Genetic altering?

[respectful87]

I am deeply sorry if this topic has been discussed before. I was wondering what the opinion is on the new developments in the field of genetics? Is it positive because of new treatments/medicines that may come out of it, or negative because it might get into the wrong hands?






(Sorry if this is an inappropriate subject but I would like to hear other opinions on it)

[Ovi]

Just like everything else. If it ends up in the hands of the ruling minority, it will work in the interest of that ruling minority. If it ends up in ours, then it will work in our interest.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Like any other tool, it can be used for good or bad purposes. Also like any other tool, a blanket ban on it makes no sense whatsoever.

[the last donut of the night]

It shouldn´t be used in humans.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It shouldn´t be used in humans.

Why not?

[the last donut of the night]

Why not?


Because aside from a few obvious uses, it´s not really necessary. An example would be using genetic manipulation to make my child´s eyes green, or give him better muscles; I could make him taller. These uses are frivolous at best.

Also, genetic manipulation -- which will be substantially developed before any socialist revolution (seeing how the world today is) -- will probably be used by the wrong people and the wrong class. The health companies will use genetic manipulation for profit, and that means a lot of shit. Eugenics and the like.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because aside from a few obvious uses, it´s not really necessary. An example would be using genetic manipulation to make my child´s eyes green, or give him better muscles; I could make him taller. These uses are frivolous at best.

Who are you to decide what's best for other people's children?


Also, genetic manipulation -- which will be substantially developed before any socialist revolution (seeing how the world today is) -- will probably be used by the wrong people and the wrong class. The health companies will use genetic manipulation for profit, and that means a lot of shit. Eugenics and the like.

So? The ruling class also use metallurgy and chemistry as tools to ensure their dominance, but you're not against such things, are you?

[fiddlesticks]

I don't like it. I always am a bit of a pessimist but I can see it being abused in the distant future, where people who are genetically "perfect" will end up being like rich people are now, tweaked to the point where they are all attractive, skilled, highly intelligent, and those who are all natural without genetic engineering involved become some sort of opressed less than human "race" or something crazy like that. Right now it's mostly being used responsively.. but it is a dangerous thing to exist.

[Il Medico]

I am rather excited by it. Being able to cure diseases, birth defects and so on. My little brother has autism. If an advance in science can stop any more people from being born with this horrible condition, I'm all for it. Also, the extension of life and perhaps the achievement of biological immortality in the near future interest me greatly. Although, it is unlikely that this cure for aging would be available to the lower class. For anything to truly benefit society, capitalism must be destroyed.

[respectful87]

Like any other tool, it can be used for good or bad purposes. Also like any other tool, a blanket ban on it makes no sense whatsoever.

I must agree. However, some have suggested using this technology to "farm" organs. The most practical way is to do this through primates. Is this ethical?

Also looking at what humans have done with past advances in other scientific fields (biological, nuclear, and chemical) doesn't it seem that sometimes things such as this are better left alone?

Besides what if this altering results in something we can't control?

[the last donut of the night]

Who are you to decide what's best for other people's children?

I´m nobody, and I´m not deciding what´s best for their children. However, I see the genetic manipulation of children (or future children, by that matter) as unethical. Why? Because it gives the parents the worst kind of power, the kind we´ve never had: to decide how somebody is and how their body works.

However, let me be clear. I am not against the use of genetics to cure inheritable diseases, such as autism or Down Syndrome. I am against it when it is used in any other form; for example, the manufacturing of ´super humans´ or genetically modified humans who are better at performing one such task than others.


So? The ruling class also use metallurgy and chemistry as tools to ensure their dominance, but you're not against such things, are you?

No, but chemistry and metallurgy won´t fuck up my very existence as a human, thank you very much.

[ZeroNowhere]

I don't like it. I always am a bit of a pessimist but I can see it being abused in the distant future, where people who are genetically "perfect" will end up being like rich people are now, tweaked to the point where they are all attractive, skilled, highly intelligent, and those who are all natural without genetic engineering involved become some sort of opressed less than human "race" or something crazy like that.Genes are like assholes; they're overrated.
And that's a shitty movie, too.


I´m nobody, and I´m not deciding what´s best for their children. However, I see the genetic manipulation of children (or future children, by that matter) as unethical. Why? Because it gives the parents the worst kind of power, the kind we´ve never had: to decide how somebody is and how their body works.Last I remembered, that was determined by the parents anyways, it's just that chance played more of a role. And when the child is born, that role decreases even more. Why it's any more unethical if the parents can just choose, I have no idea.


I am against it when it is used in any other form; for example, the manufacturing of ´super humans´ or genetically modified humans who are better at performing one such task than others.To be honest, I don't see what's wrong with increasing 'intelligence' as much as is possible (ie. not much) through genetic altering.


The health companies will use genetic manipulation for profit, and that means a lot of shit. Eugenics and the like.Wait, what does eugenics have to do with anything? One would think that if people could just manipulate genes, it would make who the parents are less important.

[Ovi]

Genes are like assholes; they're overrated.
And that's a shitty movie, too.

Last I remembered, that was determined by the parents anyways, it's just that chance played more of a role. And when the child is born, that role decreases even more. Why it's any more unethical if the parents can just choose, I have no idea.

To be honest, I don't see what's wrong with increasing 'intelligence' as much as is possible (ie. not much) through genetic altering.

Wait, what does eugenics have to do with anything? One would think that if people could just manipulate genes, it would make who the parents are less important.
And what if a genetically modified person to have green eyes ends up having a serious heart disease? Despite the advances in modern day medicine, we know so little about the human body; we make drugs that have a certain effect by making all sorts of drugs, test them on subjects and then report the results. Is it ethical? It shouldn't be allowed. Why does one have the right to alter someone else's health perhaps irreversible, even if that person is his/her parent? I would assume in capitalism this sort of 'treatment' would be promoted like a packet of cigarettes, which again shows how this sick system puts profit above the health of millions. But in a world without profits, the well being of everyone is what matters.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And what if a genetically modified person to have green eyes ends up having a serious heart disease?

There's always a certain amount of risk with any new or recent technology, and even many old technologies. The question is, what is the risk and is that acceptable? The former can only be ascertained through experiment and the latter can only be worked out once the former has been deduced.

[piet11111]

of course i support the genetic engineering even in humans.

as we all know genetics play a huge role in our health as such we have the obligation to ensure future generations are going to be as healthy as possible and to remove/repair those genes that will give us diseases like diabetes cancer MS heart diseases you name it.


to be able to and refuse because of some percieved ethical issue (or even religion) would be criminal neglect.

[the last donut of the night]

Last I remembered, that was determined by the parents anyways, it's just that chance played more of a role. And when the child is born, that role decreases even more. Why it's any more unethical if the parents can just choose, I have no idea.

Yeah, but genetic manipulation gives them much more power. And since genetics is still a very new subject, with a lot of things still being discovered, it wouldn´t be too prudent to try to do this. It´s like fixing a computer in the pitch dark: you could screw up a lot of things. And I don´t want to take that risk with a human life.


To be honest, I don't see what's wrong with increasing 'intelligence' as much as is possible (ie. not much) through genetic altering.

It took nature 4 billion years to give us this brain. Even though with its many defects, it´s pretty nice. The human brain is probably the most complex thing nature could make in this solar system. Or galaxy. Now, we´ve been studying genes for about 150 years and genetic manipulation for 50. What makes you so sure we could easily make a super brain? It´s very possible that we could end up with thousands of deformed brains, or people with mental diseases, or people with extremely dangerous mood swings. And I don´t want to take that risk when it involves humans.


Wait, what does eugenics have to do with anything? One would think that if people could just manipulate genes, it would make who the parents are less important.

People on this thread have said that genetic manipulation would be good if used by the right hands; i,e. the working class. I´m sure it would. But I´m sure that a few individuals wouldn´t think for the good of humanity. They would think for their own prejudices. An example is aesthetics: do people have the right to manipulate their children´s genes so they´re more beautiful? The notion of beauty can be very dangerous, as you probably know. What if a child was born without the required genetic changes to make him/her more beautiful? Would he/she be ostracized?

[Ovi]

There's always a certain amount of risk with any new or recent technology, and even many old technologies. The question is, what is the risk and is that acceptable? The former can only be ascertained through experiment and the latter can only be worked out once the former has been deduced.
So it is perfectly normal for people to subject their children (future or present) to all sorts of medical treatments with known and unknown side effects in order to change their eye color? Who gaved them that right?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So it is perfectly normal for people to subject their children (future or present) to all sorts of medical treatments with known and unknown side effects in order to change their eye color? Who gaved them that right?

You're missing the point. We don't know what the risks are until we experiment, so therefore more research is needed. Unfortunately there are mindless zealots on both the Left and the Right who oppose even basic research.

Your "parents choosing eye colour might give their kids heart disease" is a typical tactic of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, or FUD. How do you know that such a thing is even a risk? What do you know about genetics that could possibly lead you to conclude such a thing is likely? And just what makes you think any sane parent would gamble their child's well-being on such an untested and/or risky procedure?

Here's another thing for the leftie FUDers on this forum to consider - the ruling class is by necessity a minority within society. Unless they want to inbreed themselves into irrelevance (unlikely), the odds are good that genetic enhancements will eventually spread throughout the population as a whole, with cheaper genetic alteration procedures serving to speed up the process. This means that there will never be an entrenched genetic ruling class, what with more choices to "marry down" as well as simple human infidelity.

[Hyacinth]

Who are you to decide what's best for other people's children?
I think this is the wrong way of framing the issue. I don't think the decision should be up to the parents, insofar as children aren't—and hence shouldn't be treated as—the property of their parents. When it comes to technology such as this the only question that matters when determining whether to use it or not is what is in the best interests of the child, regardless of what the parents might want or not. If the technology is proven to be safe and effective at extending life, improving the quality thereof, etc. then I would say that it would be wrong not to use it on every child.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

What about genetic engineering of fruits, vegetables, and grains? I have heard that genetic engineering of food can have bad effects on health in the long run. Is that true?

[LeninKobaMao]

I believe genetic altering can only be of advantage.

[Hyacinth]

What about genetic engineering of fruits, vegetables, and grains? I have heard that genetic engineering of food can have bad effects on health in the long run. Is that true?
While there are a number of controversies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMO#Controversy) surrounding the creation and use of genetically modified organisms [GMOs] (the biggest, I might add, being how GMOs are being controlled by multinationals), it hasn't been established that there is any substantive health risk posed by GMOs. We've been modifying crops since the dawn of agriculture, the methods that we are utilizing today are simply more sophisticated and faster.

[RedRise]

I believe genetic altering can only be of advantage.

What about when some evil scientist creates a bunch of super-humans/animals that are programmed to obey his every order and are then used to take over the world?:ohmy::confused: It's possible. Or worse, when people who can afford this kind of stuff look down on people who can't as a literally inferior race?:scared: (I'm sure somebody's already mentioned that)
I can certainly see benefits but there are so many things that could stuff up. Besides, if people were decided before hand what a child would be like everybody would be 'perfect' and it would take away all our diversity.

[Ovi]

You're missing the point. We don't know what the risks are until we experiment, so therefore more research is needed. Unfortunately there are mindless zealots on both the Left and the Right who oppose even basic research.

Your "parents choosing eye colour might give their kids heart disease" is a typical tactic of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, or FUD. How do you know that such a thing is even a risk? What do you know about genetics that could possibly lead you to conclude such a thing is likely?

What do you know abut genetics that could possibly lead to you thinking that is without risk? Prove it! You can't can you? Nobody can. We can't change the eye color of a child. All we can do is use some substances, change some genes and hope that it won't do anything bad. That might be perfectly normal for someone with a serious or terminal illness, like cancer. But who gave us the right to experiment on children, just to satisfy an invented need? Weren't your rights supposed to end when another's begin? Who gaved you that right to experiment on a child?


And just what makes you think any sane parent would gamble their child's well-being on such an untested and/or risky procedure?

Advertising? Lack of understanding? You don't expect most people to have a Ph.D in genetics do you? All they can do is trust their doctors. They can't know how risky it is, all they do is go with their consumerist wave. Otherwise they wouldn't give they 6 years old to drink coke and eat at a fast food restaurants, would they?


Here's another thing for the leftie FUDers on this forum to consider - the ruling class is by necessity a minority within society. Unless they want to inbreed themselves into irrelevance (unlikely), the odds are good that genetic enhancements will eventually spread throughout the population as a whole, with cheaper genetic alteration procedures serving to speed up the process. This means that there will never be an entrenched genetic ruling class, what with more choices to "marry down" as well as simple human infidelity.
Still, the rich would afford anti-cancer genetic drugs, anti-diabetus drugs and everything that no 'ordinary' man would. How is that FUD?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What do you know abut genetics that could possibly lead to you thinking that is without risk? Prove it!

Because the more we understand about genetics, the more we can do to reduce any risk.


You can't can you? Nobody can. We can't change the eye color of a child. All we can do is use some substances, change some genes and hope that it won't do anything bad.

It's obvious you know very little about genetic engineering.


That might be perfectly normal for someone with a serious or terminal illness, like cancer. But who gave us the right to experiment on children, just to satisfy an invented need? Weren't your rights supposed to end when another's begin? Who gaved you that right to experiment on a child?

Who said anything about experimenting on children? Haven't you ever heard of a model ogranism? Yet more FUD tactics; "they're gonna experiment on your children!"


Advertising? Lack of understanding?

Considering the media gets all hysterical over "designer babies" and "frankenstein foods", as well as the fact that anti-scientific nonsense such organic foods and alternative medicine are big business these days, that's unlikely.


You don't expect most people to have a Ph.D in genetics do you? All they can do is trust their doctors. They can't know how risky it is, all they do is go with their consumerist wave. Otherwise they wouldn't give they 6 years old to drink coke and eat at a fast food restaurants, would they?

Who else are people gonna trust except for doctors and scientists? Know-nothings like you who spread nonsense stories about changing eye colour causing cancer or whatever?


Still, the rich would afford anti-cancer genetic drugs, anti-diabetus drugs and everything that no 'ordinary' man would. How is that FUD?

Moving the goal-posts, I see. I was talking about genetic enhancements and you go on about drugs. What, you mean just like how it is today? Besides, if they work reliably enough for the rich to risk their expensive asses on them, they should be available on the NHS. That is what should be done - demand that the fruits of scientific medicine be made available to all, not locked away by fearful medieval-mindedness.

[the last donut of the night]

Who said anything about experimenting on children? Haven't you ever heard of a model ogranism? Yet more FUD tactics; "they're gonna experiment on your children!"

Although I don´t really believe it´d be necessary to test on children, as you have mentioned, there´s still a problem. To experiment human genetics, you need a human. And I don´t want that to happen.



Besides, if they work reliably enough for the rich to risk their expensive asses on them, they should be available on the NHS. That is what should be done - demand that the fruits of scientific medicine be made available to all, not locked away by fearful medieval-mindedness.

What about countries that don´t have a National Health Service, as you English do? What about the U.S? What about countries whose public options are shit?

[Ovi]

Because the more we understand about genetics, the more we can do to reduce any risk.

If understanding genetics means changing the eye color of children to see what happens than I believe there is no point to it.



It's obvious you know very little about genetic engineering.



Who said anything about experimenting on children? Haven't you ever heard of a model ogranism? Yet more FUD tactics; "they're gonna experiment on your children!"

What do you know about genetic engineering? Instead of refuting some claims, you start talking about how I know nothing about the subject.


Considering the media gets all hysterical over "designer babies" and "frankenstein foods", as well as the fact that anti-scientific nonsense such organic foods and alternative medicine are big business these days, that's unlikely.

Do you know anything about agriculture? About pesticides? What is DDT?What makes you think you are know more than the millions of people who prefer to eat organic and the scientists who proved that pesticides end up in our food?


Who else are people gonna trust except for doctors and scientists?

Then don't tell me of how people won't "gamble their child's well-being on such an untested and/or risky procedure". In the end all they know is what they're told. Why would you think a corporation that discovers how to change the eye color of a child and could make billions, would advertise the side effects? Or that they'll do much research about that?


Know-nothings like you who spread nonsense stories about changing eye colour causing cancer or whatever?

Stop whining and start proving.


Moving the goal-posts, I see. I was talking about genetic enhancements and you go on about drugs. What, you mean just like how it is today? Besides, if they work reliably enough for the rich to risk their expensive asses on them, they should be available on the NHS. That is what should be done - demand that the fruits of scientific medicine be made available to all, not locked away by fearful medieval-mindedness.
Actually cancer has to do with genetic mutations in some of our cells and diabetus does have a genetic cause that could be 'fixed' with advances in genetics.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Although I don´t really believe it´d be necessary to test on children, as you have mentioned, there´s still a problem. To experiment human genetics, you need a human. And I don´t want that to happen.

No, to experiment on human genetics, you need human genetic material and a way of expressing it - and with transgenic animals already being in common use in genetic research, that expression does not have to involve a human.


What about countries that don´t have a National Health Service, as you English do? What about the U.S? What about countries whose public options are shit?

Well obviously you struggle for something better than you have already. Or are you going to ban antibiotics and vaccines in countries where only the rich can afford them, simply because it presents them with an "unfair advantage"?

Oh yeah, that's another thing - banning something does not reduce the demand for that something, whether it's drugs, file-sharing, or genetic alteration. It merely drives it underground and makes things worse for all concerned.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If understanding genetics means changing the eye color of children to see what happens than I believe there is no point to it.

Of course understanding genetics will mean so much more than that. But just what is so damn terrible about being able to choose the eye colour of one's children?


What do you know about genetic engineering? Instead of refuting some claims, you start talking about how I know nothing about the subject.

There's nothing to refute since you've provided precisely zero evidence of the risks of changing eye colour - it's just something you pulled out of your arse as far as I can tell.


Do you know anything about agriculture? About pesticides? What is DDT?What makes you think you are know more than the millions of people who prefer to eat organic and the scientists who proved that pesticides end up in our food?

I've been eating non-organic food for the vast majority of my life, and suffice to say I have yet to suffer from pesticide poisoning. The same goes for the millions of others who either don't fall for organic food promoter's scare tactics or who are too damn poor to pay the rip-off prices that organic food goes for.


Then don't tell me of how people won't "gamble their child's well-being on such an untested and/or risky procedure". In the end all they know is what they're told. Why would you think a corporation that discovers how to change the eye color of a child and could make billions, would advertise the side effects? Or that they'll do much research about that?

If there are serious doubts about the procedure, then the prospective parents will get to hear about them, believe me. In fact, considering the FUD being spread by the anti-vaccination crowd, even established procedures that have been proven to be safe are not immune from this type of fear-mongering.


Stop whining and start proving.

Nuh-uh, you came out with that nonsense first. The task is upon you to prove there is a link between genetic alteration of eye-colour (or any other minor aesthetic trait) and the development of any illness.


Actually cancer has to do with genetic mutations in some of our cells and diabetus does have a genetic cause that could be 'fixed' with advances in genetics.

But if both conditions are prevented using genetic engineering, there would be no need for any drugs to treat them, and the resistance to cancer and diabetes would be free to move amongst the population. Hence your goal-post moving.

[Ovi]

Of course understanding genetics will mean so much more than that. But just what is so damn terrible about being able to choose the eye colour of one's children?



There's nothing to refute since you've provided precisely zero evidence of the risks of changing eye colour - it's just something you pulled out of your arse as far as I can tell.

Evidence? I'm not the one who is supposed to provide evidence, but those like you are. Prove that we know exactly what each human gene does and we know that every genetic treatment does exactly what we want.


I've been eating non-organic food for the vast majority of my life, and suffice to say I have yet to suffer from pesticide poisoning. The same goes for the millions of others who either don't fall for organic food promoter's scare tactics or who are too damn poor to pay the rip-off prices that organic food goes for.

The problem with pesticides in our food is not 'pesticide poisoning'. There are birth defects, cancer and many other illments that you wouldn't call poisoning. But again I didn't ask you your opinion on the subject, but why would you think that you are smarter than those scientists? Why on earth do you think DDT, among others, was banned in a large part of the world?


If there are serious doubts about the procedure, then the prospective parents will get to hear about them, believe me. In fact, considering the FUD being spread by the anti-vaccination crowd, even established procedures that have been proven to be safe are not immune from this type of fear-mongering.

Then why do the prospective parents give their children coke and fast food? Prospective parents :laugh:


Nuh-uh, you came out with that nonsense first. The task is upon you to prove there is a link between genetic alteration of eye-colour (or any other minor aesthetic trait) and the development of any illness.

You're promoting it, you're proving it. I'm listening. After all, unlike you, I know nothing about genetics.


But if both conditions are prevented using genetic engineering, there would be no need for any drugs to treat them, and the resistance to cancer and diabetes would be free to move amongst the population. Hence your goal-post moving.
It depends on the treatment. It would be much easier to fix the mutations that caused the cancer, than the genetic predisposition. In this case, the rich would benefit, while the poor would not. Just like everything else.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Evidence? I'm not the one who is supposed to provide evidence, but those like you are. Prove that we know exactly what each human gene does and we know that every genetic treatment does exactly what we want.

As I pointed out earlier, more research is needed. It won't be helped by scare tactics.


The problem with pesticides in our food is not 'pesticide poisoning'. There are birth defects, cancer and many other illments that you wouldn't call poisoning. But again I didn't ask you your opinion on the subject, but why would you think that you are smarter than those scientists? Why on earth do you think DDT, among others, was banned in a large part of the world?

The impetus behind the banning of DDT was not provided by scientists, but by well-meaning but under-informed Western environmental activists, the result being an increase in the incidence of malaria.


Then why do the prospective parents give their children coke and fast food? Prospective parents :laugh:

The issue of fast food is irrelevant to the issue of prospective (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prospective) parents. You can't feed your kids anything if you don't have kids in the first place. Stop muddying the waters with unrelated red herrings.


You're promoting it, you're proving it. I'm listening. After all, unlike you, I know nothing about genetics.

I'm promoting further research on the matter. Obviously if there are serious doubts about the safety and effectiveness of a given procedure, those doubts should be investigated. But assuming it can be done safely, why shouldn't it?


It depends on the treatment. It would be much easier to fix the mutations that caused the cancer, than the genetic predisposition. In this case, the rich would benefit, while the poor would not. Just like everything else.

Except for the fact that genetic predispositions do not confine themselves to a single socioeconomic class. The first generation of cancer-resistant humans might be rich, but what about their children? And their chlidren's children?

[Ovi]

The impetus behind the banning of DDT was not provided by scientists, but by well-meaning but under-informed Western environmental activists, the result being an increase in the incidence of malaria.

Surely there are others pesticides that are far less harmfull and don't have half-lifes of 15 years.


The issue of fast food is irrelevant to the issue of prospective (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prospective) parents. You can't feed your kids anything if you don't have kids in the first place. Stop muddying the waters with unrelated red herrings.

What makes you thing parents would find out about the side effects and realize how dangerous it is? Again they do feed their children fast food and coke.


I'm promoting further research on the matter. Obviously if there are serious doubts about the safety and effectiveness of a given procedure, those doubts should be investigated. But assuming it can be done safely, why shouldn't it?

It should! But we don't live in wonder land. I know from experience that no profit motivated company cares about the bad part of it's products as long as they make money.


Except for the fact that genetic predispositions do not confine themselves to a single socioeconomic class. The first generation of cancer-resistant humans might be rich, but what about their children? And their chlidren's children?
Ok, you are right. 100 or more years after the rich, many of the poor people would benefit indirectly from that...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Surely there are others pesticides that are far less harmfull and don't have half-lifes of 15 years.

Maybe. But to all indications DDT was adequate for the task, as a pesticide sprayed on the exterior walls of houses to ward off mosquitos.


What makes you thing parents would find out about the side effects and realize how dangerous it is? Again they do feed their children fast food and coke.

The same thing that makes parents concerned over the effects of vaccines even when there is nothing to worry about. Also, not all parents stuff their children's faces with fast food and coke.


It should! But we don't live in wonder land. I know from experience that no profit motivated company cares about the bad part of it's products as long as they make money.

Right, and the government has no motivation whatsoever to protect present and future taxpayers? People in general have no motivation and no means of protecting their own interest? Considering the existance of such things as regulations and patient advocacy groups among other stuff, I consider it unlikely. Yes, companies are interested primarily in the bottom line, but to see that as the only motivating factor is a one-dimensional analysis that leads one precisely nowhere - it cannot explain, for example, how things such as car safety features came into existence. The thing to remember is that while corporations cut corners, they only do so when they think they can get away with it - otherwise cars today would still be deathtraps.


Ok, you are right. 100 or more years after the rich, many of the poor people would benefit indirectly from that...

Looking at history, it seems to be a common story. It might not be fast enough for certain people's tastes (it certainly isn't for mine), but believe it or not, things are actually getting better, despite agonisingly slow progress and local reversals. Our task should be to accelerate that process, not bemoan the state of the world and oppose things purely on principles with shaky foundations.

[the last donut of the night]

No, to experiment on human genetics, you need human genetic material and a way of expressing it - and with transgenic animals already being in common use in genetic research, that expression does not have to involve a human.

But you can only go so far. When you start finally using humans, the risk for error is still present.


Well obviously you struggle for something better than you have already. Or are you going to ban antibiotics and vaccines in countries where only the rich can afford them, simply because it presents them with an "unfair advantage"?

Throughout this thread, you´ve compared genetic alteration to metallurgy, regular chemistry, and in this case, medicine. Although they can serve various human needs, there is a great difference in how the results are applied.

However, I don´t want to ban vaccines or drugs because my country´s public health system is shit. Of course. But because the effects of genetic alteration are so malleable, in that they can be used for extremely positive uses or negative uses, we can´t risk flooding the market with extremely expensive treatments so only the rich benefit by altering themselves. And potentially harming themselves too.



Oh yeah, that's another thing - banning something does not reduce the demand for that something, whether it's drugs, file-sharing, or genetic alteration. It merely drives it underground and makes things worse for all concerned.

Duh.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But you can only go so far. When you start finally using humans, the risk for error is still present.

You can never completely eliminate risk, only bring it to within acceptable margins - even vaccines can produce the occasional adverse reaction within a patient.

If any amount of risk is unacceptable to you, then nobody is forcing you to go through with it.


Throughout this thread, you´ve compared genetic alteration to metallurgy, regular chemistry, and in this case, medicine. Although they can serve various human needs, there is a great difference in how the results are applied.

However, I don´t want to ban vaccines or drugs because my country´s public health system is shit. Of course. But because the effects of genetic alteration are so malleable, in that they can be used for extremely positive uses or negative uses, we can´t risk flooding the market with extremely expensive treatments so only the rich benefit by altering themselves. And potentially harming themselves too.

Extremely positive/negative uses simply mean that genetics is a powerful tool. Guess what, a lot of other technologies are just as powerful if not more so than genetics. For example, a surveillance state is only possible with advanced telecommunications, but I don't see you calling for a blanket ban on CCTV cameras. Even better, it turns out that establishing Big Brother isn't all that simple - and I have no doubts that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World will similarly encounter many speedbumps and U-turns.

You also cannot "flood the market" with expensive procedures - otherwise the procedures will drop in price to meet demand, or the "excess" will go out of business due to a lack of customers.

If there's ever a need for human guinea pigs, why not the rich? They can certainly afford the fall-out. :lol:

[Ovi]

Maybe. But to all indications DDT was adequate for the task, as a pesticide sprayed on the exterior walls of houses to ward off mosquitos.

If its toxicity causes more problems than it solves, then we the advanced beings that can manipulate genes while reading the latest magazine of adbusters certainly can find a better way to kill mosquitos!



The same thing that makes parents concerned over the effects of vaccines even when there is nothing to worry about. Also, not all parents stuff their children's faces with fast food and coke.

Great example. In the case of most vaccines there isn't much to worry about in the first place! That doesn't mean the average joe knows it.


Right, and the government has no motivation whatsoever to protect present and future taxpayers? People in general have no motivation and no means of protecting their own interest? Considering the existance of such things as regulations and patient advocacy groups among other stuff, I consider it unlikely. Yes, companies are interested primarily in the bottom line, but to see that as the only motivating factor is a one-dimensional analysis that leads one precisely nowhere - it cannot explain, for example, how things such as car safety features came into existence. The thing to remember is that while corporations cut corners, they only do so when they think they can get away with it - otherwise cars today would still be deathtraps.

Indeed, we should put faith in our dear governments. I wouldn't trust them with my dog and you're asking me to put my faith in them when it comes to the health of my children?


Looking at history, it seems to be a common story. It might not be fast enough for certain people's tastes (it certainly isn't for mine), but believe it or not, things are actually getting better, despite agonisingly slow progress and local reversals. Our task should be to accelerate that process, not bemoan the state of the world and oppose things purely on principles with shaky foundations.
I'm not that concerned about the rich getting to much of the good parts, I'm used to that, but of the inherent risks of genetic engineering just to satisfy people's masochist obsessions.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If its toxicity causes more problems than it solves, then we the advanced beings that can manipulate genes while reading the latest magazine of adbusters certainly can find a better way to kill mosquitos!

That's the thing, there wasn't a level-headed assessment of the risks involved in using DDT. Just a general hue and cry from pampered middle-class environmental types.


Great example. In the case of most vaccines there isn't much to worry about in the first place! That doesn't mean the average joe knows it.

You mean the average Joe has no concern whatsoever about the health of their potential children? What planet are you from, again?


Indeed, we should put faith in our dear governments. I wouldn't trust them with my dog and you're asking me to put my faith in them when it comes to the health of my children?

I'm not asking you to put your faith in the government, I'm saying the government has an interest in protecting taxpayers, as evidenced by the example of cars.


I'm not that concerned about the rich getting to much of the good parts, I'm used to that, but of the inherent risks of genetic engineering just to satisfy people's masochist obsessions.

Masochist? You think people wanting their kids to be smarter, fitter and more beautiful is on the same level as a few S&M sessions in Mistress Domina's dungeon? Fucking hell. :rolleyes:

[Ovi]

That's the thing, there wasn't a level-headed assessment of the risks involved in using DDT. Just a general hue and cry from pampered middle-class environmental types.

Say what? I know some chemistry and the only real way to make a better pesticide, just like everything else, is to make something new, test it on insects, rats; if it passes you market it, a few years later it ends up being too toxic for humans, it gets banned after the damage has been made, other are made and so on. This is how drugs are made, how synthetic materials are made, how food additives are made.

In many casses the good part is only purported, all it matters are the ads. Take for instance radioactive toothpastes, radioactive water and all sorts of other radioactive products during the 20th century. They were sold because nobody knew how dangerous they are. Like everything else it got banned after the damage was done. So much with your taxpayers protecting state.
Radithor anyone?


You mean the average Joe has no concern whatsoever about the health of their potential children? What planet are you from, again?

Concerning yourself about your children's health while buying them some coke doesn't mean shit.


Masochist? You think people wanting their kids to be smarter, fitter and more beautiful is on the same level as a few S&M sessions in Mistress Domina's dungeon? Fucking hell. :rolleyes:
I'm saying that experimenting on children to satisfy your selfish desire to change their eye color is stupid. We can't make an insectiside right without first harming millions of people in the process (and we still didn't get it right). What makes you think we now or anytime in the near future will understand the human genome so thoroughly that making thousands suffer just to change a fricken eye color won't happen? You're dreaming.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Say what? I know some chemistry and the only real way to make a better pesticide, just like everything else, is to make something new, test it on insects, rats; if it passes you market it, a few years later it ends up being too toxic for humans, it gets banned after the damage has been made, other are made and so on. This is how drugs are made, how synthetic materials are made, how food additives are made.

In many casses the good part is only purported, all it matters are the ads. Take for instance radioactive toothpastes, radioactive water and all sorts of other radioactive products during the 20th century. They were sold because nobody knew how dangerous they are. Like everything else it got banned after the damage was done. So much with your taxpayers protecting state.
Radithor anyone?

Except that there is enough a genetic similarity between humans and other animals for testing to be worthwhile - that is after all why we are able to use model organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_organism) in the first place. For things like eye colour, hair colour etc you don't even need to grow an entire organism, just the relevant tissues. Further, if there is a link between a given eye colour and some congenital defect, then we would already know about it - for example, albinism is known to be co-morbid with a number of other conditions, so you won't be seeing any artificially albino children until that issue is addressed.

As for radium products, that is a perfect example of products being released without any preliminary safety testing - do you seriously think that if a new element were to be discovered today, it would be used in all manner of goods and products with such reckless abandon? Not in our litigous age.


Concerning yourself about your children's health while buying them some coke doesn't mean shit.

The sort of parent who pours gallons of coke down their childrens' throats doesn't strike me as the sort to care in the first place. By the way, what do you consider to be an "excessive" level of cola consumption and what figures do you have that parents commonly exceed that arbitrary limit?


I'm saying that experimenting on children to satisfy your selfish desire to change their eye color is stupid. We can't make an insectiside right without first harming millions of people in the process (and we still didn't get it right). What makes you think we now or anytime in the near future will understand the human genome so thoroughly that making thousands suffer just to change a fricken eye color won't happen? You're dreaming.

Who said anything about experimenting on children? I've already stated my support for extensive testing of such procedures before they become available to the general public. You are resorting to a typical thoughtless scaremonger's tactic - "Won't somebody THINK OF TEH CHILDRENZ?"

We will find out which genes do what the same way we increase all of our other scientific knowledge - by experiment and observation. Once our knowledge is at a satisfactory level, then we should apply it.

Once again, you are assuming the worst when there is no reason to. Is a particular disease or condition strongly associated with a certain eye colour? No? Then your fears are groundless, and certainly not based on any rational consideration of the facts.

[Ovi]

Except that there is enough a genetic similarity between humans and other animals for testing to be worthwhile - that is after all why we are able to use model organisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_organism) in the first place. For things like eye colour, hair colour etc you don't even need to grow an entire organism, just the relevant tissues. Further, if there is a link between a given eye colour and some congenital defect, then we would already know about it - for example, albinism is known to be co-morbid with a number of other conditions, so you won't be seeing any artificially albino children until that issue is addressed.

It's not about the link of eye color and birth defects but of genetic manipulation which changes the eye color and also causes other illments.


The sort of parent who pours gallons of coke down their childrens' throats doesn't strike me as the sort to care in the first place. By the way, what do you consider to be an "excessive" level of cola consumption and what figures do you have that parents commonly exceed that arbitrary limit?

Excessive? Such drinks are harmfull in any amount and figuring some arbitrary leve of what is too much is useless. Anyway, those who drink such beverages don't limit themselves to 1 cup a day.


Who said anything about experimenting on children? I've already stated my support for extensive testing of such procedures before they become available to the general public. You are resorting to a typical thoughtless scaremonger's tactic - "Won't somebody THINK OF TEH CHILDRENZ?"

We will find out which genes do what the same way we increase all of our other scientific knowledge - by experiment and observation. Once our knowledge is at a satisfactory level, then we should apply it.

You live in wonder land and your assumptions have no grounds. First of all our knowledge will be at a satisfactory level after we experiment enough on people. The only way you can say with some certainty of what happens after treatment x is used on humans is by testing it on humans, whether you like it or not.

Take metamizole, used as a painkiller in many countries; the production started in the '20 and was banned 50 years later in a great part of the world after it was found to be dangerous (of course that is the result of being used by people), although it's still available in other countries. DDT was another example.

Do you really think genetics is anything special, that it will allow us to predict the effects without human tests? When I say tests I mean anything used on people without certainty of the results, not necessarily lab tests. Not even a physicist could hope to discover something without resorting to experiment. You think biologists can?

[ZeroNowhere]

What makes you thing parents would find out about the side effects and realize how dangerous it is? Again they do feed their children fast food and coke.This comment would only make sense if you were referring to cocaine or cocaine burgers or something. And I'm not aware of many parents who feed their children cocaine or cocaine burgers or something.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This comment would only make sense if you were referring to cocaine or cocaine burgers or something. And I'm not aware of many parents who feed their children cocaine or cocaine burgers or something.

Didn't you know? One glass of of coke is all it takes for your child to instantly become obese, tumourous and hyperactive.

[Ovi]

This comment would only make sense if you were referring to cocaine or cocaine burgers or something. And I'm not aware of many parents who feed their children cocaine or cocaine burgers or something.
Well that's because nobody advertises cocaine burgers!