|
Human perfection? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
| Just a thought, but maybe this should be moved to the politics forum. It's kind of a serious topic for the COR. |
|
|
| SpykeChyld |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
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. |
ING YES! No one ever gets this theory. I've had professors look at me like :wtf: after I try to explain that. Everything we do is natural. If all animals are equal and then why isn't our doing just as natural as all other animal's doings.
"We will progress to the extent of our capabilities. We will continue to explore and advance untill we have reached our perfect or imperfect absoloutes. "
This was part of my closing statement in a paper on this very subject in my sosiology class last year. I received a D on the paper because my proffessor didn't agree with the thesis. Bull.
Anyway, while some say it it morally wrong to with human evoloution and attempt to "play God" I beleive that if we do not at least attempt this science it would be a loss to the species as a whole. Imagine the possibilities that could arise fom this. Things that we cannot possibly yet comprehend. |
|
|
| Sarcoman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
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... |
I dont think that playing with genetics will necessarily make us less resilient to superbugs though. It will only have a negative effect on us if we make all humans genetically identical, but because scientists know this, they could also great 'false' biodiversity as well. Finding many different alleles that still work, and using a variety of alleles in their genetic manipulation.
The argument about natural selection will only work if the selective force prevents us from mating. Therefore, curing diseases that occur later in life through genetics will not have any effect on our selective force, because that person will have already mated. Only if we make Germline engineering will this affect future generations.
I guess im playing devils advocate a little, cause I already said I was against it, but then again, I like to debate as well.
But the question I ask you is, what if Genetic Engineering was as simple a choice as Euthanasia or Abortion. And the obstetrician your wife is going to tells you:."Your Baby has a 75% chance of having Downs Syndrom, we can remove the third Chromosome 21 and 'correct it', and there is a 99.999% chance that the correction will be a success, how do you want us to proceed?"
What would you do? I know that I would be a complete hyprocrit, and want to proceed with the process, cause I would want my child to have every opportunity possible |
|
|
| Michael Russo |
| quote: | Originally posted by SpykeChyld
We will continue to explore and advance untill we have reached our perfect or imperfect absoloutes. |
Do you even know what an absolute is? If you do, what you're saying really scares me. |
|
|
| davinox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Michael Russo
Do you even know what an absolute is? If you do, what you're saying really scares me. |
uh oh...religious stuff is a comin...
*hides* |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by davinox
uh oh...religious stuff is a comin...
*hides* |
I don't see the connection? :conf:
No need to dilute the thread now...I think that would open a different kind of arguement or just go off on a tangent into the usual oblivion; agreeing to disagree.
Mind you the question Sacroman asks about choosing to engineer your child is a tough one.
Everybody with a child wants the best for them.
But to go as far as preventative engineering?
I say, only to a point.
You can pretty much 'order' your child by looking for a donor to give your child the blue eyes and blonde hair you want; although the success rate of the clinics that do such a thing aren't very successful.
And then there's the values/morals/ethics part which is something I'm not even going to get into because it just doesn't end.
Replying to this thread is kinda ironic since I'm now watching Mary Kelley's - Frankenstien. :toothless |
|
|
| DjSuez |
| quote: | | The argument about natural selection will only work if the selective force prevents us from mating. |
this it not true; mating has everything to do with Sexual selection, not natural selection.
| quote: | | On the flip side of that, if a cure was found, then prevention, diagnosis and remedy would be a lot faster... |
Not if the human race is so far weakened that it has no use. It's wrong to say of course, but helping africa to build a succesfull society is stupid. The place isn't just right for people to live, when you make them live there, you get the problem of overcapacity of the world's human population, and deseases and stuff will move around much quicker, killing more people, and changing faster then we can keep up!
| quote: | | "We will progress to the extent of our capabilities. We will continue to explore and advance untill we have reached our perfect or imperfect absoloutes. " |
This is true, of course, we are all animals...but what the unnatural thing is, is that most animals (like all of them except us) do everything for the maintainance of the species. And what are we doing? WE ARE SETTING UP OUR OWN EXTINCION!! And that is unnatural, and that is what I don't understand. Humans are a plague...
| quote: | | Anyway, while some say it it morally wrong to with human evoloution and attempt to "play God" I beleive that if we do not at least attempt this science it would be a loss to the species as a whole. Imagine the possibilities that could arise fom this. Things that we cannot possibly yet comprehend. |
The human race at it's own is now stronger as the human race over let's say 200 years. When you also use the new techniques, the loss of our species will due a lot earlier!! The consequences of genetical engineering are for most people unknown, and I feel quite gifted that I know just a little bit more about it. I have very often practics, and everytime when genetics is involved, even just ordinary Mendelian Crossing, professors say: Look out with the material, don't let it get out of the lab!! It's just far more comlicated than we can even imagine, already! We don't know what's gonna happen when those organisms can florish freely. When we use genetics to make the human race 'stronger' by giving everybody a chance, genes get more weak, because there's nothing that selects, like in normal nature. When something major happens, like a new desease, it will change and kill people far more faster than we can keep up..I'm really glad to live now, and die natural before the whole house that is the earth goes up in flames...
| quote: | | But the question I ask you is, what if Genetic Engineering was as simple a choice as Euthanasia or Abortion. And the obstetrician your wife is going to tells you:."Your Baby has a 75% chance of having Downs Syndrom, we can remove the third Chromosome 21 and 'correct it', and there is a 99.999% chance that the correction will be a success, how do you want us to proceed?" |
Of course I'd proceed!! It's your child, and humans are the most egoistic animals in this world, so why wouldn't we? But it's also a very different question. If you remove the 'spare' chromosome, a perfectly healthy kid remains, because the chromosomes itselves are normal. I'm talking about weak chromosomes, which make people sick, and unliklier (is that a word?) to survive. So the statement your making is not relevant for the issue of weakening chromosomes. |
|
|
| Sarcoman |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjSuez
this it not true; mating has everything to do with Sexual selection, not natural selection.
|
I didnt mean to confuse it with Sexual selection. But rather, if there is an environmental, or competetive phenomenon that effects the survivals rates of humans after they have reached their reproductive years, it will not effect the selection of humans, because the genetics will have already passed on to the next generation. Natural selection will only work if it can affect the frequency of alleles passed onto the next generation, and therefore, can only work if it prevents mating (ie, organism dies before reproductive years). After an organism enters its reproductive years, it is able to pass on alleles, whether they are weak or not.
Sexual selection is the selection of one individual over another, and in many cases based on the morphology of that individual. Ie. Peacocks are sexually selected for their grandios tail feathers. Doesnt mean that the ugly peawont pass on genetics though, just means it will be tougher to find a mate, and they may mate less. This also changes allele frequencies in the next generation. However, sexual selection has little to do with the 'strength' of the genes.
Im not entirely sure what you mean by weakened chromosomes in humans though. In what way have they become weakened?
As for the statement about Down Syndrome, I was just using that as an example. You could extend that to any disease that has an allele, or gene that could be deleterious (cystic fibrosis for example). |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by DjSuez
Not if the human race is so far weakened that it has no use. It's wrong to say of course, but helping africa to build a succesfull society is stupid. The place isn't just right for people to live, when you make them live there, you get the problem of overcapacity of the world's human population, and deseases and stuff will move around much quicker, killing more people, and changing faster then we can keep up! |
They use procreation as a means of survival, hopeing that the law of averages works in their favour and with little regard to what they'll pass on to the next generation. i.e. AIDS, their biggest problem.
| quote: |
This is true, of course, we are all animals...but what the unnatural thing is, is that most animals (like all of them except us) do everything for the maintainance of the species. And what are we doing? WE ARE SETTING UP OUR OWN EXTINCION!! And that is unnatural, and that is what I don't understand. Humans are a plague...
|
...and you're the cure? lol ;)
But I see what you're saying. By not letting the strongest survive, weaker genes pass down thus lower the baseline of a more resilent species. (I think you mentioned that...) |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
But I see what you're saying. By not letting the strongest survive, weaker genes pass down thus lower the baseline of a more resilent species. (I think you mentioned that...) |
I still don't see it. If weaker genes are getting passed down, we can use this same technology to strengthen them and correct the problem. |
|
|
| SpykeChyld |
Yes, I know exactly what an absoloute is. I know the technical definitions and all that . Think about it. I guess Manifest Destiny would best describe what I'm talking about. Mankind as a whole has a desire to advance our own civilization. I very seriously doubt that we will see the point that that advancement should stop, if there even is that point. Every time something comes along that could change humanity, whether possibly for better or worse, the skeptics say "Well...What if..."
Well...What if...IT WORKS! No it probally won't the first time we try it, or the second, or maybe the millionth, but if one day it saves some kid from having Down Syndrome or AIDS when they don't have to, then it will be worth it.
Getting past what we as individuals consider to be our "morals" would progress the human race at an unbeleivable speed. Now whether that is "morally" correct to do is another thing entirely. But if you are thinking on the same level as me the last two sentences would contridict each other entirely.:) |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I still don't see it. If weaker genes are getting passed down, we can use this same technology to strengthen them and correct the problem. |
That may be true in the case of crops but in the case of something like the AIDS epidemic in Africa, not a lot can be done.
Who's going to pay for that? |
|
|
|
|
