|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 19:58:29 GMT -5
In 100-level philosophy you do all sorts of boring topics like logic, reality, conciousness, etc. But when you get to 300-level, you get to study ridiculously cool stuff like robotics and genetic engineering. =D
So I wanted your opinions on the matter. :3 For this discussion you may assume that genetic engineering is availible, safe and has no implementation problems whatsoever. We are interested in germ-line engineering, the process by which an entire organism (usually a foetus) is injected with different genes in order to change them in any way conceivable.
Should we be using GE? If so, what restrictions should there be and how do we determine who gets to do what?
Go go go!
Sarn's opinion will come later. :3
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 20:10:42 GMT -5
Only to protect from hereditary diseases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 20:12:23 GMT -5
Only to protect from hereditary diseases. But why? What if we could create Superman? Would it be wrong to do so and why? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2012 20:22:42 GMT -5
Only to protect from hereditary diseases. But why? What if we could create Superman? Would it be wrong to do so and why? I think it would be wrong to do so because said child never said they wanted to be Superman. Plus, you're placing a burden on them since they'll be counted on all the time to save people and not be able to have an actual life. (I assume we're talking only pre-birth stuff. If a grown person decides they want superpowers that's a whole different story - first of all, find out what they plan to do with them.) |
|
|
|
Post by Gelquie on Jun 21, 2012 20:39:35 GMT -5
Only to protect from hereditary diseases. This. Only not so much protect as to just get rid of and do nothing more than that. I'm still considering things that may happen from an evolutionary standpoint. But as for other aspects... Yes, Genetic Engineering can become a very powerful force and can turn everyone into a superman kind of human, which can makes things much easier. But that just makes us just as likely to abuse that power. Countries without this technology could easily fall to the less altruistic countries just because of that sort of power. At the same time, I have a feeling that this kind of technology may be available in the future in one country or another, whether we like it or not, even if it's very far in the future. And in history, the winners tend to be the ones who take advantage of progress and innovation the most. Some countries/groups may not do anything hostile to other countries/groups with this power, but it'd be naive to ignore the ones that might. If we can create superhumans from genetic engineering, perhaps the best thing one could do is just be prepared. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2012 1:28:41 GMT -5
Only to protect from hereditary diseases. This. Only not so much protect as to just get rid of and do nothing more than that. I'm still considering things that may happen from an evolutionary standpoint. But as for other aspects... Yes, Genetic Engineering can become a very powerful force and can turn everyone into a superman kind of human, which can makes things much easier. But that just makes us just as likely to abuse that power. Countries without this technology could easily fall to the less altruistic countries just because of that sort of power. At the same time, I have a feeling that this kind of technology may be available in the future in one country or another, whether we like it or not, even if it's very far in the future. And in history, the winners tend to be the ones who take advantage of progress and innovation the most. Some countries/groups may not do anything hostile to other countries/groups with this power, but it'd be naive to ignore the ones that might. If we can create superhumans from genetic engineering, perhaps the best thing one could do is just be prepared. That's a very interesting, valid, pragmatic and somewhat depressing point. xD For the sake of argument let's say that genetic engineering is free for everyone, why is it so wrong to change a human being in some way? Is it the fact that they're being changed, or the nature of the change itself? Let's say an infertile couple uses IVF to create two embryos, only one of which can be implanted. Embryo A is healthy and strong and will in all likelihood grow up to be successful. Embryo B is disfigured, slow and sickly and would grow up with health complications and difficult social interactions. Which embryo should the doctor implant? Or does it even matter? |
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Jun 22, 2012 1:42:59 GMT -5
I'm gonna agree with the people above- it should pretty much be used only for diseases/crippling genetic disorders.
Even if you wave away the cost, there are always gonna be people who want to have kids the 'natural' way and let fate take its course, just like how there are poeple willing to give brith without an epidural, etc.
So then you have a 'normal' kid growing up in a class full of superkids. Kids that pretty much have been engineered to be better than them at any possible way whatsoever. It's a pretty depressing blow to the kid. XD It's almost peer pressure to make sure your kid is as good as other kids, and there's already enough of that in the world today what with education and living conditions and whatnot.
As for that example, if the couple was given a choice, wouldn't that be a no-brainer? It's like saying , 'Hey, A is pretty much all around better than B.' There's not much of a reason not to choose A, unless the couple wants BOTH of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2012 2:10:38 GMT -5
As for that example, if the couple was given a choice, wouldn't that be a no-brainer? It's like saying , 'Hey, A is pretty much all around better than B.' There's not much of a reason not to choose A, unless the couple wants BOTH of them. If the couple using IVF has an obligation to choose the child that's going to have the better life, why if we have the opportunity to enrich our children's lives through GE do we not have the obligation to do so? I don't necessarily agree with it, but the point I'm trying to make is that some people might argue that we have an obligation to select for the child that's going to have the best possible life. Has anyone heard of the marshmallow experiment? They stick kids in a room and put a marshmallow in front of them. They tell the kids they can eat the marshmallow if they want, but if the experimenter comes back in 2 minutes and the marshmallow is still there, the kids will get two marshmallows. Kids who are able to show restraint statistically end up with better lives, more successful, well rounded, etc. So what if I wanted to simply alter my child so they'd be a two marshmallower. Nothing major, no special powers. Would that be okay? I actually thought some people here might be a little more open to GE. xD I'm surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by Gelquie on Jun 22, 2012 2:41:53 GMT -5
That's a very interesting, valid, pragmatic and somewhat depressing point. xD I'm not always a very cheerful person. xD I made my statements on a more global standpoint sacrificing my personal thoughts on the matter. So as for my personal thought on the matter, I'm mostly of the philosophy that nature should just take its course. ...Enough so that even my position of curing hereditary things is rather tenuous. Especially when you consider things that really aren't that bad, and the fact that people could go overboard and "cure" something as small as OCD or something. There is also the evolutionary standpoint of nature being very good at weeding out that which can't survive so that stronger genes can live on. Meanwhile, humans are very prone to making mistakes, even subtle mistakes. So if we take control of genes, we could very well mess up, or get too cocky with being superhumans, and then suddenly something messes up and we become weaker. Mainly since evolution and genetics allowed variation and mutations, and sometimes that variation is just what's needed to survive something. Sure, there are bad mutations and variations. Some of them sadly die. But others can push through them and find other ways to adapt. Depends on the thing. On the other hand, getting rid of blatant physical problems like Huntington's Disease early on can probably promote the life of the person without having them die at age 30. (Though knowledge of a short life span can make one try to live their life to the fullest... It depends. In honesty, I kinda lean in favor of GE when it comes to blatantly bad physical problems.) Just some of my scattered opinions, though. They're not necessarily complete; I'm not majoring in biology or genetics. I'll honestly have to think on it more. Out of curiosity, Sarn, have you watched Gattaca? In it, humans have perfected genetic engineering and DNA identification. The movie focuses on the life of someone who was born completely naturally, and therefore is a victim of what became genetic discrimination. |
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Jun 22, 2012 2:50:09 GMT -5
XD Well, to what extent of modification are we talking about? First you said we could have Superman, now you said nothing major. I'm trying to get at what you're trying to say- basically, you're asking if the option to get our kids to show more restraint, for instance. Other examples would include being able to control their instincts, make wise decisions, etc. Am I right? ^^ I mean, maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way or something... but isn't this strongly linked to a nature vs. nurture debate? Logically, you could raise a child and teach them to show more restraint, etc. Some people are just more predisposed towards the other direction, but it's not like they're unteachable, or anything. XD There's also a an argument about being able to 'play God', but I don't think I'm qualified to give that argument.  I'd have more to say on it, but I think I'd rather wait for the discussion to progress furthur. And I don't think it's that we're NOT open to GE- some of us have already said it's a good idea when dealing with hereditary disorders or diseases, but that's because every child should grow up healthy. How successful they'd be is up to how the parents raise them and how the child themselves take on life. At least, that's my take on it. I think most of the responses here are more focused on the impacts on society rather than a personal choice. XD Unless you mean it as more of a 'If you could GE your child, would do so?' kind of debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2012 3:03:33 GMT -5
@glq, I haven't actually, I'll put it on my watching list. Gav, currently I don't have a singular point to make except to get people thinking. Sae said she thought GE was wrong, I asked if creating Superman would be wrong if Superman was needed to save the world. You and GLQ said big changes are wrong so I asked if small changes would be. My reasons for trying to argue against the points being made here is that GE is often stereotyped as an unnatural thing which is inherently bad. Which I don't really believe is the case. A lot of people's reservations are based on this idea that it would destroy "humanity", but humans have been adapting and changing for hundreds of thousands of years, and if we are given the chance to adapt again even if that chance is granted by technology, we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as "unnatural". I have a whole different argument about how nothing is really unnatural but I won't go into that today. xD I'm not saying I'm all for GE without limitation, but I can see a lot of potential. All men are not always born equal. One child will be born to a starving family in Africa while another will be born to rich Chinese businessmen and live a life of privilege. This whole sense of equality is false in the first instance. In the same way, one kid will be born to become a famous athlete, musician, scholar, etc, while the other will be born to work at KFC*. There isi no equality in birth and life. Though you're right, some of this is put down to the nature vs. nurture debate. * I have no disrespect for people who work at KFC. They make good chicken. <3 |
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Jun 22, 2012 3:10:31 GMT -5
I think Sae said she was okay with it being used for diseases, but I'm not going to speak for her. ^^ Well, to make a counterpoint, that's kind of how society ends up being. I apologize if it sounds mean, but even if we 'level' the playing field, you're still going to end up having people who are famous athletes and people working at KFC. By levelling it up, you make it harder to stand out, so there are still gonna be people doing this over other people, and we're going to need some people working below other people- you can't have a kitchen full of head chefs, for instance. And there are gonna be some people who are okay with not being in the spotlight, or having a modest life. Such is diversity. What we as a society would need to work on is the stigma of having a certain profession, I'd think. There should be nothing shameful about having to work as a certain profession. |
|
|
|
Post by Gelquie on Jun 22, 2012 3:43:46 GMT -5
I'm not saying that it has no potential and is 100% bad. (In fact, my stance on the subject isn't written in stone.) I'm just leery of it. And I'm leery of the chance that small changes could easily lead to bigger things in a slippery slope situation.
I already made my case on leeriness due to nature and evolution and stuff. I'll back up Gav in that society is another big reason. There's always going to be someone trying to one-up the other, and some of them do as much as they can to do that. And there has been collateral damage because of that. It doesn't stop it from happening, though.
As for equality, I use that word in a different sense in nature vs in society. In society, equality means everyone is treated the same, which is not necessarily the case in nature. In nature, I think of equality more as things balancing out, which can still definitely involve death and hierarchy of different species. In the case of GE, it could very well disrupt both senses of the term. Or it could only disrupt things socially, but then there crops up a problem in the superhuman genes or something.
I can see where you're going with the "nothing is unnatural" argument. Technically, it can be done, and if the technology were available it wouldn't necessarily be horrible and stuff. (I could be completely wrong on the biological consequences of GE.) I'm just saying it wouldn't be a good idea, given how much humans know right now. If we were handed the technology right now, we probably wouldn't know what we're doing upon using it. Science is definitely a good thing, but something like that is an area we need a lot more research on first before I'd consider it.
Though yes, some of this does go into the nature vs nurture debate. xD Although only kinda; I think that term tends to be used more towards the philosophy of raising children, not society as a whole. Though I can see how it'd apply. The cities around could probably attribute to the nurture side of the argument... Huh. I actually never thought of this. *Ponders.* But that's off-topic. xD I'll think more on it on my own.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 22, 2012 10:16:04 GMT -5
Personal viewpoint? I believe there is some moral and ethical considerations. I believe gene treatment would be good for curing malicious mutations, diseases, and other detrimental issues... But not for "improving the human race."
And that's due to my religious, moral, and ethical beliefs (which all intertwine).
But if I were to approach it from a viewpoint of pure science and evolution (a view I do not hold, for the record), then absolutely nothing is wrong with it. Humanity has conquered nature, evolution isn't a conscious force of nature or genetics... It's just the result of reproduction and what genes and mutations get passed on (with fit-for-survival genes eventually overtaking those that aren't).
Humanity regularly recreates nature to fit our needs and desires instead of dying out because we can't adapt. Or we use artificial means of adapting. Our normal genes get passed on. The concept of love and emotion allows for people who would be otherwise genetic dead ends and weeded out to reproduce easily while society props them up. We've stopped evolving as a species and stagnated. This is neither good nor bad, it just is.
If there's no higher moral authority, then there's no reason to say that genetic engineering is wrong. You may personally hold thoughts and feelings based on how it would come across, but those are likely based on context of society. And society changes and evolves a lot, with whatever the prevailing attitude is.
But objectively in such a circumstance, genetic engineering would just be the next step in human evolution as a species. And if other humans died out as a result of not being able to compete, if a race of genetic super humans came along and wiped out poorer countries and "natural" humans... That's nature.
No one that is homo sapien would want to roll over and let the species die out as a stronger one overtook, but there is no moral or ethical reason for it other than arbitrarily deciding that nature and evolution have no place in humanity anymore and we continue to conquer and supplant it.
So no, in that viewpoint, it's not wrong at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2012 16:24:52 GMT -5
Personal viewpoint? I believe there is some moral and ethical considerations. I believe gene treatment would be good for curing malicious mutations, diseases, and other detrimental issues... But not for "improving the human race." And that's due to my religious, moral, and ethical beliefs (which all intertwine). But if I were to approach it from a viewpoint of pure science and evolution (a view I do not hold, for the record), then absolutely nothing is wrong with it. Humanity has conquered nature, evolution isn't a conscious force of nature or genetics... It's just the result of reproduction and what genes and mutations get passed on (with fit-for-survival genes eventually overtaking those that aren't). Humanity regularly recreates nature to fit our needs and desires instead of dying out because we can't adapt. Or we use artificial means of adapting. Our normal genes get passed on. The concept of love and emotion allows for people who would be otherwise genetic dead ends and weeded out to reproduce easily while society props them up. We've stopped evolving as a species and stagnated. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. If there's no higher moral authority, then there's no reason to say that genetic engineering is wrong. You may personally hold thoughts and feelings based on how it would come across, but those are likely based on context of society. And society changes and evolves a lot, with whatever the prevailing attitude is. But objectively in such a circumstance, genetic engineering would just be the next step in human evolution as a species. And if other humans died out as a result of not being able to compete, if a race of genetic super humans came along and wiped out poorer countries and "natural" humans... That's nature. No one that is homo sapien would want to roll over and let the species die out as a stronger one overtook, but there is no moral or ethical reason for it other than arbitrarily deciding that nature and evolution have no place in humanity anymore and we continue to conquer and supplant it. So no, in that viewpoint, it's not wrong at all. That viewpoint is one of the main reasons I'm against it in terms of making people into superhumans. I think, instead of doing that, we should step back and let the other species on this planet get a little room. I've already seen pictures of glow-in-the-dark cats who were made that way unwillingly. We should just let those animals manage their own affairs (and plants, too). I also agree that the stereotypes and cliques that already happen in schools will be worsened by this. You are going to have superheroes surrounded by "normal" children who expect the poor kid to be their bodyguard, then you're going to have the "normal" child surrounded by superheroes, and that poor kid's going to feel quite inferior. I consider this to be something very wrong to instigate since I loathe prejudice/discrimination with a fiery passion, and that will undoubtedly happen to the latter child. And don't forget all those stories about the chosen ones who want nothing more than to live normal lives - the only character who doesn't seem to gripe about it is Harry Potter, other than the fact he doesn't want to be a killer. Do we really want that to happen in this world, too? Because that will happen to the superheroes of the world. Their lives will be nothing but heroics, and they'll have no time to themselves. Also, power can corrupt, and I think power plus the pressure is only going to speed up the corruption. |
|
Furgo 
Michael. 
