Thread: The long term effects of Human Genetic Engineering?

What are, or what do you believe are, the long term effects upon civilisation of Human Genetic Engineering ?

For example, suppose that a 'murder' gene is found and it is decided that this is suppressed throughout all humanity? - would you see it as a good thing or (by reducing the 'gene pool') a bad thing?

Could genetic engineering actually increase the genepool?

Suppose that one particular eye color became a universal fashion, (even if currently not a natural color).

I'am not talking about what is possible now so let's say the pool is documented, genes can be produced in a test tube and then replace original genes. Or if you like no holds barred, no moral objections.

I voted for firm policy at least I think I did. That just leaves the question of who will determine what genes should and should not be replicated. Whats to stop someone from actually making more murder genes instead of less? You might ask who would do such a thing but you never know.

By the way I need a good signature. Got any suggestions?

"Strictly no admittance"

Hmmm, interesting. But what does it mean?

"I am totally against it", We would be playing with things we don't understand. If you did take out this murder gene, what would the person be like ? Nobody can say exactly what the affects would be on this person mental state. Plus you would be creating a new branch of homo-sapiens, some human, some super-human, the long term effects on civilisation simply because of this would be catastrophic. No, it would all be bad news. We shouldn't even be thinking about it. If your not happy about your eye colour, wear contacts.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

"I am totally against it", We would be playing with things we don't understand.

we would be playing with things we do understand, because megabrain stated the whole pool would have been documented.

If you did take out this murder gene, what would the person be like ? Nobody can say exactly what the affects would be on this person mental state. Plus you would be creating a new branch of homo-sapiens, some human, some super-human, the long term effects on civilisation simply because of this would be catastrophic. No, it would all be bad news. We shouldn't even be thinking about it. If your not happy about your eye colour, wear contacts.

i'm totally for unrestricted HGE, i think even already now, it should be experimented with...
think of all the possibilities...diseases cured, higher intelligence andsoforth

i think the pros outweigh the cons by far, and by restricting research into this area, we're severely lagging overall human development

you could cure hunger, disease, stop wars(admittedly, also start wars over it).

if people with higher intelligence could be "produced" through HGE, some more Einsteins may be born, which could possibly get us in space and to mars...finally

what i mentioned here may be a bit futuristic, but i think looking at it like this(positively) is far better than thinking it'll be the ending of the world

im all for it, lets create the perfect human

and of course some failures are to be expected but its a low price for progress and we give them a human existens afterward

Originally Posted by FaTaL_eRRoR

we would be playing with things we do understand, because megabrain stated the whole pool would have been documented.

No thats not what i meant, we would not understand the mental effects on the creature we created.

i'm totally for unrestricted HGE, i think even already now, it should be experimented with...

Experimenting on human beings !?!

-------

To simplify things. What your talking about is to sacrifice the human race as we know it, in return for answers to the handful of question we have not been able to answer so far.

I saw it is a screwed up yet inevitable plan. Download you daily DNA update, get programed with info as opposed to learning it, healing things that souldn't heal. Imagine having no scares. The changing of eye color? That is sick. I don't understand it. Why don't people like themselves? Why do people want to be perfect, they don't even knwo what perfect is.

It is inevitable, people will die and others will seem invincible. There will be rich ones and starving ones. There will be disputes and wars. It will all be the same in the end. So I guess... why not. As long as I'm not the test subject. And if I am, a few scientists are gonna learn some kung fu. The hard way.

I'm all for apocalypse, as long as I'm there to witness it.

Wether youre for it or not, its all but irelevent. It is simply a matter of time and progression. It WILL happen.

I think the real question is "How are we going to deal with it?"

All while there is variation in the pool, then this knowledge is dangerous, - wars of the future could end in DNA wars, modifying genes to breed future warriors secretly, whilst others are supressing such genes, I voted it will all end in tears. Having said that I'd like to see this debate not go down any particular route, ie discus any advantages as well as fears.

Originally Posted by Kolt

Wether youre for it or not, its all but irelevent. It is simply a matter of time and progression. It WILL happen.

I think the real question is "How are we going to deal with it?"

True.

There are over 180 independent countries in the world and among those several ideologies. Unlike in the movies there is no central Big Brother controlling the course of mankind. Genetic engineering is about science and technology. Countries can either be on the cutting edge and gain limited influence over some aspects of human genetic engineering or they can be on the outside and have minor or no influence. Military technology is an analogy...the USA, the country with the most advanced nuclear arseanal and delivery system also has the most influence in trying to guide world nuclear direction.

'We' is a term that is nebulous. Countries as diverse as the USA, China, Venezuela, Iran, etc. aren't all going to be on the same genetic engineering regimen. People in Malaysia might like to fiddle with DNA material and prevent certain genetic defects...and throw in a few extra points of 'IQ' into the mix. Maybe some Indians want children with slightly smaller noses...Brazilians fairer skin...etc.

There will be cultures making their own decisions and people within some of those cultures also wanting to make their own decisions. It doesn't matter who approves or not as the science will develop regardless.

No I'm sorry but i do not agree. Behind any technological development there has to be some sort of demand for it. At the moment this demand is for medical and cosmetic reasons, there is no reason why we can't have an international ban on HGE and human cloning. Yes there will always be a rouge government or scientist, but by allowing this to become commonplace we risk opening up a very dangerous door. It's one thing to be changing your unborn child's hair colour but something else to be turning off a murder gene, by doing that you would be changing or rather dictating a persons personality.

There will be cultures making their own decisions and people within some of those cultures also wanting to make their own decisions

And this is another problem. With all those cultures making their own decisions, competition will become a natural factor, each one trying to out develop the other. Not only will we lose our freedom but will also create a big brother situation.

You won't stop it, all while scientists freely publish their results others will use this information. To suppress scientific research findings is unthinkable, the possibility of HGE out of control is a consequence of our thirst for knowledge, it cannot be stopped, legislation would only drive it underground, where without supervision it's consequences would be horrendous. It is one of the prices of science.

It is much the same as nuclear technology, it could be good or bad, the 2 bombs have taught us to think before we use them again, let's hope the first big mistake from HGE is one that we will also survive and learn from.

Well i hope your wrong. What i can't work out is why so many people here are happy for all this to go ahead regardless of the possible consequences.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

Well i hope your wrong. What i can't work out is why so many people here are happy for all this to go ahead regardless of the possible consequences.

It's not an issue of 'happy' but an issue of realism. There's 6 billion people and they don't all have your or my values and expectations. Not everyone has the same values whenit comes to abortion, captital punishment and other moral issues and won't have the same values when it comes to altering genes to make them resistant to Malaria or Tuberculosis, prevent Cancer and so on.

"Mrs smith, we're sorry your 3 year old died of the genetic disease. you can't have another child because he will also die . We could alter some genes to prevent this from happening and you'd have a healthy child but everybody agrees that would be wrong."
Actually not everyone would agree at all. Perhaps not Mrs Smith and not her counter part in China or Brazil. Mrs Smith will go find the equivalent of a 1950's basement abortion clinic to get genetic alteration in her child's gene?...or fly to the Cayman Islands to do it?

Pretending the science and technology and won't be used is like thinking certain drugs are never used because they are illegal or believing abortions won't happen if hospitals didn't perform them.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

discus any advantages as well as fears.

I see neither advantage nor fear.

Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)

Well i hope your wrong. What i can't work out is why so many people here are happy for all this to go ahead regardless of the possible consequences.

Because we are all crazy. I don't think it is that we are happy for it to go ahead but more that we realize the inevitablility. Personally I beleive there is a force that is nature and if we mess with it I have no dought it will mess back. How? I have no idea. I'm sure we will find out though. We're all gonna die in the end anyways, right?

Four people have so far voted for unrestricted HGE, they are obviously very happy for us to go down this path regardless of where it my lead.

Genetic engineering can give us many benefits that other wise would not have been possible such as higher crop yields. HGE could also benefit us when look to prevent diseases (similar to what we do in gene therapy), it could also be used for cosmetic reasons. Thats all wonderful, i have no problem with people using this technology to save lives and prevent suffering.

My problem with it is the social and human affects it may have. A point will come were being a normal person such as we are will not be good enough, people will need to be super-human just to get a job. Once we have changed people into supreme physical beings what next ? Ah yes, the mental part. First disable this murder gene, next increase this unborn creature's IQ, then increase it's creativity. The parents want this child to have red hair and blue eyes, so now that we have changed it's physical and mental condition plus it's cosmetic appearance whats the point in using the original DNA ? Would we have no idea what affect this would have on this creatures mental health. And to do all this we will first need to experiment on humans. Also because all of those new born children will live until they are 500, nobody will be allowed to have children. So governments or whoever is in charge will replace people when they die. End of rant.

I know I'm going on a bit, and looking at this very negatively but that is a real possibility.

I'm going to presume (ignoring the voting above) that most people in most country's don't like the idea of HGE, if thats the case why can't we make it illegal. We already tell Iran and N Korea they can't have nuclear weapons and thats by going though the UN. Yes it would push it underground, but surely a handfulll of people with these ability's is better than a global HGE free-for-all.

We tell other countries what they can and cannot do simply becuase we do not want them to have a counter to our best weapons, - but that's off topic.

I'll add another twist now, what about 'human modification' not changing eye colour to some unnatural one but modifying physical shape, humans may decide at some in the futire that legs are superfluous, (most people today don't use them much anyway) - why do we need such a great body when all we need do is support the brain? - could you see bones and tissue being made of some other material, perhaps more suited to space travel?

Could you see hmans being created fully formed, pre-programmed with knowledge, I may be talking 100,000 years in the future, but where do you think it will all end?

Originally Posted by Megabrain

We tell other countries what they can and cannot do simply becuase we do not want them to have a counter to our best weapons, - but that's off topic.

I'll add another twist now, what about 'human modification' not changing eye colour to some unnatural one but modifying physical shape, humans may decide at some in the futire that legs are superfluous, (most people today don't use them much anyway) - why do we need such a great body when all we need do is support the brain? - could you see bones and tissue being made of some other material, perhaps more suited to space travel?

Could you see humans being created fully formed, pre-programmed with knowledge, I may be talking 100,000 years in the future, but where do you think it will all end?

It will go where those humans in the future decide to take it. A couple hundred years ago many frowned on democracy because who knew where it might lead...before you know it not just farmers will demand the vote but women too! I'm sure many argued against democracy because of the absurd concept that negroes would one day be wanting to elect their leaders also....mind you that was probably waved off as hysterical fantasy.

Humans in the future 100 years from now or 1000 will express their humanity in the way they choose. They'll prpbably shake their heads at the genetic debates in the past (2007) just like we can't fathom doctors being arrested when they dared to use actual cadavers to try and undersand the anatomy of humans. Future humans will set their own course.

What we call the human body is nothing more than the physical state of what it means to be human. When we change our physical bodies, we change only a small part of who we are.

I see nothing wrong with modifying ourselves to further the advancement of our species. Higher intelligence, faster and stronger bodies, and the absence of disease will provide us with longer and more fullfilling lives.

I think the world will sooner or later go through genetic modification. It is almost inevitable that we will someday end up with a only 1 type perfect human where there is no uniqueness or identity to each. We would have already reached that stage if our current knowledge allows such creation. So, for now the only limit for GHE is our knowledge and understanding of our own gene.

I highly doubt it will ever come to a point where we lose our identity and uniqueness. Despite what the media tells us is attractive, there will always be some who strive for something different.

Faster stronger bodies? - go buy a bicycle!

What would you do with a fster stronger body anyway? - how would that enhance those who spend most of their time sitting, either in an armchair or at the wheel of a 4*4?

No, probably better to use the knowledge to engineer people to withstand high temperatures, strong winds, salt water tolerance and to be able to breath a mixture of gases, like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide and 78 other poisonous gasses, and even longer term, survive without water in a vacuum. :wink:

Originally Posted by Megabrain

Faster stronger bodies? - go buy a bicycle!

What would you do with a fster stronger body anyway? - how would that enhance those who spend most of their time sitting, either in an armchair or at the wheel of a 4*4?

No, probably better to use the knowledge to engineer people to withstand high temperatures, strong winds, salt water tolerance and to be able to breath a mixture of gases, like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide and 78 other poisonous gasses, and even longer term, survive without water in a vacuum. :wink:

Hehe, that's actually what I was meaning to say. I didn't mean stronger in terms of muscle mass, I meant stronger in terms of being able to withstand a lot more environmental abuse.

Originally Posted by Dark_PAst27

It is almost inevitable that we will someday end up with a only 1 type perfect human where there is no uniqueness or identity to each.

If you take a human and change their physical and mental ability's to the extreme, then they would no longer be human.

they will be derived from humans though, did you know that none of the atoms you were born with are still in your body? - if so you could argue that you, are not human, you were not born! - crazy eh?

Thats true, i thinks it 7 years by the time your whole body has replaced all it's cells. But my point is....

What is the difference between an ape and a human ? Not a lot, but just enough to make me human and the ape an ape, if you see what i mean.

PS. Sorry to keep dragging your thread off course, but i feel this is very important.

No it's not off course, if you feel it will make us 'less human' then it's ok to say!

I disagree. It seems to me that if it is humans that are making the changes to their own race, the race is still human - we would be genetically different, but that doesn't mean we're less human - we all have unique genes already.

Besides, if being better means being non-human, I'm okay with that. Human is just a name.

Originally Posted by Megabrain

they will be derived from humans though, did you know that none of the atoms you were born with are still in your body? - if so you could argue that you, are not human, you were not born! - crazy eh?

Not to hijack the thread but that is quite a thought provoking concept. Do 'you' exist long term or are you a temporary consciousness with built in memory of our human body's experiences. Will 'you' cease to exist as a conscious being in a few seconds only to be replaced by another group of programmed neurons that have the sense of self and memory. Is the 'now' consciousness we experience just one in a of series booted up and ready to function phases of the physical human organism.

Here's my deal.

We are nature. We split molecules, construct cells, receive all sorts of information. We want to do this silly HGE stuff when in actuallity we have been doing it since the beginning of time. We duplicate, mutate, mix, and exchange genes. We do it according to nature.

If you take a balanced equation in mathamatics and add something to one side you must, in some way add it to the other or it won't work. Mathamatics is just a language to explain nature. Thus we should know that if we mess with nature balance will prevail. Maybe something imediate will go wrong i.e. the child will die or have some major disablity. Or maybe a few houndred years into the research and use and some other disaster will occur.

I don't see the rush. I don't have a problem with it because I know it can't be stoped. At the same time I think it is an insult to the human race. We are very powerful as it is and have yet to reach our full potential and we already think we can play god and just improve ourselves. The best improvement a scientist can make is to know when to stop. It's called self control. Otherwise we are just some primal species doing things to satisfy our pathetic egos.

HGE will not improve anything. People will be faster, smarter, stronger, etc. but they will still be human. They will still fight, they will still want more. We need to improve what we got before we start screwing around with what we got.

Originally Posted by AmberEyes

What we call the human body is nothing more than the physical state of what it means to be human. When we change our physical bodies, we change only a small part of who we are.

Actually in biology, correct me if I'm wrong, species are classified by physical characteristics. The human body is in fact the human. We would likely still exist but not as humans. Who knows what would happen to consciousness or thought. We know too little now to guess. I would think, though, that humans and the human mind were brought together for a reason and that if one is changed the other will too.

Dabob, i agree with most of what you have written except this......

Originally Posted by DaBOB

People will be faster, smarter, stronger, etc. but they will still be human. They will still fight, they will still want more.

Changing people physically is no different from training or using performance enhancing drugs, but though genetics you could change peoples behaviour. That would make us non-human.

--------------

To do all of this we would need to perform tests on humans, is that not morally wrong ?

So it would/might make us non-human, merely by donning clothes we must have surely begun to evolve away from being 'human' - many other activities will affect our long term evolution as well, there are several parts of the body that now seem to have no function (and a few more as you get older :wink: ) - so why should genetic modification be any different ? I think many frown upon it through fear of the unknown, or perhaps becuase our attempts to 'improve' nature have a dismal record [eg introduced species]. Initially a lot of things will go wrong, even when we know the pool insideout using that knowledge will be something else, a system would be needed where such modifications could be monitored pre-birth, perhaps embryos need not even involve parents other than for donating 'framework tissue'. I am sure we have all seen the picture of the mouse with a human ear, will we breed different types of humans for specific purposes, {like an ant or bee colony}?

As everybody here agrees there will be experiments...

Originally Posted by Megabrain

there are several parts of the body that now seem to have no function (and a few more as you get older :wink: )

Thats not what Nevyn said !

------------

True. But as it is at the moment with evolution, you are dealt your cards and you make the most of your life in any way you see fit. With HGE there as to be some thought put in before you are born/made as to your purpose in life. Its that control that i really don't like.

I think it was Jellyologist that mentioned black people might one day wish to vote, and it's that 'thing' thats built into us (black and white) that eventually allowed that to happen. I'm not saying that in the future we will have GE slaves, but if some people have control over the way you think and behave, how would you ever fight back ?

There is a lot wrong with the human race but some good also, and that "good" is something to be proud of. Why run the risk of losing that ?

I'm in grade 10 and this year in English we had a "formal debate". The topic was "Be it resolved that human genetic engineering is morally acceptable." I was kind of forced to go con and I had under 2 and a half minutes for my speech but I feel there are still some good points in it. Too bad this topic was started 2 months after my speech, it would have helped a lot! Here it is:

Inheritable Genetic Modification means changing the genes we pass on to future generations. We could mutate a gene to pass on whatever qualities we want, anything from an extremely high IQ of 175 to incredibly good looks. This would cause us to manipulate human genes until we manufacture the perfect person. Then it would be like a factory where every baby born would inherit these genes. This would cause an extreme lack of creativity and diversity in future generations, as everyone would be pretty much the same. Humans have approximately 30 000 genes, of those, 99.9% of them are the same in all humans. That means, of our 30 000 genes, 29 970 of them are the exact same. Only leaving 30 different genes in each person. 30 genes are all that separate you from the person beside you. What if we tried to change any one of those genes. The implications would be huge. If just one of those 30 genes were modified and duplicated throughout all of us, we would see diversity start to disappear. We would only have 29 different genes, and considering how much different we may seem from one another, changing 1/30 of us would have a huge effect. As soon as we were able to act on our own, our parents have taught us to be ourselves, and not follow everyone else. If we go down this path and lose our diversity, lose our creativity, we will have abandoned one of the biggest morals our parents have tried to teach us. But this is just one of many possible scenarios.
What if a powerful world leader had the ability to modify inheritable genes? What if Hitler had the technology? I quote Jesse Reynolds author of BioDevestation 7, “I emphasized that the use of inheritable genetic modification would exacerbate socioeconomic and racial disparities.” This means, inheritable genetic modification would increase the severity of the lack of social, economic and racial equality. All of these factors lead us down a very bad road, but lets specifically deal with racism as it is a huge problem in the world today. If Hitler had the power to modify inheritable genes, he could have easily spread genes that would give people blue eyes and blond hair like his so called “superior Arian race” carried, throughout Europe and even into America. Hitler would have persuaded them they were better than everyone else, and since there would have been so many Arians it would cause stronger and more violent racism across the world. He would go on to rule the world. The worst part… no one would try to do anything about it, he would have too many followers and be to powerful. Power corrupts man and if we choose to manipulate human genes it’s just a matter of time before ONE man, that’s all it takes… one man… it’s just a matter of time, before one man uses his power to manipulate all of mankind. I sure don’t want to be around when it happens, do you?
Overall Human Genetic Engineering is immoral and should not be conducted under any circumstances. Stem cells come from living fetus’ which are living human beings just like you and me, (MISSING), and finally, genetic modification will cause us to mass produce other humans, who have been designed by us and had no choice in the matter. We humans are flawed, and if we even remotely touch on genetically engineering ourselves it will quickly lead to a devastating effect, as we had, do, and will always let things get out of hand.

My opponents didn't really have a decent rebuttle to this and i got an 80 so i hope you guys get something out of this.

If natural selection has blindy made such a journey as to evolve us into our current form, workable but with complications. I see no reason why HGE is not a finely beneficial step for us to take. This is for multiple reasons and beliefs of mine.

Do the majority of humans, or any species enjoy or cling, lovingly to the defects in life? Maybe only those who have found no other way to cope with life beside doing so. If you are not the latter, I suppose that if HGE were only for the reason of ending suffering, of any sort at all(which lays on a broad spectrum), you most likely would accept it's implementation.

What is better than natural selection? Beneficial use of artificial selection and genetic modification based on definite and thoroughly known laws of genetics. As stated above, the curing of genetic defaults is a wholly practical reason, just itself, for HGE. If an unintelligent, or might I at least say blind, genetic evolutionary process can beneficially mold us into who we are now. What better is it for intelligence to have it's hand on the process?

Of course, I believe that there are generally two fears associated with HGE. The one being that humans will mess everything up due to our lack of knowledge of the field. The other being the fear of a 'perfect pointlesness of nothingness'. As stated by shawngoldw "This would cause an extreme lack of creativity and diversity in future generations, as everyone would be pretty much the same.'.

About the first fear, I do not disagree with. But, this is only under the circumstances of a noncontrolled academic scientific community. I voted that HGE needs firm policing. These views of mine grew from the impracticality of noncontrolled genetic research and from some views by James D. Watson(co-founder of the double-helix) in his book, 'DNA:The Secret to Life'. Without firm policy we get experiments on humans when the knowledge is not as closely judged to accurate as possible. Therefore, hightening the chance that a human will be harmed or even killed. Jesse Gelsinger, in 1999, died three days after his first gene therapy session of injection of a modified adenovirus. It was aimed at replacing the genes that cause OTC, a hereditary impairment of the liver to process urea, a natural product of protein matabolism.

...because there are so many unknowns in the gene-therapy eqation, strict oversight of all procedures involving humans is absolutely necessary.

_James D. Watson

About the second fear, who should forget that even though genes play a huge role in who we are, they only play the role of how we learn and how we interact to situations in life. Do not forget about nurture, as opposed to nature. Life experiences cause twins to live complete different lives.

If you take a balanced equation in mathamatics and add something to one side you must, in some way add it to the other or it won't work. Mathamatics is just a language to explain nature. Thus we should know that if we mess with nature balance will prevail. Maybe something imediate will go wrong i.e. the child will die or have some major disablity. Or maybe a few houndred years into the research and use and some other disaster will occur.

_DaBOB

Human life...balanced? How can you judge this? I suppose a man can depending on his psycological views of the balance of nature. But, what about the diseases, the pains and the sufferings, caused from the imbalance of physical and genetic processes? If HGE is promoting anything at all, it is the evidently current imbalance of life.

About bad circumstances coming about, due to experiments. I have to say that I disagree with anyone who uses this as a logical reason why we sure should not further our knowledge in the field. It's as if a man were to say to himself not to take risks in life to try to better himself, and better his career, because the riks are too great. No one would accomplish anything. But who is stopping these great men and women who do take the risks? No one. HGE is a risk like any other. But, remember that these risks can be minimized through policy.

If i or any other adult chooses to change their own physical or mental ability's by gene therapy or any other method then i cannot tell that person not to do so. However, modifying a person before its born is dangerous and stupid. It is controlling and dictating upon that person their behaviour and emotions as well as their physical and mental attributes this is a complete loss of freedom.
Of course we would all like to live in a world were there is no disease or hunger (no suffering) in this star trek like utopia. But you cannot have this discussion without looking at the social consequences, as soon as the line is stepped over between HGE for medical reasons to HGE for other benefits we would be opening a door we cannot shut. Ageing of course being the most obvious example that crosses between medical and social.
There are other ways of beating disease without resorting to HGE.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1539891.ece

Is brain surgery stupid? Think about the risks involved in such an operation. Would you ever go under the scope if surgery on your brain were needed to save you, or better you? Risks lay in everything we may do as a species. These risks should not stop us from at least attempting to help ourselves. What, does natural selection know best? I surely doubt it!

But as I said in my last post, by no means shall we ever attemp germ-line or gene therapy on a human embryo until we have come to a well shaped knowledge of the same techniques on other experimental species. And even then, it will take a couragable scientists to do so.

Let us not modify an unborn child to perfection. But, let's at least rid him of any hinderences, like herditary cancers or diseases! Life is not free if held down by these damned defects of natural selection. I believe it is our duty to allow an unborn to be born into this world free of diseases and shielded against any experiential diseases, if we have the knowledge to do so.

We can already screen embryos for certain genetic conditions, this another way of avoiding those "herditary cancers or diseases" or disability's without using HGE.

But you're not avoiding the cancers or diseases by only screening them. You are just screening them. What happens next?

with DNA material and prevent certain genetic defects...and throw in a few extra points of 'IQ' into the mix

Hehe...why not?

It will allow people to have the benefits that could come from HGE without the possible consequences and still achieve this......

But, let's at least rid him of any hinderences, like herditary cancers or diseases! Life is not free if held down by these damned defects of natural selection. I believe it is our duty to allow an unborn to be born into this world free of diseases and shielded against any experiential diseases, if we have the knowledge to do so.

I realise that this could still be seen as genetic engineering. It would though still allow us to achieve the goals stated above. Would this not be the more sensible thing to do ?

Also, screening embryos is already allowed in some parts of the world ( in the uk anyway) whereas HGE is not.

Originally Posted by Nanobrain

Hehe...why not?

i dont care how smart you are but every "one" person from all places and cultures aint dumber than the next beside them.

last i checked we all homo spaians which means were all the same and just as capable as each other. HeHe and a arent a good reply to that if you were joking. And some people i know still dont understand that

with DNA material and prevent certain genetic defects...and throw in a few extra points of 'IQ' into the mix

sorry if thats offtopic but i quoted those exact words and now i cant find them, and that kinda shit is wrong

Originally Posted by johnny

i dont care how smart you are but every "one" person from all places and cultures aint dumber than the next beside them.

nobody ever implied that, though you'll have to admit some individuals have higher intelligence than others, it's useless and ignorant to go on about how everybody has a different kind of intelligence, if that's where you were going....

Originally Posted by johnny

last i checked we all homo spaians which means were all the same and just as capable as each other. HeHe and a arent a good reply to that if you were joking. And some people i know still dont understand that

we're all homo sapiens, but we're not all the same, and we're not all just as capable..
it's stupid to say things like that, since the opposite is quite obvious..

is a person with down syndrome as capable as someone with an IQ of 140, or even as capable as any average citizen? no, they're not...that much is clear

does it mean their worth as a living human being is any less? of course not, but you still shouldn't ignore the fact that they can't take care of themselves as other people can...

Originally Posted by johnny

sorry if thats offtopic but i quoted those exact words and now i cant find them, and that kinda shit is wrong

so...why do you think it's so wrong?

if we could actually prevent people from getting down syndrome, or any other genetic defect for that matter...what's so bad about it?

what's the problem with making someone more intelligent, so he or she can live a "better"(this is of course a matter of opinion) life?

if we could actually prevent people from getting down syndrome, or any other genetic defect for that matter...what's so bad about it?

i wasnt talking at all about downs syndrome, but when someone says "Throw in a couple of IQ points" i get pissed, i may be white and things may be "clearer" in my head but i dont think myself smarter then native americans, indians, chinesse, Malayans, blacks, and other non white people.

like i said i cant find it no more and i quoted the exact words from this thread, someone edited there message...

how everybody has a different kind of intelligence, if that's where you were going....

thats exactly were iam going, different situations require different thinking, we cant all think the same but you have to agree we all think on the same level. were all human.

we're all homo sapiens, but we're not all the same, and we're not all just as capable..
it's stupid to say things like that, since the opposite is quite obvious..

yea thats on the outside i read somewhere that our genes are 99.9% the same, and it is obvious that that 0.01% makes a big difference but you cant judge people on how they look.

I refuse to acknolwedge race and i only differentiate populations by there culture. Saying that we are a superior smater race compared to another color is racism, period. Your smart you should know this

Originally Posted by johnny

i wasnt talking at all about downs syndrome, but when someone says "Throw in a couple of IQ points" i get pissed, i may be white and things may be "clearer" in my head but i dont think myself smarter then native americans, indians, chinesse, Malayans, blacks, and other non white people.

first and foremost, i never said anything about some "races" being more intelligent than others, i don't even believe in the whole concept of race, since we're all the same species...

while i do believe, maybe some groups of people may be more adept at thinking than others, just as some sorts ofdogs may be able to run faster than others, it has nothing to do with Genetic Alteration to make someone more intelligent

by preventing someone from getting down syndrome, you're essentialy already "throwing some IQ points in the mix", and even if you weren't...what's so bad about making someone more intelligent than they would've been without Genetic Engineering....

thats exactly were iam going, different situations require different thinking, we cant all think the same but you have to agree we all think on the same level. were all human.

no, i don't, we don't all think on the same level..

i agree artistic people and scientists might be geniuses in their own right, in their own areas...i'm not saying that just people who know all the laws of physics are intelligent...
I AM saying though, that there are people who have much less capability to learn than others, and thus don't think on the same level as others..

compare for instance Einstein or Plato with any average citizen, and i think you'll find they were on a whole other level as any of us

this may sound unfair or harsh, but it's just the way things are(right now), and there's nothing anyone can do about it

yea thats on the outside i read somewhere that our genes are 99.9% the same, and it is obvious that that 0.01% makes a big difference but you cant judge people on how they look.

I never said anything in the direction of judging people by their appearances...

I refuse to acknolwedge race and i only differentiate populations by there culture. Saying that we are a superior smater race compared to another color is racism, period. Your smart you should know this

i still don't know where you got the whole idea that i said anything like that from...
however i do believe there may be a difference in average intelligence between people of different colors, there's no way to really test it though..

by the way, imo differentiating people by their culture is more racist than differentiating them by color...but that's a discussion for some other time..[/quote]

by the way, imo differentiating people by their culture is more racist than differentiating them by color...but that's a discussion for some other time..

i went all nutso for the reasons i posted previously, someone removed what i quoted. I wasnt talking to you, but i thought you were defending the person. I agree with you about downs syndrome, but the person i quoted it from was talking about Malayans in general...

what's so bad about making someone more intelligent than they would've been without Genetic Engineering....

-the whites when they brought blacks as slaves to the americas, thought they were doing the blacks a favour.... And we cant say another peoples will be smarter with genetic engineering becauseits what we think, thats ignorant. were not them

-and we all do think on the same level for example raise any non european in a european culture and education and there just as capable as the europeans. Its been proven, so that means were all on the same level.

-and when i mean differentiate them by culture i mean an anglo (black or white) is the same to me

-sorry for going offtopic, but some people never learn

-and think about if us europeans(germans for example) can go from barbarians to scientists naturally, whats to say other peoples arent already making the transition....??

Originally Posted by johnny

-and we all do think on the same level for example raise any non european in a european culture and education and there just as capable as the europeans. Its been proven, so that means were all on the same level.

Sorry, have to disagree. Some people are more intelligent that other people. I really don't know what more there is to say about it ... You say: 'raise any non european in a european culture and education and there just as capable as the europeans'. He may be just as capable, he may be more capable that another european, or he might not be as capable as another european. We are not all identical copies of each other (and I don't mean this in a racist way, before I am accused). Some people have luck being born with a higher IQ, allowing them to be more relaxed at school etc., while some people will have to work a bit harder and will have more trouble with understanding certain things. But for all I know, that person that has to work a bit harder might be a great artist, have a lot of talent, and what not. Everyone has his or her 'speciality' if you will, and we aren't all Einstein's or Piccasso's.

and think about if us europeans(germans for example) can go from barbarians to scientists naturally, whats to say other peoples arent already making the transition....??

I have absolutly no idea what you mean. Are you suggesting that the rest of the world (besides germans) are evolving barbarians ... ?

I have absolutly no idea what you mean. Are you suggesting that the rest of the world (besides germans) are evolving barbarians ... ?

-yea they went from crazy people in tribes living in the woods fighting romans to who they are now, its not meant to be disrespectful.
-look i dont care anymore, OFFTOPIC