Biological Engineering - "Biogenned" children on Mars?

Byron · 2002-09-18 14:43:01

O.K....I think you guys might be ready for a new topic to feast upon..

Once humans have established a continuous presence on Mars, complete with families raising new generation of "martian" kids, etc, what do you think the role of biotechnology will play in having children on Mars? I'm going on the assumption that the technology to perform genetic engineering and control over biological development of children will be present and widely and/or universally available. Should parents on Mars have the right to "program" their child to have a maximum level of intelligence (extremely important in Mars' high-tech society?) How about altering the physical attributes of children, (making them taller, for instance) so that they will grow up better able to withstand the long-term effects of low gee?

As with any new technology, there's the potential for abuse to consider...like the idea of parents attempting to outdo each other in the "programming" of their babies...who wouldn't want a child that's smarter, stronger, or prettier than his or her peers? I'm sure that Clark will insist that all this be controled by a central authority...but what if the majority of people of Mars do decide that it is a "natural right", just as abortion is considered to be here in the U.S.? It would be very interesting to see what would come of universal bioengineering of Martian children, especially the ethical issues that would certainly arise from altering the "natural" state of humans....

B

Adrian · 2002-09-18 15:21:47

I think that we'll see human genetic engineering on Earth before it happens on Mars. Here is my hypothetical timeline:

~Now: Basic screening for genetic diseases, so parents can plan (and possibly abort) children who will have crippling inherited diseases, e.g. Huntingdon's.

5 years: Advanced screening for other physical traits, e.g. relative height, susceptibility to heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc.

Now, I don't know when the events below could happen, it really depends on the political and scientific climate. But they'll happen in this chronological order:

1. Correction of single nucleotide polymorphisms responsible for crippling inherited diseases.

2. Correction of more advanced diseases and easily characterised genetic properties. All of the stuff above will be *relatively* easy and risk-free to accomplish.

3. Manipulation of basic physical properties, e.g. eye colour, hair colour, possibly height.

Beyond this, no-one can tell you what genetic engineering could do. It's still not even certain to what extent intelligence is based on genetics, and even if we did find out, it is very likely that it depends on a complex interaction of many different genes and environmental factors. I'll put it this way - it'll be much easier to make a kid more intelligent by giving them a good environment than genetically engineering them for many, many years. Decades, if not longer.

Anyway, that's the science, i.e. the more advanced stuff you're talking about doing is very difficult to do and would require literally incredible amounts of research and computing power. Whether or not such genetic manipulation will be cost effective or politically acceptable is something I leave up to others to discuss

Phobos · 2002-09-18 17:19:26

Once humans have established a continuous presence on Mars, complete with families raising new generation of "martian" kids, etc, what do you think the role of biotechnology will play in having children on Mars? I'm going on the assumption that the technology to perform genetic engineering and control over biological development of children will be present and widely and/or universally available. Should parents on Mars have the right to "program" their child to have a maximum level of intelligence (extremely important in Mars' high-tech society?) How about altering the physical attributes of children, (making them taller, for instance) so that they will grow up better able to withstand the long-term effects of low gee?

I've overcome my fear of genetic engineering on a scale that could alter people's intelligence, etc, but I think we have to be careful that we don't jump in and introduce blunders into our genetic line that become difficult to fix because so many people/generations have developed X defect before it's discovered. Accidently creating genetic diseases might become a possibility. After all you might create a group of carriers who decide to have non-genetically altered children who could suffer from an unseen side-effect of the parent's genetic engineering. Anyow, I'm willing to bet genetic engineering will be acceptable on Mars because it would be a way of accelerating our evolution and survivability in an environment completely not meant for us.

As with any new technology, there's the potential for abuse to consider...like the idea of parents attempting to outdo each other in the "programming" of their babies...who wouldn't want a child that's smarter, stronger, or prettier than his or her peers?

I think this will become a big problem if genetic engineering can totally deliver to you a custom made baby. People have no shortage of vanity and they'd be willing to pay big bucks to have children that are the smartest, most athletic, etc. But on the other hand they can't brag that such children really came of their own blood lines so that kind of argument might put people's vanity in check. In any case, I find the possibility of having a future filled with legions of genetically engineered cookie-cutter people depressing. It'll be boring if there's no stupid people around or if everyone has similiar personalities.

Palomar · 2002-09-19 11:42:39

In any case, I find the possibility of having a future filled with legions of genetically engineered cookie-cutter people depressing. It'll be boring if there's no stupid people around or if everyone has similiar personalities.

*I agree. Keep in mind that Beethoven didn't let his gradual deafness, which later became complete deafness, hinder or stop him from continuing to compose fabulous music; his 9th Symphony was written when he was stone deaf.

Voltaire was a very sickly man; his family was amazed he survived infancy, because so often they could barely perceive baby Francois breathing or with a pulse [it's probably nothing short of a 'miracle' that he wasn't buried alive as an infant, mistaking him for dead!]. It was usually from his sick bed that he wrote his greatest materials, including _The Henriade_ [a long poem considered the greatest French epic ever penned; and which I'm proud to say I own an 18th-century copy of, i.e. printed and bound by a London publishing company in 1797!], his various historical works, philosophical tales, etc., etc. This frail, sickly man went on to have an ::Age:: attributed to him by myriad historians, for crying out loud! "The Age of Voltaire."

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, though not a favorite historical personage of mine for a variety of reasons [mostly philosophical differences], was also rather unwell; he had a urinary problem and suffered from a severe nervous disorder, including flights of paranoia and a persecution complex. However, he went on to write political and philosophical material considered very revolutionary and even scandalous.

I'm not glad, of course, that these people suffered from the maladies they did. I'm not promoting ill health or stasis in regards to human development. I am pointing out, though, that some of the world's greatest and most notable people preservered and triumphed over great physical obstacles. Perhaps it was these very obstacles which prompted them to try harder to overcome them, and inadvertently enabled their brilliance to shine even brighter.

:just thinking aloud:

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-09-19 15:23:45

I'm not glad, of course, that these people suffered from the maladies they did. I'm not promoting ill health or stasis in regards to human development. I am pointing out, though, that some of the world's greatest and most notable people preservered and triumphed over great physical obstacles. Perhaps it was these very obstacles which prompted them to try harder to overcome them, and inadvertently enabled their brilliance to shine even brighter.

I agree. We have to be careful that we don't end up creating some kind of social situation where classes of people are created based on their genetic engineering. God forbid if you start seeing things like universities demanding that you be able to prove you've been genetically modified or whatever before they admit you. I think that kind of thing could turn into a reality real quick. Anyways, since we're on the topic of sick geniuses, I think my favorite example would have to be Svrinivasa Ramanujan. He was a clerk in an Indian shipping office who didn't even have a high school education but became recognized as one of the greatest mathematicians to have ever lived. Many consider him the greatest. One of the professors at Oxford claimed that Ramanujan in one produced more mathematical discoveries in one year than most great mathematicians do in their life time. Unfortunately Ramanujan died young, but it's interesting to note that a lot of the equations written by this "stupid" high school dropout are corner stones of string theory.

Palomar · 2002-09-19 16:06:03

I'm not glad, of course, that these people suffered from the maladies they did. I'm not promoting ill health or stasis in regards to human development. I am pointing out, though, that some of the world's greatest and most notable people preservered and triumphed over great physical obstacles. Perhaps it was these very obstacles which prompted them to try harder to overcome them, and inadvertently enabled their brilliance to shine even brighter.
I agree. We have to be careful that we don't end up creating some kind of social situation where classes of people are created based on their genetic engineering. God forbid if you start seeing things like universities demanding that you be able to prove you've been genetically modified or whatever before they admit you. I think that kind of thing could turn into a reality real quick. Anyways, since we're on the topic of sick geniuses, I think my favorite example would have to be Svrinivasa Ramanujan. He was a clerk in an Indian shipping office who didn't even have a high school education but became recognized as one of the greatest mathematicians to have ever lived. Many consider him the greatest. One of the professors at Oxford claimed that Ramanujan in one produced more mathematical discoveries in one year than most great mathematicians do in their life time. Unfortunately Ramanujan died young, but it's interesting to note that a lot of the equations written by this "stupid" high school dropout are corner stones of string theory.

*You've seen "Gattica"? I hope I spelled that right; for some reason I usually misspell that movie's name. Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke were in it. Oh yes, it WILL become a social issue, if past human prejudices and snobbery are any indication. I thought it was very remarkable in the movie that Ethan Hawke's character was turned down in a screening exam by a black man, because Hawke wasn't genetically modified...even though he's white. And what are "natural" [unmodified] humans in the movie doing? Hauling trash, sweeping floors, and comprising the lower classes.

There is something in a great segment of humanity which always seeks to create a scapegoat...mostly, I believe, to project it's inadequacies and insecurities onto, and which also serves as the Collective Punching-Bag.

What do you suppose will be the penalty for a nongenetically modified person murdering a genetically modified person versus the other way around?

And why should genetically modified individuals NOT consider themselves superior to the unmodified individuals around them, and not demand/expect special privileges, preferential treatment, and the like?

Given that humans all throughout history have tried to power-over and one-up each other based on such vague notions of "superiority" based on skin color or language or mystical beliefs, why shouldn't we expect the genetically modified to also insist upon special status and privilege, considering they WILL have some real proof of superiority -- ? I for one don't expect that we can brush this off with, "Oh, well, they'll have read and heard of hundreds of years of people questioning and challenging prejudice based on skin color, religious belief, etc.; thus, they'll learn from history, will know better, and won't treat the nongenetically modified among them that way." No, I can't be that optimistic. I've been around the block a few times, and through "the wringer" as many times to not see human nature for what it is. [Note to Clark: I'm not in the mood for a debate; these are simply questions which pop up in my mind].

The ethicists are probably having a heyday with this little can of worms.

Genetic modification can improve the human race PHYSICALLY. Psychologically? I highly doubt it.

--Cindy

Adrian · 2002-09-19 16:29:22

It's 'Gattaca' (after ATCG, the bases of DNA). Good movie, I recommend watching it.

The thing that I doubt you'll have to worry about is genetically engineered humans having identical personalities or even anything approaching that - genetics doesn't control someone's personality alone, it works together with the environment.

There was a good series of SF short stories by Nancy Kress in which she explores the implications of a group of humans genetically engineered to not need sleep, it's worth checking out.

Palomar · 2002-09-19 17:00:48

It's 'Gattaca' (after ATCG, the bases of DNA). Good movie, I recommend watching it.
The thing that I doubt you'll have to worry about is genetically engineered humans having identical personalities or even anything approaching that - genetics doesn't control someone's personality alone, it works together with the environment.
There was a good series of SF short stories by Nancy Kress in which she explores the implications of a group of humans genetically engineered to not need sleep, it's worth checking out.

*Well, of course I'm used to needing sleep and living in a reality where humans need sleep, so of course the notion of NOT needing sleep is very strange.

However, I'd pity the people who cannot sleep! They'd probably be required/expected to work 14 hour days at minimum. And can you imagine being awake ALL THE TIME? I can't. Sleep is sometimes a relief, not only physically but emotionally and psychologically as well. Unless you're plagued by nightmares or your dreams are otherwise very emotionally intense, sleep can be a true "get-away" for a while.

Besides, dreams can also be entertaining and fun/adventurous! I had such a dream a few nights ago...part of which included me beating up Farrah Fawcett for flirting with my father [who is now deceased...and no, I'm not a physically aggressive person; I've never been in a physical fight in my life, excluding a few exchanged slaps and punches with my older sister, *laugh*]. I was really going places and doing things that night! It was fun.

My favorite dream of all time happened a few years ago [and yes, I did tell my husband about it]: I've always had an intense crush on William Shatner; I was smitten with that guy at age 11, when I saw my first Star Trek rerun *sigh!!!*. In this dream he was as he appeared in the first Star Trek *movie*, when he was approximately 47 years old. My appearance in the dream was as I was then, roughly 34 years old. We were standing in this open area, the background of which was a whitish misty place [sounds smarmy, I know...but it was a dream]. He asked me if he could kiss me. I said "yes." He pulled me into his arms and kissed me on the mouth ala Rhett Butler. Wow. Then he asked me if he could kiss me again. I said "yes" again. Kiss. Then again, a 3rd time. It seemed SO DANGED REAL; I could feel his lips press against mine, his arms wrapping around me...it's as truly as close as I'll ever come to having kissed him in his prime, when he was so handsome and vital. I woke up totally blissed out, which carried me through the day. Thanks, Bill!

Another really cool dream I had occurred a year earlier, in 1998...I dreamed I was walking along the NW shoreline of Ireland [never been there] at night. A darkness was all around me, and a mauve light ahead of me; I was walking toward it, with the ocean to my left. I could feel the cool, salty sea mist against my face and could feel the drenching-wet blades of thick, lush grass against my bare feet and between my toes. I walked and walked for what seemed like hours, reveling in the sensations. I awoke feeling very refreshed and happy, and surprised my feet weren't wet! I'd been reading a lot of heavy stuff about Irish this-n-that...I guess it stuck that night.

Does anyone want to miss out on sleep and dreams? NOT ME!

--Cindy
[In a very chatty mood right now]

Byron · 2002-09-19 17:24:23

However, I'd pity the people who cannot sleep! They'd probably be required/expected to work 14 hour days at minimum. And can you imagine being awake ALL THE TIME? I can't. Sleep is sometimes a relief, not only physically but emotionally and psychologically as well. Unless you're plagued by nightmares or your dreams are otherwise very emotionally intense, sleep can be a true "get-away" for a while.

I have to agree...a world without sleep is not one I'd want to live in...even if people no longer needed the physical rest sleep offers, I don't see how humans would be able to get by in life without having the daily "mental" break that sleep provides.

I can see people perhaps sleeping a bit less in the future, but it will never be eliminated entirely...

B

clark · 2002-09-23 12:05:36

Will biological engineering occur?

I ask you, why should it stop?

The extension of technology into the realm of biological engineering of our progeny is merely a tool to empower and facilitate the final control over our genes and how we CONSIOUSLY choose to perpetuate them.

Can't you see the fundamental power shift that is about to occur? We as a species will finally rest control over our genetic destiny from Nature. Why fear that?

Rhetoric aside, there is nothing new in the genetic science of today that warrants over concern. Worry about designer babies? Please, how is that different from todays cosmetic surgery that can HIDE the results of your genetic lottery? How is it any different than you or I precluding certain mates based on looks, intelligence, or wether or not they are a certain actor or athelete? Our personal choices in mates for reproduction is the BEGINING of the "designer baby" process- but it is holistic so it dosen't count... we don't dictate the outcome....blah blah blah.

We do dictate the outocomes- prenatal care- the environmental factor that we control affects outcome- some people can afford lavish prenatal care, some can afford none- this is an obvious disparity society tries to rectify by trying to provide a minimum of prenatal care to all.
Do some get more while other less? Yes, but such is the dictates of capitalism and resource distribution.

As for cookie cutter children- how is that likely? I doubt paraents want a clone, or even a "facisimile" since to do so is to strip individuality from a child- remember the laws of supply and demand- as the supply of look a like increase, the demand decreases- individual "looks" become more valuable, not less. All theoritcal, but look to trends in something as basic as naming a child- we all don't have "power names" do we? No, we have the varied range of human names. Where is the convergence upon the "good names"? Not to be found because times change.

I am certain there will be folks who will want to dictate how their child looks, acts, and thinks down to the slightest detail- just as there will be folks who reject the manipulation completely. Then there are the rest who simply want their child to have the best chance possible, and eye color can be destinies choice.

From a societal point of view, genetic alteration of children should be a requirement if for no other reason than to reduce the cost to society casued by birth defects or abnormal mutations which result in a decrease in the quality of life. Why should a child be force to live with one lung, or society forced to pay for the cost of continual support if a simple correction prior to birth can prevent the cost or the suffering?

Mucking about with humanity as individuals can lead to a catastrophic "travesty of commons" so it is in our best interest to preceed slowly, with great diliberation as to how this tool is used- however, the actual use should not be questioned- it is but another step in our mastery of self.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-09-18 14:43:01

Re: Biological Engineering - "Biogenned" children on Mars?

#2 2002-09-18 15:21:47

Re: Biological Engineering - "Biogenned" children on Mars?

#3 2002-09-18 17:19:26

Re: Biological Engineering - "Biogenned" children on Mars?

#4 2002-09-19 11:42:39

Re: Biological Engineering - "Biogenned" children on Mars?

#5 2002-09-19 15:23:45

Re: Biological Engineering - "Biogenned" children on Mars?

#6 2002-09-19 16:06:03

Re: Biological Engineering - "Biogenned" children on Mars?

#7 2002-09-19 16:29:22

Re: Biological Engineering - "Biogenned" children on Mars?

#8 2002-09-19 17:00:48

Re: Biological Engineering - "Biogenned" children on Mars?

#9 2002-09-19 17:24:23

Re: Biological Engineering - "Biogenned" children on Mars?

#10 2002-09-23 12:05:36

Re: Biological Engineering - "Biogenned" children on Mars?

Board footer