 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote:
I see this as the beginning of the designer children fad. It will most likely become another way which the wealthy can show how much better they are then the poor only they really will be genetically better. |
That's why I said that there should be the ban on children getting it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
Yeah, well, it depends on what you look at the story of Gattaca: I've never said that people should be treated according to their genetic lineage.
Think of the human effort such an endeavour would save, esp. if it would be available for everyone! |
Youīre right,
it all depend on what you make out of this.
If you use it for Discrimination of imperfect children, who didnīt have genetic Enhancements or if both, the Imperfect and the genetic enhanced live together in Harmony.
I fear for one thing, if Humanity tries to attain genetic Perfection,
i.e. that it could become a genetic Bottleneck.
Genetically enhancing people also means, that the people would become more similar in their Genetics.
And I donīt know, if this couldnīt be a very bad thing. After all Sex appeared on the world to make the Organisms more genetic dissimilar, because this was a good weapon against Virii and Bacteriae which caused illnesses.
If you now increase the genetic similarity it could mean, that you probably increase the impact which new diseases could have on the human Population.
You have examples in the nature, where genetically enhanced (enhancement towards greater productivity), but also genetically very similar crop is also very vulnerable against various Plant Diseases and the occurrence of some Forms of Diseases, which wouldnīt hurt genetically not enhanced crop could lead to a whole field of enhanced crop to get infected and die.
There are also Examples of Gene Defects, which are usefiul in a certain environment. Especially the Sickel Cell anemia. If a children is a homocygote carrier of the Gene for Sickle cell Anemia it might die. But, if it is a heterocygote Carrier of the Anemia, it is immune to Malaria, which greatly enhances its chance of survival in many parts of Africa.
So, if you would cut the Genes for Sickle Cell anemia out, because you think, they are just Defects (without knowing, that they make children immune against Malaria) they might be worse off than children which werenīt genetically enhanced by cuting these genes off.
It isnīt just the Sickle Cell Anemia, where we know that it might be useful, but there are a lot of Diseases around and many diseases, like flu for example, constantly mutate so they could avoid all new cures we develope and could better penetrate our Immune System.
So, after all we donīt know if some Mutations in the human Genome from which we now think they are Defects, might not one day save the life of its Carriers, because they are the factors which keep the carriers from getting infected.
So Iīd think we should be very conservative in genetically enhancing our children. Maybe genetically illnesses, especially those which threaten the life of its carriers should be removed (despite the thingsI said about the sickle cell anemia).
But everything other than that should be very carefully approached.
You donīt know if for example removing a Gene, which results in females with smaller breasts doesnīt make them very vulnerable against the large Epidemia of fatally headaches, which first occurs in 2025, infects all female who donīt possess the gene for smaller Breast (i.e. either homocygote [which de facto possess small Breasts] or heterocygote [which possess Breasts which are opf normal size]) and which invariably leads to death because of headaches within weeks. Oh and the Illness is transmitted just like Flu and has a Incubation time of Months, where the Carriers could infect otherpersons, but donīt show symptomes of the illness.
So if you had removed the Genes for small Breasts, nearly all of those wonderful women with large Breasts could die a painful dead within short time, if a cure isnīt found within a short time.
So I would be very careful with the things I enhance 
Last edited by Proteus_MST on 14-08-2003 at 04:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
i actually profess this as one of the "end of humanity" doomsday scenarios, where "designer babies" become widespread, and a small set of genes is deemed "perfection".
ignoring the gattica suitation entirely, you end up with a lack of genetic diversity. when a major plague or environmental change sweeps through swiftly, plop goes civilization.
for those that doubt, and know a little about genetics, i have an interesting fact: polydactyly (six fingers and six toes) is a dominant trait in the human species, and is represented even as a hybrid (ie, no carriers). that means, if a pure-bred polydactyly (PP) male mates with a normal (pp) woman, the children will definately become of becomming polydactyly (Pp, Pp, Pp, Pp). If a hybrid male (Pp) mates with a normal female (pp), the children have a 1/2 chance of becomming polydactyly (Pp, pp, pp, Pp).
this trend suggests that there should be many more six fingered individuals, that the majority of society should have six fingers/toes, but they do not.
the scientific community has since put out a thesis, that states that the polydactyly gene must have been very close in proximity to some other gene (or, indeed the same gene) that was essential to human survival during one time or another (a string of cold seasons, plagues), and many of the polydactyly people died off as a result.
now, thats all debatable, but it does make sense. imagine if our race as a whole ELECTED to thin our gene pool to shallow waters? that has mass suicide written all over it.
although, as a species, we probably wouldn't thin ourselves out too much. i mean, indians would still want indian babies, etc, etc. but what if the gene for something we do not want, say, myopia, was not only responsible for eye problems, but for some resistance to some disease, we would die off en masse.
i'm all for genetic manipulation, expiriments, and even genetic purity, but i wouldn't want a whole race of near carbon copies.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Neutrino
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Jun 2002
time: 23:30
|
|
Agreed, Uber Krux.
One problem right now is that most of the DNA is classified as 'junk DNA' - DNA that does not code for any gene/protein product. However, experiments have shown that a sizable portion of junk DNA is actually involved in regulation of gene expression. I'm currently working in a medical research center, and the professor I'm working with has discovered many regulatory chunks of 'junk DNA' in rats that are related to cancer and apoptosis.
Also given the size of the eukaryotic genome, all possible epistatic effects are extremely difficult to determine (factorial/exponential increase w/ genome size, I think).
Last edited by Neutrino on 14-08-2003 at 07:52
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-08-2003 03:37
|