[QUOTE=TectoImprov;52184124]Gattaca is such a great movie. We actually watched it in my Biology class in high school.[/QUOTE]
I thought it was anti-transhumanist garbage when I had to sit through it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52184013]My concerns with gene editing aren't so much about getting rid of genetic diseases, but with determining things like: height, looks, personality, etc.
So much of the human experience is dependent on us having a huge variety of personalities, strengths, weaknesses, etc. and a lot of that is at least partly dependent on genes.[/QUOTE]
Have a read of Homo Deus it discusses that very topic comparing it to modern medicine. Modern medicine to fix problems is widely available but modern medicine (cosmetic surgery) to improve people beyond the norm is restricted to the relatively wealthy - the author posits the same thing would happen for gene editing, with therapy to fix illnesses being widely available to everyone but with therapy to improve genes beyond "normal capacity" being restricted to the rich.
Absolutely. My younger brother was born with a Brain Tumor that meant he was rarely out of the hospital until he was 4 years old. I spent my weekends sat in Great Ormond Street Hospital with him, wondering if I'd still have a baby brother this time next week. And there were other children there, dozens of them. Disabled, wheel-chair bound from birth practically. I would never want that life for my child and if I could remove those illnesses and diseases before they were born I would do it in a heartbeat. You'd have to be a fucking idiot not to.
Hell yes I would. ADD fucked me up in school and still hurts me to this day trying to catch up while on meds, along with the other health problems I was born with. It hurt my father and my oldest sister. The former being dubbed an 'idiot' because they didn't have a name for it in his youth and my sister dropping out from school before she finished.
I wouldn't engineer them to be exceptionally intelligent or athletic, because that takes away the accomplishment of reaching that level. You become intelligent by studying and athletic by training your body and devoting yourself. There is no satisfaction, no value in starting out from the top.
If I can remove the obstacles and barriers and let them develop themselves into their own person, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
What I find more interesting is how this could be applied to adults. How much could we change about an existing person?
Because an existing, like, adult? Go ahead, take off the restraints. Going off the video it sounded like you could at least modify things like eye color? If we could go further than that that would be great. I think everyone should be able to look like what they want to look like.
He briefly mentioned about an argument regarding people with disabilities: "We shouldn't fix kids being born deaf because that will hurt the feelings of everyone who is already deaf, because we're implying their lives are worse."
Really? That's something people actually think? :ohno:
[QUOTE=Prism;52185207]He briefly mentioned about an argument regarding people with disabilities: "We shouldn't fix kids being born deaf because that will hurt the feelings of everyone who is already deaf, because we're implying their lives are worse."
Really? That's something people actually think? :ohno:[/QUOTE]
I think the point is more like, we have to take in to account that this could hypothetically make existing disabled people's lives worse because hey, why give a shit about autism awareness anymore when all the autistic people will be gone in 100 years?
Not a very strong reason to not do it but it is an interesting point
[QUOTE=Prism;52185207]He briefly mentioned about an argument regarding people with disabilities: "We shouldn't fix kids being born deaf because that will hurt the feelings of everyone who is already deaf, because we're implying their lives are worse."
Really? That's something people actually think? :ohno:[/QUOTE]
Yes.
I've heard that it can go to the point where the "deaf community" will treat someone like shit when they have a cochlea implant because they're not truly deaf anymore or some bullshit.
Actually just this recently I saw some people on twitter talking about how a baby shouldn't get a procedure where it get its hearing back because it's denying them a future from the "deaf community and culture"
[QUOTE=Matrix374;52185216]Yes.
I've heard that it can go to the point where the "deaf community" will treat someone like shit when they have a cochlea implant because they're not truly deaf anymore or some bullshit.
Actually just this recently I saw some people on twitter talking about how a baby shouldn't get a procedure where it get its hearing back because it's denying them a future from the "deaf community and culture"[/QUOTE]
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochlear_implant#Criticism_and_controversy[/URL]
Personally, I think it's a lot of horseshit and would totally support gene modding for curing any disease. Probably would wait a generation or two though.
[QUOTE=download;52185108]I thought it was anti-transhumanist garbage when I had to sit through it.[/QUOTE]
to be honest, morally transhumanism is pretty shit, full of bullshitters and quacks too
I'd give myself a magnum dong, so I could use my Magnum Condoms™
I'd be 100% on board with eliminating genetic diseases if I ever had a child, however I'd honestly leave the rest of their genome alone.
Bodily autonomy is such a moral pillar for me (and it mostly is in the medical community) ergo what right do I have to change the appearance/abilities of my child? I'd leave any aestethic/etc genome decisions to my child once they grow up, because turning a child into your personal "doll" is one of the sickest things imaginable. (See McFall v Shrimp 1978)
And some parents already do this shit, not genetically ofc, but emotionally and planning out everything for their child.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;52183975]I misread the title as "Would you eat your childs gnome" and wondered what the fuck[/QUOTE]
How really you mistaken title of video and thread that difficult.
But besides that, Everyone in FP is still very supported about this and that good thing for the human specimen in far-future.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52185102]there's a replication crisis in science at the moment, so it's often that we have no idea if medicines even work or not or don't have side effects we didn't anticipate. in cases like this only time can tell if the technology is proven or not. not only is this brand new, but we barely understand it at the moment nor its full potential and ramifications
when it comes to children, we shouldn't be even considering using this technology on them on any sizable scale until we've spent at least a century on it or possibly more (just in case there aren't problems which crop up suddenly when you turn 50 as a result of genetic fuckery). only when we manage to raise several generations will it seem like a safe technology
it should not be available to the public in any capacity until that point in time, or well into the 22nd century[/QUOTE]
I'm actually Surprised this isn't more known, There is huge amount of studies that cannot be replicated at all.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52185333]to be honest, morally transhumanism is pretty shit, full of bullshitters and quacks too[/QUOTE]
Regardless that you think Transhumanist ethics is sucked, The movement it getting more new members every few years for its beliefs of help species or themselves [in their politics] through implanting with technology (either cybernetic, nanobiotechnology or bio-augmentation (which I'm in latter))
[editline]4th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ott;52184208]I'm surprised nobody's mentioned catgirls yet.[/QUOTE]
Until non_mercy link to this...
[t]http://members.optusnet.com.au/enchilada/b3ta/catgirl.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=slayer20;52185058]What evolutionary advantage would we gain from having catgirls?
Would cat ears provide better hearing? Would our tails allow us to better balance ourselves?
Whenever I think of people having tails all I imagine is them getting their tails stuck in closing doors.[/QUOTE]
Who said anything about evolutionary advantage?
Advantage is related to a dilemma that will have to be faced though.
If you for example make humans more elegant and dainty, they'll be at a disadvantage in a crisis or societal collapse situation where hardy traits are useful.
[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52186837]Regardless that you think Transhumanist ethics is sucked, The movement it getting more new members every few years for its beliefs of help species or themselves [in their politics] through implanting with technology (either cybernetic, nanobiotechnology or bio-augmentation (which I'm in latter)[/QUOTE]
transhumanism will go nowhere, and i'm pretty certain there won't be a single human born this century who will manage to use bio-augmentation to improve their lifespan beyond about 120 at the absolute maximum
most of the technology transhumanists think will make them immortal hasn't even been demonstrated to work yet. transhumanists often end up living very inhuman and disturbing lives to try and achieve their immortality
There's more to transhumanism than immortality y'know.
[QUOTE=Jacen;52187112]There's more to transhumanism than immortality y'know.[/QUOTE]
yeah but the rest of it is pretty much bullshit regardless, i just talked about immortality there because it's probably one of the most arrogant assumptions of some transhumanists who think they can cheat death
science and technology has barely (if even at all) improved human intellect, longevity, or physiological capabilities - and i seriously doubt it's going to do even half of the claims of the transhumanists
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52187130]yeah but the rest of it is pretty much bullshit regardless, i just talked about immortality there because it's probably one of the most arrogant assumptions of some transhumanists who think they can cheat death
science and technology has barely (if even at all) improved human intellect, longevity, or physiological capabilities - and i seriously doubt it's going to do even half of the claims of the transhumanists[/QUOTE]
If anything there's alot of sociological and psychological aspects to transhumanism that are always muddled out by "muh immortality".
Look around us in modern day and you'll see transhumanism at work, ofc we don't have augmentations, but we have a constant supply of information right at our fingertips which has changed our society in countless ways.
Information overload has become almost the norm, privacy is at risk and some people [U]actually choose to be ignorant[/U] in this day and age for better/worse.
People 25 years ago couldn't have predicted how our society will look, that's the power of actual transhumanism.
I have some skeletal deformities that my doctor told me would be passed down to my potential children, so of course I support this sort of thing. Nobody should have to live like that.
[QUOTE=Zombii;52184939]this comes dangerously close to sins of the father for me. i can understand private organizations (e.g. sports sanctioning bodies) not allowing genetically modified individuals due to it basically being a form of doping, but why would you extend that to professions or universities? why should a hyper-intelligent or hyper-deft individual not be allowed to practice medicine? wouldn't that actually be actively detrimental to society as a whole by losing those skills? how can you say someone can't attend a certain university just because they're genetically modified, because they'd be taking that spot from someone who isn't? in that case why don't we disallow universities from taking in the students of wealthy families, or students from developed nations, or only allow first-generation students to go to university? again, wouldn't it be detrimental to society as a whole for an individual who was extremely competent to not receive the training and mentorship they need to use those competencies to the fullest?[/QUOTE]
Because it would be practically impossible for anyone who isn't genetically modified to be able to compete with someone who has a genius level of intelligence. Life is ultimately a competition, we compete with other people in practically every part of our lives, whether that's eduction, work etc. We, as people, have been fighting for such a long time to try to make things equal, and in large parts of the worlds it's equal, or as close as you can realistically get to equality. So suddenly we should just start breeding super humans who are superior to a regular person in intelligence, athleticism, appearance and throw the entire notion of equality out the window?
While it could benefit society, it won't. It's going to harm you, me and everyone else. It would divide us even further.
[QUOTE=Zombii;52184939]it's not as if you can magically program intelligence or strength into someone.[/QUOTE]
I'm citing Star Trek, so that's exactly what I'm referring to, lol. I'm also not going to try to predict what technology hundreds of years in the future will look like. If someone from the 17th century could get a glimpse in the life of an average person the western world in the 21st century they would think it was fiction.
[QUOTE=Zombii;52184939]even if someone has perfect genetics, they still need the upbringing and training to allow those traits to flourish. more than any of that, why should a child be punished for the sins of their parents? that child didn't choose to be born that way, then you're telling them that they can't get a degree or receive their medicinal license or engineering certification because their parents broke the law?
someone earlier said that the human experience is varied due to people being competent at different things as a result of genetics, and i think that's complete nonsense. sure it plays a part, but your genetics (other than maybe appearance due to affecting how people view you [[b]ALSO warning this is debatable. tabula rasa and shit[/b]]) dont determine your interests or personality. your upbringing, experiences, and personal beliefs that form do. as long as it is not economically disenfranchising anyone (e.g. the government mandates a certain crop of genetic enhancements for each 'generation' so that it's not only the wealthy who receive any benefits) i don't see why we shouldn't attempt it. i think at a certain point it would even become inevitable.[/QUOTE]
You're totally wrong. We are definitely not blank slates. Genetics plays a huge part in how we develop, it has a major hand in pretty much every aspect of us. From personality to appearance and even intelligence. We are all born with a temperatment, the foundation on which we then build ourselves through upbringing and life experiences, and this is most definitely influenced largely by genetical factor. We aren't all born with the ability to become geniuses under the right conditions, our limit is already set from birth.
Many of John B. Watson's ideas about Behavioral therapy and how we are structured have been proven wrong time and time again. Watson was a sad, horrible little man and it's not someone you should try to base your arguments on.
I can't believe you cited Star Trek. Lol.
[QUOTE=download;52187843]I can't believe you cited Star Trek. Lol.[/QUOTE]
Well, why not, And for me, it's one of the franchises I better leaving them alone because I'm not Trekkie.
And before that, it's odd that you like Star Trek while supporting genetic engineering where franchise's canonicity (before 2009 film created their own) that banned genetic engineering due to their fictional eugenic-based war.
[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52187997]Well, why not, And for me, it's one of the franchises I better leaving them alone.
And before that, it's odd that you like Star Trek while supporting genetic engineering where franchise's canonicity (before 2009 film created their own) that banned genetic engineering due to their fictional eugenic-based war.[/QUOTE]
Pardon? Where did I say I like it?
Star Trek has this weird internal hypocrisy of technology and technophobia.
[QUOTE=download;52187843]I can't believe you cited Star Trek. Lol.[/QUOTE]
This one, Because you sound trying defended franchise that hates this type of technology?
Where did I defend it?
[QUOTE=download;52187843]I can't believe you [B]cited Star Trek[/B]. Lol.[/QUOTE]
There you go, I guess...
And you decide dislike ejonkou's post for some reason.
[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52188034]There you go, I guess...
And you decide dislike ejonkou's post for some reason.[/QUOTE]
You clearly need to look up the dictionary definition of "cited".
[QUOTE=download;52188115]You clearly need to look up the dictionary definition of "cited".[/QUOTE]
K
- Edited -
I get it now.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
