Genetic engineering and eugenics.

[Xenolar]

It seems to me that the valuation of sex is a basic prerequisite of the perpetuation of human existence, and therefore, an essential prerequisite of all subsequent human values. Individually disliking sex or finding no joy in it is of course not problematic, but the idea that the act itself is on the whole some mark of idiocy is not rational. Eh?

Yes, I would have assumed that people would be rather skeptical of my sex opinions. I very well acknowledge the fact that without sex, neither of us would be here right now. However, I do not believe sex is any longer necessary. I promote the artificial production of humans. I do, in fact, support eugenics. Humans produced would be genetically engineered to be optimum individuals. Through this method, the unnecessary act of sex and all that accompanies may be abolished. Genetic flaws will cease to exist. This is the future that I promote.

[Paul V]

Yes, I would have assumed that people would be rather skeptical of my sex opinions. I very well acknowledge the fact that without sex, neither of us would be here right now. However, I do not believe sex is any longer necessary. I promote the artificial production of humans. I do, in fact, support eugenics. Humans produced would be genetically engineered to be optimum individuals. Through this method, the unnecessary act of sex and all that accompanies may be abolished. Genetic flaws will cease to exist. This is the future that I promote.

Oh, dear. Oh, my. That is quite shocking. Why would you want mankind to take over Evolution's work? Only for the sake of perfection?

[Xenolar]

Oh, dear. Oh, my. That is quite shocking. Why would you want mankind to take over Evolution's work? Only for the sake of perfection?

Yes, for perfection.
Indeed, it does go against the natural process of evolution, but who cares? It will benefit the advancement of society.

[Paul V]

Yes, for perfection. Yes it goes against the natural process of evolution, but who cares?

I believe there quite a lot of people that brought death and suffering for that same ideal. How far would you be willing to go to achieve that goal?

[Xenolar]

I believe there quite a lot of people that brought death and suffering for that same ideal. How far would you be willing to go to achieve that goal?

I assume you are referring to Adolf Hitler. I am by no means suggesting anything similar (I am of Russian-Jewish decent, and have had many relatives die because of him). Hitler was all about ethnic cleansing and racial "purification," all of which was unscientific nonsense.

My plan is for sexual reproduction to simply cease.
Then, the genes of the most optimum pre-existing members of global society will be used to create a better world. There will be a constant monitoring of genes. Genetic engineering will be used as much as possible to remove flaws.

[Paul V]

I assume you are referring to Adolf Hitler. I am by no means suggesting anything similar (I am of Russian-Jewish decent, and have had many relatives die because of him). Hitler was all about ethnic cleansing and racial "purification," all of which was unscientific nonsense.

My plan is for sexual reproduction to simply cease.
Then, the genes of the most optimum pre-existing members of global society will be used to create a better world. There will be a constant monitoring of genes. Genetic engineering will be used as much as possible to remove flaws.

I am not refering to him, nor have I said "enormous amount of death and suffering". I simply said there were people like you, obsessed with their ideal of perfection, willing to harm others (or let harm come to them), and sacrificing everything and everyone, only for their unrealistic, misanthropic dream.

What is the big deal with sexual reproduction? If they are perfect, and they have perfect genes, then sexual reproduction will allow them to spawn more perfect creatures without spending all the resources required when you "create" an eugenic.

[stasis]

Yes, I would have assumed that people would be rather skeptical of my sex opinions. I very well acknowledge the fact that without sex, neither of us would be here right now. However, I do not believe sex is any longer necessary. I promote the artificial production of humans. I do, in fact, support eugenics. Humans produced would be genetically engineered to be optimum individuals. Through this method, the unnecessary act of sex and all that accompanies may be abolished. Genetic flaws will cease to exist. This is the future that I promote.
It seems to me that the only good reason to expend resources on the prohibition of a behavior is that behavior being cumulatively deleterious to the ongoing adaptability and expansion of social function on the whole. Aside from reproduction, is not the act of sex socially useful both as a bonding ritual as well as recreation? And the former can reinforce social coherency at the small-scale, while the latter can inspire. No? I am not at all opposed to genetic engineering, but I do not see a reason why this engineering can not be applied to existing methods of reproduction with the same degree of theoretical effectiveness.


Oh, dear. Oh, my. That is quite shocking. Why would you want mankind to take over Evolution's work?Indeed, it does go against the natural process of evolution, but who cares?
I disagree with both of these statements. The human intellect is a naturally arising function of evolution; tool-making, for example, has evolved in many species because it is successful behaviour. The general application of an intellect to the physicality of the body and the environment is an evolved mechanism, and therefore a direct function of evolution. I do not immediately understand how we can rationally conclude that things like genetic engineering are somehow extraevolutionary endeavors, let alone contraevolutionary in any fundamental way. That kind of conclusion would seem to require an appeal to a human/nature dichotomy that does not exist.

[Xenolar]

What is the big deal with sexual reproduction? If they are perfect, and they have perfect genes, then sexual reproduction will allow them to spawn more perfect creatures without spending all the resources required when you "create" an eugenic.

They would not continue to be perfect because genetic abnormalities are the result of errors that occur during sexual intercourse as well as an bad mixing of genes. If the creation of humans results from the meticulous artificial on-goings in a genetics laboratory, it is more likely to be flawless. Also, humans select their sexual partners off personal reasons. They don't look into the DNA-sequences, mathematical probability, and the like when engaging in intercourse. However, scientists will be able to match genes for the optimum result.

Lastly, there are a number of problems resulting from sexual intercourse, largely emotional and psychological. With the elimination of sexual intercourse comes the elimination of these accompanying negative factors.

[Paul V]

I disagree with both of these statements. The human intellect is a naturally arising function of evolution; tool-making, for example, has evolved in many species because it is successful behaviour. The general application of an intellect to the physicality of the body and the environment is an evolved mechanism, and therefore a direct function of evolution. I do not immediately understand how we can rationally conclude that things like genetic engineering are somehow extraevolutionary endeavors, let alone contraevolutionary in any fundamental way. That kind of conclusion would seem to require an appeal to a human/nature dichotomy that does not exist.

You mean that just because we're able to kill/harm other people we should be able to excersise that right indiscriminately?





Paul V added to this post, 2 minutes and 18 seconds later...

They would not continue to be perfect because genetic abnormalities are the result of errors that occur during sexual intercourse as well as an bad mixing of genes. If the creation of humans results from the meticulous artificial on-goings in a genetics laboratory, it is more likely to be flawless. Also, humans select their sexual partners off personal reasons. They don't look into the DNA-sequences, mathematical probability, and the like when engaging in intercourse. However, scientists will be able to match genes for the optimum result.

Lastly, there are a number of problems resulting from sexual intercourse, largely emotional and psychological. With the elimination of sexual intercourse comes the elimination of these accompanying negative factors.

If the genes achieve a state of perfection, in which only favourable genes remain in the people's gene pool, then intercourse cannot change that. If all the genes of a person are desirable (no flaws), and all the genes of another person are that way too, then no combination of those genes can be harmful. And by allowing people to sexually reproduce outweights the costs of laboratory engineering.

[stasis]

You mean that just because we're able to kill/harm other people we should be able to excersise that right indiscriminately?
Where do you read me saying anything about killing or harming people?

[xhaan]

They would not continue to be perfect because genetic abnormalities are the result of errors that occur during sexual intercourse as well as an bad mixing of genes. If the creation of humans results from the meticulous artificial on-goings in a genetics laboratory, it is more likely to be flawless. Also, humans select their sexual partners off personal reasons. They don't look into the DNA-sequences, mathematical probability, and the like when engaging in intercourse. However, scientists will be able to match genes for the optimum result.

Lastly, there are a number of problems resulting from sexual intercourse, largely emotional and psychological. With the elimination of sexual intercourse comes the elimination of these accompanying negative factors.


Not everyone goes for this, (in fact I think most people currently would tend to NOT want this) therefore, it would be oppressive, making you a dictator. Perhaps in your mind a benevolent dictator, but still a dictator.

Edit:
Furthermore, people are GOING to have sex, even if you illegalize it. Unless you have everyone physically steralized (they still carry live eggs/sperm to use for the lab, but the external organs are removed/paralyzed).

What will you do with these people that have sex? Put them in jail? Abort their babies? Both? Segregate them/their offspring from the rest of the population?

[Paul V]

Where do you read me saying anything about killing or harming people?

It was an example of an ability we've acquired from nature that we are not supposed to use indiscriminately.

[stasis]

It was an example of an ability we've acquired from nature that we are not supposed to use indiscriminately.
Where do you read me saying anything about the indiscriminate use of anything at all?

[Paul V]

Where do you read me saying anything about the indiscriminate use of anything at all?

The human intellect is a naturally arising function of evolution; tool-making, for example, has evolved in many species because it is successful behaviour.

So is killing.

The general application of an intellect to the physicality of the body and the environment is an evolved mechanism, and therefore a direct function of evolution.

You are saying that attempting to hasten evolution has been something that we've developed through evolution, and since it's natural, it shouldn't be supressed or oppose it in a human/nature dichotomy. The same can be applied to ANY action of man, including harming others and killing. We've managed to do a fairly good job at suppressing those, why not suppressing that as well, considering the future risks of such endeavours?

[stasis]

So is killing.
That's nice, Paul, but so what? So is making music. Non sequitur.


You are saying that attempting to hasten evolution
No, I didn't say anything about "hastening" evolution. I don't even think such a statement makes sense.


has been something that we've developed through evolution, and since it's natural, it shouldn't be supressed or oppose it in a human/nature dichotomy.
I don't think a human/nature dichotomy exists. What I am resisting is the statement that a function of evolution (the human intellect and its application to the body and the environment) is somehow not a function of evolution and that, furthermore, it can be considered fundamentally against or contrary to evolution. Indiscriminate action, which is wanton and mindless, has absolutely nothing to do with it. Certainly however I reject the suppression of genetic engineering when that objection is predicated solely on the grounds that it violates some human/nature dichotomy that does not exist.

[Paul V]

That's nice, Paul, but so what? So is making music.
Yes, that's my point. Your argument lacks drive because it can be applied to any action. It's so general it becomes invalid.


No, I didn't say anything about "hastening" evolution. I don't even think such a statement makes sense.
I accused him of supporting mankind trying to take over Evolution's work. He admitted it. You said you didn't agree with neither, since the intellect and drive in our mind are a natural consequence of evolution, and therefore, not opposed to it. I compared your reasoning with that of killing, trying to show you another natural consequence of evolution that HAS been suppressed (or at least, tried to).


I don't think a human/nature dichotomy exists. What I am resisting is the statement that a function of evolution (the human intellect and its application to the body and the environment) is somehow not a function of evolution and that, furthermore, it can be considered fundamentally against or contrary to evolution. Indiscriminate action, which is wanton and mindless, has absolutely nothing to do with it. Certainly however I reject the suppression of genetic engineering when that objection is predicated solely on the grounds that it violates some human/nature dichotomy that does not exist.
I know, I understood that. I just said that it can be applied to any other quality or action of a human being, which renders your point useless.

[stasis]

Yes, that's my point. Your argument lacks drive because it can be applied to any action. It's so general it becomes invalid.
My argument is not meant to drive. It's a counterpoint to a specific assertion, that being genetic engineering as a wrong because it "takes over" for evolution when, in fact, it is itself an evolutionary function. This is to point out a logical failure in your (and Xenolar's) statement to that effect. Is driving a 2008 Honda wrong because it takes over for cars? I find that to be nonsensical.


I accused him of supporting mankind trying to take over Evolution's work. He admitted it. You said you didn't agree with neither, since
Since they are a function of evolution; in other words, an evolutionary process, making the notion of these things "taking over evolution's work" nonsensical.


evolution, and therefore
And therefore also evolution's "work" in and of themselves. And therefore not something that "takes over" from anything else, rendering the objection on the grounds that it is a "taking over" invalid.

[Paul V]

My argument is not meant to drive. It's a counterpoint to a specific assertion, that being genetic engineering as a wrong because it "takes over" for evolution when, in fact, it is itself an evolutionary function. This is to point out a logical failure in your (and Xenolar's) statement to that effect. Is driving a 2008 Honda wrong because it takes over for cars? I find that to be nonsensical.



Since they are a function of evolution; in other words, an evolutionary process, making the notion of these things "taking over evolution's work" nonsensical.


A
And therefore also evolution's "work" in and of themselves. And therefore not something that "takes over" from anything else, rendering the objection on the grounds that it is a "taking over" invalid.

And that's where you're wrong. I never said it was wrong. I was just asking for him to state a fact. He did, and I continued asking the implications of his pursuit, trying to determine whether he was a danger to mankind or not. I'm neutral on eugenics, but if the means to obtain it include harming or killing just for the sake of scientifical advancement, then I will have to oppose him.

[stasis]

And that's where you're wrong. I never said it was wrong.Oh, dear. Oh, my. That is quite shocking. Why would you want mankind to take over Evolution's work?
Your 'oh dear oh my / shock' indicates dismay, which is an objection (tentative or otherwise) to the notion on the grounds that you go on to articulate: that mankind can "take over evolution's work." Which, as above, are grounds that I find nonsensical for the same reason that a specific type of car does not take over for the work of cars. My only purpose in making the observation is in pointing out that an evolutionary process can not take over for evolution because such a notion is contradictory and therefore illogical, and that, a) if you like, your shock and dismay are predicated upon nonsense, and thus irrational, and b) Xenolar's statement about this type of engineering being essentially contraevolutionary for that reason (he agreed with you) is false and need not be conceded in the first place - particularly because it builds 'wrongness' into genetic engineering on the grounds that a dichotomy which does not exist creates such engineering a violation of natural order.

[xhaan]

Hmm, I guess this thread was split.
I'm not against the idea of messing with genes itself, we mess with everything else already.

The thing that bothers me is the possibility of having it forced on people, plus unnecessary discrimination. People with percieved flaws could become even more of a minority than they already are. And some will slip through.

I think it could be good to help ensure people are born without diseases and having all their mental factulties, arms and legs, etc, but then again, more than likely births will still slip through that are not 'perfected', e.g. someone may still be born missing a hand or something, and society could come to see such people as inferior when really any difference would be fairly insignificant, in such cases.

Also people who would have real handicaps (not just primarily cosmetic) could be really in the shit, probably aborted before they even really exist.

The irony is, we're getting a lot closer to being able to fix more and more problems and increase function, theres already workable osteointegration, direct sensory feedback, etc.. science is getting closer to true cybernetics all the time, and I think eventually we will make more progess in treating diseases and disorders, even fixing problems with the brain.

[Aoiluna]

I am not opposed to genetic engineering at all, but like someone said earlier, you cant stop people from having sex. Some people rely on it for many things, and I think getting rid of it just isn't possible. Not enough people would go for it, unless the people behind it were allowed to have sex themselves.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there always the possibility of good things resulting from mutations?

[thod]

Its bound to occur as we get better at it.

I wouldnt stop at selecting genes from humans though. Hyenas can eat rotting meat that would make humans puke. Add that in. Crocodiles can breath underwater for a long time due to the blood storing oxygen better, add that in.

There are so many useful genes out there that people will be part jellyfish part sunflower. I would like to be able to see into the ultraviolet like insects and infra red like snakes.

There will be a schism. A "back to basics" natural humans movement that will attempt to legislate to stop others. They wont succeed because the new humans will outwit them and move offshore to practice, leaving the naturals to live like the Amish do now.

After a long while the new humans may well eliminate the naturals as a pointless waste of resources or they mean keep them as a nature reserve.

The only thing that is stopping us is the fear that something unexpected may happen. After a few generations of seeing the supermen with no ill effects it will become probably be considered immoral to have natural children with all their defects.

[xhaan]

Its bound to occur as we get better at it.

I wouldnt stop at selecting genes from humans though. Hyenas can eat rotting meat that would make humans puke. Add that in. Crocodiles can breath underwater for a long time due to the blood storing oxygen better, add that in.

There are so many useful genes out there that people will be part jellyfish part sunflower. I would like to be able to see into the ultraviolet like insects and infra red like snakes.

There will be a schism. A "back to basics" natural humans movement that will attempt to legislate to stop others. They wont succeed because the new humans will outwit them and move offshore to practice, leaving the naturals to live like the Amish do now.

After a long while the new humans may well eliminate the naturals as a pointless waste of resources or they mean keep them as a nature reserve.

The only thing that is stopping us is the fear that something unexpected may happen. After a few generations of seeing the supermen with no ill effects it will become probably be considered immoral to have natural children with all their defects.

Interesting speech, but have you actually analyzed anything?

1. It is not a requirement to eat rotting meat to survive, we are superior to Hyenas, we have the power to CHOOSE our own meat.
I guess rotting meat could be an extra resource, but if it's one we don't need, why bother?

2. Breathing underwater would be nice, wonderful in fact, less people would drown, we could possibly live under water even. I don't see this as a requirement, however... well it isn't a requirement, some people never even see large bodies of water in their entire life!

3. Why be a jellyfish? Why be a Sunflower?





xhaan added to this post, 577 minutes and 37 seconds later...

And now that I think about it even more, the more biologically 'superior' we are, the more prevalent we can be. Live anywhere, do anything... Population could possibly BOOM from lack of inherent competition, then the only way to share resources (even though we would be able to use so many) is by violence. (trading and work would be of no value, because we can get anything we'd need on our own, we would just have to make sure nobody else gets it FIRST)

[karen]

Um, guys, I'm not sure if this conversation is just idle talk or if some of you are serious, but maybe a little information will help out.

I'm not implying that we are aware of all the possibilities yet, this is still a fairly new science however: genes are tricky little buggers.

For one things, most of our DNA codes is what was/is referred to as 'junk' DNA. People have gone quite a while thinking that it was entirely useless until recently. Along with the 'junk' are codes for things we no longer use (antequated ancesteral contributions). After that, the genes we regularly use are mostly coding for things you don't notice or see: routine cell and organ functions (things you don't want to mess up). After that is the fact that we have stored in our DNA, a lot of old viruses, jumping genes and all kinds of unpredictable stuff.

Apart from all that.... how would you define perfection? and how can you predict for your 'children' what alterations they want? It would be a violation! Futhermore, our awareness of evolution doesn't mean it's stopped. We are still changing, slowly. If you are of the genetic drift camp or the natural selection camp (seems to be the majority here), you still have to see that we are incredible animals as it is! we are rational beings with incredible capabilities, and aren't through yet. I have always seen evolutionary genetics as an adventure through time. Organisms changing, adapting, surviving disasters to come out on top and changing again. Who knows what we will become (if we don't go extinct in the near future) and who knows what will come after us? Is that something that you would want to prevent?

Just one more thing... you mustn't forget that who we are as far as our capabilities is partially determined by our environment (good or bad).

[Mechanical Messiah]

Sounds to me like Xenolar isn't getting laid, and wants to spread the misery around.

Seriously, though... genetic engineering in humans will happen. Don't know when or how, but it's already being done in agriculture... it's only a matter of time 'til techniques are perfected and make their way into humans. Let's say my wife and I are gonna have a kid... and we could choose to leave the kid exactly as/is, but eliminate any genetic predispositions to disease AND give the kid a 40-point IQ boost. I'd do it.

Such modified kids would have a VAST advantage over their peers. Now, this won't be cheap... so only rich parents will be able to afford it. So we're talking about a new generation of rich, healthy, and highly intelligent people. That sounds to me like a distinct social/genetic split... and I know which 'branch' I'd prefer my genes to follow.

It's one of multiple reasons why I'm working on my engineering degree. The wife has just finished her master's in psychology... we mean to be able to afford whatever advantages avail themselves in this new millenium.

[Xenolar]

Sounds to me like Xenolar isn't getting laid, and wants to spread the misery around.

Hehehe...
I think it is more accurate to say that I simply don't want to (for various reasons), and wish for some people to see my slightly odd perspective. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with sexual intercourse (though, of course, there are several problems which may very well arise from it). I am simply saying that things could be better.

[Mechanical Messiah]

There are folks who label themselves as "asexual"... there are websites populated by these folks. I saw it on the teevee.

By all means- if you don't like bumping uglies... then don't. Have fun with your test tubes, artificial insemination, and any un-messy procreation techniques that float your boat. Good luck finding folks of like mind with whom to splice your genes. You might have better luck at cloning yourself.

But as for me and likely most folks, I'll stick with the messy, primitive, natural method... with modifications as I see fit, of course.

[Colette]

But as for me and likely most folks, I'll stick with the messy, primitive, natural method... with modifications as I see fit, of course.

What sort of modifications are you thinking? :suspicious:

[Mechanical Messiah]

Whatever floats my boat. Generally, birth control pills AND a rubber... but I can be a bit more creative on occasion.

[rocksteady]

Your 'oh dear oh my / shock' indicates dismay, which is an objection (tentative or otherwise) to the notion on the grounds that you go on to articulate: that mankind can "take over evolution's work." Which, as above, are grounds that I find nonsensical for the same reason that a specific type of car does not take over for the work of cars. My only purpose in making the observation is in pointing out that an evolutionary process can not take over for evolution because such a notion is contradictory and therefore illogical, and that, a) if you like, your shock and dismay are predicated upon nonsense, and thus irrational, and b) Xenolar's statement about this type of engineering being essentially contraevolutionary for that reason (he agreed with you) is false and need not be conceded in the first place - particularly because it builds 'wrongness' into genetic engineering on the grounds that a dichotomy which does not exist creates such engineering a violation of natural order.

I agree, by definition, anything that humans can innovate, is essentially part of "evolution" at this point. Our brains are where all our evolution is taking place anyways.


Interesting speech, but have you actually analyzed anything?

1. It is not a requirement to eat rotting meat to survive, we are superior to Hyenas, we have the power to CHOOSE our own meat.
I guess rotting meat could be an extra resource, but if it's one we don't need, why bother?

2. Breathing underwater would be nice, wonderful in fact, less people would drown, we could possibly live under water even. I don't see this as a requirement, however... well it isn't a requirement, some people never even see large bodies of water in their entire life!

3. Why be a jellyfish? Why be a Sunflower?

And now that I think about it even more, the more biologically 'superior' we are, the more prevalent we can be. Live anywhere, do anything... Population could possibly BOOM from lack of inherent competition, then the only way to share resources (even though we would be able to use so many) is by violence. (trading and work would be of no value, because we can get anything we'd need on our own, we would just have to make sure nobody else gets it FIRST)

Would the ability to eat rotting meat help in a food shortage? If you could breath underwater do you think you might want to try it out sometime?

I don't think he is saying that he wants to be a sun-flower, just that we may be able to use parts of their genetic sequence to better our own.

We as humans will be officially in control of our own evolution very soon, best get used to it.

I can see the trans-humans and the "originals" being the next big conflict 75 years down the road...

Also, It can be difficult to percieve, but the problems of the present will not be the problems of the future (food supply, poverty, violence) If we survive the next 30-50 years, these things will be close to eliminated in a big way. We are entering an age where energy and food will become abundant, and innovation will happen at an ever increasing pace.

<------very optimistic (a pleasant and realistic outlook if you ask me)

[Paul V]

Your 'oh dear oh my / shock' indicates dismay, which is an objection (tentative or otherwise) to the notion on the grounds that you go on to articulate: that mankind can "take over evolution's work." Which, as above, are grounds that I find nonsensical for the same reason that a specific type of car does not take over for the work of cars. My only purpose in making the observation is in pointing out that an evolutionary process can not take over for evolution because such a notion is contradictory and therefore illogical, and that, a) if you like, your shock and dismay are predicated upon nonsense, and thus irrational, and b) Xenolar's statement about this type of engineering being essentially for that reason (he agreed with you) is false and need not be conceded in the first place - particularly because it builds 'wrongness' into genetic engineering on the grounds that a dichotomy which does not exist creates such engineering a violation of natural order.

Can't I be shocked at a statement I haven't heard before in my life? Why must an interjection of suprise necessarily mean that I disagree with something? I was under the impression that expressing surprise at a fact was different than judging it right or wrong...

[xhaan]

I agree, by definition, anything that humans can innovate, is essentially part of "evolution" at this point. Our brains are where all our evolution is taking place anyways.



Would the ability to eat rotting meat help in a food shortage? If you could breath underwater do you think you might want to try it out sometime?



I don't think he is saying that he wants to be a sun-flower, just that we may be able to use parts of their genetic sequence to better our own.

We as humans will be officially in control of our own evolution very soon, best get used to it.

I can see the trans-humans and the "originals" being the next big conflict 75 years down the road...

Also, It can be difficult to percieve, but the problems of the present will not be the problems of the future (food supply, poverty, violence) If we survive the next 30-50 years, these things will be close to eliminated in a big way. We are entering an age where energy and food will become abundant, and innovation will happen at an ever increasing pace.

<------very optimistic (a pleasant and realistic outlook if you ask me)

I know, I wasn't cutting him down or anything. Was just saying that it's a bit premature, you don't just add stuff in flippantly. Things can be said about all of these things. Yes, being able to eat rotting meat could help in a food shortage, potentially, but if the meat is there to be rotting in the first place that means it used to be fresh meat, which was either wasted or somebody didn't try hard enough to go get it.

We can't make things too easy for people, it's already getting that way without genetic modification, just by our other technologies. We need to have some challenges, even if it means some people starve or die, otherwise we could overpopulate (already happened in some countries, but it could get worse) AND wreck the environment. Hopefully we could be engineered to eat rocks and breathe carbon monoxide/dioxide... cause that's what we might end up with if we keep pushing things without thinking them through.

Edit:
And also, I don't mean just by pollution either, but by possible biological accident, depletion, or destruction.

And, what happens if we start to reproduce asexually? Apparently a shark individual did this recently, here, it suddenly had a 'virgin birth' of two baby sharks. (this happens very rarely in sharks in general it seems.)

[AgentofGaming]

We can't make things too easy for people, it's already getting that way without genetic modification, just by our other technologies.

Maybe it is easier, but if there were sentient machines they would beat us still.
We need to become cyborgs, with computer chips in our head that could allow us to do multivariable calculus or learn anything at a whim. Like in the Matrix. Then with prosthetic enhancements we'd stand a chance against terminators.

They're only a few magnitudes away from reaching computing power capable of competing with the brain.

What about worms? they can regenerate, that'd be useful.

[DeadSpace]

Doing away with sex...a tad impractical and personally, i rather like it :p. But like or dislike aside forced gene modification for further human advancement is a bad idea. It would not be you (OP) or perhaps anyone posting here that would be running the program. It would be (most likely) government run, funded, subsidised, and led by government appointees. That alone makes the mere concept scary. What do you think a government panel would choose for the 'perfect' human female? or human male? *shudders*
Gene therepies are needed no doubt, numerous genetically linked diseases need cured. and the genes that cause the modified...fixed. But as to creating a new race of humans, even if the agency doing so had the best interests of all humanity at heart. Would make for a very boring world once the old humans died off. Why have variations in form, face, height, weight when you have a perfect model? Art...at least based on the human form would vanish. Ant like drones...
Nature has perfected it's method of culling already, humanity, even with the genetic abnormalities is the most successful species on the planet (of the complex lifeforms) And the process never stops, random...somewhat...mistakes, yea, rather often, but damn effective nonetheless. Assisting that process makes more sense to me.

[BlueTopaz]

I am not opposed to genetic engineering at all, but like someone said earlier, you cant stop people from having sex. Some people rely on it for many things, and I think getting rid of it just isn't possible. Not enough people would go for it, unless the people behind it were allowed to have sex themselves.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there always the possibility of good things resulting from mutations?

Yes, mutation is the raw material of natural selection.


I have a problem with the premise of the thread. Just because genes are manipulated in a laboratory, and some subjective consensus is that they are "flawless" does not make them so. The poster above has a good point. What if we were to implement a genetic engineering program and the result is that humanity is "perfect" (and inherent in being perfect, is being all the same. For two things to both be perfect they must both be the same or one might be more or less perfect than the other). Then it happens that a virus mutates and takes out all the "perfect" humans because no one human has had the precognition to engineer an immunity for that virus. It is the diversity of our genetics that saves us from such a situation. Some of that diversity is bound to considered by someone somewhere to be a flaw. And some of the things that are considered "flaws" may also be "linked" to other genes that are beneficial, but that is another point not related to this particular argument.

No, it is impossible for a human mind to come up with anything that is "flawless" or "perfect". And if we think we can, we will, sooner or later, reap the folly of our arrogance.

I would like to add that genetic engineering has a very valid place in society. In fact, cloning of plants has led to many starving people having food and gene therapy has the potential to cure many diseases. It is only the premise that we can develop a "flawless" human that disturbs me.

[thod]

Your argument is based on the one perfect cut model. But the scope exists to produce far wider variance than we have currently.

If you have an heritable defect it would be a crime to pass it on to child and make its life miserable too. I wouldnt be suprised to see court cases of children sueing the parents for not fixing it.

[Stealth]

It seems to me that replacing random, natural reproduction with reproduction "on demand" in a lab is probably the only way to ensure a sustainable population. The problem I see is that if nature has its way, humans are randomly reproducing like bacteria, without any regard to their resource base. Even in areas like Africa, where resources for human survival are scarce, the population is still increasing.

Populations that exist in a closed environment with limited resources usually develop something like this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Human population so far has developed like this:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Obviously, we need to implement some type of popualtion control, sterilizing all new-borns and conducting reproduction artificially and only in the necessary amounts seems like the most humane method. Because if people were still able to reproduce naturally, you have to introduce some type of behavioral control to prevent them from creating excessive offspring. While, if they are all sterilized they can have as much intercourse as they want, and with genetic manipulation it would probably be possible to create immunity to the various deseases transmitted by this.

Though the idea of eugenics and genetic manipulation also raises the question of what the purpose of human existence is. Why should we optimize the human race and why should we try to lengthen the timespan that humanity may exist. Is the continued existence of humanity an end in itself, or is it a means to an end, and if so, what is the end?

Another question is, if we have awesome ideas about gentically enhancing the human race, on whom are we going to test them?

[AgentofGaming]

It's actually only Asia and Africa growing out of control. Europe is declining, and North America is nearly equal.
Democratic countries like India can't implement one child policies like China because that would infringe on certain rights. So India will soon become the new population leader.
Also foreign aid is supposedly keeping those growing populations growing.
However if they were to be allowed to die it would be denounced as a humanitarian crisis.
The question is how far can leaders go? and what is ethical in terms population control?


Another question is, if we have awesome ideas about gentically enhancing the human race, on whom are we going to test them?
The volunteers maybe?

[Blue Towlie]

Actually Indias urban total fertility rate is already 2.0 and the entire country is expected to be at replacement level by 2020. This means Indias population will never exceed 1.5 billion people and will start declining by 2020 if current trends continue. Also, No sex and perfect society is an oxymoron. :p

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Yes, I would have assumed that people would be rather skeptical of my sex opinions. I very well acknowledge the fact that without sex, neither of us would be here right now. However, I do not believe sex is any longer necessary. I promote the artificial production of humans. I do, in fact, support eugenics. Humans produced would be genetically engineered to be optimum individuals. Through this method, the unnecessary act of sex and all that accompanies may be abolished. Genetic flaws will cease to exist. This is the future that I promote.
Just curious........why abolish sex???? Why not abolish procreation through sex?

[enWTFp]

Eugenics is like destroying the grass that you eat, because it doesn't improve the eating process. It is also destroying the eggs, because you need chickens. It is cutting the branch that you sit on. Or cutting your own head off, because the body doesn't contribute enough to thinking.

It is the human short-sightedness, the blindness of superiority and inferiority, when in fact it's all one cycle, and the 'worse' produce 'better', and vice-versa, so both are always presented and needed.

Someday science will prove scientifically that all that was needed for things to function better was for it to not interfere with the system, to not twist and separate all its processes, and before all - to not supervise them.

[Kisai]

Eugenics is silly.

Timewise, what kind of period is involved in breeding out a gene? 1000 years? 2000? 10000? What's the life span of a government that follows consistant policies? 500? 800?

Who thinks that AI and the ability to download your brain into a computer will be perfected before any eugenics program has any discernable effect? *raises hand*

[Zombicide]

. . .What the hell would be the point of genetically engineering people if you're just going to get rid of sex?

Doesn't that defeat the purpose of genetically engineering them?

[Sesshoumaru]

Eugenics is like destroying the grass that you eat, because it doesn't improve the eating process. It is also destroying the eggs, because you need chickens. It is cutting the branch that you sit on. Or cutting your own head off, because the body doesn't contribute enough to thinking.

It is the human short-sightedness, the blindness of superiority and inferiority, when in fact it's all one cycle, and the 'worse' produce 'better', and vice-versa, so both are always presented and needed.

Someday science will prove scientifically that all that was needed for things to function better was for it to not interfere with the system, to not twist and separate all its processes, and before all - to not supervise them.

Agreed. We really should just let nature take it's course for certain things in order to prevent anything truly terrible from occurring due to our stupidity.

[LaoTzu]

I agree.

It frightens me to think that people I wouldnt trust with my house key are making decisions that could affect life on this planet unalterably.... There is just too much UNKNOWN to say that what we know is good enough to allow genetically altering anything.

but I can see how it would be fun to play with... :)

[Hinun]

1st, I support a certain type of eugenics, a reasonable criteria would need to be created (it is very early, but this topic was too interesting for me not to touch it).

I will go with the classical definition of Eugenics "the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).
Origin:
1880–85; see eugenic, -ics"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I would like to point out that "discouraging" isn't the same as eliminating the option of people breeding, that's pretty concerning to do so... also eugenics purpose should never be to create a perfect human race, that's a twisted idea, the idea of perfection is arbitrary as well as the idea that one can reach it.

anyways, the fundamental question is, how far should we go to reduce human suffering by means of genetically altering humans?

The biggest problem is what is an "undesirable trait"? seriously... I am not a tall guy, 5ft8, is that an undesirable trait, PURELY b/c society deems shorter as an inferior quality? Given the right environment a shorter person thrives more easily, an example being higher altitude.

As for genetic engineer... I don't think it should be a question when it becomes an exact science, I would get my child genetically altered for intelligent, lifespan, everything possible to improve her/him b/c that child must be competitive in the world we live in, highly educated, good looking, tall (arbitrarily a desired trait, but i see the need for it).

Ethics it is a an obscure area, and obviously is for a reason, it is a human creation, and no absolute right or wrong exists, however, we must act accordingly given a logical criteria, mine is "for the good of the whole", admittedly... i don't always follow this.

[zibber]

What is really bugging me here is Xenolar's use of terms like "optimum individuals". There really, really is no such thing. Every individual sees others through his or her own personal frame, colored heavily by their own constitution. You can't "objectively" say characteristic X is better than characteristic Y, or that an improved ability to do act Z is an actual improvement, even if it makes an individual more "successful" in a given environment. All you have is people naturalising their constitution and frame. Eugenics is great if you cannot tolerate people with different constitutions and frames, but for the love of Jove, don't naturalise.

No sex, come on.. As MM pointed out, sex is great. It's nasty, stinky and 99,9% of the time has nothing at all to do with reproduction. Some love doing it, some don't. That should be the end of it. No comparing sex to no sex with the goal of "discovering which is better".

people ... could be really in the shit ... before they even ... exist

Now how in the world could that be?

By that logic, if you're not constantly inseminating women, you're really doing a number on all of those nonexistent future children of yours.



ps. Xenolar, you are quite like Hitler. He had an "optimum" in mind and so do you, and the only difference is the specifics of it (yours seems to surpass ethnicity, which is logical given the current state of genetics) and your lack of power actually to realise it.

[Hinun]

Someday science will prove scientifically that all that was needed for things to function better was for it to not interfere with the system, to not twist and separate all its processes, and before all - to not supervise them.

Skipping over the errors of your simile... science does not function in this area, the term "better" is non-existent in science, system becoming more complex or simple has NOTHING to do with science. Science would not be able to prove something is "better" without interference. Though I would agree with you to an extent that we can determine, with our value system, that inference with certain system is detrimental, science will never do so, purely because it doesn't work it that realm of humanity. Your statement, besides possible misunderstandings of what eugenics is (not that i blame you, many people are reasonable to associate eugenics with the holocaust, and Nazi's and things of that extreme sort), shows a profound misunderstanding of science and what its purpose is.

The idea that "things work" without supervision isn't correct, many systems we have designed only work with human supervision, i assume you mean that inference is when humans get involved. Anyways, many systems would fail without supervision (obviously mostly human systems and some ecosystems, due to us...lol), but i assume you mean stay in equilibrium. I do agree with the idea that natural systems shouldn't be interfered with... to a degree... however if humanity is going to progress as a species, while still having a the kinds of technological demands we do, we must alter the environment around us to benefit our species. We must do it more delicately or perish... anyways I believe I understand your point though, but I just saw some errors in your reasoning and felt a need to correct them. If I came off as abrasive, I apologize, I am not proficient at sensitivity...

[thod]

This is the schism between the naturalists and the improvers. The naturalists reject any notion of improvement favoring the word different instead. As they point out there is no such thing as fitter only fitter for environment.

However we have an environment, we are not seeking fittest for all environments only the one designed for. An undersea human would be quite different to one designed to live on the moon or the one here on Earth. The fact that we don't know what future environment we will have on Earth changes nothing since we cannot say that a natural human would be fitter than an engineered one either.

Thicker tooth enamel will prevent you having to visit the dentist for fillings, I can see the advantage of that right now. The appendix is going out anyhow so lets get rid of it and avoid the problems.

There will be a division in society since only the rich will be able to afford the enhancements. These beautiful people will be smarter, stronger and faster than the naturals. This will enable them to accumulate yet more wealth. The naturals will object but they will be so dumb that their plans will be transparent and they will be manipulated in ways they don't understand. We will have speciazation and the naturals will exist at the whim of the supermen. It is this threat that the naturals understand and seek to avoid by preventing the enhancers.

[MrFlaneur]

My plan is for sexual reproduction to simply cease.
Then, the genes of the most optimum pre-existing members of global society will be used to create a better world. There will be a constant monitoring of genes. Genetic engineering will be used as much as possible to remove flaws.

oh dear

i have a sneaky suspicion that it wont work

if all we have are the progeny of the "most optimum pre existing members of society" we will just be left with lawyers bankers politicos journos and a whole slew of other self-regarding types; whos going to fix my car? who's going to fill the shelves

while we have chaos theory; while we are in a position where we have no idea how simple initial conditions lead forth to greater and more sophisticated systems any theory of this sort will never work

read john kay how the markets work ; or complexity theory or herbert simmon, kauffmans, competitive equilibrium etc etc

i dont always freely offer info so please feel free to investigate

please note that im not a professional - just curious

what you are talking about is biological socialism ; you wont find a friendly crowd here im afraid





MrFlaneur added to this post, 20 minutes and 39 seconds later...

ive found a great new site which relates mildly to this discussion

i hope it broaden minds - it seems fantastic to me

the dismal science aint so dismal after all

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[thod]

if all we have are the progeny of the "most optimum pre existing members of society" we will just be left with lawyers bankers politicos journos and a whole slew of other self-regarding types; whos going to fix my car? who's going to fill the shelves


Clearly you will be the shelf filler and the car fixer. Under a meritocratic system they will merit the more desirable jobs. A semi sentient life form such as yourself will be assigned the menial tasks. You clearly currently see yourself as the master employing lesser men to do these tasks. This will be reversed since they will be genuinely better than you, and you will see it is so, and accept your lot in life.

[MrFlaneur]

Clearly you will be the shelf filler and the car fixer. Under a meritocratic system they will merit the more desirable jobs. A semi sentient life form such as yourself will be assigned the menial tasks. You clearly currently see yourself as the master employing lesser men to do these tasks. This will be reversed since they will be genuinely better than you, and you will see it is so, and accept your lot in life.

too right ; ill be drinking deers piss, chewing magic mushrooms and getting pilled off my tits when ever im not moulching around looking for someone to employ me and my tyre-iron while my 8ft tall betters are doing 60hr weeks bashing keys and filling very important pieces of paper in imposing filing cabinets which correspond with there high and mighty theories.

thod you know the measure of me; you can see straight through me

god i love those intps; i used to be one LMAO!!!!

[LaoTzu]

Life is much more.... just more... with all the little 'mistakes' and randUMBness that goes on. To think one type or another is 'better' is a disease unto itself that should be eradicated.

If life, the universe, and everything were just perfect....I'd have to start cutting myself to keep it interesting....


I object to tampering with environmental forces. One slip, and the entire world can be in peril...and for what??

Life wouldnt be what it is if it weren't for the 'mutants' that have come before us.

[Dragon1386]

"... if it's one we don't need, why bother?"

We already have things we don't *NEED*. Need has never been an agent of evolution or improvement. It would be useful, though. Maybe not to a city dweller, but to hermits and hikers maybe. We don't come across rotten meat right now because we forcibly remove it and avoid it.

"I don't see this as a requirement, however... well it isn't a requirement, some people never even see large bodies of water in their entire life!"

The aligator can 'breathe' under water because it's blood stores and holds oxygen more efficiently. Increased oxygen density in our blood would be beneficial either way. Any situation where physical endurance is needed would benefit from more oxygenated blood. Construction workers, professional athletes, police officers. Assuming the body doesn't suddenly respond by needing more blood to function, a person with an otherwise fatal injury could survive longer with LESS blood.