Forums > Social Discussion > genetic engineering
Login/Join to Participateenthusiast
302 posts
Location: good ol@ devon. cullompton to be precise
302 posts
Location: good ol@ devon. cullompton to be precise
Posted:
so, im doing an essay on pros and cons for g.e. what are your views on the matter?
so, im doing an essay on pros and cons for g.e. what are your views on the matter?
ive learned
life is tough... but im tougher
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
hi meghann
Genetic engineering is a large area. Are you thinking of the ethics of genetic engineering in medicine, or perhaps genetically modified food or the whole lot?
hi meghann
Genetic engineering is a large area. Are you thinking of the ethics of genetic engineering in medicine, or perhaps genetically modified food or the whole lot?
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,533 posts
Location: Hampshire College, MA, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,533 posts
Location: Hampshire College, MA, USA
Posted:
no problem with it whatsoever
people tend to forget that playing god is okay because he didn't patent his techniques
no problem with it whatsoever
people tend to forget that playing god is okay because he didn't patent his techniques
-James
"How do you know if you're happy or sad without a mask? Or angry? Or ready for dessert?"
SILVER Member
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Pooh-Bah
2,014 posts
Location: Galveston, TX, USA
Posted:
what about messing with the sex of a child, say for making sure you had a boy or a girl?
That's one I have reservations about.
what about messing with the sex of a child, say for making sure you had a boy or a girl?
That's one I have reservations about.
newbie
12 posts
12 posts
Posted:
yeah getting rid of physical disabilities is ok i think. but the psychological [censored] ups are what make people interesting and creative.
yeah getting rid of physical disabilities is ok i think. but the psychological [censored] ups are what make people interesting and creative.
SILVER Member
member
112 posts
Location: UT, Sweden
member
112 posts
Location: UT, Sweden
Posted:
Yeah, you deffinatley have to be a bit more specific. This is the field of research I want to get into, and there's ALOT to get into. Genetically modified foods and plants don't bug me because that is benificial to the entire world, feeding nations that use to be starving is a good thing in my mind.
However, doing things like determining the sex of a child forcably... that just seems to be pushing the limits for me. plants and animals are one thing, but as soon as you bring in a human life no matter how young or unborn, I don't like screwing with that.
Yeah, you deffinatley have to be a bit more specific. This is the field of research I want to get into, and there's ALOT to get into. Genetically modified foods and plants don't bug me because that is benificial to the entire world, feeding nations that use to be starving is a good thing in my mind.
However, doing things like determining the sex of a child forcably... that just seems to be pushing the limits for me. plants and animals are one thing, but as soon as you bring in a human life no matter how young or unborn, I don't like screwing with that.
missegyptology: I'm gonna be a terrorist when I grow up anyway
BRONZE Member
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Still wiggling
5,967 posts
Location: Belfast, Northern Ireland (UK)
Posted:
Hi there... I belong to an NZ mailing list called Giant Experiment, which is quite strongly against GE... you might get some information through that, including some good news stories.
www.giantexperiment.co.nz
Hi there... I belong to an NZ mailing list called Giant Experiment, which is quite strongly against GE... you might get some information through that, including some good news stories.
www.giantexperiment.co.nz
Getting to the other side 
BRONZE Member
Watcher of 80s cartoons
665 posts
Location: Chepstow & Bristol, United Kingdom
Watcher of 80s cartoons
665 posts
Location: Chepstow & Bristol, United Kingdom
Posted:
It all depends on why GM is being used. GM technology has been widely used for the manufacture of enzymes by modifying bacteria. By using enzymes in industry, emissions in some industries have been reduced to 0% of what is was formally and we're talking in billions of tonnes of waste gases here!!! Other examples of useful GM is the manufacture of insulin for diabetics, again GM bacteria is used. Previously horse insulin was used - this was expensive (keeping horses is not cheap) and horse insulin is different to human insulin by 2 amino acids - many medicines are derived through GM technology which is hardly surprising since over 90% of medicine is plant derived. 60% of cotton used in denim is GM derived. GM salt tolerant rice was developed so that people in poor countries such as Bangladesh can grow food.
All of the above are examples of responsible uses of GM and in each of these cases the way in which the gene implanted would be expressed was already known before farm trials. However, as with any technology abuses occur. I’m not just talking about the use of GM for cosmetics (i.e. making tomatoes look redder or creating blond and blue eyed babies). Abuses may occur even with the above examples when multinational corporations pressurise farmers in the third world to grow GM crops of a certain variety, when to do so might not be in the best interests of said farmer. But one must realise that this is not the fault of the technology but the fault of those who use the technology.
To summarise, if the aim of GM is to improve the environment and people’s quality of life then it is good. If GM is used for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of some corporation or to produce more aseptically pleasing offspring, animals or plants then it is bad. This paradox is why GM needs to be legislated. However, the question of who legislates needs to be asked.
It all depends on why GM is being used. GM technology has been widely used for the manufacture of enzymes by modifying bacteria. By using enzymes in industry, emissions in some industries have been reduced to 0% of what is was formally and we're talking in billions of tonnes of waste gases here!!! Other examples of useful GM is the manufacture of insulin for diabetics, again GM bacteria is used. Previously horse insulin was used - this was expensive (keeping horses is not cheap) and horse insulin is different to human insulin by 2 amino acids - many medicines are derived through GM technology which is hardly surprising since over 90% of medicine is plant derived. 60% of cotton used in denim is GM derived. GM salt tolerant rice was developed so that people in poor countries such as Bangladesh can grow food.
All of the above are examples of responsible uses of GM and in each of these cases the way in which the gene implanted would be expressed was already known before farm trials. However, as with any technology abuses occur. I’m not just talking about the use of GM for cosmetics (i.e. making tomatoes look redder or creating blond and blue eyed babies). Abuses may occur even with the above examples when multinational corporations pressurise farmers in the third world to grow GM crops of a certain variety, when to do so might not be in the best interests of said farmer. But one must realise that this is not the fault of the technology but the fault of those who use the technology.
To summarise, if the aim of GM is to improve the environment and people’s quality of life then it is good. If GM is used for the sole purpose of lining the pockets of some corporation or to produce more aseptically pleasing offspring, animals or plants then it is bad. This paradox is why GM needs to be legislated. However, the question of who legislates needs to be asked.
>What do you think about the state of the Earth?
>I'm optimistic.
>So why do you look so sad?
>I'm not sure that my optimism is justified.
member
58 posts
Location: Ardfern (Kind of near Oban). At Uni in Stirling
58 posts
Location: Ardfern (Kind of near Oban). At Uni in Stirling
Posted:
A word about GM crops (agricultural crops):
On the one hand it is great that there has been development of GM crops for use in under-developped countries e.g. the salt tolerant rice in Bangladesh mentioned above. It has improved the lives of many people and no-one can fault that.
On the other hand the introduction of GM crops into the environment could be catastrophic, not only for the environment but for the people as well. When you modify a crop so that it does well in a harsh environment or it is resistant to insect attack it immediately has an advantage over the other plants in the area. It then begins to out-compete the other plants and take over - this can be reduced by careful control and by making sure that the GM crop cannot reproduce but this is not foolproof. There have been thousands of cases of GM crops cross breeding with natural species and producing 'super-strains' (although people try and keep this quiet!).
Even the introduction of a plant from another country can have devastating effects on the local environment e.g. Japanese Knot Weed in Britain and the death of New Forest Ponies (a pond weed was introduced into the New Forest that dried up many of the ponds and many ponies were found that had died from thirst). In view of this I think we have to be VERY careful about what we introduce into the environment and as well as looking at the immediate benefits we have to look past them to the possible long term problems.
But I'm sure you'll all disagree!!
Axx
A word about GM crops (agricultural crops):
On the one hand it is great that there has been development of GM crops for use in under-developped countries e.g. the salt tolerant rice in Bangladesh mentioned above. It has improved the lives of many people and no-one can fault that.
On the other hand the introduction of GM crops into the environment could be catastrophic, not only for the environment but for the people as well. When you modify a crop so that it does well in a harsh environment or it is resistant to insect attack it immediately has an advantage over the other plants in the area. It then begins to out-compete the other plants and take over - this can be reduced by careful control and by making sure that the GM crop cannot reproduce but this is not foolproof. There have been thousands of cases of GM crops cross breeding with natural species and producing 'super-strains' (although people try and keep this quiet!).
Even the introduction of a plant from another country can have devastating effects on the local environment e.g. Japanese Knot Weed in Britain and the death of New Forest Ponies (a pond weed was introduced into the New Forest that dried up many of the ponds and many ponies were found that had died from thirst). In view of this I think we have to be VERY careful about what we introduce into the environment and as well as looking at the immediate benefits we have to look past them to the possible long term problems.
But I'm sure you'll all disagree!!
Axx
Usually me on fire (rather than flames being amber coloured)
Internet Hate Machine
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
Posted:
why? Sorry, i dont have any idea why people care. Stem ce;ll i understand.. cos breeding embryos 4 a cure.. but choosing sex?
Tehehe!
So true... (if god exists... but thats a different thread altogether 
)
Written by: spritie
what about messing with the sex of a child, say for making sure you had a boy or a girl?
That's one I have reservations about.
why? Sorry, i dont have any idea why people care. Stem ce;ll i understand.. cos breeding embryos 4 a cure.. but choosing sex?
Written by: Sparkey
people tend to forget that playing god is okay because he didn't patent his techniques
Tehehe!
So true... (if god exists... but thats a different thread altogether ) The existance of flamethrowers says that someone, somewhere, at sometime said "I need to set that thing on fire, but it's too far away."
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
I'm with Gefling.
not only that, but I beleive genetic engineering is the way forward in many ways - just that we have to be wise about using it (which is the difficult part).
with genetic engineering, evolution is no longer a random, slow, trial and error sort of thing (though I am sure there will still be plenty of error!).
genetic engineering is a vital tool in the human tool box, and I think one we are meant to have. and to learn to use well (according to my Gaiaist beleifs).
It does, however, open up a whole can of worms in terms of challenging our current moral system.
I'm with Gefling.
not only that, but I beleive genetic engineering is the way forward in many ways - just that we have to be wise about using it (which is the difficult part).
with genetic engineering, evolution is no longer a random, slow, trial and error sort of thing (though I am sure there will still be plenty of error!).
genetic engineering is a vital tool in the human tool box, and I think one we are meant to have. and to learn to use well (according to my Gaiaist beleifs).
It does, however, open up a whole can of worms in terms of challenging our current moral system.
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
SILVER Member
newbie
9 posts
Location: London (yuk...must get back to nature!)
newbie
9 posts
Location: London (yuk...must get back to nature!)
Posted:
Scary topic!
Its very important to get the balance of what we 'need' and what we can do without messing up nature too much in the process. For medical purposes, such as embryo selection in a family with severe genetic disease, i think GM could be very beneficial. The problem is, human beings tend to be arrogant and greedy, and however strict controls are on processes such as this, there are still going to be those who use the techniques for their own selfish purposes, and who knows what effect GM will have on the balance of nature in the long term. I personally think we've messed about with it too much...its time to stop trying to improve our situation on the planet before we distroy ourselves completely. The human race survived perfectly well and in harmony with other beings for a very long time before we started to make it all go wrong.
Something to think about...
Shortly before he died, Robert Oppenheimer,
looking at the picture of technology, especially nuclear technology(he invented it), said
'I'm afraid it's perfectly obvious that the world is going to hell.' It's
going to destroy itself, it's on collision course. The only way in which
it might not go to hell is that we do not try to prevent it from doing so.
Scary topic!
Its very important to get the balance of what we 'need' and what we can do without messing up nature too much in the process. For medical purposes, such as embryo selection in a family with severe genetic disease, i think GM could be very beneficial. The problem is, human beings tend to be arrogant and greedy, and however strict controls are on processes such as this, there are still going to be those who use the techniques for their own selfish purposes, and who knows what effect GM will have on the balance of nature in the long term. I personally think we've messed about with it too much...its time to stop trying to improve our situation on the planet before we distroy ourselves completely. The human race survived perfectly well and in harmony with other beings for a very long time before we started to make it all go wrong.
Something to think about...
Shortly before he died, Robert Oppenheimer,
looking at the picture of technology, especially nuclear technology(he invented it), said
'I'm afraid it's perfectly obvious that the world is going to hell.' It's
going to destroy itself, it's on collision course. The only way in which
it might not go to hell is that we do not try to prevent it from doing so.
Outside pressure to change only strengthens inner values...
GOLD Member
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Posted:
Right now I can't put into words how offensive I find this statement because I'm too mad. Maybe once I've calmed down I'll beable to string some sentences together to explain why.
Written by: StonedCat
yeah getting rid of physical disabilities is ok i think. but the psychologicalups are what make people interesting and creative.
Right now I can't put into words how offensive I find this statement because I'm too mad. Maybe once I've calmed down I'll beable to string some sentences together to explain why.
Feed me Chocolate!!! Feed me NOW!
Internet Hate Machine
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
10,530 posts
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there...
Posted:
kay... getting rid of physical abiltites is so wrong. its not fair to end a life (that is whay we're talking about here, right? ) with out giving the poor girl/boy a chance
kay... getting rid of physical abiltites is so wrong. its not fair to end a life (that is whay we're talking about here, right? ) with out giving the poor girl/boy a chance
The existance of flamethrowers says that someone, somewhere, at sometime said "I need to set that thing on fire, but it's too far away."
BRONZE Member
Watcher of 80s cartoons
665 posts
Location: Chepstow & Bristol, United Kingdom
Watcher of 80s cartoons
665 posts
Location: Chepstow & Bristol, United Kingdom
Posted:
Amber Flames:
yep - by using terminator gene technology such outbreaks of GM invasive species can be avoided. Unfortunately, this technology was seen as a way for Monsanto to stop third world farmers from culturing their own seeds so the technology is not popular.
The other points you mention are valid. However, resistant genes come at a cost to the plant, such as flowers may be less attractive to pollinating insects etc. Therefore, GM crops become out competed over a few generations. Invasive species, such as rhododendrons are far more of an environmental catastrophe than GM crops could ever be and due to way in which GM technology is legislated.
Further more when GM crops are developed the way in which the gene will be expressed is already known. Therefore, a very small part of the plants genome has been changed. When crops are hybridised by conventional methods the parent genomes get randomly assorted with no controls what so ever i.e. the most of the genome has been changed. Which is the more damaging to the environment?
Amber Flames:
yep - by using terminator gene technology such outbreaks of GM invasive species can be avoided. Unfortunately, this technology was seen as a way for Monsanto to stop third world farmers from culturing their own seeds so the technology is not popular.
The other points you mention are valid. However, resistant genes come at a cost to the plant, such as flowers may be less attractive to pollinating insects etc. Therefore, GM crops become out competed over a few generations. Invasive species, such as rhododendrons are far more of an environmental catastrophe than GM crops could ever be and due to way in which GM technology is legislated.
Further more when GM crops are developed the way in which the gene will be expressed is already known. Therefore, a very small part of the plants genome has been changed. When crops are hybridised by conventional methods the parent genomes get randomly assorted with no controls what so ever i.e. the most of the genome has been changed. Which is the more damaging to the environment?
>What do you think about the state of the Earth?
>I'm optimistic.
>So why do you look so sad?
>I'm not sure that my optimism is justified.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Firstly, Selecting the sex of a child is much easier than genetic engeneering. It's all about which sperm cell hits the egg first.
Is selecting which one of my sperm impregnates my wife really all that bad?
What if I just pull out all of the sperm that would give my child a birth defect? I'm not tampering with the sperm, just picking which of the thousands that I want to continue the process.
I think of Genetic Engeneering as splicing and dicing things. I think selecting a sex is much less 'Frankenstein' than that.
Firstly, Selecting the sex of a child is much easier than genetic engeneering. It's all about which sperm cell hits the egg first.
Is selecting which one of my sperm impregnates my wife really all that bad?
What if I just pull out all of the sperm that would give my child a birth defect? I'm not tampering with the sperm, just picking which of the thousands that I want to continue the process.
I think of Genetic Engeneering as splicing and dicing things. I think selecting a sex is much less 'Frankenstein' than that.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
no, we are not talking about that.
the whole point to genetic engineering in a case such as this is to change the genetic traits that lead to the physical deformities WITHOUT killing anyone - i.e. to allow those poor girls and boys you refer too an even better chance.
I hope skully isn't angry over the same misconception about what we are talking about...
Written by: Fine_Rabid_Dog
kay... getting rid of physical abiltites is so wrong. its not fair to end a life (that is whay we're talking about here, right? ) with out giving the poor girl/boy a chance
no, we are not talking about that.
the whole point to genetic engineering in a case such as this is to change the genetic traits that lead to the physical deformities WITHOUT killing anyone - i.e. to allow those poor girls and boys you refer too an even better chance.
I hope skully isn't angry over the same misconception about what we are talking about...
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
SILVER Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,899 posts
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posted:
for th most part I totally agree with NYC here - just want to point out that if India or China was allowed sex selection, there would be almost no girls born in these places.
I do not, however see this as entirely bad, since this would be an effective means of reducing world population and the status of women in these countries would probably skyrocket in 15 to 20 years!
Written by: NYC
Firstly, Selecting the sex of a child is much easier than genetic engeneering. It's all about which sperm cell hits the egg first.
Is selecting which one of my sperm impregnates my wife really all that bad?
What if I just pull out all of the sperm that would give my child a birth defect? I'm not tampering with the sperm, just picking which of the thousands that I want to continue the process.
I think of Genetic Engeneering as splicing and dicing things. I think selecting a sex is much less 'Frankenstein' than that.
for th most part I totally agree with NYC here - just want to point out that if India or China was allowed sex selection, there would be almost no girls born in these places.
I do not, however see this as entirely bad, since this would be an effective means of reducing world population and the status of women in these countries would probably skyrocket in 15 to 20 years!
-v-
Wiederstand ist Zwecklos!
member
58 posts
Location: Ardfern (Kind of near Oban). At Uni in Stirling
58 posts
Location: Ardfern (Kind of near Oban). At Uni in Stirling
Posted:
NYC:
Mostly I agree but I have a problem with your statement: 'GM crops are developed the way in which the gene will be expressed is already known' This in itself is true and this is not the problem.
The problem is with the mutations that arise in the GM crop if it is 'allowed' to reproduce. It already has an advantage in a certain respect (e.g. tolerance) and as you said this does have a detrimental effect on something else, such as flower size. But what if it mutates/hybridises and evolves so that it reproduces by wind pollination? I know I'm talking about really long term effects here but surely they are what we should be concerned about...
There are just endless possibilities of how these plants could evolve.
Axx
NYC:
Mostly I agree but I have a problem with your statement: 'GM crops are developed the way in which the gene will be expressed is already known' This in itself is true and this is not the problem.
The problem is with the mutations that arise in the GM crop if it is 'allowed' to reproduce. It already has an advantage in a certain respect (e.g. tolerance) and as you said this does have a detrimental effect on something else, such as flower size. But what if it mutates/hybridises and evolves so that it reproduces by wind pollination? I know I'm talking about really long term effects here but surely they are what we should be concerned about...
There are just endless possibilities of how these plants could evolve.
Axx
Usually me on fire (rather than flames being amber coloured)
BRONZE Member
Watcher of 80s cartoons
665 posts
Location: Chepstow & Bristol, United Kingdom
Watcher of 80s cartoons
665 posts
Location: Chepstow & Bristol, United Kingdom
Posted:
Hey I'm not NYC
Anyways - how is this problem any different to traditionally hybridised plants breeding with wild ones?
Hey I'm not NYC
Anyways - how is this problem any different to traditionally hybridised plants breeding with wild ones?
>What do you think about the state of the Earth?
>I'm optimistic.
>So why do you look so sad?
>I'm not sure that my optimism is justified.
member
58 posts
Location: Ardfern (Kind of near Oban). At Uni in Stirling
58 posts
Location: Ardfern (Kind of near Oban). At Uni in Stirling
Posted:
Sorry! Wasn't paying attention!!
Its not hugely different, it works around the same principles. The main thing is that with GM we are giving them a big helping hand and by introducing any new breed/strain/species to an area you are taking a big risk.
Axx
Sorry! Wasn't paying attention!!
Its not hugely different, it works around the same principles. The main thing is that with GM we are giving them a big helping hand and by introducing any new breed/strain/species to an area you are taking a big risk.
Axx
Usually me on fire (rather than flames being amber coloured)
BRONZE Member
Watcher of 80s cartoons
665 posts
Location: Chepstow & Bristol, United Kingdom
Watcher of 80s cartoons
665 posts
Location: Chepstow & Bristol, United Kingdom
Posted:
So if all GM crops were required to have terminator genes in their genome would you be opposed to GM technology then?
So if all GM crops were required to have terminator genes in their genome would you be opposed to GM technology then?
>What do you think about the state of the Earth?
>I'm optimistic.
>So why do you look so sad?
>I'm not sure that my optimism is justified.
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
I could use some genetic enhancement meself...in fact I hope to live long enough to be posthuman, but that's unlikely. Some of you all might, though.
And to determine the sex of a child doesn't require any GE. You put the sperm in a glass of warm saline solution. After an interval (I dunno how long) you suck up the desired part (top for male, bottom for female) with a turkey baster, and you have an excellent chance. More sophisticated laboratory techniques, none involving messing with genes, can be used to guarantee that if conception occurs, the fetus will be the desired sex.
I'm in favor of human reproductive cloning, too, just so you have a clear idea where I'm coming from.
I could use some genetic enhancement meself...in fact I hope to live long enough to be posthuman, but that's unlikely. Some of you all might, though.
And to determine the sex of a child doesn't require any GE. You put the sperm in a glass of warm saline solution. After an interval (I dunno how long) you suck up the desired part (top for male, bottom for female) with a turkey baster, and you have an excellent chance. More sophisticated laboratory techniques, none involving messing with genes, can be used to guarantee that if conception occurs, the fetus will be the desired sex.
I'm in favor of human reproductive cloning, too, just so you have a clear idea where I'm coming from.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
That sentence has far too many grown up words for me to have used here.
Written by: Amber Flames
NYC:
Mostly I agree but I have a problem with your statement: 'GM crops are developed the way in which the gene will be expressed is already known'
That sentence has far too many grown up words for me to have used here.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
SILVER Member
member
186 posts
Location: San Francisco, USA
member
186 posts
Location: San Francisco, USA
Posted:
We've been playing god for years.
Saving a life is playing god every bit as much as taking one. Every person saved from disease right now is a person whose descendants will need to be fed and clothed later on, and a person who will pass on their vulnerability to that disease to more people. We have brought our own evolution to a crashing halt, and right now it's thrashing around in random directions while overpopulation climbs insanely out of control. Genetic engineering may be our only option for DOING something about all this. We could eliminate all kinds of nasty problems-- genetic diseases wiped out permanently, deformities eliminated... we could even regrow lost limbs.
The problem lies in defining our own humanity and how we're going to hang onto it. People could end up engineering themselves to look however they want to. No more plastic surgery. People could get extra limbs if they wanted to. Gills like a fish. Turn themselves completely purple and glow in the dark. Anything. It could be fantastic-- imagine the freedom, of everyone looking how they actually want to, no more misery from having a big nose or being overweight. Or it could be terrifying as people start to lose their grip on their identities and possibly reality. And this is even without tampering with our brains... which is a whole kettle of worms of its own.
And then there's the fact that it can be used as a weapon. Genetically engineered viruses-- imagine if Hitler had one that would do his job for him, wiping out everyone not of a certain genotype.
We've been playing god in the natural world for thousands of years too. Genetics could bring back extinct species. It could create new ones. The balance of the ecosystem is at stake already... we could fix it, or we could bring it crashing the rest of the way down.
Really what it boils down to is this--
Pro: Genetic engineering holds incredible power and possibilities. (just like nanobots. Just like nuclear power. and just like the wheel, or knocking rocks together to make fire)
Con: In order to keep from totally [censored] ourselves over, we have to take responsibility for what we do with it. And right now society just plain ain't ready for that.
We've been playing god for years.
Saving a life is playing god every bit as much as taking one. Every person saved from disease right now is a person whose descendants will need to be fed and clothed later on, and a person who will pass on their vulnerability to that disease to more people. We have brought our own evolution to a crashing halt, and right now it's thrashing around in random directions while overpopulation climbs insanely out of control. Genetic engineering may be our only option for DOING something about all this. We could eliminate all kinds of nasty problems-- genetic diseases wiped out permanently, deformities eliminated... we could even regrow lost limbs.
The problem lies in defining our own humanity and how we're going to hang onto it. People could end up engineering themselves to look however they want to. No more plastic surgery. People could get extra limbs if they wanted to. Gills like a fish. Turn themselves completely purple and glow in the dark. Anything. It could be fantastic-- imagine the freedom, of everyone looking how they actually want to, no more misery from having a big nose or being overweight. Or it could be terrifying as people start to lose their grip on their identities and possibly reality. And this is even without tampering with our brains... which is a whole kettle of worms of its own.
And then there's the fact that it can be used as a weapon. Genetically engineered viruses-- imagine if Hitler had one that would do his job for him, wiping out everyone not of a certain genotype.
We've been playing god in the natural world for thousands of years too. Genetics could bring back extinct species. It could create new ones. The balance of the ecosystem is at stake already... we could fix it, or we could bring it crashing the rest of the way down.
Really what it boils down to is this--
Pro: Genetic engineering holds incredible power and possibilities. (just like nanobots. Just like nuclear power. and just like the wheel, or knocking rocks together to make fire)
Con: In order to keep from totally [censored] ourselves over, we have to take responsibility for what we do with it. And right now society just plain ain't ready for that.
"Ours is not to question The Head; it is enough to revel in the ubiquitous inanity of The Head, the unwanted proximity of The Head, the unrelenting HellPresence of The Head, indeed the very UNYIELDING IRRELEVANCE of The Head!" --Revelation X
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Genetic engineering has a lot of risks. We have no way of telling the long-term implications of introducing foreign genes into a given organism.
And yet I can't imagine that these problems would necessarily be any bigger than they are with the genetic engineering we already do and have done for milennia. Through genetic engineering, we have converted some little animal that no longer exists to the modern horse, we've turned the wild boar into the modern pig, and we turned wolves (or something like a wolf) into an entire array of dogs. No, the genetic engineering didn't involve restriction enzymes, plasmids, and PCR primers, but it used the same principle that even modern genetic engineering uses: selection.
Consider corn: corn can't reproduce itself. It seeds are firmly bound to the cob and carefully wrapped in the husk. The only way for corn to reproduce is to have its seeds spread by people. There's genetic engineering (i.e. selective breeding) in action.
Consequences of our mucking with biology are well known. You know, the introduction of this-or-that organism to try to eat up this-or-that pest...and then that organism becomes a pest in and of itself, etc.
The risks in genetic engineering aren't any bigger, I'd wager. We aren't going to have franken-corn swamp monsters walking around or anything like that.
Genetic engineering has a lot of risks. We have no way of telling the long-term implications of introducing foreign genes into a given organism.
And yet I can't imagine that these problems would necessarily be any bigger than they are with the genetic engineering we already do and have done for milennia. Through genetic engineering, we have converted some little animal that no longer exists to the modern horse, we've turned the wild boar into the modern pig, and we turned wolves (or something like a wolf) into an entire array of dogs. No, the genetic engineering didn't involve restriction enzymes, plasmids, and PCR primers, but it used the same principle that even modern genetic engineering uses: selection.
Consider corn: corn can't reproduce itself. It seeds are firmly bound to the cob and carefully wrapped in the husk. The only way for corn to reproduce is to have its seeds spread by people. There's genetic engineering (i.e. selective breeding) in action.
Consequences of our mucking with biology are well known. You know, the introduction of this-or-that organism to try to eat up this-or-that pest...and then that organism becomes a pest in and of itself, etc.
The risks in genetic engineering aren't any bigger, I'd wager. We aren't going to have franken-corn swamp monsters walking around or anything like that.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
member
157 posts
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
member
157 posts
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
Posted:
This is a biggie for me- For starters, I have serious qualms with assisted reproduction. I'm tired of turning on the news and seeing the latest "franken-litter" of babies concieved through IVF or some other drastic means. I don't believe in "designer babies", where the parents would get to choose sex, hair, eye colour and everything else. Parents who would tend to opt for this level of control might not even see the resulting child as its own person, with its own personality and so on. Imagine the heartbreak on both sides that might result from one of these "designer children" actually turning out differently than its parents?
Even without genetic engineering, there is still enough heartbreak out there- I'm sure many of us have been at odds with our parents when our goals and desires did not match what they had in mind for us. I'm sure that it would only be worse for children whose parents had "designed" them. The parents might be even more angered that their little "mini-me" wasn't so much like them after all, choosing different politics, religion, career, and so on. After all, look at all the control they exerted to try and have that mini-me in the first place. And now it wants to be different? The nerve!
Children aren't like cars that you can customize with whatever cool features you like. They're not blank slates to write and overwrite in your own image. They're individual people.
Now, on the other hand, I am in favour of using genetics to get rid of disease, even if that means a bit of messing around before the child is born. Eliminating some horrible defect is a far cry from dictating the child's hair and eye colours, or gender. The former benifits the child and society, the latter is pure narcissism.
So in short, eliminating things like huntingtons disease, parkinsons, tay-sachs, sickle cell anemia, and hemophilia are good things- doing so would allow the child in question to have a much better quality of life than they might otherwise. But as I said, insisting that your baby be a perfect lookalike of you is just somehow..wrong.
I don't think that technology such as cloning should be used to make even more people. The world's overpopulated as it is. I think that the emphasis should be on helping people already here, instead of simply making more of us. Maybe we can use cloning to grow new organs for people who might otherwise die- no need for cadaver organ donors, and the attendant risk of organ rejection. Grow a brand new organ using the patient's own DNA. Advance things a little further and grow new limbs for people who've lost theirs through accident or disease. Maybe figure out how to fix spinal cord injuries, so that these people can walk again. Use this technology to restore sight and hearing to the blind and deaf. Repair even serious brain damage this way, things like that.
This is a biggie for me- For starters, I have serious qualms with assisted reproduction. I'm tired of turning on the news and seeing the latest "franken-litter" of babies concieved through IVF or some other drastic means. I don't believe in "designer babies", where the parents would get to choose sex, hair, eye colour and everything else. Parents who would tend to opt for this level of control might not even see the resulting child as its own person, with its own personality and so on. Imagine the heartbreak on both sides that might result from one of these "designer children" actually turning out differently than its parents?
Even without genetic engineering, there is still enough heartbreak out there- I'm sure many of us have been at odds with our parents when our goals and desires did not match what they had in mind for us. I'm sure that it would only be worse for children whose parents had "designed" them. The parents might be even more angered that their little "mini-me" wasn't so much like them after all, choosing different politics, religion, career, and so on. After all, look at all the control they exerted to try and have that mini-me in the first place. And now it wants to be different? The nerve!
Children aren't like cars that you can customize with whatever cool features you like. They're not blank slates to write and overwrite in your own image. They're individual people.
Now, on the other hand, I am in favour of using genetics to get rid of disease, even if that means a bit of messing around before the child is born. Eliminating some horrible defect is a far cry from dictating the child's hair and eye colours, or gender. The former benifits the child and society, the latter is pure narcissism.
So in short, eliminating things like huntingtons disease, parkinsons, tay-sachs, sickle cell anemia, and hemophilia are good things- doing so would allow the child in question to have a much better quality of life than they might otherwise. But as I said, insisting that your baby be a perfect lookalike of you is just somehow..wrong.
I don't think that technology such as cloning should be used to make even more people. The world's overpopulated as it is. I think that the emphasis should be on helping people already here, instead of simply making more of us. Maybe we can use cloning to grow new organs for people who might otherwise die- no need for cadaver organ donors, and the attendant risk of organ rejection. Grow a brand new organ using the patient's own DNA. Advance things a little further and grow new limbs for people who've lost theirs through accident or disease. Maybe figure out how to fix spinal cord injuries, so that these people can walk again. Use this technology to restore sight and hearing to the blind and deaf. Repair even serious brain damage this way, things like that.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of Tower Cranes, for you are soft and would look better when squashed by a full concrete bucket"
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Wow. I don't know what I can possibly say to someone who thinks IVF is a "drastic means" of conception, and who goes so far as to call the human beings so conceived - from ordinary sperm and eggs, without ANY genetic manipulation - as a "franken-litter."
Wow. I haven't previously encountered that level of callous cruelty. I'm truly stunned.
Wow. I don't know what I can possibly say to someone who thinks IVF is a "drastic means" of conception, and who goes so far as to call the human beings so conceived - from ordinary sperm and eggs, without ANY genetic manipulation - as a "franken-litter."
Wow. I haven't previously encountered that level of callous cruelty. I'm truly stunned.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
GOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
personally i think that technology in all its many forms is just the next step in evolution, human evolution has hit a bit of a stumbling block as we are top of the food chain, now i hear you say we can do more stuff but we really havnt evolved biologically we have evolved via tools, and have been devoloping those tools and it will get to a point where to opperate the tools we will have to integrate those tools into ourselves. i think genetic engineering will play a large part in that.
Amanita i dont watch the news can u point me to a link for the "franken-litter" your talking about. what are your qualms exactly? i dont see ppl rejecting their children for not taking on their values anymore than they do now.
Written by: LLiigghhttnniinnggill take that wager *switches degree focus to genetic engineering* ill be damned if we dont have franken corn swamp monsters.
The risks in genetic engineering aren't any bigger, I'd wager. We aren't going to have franken-corn swamp monsters walking around or anything like that.
personally i think that technology in all its many forms is just the next step in evolution, human evolution has hit a bit of a stumbling block as we are top of the food chain, now i hear you say we can do more stuff but we really havnt evolved biologically we have evolved via tools, and have been devoloping those tools and it will get to a point where to opperate the tools we will have to integrate those tools into ourselves. i think genetic engineering will play a large part in that.
Amanita i dont watch the news can u point me to a link for the "franken-litter" your talking about. what are your qualms exactly? i dont see ppl rejecting their children for not taking on their values anymore than they do now.
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
The Singularity approaches! I can't WAIT to be post-human, myself.
The Singularity approaches! I can't WAIT to be post-human, myself.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
SILVER Member
member
157 posts
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
member
157 posts
Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
Posted:
I don't mean just using eggs and sperm, I'm talking the massive overuse of fertility drugs, which end up causing some seriously unnatural [censored] to happen. Human beings were NOT made to carry and give birth to litters. As far as our natural capabilities go, even triplets is pushing the bounds of what's healthy for the babies and the mother. Somebody having eight freaking babies at once is just somehow..wrong. Have you seen the footage of how these kids come out- extremely tiny and frail because there simply wasn't room for that many fetuses to grow inside the mother's body. More often than not, with serious health problems that may never completely go away. What kind of life is that for these kids? I'm tired of seeing these parents held up and glorified for tampering with and risking not only their own health, but that of their children that way.
IMHO, having that many babies all at once when your body was NOT designed for it, and having those kids end up with severe health problems as a result is what's callous and cruel. I think that some of the proponents of extreme reproduction need to stop asking if they "can do it" and start asking if they should.
I don't mean just using eggs and sperm, I'm talking the massive overuse of fertility drugs, which end up causing some seriously unnatural [censored] to happen. Human beings were NOT made to carry and give birth to litters. As far as our natural capabilities go, even triplets is pushing the bounds of what's healthy for the babies and the mother. Somebody having eight freaking babies at once is just somehow..wrong. Have you seen the footage of how these kids come out- extremely tiny and frail because there simply wasn't room for that many fetuses to grow inside the mother's body. More often than not, with serious health problems that may never completely go away. What kind of life is that for these kids? I'm tired of seeing these parents held up and glorified for tampering with and risking not only their own health, but that of their children that way.
IMHO, having that many babies all at once when your body was NOT designed for it, and having those kids end up with severe health problems as a result is what's callous and cruel. I think that some of the proponents of extreme reproduction need to stop asking if they "can do it" and start asking if they should.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of Tower Cranes, for you are soft and would look better when squashed by a full concrete bucket"
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com