|
Human perfection? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
If you play with fire, you might get burned.
But if no-one ever played with fire, we'd still be in the stone age.
The guarded and cautious development and use of genetic technologies is the prudent course of action. What puzzles me are the people who would describe this as "unnatural".
When a bird builds a nest, it is natural. When a human builds a house, it too, is natural - and when a human builds a mechanism to alter genetics, it is still natural. It is the processes of nature that have brought us to this point, and therefore where we go from this point follows from those processes. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Hmmm...
It's interesting to note that while there may be a moral ethic against eugenics or gene altering (again with the gene altering...first food now people? lol) there are staggering statistics in the cosmetic field industry.
I'm not going to get into it but this
article will.
| quote: |
...FACELIFTS ARE UP According to the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, cosmetic medical procedures are increasing 35% per year. The number of facelifts performed since 1992 are up 181%. And Baby Boomers, not only women but also men, are leading the way in 43% of all procedures.
|
Are we that hippocritical? :conf: |
|
|
| Miss Proximus |
I agree with what's been said about the definition of perfect, and that we will never be able to make perfect human beings. And Dmatrox, although you meant strenght, intelligence etc...it still is fact that we have an "outside" to that aswell. I mean, you could make a person strong and smart..but then there's still the question what to make that person look like right? :)
When it comes to diseases etc...I think nature will find another disease anyhow..how else would population-growth be controlled! We already have too many people on this planet, and without diseases we would triple (or more) the population in so little time!! I know if I would be victim of an incurable disease I might be talking differently..but that's the way I feel now.
I don't know how I would've liked it if my parents had decided on my haircolour, type of eyes, built of body, intelligence etc...I think I would feel that I wouldn't be the "real me" and that they wouldn't have liked me if I had been a "natural child"...am I making sense?
It's just a very difficult subject! I don't think we will be agreeing on this in a long long time... |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | | It's impossible to make "perfect humans" b/c every1 has a different idea of what is perfect. |
I agree entirely.
All humans strive for perfection in some way, and this can be both our greatest strength and our greatest flaw. It can be our greatest strength because we are continually "aiming" towards something better, but our greatest weakness because it's difficult to be entirely content with what we have. However, I don't think that perfection can ever really be attained in this sense, because the very second that these goals are attained, we reach for something further and if we didn't reach this extra distance, what would happen if we attained our original conception of perfection at the age of 30? What would happen if man had reached its own definition of perfection back in the year 1200? What would motivate us towards acheiving anything for the rest of our lives?
Even if we were to live in a society that was advanced enough to use genetics to aid us in our quest for perfection, there are enough different definitions of perfection to ensure that this society would be as diverse as the one we currently occupy. I think Gattaca had a very strong message, but still, many of those messages could be applied to our current society.
Ethan Hawke, for instance, couldn't go out into space because of his heart condition - is that so different from our society? Do we not discriminate between different people based on the relative "perfection" of their personal qualities? What about the jealousy he felt towards his brother? Do we not get jealous of those who are "genetically gifted" as it is?
The irony of that movie, is that he ended up using artificial genetic manipulation (i.e. attained "perfect" genes from that ex-runner) to blag his way into space anyway. I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, but the man only overcame the imperfections that were holding him back by using artifical means - he acheived his dream (attained his own defintion of perfection) not by hard work or any other "natural" means, but by assuming a new genetic make-up.
Was he wrong to do this?
| quote: | | This is not the way we are intended to be. |
Intended by whom?
Man chooses for himself what he should and should not be. We continually define and re-define what it means to be human, and the definition - if you look at the trends that shape our world - changes by the decade, if not by the year. If man genetically modifies himself, then that is our new definition of man: then, years later, there will be a new definition of man.
Were you intended to drive cars, use the internet or listen to electronic music? Or did we re-define ourselves to allow for these things? |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Intended by whom?
Man chooses for himself what he should and should not be. We continually define and re-define what it means to be human, and the definition - if you look at the trends that shape our world - changes by the decade, if not by the year. If man genetically modifies himself, then that is our new definition of man: then, years later, there will be a new definition of man.
Were you intended to drive cars, use the internet or listen to electronic music? Or did we re-define ourselves to allow for these things? |
I agree with you, a basic caracteristic(sp?) of man is that he doesnt like any other animal in nature shape himself according to his enviroment but shapes the enviroment according to himself but that is also one of the basic problems of man maybe we do not see it now but as someone already stated in this thread genetic manipulation goes against natural selection well in some way cuz there will be natural selection but the natural selection that would exist would depend only on money and power and this could bring bigger consecuences. i will leave it at this cuz with this subject u can go a lot deeper but its sunday and im not in the mood :p |
|
|
| Sarcoman |
| quote: | Originally posted by AnotherWay83
there is nothing wrong per se in eliminating diseases in babies before they are born, or enhancing humans, or even striving to create that "perfect" human being.
|
I know where your coming from when you say that there is nothing wrong in eliminating disease in humans. However, I had a biology professor start a very interesting debate with this in mind. He said, "If we eliminate disease in humans, would that have prevented some of the great minds from discovering what they did". In other words, would a guy like Stephen Hawking still have been the great mind that he is, without Lou Gherigs disease? Maybe with an able body, he would not have focused so much of his intellect on Science.
Conversely, how many great minds, and therefore, great discoveries do we lose everyday to disease. The 4 year old that dies of Leukemia, could have one day become the next Shakespeare, Einstein, or Tiesto (This is a trance site, had to throw that in there).
The idea of genetically modifying humans evokes a lot of curiousity in me, but it also evokes a lot of fear. Not all scientists have the best intentions at mind. And as for creating a human that is stronger, for example, it is completely unnecessary. Physical Strength is almost obsolete, because we have invented tools to do most of our work. Strength is only used in a territorial sort of way in humans. And if we start playing with the genetics of strength, where will it end. It would almost be like a runnaway evolution. |
|
|
| DJ Chrono |
Here's alittle something I wrote on this topic last year.
Eugenics
[why people are against it]
Frightens People
Through extensive research on the internet, it is very apparent that many people are freighted by the thought of Eugenics being openly accepted, practiced, and fully implemented into society. Moral and ethical dilemmas arise, as always, after being presented with such a controversial, human wide concept that would drastically effect the state of the human race in the following years. People could have fears of what eugenics may lead to in the future, and what it could be used for in the wrong hands. Such as developing people as born soldiers, a theme present in many movies. This could also open doors to cloning, and the duplication of individuals. All these things are unfamiliar to the common individual, and would create distress because of how the media has portrayed these scientific advances.
Religion Prohibits it
Is it our right to decide how humans should be born? With what characteristics, what intelligence, what physical health, and endless more options? Many people believe that we were created this way for a reason, and that we should maintain reproduction without intervention of genetic alterations. Many religions believe that how we act on earth may decide where our afterlife may take us. If we were born without fault, we would be cheating ourselves into being a good person. Life would no longer act as a test to determine your final whereabouts. Who knows what kind of implications this may have? It is also against many religions to intervene with nature’s course. They believe that we are interfering with something that should be left alone. Natural selection would eventually deal with any unwanted characteristics anyways.
Unseen Consequences
The alteration of genes has been developed through the use of animal testing. Though some testing has been done on humans, and it seems possible that we can use eugenics to its full extent, there may be some implications that arise unexpectedly. Dealing with the genetics of humans always has risks. We could in turn create new genetic problems with our interference. These consequences may pose a greater risk than continuing with our lives without the use of eugenics. It could also start an unseen upheaval between states, counties, but in particular, races. Some eugenicists believe that some races are superior than others, and this could cause major friction when determining who can reproduce, and who can’t. This is one extremely sensitive issue, that is hard to deal with without causing upset.
Establishing World Wide Regulations
Currently many countries have set up policies regarding the use of eugenics. Some of these countries include Germany, South Africa, Romania, Albania, and China. There are also countries where eugenics is accepted, such as Singapore and Saudi Arabia. Some doctors in these countries even provide eugenic services for a large sum of money. It would be very hard, if not impossible, to regulate the use of eugenics world wide. Without regulated use, a distinction would arise between the offspring of people from countries allowing, and not allowing eugenics. This could bring about much conflict and trouble. Eugenics’ goal is aimed to evolve the human race to a higher state, this would be extremely difficult if all the countries in the world did not support it. And without world wide support, eugenics won’t be able to reach this goal.
Don’t want to interfere with Nature
Many people don’t want to interfere with the course of nature, as you can presently see that many people are even protesting biologically altered food produce. They would prefer to live life the natural way, despite any positive results eugenics may potentially posses. This gives people a greater sense of security, and leaves the major ethical questions out.
Could possibly lead to the lack of diversity
People would share more common aspects, including mental capacity and physical characteristics. All new born individuals would posses good characteristics, and good appearances, because that is what most parents would desire in their offspring. Once this happens, we would see a lot less variety between different kinds of people. It’s like the example, where could we find beauty if there is no ugliness? Perhaps the human race isn’t supposed to be perfect, for if it was, there would be too much conformity.
Lack of struggle due to commonality
If everyone was equal in their mental abilities, we would loose the struggle that we depend upon for our own advancement. The challenge of being up against competitors would loose it’s appeal, as they would share the same potential. This would make people stop trying to be superior, because it would be inevitable. In the end, everyone is created equally well with the use of eugenics.
Would remove positions for lower class jobs
Everyone depends on each other in society. We need geniuses, who create the latest technological advancements and inventions, just as much as we need the average individual working at a fast food restaurant. Once people share the same high IQ level, and same will to be good, well achieving people (which most parents would want in their children), we loose the entire low-intelligence portion of society. I am sure that nobody with the will and ability to take a well paying job, doing highly intellectual work, would want to take a job paying only minimum wage. Most of these low paying jobs we depend on, and without them society could not function.
Not everyone would be able to afford it
The cost for genetically modifying cells would be pretty expensive. Even with time, as the cost goes down, there would be a lot of people in third world countries, and even hear in North America, who wouldn’t be able to afford it. Unless the government would cover it, which is highly doubtful here, let alone third world countries, it would only be available for some of the population. This would not work as an effective means to evolve the human race, and a large gap would form between children who were born with the use of eugenics, and those who weren’t. This would just be impractical.
Not everyone would want to use it
There would be a large amount of people who would be morally opposed to using eugenics, and would refuse to participate. Forcing everyone to do it would be very unlikely, as it would go against our modern day principles. Even if it was enforced, people would manage to get away with avoiding it, such as people living in very secluded areas. In order for eugenics to be truly successful, it would require the willing participation of everyone planning to have children. Across different nations, with different nationalities, different religions, and different views on life, it would be physically impossible for everyone to agree with it. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
All I can think of is
:p |
|
|
| IronDragon |
He's well into his 70's........
I think he's crazy |
|
|
| quddha |
| quote: | | When a bird builds a nest, it is natural. When a human builds a house, it too, is natural - and when a human builds a mechanism to alter genetics, it is still natural. It is the processes of nature that have brought us to this point, and therefore where we go from this point follows from those processes |
| quote: | Intended by whom?
Man chooses for himself what he should and should not be. We continually define and re-define what it means to be human, and the definition - if you look at the trends that shape our world - changes by the decade, if not by the year. If man genetically modifies himself, then that is our new definition of man: then, years later, there will be a new definition of man.
Were you intended to drive cars, use the internet or listen to electronic music? Or did we re-define ourselves to allow for these things? |
see, thats what I always thought about the subject. I mean, people say "we aren't supposed to do this," "playing god" but how do we know what we are allowed and not allowed to do? How do we know if divine powers don't want us to use our scientific advancements, and if so, why were we allowed to discover these techniques in the first place?
| quote: | | I think its perfect that humans are imperfect people and very different. We should not be in a world like Gattaca. Perfection through genetics is not a good idea since everyone will want to strive for the same genetic enhancements and eventually people will be too perfect. This is not the way we are intended to be. Independent assortment, crossing over and random fertilization keeps our species alive. Without wonders through meiosis, we would be very similar. The point im getting at is, since we understand that we all have different genetics, therefore different skills, abilities, and weaknesses, changing peoples genetics to be perfect would violate natural selection. Everyone will eventually have the same strengths etc. If a virus came along and infected people in a population with similar genetics, the species would be wiped out. Thats why random mating and natural selection makes sures that a selection of a population will survive if there was an epidemic |
The day when we become so genetically similar, is the day we face extinction. Genetic Variation is the fuel of evolution. This "perfect" genotype might be attractive one day, everyone wants to have it, but then an unforseen catastrophe happens ie. one of the genes makes us vulnerable to a certain disease, then we're doomed, cuz we're all the same, with the same strength, but also the same weakness. |
|
|
| DjSuez |
first of all, nice to have some fellow biologists on this forum!!
| quote: | | there is nothing wrong per se in eliminating diseases in babies before they are born, or enhancing humans, or even striving to create that "perfect" human being. |
well, my point is that this isn't right..it might be not wrong, but that doesn't make it right..
The fact that we know so much more about the human body, cells, and genetics is awesome, and very interesting, but i think it's not good to let everybody modify his children, cure 'uncurable, terminal' deseases, because it weakens te human race very much. we'd have no legs to stand on, when something major goes wrong in our world, and we'd have to start all over again. We already made our species weaker, because there's ought to be something as 'free will', because of which we choose out partners not only on sexual preferences and the prospect of 'sexy sons'. If we also make deseases unusefull, we stand on the beginning of the end of the Homo Sapiens. The natural selection is completely gone, and when the next meteorite hits the earth, when the geological poles of the earth change, when the greenhouse effect escalates, or whatever major disaster happens, we have nothing, and whithout our facilities, we're doomed then.
I rest my case...:rolleyes: :D |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Interesting to note that the arguement now as two paths; Genetic Engineering for the purpose of:
i) Cosmetics and
ii) Prevention of diseases
For cosmetic reasons, I don't think changing the pigmentation of ones skin say, is reason for alarm.
I'm not really a biologist, but isn't pigmentation determined by one gene in our DNA strand? (Someone clue me in, lol ;))
I agree with a few of you that have mentioned that playing with genetics for the prevention of disease is like playing with matches.
We could be setting outselves up when the 'next big disease' hits.
If we're all the same and we're all susceptible to it, we could be in for a potentially big problem.
On the flip side of that, if a cure was found, then prevention, diagnosis and remedy would be a lot faster... |
|
|
|
|
