M-3 the same color hair as one of the clients, err "parents," make their new F-7 have skin tone to match the other, done.

clark · 2004-01-23 16:54:37

But if we have to go in and tweak the genome, it isn't really natural reproduction anymore.

Tweaking the genome has nothing to do with "natural" reproduction. :;): :laugh:

We choose mates, which in itself is a form of directed genome manipulation. "We'll have beautiful children, with your eyes, and my elbows!"

Now, just as technology has given us greater control of when we reproduce, it is now allowing us to choose the make-up of our progeny on one of the most basic levels. It's similar to creating a social utopia, or a better world for our children on the societal level, and it has just as much room for a genetic version of a social dystopia as anything else we have imagined.

And if we have to have tests done and mods applied, why not just start the whole process in the lab and skip the whole messy biologic process altogether?

I shall quote the Simpons, forgive me, Sanji says to Apu (Apu's wife), "All that sex for nothing!"

To which Apu replies, "That is a pretty grim assesment."
[They were trying to have children... end up with sextuplets]

Perhaps we will all eventually come from vats. But some women have a desire to give birth. You figure it out. :laugh:

Hell, why don't we just make a template set of ten "perfect" human genomes and keep making those with minor cosmetic mods.

Children, by GAP. (patent pending)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-17 09:31:45

Re: Genetic Engineering

#2 2004-01-17 09:58:04

Re: Genetic Engineering

#3 2004-01-17 11:02:33

Re: Genetic Engineering

#4 2004-01-17 13:22:51

Re: Genetic Engineering

#5 2004-01-17 14:01:31

Re: Genetic Engineering

#6 2004-01-17 14:29:13

Re: Genetic Engineering

#7 2004-01-17 14:42:48

Re: Genetic Engineering

#8 2004-01-19 18:20:22

Re: Genetic Engineering

#9 2004-01-19 21:16:53

Re: Genetic Engineering

#10 2004-01-20 07:12:33

Re: Genetic Engineering

#11 2004-01-20 12:05:56

Re: Genetic Engineering

#12 2004-01-20 12:21:46

Re: Genetic Engineering

#13 2004-01-20 17:32:04

Re: Genetic Engineering

#14 2004-01-20 19:24:36

Re: Genetic Engineering

#15 2004-01-20 20:26:24

Re: Genetic Engineering

#16 2004-01-20 21:04:05

Re: Genetic Engineering

#17 2004-01-21 08:33:35

Re: Genetic Engineering

#18 2004-01-21 08:58:59

Re: Genetic Engineering

#19 2004-01-21 09:17:00

Re: Genetic Engineering

#20 2004-01-21 09:57:56

Re: Genetic Engineering

#21 2004-01-21 17:25:46

Re: Genetic Engineering

#22 2004-01-22 10:40:49

Re: Genetic Engineering

#23 2004-01-22 10:47:47

Re: Genetic Engineering

#24 2004-01-23 16:10:49

Re: Genetic Engineering

#25 2004-01-23 16:54:37

Re: Genetic Engineering

Board footer