Genetic Engineering. Moral or not?

[ThatMixedGuy]

Imagine, by altering an human embryo's genes in the parent, if we could engineer a person with 150 IQ, a charismatic personality, the attracivness of a model, and the height and muscle mass of an athlete. Many scientists believe genetic engineering is coming soon, but will we lose our diversity in the future? (Gattaca) I would also like to add that the with genetic engineering coming up in the next 50-100 years, would racial differences matter?

Looking even furthur into the future, will humans later direct their evolution?

[VV o n g B a]

this has been discussed, but whatever. asking if genetic engineering is moral is beside the point b/c its inherently neutral just like any other new technology or information. it only raises moral questions b/c its new.

eventually, ppl won't bat an eye at this kinda stuff b/c it'll be just like any modern engineering. if there is new tech available, u make sure u or ur offspring have it. some ppl will be early adopters, some will come later. but everybody is gonna get it eventually except for the genetic equivalent of quakers. the "genakers" will be looked on as quaint and visited as an oddity but largely forgotten.

as to whether ppl will direct their evolution? i don't think it matters. genes evolves much too slowly compared to memes. even if u had a plan to direct it, u'd have to be virtually immortal to see the results. how many ppl would care enuf about directing evolution if they were immortal? if there isn't a grand plan, it wouldn't be much different from what we do now by choosing our sexual partners and choosing how many children to raise.

and anyways, thinking about genes is thinking too small. unless u're adam or eve or have thousands of kids, ur genetic material will be extremely diluted in only a few generations. passing down a directly traceable and lasting meme however will ensure that thousands/millions/billions of ppl will carry a part of u versus the minute fraction of that that carries a couple of ur genes that prolly aren't that important anyways b/c everybody has access to genetic engineering.

i don't care much about my genes and they don't care much about me past the fact that we both need each other to procreate. if i don't care about procreation in the physical sense (and i don't, not much anyways), i don't need my genes. i'm intellectually liberated from their procreation agenda even if physically bound to a body that wants sex. even if i'm not liberated, memes and minds are still the most important replicators and replication vehicles b/c they'll have the potential to make a much bigger impact than my genes and my body. if ppl find a way to become immortal (i think we're heading that way), body or no body, genetic engineering becomes just a cosmetic tool or even less.

[Chinasaur]

Originally Posted by ThatMixedGuy

Imagine, by altering an human embryo's genes in the parent, if we could engineer a person with 150 IQ, a charismatic personality, the attracivness of a model, and the height and muscle mass of an athlete. Many scientists believe genetic engineering is coming soon, but will we lose our diversity in the future? (Gattaca) I would also like to add that the with genetic engineering coming up in the next 50-100 years, would racial differences matter?

Looking even furthur into the future, will humans later direct their evolution?

Oh man, there is so much literature on this topic. I think even Fukuyama had something to say about eugenics, even though it probably isn't really his area.

The biggest pro in this discussion is probably that genetic manipulation has the potential to "fix" stuff like cancer, debilitating lifelong syndromes, and all that. Similarly, some authors even claim that immortality may give humans the opportunity to understand more things in life, or better understand the things in life we think we already fully know.

The biggest con probably has to do with an erosion of biodiversity, like you said. There's a big possibility that parents would end up choosing very similar traits for their child, because they all share a similar concept of what the ideal child would be. Another ussue has to do with responsibility, as in who really deserves praise for their achievements if they are a result of gene selection--do you praise the man for hitting 100 home runs in a season, or the geneticist that "made" him?

This discussion is kinda difficult because you can't really vouch for eugenics by arguing for the pros while simultaneously restraining the cons, because it's the same technology and the same basic principle that leads to all the results.

I dunno...I'm just summing up the basic debate around this. I really don't have an answer to any of the questions. I can't help but feel a lean toward the side that opposes eugenics though.

[Broomer]

The question is can it be helped. In many respects, we've been genetic engineering involuntarily for centuries.

The only difference between then and now is that our techniques are more intrusive and the effects are more apparent.

My main concern is less to do with the biological result of these experiments these but more in terms of a social consequence that it might have us in this generation and the long term consequences we may have to face.

Broomer

[n3bulous]

Originally Posted by VV o n g B a

...

interesting, though it sounds like you've taken the view that that memes and genes are separate independent entities unto themselves, when in fact they would interact and be highly interdependent on each other, not so much physical/cosmetic/disease-curing genetic engineering, but more the intelligence enhancing GE. think about it, boost in brain power would lead to better, more effective, smarter memes with more lasting impact in the world. and those smarter memes in turn could lead to even further advances in intelligence enhancement, leading to better memes, leading to more genetic brain enhancement, leading to even better memes, ad infinitum.

damn i wish i had a time machine. would i even comprehend what i would see if i went forward 2000 years? 200000 years? what about a few decades just before the sun goes bloated red giant and swallows up the earth in 5 billion years? will we have a dyson sphere by then? ringworld, halo? will we even be around in 200 years, or will we have annihilated one another, or will the next big asteroid of death have taken us out already?

[Broomer]

Another can of worms is this: does smarter people make better people?
Especially when their abilities weren't evolved but given.
It's like building a system without scoping out what's required.

I'm not saying that it'll be a disaster but more often then not, something will be missed.

Broomer

[ThatMixedGuy]

Genetic engineering seems almost like a sure thing, something we will see in our lifetime. The European Union and China are all for it and are doing heavy research in the field. People are already claiming they have sucessfully created a genetically engineered human. Once a culture perfects it, every other culture is going to want it, for fear of lagging behind. Most experts think that many parents are going to want a geneticlly engineered child, so their child can get the full benefits of the future.

There are some negative aspects of too high IQ, such as past 140, IQ seems to correlate with introversion, lack of aggresivness. Some argue that if everyone wanted a child with 150+ IQs, we could be creating a race of submissive people. I don't think I'm offending anyone, since most people on this forum probably don't have near genius IQs.

Certain negative personallity traits, such as narcissm, racism, etc. may also be partially genetic, and we must also take this into consideration.

[Green_Jade]

All I have to say is...thank god GE wasn't a common place when I was born... 'cause I certainly would not have been made. :p

It the setting of Gattaca was our present, I'd be an in-valid... dang.

Some argue that if everyone wanted a child with 150+ IQs, we could be creating a race of submissive people.

Well... I'm sure if it's possible to engineer a child's IQ, you could also make sure they won't be introverted.

[VV o n g B a]

Originally Posted by Green_Jade

All I have to say is...thank god GE wasn't a common place when I was born... 'cause I certainly would not have been made. :p

It the setting of Gattaca was our present, I'd be an in-valid... dang.



Well... I'm sure if it's possible to engineer a child's IQ, you could also make sure they won't be introverted.

if GE was common, u prolly would still have been born. any genetic condition would simply have been corrected.

@ n3bulous: there may be some virtuous cycle of reinforcement. but in that case, we'd still be liberated from the gene's agenda. our genes want to propogate themselves, not other genes created by us. there may also be a point where it's more efficient to create non-biological modifications to the brain to increase processing speed than to mess w/ genetic modification.

also, now that i think about it, i misspoke earlier saying that directing evolution doesn't matter since we're heading towards immortality. if that point is ever approached, we'd certainly be affecting evolution simply by living since evolution is just about things surviving in their surroundings and not really about genetic change. there can be no higher goal in evolution than immortality.

[returntosender]

I don't know. I think GE would tend to stagnate competiveness in people. What drives evolution is not necessarily the goal of achieving perfection, but rather the need to be 'different' in a positive way so that you can edge over your fellow man. The 'struggle' is what it's all about.

I mean, ask yourself. What happens when man realizes that there is no higher level? That everything attainable has been attained and existence has hit a wall.

Everyday I think about how am i going to make more money, improve myself, make relationships, relate to people-but when all of these problems are weeded out then what is there to aspire to?

[ThatMixedGuy]

Well... I'm sure if it's possible to engineer a child's IQ, you could also make sure they won't be introverted.

Steve Jobs, the founder and CEO of Apple and Pixar, a man of average intelligence (in terms of IQ), and hardly knows anything about animation or computers, is one of the richest men in the world due simply for his charisma. Can you imagine if everyone, through GE, could alter their child to have a charismatic personality of a Ghandi, a Martin Luthur, a Buddha, etc. The world would be a very strange, maybe even scary, place.

I mean, ask yourself. What happens when man realizes that there is no higher level? That everything attainable has been attained and existence has hit a wall.

I say, that if there is ever an alien invasion (any species advanced enough to reach earth has probably been using GE for a long time), or we evolve to the point where we expand outside earth, I can imagine humans coming to a point where they insert their brains and organs into a mechanic (or biological) exoskeleton to achieve maximum strength, while still maintaining abnormal intelligence. I also imagine a more humanistic (but not wimpy) culture, considering we could weed out all the negative personality traits. I can never imagine a furthest point in evolution. There probably is, but I doubt we will look, or act, anything like our former selves.

[Broomer]

Originally Posted by returntosender

I don't know. I think GE would tend to stagnate competiveness in people. What drives evolution is not necessarily the goal of achieving perfection, but rather the need to be 'different' in a positive way so that you can edge over your fellow man. The 'struggle' is what it's all about.

I mean, ask yourself. What happens when man realizes that there is no higher level? That everything attainable has been attained and existence has hit a wall.

Everyday I think about how am i going to make more money, improve myself, make relationships, relate to people-but when all of these problems are weeded out then what is there to aspire to?

Hate to sound like a total meglomaniac but that's pretty much my point. The whole point of evolution is to allow a species to adapt to changing environmental conditions over time, so that those best suited to those environments would have the best chance of bringing up the next generation who in term who have a better chance at success as well.

There's something of a plan to it.

GE, by comparison, are people putting out spot fires.

Broomer

[DaMuo]

I think a more important aspect to consider is not the immediate results of genetic modification of humans, but how the people with modified genes are introduced into the gene pool in successive generations. Could we be inventing new genetic diseases and issues that should just not have been tampered with in the first place? i.e. let nature take its course rather than make erratic jumps in evolution?

[VV o n g B a]

Originally Posted by returntosender

What drives evolution is not necessarily the goal of achieving perfection, but rather the need to be 'different' in a positive way so that you can edge over your fellow man. The 'struggle' is what it's all about.

evolution indeed does not strive for perfection. but it also doesn't necessarily strive to be different. it simply strives to create a survival machine (such as us) that survives and propogates in its given environment. if being different means survival, then yes, it will favor being different.

there are lots of times where change is necessarily bad b/c of the survival strategies already employed by others in the environment. strategies in such states are called evolutionary stable strategies. if an environment has ess, it's simply not possible to employ a different strategy and survive.

GE changes the survival strategy equation between a survival machine and its genes. before GE, every machine is tied to its genes for as long as it lives. since every gene in a single survival machine shares an exit (sperm or egg), they must all cooperate w/ each other to ensure the machine gets to a stage where it can propogate. that's the given environment.

after GE, we'll have the ability to swap our genes and that drastically changes the enviroment. we're only going to keep those genes which we favor and replace the others. there's going to be a change in the gene's strategy and the change is going to be this: the survival of a gene will now depend upon its ability to impress us to propogate since they don't all share the same exit. they are subject to our memes. these genes don't necessarily have to cooperate b/c maybe we don't care if they cooperate (although it's pretty unlikely we'd want that). they'd have to cooperate directly w/a new player... memes. to a certain extent this already occurs (genes causes person to become a rockstar and groupies fuck rockstar b/c he's popular), but its pretty indirect. if a meme rose that said gene xyz is desireable b/c it gives abc phenotypic affect, the gene would prosper directly. if that meme went out of popularity, it's propogation would dwindle or cease.

so ... i kinda don't know why i got to this point. i was originally trying to show returntosender that selection doesn't occur at the level of an individual, but at the gene level. so his statement didn't make a whole lot of sense. but i don't think i ever got to that point and now i'm tired and i'm done.

[Green_Jade]

Originally Posted by VV o n g B a

if GE was common, u prolly would still have been born. any genetic condition would simply have been corrected.

too bad my genetic mishep is a spontanious mutation..

Ooops... it's GTAACATTCGAA! not GATACATTCGAA.. crap.