Started By
Message
What are your thoughts on human genetic engineering?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 5:32 pm
Posted on 4/14/14 at 5:32 pm
As the human genome project unravels more and more about our DNA and medical advances can change our genetic make up, what level of this is acceptable to you?
Will it be ok to try to prevent babies from being born with any diseases? What about long term stuff like genetic dispositions to have heart disease, etc? What about appearances? Intelligence? Where do you feel the line needs to be drawn if one needs to be drawn?
Will it be ok to try to prevent babies from being born with any diseases? What about long term stuff like genetic dispositions to have heart disease, etc? What about appearances? Intelligence? Where do you feel the line needs to be drawn if one needs to be drawn?
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 5:55 pm
7
Posted on 4/14/14 at 5:35 pm to NATidefan
Tough issue
In theory I'm fine with fixing things lke cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell, but once you start getting into fixing oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes and dramatically lowering cancer rates it will become a problem very quickly.
First, this will just increase the divide between the classes in society. Second, the worst thing that could happen to humanity (aside from nuclear war) would be to dramatically lower the rates of cancer death in the world. Within five generations we'd all find ourselves starving to death.
In theory I'm fine with fixing things lke cystic fibrosis and sickle-cell, but once you start getting into fixing oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes and dramatically lowering cancer rates it will become a problem very quickly.
First, this will just increase the divide between the classes in society. Second, the worst thing that could happen to humanity (aside from nuclear war) would be to dramatically lower the rates of cancer death in the world. Within five generations we'd all find ourselves starving to death.
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 4/14/14 at 5:41 pm to NATidefan
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, genetic engineering could unleash problems which are far more serious than the problems genetic engineering fixes. On the other hand, why would it be any different than any other beneficial medical treatment. For example, cancer therapies are acceptable in fighting cancer, why not prevent it as much as possible in the first place?
I dunno.
I dunno.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 5:45 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:I would argue that cancer is proportionately a disease of people past the age of reproduction so it doesn't affect this as much, and we are well on our way to the five generation thing regardless.
Second, the worst thing that could happen to humanity (aside from nuclear war) would be to dramatically lower the rates of cancer death in the world. Within five generations we'd all find ourselves starving to death.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 5:45 pm to beejon
quote:
For example, cancer therapies are acceptable in fighting cancer, why not prevent it as much as possible in the first place?
Because civilization depends on a certain level of death to sustain itself. If suddenly you significantly drop the rate at which people die from cancer (tens of millions of deaths annually) then suddenly the population begins to climb even more rapidly than it is now.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 5:47 pm to beejon
quote:
I have mixed feelings. On one hand, genetic engineering could unleash problems which are far more serious than the problems genetic engineering fixes.
That's what I've wondered, particularly with the food supply. If something goes awry, in theory much of the food supply could come crashing down, no?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 5:48 pm to MIZ_COU
quote:
I would argue that cancer is proportionately a disease of people past the age of reproduction so it doesn't affect this as much, and we are well on our way to the five generation thing regardless.
Irrelevant. Old people are still mouths to feed, and society depends on them dying off in huge numbers every year.
People have done the math on this, accounting for age at the time of death, and every model is terrifying.
If you just drop the worldwide annual death toll from cancer by 50%, our current world population would double by 2030.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 5:56 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Second, the worst thing that could happen to humanity (aside from nuclear war) would be to dramatically lower the rates of cancer death in the world.
That's why I spit on every doctor I pass. Those assholes.
I get your point, but we'd find a way to make up the food supply difference. The reason most people starve now is logistics and political factors.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 6:00 pm to NATidefan
We should let the species strengthen itself naturally.
Unfortunately we're already far removed from a natural evolution.
We'll go down the human genetically engineered road. It's inevitable.
There will be money to be made, isn't that the driving factor in capitalism?
Unfortunately we're already far removed from a natural evolution.
We'll go down the human genetically engineered road. It's inevitable.
There will be money to be made, isn't that the driving factor in capitalism?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 6:02 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Because civilization depends on a certain level of death to sustain itself. If suddenly you significantly drop the rate at which people die from cancer (tens of millions of deaths annually) then suddenly the population begins to climb even more rapidly than it is now.
If we were living a different way we would not only not have the cancer problem, but we wouldn't have the population problem.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 6:06 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
We should let the species strengthen itself naturally. Unfortunately we're already far removed from a natural evolution. We'll go down the human genetically engineered road. It's inevitable. There will be money to be made, isn't that the driving factor in capitalism?
I agree with this, I just think we need to have a really good plan and path before we pull out of the driveway.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 6:50 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
If we were living a different way we would not only not have the cancer problem
We could lower the rates, but cancer would still be the #2 killer even if everyone ate a reasonable diet, exercised and (somehow) didn't breath polluted air.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 6:51 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
We should let the species strengthen itself naturally.
Unfortunately we're already far removed from a natural evolution.
We'll go down the human genetically engineered road. It's inevitable.
There will be money to be made, isn't that the driving factor in capitalism?
Good luck with that.
I'm certainly a fan of letting the lowest common denominators weed themselves out, but as you said we are way past that point.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 6:53 pm to NATidefan
If I had my wife cloned could I dial her back to say 18.5 years old and get a trade in on the old one?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 6:56 pm to BarberitosDawg
Yeah, but she wouldn't want your old arse.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 6:59 pm to NATidefan
I don't see a problem with any of that. I wouldn't draw a line anywhere for the issue
Posted on 4/14/14 at 8:15 pm to NATidefan
I'm all for it. It progresses us as a species greatly. Things being "natural" is overrated. There is almost nothing natural about humanity today.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 8:18 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Because civilization depends on a certain level of death to sustain itself. If suddenly you significantly drop the rate at which people die from cancer (tens of millions of deaths annually) then suddenly the population begins to climb even more rapidly than it is now.
Honestly, it wouldn't be our problem. It would be the third world's problem. They are the ones who would pay for it.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 9:59 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
I don't see a problem with any of that. I wouldn't draw a line anywhere for the issue
Outside of of the possible population issues, I think the my biggest concern would be genetic racism and separation. Not everyone is going to be able to afford to have this done, and some children will inevitable be conceived without it. Watch Gattaca... here's a snippet of what's it's about...
quote:
In "the not-too-distant future", eugenics (in the form of conceiving "improved" children by genetic manipulation) is common, and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class. A genetic registry database uses biometrics to instantly identify and classify those so created as "valids" while those conceived by traditional means and more susceptible to genetic disorders are derisively known as "in-valids". Genetic discrimination is forbidden by law, but in practice genotype profiling is used to identify valids to qualify for professional employment while in-valids are relegated to menial jobs.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News