NationStates Jolt Archive

We think that the entire field of genetic engineering, and cloning for that matter, goes against all of the morals and values of the human race. The power to pick and choose exactly what you want in your child should never become an option in this world. That job was devoted entirely to God because he is the only one that really knows what the world will need in the future. The moment we have the ability to "manufacture" our children is the moment that we have destroyed Religion and the frame of mind that there is a greater power above us.

There are so many complications with this field of study and so many variables that could go wrong that if these procedures are carried out on an actual human being and it fails what do we do then? If the child lives but is genetically deformed and is in constant suffering, how do we deal with that child? Do we just kill it like a bad stock of cattle or do we let the child suffer?

If a child is born naturally deformed then that is God's will. But if we create a deformed child on our own, who do we put that burden on? The child? Of course not, who can blame him/her? No, we would have to put the blame on the parents for ever making the decision to try this horrible experiment on their child and we blame the politicians for allowing this practice to ever take place. And most of all we blame the scientist. Not just the ones who carried out the procedures to manufacture this living being but all the scientist who ever did any research on the subject.

So I am asking you now...Don't play God. Don't commit the crime and injustice of tampering with life. And don't cause the unnecessary suffering of another living person.

And I guess we should disavow all forms of surgery and medicine...if God says it is our time to die, than it is our time to die. :p

Go out and do some study, then come back and post here.

Genetic research is nothing like what you're trying to portray here. Although I think you may be an "epsilon" from Brave New World... ;)

"...goes against all of the morals and values of the human race."

No, goes against your morals and values.

I am solidly against genetic engineering, but not for religious reasons. Humans can not even begin to tamper with nature yet, we have no idea of the unforseen consequences of changing genes around artificially. We just aren't ready for that stage yet.

Of course, my opinion doesn't matter too much, very little can stand in the way of scientific progression. I do have to admit, it would be incredibly interesting to do work in that science field...as wrong as I think it is.

-snip-
Don't forget, we could also end up living a Mobile Suit Gundam SEED (http://www.gundamofficial.com/worlds/ce/index.html) future!

A war is under way between genetically enhanced Coordinators and unmodified Naturals


(Note this post is purely sarcastic in nature)

No, goes against your morals and values.
But Greneda is the voice of God! Either that or he's having grandiose delusions...

I personally find it strange that the US (parts of it anyway) is so fervently opposed to things like stem cell research but are perfectly willing to genetically modify pretty much any crop they can can find.

But Greneda is the voice of God!
I thought Alan Rickman was the voice of God. :D

....Hmph. You realize your using the idea of genetic engineering incorrectly. Please refer to using "Human Genetic Engineering," because genetic engineering in foods and plants is what you probably have in your stomach...

Regardless, bringing in moral and unsupported claims about "why God did this," and "what God wants," will only lead to a religous morals vs. scientific advancement arguments.

Of what my opinion is, God doesn't exist, nothing is "ment" to happen or not happen, it's not what God thinks, its what you think, and what you have been taught, everything is choice.

I thought Alan Rickman was the voice of God.
We'll run with that then. I like Alan Rickman better anyway.
So that leaves our poster with grandiose delusions doesn't it? :D

....Hmph. You realize your using the idea of genetic engineering incorrectly. Please refer to using "Human Genetic Engineering," because genetic engineering in foods and plants is what you probably have in your stomach...
You have a good point...one with which I am uncomfortable with. Programming herbicides and insecticides into plants seems careless of humans...who knows what ecological consequences there will be... Y'know, biodiversity is more important than may people realise, even farmers with their monocultures.

The country of Cybertoria surrports genetic egineering, so we disagree with the statement! To hell with the moral or the ethical issues!

The country of Cybertoria surrports genetic egineering, so we disagree with the statement! To hell with the moral or the ethical issues!
What about the biological and ecological issues?!? Why do people not see those?

You have a good point...one with which I am uncomfortable with. Programming herbicides and insecticides into plants seems careless of humans...who knows what ecological consequences there will be... Y'know, biodiversity is more important than may people realise, even farmers with their monocultures.

You are confused. Genetic engineering of plants has very little to do with herbicides/pesticides, it uses more along the lines of breeding plants to create traits that are resistant to herbicides/pesticides, so that the plant isn't harmed, but the bugs/bad soil/whatever is destroyed/drawn away/non-existent, but also harms the environment...

You are confused. Genetic engineering of plants has very little to do with herbicides/pesticides, it uses more along the lines of breeding plants to create traits that are resistant to herbicides/pesticides, so that the plant isn't harmed, but the bugs/bad soil/whatever is destroyed/drawn away/non-existent, but also harms the environment...
Oh, I'm not worrying about ingesting poisons, I'm just saying that it isn't good for the environment and biodiversity. Humans don't yet have enough genomic knowledge to say all the possible consequences of artificially altering any organisms genetic code. Nature has the perfectly fine method of evolution...I'm comfortable with that.

I understand..well, you are a knotch higher in my book for supporting evolution...

I think human GE is rather élitist in many ways, the idea of creating a master race (which sounds a lot like eugenics). Also, I think things are probably too artificial as it is. There's something about the cold regularity of cities and buildings I don't like.

Then there's the whole Gundam SEED thing. :D

I think human GE is rather élitist in many ways, the idea of creating a master race (which sounds a lot like eugenics). Also, I think things are probably too artificial as it is. There's something about the cold regularity of cities and buildings I don't like.

Then there's the whole Gundam SEED thing. :D

Are you suggesting that GE could lead to us all living inside a japanese cartoon.

Because frankly that would rock.

I don't like cities too much either, I prefer a more natural setting too, but my recent studies on social insects have kind of turned me otherwise. Ants, termites, and bees all do the same thing, just in a different way (termites being the most construction-savvy of all). It's just humans' version of ant colonies and bee hives.

I have only a couple of reservations about genetic engineering. I should also point out I am an agnostic and am in no way religious.

Genetic engineering will create two societies - those who are able to genetically engineer humans (the "haves") and those who are not able to do so (the "have-nots"), which will probably look an awful lot like our current rich-poor divide. There may even be subgroups within that - the fabulously rich can engineer superbabies or perhaps edit their own DNA to make themselves and their children genetically superior to the have-nots. The middle class or the fairly well-off can afford some forms of genetic enhancement, but may still be a step or two below the super-rich. The poor are stuck as normal humans, unable to break into the upper echelons of society no matter how hard they try. Humanity will have a caste system based on this; in time, genetic engineerin will make the caste system extremely rigid and enable the rich to exploit the poor even more.

Also, what if we engineer ourselves to be invincible? What if we make outselves immune to diseases, able to survive without sleep, or what-have-you? We can make ourselves superhuman. We can live for centuries and produce vast numbers of children if we choose. My questions are these - what if there continue to be too many humans for the amount of resources we have? Again, the haves take the resources from the have-nots, and sooner or later the have-nots probably die off. Then the haves either die off for not procreating enough or procreate too much, living too long. We might die a slow, miserable death as a species, mucking up the ecosystem beyond repair in the process and killing off many vital plant and animal species in the process. We might have a society of only humans sooner or later, with all the animals dead. Then what? Do we find a way to create our own food from sunlight? Genetic engineering may solve the problems it creates, but damned if we don't screw things up big time in the process.

I agree. I'm absolutely against the engineering of gin, Greneda, and...

Oh. Wait. You're talking about GENETIC engineering. Well, see, complication there. God told me, and this is ABSOLUTELY TRUE GUYS, that I was supposed to use genetic engineering to create a race of supersoldiers that will slaughter the batshit insane. I can't argue with it. It's God's will.

Take out the religious aspects of your rant and then we'll talk.



The evils of genetic engineering can best be found by watching...Shit, was it the Outer Limits or was it the Twilight Zone??? I cant remember which but want to lead towards the Outer Limits. Basically people will use Genetic engineering to produce flying mutated human soldiers that will go on a rampage and destroy the entire human populace with the exception of a few individuals who will be taken away on an alien spacecraft that isn't really alien. It was built by humans who destroyed themselves by creating genetically engineered soldiers who destroyed the entire human populace with the exception of a few individuals who built a spacecraft and managed to escape the slaughter who then repopulated the planet from which they came. That planet being Earth.

Nothing wrong with GE!

Rubs third eye ...

I agree that genetic engineering has to be approached with care. I disagree that it should be impeded or stopped. I agree that there will be some pretty horrific cases (due to human nature). I disagree that the bad outweighs the good in terms of advancement of our race, and combat of generic or medical disorders. I agree that it is an issue of morality. I disagree that it is an issue of religion.

The human race is not mature enough to advance genetic engineering with the responsibility required to make it something wonderful, but the race will never mature if advancements like these are not made.

We think that the entire field of genetic engineering, and cloning for that matter, goes against all of the morals and values of the human race. The power to pick and choose exactly what you want in your child should never become an option in this world. That job was devoted entirely to God because he is the only one that really knows what the world will need in the future. The moment we have the ability to "manufacture" our children is the moment that we have destroyed Religion and the frame of mind that there is a greater power above us.

There are so many complications with this field of study and so many variables that could go wrong that if these procedures are carried out on an actual human being and it fails what do we do then? If the child lives but is genetically deformed and is in constant suffering, how do we deal with that child? Do we just kill it like a bad stock of cattle or do we let the child suffer?

If a child is born naturally deformed then that is God's will. But if we create a deformed child on our own, who do we put that burden on? The child? Of course not, who can blame him/her? No, we would have to put the blame on the parents for ever making the decision to try this horrible experiment on their child and we blame the politicians for allowing this practice to ever take place. And most of all we blame the scientist. Not just the ones who carried out the procedures to manufacture this living being but all the scientist who ever did any research on the subject.

So I am asking you now...Don't play God. Don't commit the crime and injustice of tampering with life. And don't cause the unnecessary suffering of another living person.
Cloning doesn't work anyways. So why fuzz?

Just FYI:

We have been practicing the fine art of genetic manuipulation for.... oh, about 10,000 years now. We just called it Selective Breeding before, and it just took longer to get the same results.

Just go out and compare any modern crop or food animal to it's wild relatives (if wild ones even still exist). Or, heck, compare a one today to one just 50 years ago.

Genetic Engineering is a evolutionary, not revolutionary, process.

As a medical school student, this post makes me want to cry....=(

We recently debated on this issue in one of my classes ("The Doctors Dilemma", a class on medical ethics, and a place to discuss issues such as this) and the overwhelming majority was Pro-Genetic Engineering....to a point.

As medical students we all agreed that the main goal of our profession was to help people, and in order to do so we must find cures for certain diseases, and if that meant possibly conditioning humans to overcome them (Say AIDS, cancer, or any number of hereditary diseases) we decided it was for the good of humans as a species, it continued to allow us to evolve.

By using genetic engineering as gene therapy, scientists would be able to replace damaged nerves in someone with a genetic disease, such as an immunodeficiency problem. Another advantage for people dealing with such a horrible disease!

Even though most of the class was "for genetic engineering" we all agreed that there were disadvantages to it as well.

Not a single one of us was for "human immortality through genetic engineering", but we were for slowing down the aging process, if only a little bit. We all realize that aging and death are just part of life, and that given a chance to have a little more time, most of us would take it.

And not to try and offend anyone but:
I was always curious as to exactly what "Gods Plan" was? Is it to allow our technological advances to fall by the wayside unused?
I would imagine, that if there is a "God" he would be proud of what we have achieved. Now of course we've made mistakes, but isn't that part of human nature?

Medicine isn't there to hurt people, its there to help, and to heal. Without the help of the scientific community we wouldn't get very far, I'm excited to see what the future holds. :)

Who will benefit from genetic tampering?

Here is the position of The Empire of Presidency: Ginetic engenering is a wonderful thing!
Not only will it limit the # of unwanted pregnancys, but sexual fulfillment will be at climaxes never before discovered. The revenue it would bring to the health sector would be a huge economical boost. Not to mention the pshche of the public would be at euphoric heights. This in turn would increase public spending which would further drive up the GDP of The Empire of Presidency.

More Ginetic Engineers please!

Go out and do some study, then come back and post here.

Genetic research is nothing like what you're trying to portray here. Although I think you may be an "epsilon" from Brave New World... ;)
Epsilon Minus

"Wow, look at those alphas, I wouldn't like to be one of them because their job is soo hard, or the betas, or gammas or deltas. I'm happy being an epsilon, my life is fun and the alcohol injected into my foetus was a good thing".

Nah, nothing wrong with genetic engineering, except maybe the success rate. What is it, 0.025% or something?

Designer babies is a bit of a silly idea though. We'd probably end up with some huge monoculture of humans and we'd all be wiped out by accidental inbreeding or something like that. But I'm all for using bacteria to produce human insulin. Can anyone tell me a reason why they are against helping diabetics?

I thought Alan Rickman was the voice of God. :D

I want my Buddy Jesus doll!

We think that the entire field of genetic engineering, and cloning for that matter, goes against all of the morals and values of the human race. The power to pick and choose exactly what you want in your child should never become an option in this world. That job was devoted entirely to God because he is the only one that really knows what the world will need in the future. The moment we have the ability to "manufacture" our children is the moment that we have destroyed Religion and the frame of mind that there is a greater power above us.

There are so many complications with this field of study and so many variables that could go wrong that if these procedures are carried out on an actual human being and it fails what do we do then? If the child lives but is genetically deformed and is in constant suffering, how do we deal with that child? Do we just kill it like a bad stock of cattle or do we let the child suffer?

If a child is born naturally deformed then that is God's will. But if we create a deformed child on our own, who do we put that burden on? The child? Of course not, who can blame him/her? No, we would have to put the blame on the parents for ever making the decision to try this horrible experiment on their child and we blame the politicians for allowing this practice to ever take place. And most of all we blame the scientist. Not just the ones who carried out the procedures to manufacture this living being but all the scientist who ever did any research on the subject.

So I am asking you now...Don't play God. Don't commit the crime and injustice of tampering with life. And don't cause the unnecessary suffering of another living person.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

funny how nobody seems to mind us "playing God" by treating illnesses. God obviously wanted you to get smallpox, so what right have we to develop a vaccine for it? how dare we cure polio! God wanted that plague to exist, and how dare we puny humans thwart His divine plan!

Who will benefit from genetic tampering?

Quite a number of people actually. At the moment it is mainly the plant breeders and companies. However there is reserch into being able to supplement the diet of Third World people who suffer malnutrition by adding genes to thier rice (Golden Rice) that will produce amino acids that would otherwise not be in thier diet in high amounts. Also people are working on putting vaccines in food, fridges of vaccines to inject are all very well, hovever not if you are in a jeep in the desert of Chad.

GE can produce more hardy crops that will grow with less water thus helping people in worse climates and with poorer soils. As has been pointed out, we have been engineering crops for 17,000 years, to the point where the wheat in our fields could not survive without people, it simply could not dpread its own seeds. There is so much more I could tell you but it would be too long and nobody would bother reading it anyway!

We should all go back to the good old days of yore:

"Father, I have a slight sniffle"
"Dear Lord, Satan has taken over your nose!"
"Nooo! What should I do?"
"Take this mallet and chisel. You know what to do. Go in peace, my son"

Folks --

The originator of this thread has opened five threads thus far.
He has posted one long diatribe for four of the five threads and then disappeared, never to post again in the thread.

Therefore, taking this into consideration, I suggest that you stop feeding the troll.

Who will benefit from genetic tampering?
Diabetics, wheat growers, the human race... you know, just the usual scum of the Earth

Folks --

The originator of this thread has opened five threads thus far.
He has posted one long diatribe for four of the five threads and then disappeared, never to post again in the thread.

Therefore, taking this into consideration, I suggest that you stop feeding the troll.

Surely we can debate amongst ourselves?

You know Grenada, you really chose the extremist areas of the debate. What about Human G.E. to produce a viable transplant for a terminally ill child? If you were a Doctor, would you go and tell his/her parents that theres no doner, and also because of religious debates you cant engineer a compatable organ? Im no biologist, actually im a Physicist studying at Hull University (UK) im only in my first year, but even i can see the extreme benifits for man-kind. And the thought you could make yourself invincible through genetic manipulation is frankly laughable, theres a big gap in both technology, feasability of altering an unborn child who once born would have to suffer blindness/deafness/mental retardation and changing yourself. If your gonna argue on the religious sides, then why would God, in all His wisdom and kindness, etc, produce children who spend there lives in glass tubes because they suffer from countless diseases. Face it, technology is advancing, hell, if we can get Fusion reactors to work now (albeit for short periods) <A J.E.T reactor, based in the UK for example, is a stepping stone Torksin Fusion reactor, producing incredible amounts of energy for short periods from Deutrion and Trition Hydrogen states> then why not try and improve our social stance.

Hmm.. i went off at a tangent again....

:P

Folks --

The originator of this thread has opened five threads thus far.
He has posted one long diatribe for four of the five threads and then disappeared, never to post again in the thread.

Therefore, taking this into consideration, I suggest that you stop feeding the troll.
But I like all animals!

Folks --

The originator of this thread has opened five threads thus far.
He has posted one long diatribe for four of the five threads and then disappeared, never to post again in the thread.

Therefore, taking this into consideration, I suggest that you stop feeding the troll.
the problem is that he is raising actual issues. there are a great many people who (amazingly) do hold the views that the troll is posting. i know it seems ludicrous and painful that we should even have to address these topics, but that's the sad reality of the world we live in.

Should I really be denied the chance of a cure for my diabetes because someone says 'It goes against the will of god?'. Should the research be stoped because someone objected to it? If it says lives, I seriously think not.

Diabetics, wheat growers, the human race... you know, just the usual scum of the Earth

Scum of the earth Am i? how am scum of the earth because my pancreas isn't working? say to the 2 million people in the UK that they are scum because an orgen isn't working. I think there would be quite abit of anger flying around.

Scum of the earth Am i? how am scum of the earth because my pancreas isn't working? say to the 2 million people in the UK that they are scum because an orgen isn't working. I think there would be quite abit of anger flying around.

I think he was being sarcastic at a silly question.

the problem is that he is raising actual issues. there are a great many people who (amazingly) do hold the views that the troll is posting. i know it seems ludicrous and painful that we should even have to address these topics, but that's the sad reality of the world we live in.

And actually, people are making good points -- but I wouldn't bother to address Greneda directly at this point since the pattern of behavior suggests he or she will not bother to refute others' arguments or back her/his own up.

This is merely a player observation, not a mod ruling.

Surely we can debate amongst ourselves?

Of course. Had I thought the threads completely without merit, or flaming, I would have shut them... see my answer above.

Moral, environmental, and all other issues aside, lots of people are forgetting one of the biggest issues: the technical ones. To make an alteration or two immediately after conception, when the fetus-to-be is still at the one-cell stage isn't even an easy thing, let alone trying to alter an entire, full-grown human.

Consider that the human body has somewhere around a billion cells or so. Each and every mutation you want to try and correct exists in every one of those cells. Therefore you need to make somewhere around 1x10^9 alterations. This is no easy task, for most of the methods of introducing such changes (read: engineered viruses) will only replicate in one or two tissue types. The technical challenges are far beyond what we're currently capable of doing.

Anyway, on to the "issue" itself. The cloning/modification of entire humans through genetic engineering is sort of vain if you think about it. Really, how shallow do you have to be to want your child to be exactly like you? Furthermore, limited immortality probably isn't much better of a goal. After all, the human mind doesn't usually deal well with an age of 80, let alone an age of 150. Even if the body were to be in prime condition for that long, the mental deterioration and or insanity that would result would effectively negate any benefits.

Growing a new pancreas or liver for someone because they have a birth defect or autoimmune condition that makes their life hellish is a good thing. The possibility of "curing" CF by inserting a working copy of the Chloride Pump gene into their lung tissue is pretty damned exciting. Wouldn't you agree?

I think he was being sarcastic at a silly question.
indeed. thankyou for noticing the apparent sarcasm

Scum of the earth Am i? how am scum of the earth because my pancreas isn't working? say to the 2 million people in the UK that they are scum because an orgen isn't working. I think there would be quite abit of anger flying around.

Read my other posts. Please. I'm all for genetic engineering.

So I am asking you now...Don't play God. Don't commit the crime and injustice of tampering with life. And don't cause the unnecessary suffering of another living person.

There is much more to the field of genetic engineering than "picking and choosing what you want in your child." Why don't you try being just a little bit informed on the reality of an issue instead of watching a movie and freaking out?

Who will benefit from genetic tampering?

I was thinking along the lines of the WEALTHY.

Will genetic alterations be available to the common people?

Not a chance.

Looking at the current situation with American healthcare (thanks Hillary)
you would have to acknowledge the affordability of it. The benefits of
genetic tampering would only be available to those who can afford it.

I was thinking along the lines of the WEALTHY.

Will genetic alterations be available to the common people?

Not a chance.

Looking at the current situation with American healthcare (thanks Hillary)
you would have to acknowledge the affordability of it. The benefits of
genetic tampering would only be available to those who can afford it.
not necessarily. sure, the wealthy would probably get to the technology earlier on than the poor, but the easier it becomes to use genetic engineering the more available it will be to the average citizen.

and, at any rate, do you really think that limited availability is a good reason to deny medical treatment? should rich children not be given the best care their parents' money can buy, simply because other children might not have the same resources available to them? should we forbid those with money from using it to improve their lives and the lives of their families? unless you are prepared to support full-on Communism, i don't see how you can take that stance.

I was thinking along the lines of the WEALTHY.

Will genetic alterations be available to the common people?

Not a chance.

Looking at the current situation with American healthcare (thanks Hillary)
you would have to acknowledge the affordability of it. The benefits of
genetic tampering would only be available to those who can afford it.

Ok, fair enough. However at the current time this is only a tiny part of the research. The vast majority of it is on crops and plants as they are the easiest higher orgamisms to manipulate. The rest is mainly for medical research, eg. cancers and other diseases like than, and inherited disease screens etc. It is really only a tiny group that think that they can produce thier own life and such.

I am quite against genetic engineering but not even close in mind to the post of this thread's starter...

"If a child is born naturally deformed then that is God's will." And then I wonder why there are so many atheists ... <sigh> ... knowing only theists like this one all my life would make me an atheist too.

You know Grenada, you really chose the extremist areas of the debate. What about Human G.E. to produce a viable transplant for a terminally ill child? If you were a Doctor, would you go and tell his/her parents that theres no doner, and also because of religious debates you cant engineer a compatable organ?

Just to be a little anal here... This would actually fall under "tissue engineering" rather than "genetic engineering." Most likely donor cells or stem cells would be used to do it, although I suppose you *might* try and engineer the child's cells to work properly, it is more likely that organs will be grown from other, easier to obtain, sources.

Just to be a little anal here... This would actually fall under "tissue engineering" rather than "genetic engineering." Most likely donor cells or stem cells would be used to do it, although I suppose you *might* try and engineer the child's cells to work properly, it is more likely that organs will be grown from other, easier to obtain, sources.
silly Demi, why must you bring science into this debate? obviously the Will of God is all we need to worry about, and there is no need for anybody to actually know what the procedures in question can and cannot do. why, just USING correct scientific terminology will get you sent straight to Hell!

silly Demi, why must you bring science into this debate? obviously the Will of God is all we need to worry about, and there is no need for anybody to actually know what the procedures in question can and cannot do. why, just USING correct scientific terminology will get you sent straight to Hell!

Bottle, sometimes I think if I wasn't happily attached I might propose to you. Not that it would mean anything in *my* state. LOL =)

Bottle, sometimes I think if I wasn't happily attached I might propose to you. Not that it would mean anything in *my* state. LOL =)
there is a special spot in hell reserved for degenerates who express affection for educated or good-humored individuals!

not to mention that whole gay inuendo thing, but i personally think God is getting bored with that particular trespass...any day now He is going to start cracking down on the shellfish-eating Sabbath-breaking cotton-poly-blend-wearing sinners among us!!

Read my other posts. Please. I'm all for genetic engineering.

sorry, I was rather angry at the author of the thread and didn't notice it. Anger can do strange things to a person..... :headbang:

I don't care about genetic engineering. Cyborgs are much cooler than genetically augmenteds.

Just a quick aside to the rich/poor aspects of GE:
What in the world hasn't the rich been the first to benefit from? They were the first to get cars, and televisions, VCRs, DVDs, CDs, and most modern medicine. That’s the way it’s always worked with everything.

The point is eventually cars and TV’s and medicine became affordable to common people. Saying that we shouldn’t develop this field, because it would only benefit the rich, is like saying the computer industry should stop developing new technology. Only the rich will be able to afford the latest PC when it first comes out, but the price will drop eventually and regular people will buy it too.

you people are forgetting something. God gave us free will, for us to use as we choose. If you're saying that we shouldn't be allowed to do anything that God did not specifically say we could in the Bible, you might as well agree with predestination, that nothing we do in our lives will change our destiny of either going to Heaven or Hell.

Murder, adultery, bigomy, lying, blasphemy, incest,etc.--God allows of these happen, whether or not they are legal. And keep in mind, many of these sins were committed by good people of the bible, e.g....

murder-Moses
adultery-David
lying-Jacob, Peter
incest-Adam & Eve's kids, Noah's kids
blasphemy-Paul
bigomy-Solomon

Anyway, God expects us to make our own choices based on the inherent moral conscience we are born with. We are allowed to make mistakes, because if we couldn't make bad decisions then our good decisions would be meaningless, because they weren't decisions at all.

Of course, we don't really know genetic engineering is evil in the first place. God gave us intelligence, to do with the world as we will. I don't see genetic scientists getting rained on by frogs or getting their firstborns killed.

I think you Bible-humpers need to stop being so paranoid about us destroying the world. We're not, we're learning more and more of God's wonderful creation.

And if we are destroying the world, then it's God's plan, and we're doing his work.

Besides, if genetic research is banned, I'll never be able to marry my Keira Knightley clone.:D

one should never undertake any form of biotechnological resarch while intoxicated.

I don't care about genetic engineering. Cyborgs are much cooler than genetically augmenteds.

Aah, but the people who develop nanobot blood infusions will truly be Gods among men.

By the way, was this thread inspired by Gattaca?
Or Brave New World?
(Brave New World isn't genetic engineering per se, it's mostly just alcohol infusions and subliminal messaging. Oh, and soma. SOMA!)

The only reason that a Gundam SEED /SEED Destiny future would be nice is, forget the genetic engineering people, we have Mobile Suits!! :D

I have seen this issue come up in many other forums, sometimes i myself would bring it up. All of the following is my opinion, you can agree with what i say, or you can disagree, but you have no right to tell me how to live my life, or try to tell me that I am wrong. With that said, i believe that genetic engineering is the gateway to the future. Genetic diseases, mental retardation, blindness, deafness, all gone! Everyone will now be able to live their lives to their fullest potential. Imagine what we could accomplish if we didnt have to wait every say, 200-300 years for an enistien to make a radical discovery. There would be no more ugly people in the world, nobody would feel inferior or left out. Mental disorders could be treated before they evolve into something worse, that may result in not only that indiviuals death, but others's as well. Because of personal experience i must say i do not believe in god. For every story that you can come up with that seems to prove that god exhists, i can give you a thousand examples of why he doesnt. If god is so perfect then how can he let people live their lives without every seeing the faces of their loved ones, without every hearing their friends??? Where is god every day when kids are getting bullied and are committing suicide because they feel so miserable? Back when i was in 9th grade there was one kid who picked on me. I let him do it for about 2 years. Finally id had enough. I picked a fight with him and i taught him a lesson. God did not help me. God was not there for me when i felt like dirt. And where was god when the holocaust happened? Was he on a f-cking vacation or something? If you are religious then that pretty much means you have rejected modern science, which is aburd since most of it are facts or are based on facts. Honestly i believe there will be a war over this issue since it is one of the most important and influential political issues to have ever come up. I end with, genetical enhancement is the only way to move forward, and as long as there are certain regulations put into place, there will never be a problem.

We think that the entire field of genetic engineering, and cloning for that matter, goes against all of the morals and values of the human race. The power to pick and choose exactly what you want in your child should never become an option in this world. That job was devoted entirely to God because he is the only one that really knows what the world will need in the future. The moment we have the ability to "manufacture" our children is the moment that we have destroyed Religion and the frame of mind that there is a greater power above us.



So I am asking you now...Don't play God. Don't commit the crime and injustice of tampering with life. And don't cause the unnecessary suffering of another living person.


wait a sec, if god makes people who fit in with the world in the future then surely he gave us the ability to do genetic engineering as he created people who agreed with it. dont bring god into the issue it just confuses it and gives all those fundamentalists an opportunity to force their extreme and blinkered reality on every1. dont giv it that satisfaction :headbang:

I have seen this issue come up in many other forums, sometimes i myself would bring it up. All of the following is my opinion, you can agree with what i say, or you can disagree, but you have no right to tell me how to live my life, or try to tell me that I am wrong. With that said, i believe that genetic engineering is the gateway to the future. Genetic diseases, mental retardation, blindness, deafness, all gone! Everyone will now be able to live their lives to their fullest potential. God did not help me.
God was not there for me when i felt like dirt. And where was god when the holocaust happened? Was he on a f-cking vacation or something? If you are religious then that pretty much means you have rejected modern science, which is aburd since most of it are facts or are based on facts. Honestly i believe there will be a war over this issue since it is one of the most important and influential political issues to have ever come up. I end with, genetical enhancement is the only way to move forward, and as long as there are certain regulations put into place, there will never be a problem.


firstly agree that god wnt help u directly, but he may hav given u the attitude 2 fight back against this bloke, ( nd dnt say he ddnt cos u dnt kno that) i also agree that no1 can tel u how 2 liv ur life
but there is a difference between ur life nd ur childs for example. the effects of wat u do can b negative on others. maybe the ppl hu r blind r blind because they r the only 1s with the strength 2 deal with it, nd i think u can take that philosophy to hand with other things that seem unfair in the world. ppl hu hav problems hav them because they r the ones hu can deal with them. maybe there r only disabled ppl on earth so that those hu rnt can really appreciate it. how can there b peace, pleasure and tranquility without comparison and perspective towards war, pain and chaos. suffering is inevitable but for example, wen i hav a hard time at school or home 4 a few months nd i just feel like i'm about 2 give up on life, things change, and wat was the norm previously feels so much happier and calmer to me. if there was no work and just holidays, the holidays would b nowhere near as special. just food 4 thought.

Well, not just reproduction, either. I firmly believe in establishing personalized tissue, blood and organ banks dedicted to a single user through the use of cloned genetic materials as well. I believe in stem cell research. I say we put our new knowledge of the human genome to work for us - otherwise, why have bothered with it at all?

The moment we have the ability to "manufacture" our children is the moment that we have destroyed Religion and the frame of mind that there is a greater power above us.

I'm surprised you don't realize that some people want EXACTLY that! I don't believe in a "greater power" or any such non sense, but if you want to delude yourself into believing that go right on ahead. I fully believe in the power of genetic engineering the future of the human populace. Perhaps than we could destroy disease and stop people from ever becoming clinically depressed, in general there would be more good than harm (if a few kids get messed up in the process than so be it – that my be amazingly harsh and morally wrong but scientific advancement is very important to me).

I have seen this issue come up in many other forums, sometimes i myself would bring it up. All of the following is my opinion, you can agree with what i say, or you can disagree, but you have no right to tell me how to live my life, or try to tell me that I am wrong. With that said, i believe that genetic engineering is the gateway to the future. Genetic diseases, mental retardation, blindness, deafness, all gone! Everyone will now be able to live their lives to their fullest potential.
Holy crap, I think everyone needs to watch Gattaca and possibly read Brave New World. A future with perfect humans is not a rosy as it first seems.

Not only this, but humans are not ready for genetic engineering. We are not mature or wise enough yet! The conesequences of GE are not in our realm of understanding yet, and by the time it starts going (which I know it will, despite my misgivings), it will be too late and we're going to be telling ourselves "Ahh crap, we're idiots."

I don't have theological problems with playing God, we just aren't ready to yet.

I intend to use GE to combine the two most popular pets and make a fortune.

Imagine, an animal with the cleanliness of a dog, and the loyalty of a cat. Who wouldn't want that.

Holy crap, I think everyone needs to watch Gattaca and possibly read Brave New World. A future with perfect humans is not a rosy as it first seems.

But all genetic engineering does not have this goal in mind. If you are not opposed to coming up with new drugs to battle cystic fibrosis, why would you be opposed to giving CF patients something that fixes the mutation?

Not only this, but humans are not ready for genetic engineering. We are not mature or wise enough yet! The conesequences of GE are not in our realm of understanding yet, and by the time it starts going (which I know it will, despite my misgivings), it will be too late and we're going to be telling ourselves "Ahh crap, we're idiots."

We have all seen Gattaca or read Brave New World. We know what the bad things could be if we took things to an extreme. However, like every scientific advance that people get all up in arms about, regulating the use of genetic engineering would be necessary. It's not like (very many) people are saying "LET THE SCIENTISTS GO CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZY!!!"

Holy crap, I think everyone needs to watch Gattaca and possibly read Brave New World. A future with perfect humans is not a rosy as it first seems.

Not only this, but humans are not ready for genetic engineering. We are not mature or wise enough yet! The conesequences of GE are not in our realm of understanding yet, and by the time it starts going (which I know it will, despite my misgivings), it will be too late and we're going to be telling ourselves "Ahh crap, we're idiots."

I don't have theological problems with playing God, we just aren't ready to yet.
actually, we know exactly what the potential outcomes are, and we are well aware of the possible pitfalls of the technology we have at our disposal. whether or not we FEEL prepared to deal with those outcomes is quite another matter...i propose that those of us who are prepared to deal with the outcomes should be allowed to use the technology, and those who aren't ready can do without it.

actually, we know exactly what the potential outcomes are, and we are well aware of the possible pitfalls of the technology we have at our disposal. whether or not we FEEL prepared to deal with those outcomes is quite another matter...i propose that those of us who are prepared to deal with the outcomes should be allowed to use the technology, and those who aren't ready can do without it.
If this were true, then I'd be fine with it. But my point is that humans can not possibly know all the potential consequences. If we snip out a gene here and insert another one in its place, we can not be sure of all possible outcomes. And then we'd find out when there's a pandemic disease or something. And if it does work, then humans will become more dominant than they already are, and our environment will plunge even further. Biodiversity applies to humans as well.

Just because a person is dumb doesn't mean they should want the rest of the world to be dumb with them. I'm sorry if you're easily confused, but science shouldn't stop just so you don't get a headache listening to the big words. ;)

If this were true, then I'd be fine with it. But my point is that humans can not possibly know all the potential consequences. If we snip out a gene here and insert another one in its place, we can not be sure of all possible outcomes. And then we'd find out when there's a pandemic disease or something. And if it does work, then humans will become more dominant than they already are, and our environment will plunge even further. Biodiversity applies to humans as well.

All of these arguments could have been used to ban every medical advance we've ever had. Until you try something, you *never* know exactly what will happen. However, in some cases, even a bad result is better than none.

Take, for instance, the SCIDs (bubble boy syndrome) kids in France. Genetic engineering essentially cured them. They lived completely normal lives for three years - a luxury that they never would have had otherwise. Then, many of them developed leukemia, which *might* have been caused by the genetic treatment. However, those kids actually got an opportunity to live normal, healthy, happy lives for *three* years, which to them was a pure blessing.

Given time, and many more animal experiments, the researchers should be able to figure out what caused the leukemia and ensure that it does not happen again. Then, three years can turn into 10, 20, who knows?

Just because a person is dumb doesn't mean they should want the rest of the world to be dumb with them. I'm sorry if you're easily confused, but science shouldn't stop just so you don't get a headache listening to the big words. ;)
Are you referring to me? I don't want science to stop. I'm going to become some type of scientist for sure as my profession. Probably a type of biologist, virology and entomology (perhaps the subset myrmecology) are my current top candidates. Please, if you want to discuss science, let's. I am only in high school and I have higher scientific learning than most of the US if standardised tests are even mildly close, probably due to my obsession with it. I think that genetic engineering would be a facsinating topic to study--just imagine what we could do!--I just don't feel that humans are prepared to take that step yet. I'm already apprehensive about selective breeding...as long as it's been going on, I still am wary of human-imposed eugenics. I think natural selection should be the only method until we know more fully the long-term consequences of our actions.

The moment we have the ability to "manufacture" our children is the moment that we have destroyed Religion and the frame of mind that there is a greater power above us.

There are so many complications with this field of study and so many variables that could go wrong that if these procedures are carried out on an actual human being and it fails what do we do then?
.
Two points.


1) Why would destroying the religious mindset be bad? Many people would agree with you, many wouldn't, but you have to give a reason as to why that point is valid.

2) There are actually many fewer variables than you would think. Recent estimates on gene numbers actually cut down the previous estimate by 400%. Furthermore we have been experimenting in gene manipulation for nearly 3 decades, mainly with bacteria. We already produce many proteins through nothing more than inserting genes directly into bacteria (anyone who has studied in depth in biology will understand this process well, but I don't want to get into it), which causes them to then produce the protein encoded in the gene.

You don't seem to understand that genes are really nothing more than the blueprints of proteins. If you change them, all your changing is what protein they make. If you know say, one protein will make your bones strong, the other protein will make your bones weak, which gene would you want your child to have?

The idea is to eliminate errors and fix problems before they happen, you cannot change that a person will be a person, nor can you change that they will still be your child, all you are changing is certain things that will help them in life.

Take, for instance, the SCIDs (bubble boy syndrome) kids in France. Genetic engineering essentially cured them. They lived completely normal lives for three years - a luxury that they never would have had otherwise. Then, many of them developed leukemia, which *might* have been caused by the genetic treatment. However, those kids actually got an opportunity to live normal, healthy, happy lives for *three* years, which to them was a pure blessing.
Is this true? I'll believe you, I don't knwo much about this, but how do you employ genetic engineering after the zygotic stage? Or are you referring to farming proteins from unicellular organisms, like is done with insulin and diabetic persons?

Is this true? I'll believe you, I don't knwo much about this, but how do you employ genetic engineering after the zygotic stage? Or are you referring to farming proteins from unicellular organisms, like is done with insulin and diabetic persons?

There are several treatments in the works which employ retroviruses to, in a sense, correct the mutation by coding for the correct version of the gene. These generally don't need to be targetted to the entire organism - only to the affected area.

For instance, I believe the SCIDs treatment was targetted specifically to the bone marrow, in order to induce immunities.

There is also a treatment in the works for CF patients which they hope to incorporate into an inhaler. This would target specifically the epithelial lining of the lungs. These cells are not the only cells affected by CF, but the lung problems they have are the most significant.

There are several treatments in the works which employ retroviruses to, in a sense, correct the mutation by coding for the correct version of the gene. These generally don't need to be targetted to the entire organism - only to the affected area.

For instance, I believe the SCIDs treatment was targetted specifically to the bone marrow, in order to induce immunities.

There is also a treatment in the works for CF patients which they hope to incorporate into an inhaler. This would target specifically the epithelial lining of the lungs. These cells are not the only cells affected by CF, but the lung problems they have are the most significant.
Ahh that makes more sense. This is impossible intriguing. I had no idea we were using viruses for anything other than vaccinations. Now I'm going to go and do some research on that, because that is orgasmic in more ways than I can describe if you're being honest. First I'm going to weep tears of joy, though. Thanks, I thought I was done with viruses for a while and could focus on social insects...but you just couldn't leave it, could you? ;)

See I saw the word "God" and the title and voted "strongly disagree" right away.

See I saw the word "God" and the title and voted "strongly disagree" right away.

So you strongly disagree that God is a bunch of hooey and that atheists are totally cool? 'Cause that's totally what this thread's about, you religious wacko, you. :p

God created man. If God controls all that man does, then thusly genetic engineering is Gods wish for else he wouldn't have allowed us to gain such knowledge. Thusly, Genetic engineering is the will of God and must be used to its fullest!

Amen

I think it's in the best interests of religious people to advance genetic engineering (or cyborg engineering). In that way, when technology is advanced enough they can stay on Earth, living their religious life in natural bodies while the rest of us go everywhere else.

See you around Io!

I think it's in the best interests of religious people to advance genetic engineering (or cyborg engineering). In that way, when technology is advanced enough they can stay on Earth, living their religious life in natural bodies while the rest of us go everywhere else.
I think you need to read some E. O. Wilson, namely Biophilia. First of all, bionic progression seems mainly to be heading into synthetic organs, so we shouldn't become cyborgs so much as not completely natural. Second, terraforming any other planet in our solar system won't be too fruitful, though Titan might be feasible if it didn't have a liquid atmosphere (I can't remember what its atmosphere is composed at the moment). That means it's really cold. Really.

But I digress. The reason I mentioned Biophilia is because colonisation of other planets is contrary to human capability, on the psychological level. I'm not going to go into details now, I've probably messed up a few things already in my limited explanation of Wilson's theory, so go and read the book if you want.

I think you need to read some E. O. Wilson, namely Biophilia. First of all, bionic progression seems mainly to be heading into synthetic organs, so we shouldn't become cyborgs so much as not completely natural.
I haven't read that. I will look it up. Thanks.


Second, terraforming any other planet in our solar system won't be too fruitful, though Titan might be feasible if it didn't have a liquid atmosphere (I can't remember what its atmosphere is composed at the moment). That means it's really cold. Really.

Mostly methane, and it's not liquid, otherwise it wouldn't be called atmosphere. It would be an ocean, like in Europa. But I agree that terraforming another planet will be an enormous and perhaps impractical effort. That's why technology should also focus in the modification of the human body, to allow it to survive on other settings.


But I digress. The reason I mentioned Biophilia is because colonisation of other planets is contrary to human capability, on the psychological level. I'm not going to go into details now, I've probably messed up a few things already in my limited explanation of Wilson's theory, so go and read the book if you want.
Well, I haven't read it, so I can't comment on the validity of its observations. But I'm sure it can't amount to more than informed opinion, since the colonization of another planet hasn't even been attempted, so we can't say whether it's contrary to human psychological capability.

I have seen this issue come up in many other forums, sometimes i myself would bring it up. All of the following is my opinion, you can agree with what i say, or you can disagree, but you have no right to tell me how to live my life, or try to tell me that I am wrong.

Actually, in some instances, we have every right in the world to tell you that you're wrong and how to live your life. Particularly, when you have the capability to infringe upon our own freedoms.

We have now at least three technologies under further development that have the possibility of eliminating the human race. Nuclear technology, nanotechnology (not there yet, but we're working on it), and biologic or genetic engineering. Two of these could destroy the human race accidentally. Remember the super-virus they accidentally made in Australia? The mutation of the flu virus that spread just as fast but was 100% fatal? Yeah. Whoops. What if that one got out?

The problem with genetic engineering, especially with humans, is we don't yet know what we're messing with. We're working on it, and I believe we should /keep/ working on it, but we're liable to mess up sometimes ... and if we're playing with human lives, accidents just aren't acceptable.

Let's look at plant engineering for a second. Take the new strain of wheat that they're using in the US. Do you know that this isn't the first time they've tried this? They make a strain that is more resistant to pests and grows in worse soil. Then the pests evolve, then we make a new wheat strain, then the pests evolve. That's how microevolution works.

Are there great gains to be had? Most certainly. However, there's also quite a lot we could lose if we're not careful. I'm all for genetic engineering research, but I certainly don't think we're ready to apply it 100% to the civilian world or allow corporations free reign who are more interested in seeing a profit than in human or environmental welfare.

I think you need to read some E. O. Wilson, namely Biophilia. First of all, bionic progression seems mainly to be heading into synthetic organs, so we shouldn't become cyborgs so much as not completely natural. Second, terraforming any other planet in our solar system won't be too fruitful, though Titan might be feasible if it didn't have a liquid atmosphere (I can't remember what its atmosphere is composed at the moment). That means it's really cold. Really.

But I digress. The reason I mentioned Biophilia is because colonisation of other planets is contrary to human capability, on the psychological level. I'm not going to go into details now, I've probably messed up a few things already in my limited explanation of Wilson's theory, so go and read the book if you want.

I'm interested inthis book. I did my senior research paper at university on the technical requirements of colonizing mars. It's actually not all that hard. It would take something like twice the total US space budget (NASA's budget, about one fiftieth of the US military budget) over the course of 100 years to develop an atmosphere at about .8atm, liquid water in seas on the surface (at about 50ºF), and a developed Ozone layer. The only thing missing would be oxygen, which we need plant life to develop. But you'd be able to walk around on the surface with a simple rebreather mask.

Nasa is actually heavily looking at the possibility at this point. There's a huge argument between the "reds" and the "greens" about it all going on right now. If you want a good sci-fi trilogy to read about it (that actually gets a lot of the science correct), I suggest Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars.

If you want a good sci-fi trilogy to read about it (that actually gets a lot of the science correct), I suggest Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars.
Good for the hardcore "Science" in Science Fiction, no disagreement there - but about as fun to read as getting a colonoscopy done. I bought all three to give it a go.. I ended up giving books 2 and 3 to a friend who only owned the first one - I'd have felt bad throwing that money away completely.

Good for the hardcore "Science" in Science Fiction, no disagreement there - but about as fun to read as getting a colonoscopy done. I bought all three to give it a go.. I ended up giving books 2 and 3 to a friend who only owned the first one - I'd have felt bad throwing that money away completely.

Ha! To each his own, though I probably should have specified that this book is technically classified as "Hard sci fi" meaning exactly that, it spends a lot of time discussing technical details. If you're already schooled in those, it's an interesting read (in my opinion). If not, I can see that it'd be a bit of a bear to pick up.

Remember the super-virus they accidentally made in Australia? The mutation of the flu virus that spread just as fast but was 100% fatal? Yeah. Whoops. What if that one got out?
Whoa...what? I hadn't heard about that. If what you say is true, then we have progressed an inordinate amount in the genetic engineering field. I was under the impression that we couldn't even come close to creating a virus like. I thought that the filoviruses, Ebola and the lesser Marburg, or possibly one of the other haemorrhagic viruses, were the most deadly viruses we are aware of. The simpler a virus, the more deadly. Ebola is composed of I think 7 proteins and one strand of RNA. Yet it makes humans come apart at the seams. Filoviruses are the most deadly diseases in existence. If we can construct something that travels like the flu (similar ot Ebola Reston), but has a 100% death rate (the most deadly strain to humans is Ebola Zaïre, at 90%), than we deserve to be called gods. This is just too much for me to accept. Can anyone else comment on the verity of this, 'cause I think Mac is making sh*t up. Or remembers wrong.

I'm interested inthis book. I did my senior research paper at university on the technical requirements of colonizing mars. It's actually not all that hard. It would take something like twice the total US space budget (NASA's budget, about one fiftieth of the US military budget) over the course of 100 years to develop an atmosphere at about .8atm, liquid water in seas on the surface (at about 50ºF), and a developed Ozone layer. The only thing missing would be oxygen, which we need plant life to develop. But you'd be able to walk around on the surface with a simple rebreather mask.

Nasa is actually heavily looking at the possibility at this point. There's a huge argument between the "reds" and the "greens" about it all going on right now. If you want a good sci-fi trilogy to read about it (that actually gets a lot of the science correct), I suggest Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars.
(Sorry for double posting, but I forgot to add this)

Wow, I had no idea that we were so close to being able to survive on Mars. That is very impressive. The point in Biophilia against colonising other planets (it's only a small part that is reserved for it) is that 1) there needs to be enough biodiversity for a healthy ecosystem, and 2) a self-sustaining ecosystem must be created. Because humans are probably not ready to handle the responsibility of actually being gods. But again, I can not explain this very well, so read the book if you're curious. Though some concepts may be a little advanced if you haven't taken biology courses.

Whoa...what? I hadn't heard about that. If what you say is true, then we have progressed an inordinate amount in the genetic engineering field. I was under the impression that we couldn't even come close to creating a virus like. I thought that the filoviruses, Ebola and the lesser Marburg, or possibly one of the other haemorrhagic viruses, were the most deadly viruses we are aware of. The simpler a virus, the more deadly. Ebola is composed of I think 7 proteins and one strand of RNA. Yet it makes humans come apart at the seams. Filoviruses are the most deadly diseases in existence. If we can construct something that travels like the flu (similar ot Ebola Reston), but has a 100% death rate (the most deadly strain to humans is Ebola Zaïre, at 90%), than we deserve to be called gods. This is just too much for me to accept. Can anyone else comment on the verity of this, 'cause I think Mac is making sh*t up. Or remembers wrong.

It's possible that I'm remembering incorrectly, but that was the gist of the article I read. I had a friend at the time who worked for NIH in DC and she gave me the article to read which detailed those findings. Apparently, there was some kind of a deadly superflu created by accident in Australia around that time and she was upset that it wasn't getting hardly any publicity. I'm probably exaggerating the death rate out of lack of memory, but as I recall, the real problem was that it displayed symptoms similar to a simple cold until it was too late and your body just started shutting down.

Wow, I had no idea that we were so close to being able to survive on Mars. That is very impressive. The point in Biophilia against colonising other planets (it's only a small part that is reserved for it) is that 1) there needs to be enough biodiversity for a healthy ecosystem, and 2) a self-sustaining ecosystem must be created. Because humans are probably not ready to handle the responsibility of actually being gods. But again, I can not explain this very well, so read the book if you're curious. Though some concepts may be a little advanced if you haven't taken biology courses.

Well, we're certainly not talking about huge biodiversity to begin with, and more than likely, the first plants to grow on Mars would just be simple mosses and lichens. I imagine we'd screw up any real attempt at a real ecosystem, but I think we could handle creating plant cover on Mars at this point.

Holy crap, I think everyone needs to watch Gattaca and possibly read Brave New World. A future with perfect humans is not a rosy as it first seems.

For your info, I watched Gattaca and I read Brave New World, and all I saw that was wrong was how "some" people took advantage of it. If there were certain restrictions (though not to many because our government has an ability to go overboard) then the ideas in BOTH would work to the betterment of society. If you don't think we are ready because of those books than I pity thee with my entire heart. Although there would be a need for some serious regulations at FIRST we could get rid of them as soon as our people were used to the technology and didn't need supervision.

P.S. - If you haven't watched Gattaca or read Brave New World than I suggest you do that right away.

Ya, people should also watch Gundam SEED - the nice thing about it is that it really doesn't take a definite position on whether or not GE is good/bad . . .

For your info, I watched Gattaca and I read Brave New World, and all I saw that was wrong was how "some" people took advantage of it. If there were certain restrictions (though not to many because our government has an ability to go overboard) then the ideas in BOTH would work to the betterment of society. If you don't think we are ready because of those books than I pity thee with my entire heart. Although there would be a need for some serious regulations at FIRST we could get rid of them as soon as our people were used to the technology and didn't need supervision.

P.S. - If you haven't watched Gattaca or read Brave New World than I suggest you do that right away.

Took advantage? The point of Brave New World was that they'd created a class system of workers, repressing some groups to serve as slaves, while others were on drug trips or distracted all the time so that the government could continue to grow and make more money since their citizens wouldn't have time to be unhappy or were conditioned by the government to accept their surroundings! The point of Gattica was that even though we'd regulated everything, even genetically engineering every human born, a simple human born normally with a heart defect was actually outperforming everyone else!

Those were written to demonstrate that the systems in question were rediculous! I think you missed the point entirely. Wait .. let me use another exclamation point!

We think that the entire field of genetic engineering, and cloning for that matter, goes against all of the morals and values of the human race. The power to pick and choose exactly what you want in your child should never become an option in this world. That job was devoted entirely to God because he is the only one that really knows what the world will need in the future. The moment we have the ability to "manufacture" our children is the moment that we have destroyed Religion and the frame of mind that there is a greater power above us.

There are so many complications with this field of study and so many variables that could go wrong that if these procedures are carried out on an actual human being and it fails what do we do then? If the child lives but is genetically deformed and is in constant suffering, how do we deal with that child? Do we just kill it like a bad stock of cattle or do we let the child suffer?

If a child is born naturally deformed then that is God's will. But if we create a deformed child on our own, who do we put that burden on? The child? Of course not, who can blame him/her? No, we would have to put the blame on the parents for ever making the decision to try this horrible experiment on their child and we blame the politicians for allowing this practice to ever take place. And most of all we blame the scientist. Not just the ones who carried out the procedures to manufacture this living being but all the scientist who ever did any research on the subject.

So I am asking you now...Don't play God. Don't commit the crime and injustice of tampering with life. And don't cause the unnecessary suffering of another living person.

you have no idea what you are talking about!

We think that the entire field of genetic engineering, and cloning for that matter, goes against all of the morals and values of the human race. The power to pick and choose exactly what you want in your child should never become an option in this world. That job was devoted entirely to God because he is the only one that really knows what the world will need in the future. The moment we have the ability to "manufacture" our children is the moment that we have destroyed Religion and the frame of mind that there is a greater power above us.

There are so many complications with this field of study and so many variables that could go wrong that if these procedures are carried out on an actual human being and it fails what do we do then? If the child lives but is genetically deformed and is in constant suffering, how do we deal with that child? Do we just kill it like a bad stock of cattle or do we let the child suffer?

If a child is born naturally deformed then that is God's will. But if we create a deformed child on our own, who do we put that burden on? The child? Of course not, who can blame him/her? No, we would have to put the blame on the parents for ever making the decision to try this horrible experiment on their child and we blame the politicians for allowing this practice to ever take place. And most of all we blame the scientist. Not just the ones who carried out the procedures to manufacture this living being but all the scientist who ever did any research on the subject.

So I am asking you now...Don't play God. Don't commit the crime and injustice of tampering with life. And don't cause the unnecessary suffering of another living person.

All about causing drama and starting arguments, this is. What a friend's father would have tagged as an "instigator".

Medicine is a form of the engineering you are mentioning here. But then again so many posts have touched upon this aspect. So if you are even still reading this thread, just ask yourself. Why do I continue to go to the doctor when I am sick and injured? If it is all God's will as you claim, just sit down and bleed to death next time you get hurt.

If anything, it is God's Will that we contiue to experiment, evolve, and advance in scientific ways. Or HE would have put a stop to it long ago.

It's possible that I'm remembering incorrectly, but that was the gist of the article I read. I had a friend at the time who worked for NIH in DC and she gave me the article to read which detailed those findings. Apparently, there was some kind of a deadly superflu created by accident in Australia around that time and she was upset that it wasn't getting hardly any publicity. I'm probably exaggerating the death rate out of lack of memory, but as I recall, the real problem was that it displayed symptoms similar to a simple cold until it was too late and your body just started shutting down.
Ahh, ok, I see. If it was underpublicised, that might be a reason. I know I'd be pissed if there was a new strain of some highly contaigous and deadly disease and no one was being told about it. But still, I doubt that it's that dangerous, or else there would be great publicity about a new biosafety level 4 disease. I highly reccomend The Hot Zone by Richard Preston. It's an intriguing non-fictional book about the Ebola and Marburg viruses, the only known filoviruses. Anyways, it's a very good book, and more terrifying than horror novels, since it's true.
Well, we're certainly not talking about huge biodiversity to begin with, and more than likely, the first plants to grow on Mars would just be simple mosses and lichens. I imagine we'd screw up any real attempt at a real ecosystem, but I think we could handle creating plant cover on Mars at this point.
Again, I had no idea we were so advanced nad capable in that field...once again, I let my academic curiosity get ahead of my morals... Still, I uphold that we shouldn't just run away from the problems we've created on Earth. Even though the prosepect of colonising another planet is still something I'd like to learn about, as wrong as I think it is due to its irresponsible consequnces.

Ahh, ok, I see. If it was underpublicised, that might be a reason. I know I'd be pissed if there was a new strain of some highly contaigous and deadly disease and no one was being told about it. But still, I doubt that it's that dangerous, or else there would be great publicity about a new biosafety level 4 disease. I highly reccomend The Hot Zone by Richard Preston. It's an intriguing non-fictional book about the Ebola and Marburg viruses, the only known filoviruses. Anyways, it's a very good book, and more terrifying than horror novels, since it's true.

I think no one was really told about it because it was created in a high security laboratory and contained there. Of course, we're doing similar things all the time in our own laboratories, or trying to, with our bio-weapons and agents that we're creating.

Again, I had no idea we were so advanced nad capable in that field...once again, I let my academic curiosity get ahead of my morals... Still, I uphold that we shouldn't just run away from the problems we've created on Earth. Even though the prosepect of colonising another planet is still something I'd like to learn about, as wrong as I think it is due to its irresponsible consequnces.

Well, two points. First, we wouldn't be running away from our problems on earth. The transport problem is relevant. We have no way to ship people off this planet in large enough quantities to "run away" in any realistic term. Hell, we couldn't even keep up with population /growth/ if we wanted to.

Second, is it irresponsible to try and colonize another planet? Especially a planet with no life on it (if there /is/ life, it's micro and has never been detected ... and the only good way of detecting it would be manned missions anyway). I mean, seriously, what's the worst that happens? Mars is already a dead planet ... it's not like we can destroy the atmosphere or hurt the rocks. Maybe we'd fail at creating an environment where humans could live, but it's an experiment that needs to be made at some point so we can learn how to responsibly interact with our /own/ environment. Is there some intrinsic value in a dead planet that we'd be harming by our being there? I personally don't think there is, but then, that's why there's a debate at NASA ... some people do.

No GM food! How crazy is that? no I don't eat it if i can help it.

Maybe we'd fail at creating an environment where humans could live, but it's an experiment that needs to be made at some point so we can learn how to responsibly interact with our /own/ environment.
Every other point you made was very valid, and I realised I was jumping to conclusions. But we do know how to responsibly interact with our environment. Just people must be convinced. Every ecologist at least has a pretty good idea. But humans always look at the short-term rather than the long-term. Creating an extra-planetary ecosystem is not the solution to terrestrial problems, acting on our knowledge is.

No matter how carefully we craft our children, they are still going to screw up just to piss us off. :)

(Referring to the original post)

They said the same thing about vaccinations at first. Now millions are vaccinated every year (and hopefully more in the future) against various diseases.

Luddites like you are trying to protect the status quo, and very little else.

To the origional thread poster, heres a bear skin and a chisel now go live in a cave somwhere.

Science isint going to slow down to a stop just because you have a religious dilemma about it. The same people who say genetic geneneering should be banned are probably related to somone who's life was saved because our genetic technology is advanced enough to removed genes that cause people to die only a few months after being born. Its religious nuts like you who need to be shiped off to a little island somwhere away from the rest of civilisation where you cant cause trouble.

How can anyone say 'If a child is born naturally deformed then that is God's will' with a straight face while thousands of children die each year due to genetic deformaties that could of been cured before the child was born if genetic research was more advanced i dont know. Is its your gods will that these innecent children die horribly? Well i say fuck him where fighting back, humanity isint going to curl up and die to satisfy some homicidal deity who gets off on the death and suffering of his creations, where going to use genetic research to save lives and live longer and if your religion has a problem with it they can die of plague for all i care wile the rest of us live long full lives.

Every other point you made was very valid, and I realised I was jumping to conclusions. But we do know how to responsibly interact with our environment. Just people must be convinced. Every ecologist at least has a pretty good idea. But humans always look at the short-term rather than the long-term. Creating an extra-planetary ecosystem is not the solution to terrestrial problems, acting on our knowledge is.

Creating an ecosystem might not be the solution to problems, but it could certainly be a step in understanding them.

There's currently a very hot debate among ecologists whether the Ozone hole is natural or manmade. There's a debate about whether we're entering an ice age that's being staved off by global warming or whether we're entering a warmer stage in our planet's history naturally. We aren't even close to accurately describing weather patterns. No, there's still a lot we don't understand and acting on every knee-jerk opinion of climatologists and ecologists is probably not the best solution. Shoot, they can't even seem to decide amongst themselves whether cows or cars are a bigger danger to the ozone layer. :)

In my opinion, good outweighs the bad. Sure there will be accidents. But throught those accidents we will gain knowledge. And through knowedge we will evolve. Genetic evolution is inevietable. I believe whole heartedly that this issue will come up as a major one in 20-30 years. Just because some of you are too ingnorant to see the suffering that some people are going through, and the one thing that could really help them doesnt mean that we should stop. We must also face reality. Just like nuclear weapons, one country will start using it first, most likely millitary wise. Other will see how powerful the country has become, and will begin using it milliatry wise. Soon almost all countries will have this technology. Then it will seep through to scientists and researchers, and then it will finally reach civilians, all in a fairly short amount of time.

They said the same thing about vaccinations at first. Now millions are vaccinated every year (and hopefully more in the future) against various diseases.
I do not see why people continually compare genetic engineering to other medicines such as vaccines. There is no greater change one may make to an organism (including viruses, which are not) than altering its very genetic material. There is nothing comparable to changing the genes of anything. DNA and RNA are the singular most important things for all life, trumping even proteins and carbohydrates. Vaccines are simply a way to build up immunity.

I understand..well, you are a knotch higher in my book for supporting evolution...

And you 100 notches lower in my "book". Whata fag! Know one cares how high or low anyone is in your "book". Get a f-ing life infidel.

And you 100 notches lower in my "book". Whata fag! Know one cares how high or low anyone is in your "book". Get a f-ing life infidel.
I seriously can not tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. Do you actually believe that, or are you just being an ass? Or both?

I seriously can not tell whether you're being sarcastic or not. Do you actually believe that, or are you just being an ass? Or both?
Sarcasm is probably too high on this trolls mental level. Idiocy, now that's his style.

Genetic engineering is suffering the same trials as socialism did in the 1900s, or Galileo Galilei's work did at the hands of the inquisition in the 1500s, or indeed Copernicus himself did in the 1500s. The church really tries hard to keep a lid on this whole 'scientific discovery' mumbo-jumbo, but the science will always leak through the gaps.

W00T SCIENCE

And, by the way, how can changing the DNA of a bacterium in order to help people live normal, healthy lives be detrimental to society and fundamentally evil.

And, for all those who said stuff like AAHH PEOPLE WILL HAVE THEIR DNA ALTERED WHEN THEY WANT TO SO NO-ONE WILL BE REAL or similar, that is just bull. There are billions of cells in our bodies, each with an exact copy of our individual DNA contained within it. Did you just not listen in biology, or are you morons? You cannot change a person's DNA after they are past the fertilisation stage, at least not without risking a chimaera

Genetic engineering is suffering the same trials as socialism did in the 1900s, or Galileo Galilei's work did at the hands of the inquisition in the 1500s, or indeed Copernicus himself did in the 1500s. The church really tries hard to keep a lid on this whole 'scientific discovery' mumbo-jumbo, but the science will always leak through the gaps.

W00T SCIENCE

And, by the way, how can changing the DNA of a bacterium in order to help people live normal, healthy lives be detrimental to society and fundamentally evil.

And, for all those who said stuff like AAHH PEOPLE WILL HAVE THEIR DNA ALTERED WHEN THEY WANT TO SO NO-ONE WILL BE REAL or similar, that is just bull. There are billions of cells in our bodies, each with an exact copy of our individual DNA contained within it. Did you just not listen in biology, or are you morons? You cannot change a person's DNA after they are past the fertilisation stage, at least not without risking a chimaera
You are very correct on most everything, but it actually is possible to genetically engineer people after fully maturity. Not in the way most people think, but apparently, using viruses to genetically engineer people works. I haven't done much research on this yet, though I intend to, but knowing what I do about how some viruses work, this is fully plausible. I have no problem with farming proteins from genetically altered bacteria, I'm just afraid that we will hurt our ecosystem by accidentally (or possibly intentionally) introducing genetically engineered organisms, which is comparable to introducing invasives into and area, which every ecologist knows is a terrible crime to any ecosystem. The issue I have with humans is that we do not have to foresight to see all possible consequences of changing the very double helix that is the absolute basis of life (ecluding some viruses that are RNA based, but they aren't really alive anyways). Not only that, but we will begin with curing genetic diseases, which are really only severe genetic defects. Then we will proceed to correcting other genetic defects, like physical ability, intelligence, etc.

We will completely change the very nature of evolution!

That is the problem I have with genetic engineering.

We will completely change the very nature of evolution!

That is the problem I have with genetic engineering.
actually, we won't (and can't) change the nature of evolution. we can alter the way in which forces of selection act on our species, but we already do that with everything medicine, plastic surgery, and even cosmetics. we already artificially alter the criterion by which our genes are passed on, and we already alter our genetic futures irreperably. genetic engineering can't and won't change the basic laws of evolution, it will simply redirect the course that our species may take as it evolves...but ANYTHING we do will accomplish that, including doing nothing.

actually, we won't (and can't) change the nature of evolution. we can alter the way in which forces of selection act on our species, but we already do that with everything medicine, plastic surgery, and even cosmetics. we already artificially alter the criterion by which our genes are passed on, and we already alter our genetic futures irreperably. genetic engineering can't and won't change the basic laws of evolution, it will simply redirect the course that our species may take as it evolves...but ANYTHING we do will accomplish that, including doing nothing.
I know...I know. Hospitals have removed Darwinism in resistance to diseases and other such physical traumata. It won't be too long until humans will only be able to survive with vaccinations, and anyone unvaccinated will have too weak an immune system to do anything about it. Humans have changed evolution, not how it works, but in what actually happens. What are the criteria for choosing mates now? Physical attractiveness is not longer applicable, because of cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, perfumes (which conceal pheromones). There is so much wrong with what humans do now...and genetic engineering will only augment that...

The moment we have the ability to "manufacture" our children is the moment that we have destroyed Religion and the frame of mind that there is a greater power above us.

That was the part that made me change my mind from 'disagree' to 'Strongly disagree'.

I believe genetic engineering is a good thing, for it is the only way to heal genetical disease - not counting eugenism, which is a very inhuman solution.

I also think it could be use to heal other and more benign diseases, like for exemple people who do not see very well. But with appropriate restrictions, I think we'll be able to prevent it from going too far.



I know...I know. Hospitals have removed Darwinism in resistance to diseases and other such physical traumata. It won't be too long until humans will only be able to survive with vaccinations, and anyone unvaccinated will have too weak an immune system to do anything about it. Humans have changed evolution, not how it works, but in what actually happens. What are the criteria for choosing mates now? Physical attractiveness is not longer applicable, because of cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, perfumes (which conceal pheromones). There is so much wrong with what humans do now...and
genetic engineering will only augment that...

what about chosing the most intelligent, the most gentle...? there is still easily enough room for evolution to work.

I believe genetic engineering is a good thing, for it is the only way to heal genetical disease - not counting eugenism, which is a very inhuman solution.

I also think it could be use to heal other and more benign diseases, like for exemple people who do not see very well. But with appropriate restrictions, I think we'll be able to prevent it from going too far.

Bit of a problem there: genetic engineering has (so far) only been able to work when
a) a bacterial colony is genetically altered by letting them take up altered plasmids, circles of DNA which can be passed between bacteria and is the reason for the development of resistant strains e.g MRSA, and
b) when spores of plants such as corn are genetically altered before the the gametes fuse and form a new life.
At the moment, it looks nigh on impossible to genetically alter an entire multicellular being, as it would require a genetic altering of every cell, which would probably kill the organism in the process.

Things like Huntingdon's Chorea generally only present in the 3rd decade of life, so without picking a sperm and ova first (after knowing whether Huntingdon's is present in the individual), fusing them artificially (people who know about IVF know this has an incredibly low success rate) reimplanting and bringing to term the child is going to be incredibly difficult.

Also, to top that, genetic engineering at the moment has an average success rate of 0.05%. Add that to the IVF figure for success, and it is very very low.

Another problem is (although I don't know for things other than bacteria) that in order to check for absorption of the recombinant DNA, marker genes are used that are resistant to certain antibiotics are used. How the hell you do this with a human cell I have no idea.

All in all, genetic engineering is a looooong way off. So why everyone is already worried I haven't a clue. For now, just worry about getting crap watery giant tomatoes.

Bit of a problem there: genetic engineering has (so far) only been able to work when
a) a bacterial colony is genetically altered by letting them take up altered plasmids, circles of DNA which can be passed between bacteria and is the reason for the development of resistant strains e.g MRSA, and
b) when spores of plants such as corn are genetically altered before the the gametes fuse and form a new life.
At the moment, it looks nigh on impossible to genetically alter an entire multicellular being, as it would require a genetic altering of every cell, which would probably kill the organism in the process.
Do you know if we've been able to genetically engineer other unicellular organisms, like protists? Or are we only able to do it with bacteria's special prokaryotic genetic arrangement?

Bit of a problem there: genetic engineering has (so far) only been able to work when
a) a bacterial colony is genetically altered by letting them take up altered plasmids, circles of DNA which can be passed between bacteria and is the reason for the development of resistant strains e.g MRSA, and
b) when spores of plants such as corn are genetically altered before the the gametes fuse and form a new life.

c) Mice and other experimental animals have genes added or knocked out.
d) SCIDs is essentially cured in children for about three years

All in all, genetic engineering is a looooong way off. So why everyone is already worried I haven't a clue. For now, just worry about getting crap watery giant tomatoes.

Actually, genetic engineering is happening quite a bit, just not in the Gattaca way that people are so afraid of.