• Genetic Engineering: To Deus or not to Deus
    12 replies, posted
“Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well.”1 It is because of this truth that many societies have flourished with the virtues of tolerance and mercy. Indeed it is the fact of our common heritage which has often overpowered bigotry. Even Martin Luther King’s famous cry of “I have a dream” was in reference to the fact that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. This statement is one which until now has had no serious challenge to it’s basis. The development of technology is now leading to a point where moral questions not only must address the actions of a person, but also the fundamental judgments about what it is to be Human. In a document outlining fundamental human rights, UNESCO states that [quote="Universal Declaration on the Human Genome"]the Human genome underlies the fundamental unity of all members of the Human family, as well as the recognition of the inherent dignity and diversity of each of the members.’[/quote] This basis of human unity is one which is now being experimented upon. In April of 2003 the ‘Human Genome Project’, an endeavor to map the human genes, was completed. This effort marked the first step in the work of identifying ‘bad genes‘ which are now used to predetermine the health of a gestating child. It is the utilization of this knowledge which is commonly known as Genetic Engineering. For the purposes of this essay, Genetic Engineering is any technology which alters the expression of genes that are already present within the human population, or that involves the addition of genes that have not previously appeared within the Human genome. Although many advances have been made in this field, the fact of the matter remains that much of the abilities spoken of hereafter are not yet existing. Despite our progress, we are not yet able, perhaps thankfully, to preform such procedures. The time is rapidly arriving when we will need to address this new technology, for it would be tragic to allow the moral issues surrounding this to surpass us in a manner similar to those of the Atomic bomb. One of the most promoted uses of genetic engineering is normative. With the ability to predict a child’s health based upon it’s genes, the opportunity will arise where a parent may intervene and choose the ‘right genes‘ for his child. This practice is one which is aimed at ‘leveling the playing field‘ for children which would otherwise be born with mental, physical or medical disabilities. The argument put forth is one which draws heavily upon existing practices; If parents are morally obliged to take actions which would benefit their child, such as when avoiding alcohol during pregnancy, or taking vitamins. Then it would be immoral to not genetically standardize a child which would otherwise be born deficient. This argument continues when applied to the enhancement capabilities of genetic engineering. If a gene alteration were available which could make the child more intelligent, more sympathetic, or stronger, then what would be the reason not to? In this case it is no longer normalcy which is being targeted, but rather excellence. It is this excellence which acts as ends to this argument. Restated it goes like this; (1) Enhancing human capacities or traits is a worthy ideal, as evidenced by the general social commitment to education, medicine and welfare (2) Genetic Engineering represents but one end of a continuum of technologies to pursue to enhancement of human traits and capacities. (3) If the goal of genetic engineering is the same as the laudable goal of generic enhancement, then the means do not matter morally. (4) The goal of genetic engineering is the same, and so too should be considered laudable. Although the first claim is one which can be reasonably agreed to, claims 2 and 3 are where the counter-argumentation lies. A common rebuttal to Genetic Engineering being just ‘more of the same‘ is that this tampering with genetics violates the God’s omniscience by assuming we know better. This stance can be mirrored in the atheist camp by natural law theorists which hold that such tampering could be against the natural order of things. This argumentation is not held as binding to many, and as such the line of argumentation falls more heavily towards determining whether or not the means matter morally. The adoption of genetic engineering could potentially cause harm in various ways. Disregarding the potential for medical failure of the procedure, the adoption of the practice itself could have grave consequences upon the human gene pool. The human gene-pool argument attacks genetic engineering from multiple directions; One side argues that genetic diversity itself will be threatened, and the other argues quite the opposite, but with the same conclusion. In the case of genetic diversity it is argued that availability of this treatment would cause a certain culturally favored set of characteristics to arise as prominent. This homogenization would not only undermine the free-will of those who are culturally pressured into accepting certain traits, but it would also cause for potential genetic damage for the same reason two siblings cannot marry. Despite this element of homogenization, the definition of the human will also certainly suffer as a result of genetic engineering. Like with any technology, it can be seen that in the early stages only the rich and well-connected have access. This will cause the children of the rich to have first generational access for the most part. Not only will the children of the wealthy be more economically endowed, but they will also be ‘better‘ in the deepest sense of the word. Competition would become impossible between those naturally born, and those who are engineered to be less impulsive, more intelligent, be healthier, etc. This widening of the gap will cause not only a social schism, but parents would also be responsible for the very nature of a child. It would be conceivable that a child would ask questions such as “Why didn’t you make me taller” or “Why didn’t you make me smarter?”. In this way the very nature of responsibility would be shifted to the parents unless they adopt the ‘standard package‘. The issue with defining what a ‘standard package‘ should be can be found in the ethical debate surrounding what a ‘good life‘ is. While there may be features which coincide, the existence of various cultures has created a philosophy of relativism which holds that many ways of life can be equally valid. The binding tie which people have been able to agree upon has been the human genome, but with the innovation of genetic engineering the human could become something altogether more vague. Genetic engineering has the possibility not only for creating people altogether changed, such as chimeras, but it also leaves open the possibility for social stratification. In “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley a dystopian society exists where people are stratified and genetically engineered based upon the tasks which they must accomplish. For the laborers which were designated to work the pipes, less intelligence was allotted that they may not become upset in their menial tasks. It is in such an example that the infringement upon self-determination can be seen. The good life is something which is dictated by a paternal force, be it the state, or the parent. The control of human genetics is something which an entire war has been fought over. Hitler’s ultimate plan was one which employed a method known as Eugenics, the selection of ‘good‘ individuals for breeding. The philosophy of ‘good‘ individuals is one which can now be seen paralleled in the issue of genetic engineering. The question of what can make one ‘human‘ better than another is one which is threatened to be answered by this technology. This may pave the way for atrocities which humanity has experienced before when one people thought themselves intrinsically superior over another. Another side of the opposition argues that the adoption of such a technology would actually become paradoxically counterproductive. What this means is that something designed to better human life as a whole will instead cause it problems. In the case of genetic enhancement the example of life span alteration can be given. If large amounts of people were to be engineered with a doubled life span, then the ramifications upon population size would be sheerly evident within a few decades. Similarly, being tall can be a good thing, although after a certain point height becomes a disadvantage. If a person were engineered to be 9 feet tall, they could no longer comfortably operate within our society which is designed for people no taller than 7 feet. In this sense they would become paradoxically disabled. The element of paradoxical counter-productivity can perhaps be illustrated within the context of sports. If an athlete were engineered to have increased lung capacity for the purpose of acquiring marathon accolades, he might then be denied his accolades on account of his advantage. In this case the third claim of the argument for genetic enhancement can be torn down. It is not the case that should the goal be the same the means do not matter morally. In the case of sports it can be seen that praise is only received when it is achieved by virtue of the human standard. The human standard is perhaps a convenient fiction which has served to hold modern multicultural society together. Despite the truth of what a human ‘truly’ means, it can be seen that the advent of genetic engineering allows for the self definition of humans. The issues that arise from this span from legitimization of discrimination upon the basis that all men are no longer created equal, to the shifting of moral responsibility from a person to their parents. Regardless of God’s existence, the natural order of human society is threatened by the emergence of such a technology for humans will no longer be something sculpted, but rather something bought, and stratified. Genetic engineering has the conceivable potential to both improve and destroy human civilization as we know it. With it comes the ability to normalize the deficiencies of humanity, but in doing so it asks the question of what it truly means to be human. Charged with the question of a millennium, it lies to the generations alive today to decide the bounds and limits of what it means to be human. The potential for atrocity is great, and the margin of error is small, should this issue be handled in a manner more poorly than that of the atomic bomb, I fear to think of what our society will become.
Woah, wall of text first, yes. If we could eliminate arthritis, sickle cell anemia, scoliosis, congestive heart failure, and predisposition for may types of cancers among other things by simply purging them from our genome think how much the general quality of life would improve? What if we could cure nearsightedness genetically? If my parents had the option to make me not have to wear glasses that would be incredible and I'd have wanted that in a heartbeat. Basically I don't think curing genetic diseases will reduce our humanity or whatever the concern is. [editline]30th October 2013[/editline] There's a huge difference between a doctor saying "we've tested your child's genome and we've found that he has an 80% chance to develop early parkinson's disease, if we modify the gene now we can stop him from developing it. " and "You want your child to be smarter? I can help you out here for a price..." and still that would be different from a government program to make everybody super smart which would inevitably backfire as smart people don't like menial jobs.
To start i believe it would be iresponsible to let a child be born with a chronic,debilitating disease if we have the capability to correct that durring the birth or shortly after conception. I see this use of genetics as being similar to vaccines in that they are preventative and ultimately lead to a much better life. as for genetic manipulation for other traits, i think we need to be very careful about what we do. our inteligence itself is caused by a freek mutation of our neurons vs other chimps/apes, we are but little above bashing rocks togather and seeing what happens when it comes to genetics today. assuming sometime in the future we do develope the capacity to perfectly simulate the effects of genetic tailoring, i still believe we shouldn't try to mess with our inteligence in some vain attempt to be smarter, we've seen what happens when people believe they are superior to others, they will try to destroy/enslave those that they feel as inferior, and i'm sure 99% of the time even if we raised the child with this instilled mindset that they are superior to everyone else, they probably won't turn out bad. but in the long term there will inevitably be a build up of those that feel superior, and a movement will grow and could lead to dangerous consiquences. also our brain is a very finely balanced mess of sensory imputs, connections, and activity. it has been optimised by thousands of years of development to do this amazing thing that lets us reason, while also containing all the nesisary survival functions. there is no way we could 100% predict what any changes to try to boost our intillect could do to this careful clockwork. a sincere attempt to boost intelligence could cause a child to be born severely autistic. however, i do think at some point there will be "recreational" gene theropy just like how people are abusing attention drugs right now, and i think this movement will turn out somewhat like the pro-drug culture we have going on today who believe its their body/their DNA and they should have the right to tweek what they want. finally probbably the most dangerous thing we need to guard against with genetic manipulation is a divergence of the species, once we go down that line there's no telling what will happen.
For ironing out "errors" and "disorders", that should be standard for pre-birth procedures, but general improvements above the Human Baseline should only be granted after birth, when the individual is an adult and is responsible enough to undertake the alterations. Also, to prevent plutogenocracy, aka the rich become genetically superior because they can afford it, there needs to be an undefiable doctrine wherein one cannot obtain "Uber-Baseline" enhancements with money, and some sort of Order of the Helix hunts down those who actually dare to use money to "level up" genetically as opposed to a more proper, "equal" method. To prevent the potential gross example of "money is power" in the world of genetic enhancement, the Order of the Helix would regulate genetic enhancement and ensure that those who seek enhancements must prove themselves worthy through enhancement-related tests that tie into the individual's dedication to what they seek to improve, proving that they are dedicated enough to make the most of their Baseline capabilities and thus can make the most of Ascendant capabilities. Or, alternatively, those seeking enhancements would "work off" the cost of the enhancement therapy by working for the Order for an allotted timeframe, providing Specialist labour related to their enhancements; this way all men and women, no matter how rich or poor they are, contribute something of greater value than money to the human race, and we don't end up with a massive class-divide greater than anything the previous empire of man threw our way. The human labour provided by the Order would likely pay the bills as people pay to have Specialists do the things that they need, and before people think it'd technically be modern day slavery, remember that the people undergoing the procedures to attain capabilities above the Baseline would be doing so with a complete understanding that they would be working for their "Ascendancy" until they have paid off the debt they owe the Order for boosting their capabilities to transhuman/posthuman/superhuman levels, so it's technically more like willing servitude in exchange for becoming more than human, and they would be making their choices being sound of mind and fully accepting of what their station demands of them. At least that's how it should be. As for those who were below the Baseline, as in they were never treated to attain Baseline status, the Order would ensure that the unfortunate individual is "tailored" to Baseline so that they may be on the same level that all humans would be on when they were born. Baseline status would likely not take genetic ethnicity or potential sexual orientation or inherent personality modifiers into account, to ensure that human homogeneity only effects the actual flaws of the human condition, not the things that make us different in a good way, so we don't end up as one bland unvaried race of people with identical faces and colours and generic personalities. And one last thing; the Order would likely be the only ones to possess the technology for Specialist/Ascendant human genetic augmentation, assuming they are pure enough to not abuse the technology, and human genetic augmentation specialists would work in accordance with their codes and creed, such as the definition of the Human Baseline that all humans must be tailored to fit before birth, and that enhancements must be performed with the supervision of a licensed Geneshaper. They would also be charged with hunting individuals who perform alteration therapy outside of the codes, such as charging money for alteration therapy, or issuing alterations that impose specific disadvantages, or altering the genetic code in such a way as to create something that is a genuine threat to the human race, aka someone augmented to be a clinically-insane killing machine or a carrier for some horrific bioweapon. All to protect humanity against the perils that genetic augmentation would pose if left unconstrained or in the wrong hands. Hopefully the Order of the Helix would actually be the right hands, though for that it'd need to be an international effort incorporating all philosophies that are conducive to the greater good of the human race. If anything it's an interesting topic for transhuman science fiction.
French [url=http://vasimedia.com/][b]Moncler Outlet[/b][/url] stocks, particularly the financials, have been taking it on the chin over [url=http://vasimedia.com/][b]Moncler Outlet Uk[/b][/url] the past couple of weeks, and are now working their way towards pricing in a Hollande victory. The same goes for the bond market. France CDS has been widening again as fears mount that [url=http://vasimedia.com/moncler-mens/moncler-jackets.html][b]Moncler Jackets For Men[/b][/url] Hollande victory will drive a wedge through the FrancoGerman fiscal discipline alliance. [url=http://vasimedia.com/][b]Moncler Hat[/b][/url]
i would AGREE IF GENETIC ENGINEERING HELPED HUMANS BE IMMUNE TO THINGS
[QUOTE=DeadShotKillz;42750941]i would AGREE IF GENETIC ENGINEERING HELPED HUMANS BE IMMUNE TO THINGS[/QUOTE] Surely other problems would arise from that. Everybody has different genomes, so there really wouldn't be a "one size fits all" solution for issues, notably diseases. If you're referring to injuries and the like, there's no way that altering human genes would immunize us from those without entirely changing our genetic makeup. And, again, one solution wouldn't work for everybody. If you're referring to diseases and the like, the same concept of "no size fits everybody" applies. Besides, if we were to genetically immunize ourselves from diseases then the bacteria/viruses behind them would just evolve to counter our genetic changes. That leads to an evolutionary arms race that would drain us of money and resources.
no you don't get it, there are gemetic disorders that arise from improper sequences, everyone who suffers from that disease will have damage to that diseases sequence of genes, so one size fits all does work in this case, as for boosting immune systems there's not really anything genetics has to do with that, those are not part of your genes, you aqwire your immunities from your mother shortly before birth and quickly thereafter. there are also genes that are damaged that get passed along like hemophelia which is a recessive trait which can be carried along and only presents itself if the parents have it, that and bubbleboy disorder are two such diseases that genetic engineering can virtually wipe out because they are damaged sequences that have been perpetuated in the human genome because they don't kill the carriers outright only the unlucky ones who have both sets of the gene
I do not totally agree with changing the Proteins that cause genetic diseases. Morally I would hate to see people to die but in the future we are headed into a time where overpopulation will run rampant. Mother nature designed a natural based process so that way humans would not overpopulate so fast. Its a cool idea but we really need to think about the future before we act, which is the main issue with scientists these days.
I can't be bothered to read that wall of text. But can i say; why the fuck not? There's no valid reason not to genetically engineer. Religion- not a valid reason whatsoever. creating a superior human- Increases quality of competition;Great in the long run. Can create an inferior animal through accident; Kill it before it can think if it'd be a problem Can upset eco systems- make laws and test stuff before releasing it. Simple stuff.
[QUOTE=The Jack;43185652]Religion- not a valid reason whatsoever.[/QUOTE] I don't see why not. [QUOTE=The Jack;43185652]creating a superior human- Increases quality of competition;Great in the long run.[/QUOTE] This is completely unnatural and could lead to complications later on down the road. It's best to just let evolution take its course, rather than trying to force it. [QUOTE=The Jack;43185652]Can create an inferior animal through accident; Kill it before it can think if it'd be a problem[/QUOTE] Whoa. Okay, this is borderline Nazi "master race" ideology. Something is considered "inferior" to your notions of "perfection"? Just kill it. It can't think, it doesn't deserve to live, no one cares, etc. [QUOTE=The Jack;43185652]Can upset eco systems- make laws and test stuff before releasing it. Simple stuff.[/QUOTE] There could be undetected defects that don't actually show up in tests, the effects of which only become apparent under unprecedented circumstances. Now, this isn't to say I'm completely against genetic engineering. There are massive benefits, including the obvious cures for diseases, organ failure, mental deficiencies, etc. But trying to create some sort of biologically-enhanced Übermensch is pushing it.
As someone who does bioengineering and nanotechnology at uni (though this isn't quite my area), why not, as long as we don't get too ahead of ourselves [QUOTE=slayer64;43195932]I don't see why not.[/QUOTE] Personal beliefs contrived from irrational irrelevant teachings should not have any bearing on things that could effect other people, especially things that could benefit all humanity such as this. People's groundless, particularly Christian, superstition is what held us back in the Dark Ages. There have been instances where children have been denied blood transfusion and as a result died simply because their primitivist Christian parents believed in transferring “bad blood”. People like that quite frankly deserve to be treated with ridicule and contempt. If engineering will save a life of misery, do it
I'm about to graduate (1 more class to take) in Molecular Biology and Biotechnology. I've worked in labs and been party of multiple published papers from the University as well as a Hospital ER department. These are ethical questions that all scientists and the general public must consider as they are already affecting our world/lives directly. We genetically engineer food that we eat, animals that we eat, plants that are grown for resources. We use bacterial, yeast, and mammalian models to produce proteins outside of their natural state to provide us a benefit. I just finished a 13 page research proposal that uses two, triple-transgenic mice models to study a polytherpy of certain pharmacological drugs to treat Alzheimer's disease. For those in the science world, genetic engineering in normal and an everyday part of work. There are many aspects that truly ride in the "grey area" of ethics. Some researchers get around them by abuse of the current laws that don't fully apply to all the possibilities. To answer the question (for me) is, yes: However, the question is so broad that the 'yes' is only on a case to case basis.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.