Should we genetically modify our species?
As we learn more about DNA and our genome, with advancements in CRISPR and similar technology, we have opportunities to improve our species in any number of profound ways. The knowledge is there and the tech is catching up quickly. So why not? What are the moral hurdles to genetic and/or cybernetic augmentation of the human race?
7
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
53 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.And who would like to put in charge of that project?
Spinliesel
Level 9
June 27, 2018
0
a woman that likes big dicks we need that improvement
Who would you like to see in charge of something like this?
@whiskywoman How big?
@whiskywoman I was thinking more of no dicks, no genitalia, no sex hormones. Let's try that for a while and see where it will lead us.
And that is the bottom line - who would be in charge. Like so many things - like AI being in charge, as we have discussed on this site previously - who decides? And as my trust level is at rock bottom, and as a long-time sci fi lover, I'm not sure. I AM sure that it will happen. But will cooler heads prevail?
@Spinliesel Sure, why not? It would certainly simplify our existence.
@ChefMcBrian 8 or 9 inches and thick
@ChefMcBrian, @Spinliesel
to extinction
@poetdi56 We don't have a head cool enough yet. On even the smallest scale we're a very young species. Its a little scary to think that we have the power to make serious decisions and mistakes in this matter already.
someone who can do the job. Be practical and common sense
@Spinliesel asexual reproduction? Or no reproduction at all?
@whiskywoman Damn lady! Thats about 1 man in 10,000! Good luck to you!
@AtheistInNC No reproduction, only acquisitions.
@Spinliesel Hostile takeovers will abound!
@AtheistInNC By whom?
@benhmiller Again one person's common sense is another persons dangerous lunacy. It is all too subjective.
@benhmiller, @Spinliesel Those who see themselves as being more genetically pure and desirable, those who have twisted their evolution in one way rather than another, those who still see skin colours other than their own as a sign of racial inferiority.
@ChefMcBrian no actually its not and its white men not blacks in case you wondered peckers ate getting bigger even dr oz says so because women generally prefer bigger there are still lots of 6 inch penises but 7 is becoming the new norm and 8 is pretty common 9 is not so rare
@ChefMcBrian and I find 4 to 6 weekly
@whiskywoman Wow. You see alot of penises.
@ChefMcBrian I do taste them enjoy most of them frequent repeats
As someone whose entire life is being destroyed by a genetic mutation in my DNA, yes
LadyAlyxandrea
Level 8
June 27, 2018
3
Absolutely! Genetically "cleaning up" human dna to eliminate/filter out hereditary disease and any life-extension modifications. I think there must be endless possibilities.
IAMGROOT
Level 7
June 27, 2018
4
Who decides what needs "cleaning up"? You want a world were Peter Dinklage and Warwick Davis were filtered out before they were even born?
Are certain races genetically inferior, some will say they are and need to be "Cleaned up".
It is a dangerous way of thinking to start deciding what is a desirable genetic trait and what is not, because once things deemed to be "obvious faults" are gone the next thing up the list becomes an "obvious deviation" from the normal.
In 100 years or less, you would have a definition of what it is to be human and all deviations will be either aborted or engineered away in a society of those populated by ONLY those judged to be worthy of "Normal" life.
@LenHazell53 You are the one making these specific assertions. I am talking about improving health, prolonging life.
@LenHazell53 That's definitely a big issue. Who decides? We all decide individually. We could potentially just decide what we want our offspring to be. Sure, that sounds random, but no more so than evolution/natural selection.
@LenHazell53
he said and to me downs or sickle cell or other things genetically passed on and it is a slippery slope because diversity is a good thing
we all have something to give
but one would want to help at least at first and im torn because I can see how one race might try and eliminate another
@IAMGROOT
I am making no allegations, I am simply extrapolating on how simplistic and well intentioned ideas can and would be twisted to fit the agenda of extremest ideologues.
you say "I am talking about improving health, prolonging life."
He replies "Great we start by weeding out the weak, the unhealthy and the short lived, we optimize our society by having only those who comply with our idea of Healthy, and dispose of the rest."
You say "NO!"
He says "But you said you were talking about improving health, prolonging life. THIS is HOW we do it."
@LenHazell53 Again, you are making assumptions and applying labels. All I am talking about is life extension and improved health. I'm not talking about survival of the genetically fittest, or anything like that. Maybe I'm just blissfully ignorant, but I am not talking about eliminating anyone.
@LenHazell53 I don't think the proposal is to edit out, e.g., Peter Dinkage so that he would not be born. He would simply be born without drawfism. I doubt Peter would have a malfunction with that. I mean ... he's made his own way in the world as he is in an admirable fashion and I doubt he would feel a need to go back for a redo ... but he would doubtless have appreciated having a healthy body to begin with. Drawfism has a lot of negative knock-on effects in the body.
Sure gene editing would have to be subject to medical ethics review and debate. But diversity <> disability. Disability is suffering. It's can be transcended, but I'm of the view that the energy expended on such things is better used in other ways.
We have always been genetically modifying our species with mate selection. CRISPR will make it more targeted, which is good, but reality has the tendency to be far better than what I can dream up, so we should allow for it to surprise us rather than only allowing that which we think is best.
Netochka
Level 5
June 27, 2018
3
We are already directing our own natural selection by other means.
I have no problem with gene editing if it's done very cautiously and with awareness that everything is connected / related and the law of unintended consequences can be particularly nasty in this area.
mordant
Level 8
June 27, 2018
3
We should aim for extinction.
Ellatynemouth
Level 8
June 27, 2018
4
I thought as a species we all ready were.
Target acquired and locked.
This is fraught with ethical problems. Think of the eugenics movement and its associations with Naziism.
Lalo
Level 5
June 27, 2018
3
Lalo:
@maturin1919 True, but that was an era in which racist ideas were mainstream.
The question is not should we, but when will we.
KevinTwining
Level 7
June 27, 2018
3
Having the potential to do something, does not necessitate the compulsory enactment of the same.
@LenHazell53 That’s true, but like all new technologies, this has inevitability stamped all over it. Someone will open the box eventually, and then ...............
Unfortunately, morals, integrity, empathy and kindness aren't contained in DNA, so why bother?
Shawniedawn
Level 5
June 27, 2018
2
If we could eliminate disease perhaps but then again we need disease in a way in order to kill us. Living forever wouldn't be viable.
No one cried when we got rid of polio. If we can do that genetically, why not?
AtheistInNC
Level 7
June 27, 2018
2
Lets make Polio Great Again!
@GregGasiorowski Oh, hell no. Don't give the religitards another battle cry. They're so dumb they might try it.
Guys, are you aware that Dr. Mengele's studies in genetics are very much used / studied by today scientists?
DUCHESSA
Level 8
June 27, 2018
2
Yes, that in itself should be cause for concern or at least caution.
@LenHazell53 Well, as far as I was told the studies were excellent...what was horrid was the ways he used them.
NO.
Once again, this speaks directly to the inevitability of unintended consequences.
Typical human arrogance though.
That's fine. We're just going to unintentionally fuck ourselves right out of existence.
Might as well go ahead and bring back the dinosaurs. We'll fare just as well with them.
KKGator
Level 9
June 27, 2018
1
As I understand it, it is difficult to make changes in one area without also generating changes in another. Like an infinitely more complicated rubiks cube. So vanity projects like turning yourself into Captain America or Einstein will likely always be out of reach.
However, let's say we solve that particular conundrum and we can get the precise results we want with minimal side effects. The technology and procedures won't be cheap. Outside of specific medical conditions any changes you want to make will be the definition of an elective procedure. Insurance won't cover it. I don't know about you but I can barely afford my share of my regular prescriptions, let alone hundreds of thousands of dollars in out of pocket costs for night vision or any other enhancement. But you know who can? The 1%.
So what will happen is a furthering of the class divide as the wealthy make themselves faster, stronger, smarter, resistant to disease, and longer lived. Each generation improving by leaps in bounds over the previous one. Meanwhile everyone else is stuck in the shallow end of the public gene pool, evolving the old fashioned way.
If you think there's inequality now, just wait until the wealthy are quantitatively better then us in ways that can be tested and measured. Once we start down this road it will be almost impossible to change course.
JeremyTaylor
Level 8
June 27, 2018
2
Yeah, but eventually we will figure it out. Simply finding the key to preventing our telomeres from wearing down would extend our lifespan to centuries or more. Sure its complicated, but if we don't destroy ourselves first we'll get there.
@ChefMcBrian you likely were replying to my intial post that I accidentally made with just my first paragraph. I address your point further on.
Yes. We should. But we need to be very careful.
Kenofthedude
Level 4
June 27, 2018
2
If humans don't do it voluntarily then I expect that AI will do it for us. Biological units are very useful but they would benefit in efficiencies if they were enhanced genetically and mechanically. Nanobots have already been used experimentally on human disease so it is only a matter of time before we see breakthroughs in this area.
Surfpirate
Level 9
June 27, 2018
2
No. I'm not willing to tempt whatever unknown circumstances for this sort of thing. Nature has a way of balancing out what it needs and I don't want to see the fall out.
AmyLF
Level 7
June 27, 2018
2
Sounds like faith to me.
@ChefMcBrian Not a blind faith. It can actually be witnessed, unlike any god.
100% yes. I can see no moral objections at all,..... only a grey area if you don’t understand how evolution works, believe that god exists & wants us to suffer,.... or you take away peoples right to choose.
Whether I want to combat disease, grow new limbs,..... or even have a kid with blue eyes,..... the answer is yes. .....& quickly please!!
Linecaughtonly
Level 4
June 27, 2018
1
I'd say that it is fine to genetically alter all assholes. Oh by the way, I get to pick who is in that category
AmelieMatisse
Level 8
June 27, 2018
1
Henry is running for his life now
@IamNobody Hahaaa
Okay, you pick. By the way, may I be your friend???
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.