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.

I find this extremely fascinating, and even if we are completely opposed to using genetic alteration to make people more intelligent etc., I think it's amazing that one day science may have the knowledge to know how to do it.

The way I see it, genetic alteration could be amazing. Imagine how brilliant it would be to be able to say to someone with cystic fibrosis 'We can help you so you don't have to suffer, ' and then be able to stop them from suffering. On the other hand I am completely against the use of it to create "super beings." So obviously we need tight controls over its use.

Here's the problem: regulated or not technologies have a habit of getting into some very deep, very dark places. People with little morals and lots of money will get their paws on it, and then the box is open, law or no law.

Completely Free, for whatever use.

There will be divides in society- but they'll never, ever be related (at least not long term) by how people look or who they were born to. They will always be based on gaps of economics or education. And the world is heading towards a situation where every country is more like the US in terms of class mobility.

Basically, genetic modification can and should be used for everything. The cosmetic changes will lead to mutations and data that can allow for greater medical breakthroughs as they always have- and the vast majority of extreme genetic modification will either be 'extreme' only in terms of cosmetics (furries? Look up "Werewolf syndrome"). Anything that changes humans on a deep genetic basis- to make them 'not human' will not breed true. Those people will either breed to have Mules, sterile children, or they won't be able to have children with people of different genetic modifications at all- and though this may create new species or subspecies of Human, that fact itself will require us to then look at and legally define People not by their genetic code or species, but by other features- intelligence or sapience, perhaps- which will lead to a better world in general, I think.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:

That's playing god

No, its not. Its not even playing evolution. It will be possible, eventually, to design specific genes whose effects and interactions are mapped with 100% accuracy and which will fully work within the host genome. When that happens we can say that we are 'playing god' as only then will we be able to do anything more than fix mutations safely.

Humans don't have plasmids

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
@TheDraconicLord

There was a medical article once that stated that intelligence is influenced by how many connections can be formed between neurons in the brain. So yes, it might be possible to increase a person's base intelligence by using gene-alteration on genes that control nerve connections.

I see we're disregarding any semblance of reality in favour of having a "GUIZ! HOW C00L WUD IT BE IF WE CUD MAKE CAT PEEPL N ALL GET SMART" discussion.

If you would like to return to reality and talk about the moral implications of genetic alteration then please leave plasmids at the door.

Reality is boring, I want to know how to make my own personal team of x-men.

Just because we CAN do something, it doesn't necessarily follow that we should do that thing.

Having the knowledge to do something and the wisdom to determine when and where that knowledge should be used are two very different things.

I don't think it takes a great deal of judgment to look at cystic fibrosis, Down's Syndrome, or the myriad of much worse (and often fatal) genetic conditions and say 'yeah, let's get rid of that.'

If this were to happen, the system would be so horribly abused that it would probably end in disaster.

Genetic diversion is key to survival, so anything that reduces that would be bad in my books.

Not saying that it isn't a bad idea, but creating designer babies is not something I want to happen. Life should be spontaneous and surprise, not be thought out years in advance.

Besides, could you imagine the court cases if it were to mess up.


"You promised us a son with blonde hair, green eyes and an immunity to cancer. He has brown hair, blue eyes and some horrible form of cancer, you doctors have totally ruined our lives with this child that we didn't want!"

Well, that would be a fairly major case of Malpractice- after all, you're going to these professionals and paying them heaps of money, expecting that they know what they're doing and you're not at risk. If they screwed up that badly, then yeah, you should sue. It's like going to the doctor's to get your tubes tied, and instead having fertility treatments done to you.

Anvildude wrote:
Well, that would be a fairly major case of Malpractice- after all, you're going to these professionals and paying them heaps of money, expecting that they know what they're doing and you're not at risk. If they screwed up that badly, then yeah, you should sue. It's like going to the doctor's to get your tubes tied, and instead having fertility treatments done to you.

That is a good point.

 welshhoppo wrote:

Not saying that it isn't a bad idea, but creating designer babies is not something I want to happen. Life should be spontaneous and surprise, not be thought out years in advance.

It shouldn't? Then why bother sending our children to school where they're prepared for adult life? Why bother taking insurance plans, education plans, etc. when life should be spontaneous? There's no such thing; our (and our children's) place in society already depends on our ability to think and plan out our paths in life well before they happen.

Life, for Humans, is (or should be) about Control of the Future. It's how we managed to survive in an environment full of extreme weather and big hungry predators- we create clothes to prepare for tomorrow's weather, we make fires to prepare for the night, we store food to prepare for the winter. We make weapons and train to fight to prepare for predators (including other humans).

Most forms of 'subtle' genetic modification -Especially Intelligence Boosters- will be to prepare us better for the current world- higher metabolisms to counteract the instincts to eat as much as possible in times of plenty, which is now always. Enhanced focus to counteract a world with thousands of unique and new stimuli that our brains aren't designed to deal with. Utilizing the change of genetics and manipulation to replace the no-longer-effective Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest. The weak no longer die before they can have children- which means that our genetics are being dragged down- the vast majority of the desperate, heaving mass of the poor are being supported by those with properly developed morality, because we won't let them die. So, if death isn't going to cull the weak, we need to then make sure there are no longer any who are weak.

I want a gene that makes ta-ta's all D-cup or larger and another gene let's me eat all the Reeces Peanut Butter Cup Klondike ice cream bars I want without getting fat.

Let's do this!

Reese's Klondike bars are a thing?! I'm going to put on so much weight in the US.

Dude. They are fething awesome. You can get them at most grocery stores in 6-packs.

Sweet, I sampled the Reeses flavour of Ben & Jerry's while I was in Amsterdam last year and it was awesome. I was over the moon when they started selling the stuff in the UK a months later.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Down's Syndrome,'

Be careful, if you suggest stuff like that for down syndrome, it can get into the idea that you are discriminating against peoepe with down syndrome. I once suggested all pregnancies should be screened for that, but then I was told I was being discriminating and the DS kids have nothing wrong with them.

While I think eradicating conditions like Downs Syndrome might be something that would result in genetic tampering, it leads you into very dark areas about the worth of disabled people in general.

The suggestion does a disservice to the people who live their lives with their various conditions and function well within the community.

Has this thread been Godwinned yet?

Screw it, get your bingo cards ready!

You know there was already a really nice bunch of fellows that had some swell ideas about the disabled and genetic purity. They dressed quite sharply and had some strong right arms. I forget what they were called because they are so infrequently mentioned.

See, that's where Genetic Manipulation becomes very much a Grey area, instead of pure Black. You're not killing them. You're not preventing them from living the rest of their lives. In many cases, you're potentially allowing them to live a much more fulfilling and worthwhile life.

When a doctor sets a broken leg so that it heals properly, is that discrimination against everyone who's had a broken limb heal wrong, and so went through their whole lives unable to move as well, or in pain? When the Polio Vaccine became a thing, was that discriminating against those who had been crippled by the disease in their childhood?

What the Nazis did was, in the most basic sense of the word, genetic manipulation, yes- all eugenics are at their core just that, and selective breeding was how the science of genetics was born. But we don't cut people's legs off when they get shot anymore either.

Why stop there? Why not increase the number of rods and cones in the yes? Why not increase the number of nerve engines in the hands? Why not remove the genes that permit people to correctly produce and process myostatin? Why not, as someone mentioned earlier, make every man and woman *very* well endowed, sexually?


Once the genie is out of the bottle, he's very hard to put back in.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Why not, as someone mentioned earlier, make every man and woman *very* well endowed, sexually?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
make every man and woman *very* well endowed

 BaronIveagh wrote:
woman *very* well endowed

 BaronIveagh wrote:
woman

 Medium of Death wrote:

The suggestion does a disservice to the people who live their lives with their various conditions and function well within the community.

Why, if the objective is to eradicate genetic disability? Disabilities are called such for a reason.

One quite scary thing that this thing made me think is that what if bacteria that alters the subjects genes becomes widely available. That could have catastrohic or very good effects as people could be easily cured/made better or the bad option in which they could be made real monsters.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

The suggestion does a disservice to the people who live their lives with their various conditions and function well within the community.

Why, if the objective is to eradicate genetic disability? Disabilities are called such for a reason.

It wouldn't eradicate it for the people born with these disabilities though would it? Even stepping away from that point; how is this going to be distributed in a fair way?

If we are just assuming that this is a perfect cure all solution, that doesn't have any unforeseen consequences, and that it's implemented freely across the world then I don't have a problem with it. The reality is that it won't be and will only further discrimination.

 Medium of Death wrote:

It wouldn't eradicate it for the people born with these disabilities though would it?.

So?

Genetic treatments would be classed like any other medical treatment, that would mean that it would be available to everyone in the UK for example and rationed according to wealth in less enlightened countries..

 Palindrome wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

It wouldn't eradicate it for the people born with these disabilities though would it?.

So?

Genetic treatments would be classed like any other medical treatment, that would mean that it would be available to everyone in the UK for example and rationed according to wealth in less enlightened countries..

Once you have it it's spread to your children, and their children etc etc. Doesn't that have the potential to create another "class" in society? Obviously inoculations exist that aren't widely available to the world but they won't directly alter the future of the people that receive them. It ensures they won't die from a relatively common illness, but it doesn't make them "better" humans.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:

It wouldn't eradicate it for the people born with these disabilities though would it?.

So?

Genetic treatments would be classed like any other medical treatment, that would mean that it would be available to everyone in the UK for example and rationed according to wealth in less enlightened countries..

Once you have it it's spread to your children, and their children etc etc. Doesn't that have the potential to create another "class" in society? Obviously inoculations exist that aren't widely available to the world but they won't directly alter the future of the people that receive them. It ensures they won't die from a relatively common illness, but it doesn't make them "better" humans.

It makes them healthier though and I really can't see how removing dissabilities will ever be a negative thing.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
One quite scary thing that this thing made me think is that what if bacteria that alters the subjects genes becomes widely available. That could have catastrohic or very good effects as people could be easily cured/made better or the bad option in which they could be made real monsters.

That's not the scary thing- the scary thing is that bacteria mutate! There's no telling what they will do if they are released and propagate.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Why stop there? Why not increase the number of rods and cones in the yes? Why not increase the number of nerve engines in the hands? Why not remove the genes that permit people to correctly produce and process myostatin? Why not, as someone mentioned earlier, make every man and woman *very* well endowed, sexually?


Once the genie is out of the bottle, he's very hard to put back in.

There are serious negative side effects of not being to regulate myostatin. Also, if you plan on making every man well endowed, you'll be needing to adjust women so that it fits. When it doesn't fit, things aren't as fun in the bedroom. I should also mention that not every man is attracted to gigantic funbags. There needs to be diversity.

I don't see anything wrong with increasing everyone's resistance to disease, intelligence, resistance to physical damage, reflexes, strength, speed, and rate of healing on a universal scale. Sadly, this would never be applied on a universal scale and we would end up with several Khan Noonien Singhs running around and wreaking havoc on us mere mortals.

 Medium of Death wrote:

Once you have it it's spread to your children, and their children etc etc. Doesn't that have the potential to create another "class" in society?

No, because nothing is spread, quite the opposite given that the aim in this case is to fix faulty gene(s). In reality social classes tend to be porous over multiple generations, today's rich will be tommorow's poor, so creating a new genetic superclass isn't very likely.

I am totally in favour of this, and hope it happens in my lifetime.