|
|
#41 | |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 | |
|
FFR Player
|
I just wanted to bring up a certain point regarding parents choosing to genetically engineer their children to have the same disabilities. Yes, I can see why that could be a concern. Although there are other ways to create disabilities, mental disorders and the like in children, such as alcoholism and drug abuse during pregnancy, Shaken Baby Syndrome, and certain types of abuse. Considering the numbers of parents who would want deformities or disabilities, etc. in their children, this would be a very small problem in the grand scheme of things.
Regarding the cloning mini-discussion, I agree with devonin, and want to clarify for any who might still be confused. Say you and I have the same model of computer. It was produced exactly the same with exactly the same parts, etc. But we wouldn't trade computers, simply because we have different files on them, files we need. Over the course of the computer's "life", we write certain files to disk on it, perhaps rearranging, copying, or removing some of them. It's just like that in a human. Even if the cloning process reproduced an identical human at birth (which scientifically would be absurd), the environmental effects on human development would change the cloned human so much that they would be entirely different. It's the information about how to make it that's copied, not the actual human (or computer, in the metaphor). Quote:
__________________
One Handers Ranking List |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#44 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
However, there are some people who would argue that the Computer model itself is meant to be 100% unique. (But that's for religious reasons, so...lets stay away from there. ^_^) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 | ||
|
Private Messages, please.
|
Seeing as though I'm only thirteen it surprises me but we discussed this in school.
Genetic engeneering, from my standpoint, should only be done on animals for certain parts of a human body. Making ears on rodents and the removing them and shaving them to replace a humans lost ear is a lot easier than than waiting for a doner. To stay on the topic of having it on humans, it is the parents choice the change the child before birth. Whatever the parents want on their child they can have it. It's not the childs choice on what they want to look like. We talked about in school a "bad gene" in the bloodline. With genetic engineering we could take out the "bad gene" and never have offspring with it. Say the gene is dwarfism, with genetic engineering you could get rid of it and have a normal sized child. Then, to make the child even more appealing, they could change the natural attributes that the child would have had. This genetic engineering is too risky for us right now. We A) need better technology and B) have no prior knowledge of the effects on humans. With only animal testing available for study we can't acurately observe the human effects. That gets you into cloning then. You think What if we cloned a human and then tested it on humans. No flaws right? You might think so but I'm not sure if we have yet to clone humans. Tell me please if we have done any cloning. Genetic engineering is too risky for us right now so we should either scrap the idea as a whole or wait and research better technology. -o24
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#46 | |||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#47 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
__________________
last.fm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Resident One-Hander
|
Think of it this way. When guns are banned, criminals are more likely to go to gun-free areas right? Well, since guns are banned, there is nobody to stop them from, say, robbing a bank or hitting a house. Armed. Therefore, crime rates go up as criminals are more likely to commit crimes. While I'm not saying that's the absolute truth, but IIRC it has happened in several places.
P.S England is also banning Samurai swords just like guns, due to the number of violent incidences occurring with them. There was an article on it a few weeks ago, but I think it may have been deleted. ~Bynary Fission |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#50 | |
|
Resident One-Hander
|
Quote:
~Bynary Fission |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#51 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
Even tho we're now discussing two entirely different subjects at once. OH BOY! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
If someone wants to make a thread dealing with the relation of guns and gun control to crime, I can split off the relevant posts from here easily enough.
Otherwise, lets get back on topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 | |||
|
Private Messages, please.
|
Quote:
Who's to say we can't try this on a dead body before a liveing one as well. We could see the effects on a dead body and try to think of the different reactions a liveing body might have. Why can't we just go ahead and test it now, we have to have some bodies that are donated to science after death. This topic really comes down to what-if's. What if this and what if that. We could say what if about anything on this subject but never really know what may or may not happen. I'm not saying it should not be done, but we should have a better knowledge and know the risks before hardcore testing. -o24
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
A perfect willingness to subject humans to testing also does a really good job of silencing most objections to testing on cruelty to animals fronts, because one of their favourite techniques is to say "Everything that can feel pain should be treated the same with respect to enforced suffering, animals can feel pain, so can humans, so if you want to justify scientific experimentation on animals you have to justify experimentation on humans" with the hidden assumption that "You will of course, not agree that testing on humans is justified"
If your stance is instead "Yup, I would have to justify both of those, woudln't I" They tend to run out of legs to stand on pretty quickly. Question is, do we strictly wait for volunteers? Do we offer people with death sentences a chance to be commuted to life if they agree? Do we take a page from the olden days and conscript the insane and vegetables? Offer huge sums of money? If we're eventually going to -have- to test some of these things on humans, we owe it to ourselves to come up with a useful rubric of selection as early on as possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
In all honesty, I don't think the breakthrough in genetic engineering will occur in the United States due to our government's intervention and regulations. I think a place like China, with it's huge population, Godless leaders, and horrible environmental and human rights violations, is more of a prime location for such a breakthrough. Or perhaps, Switzerland. They are always doing crazy things over in Switzerland. Inventing LSD, riding bikes, building a machine that could possibly create a black hole underneath the Swiss-Franco boarder. They are crazy mothers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#56 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
If we do decide that we want to start testing genetic engineering on humans, I feel we should definitely go with the "commute sentences for participation" idea. The thought behind this being.."they're gonna die anyway, so why not die from some scientist's mistake?" The problem is..some guy will change his mind once he starts dying, and then say that it's "unnessesary(sp!) pain". Which brings me to my main feeling about most things. The stupidity of the average american will cause this to go down the drain. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#57 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Edit: Oh, I missed my 3,000th post sliding by...unfortunate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
FFR Simfile Author
|
I'm all for genetic engineering. It's an amazing idea, and the research that goes into it will inevitably go into forming other technologies that will do us a great amount of good from the knowledge gained.
I think all the extreme predictions of slippery slope and where it could go wrong is pure science fiction. On the most basic level, introduction of genetic screening to remove disabilities and increase the overall fitness of our population will do good for everyone. It's a benign form of eugenics, if you will. These will be basic things that are administered to everyone. However, we're not magically going to go from that to producing designer babies, super intelligent robot children etc etc. The reason is fairly simple: the ability to do this is so far away it's not even worth worrying about. For example, the ability to increase intelligence. There is no 'intelligence gene' and the genetic modification of intelligence is not going to be something possible for a very long time, as it is a product of an amazingly complex set of interactions between the genes and the environment. The same goes with a lot of other things. Sure, we can modify relatively basic things like eye color and hair color but to go as far as making the child a super model isn't going to be something money can buy through genetic engineering. Personally I don't see how anyone can reject removing genetic disorders from the gene pool, among other things that cause people grief. I think anyone that does is on cloud 9 and does not realize some of the terrible things people go through on a daily basis because something incredibly simple went wrong with the code. If we have the ability to change this, we should. I wish for all little boys and girls of this world to be born healthy with desirable attributes. Edit: The only problem with cosmetic engineering is potentially turning it into a business, but if it is something reasonable available to everyone then I don't see why it's a problem. We're never going to be able to make everyone look perfect and exactly the same. It doesn't work that way. We will still have a diverse population of unique individuals. If it is possible we should be able to endow people with desirable attributes, like nice facial features. Why not? We're not talking about making dolls, we're talking about giving out universally desirable attributes to everyone that most people take for granted, like nice teeth (assuming they have nice teeth). Why shouldn't all little girls be pretty? Do you know any that don't want to look good? What about men? That terrible jawline you have? Big nose that everyone makes fun of? Why do so many people today go through, often times terrible plastic surgery so they have more desirable attributes, like breasts, noses, hips? Obviously people are dissatisfied with features on their bodies. Might as well save them the pain and money. Either way don't plan on this being some sort of miracle process any time soon that starts popping out 'Paris Hiltons'. The premise would be to remove traits that are universally seen as undesirable, not to make a Ken and Barbie factory.
__________________
Last edited by Reach; 01-23-2008 at 09:03 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#59 | |||||||||
|
Private Messages, please.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
PS: First quote montage. -o24
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|