Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 17, 2018 6:08:19 GMT
www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/17/genetically-modified-babies-given-go-ahead-by-uk-ethics-bodyI'm glad I won't be around to see the social horrors that this will produce. Today, the rich and privileged provide their children with access to the very best educations & medical care. In the near future, they will also give them what they believe to be the very best genes. In the early years, there will be many technical mistakes; but over time, those will be overcome. Being a member of "the lucky sperm club" will take on an entirely new meaning. Advantages in memory, learning abilities, computational abilities, strength/physical endurance/athleticism, abilities to fight infections, longevity, etc that we can't even imagine. (Assuming the human population isn't wiped out by nuclear armageddon or some other apocalyptic event first.)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 17, 2018 9:57:00 GMT
It wasn't entirely unforeseen. We can create a brand new superior race of......really nice people.  |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jul 17, 2018 11:06:28 GMT
I’m pretty sure I saw this movie already. It’s called Gattaca!  EDIT: I see Erjen beat me to it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2018 15:18:15 GMT
www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/17/genetically-modified-babies-given-go-ahead-by-uk-ethics-bodyI'm glad I won't be around to see the social horrors that this will produce. Today, the rich and privileged provide their children with access to the very best educations & medical care. In the near future, they will also give them what they believe to be the very best genes. In the early years, there will be many technical mistakes; but over time, those will be overcome. Being a member of "the lucky sperm club" will take on an entirely new meaning. Advantages in memory, learning abilities, computational abilities, strength/physical endurance/athleticism, abilities to fight infections, longevity, etc that we can't even imagine. (Assuming the human population isn't wiped out by nuclear armageddon or some other apocalyptic event first.) I read that article also and was thinking of posting it myself. The idea that the wealthy and poor will be almost entirely separate species in the future does fill me with some degree of dread. But perhaps there will be a way of making those advantages available to all. I'm personally an antinatalist, and believe that even genetically modified children will not have lives worth starting, and I continue to hope for the apocalyptic event that wipes out not only human life, but all life. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
 
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 18, 2018 21:23:48 GMT
What we need is a society like in Man of Steel. There's no reason not to genetically engineer 100% of babies. You could in fact make a moral argument in favour of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jul 18, 2018 21:37:02 GMT
Morlocks and Eloi, baby. We've already achieved that as a socio-economic reality, soon it will become an actual physiological one. H.G. Wells saw this coming.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 18, 2018 22:00:02 GMT
What we need is a society like in Man of Steel. There's no reason not to genetically engineer 100% of babies. You could in fact make a moral argument in favour of it. You can only be privileged if you have some sort of advantage over others.
This has always ultimately been based on having superior physical strength and the threat of violence. Bare knuckles, nails, and teeth among our distant ancestors. Guns and bombs today--which are paid for with money. ∴ He who has the most money has the most privilege. The privileged will ensure that genetic manipulation is used to maintain differences among people, with their own progeny being at the top. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 18, 2018 22:21:15 GMT
Hmmm kill a down syndrome's baby or fix it?
|
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Jul 19, 2018 2:51:08 GMT
www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/17/genetically-modified-babies-given-go-ahead-by-uk-ethics-bodyI'm glad I won't be around to see the social horrors that this will produce. Today, the rich and privileged provide their children with access to the very best educations & medical care. In the near future, they will also give them what they believe to be the very best genes. In the early years, there will be many technical mistakes; but over time, those will be overcome. Being a member of "the lucky sperm club" will take on an entirely new meaning. Advantages in memory, learning abilities, computational abilities, strength/physical endurance/athleticism, abilities to fight infections, longevity, etc that we can't even imagine. (Assuming the human population isn't wiped out by nuclear armageddon or some other apocalyptic event first.) I read that article also and was thinking of posting it myself. The idea that the wealthy and poor will be almost entirely separate species in the future does fill me with some degree of dread. But perhaps there will be a way of making those advantages available to all. I'm personally an antinatalist, and believe that even genetically modified children will not have lives worth starting, and I continue to hope for the apocalyptic event that wipes out not only human life, but all life.Even plants? |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 19, 2018 4:17:26 GMT
What we need is a society like in Man of Steel. There's no reason not to genetically engineer 100% of babies. You could in fact make a moral argument in favour of it. Actually, there are a number of very formidable reasons not to genetically engineer 100% of babies. One of the primary ones is that the people deciding which genes to favor will invariably make extremely shortsighted choices. A strength of any population is having a reservoir of gene variants among its members that will allow for the population to thrive despite changes in the environmental conditions the members face. Consdier, for example, the fact that genes that promote a low metabolic rate and hoarding of fat will seem socially disadvantageous by people who live in an environment where food is abundant. Such people will predictably opt to eliminate fat genes. But what happens if the food supply is threatened? Suddenly, those fat-promoting genes become extremely valuable. Unfortunately, they've now eliminated the fat genes from the population. The people deciding which genes to favor won't take this sort of thing into consideration. In the long run, that will hurt the population. |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 19, 2018 11:05:34 GMT
What we need is a society like in Man of Steel. There's no reason not to genetically engineer 100% of babies. You could in fact make a moral argument in favour of it. Actually, there are a number of very formidable reasons not to genetically engineer 100% of babies. One of the primary ones is that the people deciding which genes to favor will invariably make extremely shortsighted choices. A strength of any population is having a reservoir of gene variants among its members that will allow for the population to thrive despite changes in the environmental conditions the members face. Consdier, for example, the fact that genes that promote a low metabolic rate and hoarding of fat will seem socially disadvantageous by people who live in an environment where food is abundant. Such people will predictably opt to eliminate fat genes. But what happens if the food supply is threatened? Suddenly, those fat-promoting genes become extremely valuable. Unfortunately, they've now eliminated the fat genes from the population. The people deciding which genes to favor won't take this sort of thing into consideration. In the long run, that will hurt the population. Are you in favour of legalising abortion? If so how is this any different then that? |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 19, 2018 11:07:12 GMT
What we need is a society like in Man of Steel. There's no reason not to genetically engineer 100% of babies. You could in fact make a moral argument in favour of it. You can only be privileged if you have some sort of advantage over others.
This has always ultimately been based on having superior physical strength and the threat of violence. Bare knuckles, nails, and teeth among our distant ancestors. Guns and bombs today--which are paid for with money. ∴ He who has the most money has the most privilege. The privileged will ensure that genetic manipulation is used to maintain differences among people, with their own progeny being at the top. That's why you nationalise the industry and make it illegal to take donations from the rich. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 13:14:44 GMT
What kind of event could wipe out all life? it would have to be something pretty crazy since life has survived previous mass extinctions. A wandering black hole, star, or neutron star that passed close to the planet. An impacting asteroid of sufficient size to shatter the Earth. All of those are extremely unlikely, though. As for genetically modified people... it'll be a reality, sooner or later. Once we really crack how genetics works, we'll fundamentally redefine what it means to be a human being. People with amphibian or fish bodies, people who can fly, you name it. Probably cure all diseases, probably even open up immortality and eternal youth. What a fascinating world it will be. I wish I could see it. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 19, 2018 20:50:12 GMT
Actually, there are a number of very formidable reasons not to genetically engineer 100% of babies. One of the primary ones is that the people deciding which genes to favor will invariably make extremely shortsighted choices. A strength of any population is having a reservoir of gene variants among its members that will allow for the population to thrive despite changes in the environmental conditions the members face. Consdier, for example, the fact that genes that promote a low metabolic rate and hoarding of fat will seem socially disadvantageous by people who live in an environment where food is abundant. Such people will predictably opt to eliminate fat genes. But what happens if the food supply is threatened? Suddenly, those fat-promoting genes become extremely valuable. Unfortunately, they've now eliminated the fat genes from the population. The people deciding which genes to favor won't take this sort of thing into consideration. In the long run, that will hurt the population. Are you in favour of legalising abortion? If so how is this any different then that? How is this even remotely similar? |
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 19, 2018 20:51:08 GMT
Are you in favour of legalising abortion? If so how is this any different then that? How is this even remotely similar? Bodily autonomy. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 19, 2018 20:53:17 GMT
You can only be privileged if you have some sort of advantage over others. This has always ultimately been based on having superior physical strength and the threat of violence. Bare knuckles, nails, and teeth among our distant ancestors. Guns and bombs today--which are paid for with money. ∴ He who has the most money has the most privilege. The privileged will ensure that genetic manipulation is used to maintain differences among people, with their own progeny being at the top. That's why you nationalise the industry and make it illegal to take donations from the rich. I presume you are speaking of republic with democratically elected representatives. The rich will just buy off the government ministers, police, military, and judges (as currently happens) and cynically manipulate public opinion: Up is down. Down is up. You can pass all the laws you want. They are meaningless if not enforced. |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 19, 2018 21:02:11 GMT
How is this even remotely similar? Bodily autonomy. It's one thing to genetically modify embryos or eggs/sperm to repair a gene(s) that is essentially guaranteed to cause infertility, or to cause severe disease (examples: severe cystic fibrosis, congenital heart disease, anencephaly). But rewriting genes in order to produce a blue-eyed child, or a tall child, or a child that physically will have a high potential to be a star athlete, or that will be a boy instead of a girl, or that will be heterosexual is something else entirely. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2018 21:24:12 GMT
They wont to protect that and come at people like me and call us bullies because I want to protect kids. Who calls you a bully because you want to protect kids? |
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 20, 2018 0:31:20 GMT
Aside from the abuse of this kind of technology by the rich, we can also expect it to become part of an arms race.
If a country like the UK bans genetic manipulation of human embryos on moral grounds while perceived adversaries, say China or Russia, embrace it wholeheartedly in a race to produce super-humans, who is so credulous as to think the UK will hold back?
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 20, 2018 6:26:16 GMT
My two cents.
In the past, there has always been progress in science, technology, and medicine.
And there have always been pessimists who predicted dire consequences.
And yet, we live in the best of all possible worlds.
Machines have not put people out of work. Some jobs became obsolete, but new jobs emerged.
Drugs that contain the HI Virus (fight AIDS) have not made people more promiscuous.
Why should genetic engineering have all the bad consequences that some people predict?
I don't know yet if genetic rewriting is a good or bad idea; but I believe that one way or another, humanity will find out, and the world will still be the best of all possible worlds. With ot without humans.
|
|
