Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With the return of Khan for the next Star Trek movie (at least according to IDMB) I think the time is ripe for a discussion about human eugenics.




While the movie GATTACA has exposed one of the more serious issues with eugenics post implementation, that of genetic discrimination and while eugenics as a science gets a bad rap especially given it's connection to certain... evil empires, and groups with racial motivations, I personally cannot find a moral issue with the "enhancement" of the human species. We are reaching a point where we can optimize our own code. Genetic disease and weaknesses, ranging from a tendency towards obesity or alcoholism, to full blown mental disorders like bipolar disorder, or down syndrome could be eliminated completely.

Am I missing some down side here Dakka?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Genetic disease and weaknesses, ranging from a tendency towards obesity or alcoholism, to full blown mental disorders like bipolar disorder, or down syndrome could be eliminated completely.

Am I missing some down side here Dakka?

And will these technologies be available to all? Or will it only be the rich that can afford to remove their child's imperfections and make them stronger and more intelligent? You're already in a country were the best education and medicine go to the rich, while the poor can't afford basic healthcare.

Curing genetic illnesses is a good thing, but there's huge room for abuse. There are concerns about things as simple as identifying the gender of a foetus because parents of certain cultures will abort them if female.

Right I'm seeing the room for abuse, (though the gender identification problem already exists, and has for years, we have the tech for that, it's one of the reasons China is going to be suffering from a female shortage in a generation or two) but I have had more then one person argue for the inherent wrongness of human optimization itself, which is what I'm more interested in.

Once the technology is there, it's going to take a lot of legislation to keep people from taking advantage of it. Certain circles will be ALL over it.

Heck, it's become trendy in existing certain circles to "hold back" your kid an extra year before sending him/her to kindergarten, so that (at age 6) they can excel physically and academically against all the 5 year olds. They say things like "I'm not sure if he's ready," but what they really mean is "I want Billy to DOMINATE."

Of course, there's a certain irony at work in that KG isn't much of a challenge for even the youngest 5 year olds if they've done preschool, etc. And as they get older, the age advantage declines anyway.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I have had more then one person argue for the inherent wrongness of human optimization itself, which is what I'm more interested in.

<insert typical don't play god argument>

Pretty sure that's about it on that front barring arguments favoring neurodiversity but I don't really buy into that beyond a civil rights standpoint

Howard hit an important point regarding equitable access to enhancements and the subsequent genetic divergence of the haves vs. the have nots, I.e. masters and sub-race.

There is also the potential problems of haves vs. have nots and disabilities. If the new normal is that all disabilities are prevented because they are for most people, what about those who end up with a disability anyway? Spontaneous mutations occur. Injuries happen. Accidents happen. Imagine if anyone with a sickness or even just difference from the norm were treated as less than human, a sub class, because the assumption would be their parents were irresponsible (I.e. failed to get the "normal" genetic mods). This already happens; try talking to a woman over 40 who is pregnant. Likely at least one person has said something about genetic risks, but a lot more think it. And if it is all solely on the parents, forget about social assistance. ADA becomes irrelevant. It truly becomes a two class system.

This doesn't even touch on enhancements. People flip out over the idea of really simple, innocuous, but potentially profoundly life saving changes to plants and animals used for food. See Golden Rice as an example...

There are much more serious questions about creating GMO humans. What if I want to make a smart ape slave race by mixing human and chimp DNA? Would it be human, or animal? At that point, how do you define "human"?

Another gig deal... Can you patent your genetic modification? When genetically modified children reproduce, does that mod get passed on? If so, do you get payments or have rights over subsquent generations, who are (or contain) copies of your product?

To sum up, the major questions are:

Overall, How society will treat fixed vs improved vs unmodified people.

Subconcern if you mix-match human and nonhuman genes, how do you define human for things such as rights, moral, and legal status.

Subconcern 2 The business angle- who owns modifications? How do we handle copies?

Just to clear up, I am for fixing genetic based diseases. Where it gets fuzzy is 1. How to define disease vs difference and 2. The stuff above about legal repercussions.

Wait for private spaceflight, and they'll be doing this in the first colonies on Mars.
Until then, there is no way anyone down here will be allowed to do it. Apart from 'rogue' countries like China and N. Korea.

Research and treatments are OK, they say. But, husbandry of the human race is out.
If enhancement is available to everybody, I don't see a huge problem.
Splitting the next generations into genetic haves and have-nots is not going to end well, though. It's not like they will all be the same any more, after all. First-among-equals, and everyone else.

Yep.

Another thing I thought of... Nature vs nurture.

Right now, what people can do to improve their children's chance of success all is part of Nurture. Nothing parents can do can change the fundamental genetic Nature of a child.

But, if parents decide they want to enhance their child (not fix a problem, but enhance) - is that imposing on that child's rights?

Say my parents were musicians, and there was a way to "turn up" a child's musical ability VIA genetic manipulation. My parents decide to go through with it. What if everything else about me has no interest or even dislikes music? What if I really wanted to do anything but music? How would I know if my genes had been altered? It's kinda messed up, actually.

Maybe I'm particularly weirded out by enhancements because I took a completely different life path from what my parents would have wanted. Much better for me, but they don't get it. It would have really sucked if my choices were consciously decided and limited by my parents egos...

I doubt they would use non-human genes, just use alternative human genes. There's no reason not to remove and replace genes causing cystic fibrosis for example.

I just watched an episode of "The outer Limits" The couple in it where debating whether to get it for their child. What Cemented "Yes" Was when the father lost his job because engineered employees raised the bar too high.
While I'm all for science progressing Some things are ripe for abuse and should stay in natures hands.

If you can make super athletic (stronger, faster, etc) people through eugenics, can they play professional sports or would they be banned (cheating like steroids or other performance enhancers).

 kronk wrote:
If you can make super athletic (stronger, faster, etc) people through eugenics, can they play professional sports or would they be banned (cheating like steroids or other performance enhancers).

To quote Daniel Tosh: "I think pro-athletes should be forced to use steroids. I think we as fans deserve the greatest athletes science can create! Lets go! Anything that will make you run faster, jump higher! I have High-Definition TV! I want my athletes like my video games! Lets go! I could care less if you die at 40. You hate life after sports anyways. I'm doing you a favor."

Let them in

CF is a very simple disease, genetically speaking- one bad gene, get two copies, and you get CF. Good sequences of that gene are known. That is one of the most basic examples. Really a no brainer.

That's not what I'm talking about, though, when I referenced using animal genes. Animals are an excellent source for genetic diversity that may not be present in humans... Just one example: Animals could be a source of genes to prevent communicable diseases. E.g. viruses are very host specific, and have to get in to host cells to reproduce and cause disease. Each has one or a very few proteins they target on host cells to do this. Pick your favorite viral disease, find an animal version of the attachment protein that still works for humans but doesnt allow the virus to enter.... That has eliminated the disease from all those with the genetic modification.

Another really simple one... Mad cow disease is caused by a protein that bends weird, and then causes all other copies of itself to bend weird, making that protein accumulate and form holes in the brain. Why not find a version that isn't susceptible to bending? The easiest way to do that is find an animal that doesn't get BSE and sub in its version of the PRP protein.

We've all heard sharks can't get cancer (which I believe is a misunderstanding and is oversimplified, but whayevs)... So, find the genes responsible and give them to humans, now humans dont get cancer. Again, a very simplistic example that I dont think possible, but its the idea that is important.

The question i have... Is that an enhancement? Or curing/preventing disease? The CF example is, like I said, is no brainer... It's the more complex scenarios where things get fuzzy.

 kronk wrote:
If you can make super athletic (stronger, faster, etc) people through eugenics, can they play professional sports or would they be banned (cheating like steroids or other performance enhancers).

Do what I think they should do at the Olympics: have one competition for regular athletes, and a seperate one for doped-up, enhanced people.

I want there to be integrity in sports, but I also want to see someone run a marathon in 10 minutes, or throw a javelin into the next stadium over.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 kronk wrote:
If you can make super athletic (stronger, faster, etc) people through eugenics, can they play professional sports or would they be banned (cheating like steroids or other performance enhancers).

To quote Daniel Tosh: "I think pro-athletes should be forced to use steroids. I think we as fans deserve the greatest athletes science can create! Lets go! Anything that will make you run faster, jump higher! I have High-Definition TV! I want my athletes like my video games! Lets go! I could care less if you die at 40. You hate life after sports anyways. I'm doing you a favor."

Let them in

I love Tosh.0.

Anyway, more philosophical... Whats the point of athletic competition if the results are purchased?

Wasn't a special swim suit banned from the Olympics because it gave those who had access too much of an edge? How is that different from buying good genes?

Wasn't that some of the issue with the runner from South Africa? His running blades were being lauded as an unfair advantage originally, and then when he ran some qualifying races they were like, "Waaaaiiit... he's not any faster than he was."

No one wants to see the opponent with an unfair advantage unless they can get the same advantage. I think Usain Bolt should be used by other countries as though he were a part of that country. The man is so fast, it's practically unfair. I mean as soon as you see that name pop up on the competitors list you're like, "well feth! Here's to hoping I can pull silver."

 Alfndrate wrote:
Wasn't that some of the issue with the runner from South Africa? His running blades were being lauded as an unfair advantage originally,

Easy fix. Cut off your feet and get your own running blades or STFU!

 Gymnogyps wrote:
CF is a very simple disease, genetically speaking- one bad gene, get two copies, and you get CF. Good sequences of that gene are known. That is one of the most basic examples. Really a no brainer.

That's not what I'm talking about, though, when I referenced using animal genes. Animals are an excellent source for genetic diversity that may not be present in humans... Just one example: Animals could be a source of genes to prevent communicable diseases. E.g. viruses are very host specific, and have to get in to host cells to reproduce and cause disease. Each has one or a very few proteins they target on host cells to do this. Pick your favorite viral disease, find an animal version of the attachment protein that still works for humans but doesn't allow the virus to enter.... That has eliminated the disease from all those with the genetic modification.

Did you see what happened when they wanted to use bovine embryos for human DNA? All people focused on what that it contained a fraction of a percent of cow DNA. Never mind that this DNA was not nuclear, being mitochondrial and not affecting how a person would appear or grow. The first thing people started thinking was that hybrid cow-people would be born with horns and udders. There's a lot of fear and misconceptions. But my main issue is accessibility. People should be treated for genetic illnesses, but there's a danger of people having the wealth to design their children. It's already the case the wealthy people get the best education, healthcare and social/business links, but allowing them to be genetically superior as well? That is a dangerous path and I don't think it's one good for society. Ending genetic illnesses will improve humanity. But tailoring the genetics of the wealthy to create a minority of genetically superior people will not improve humanity as a whole, merely create selfish divisions in society between the rich and powerful, and everyone else.

On a practical issue, I think the big problem is that if inserting genes from animals you can't predict the consequences exactly until you have a go. Like drug trails, you eventually have to make the leap to human testing and that doesn't always work. At least you can withdraw medication or counteract its effects, genetic modification is a bit permanent once the person is growing. It's not like you can trial a few GM humans and then throw them away afterwards as you would plants or animals. One GM trial I read about in a crop produced a surge of production of a particular allergen as an unexpected side effect. The project was scrapped as it failed basic risk assessment so there was never a risk of it entering the marketplace, which isn't terribly exciting but the anti-GM crowd would have you believe that scientists are trying to poison us. But if you did that with a person, then... what do you do then?

We already have a class divide, financial divide and healthcare divide so it isn't too much of a stress to imagine that eugenics will just follow the same social patterns.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:While the movie GATTACA has exposed one of the more serious issues with eugenics post implementation, that of genetic discrimination and while eugenics as a science gets a bad rap especially given it's connection to certain... evil empires, and groups with racial motivations, I personally cannot find a moral issue with the "enhancement" of the human species. We are reaching a point where we can optimize our own code. Genetic disease and weaknesses, ranging from a tendency towards obesity or alcoholism, to full blown mental disorders like bipolar disorder, or down syndrome could be eliminated completely.

Am I missing some down side here Dakka?

Well, in theory it's a wonderful idea because you could eliminate diseases like Huntington's Chorea in just about a single generation. However, classically, eugenics requires control over breeding, so it would require denying to some people a fundamental human right to have children.

That's my grey area. It's tough to weigh the pros and cons because they are both so heavy.

 azazel the cat wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:While the movie GATTACA has exposed one of the more serious issues with eugenics post implementation, that of genetic discrimination and while eugenics as a science gets a bad rap especially given it's connection to certain... evil empires, and groups with racial motivations, I personally cannot find a moral issue with the "enhancement" of the human species. We are reaching a point where we can optimize our own code. Genetic disease and weaknesses, ranging from a tendency towards obesity or alcoholism, to full blown mental disorders like bipolar disorder, or down syndrome could be eliminated completely.

Am I missing some down side here Dakka?

Well, in theory it's a wonderful idea because you could eliminate diseases like Huntington's Chorea in just about a single generation. However, classically, eugenics requires control over breeding, so it would require denying to some people a fundamental human right to have children.

That's my grey area. It's tough to weigh the pros and cons because they are both so heavy.

Everyone knows that the obvious answer is to implement the breeding practices in Huxley's Brave New World

Have any of you watched Gundum Seed and Gundum Seed Destiny? The show's whole arc is hate that is generated between "coordinators" and "naturals." It eventually ended with about four or five attempts at Genocide, and the gene tech that was used in the show pretty much got more and more weaponised as it progressed. For instance if one nation can field Space Marines and the other can't, even without their armour, it would become a pretty one sided fethfest.

But most of eugenics won't really matter anyways, as nano robotics and robotic enhancements are superior to organic ones in almost every way.

That said at least one Gene Therapy is already undergoing human trials in Canada and Europe. With good results so far according to the CBC.

So it'll be a three way war.

The normals

the designed (genetically improved humans)

and the machine human hybrids with cybernetic enhancements and nano bots filling their blood streams

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So it'll be a three way war.

The normals

the designed (genetically improved humans)

and the machine human hybrids with cybernetic enhancements and nano bots filling their blood streams

And then the machines themselves join in.

Welcome to the near-future.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So it'll be a three way war.

The normals

the designed (genetically improved humans)

and the machine human hybrids with cybernetic enhancements and nano bots filling their blood streams

And then the machines themselves join in.

Welcome to the near-future.

And people wonder why we all need guns?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So it'll be a three way war.

The normals

the designed (genetically improved humans)

and the machine human hybrids with cybernetic enhancements and nano bots filling their blood streams

And then the machines themselves join in.

Welcome to the near-future.

And people wonder why we all need guns?

Your guns are useless against my metal body.

Guns are plenty usefule against metal. If you have enough bullets . Now an incorporeal body. Good luck with that

 Cheesecat wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Skinnereal wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So it'll be a three way war.

The normals

the designed (genetically improved humans)

and the machine human hybrids with cybernetic enhancements and nano bots filling their blood streams

And then the machines themselves join in.

Welcome to the near-future.

And people wonder why we all need guns?

Your guns are useless against my metal body.

Knights in shining armor said much the same, see how that worked out for them eh?

We have plenty of portable enough weapons to punch through tanks and light armor...

But the cool things about nanobot armour is that it's self repairing. To get rid of it one has to actually remove the nanobots or go for the powersource.