Genetic Engineering

[devonin]

And as you sit here on a computer, on the internet, communicating with people from all over the world, you can say "If there is any potential to use technology for harm, we should simply never advance the technology" with a straight face?

Man, governments have used the discovery of bronze to make all kinds of weapons, and used them to invade other nations, and kill countless people, we really should have stuck with stone.

[MalReynolds]

But stone would have only prolonged the inevitable wars, because of all the head bashing and repeated bludgeonings that would have gone on.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by MalReynolds

But stone would have only prolonged the inevitable wars, because of all the head bashing and repeated bludgeonings that would have gone on.

Er...yes. I was trying to point out the absurdity of claiming "Because I can see a consequence that could occur that I don't like, we should simply never do this ever"

Argumentum Ad Consequentiam is a logical fallacy where you claim that X may lead to Y, and Y is something you don't like, thus X is wrong. But not liking something personally doesn't constitute proof that it is wrong or even that it is bad.

[MalReynolds]

Oh, I know. I was just being funny.

[atalkingcow]

Originally Posted by devonin

Er...yes. I was trying to point out the absurdity of claiming "Because I can see a consequence that could occur that I don't like, we should simply never do this ever"

Argumentum Ad Consequentiam is a logical fallacy where you claim that X may lead to Y, and Y is something you don't like, thus X is wrong. But not liking something personally doesn't constitute proof that it is wrong or even that it is bad.

Alright, you caught my logical fallacy.

However, I don't like genetic engineering on its own.

The main reason being, while we can say that the fetus has no rights, and can be freely modified, that fetus will grow into a human being.

The minute that fetus is born as a human baby, we have infringed upon it's basic rights, by either predisposing it to a certain lifestyle and removing part of its free will, or by causing some sort of physical modification intentionally.

I dunno though, so i'm going to remove myself from this arguement for the time being, as all of my arguements are entirely hypothetical.

[devonin]

The minute that fetus is born as a human baby, we have infringed upon it's basic rights, by either predisposing it to a certain lifestyle and removing part of its free will, or by causing some sort of physical modification intentionally.

No no this is good. Don't stop posting.

The question this raises then is: To what extent should/could/ought we to grant rights to "potential people"? I mean, a fetus is one thing because all things being equal, we know exactly how and when it is going to develop until eventually it becomes a human we grant rights to, but what about the potential life beyond that?

Ought we to consider the long-term consequences of actions because of how they might effect unborn generations of people? How far ahead? If we can develop a method of genetic engineering that say, gives humans a perfect immune system, but in 20 years everyone will be sterile, ought we to do it? What if it would take 100 years? 1000? 1,000,000? Is there some point where we can say "The long-term consequences are so long term that we don't need to consider them"?

[atalkingcow]

Originally Posted by devonin

No no this is good. Don't stop posting.

The question this raises then is: To what extent should/could/ought we to grant rights to "potential people"? I mean, a fetus is one thing because all things being equal, we know exactly how and when it is going to develop until eventually it becomes a human we grant rights to, but what about the potential life beyond that?

Ought we to consider the long-term consequences of actions because of how they might effect unborn generations of people? How far ahead? If we can develop a method of genetic engineering that say, gives humans a perfect immune system, but in 20 years everyone will be sterile, ought we to do it? What if it would take 100 years? 1000? 1,000,000? Is there some point where we can say "The long-term consequences are so long term that we don't need to consider them"?

Oh God no!
At no point in time should we decide that "the long-term consequences are so long-term that we don't need to consider them"!

Consequences are consequences, and often times, the longer it takes to arrive, the worse it is.

However, assuming we made the entire planet sterile, we could always resort to mass cloning...but then we might end up like the Asgard.(HOORAY FOR NERDS!)
Personally, I want the human race to avoid genetic engineering as a whole, but that's simply because I don't trust us to know when to draw the line.
Assuming we reached the point where we could pretty much do whatever we wanted to feti (real word?) through engineering, I personally believe we would end up with a "Brave New World" situation.

And as for the rights of a fetus as a future person...

If the general idea is for the fetus to survive to become a human being, then I think you owe the human being that WILL exist (because you are going to let it) the same rights as any other human being who already exists.
In this sense, genetic engineering could be considered willful mutilation.

However, an exception would have to be made in the case of abortion, otherwise, abortion would be murder.

Basically, we're stuck in a moral quandry, and the only solution is to place strict and unyeilding rules/laws on all attempts at genetic engineering.

Another thought that occurs to me as I sit waiting for my mom's car to get fixed...

If we made the alterations in such a fashion that they could be removed later in life by the altered human, then I don't really see a problem.
However, removal would have to be free of charge, so that there are no possible obstructions to the removal.

And of course, gen-en would only be available to the rich, which would only re-enforce our thinly veiled class structure. HyperIntelligent Rich folks immune to all disease...and regular...dumb...poor.....peasants, sick and wallowing in the dirt. Hooray?

I'm out of thoughts, and Hate posting essays, so I'll come back later after someone addresses these.

[FabulousAndy]

i think that the parents are allowed to do whatever they want with the baby/fetus. the sperm and egg belonged to both the mother and father, and the fetus hasnt been born yet so it has no rights, so the baby/fetus belongs entirely to the parents before it is born. so they should be able to do whatever they want with it.

[atalkingcow]

Originally Posted by FabulousAndy

i think that the parents are allowed to do whatever they want with the baby/fetus. the sperm and egg belonged to both the mother and father, and the fetus hasnt been born yet so it has no rights, so the baby/fetus belongs entirely to the parents before it is born. so they should be able to do whatever they want with it.

While this is technically, legally true... The fetus will turn into a Human being, who is owned by him/herself, and the mother no longer has control/ownership over it. The main issue with your statement is that, while the fetus is -currently- the legal property of the mother, it will not always be, so you have to be careful about any permanent changes you make to it.

[FabulousAndy]

what you say is true, but until it IS a human being, it is still owned by the parents, so they should be able to do what they want.

[atalkingcow]

Originally Posted by FabulousAndy

what you say is true, but until it IS a human being, it is still owned by the parents, so they should be able to do what they want.

Alright.... But think of it this way.

If YOUR parents had decided ,while you were still a fetus, to alter you so that you would be born with 3 eyes, 15 fingers, and without any sexual organs, don't you think you would be just a weeee bit pissed off today?

So while it's true that (at least legally) the fetus is the legal property of the mother, if she plans to carry that fetus long enough for it to become a human baby, then she -MUST- consider the fact that any alteration to this fetus will affect, majorly, the course of the life of a real, live, human individual.

In essense...(sp?) she would not really just be affecting a fetus, but a "future person" ie: a person who -WILL- be created, willfully and by her direct actions. The difference between this and abortion being, with abortion, there is no "future person", as there was never any willfully, deliberate intent to create said person.


As I said before, this all leads to a very shady moral area, and there really seems to be no black and white on this one.

(I seem to be writing essays on this one....I must really be interested!)

[devonin]

I'm curious where you've gotten the idea that a fetus is "the legal property of the mother"

I'm pretty sure that no account is made at all as far as ownership of a fetus, any more than you would have to talk about whether you had legal ownership of a kidney. If you fell victim to the kidney-stealing bathtub-of-ice urban legend, the person responsible, if caught, is almost certainly not going to be charged with theft of property so much as assault.

If there were an actual physical ownership, that would really -really- be a strong argument towards making abortion mandatorialy legal in all cases in all places. If the thing is mine to do with as I please there is NO question whatsoever of the legality of doing what I want with it/to it.

This would make the same thing be true of genetic engineering. I can do what I want with my stuff, except insofar as we give explicit additional rights to something even if owned. But this would make negative tampering with a fetus' genetics more akin to animal cruelty than anything else.

[jewpinthethird]

Imagine. You are a thirteen year-old, blind in one eye, semi-retarded dwarf. Your little dwarf dad walks in, struggles his way up the side of the bed, sits down, looks you in the one good eye and says, "Son, we had the option to make you a person of normal stature, who was intelligent with good depth perception. You could have been healthy. You could have been able to play football, and ride bikes and roller-coasters. But we decided just to accept you for who you are. We thought it was the moral thing to do."

How would you feel?

Is it perhaps, immoral not to help foster a healthier future. If, at the very least, to ensure the survival of our species in a turbulent world. Just a hypothetical.

[atalkingcow]

Originally Posted by devonin

I'm curious where you've gotten the idea that a fetus is "the legal property of the mother"

I read/watched it somewhere talking about abortions... I'll try to find a more credible source than my hazy recollection of a show I wasn't remotely interested in. ^_^

And jewpin, if my parents did something like that to me, I would kill them.

[SaSSyBiiTcH]

Originally Posted by atalkingcow

Oh God no!
At no point in time should we decide that "the long-term consequences are so long-term that we don't need to consider them"!

Consequences are consequences, and often times, the longer it takes to arrive, the worse it is.

EXACTLY!
Well, I think any kind oh genetic engineering would result in pure chaos in the aftermath. That post about parent being able to 'give their child that disability' ...to me is totally bonkers. Why take a soon to be , perfectly healthy child? Why would they want that? What is that going to do or prove for them or society? If it had some sort of medical purpose, I'd ponder it more, but still disagree. Atucally it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

And I've heard & read things such as: 'Some scientists are developing ways for an expecting couple to choose the SEX, HAIR COLOR, & EYE COLOR of their UNBORN CHILD. (& is already being done).

Even THIS isn't as drastic as 'making the child have the same disabilty as the parent'...
But step back and look at it; If all of us, when we have kids, get to choose the SEX..(forget the rest) of our unborn child ; In some point & time in the future this is going to totally mess up our population which is going to result into who knows what.
Hair color & eye color as well! So in like 2060 everyone will look like Paris Hilton ...HOW THRILLING.

When people take NATURE into their own hands, something always goes wrong. It's all wrong & I see no logic in it
Ex: Most genitically altered animals, DIE YOUNG & HAVE SEVERE HEALTH PROBLEMS.[but they BARELY tell us THAT]

Cloning,--unless there's some medical reason or scientific study reason...
I don't see a point in the main idea of that either
*sorry about the long post but I've talked about this alot with my friends & family since i found out about it & I'm intrested in it as well*

[devonin]

I'm curious to hear the actual reasons behind why you think cosmetic engeineering us a) bad and b) would result in everyon looking the same. If anything, the ability to effect cosmetic changes genetically would almost certainly increase variance in the way people generally look.

I mean, there are other reasons I could cite to suggest that it isn't a good plan, but I'm not sure how strongly I support the ones you provided.

With respect to genetically altering animals, we can and do already do this via natural processes of selective breeding that are functionally eugenics. I'm not entirely sure how much, if at all, this is going on through genetic engineering, such that your use of the phrase "most genetically altered animals" might potentially apply to a miniscule number if any actual animals.

As for cloning, "I don't see the point" works perfectly well for why you personally don't prefer the idea, but you'll need to provide some reasoning that is a little more in depth if you expect anybody else to go along with your views. The simple answer is, yes, there are, can and will be medical and scientific study reasons to look into cloning technology, so does that mean in those cases you would consider it to be a valid thing to do? Or not even in spite of those?

[jewpinthethird]

Originally Posted by SaSSyBiiTcH

EXACTLY!
Well, I think any kind oh genetic engineering would result in pure chaos in the aftermath. That post about parent being able to 'give their child that disability' ...to me is totally bonkers. Why take a soon to be , perfectly healthy child? Why would they want that? What is that going to do or prove for them or society? If it had some sort of medical purpose, I'd ponder it more, but still disagree. Atucally it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever read.

You read it wrong, SaSSyBiiTcH. I was arguing in favor of genetic engineering as a means to correct disabilities, such as dwarfism or Down's syndrome.

And I've heard & read things such as: 'Some scientists are developing ways for an expecting couple to choose the SEX, HAIR COLOR, & EYE COLOR of their UNBORN CHILD. (& is already being done).

Even THIS isn't as drastic as 'making the child have the same disabilty as the parent'...
But step back and look at it; If all of us, when we have kids, get to choose the SEX..(forget the rest) of our unborn child ; In some point & time in the future this is going to totally mess up our population which is going to result into who knows what.
Hair color & eye color as well! So in like 2060 everyone will look like Paris Hilton ...HOW THRILLING.

Designer babies. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if that power got into the hands of the general public...but I imagine the process would be extremely costly and limited to the very wealthy. fancy car, big house, designer clothes, designer baby...yes, this man has it all!

Oh, and Paris Hilton probably has her genetic sequence patented already. You should try patenting yours before the government takes over our right to breed without having to pay royalty fees and deal with Bureaucracy.

When people take NATURE into their own hands, something always goes wrong. It's all wrong & I see no logic in it
Ex: Most genitically altered animals, DIE YOUNG & HAVE SEVERE HEALTH PROBLEMS.[but they BARELY tell us THAT]

1. It's pretty well documented and reported on in the media when a cloned animal dies.
2. Taking nature into our own hands? No, we create our own nature, as humans. I'm pretty sure you are comfortable in your man made house with your man made computer and man made air-conditioning/centralized heating. I bet you enjoy watching your television, and driving your car on paved roads.

Cloning,--unless there's some medical reason or scientific study reason...
I don't see a point in the main idea of that either
*sorry about the long post but I've talked about this alot with my friends & family since i found out about it & I'm intrested in it as well*

The cloning of body parts would be a godsend for the medical community. No longer would people have to wait for organ donors, or worry about their transplant being rejected. Cloning humans, I don't really see the point. The ethical issues surrounding it range from hilarious to bizarre. But ultimately, while the clone would retain certain physical traits and personal traits, it would still be a different person due to environmental factors.

[Relambrien]

If anyone here has seen the movie Gattaca, it describes the potential effects of genetic engineering quite well.

As an example, we mustn't forget what can happen if engineering becomes mainstream. Some people will still choose not to engineer their children. What happens to them, since they're different from the norm? Will a new breed of racism develop, towards those who are less-than-ideal because they're "natural?"

As I see it, there are a few types of possible genetic engineering:

1) Cosmetic engineering
2) Deficiency engineering
3) Proficiency engineering

The first alters only visible physical traits, with completely superficial effects. Deciding hair and eye color, etc. The second would be finding and removing certain deformities or deficiencies, such as Down's syndrome. The third would be like what the movie Gattaca describes: altering a fetus so as to make it as perfect as possible (tall, high metabolism, intelligent, whatever).

Personally, I'm completely in favor of deficiency engineering. If we have the method to prevent a deformity or some crippling effect, then deciding not to use it would almost be a crime (similar to negligence). The goal of medicine is to keep people as healthy as possible for as long as possible, and deficiency engineering is completely in line with that philosophy.

Proficiency engineering is debatable, but I have a feeling that the current society would be against it. It's almost like cheating in that nothing is left to chance to determine the baby's initial attributes. Imagine you're playing Dungeons and Dragons, and you randomly pick initial stat assignments. That's the "natural" process. Proficiency engineering would be like putting 13 into everything (or whatever the max is, I forget). But then it can be argued that by not giving the child every chance they could have, the parent is endangering it. It's quite complicated.

Cosmetic engineering is similar. While it would only impact the person's appearance, appearance can be a very important thing. I imagine most women would want their daughters to be blond, because that's the "pretty" hair color. In both sexes, colors like red would be avoided. Whatever the societal trend is at the time will dictate what cosmetic engineering takes place.

[SaSSyBiiTcH]

Originally Posted by devonin

I'm curious to hear the actual reasons behind why you think cosmetic engeineering us a) bad and b) would result in everyon looking the same. If anything, the ability to effect cosmetic changes genetically would almost certainly increase variance in the way people generally look.

Why would you think it would create variance? You could be right , that could be a strong point but donesn't todays society have a basic 'standard' that if they could change the way they look : a) most likely thinner b) taller) etc. they would? Thankfully most of us are individual headstrong people who don't want to copy the media & 'what looks good'. Paris Hilton was just a random example of cosemetic genetic altering at it's worst. I said that to a friend & he laughed so I thought it was humorous.
Im just saying that in my opinion it will be taken too far & Im taking a guess that we will TOTALLY loose the variance if any.

such that your use of the phrase "most genetically altered animals" might potentially apply to a miniscule number if any actual animals.

Well to my defense thats how my old biology teachers explained it. Yes I DO believe that there are some subtle benefits to it, but none the less...isn't it or won't it become risky or if not more risky in the long run? Are the consequences in the future being taken into consideration?

As for cloning, "I don't see the point" works perfectly well for why you personally don't prefer the idea, but you'll need to provide some reasoning that is a little more in depth if you expect anybody else to go along with your views.

Yes for medical purposes...but I don't feel at this point it's safe to say that one day in the far future cloning 'won't' get out of hand...
Ex: Let's say it's 2070 & we're cloning for medical reasons & we're all used to it by now...you know eventually it will be taken out of hand & used for the wrong reasons. Well thats how I feel at least.
Ex2: Guns. Guns are legalized. We took that power as a whole, & totally took advantage of it. Look at all the violence.

Yes im comparing every day 'JOE' to a scientist but Im speaking of the human race as a whole. If we get ot develop too much power...we loose control of it & it comes back to slap us in the face.

You read it wrong, SaSSyBiiTcH. I was arguing in favor of genetic engineering as a means to correct disabilities, such as dwarfism or Down's syndrome

I apologize. In a nutshell, Still I honestly & morally find that cruel to reduce the quality of life of your child.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by SaSSyBiiTcH

Thankfully most of us are individual headstrong people who don't want to copy the media & 'what looks good'.

Then how can you argue that we'd all use cosmetic engineering to make our kids look exactly the same?

but none the less...isn't it or won't it become risky or if not more risky in the long run? Are the consequences in the future being taken into consideration?

Why would it become risky all of a sudden if it wasn't already risky?

Ex: Let's say it's 2070 & we're cloning for medical reasons & we're all used to it by now...you know eventually it will be taken out of hand & used for the wrong reasons. Well thats how I feel at least.

No, I don't know that it will eventually get out of hand. You don't have any way to actually prove that at all. You're also making an argument from consequences, where because you -think- that A will lead to B, and you think that B is bad, you want to say that A is bad. But since you can't prove that B and only B will happen, and you haven't really proven that B is actually bad for everyone, you haven't proved that A is bad.

Ex2: Guns. Guns are legalized. We took that power as a whole, & totally took advantage of it. Look at all the violence.

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. You're looking at guns, and a lot of violence and claiming that guns are responsible for the large amount of violence. Switzerland has mandatory military service for all citizens, everyone in the country has a military rifle and the training to use it, and they have one of the lowest crime rates on earth.