 |
| |
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
Eye structure is only part of the problem. The real difficulty is in the brain. In order to get better eyesight, you would have to enlarge the part of the brain associated with it.
|
Actually, if the person is born with it, I think that the brain will structure itself properly.
quote:
Azazel:
So are you for genetic enhancement?
|
yes.
quote:
This is the problem. There is only one way to create a norm. Read Harrison Bergeron. We have to hinder those people who are better off, and boost those worse off through genetic engineering. |
what do you mean by better off? socially? economically? "Genetically"?
quote:
What do we accomplish this way? We have improved some people at the expense of others. We have not increased overall productivity.
|
ahh, I guess you meant "Genetically". well, Why should we hinder some people? why should we use "at the expense"? I don't follow you. It's not like that we're creating genetical defects in healthy people, just because we're curing genetical conditions.
quote:
As soon as you boost one person, the norms will shift. If everyone gets rid of their bad genes, we will simply find more. We will still have some worse off, and some better off.
|
a) "will simply find more" ? there is a limited number of genes in the human genome. If we fix human sicknesses, and it would be possible to enhance humans, if we enhance everyone, how would someone be better off? And yes, we'll still differ in many things. different faces, different skin colours, different eyecolours, different hair.
quote:
Secondly, all our work will be undone in the next generation. We may correct for one gene, but new mutations always crop up. We will have to remain ever vigilant for new mutations in order to keep the human race up to snuff.
|
Not ALL of our work will be undone. the genes that will be passed will still be by FAR mostly free of deseases. but yes, we'll keep genetic testing for the re-occurance of the mutations. in any case the sheer increase in productivity and in happiness of a single generation of people is staggering.
quote:
Once we are satisfied with ourselves, we have stopped evolving. So we will need to alter in order to keep up with every other animal.
|
If the conditions don't change there is no reason to physiologically evolve, as evolution is adaptation to change, and there would be no pressure on us to physiologically evolve, since we, to put it simply, rule. And we are the biggest threat to ourselves.
quote:
This is a sea change.
|
quote:
Rather than improving/altering the environment to suit humans, we will change humans to suit the environment.
|
How will removing deseases, making us more intelligent, more attractive to HUMAN eyes will make us less human?
quote:
Once we start, we can't stop for biological and social reasons. No one will want to be left behind, yet we will never really be satisfied. This is the problem with genetic engineering.
|
BAM. If we've got rid of the sicknesses, we're immensly intelligent, and are attractive, why should we want to keep changing?
quote:
I say we limit engineering to some very specific medical conditions; those that kill people at a young age. We have nothing to lose in these cases. Cystic Fibrosis will be one of those.
All others, deafness, manic-depressives, etc. should be left alone.
|
deafness? being deaf is certainly nothing fatal, and lots of people cope with it very well. But tell me this? would you want your child to be deaf? Would your child want to be deaf?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
"norm" is a standard set by society, and it is this idea that decides what is and what isn't a "defect".
If genetic engineering were to take place, the alterations would undoubtedly be up to the parents and to society, the parents who of course would be influenced by society in their choices.
Choices of Society:
I am most certain that ailments that require major adjustments within a society would most likely be weaned out. These ailments being associated qith "handicaps", "mental illnesses", "diseases" that would require a greater amount of medical attention then would the average unaltered person. This, however, would change with time as the average person would begin to require less and less medical attention. Either destroying health care as we know it, or improving it. Either ways is good.
Parental Choices:
I think they would focus more on looks and skills. These would generally be influenced by their individual societies. Statments like; I want a doctor, I want an athlete, I want a Engineer, would continue to arrise. These would increase the general per capita skill levels and intelligence base on average, and would be a good thing IMO.
As for physical traits, I don't see any reason, one way or the other, why someone would care, as the other things are way more important to most expecting parents. Yet, for those who do care why not give them the option? If you want an athlete wouldn't you want them taller and stronger? Unless you want a horse jockey.
Either way I think the goods out way the bads and eliminates the odds. God may not play dice with the universe, but we can. Maybe genetic engineering is a human evolutionary step. Maybe in the end it will be our demise, or maybe it will be the key to survival. Who is to know and who is to judge?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
You still haven't defined what you regard as a 'defect'. Just what do you include in 'all that jazz'? For example, would you have removed picasso's 'defects'? |
I have given three specific examples: myopia, asthma, and bipolar disorder. I honestly don't know what other genes I would want to engineer out of my kids, since I don't know what other genetic disorders I may have (I won't know whether or not I have a predisposition to cancer or heart disease for some time yet, for example). You've given a broad condemnation of genetic engineering, one whose scope easily encompasses my desire that my children not have myopia, asthma, or bipolar disorder -- how about you justify that broad condemnation for the three examples I have provided, rather than insist that I unnecessarily increase the scope of my own beliefs on the matter? How is it evil for me to wish that my children not be saddled with the same disadvantages as I am?
quote:
Originally posted by Obiwan
As soon as you boost one person, the norms will shift. If everyone gets rid of their bad genes, we will simply find more. We will still have some worse off, and some better off. |
This presupposes that "worse off" and "better off" are boolean values, when in fact there is a continuum of "worseness" and "betterness." If you make the pie larger without changing the percentage that everybody receives, then everybody is better off, even though some are still better or worse off than others. If you remove all genetic defects that will kill somebody before the age of ten but fail to remove all of the genetic defects that will kill somebody before the age of twenty, then some people are still "better off" and "worse off" than others, but the severity of the divide has been significantly decreased.
quote:
Secondly, all our work will be undone in the next generation. We may correct for one gene, but new mutations always crop up. We will have to remain ever vigilant for new mutations in order to keep the human race up to snuff. |
So be it. All of the work of educators is undone in the next generation, but the fact that newborns are inevitably born ignorant is no excuse for everybody to embrace ignorance.
quote:
Once we start, we can't stop for biological and social reasons. No one will want to be left behind, yet we will never really be satisfied. This is the problem with genetic engineering. |
This is the problem with all progress.
quote:
All others, blindness, manic-depressives, etc. should be left alone. |
I can't speak for blindness (my vision is correctable), but I wouldn't wish manic-depression on my worst enemy. I see no conceivable benefit to my being subjected to periods of suicidal depression.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Oh come on I was just trying to say the percentage of blondes is declining. |
As I said before, prevalence of a gene will only decline if it is selected against.
quote:
--> Strong traits overpower weak ones, |
Dominants will win over regressives but if you have a population that starts out in equilibrium distribution of those genes then percentages will not change without selection for or against the trait.
Last edited by Dauphin on 04-03-2003 at 02:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
"norm" is a standard set by society, and it is this idea that decides what is and what isn't a "defect".
|
And I thought that everything that puts the child at a disadvantage due to itself (and not prejudice) is a defect.
quote:
If genetic engineering were to take place, the alterations would undoubtedly be up to the parents and to society, the parents who of course would be influenced by society in their choices.
|
Parents can't do whatever they want, though, only enhancements. If the parents are crazy and want to cripple their child, it's illegal.
quote:
Choices of Society:
I am most certain that ailments that require major adjustments within a society would most likely be weaned out. These ailments being associated qith "handicaps", "mental illnesses", "diseases" that would require a greater amount of medical attention then would the average unaltered person. This, however, would change with time as the average person would begin to require less and less medical attention. Either destroying health care as we know it, or improving it. Either ways is good.
|
All of the genetic deseases will be gone, but there are lots of other issues, as well as accidents, and further medical research into areas such as longevity.
quote:
Parental Choices:
I think they would focus more on looks and skills. These would generally be influenced by their individual societies. Statments like; I want a doctor, I want an athlete, I want a Engineer, would continue to arrise. These would increase the general per capita skill levels and intelligence base on average, and would be a good thing IMO.
|
actually, one can enhance all traits. Its' not an "or either" decision.
quote:
As for physical traits, I don't see any reason, one way or the other, why someone would care, as the other things are way more important to most expecting parents. Yet, for those who do care why not give them the option? If you want an athlete wouldn't you want them taller and stronger? Unless you want a horse jockey.
|
most parents want their kids to lead a happy life, regardless to what they want to become . I just think that we should ease the life on all kids.
quote:
Either way I think the goods out way the bads and eliminates the odds. God may not play dice with the universe, but we can.
|
we're not playing dice. It's all well planned
quote:
Maybe genetic engineering is a human evolutionary step. Maybe in the end it will be our demise, or maybe it will be the key to survival. Who is to know and who is to judge? |
Why should it lead to our demise? All we need to do is to enhance our own identity as humans due to our immense achievements, not base our mutual identity on our weaknesses, like we do now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
What are you talking about?
Last edited by KrazyHorse on 04-03-2003 at 02:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
|
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
And I thought that everything that puts the child at a disadvantage due to itself (and not prejudice) is a defect.
|
Good point. Yet, what a disadvantage is is society dependent. I.e. Aleuts might want their children to have thicker skin to help against the cold, while Equator cultures might want their children to be better protect agains the heat. Or, if you live in a pigmy society you may not want your kid to be 6 feet tall. Just trying to generalize it more than by stating what and what isn't a disadvantage is, thus eliminating cultural or racial issues.
quote:
Parents can't do whatever they want, though, only enhancements. If the parents are crazy and want to cripple their child, it's illegal.
|
I hope not. Those types of ppl shouldn't even be allowed to have kids.
PtP: What if the only way to get hyper-active brain activity, thus creating a super-genius that could potential better society in many ways would require that the child be born crippled? Would it be worth it? Is it for us to decide?
quote:
All of the genetic deseases will be gone, but there are lots of other issues, as well as accidents, and further medical research into areas such as longevity.
|
There would still be many medical fields to engauge in. Yet, some fields would be lost or greatly reduced. If we have super people working in every field, would we need as many people working in those fields?
quote:
actually, one can enhance all traits. Its' not an "or either" decision. |
good point
quote:
we're not playing dice. It's all well planned
|
"The best laid plans of mice and men go oft astray."
-Robert Burns
quote:
Why should it lead to our demise? |
Hey, I'm for it, but I am not going to say that it will be all good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
I have given three specific examples: myopia, asthma, and bipolar disorder.
|
These can all be treated either with surgery or drugs - there is no need to fiddle about with the gene pool. And do you think you could fix these with genetic engineering without altering something else?
You haven't answered my other question: would you have genetically removed the defects of Hieronymous Bosch? Would you have fixed Beethoven's deafness? What about Newton's schizophrenia? Would Byron have produced anything if he had not been manic-depressive?
The problem is that you are attempting to define what other people should be like.
Have a look at this and tell me if you think bipolar disorder can be genetically removed without losing anythng else:
http://mednews.stanford.edu/news_re...eative_gen.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
Good point. Yet, what a disadvantage is is society dependent. I.e. Aleuts might want their children to have thicker skin to help against the cold, while Equator cultures might want their children to be better protect agains the heat. Or, if you live in a pigmy society you may not want your kid to be 6 feet tall. Just trying to generalize it more than by stating what and what isn't a disadvantage is, thus eliminating cultural or racial issues.
|
Ermm, but being smart, strong, and good looking would appeal to all, right?
quote:
PtP: What if the only way to get hyper-active brain activity, thus creating a super-genius that could potential better society in many ways would require that the child be born crippled? Would it be worth it? Is it for us to decide?
|
definetly not. He would live a miserable life, and being miserable and smart he'll cause a lot of pain to other people as well.
quote:
"The best laid plans of mice and men go oft astray."
-Robert Burns
|
cute, but that's just to say that we should not plan to build a bridge, becuase supposedly will create a communications tower instead.
quote:
Hey, I'm for it, but I am not going to say that it will be all good.
|
There are always new challenges.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-03-2003 01:10
|