The morality of genetic engineering [POLL]

[Gfted1]

That is not correct. Cancer cells can die or be killed like any other cell. Cancer is "disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body."

[Ben No.3]

That is not correct. Cancer cells can die or be killed like any other cell. Cancer is "disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body."

I was only trying to make a joke

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Here is some not serious question: cancer is just body cells that don't die, as other cells do. The other cells do so in order to keep the system that is your body up and running.

So, can you blame the cancer for not wanting to die for the sake of some greater being?

Hm.... Now who does that remind me of?

 

 

 

That is not correct. Cancer cells can die or be killed like any other cell. Cancer is "disease caused by an uncontrolled division of abnormal cells in a part of the body."

 

 

Actually, dysregulation of apoptotic signalling pathways (ie. cells not dying when they're supposed to) does tend to result in cancer. His analogy may have been phrased terribly, but it's perfectly apt.

[Rosbjerg]

Yes, but not at the cost of the diversity that is so important to the human race.  And I'm not just talking about people looking different, I'm talking about the concern that if we all become genetic gods, we are one good virus away from wiping everyone out.

 

I'm sure we would, in case such things were possible, add individual abilities that differentiated us. I imagine people would modify themselves to better express and live out their drive and desires (live in vacuum, see ultralight etc)

 

In fact I'm sure we'll be so different it'll present legal problems as to what constitutes 'human' at that point.

[Longknife]

Extending your lifespan is something I feel like most people would be willing to give a shot. After all, it's not like a shot that makes you permanently immortal or the like, so if you were to extend your life and decide "nah yknow what this **** is gay" then you just don't do it again, problem solved.

I think things could get pretty boring though if people started modifying their genes for desirable traits in LITERALLY EVERYTHING. Exaggerated example, but imagine if all dudes were Fabio and all women were Kate Upton. Initially you'd think "sweet!" but after a while I imagine things might begin to feel rather hollow...

[HoonDing]

the Great Furry vs Scaly War will be something to behold for sure

[aluminiumtrioxid]

I think things could get pretty boring though if people started modifying their genes for desirable traits in LITERALLY EVERYTHING. Exaggerated example, but imagine if all dudes were Fabio and all women were Kate Upton. Initially you'd think "sweet!" but after a while I imagine things might begin to feel rather hollow...

 

I don't think that's a particularly realistic outcome. First off, according to the biochemical researchers I know (admittedly not a huge sample, but still), beyond a certain point, you're pretty much just dealing with highly complex and fairly unintuitive tradeoffs (so no ubermensch genes for you). Secondly, there's a great variety of ways in which people can be stunningly attractive, so I imagine it would mostly come down to "everybody's pretty but originality still wins you points".

[Azdeus]

Why would editing out our genetic flaws be an ethical problem?

 

I know weve created a non-problem problem with the mythical "only the rich will benefit" routine but thats not the case. Genetic manipulation would extend beyond the host because thats one of the things that genes do, pass traits to offspring. Of course everyone would want to be an Adonis but think of the possibilities! This blasted near-sightedness of mine could be edited out....or even bigger.....think about if we managed to, for lack of a better term, "immunization" against heart disease or cancer.

 

The only real problem I can see is overpopulation. We are such a parasitic species that we need to die in droves or the Earth would never make it.

 

I'm curious how you think "only the rich will benefit" is a myth? They already mostly mingle with people in their own group, their modified genes will still stay among the top 10% while we bottomfeeders will likely not see any gain for hundreds of years at wich point they would've become diluted.

[Gfted1]

I'm curious how you think "only the rich will benefit" is a myth? They already mostly mingle with people in their own group, their modified genes will still stay among the top 10% while we bottomfeeders will likely not see any gain for hundreds of years at wich point they would've become diluted.

I agree "the rich" would be the first to be able to take advantage, because money. But imo, a trickle down effect would be an irresistible force and the general population would improve. What would really be cool is if they somehow eradicated certain defects but delivered it to the population as a vaccination. My idea is; less designer babies, more human genome improvement.

[Malcador]

I have read enough cyberpunk to know a cure for diseases is just a chain to control the masses with.

[Gfted1]

That explains all the mohawks, they've cured male pattern baldness!

[Azdeus]

 

I'm curious how you think "only the rich will benefit" is a myth? They already mostly mingle with people in their own group, their modified genes will still stay among the top 10% while we bottomfeeders will likely not see any gain for hundreds of years at wich point they would've become diluted.

I agree "the rich" would be the first to be able to take advantage, because money. But imo, a trickle down effect would be an irresistible force and the general population would improve. What would really be cool is if they somehow eradicated certain defects but delivered it to the population as a vaccination. My idea is; less designer babies, more human genome improvement.

 

 

That, I would definetly agree with.

[Gfted1]

With CRISPR, scientists correct genetic mutation that causes sickle cell disease.

[Darkpriest]

Yes, although unrestricted may lead to wiping out of human race as we know.

[Gfted1]

Yes, although unrestricted may lead to wiping out of human race as we know.

How so?

[BruceVC]

With CRISPR, scientists correct genetic mutation that causes sickle cell disease.

Basically this is why I am very supportive of genetic engineering to help address certain diseases and hereditary illnesses 

 

Why would we not want to use science to help  mankind suffer less ?

[Oerwinde]

 

I'm curious how you think "only the rich will benefit" is a myth? They already mostly mingle with people in their own group, their modified genes will still stay among the top 10% while we bottomfeeders will likely not see any gain for hundreds of years at wich point they would've become diluted.

I agree "the rich" would be the first to be able to take advantage, because money. But imo, a trickle down effect would be an irresistible force and the general population would improve. What would really be cool is if they somehow eradicated certain defects but delivered it to the population as a vaccination. My idea is; less designer babies, more human genome improvement.

There are a lot of things that started out only for rich people, and due to them paying outlandish prices it allowed development of cheaper versions and processes so that it eventually became widely available. If a few decades of the super rich being genetic supermen is the price for making humanity superior, I'm ok with it.

[ShadySands]

[Guard Dog]

What could possibly go wrong?

 

 

Well, put me down for a "Yes, but...." and that but is this" No government funding. Leave me and my tax dollars out of it. Other than that, go nuts.

[Ben No.3]

What could possibly go wrong?

 

 

Well, put me down for a "Yes, but...." and that but is this" No government funding. Leave me and my tax dollars out of it. Other than that, go nuts.

Well... But... If you want no governmental funding, then the development and usage of genetic engineering is dependant on private persons and organisations funding... Is that good thing? Not just for this, but for medicine in general Edited October 13, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Guard Dog]

 

What could possibly go wrong?

 

 

Well, put me down for a "Yes, but...." and that but is this" No government funding. Leave me and my tax dollars out of it. Other than that, go nuts.

Well... But... If you want no governmental funding, then the development and usage of genetic engineering is dependant on private persons and organisations funding... Is that good thing? Not just for this, but for medicine in general

 

Yes.

[Ben No.3]

Well... Why?

[Amentep]

The day I become a cyborg mutant will be a happy day.

 

Just imagine when everyone is cyborgized and they computer components link them into the internet 24/7.  And we think people lack filters on message boards, twitter, etc. now!

 

RE: Genetic Engineering - its inevitable, the only hope is that it is used responsibly by those who build the structure for it.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Amentep

[teknoman2]

the only way for humans to break out of their current ****ty existence is to stop being humans. the sooner we bring about our non human descendants the better.

[Guard Dog]

Well... Why?

Well my answer here has more to do with the science of politics than the politics of science. In the United States the federal government has a clearly defined role and there is a tremendous amount of information that is publicly available so tax payers can see what they are paying for. In the early 2000's the federal government was funding stem cell research. A lot of tax payers had a problem with that because they were paying to create human life, viable embryos, solely for the purpose of destroying them. The moral dilemma is obvious. The solution of course was that the work could go on but only with private financing. The public does not get to make moral decisions on things they are not paying for.