Thread: The Race for a Better Human

It is inevitable, in a sense, that genetic engineering of humans will, for better or worse, take place. Do you believe that such a thing can be privatized, or should such an achievement be made by an independant group of geneticists, non profit, for the good of mankind? What do you feel we would lose from such an 'accomplishment'? What could we gain? What are your feelings on this matter?

legislated by government and carried out by doctors only and on patients that need it.

if the rich engineer themselves to help become better then whats left for the poor people.

I think that Bill Gates will first get access to this, then turn himself to a supersmart individual that will take control over the world and make sure that no other gets access to this.

I just hope that Scarlett Johansons are going for less than $10,000.

Originally Posted by latehorn

I think that Bill Gates will first get access to this, then turn himself to a supersmart individual that will take control over the world and make sure that no other gets access to this.

We'd know it wasn't him because if he cloned himself his clone would be a narcoleptic (sp?).

Originally Posted by wallaby

if the rich engineer themselves to help become better then whats left for the poor people.

Revolution. [And walls.]

In my opinion you’ve put it exactly right. Genetic engineering is a too beautiful technique to let it get wasted. But in the hands of a global private market it shall turn out for the wrong in the long time (discussed in other topics).
So the only sensible decision is to put genetic engineering in the non-profit part. Yes this will slow down research; yes it will delay some promising experiments and no I do not think it will stop abuse of the technique. But it is the only break we have in leading this technique to help mankind and minimize abuse.

The financing for the research and developement of this techniques is in the private sector. Finally it will end in the wrong hands... and will end up as a big profitable business.

Originally Posted by silkworm

I just hope that Scarlett Johansons are going for less than $10,000.

Now that would be an investment you could get me out of wellfare for :P

Personally, I don't see the bad thing about cloning.. If someone wants to create blond, blue-eyed children, why not? Is there something bad about being blond, blue-eyed, or wanting to clone someone like that? Likewise, I don't see why 'more intelligent' clones would be better either.

We currently already have a seperation between 'smart' and 'dumb' people, and it is not as if one group is whiping out the other. Besides, it's highly questionable whether we can even create 'superior' humans. We are pretty wel evolved. I would think most of the changes would be to the immunity system.. Curing aids, reducing the chance on cancer, et cetera.

Mr U

Nothing wrong with blond blue eyed girls and boys, the prejudgement only says they are that stupid so they can not do any harm. :wink:

Originally Posted by HomoUniversalis

Personally, I don't see the bad thing about cloning.. If someone wants to create blond, blue-eyed children, why not? Is there something bad about being blond, blue-eyed, or wanting to clone someone like that? Likewise, I don't see why 'more intelligent' clones would be better either.

more intelligent would be worse:
We have always defended a system in which your background didn’t minimise your chances later on. I am not saying our system is there yet, but we are doing quite well. We all know some examples of a poor girl/boy who’s now a successful something in whatever.
The technique genetic engineering is bad a evolution in this process, making it for the established society easier to stay on top and more difficult the less rich to become compatible. This is not a good way to keep world turning in the right direction.
And off course a child born with a maximum of talent given by genetic engineering technique will not per definition succeed in life, but the changes are higher.
It is a tool for the rich to stay rich. And this is not the society we want. We want a society were a new child has every possibility whether it’s born in the gutter or with his ass in the butter (Dutch expression; free translation rich-born).
So genetic engineering may be scientific progress but surely wont be progress for our society.

I reckon, if its not being done already, it will be, and it'll be done in a country that hasn't got the rules of the west. Look at how we said no to full cloning experiments, but its probably going on in some piss poor country somewhere

Originally Posted by mhibiki

It is inevitable, in a sense, that genetic engineering of humans will, for better or worse, take place. Do you believe that such a thing can be privatized

Of course it will be privatised, if there is a dollar in it, there will be a mad rush to market it, only human nature, sadly whats left for us, work, work, work , and fight the rich mans battles, as per BL**#Y normal.
Think I’ll have a beer first.

It's going to happen, and it's going to get abused.

Genetic engineering disgusts me. A person can spend his entire life time mastering his own body and mind. Why do we even consider going beyond this yet. If you ask me, genetic engineering is for whimps.

Basicaly, I think we have more important things to be doing than messing with something we know little about (comparatively).

Don't get me wrong though. It is likely that I would be the first person to say yes to an experiment. But, that's only because I'm crazy. There is nothing wrong with science. There are some things wrong with technology.