PDA

View Full Version : What do you think of using genetic engineering to create better humans?


PlexiGlassXD
September 7th, 2016, 05:38 PM
If I had the technology and knowledge I would create a race of humanoids that are

-beautiful
-athletic
-intelligent
-healthy
-would have gymnastic skill
-skilled in combat
-artistic, They would have beautiful weapons and space ships
-love sci fi and fantasy

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/feiapu0judkdh409q43h.JPG
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/oo6y1sepncs0u7jt1td7.JPG
http://img03.deviantart.net/3f07/i/2006/266/e/8/eldar_shrike_bomber_finished_by_addinarr.jpg

Flapjack
September 7th, 2016, 05:47 PM
No, I would only support it in order to remove genetic diseases.

Also they would be human, not humanoids. From what I understand a humanoid is a robot that strongly resembles a human.

Barbara.
September 7th, 2016, 06:27 PM
My only advice is never mess with mother nature .

Amethyst Rose
September 7th, 2016, 08:24 PM
If I had the technology and knowledge I would create a race of humanoids that are

-beautiful
-athletic
-intelligent
-healthy
-would have gymnastic skill
-skilled in combat
-artistic, They would have beautiful weapons and space ships
-love sci fi and fantasy

image (https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/feiapu0judkdh409q43h.JPG)
image (https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/oo6y1sepncs0u7jt1td7.JPG)
image (http://img03.deviantart.net/3f07/i/2006/266/e/8/eldar_shrike_bomber_finished_by_addinarr.jpg)

Everyone would have the same qualities? What fun would that be?

EuRo
September 7th, 2016, 08:34 PM
I'm with wholelottalove a bit on this one. While it'd be great if we had some sort of perfect line of human, there would likely be little variation. I mean, it really depends because the people who would be picking what the humans look like would have different ideas of "perfect" in their minds. Beauty is subjective, and I don't think picking a person's character would be physically possible because personality changes when you experience different things. Agility, intellect, strength, etc aren't that subjective, though.

Whether I'd approve of genetic engineering in humans is hard to say. While it would be nice to have a super-race of near-perfect humans, I enjoy our natural imperfections and how much each of us variate.

PlasmaHam
September 8th, 2016, 11:13 AM
No, I don't support tampering with human genetic material. For a sci-fi fan, you must have missed out on basically any movie involving genetic supermen.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T7G7DHWh2wM/URsGbNx6V9I/AAAAAAAAB3U/6IDaNJt1u8s/s1600/Khan%20MEme.jpeg

devotionnel
September 8th, 2016, 02:08 PM
My only advice is never mess with mother nature .

Agreed. I think if a mother was having a child, she should not care about having certain genetics (I've heard this is possible) apart from the exception of genetic disease.

everlong
September 8th, 2016, 05:39 PM
Nah, let's not mess with that shit.

Babs
September 8th, 2016, 05:48 PM
Beyond eliminating disease etc., it's just fantasy.

Cadanance00
September 8th, 2016, 06:22 PM
I think there are too many humans in the world already to think about making more of any kind.

ethan-s
September 8th, 2016, 07:00 PM
If you would see what effects genetic engineering has on crops and animals, you would not support it in humans.

Vlerchan
September 8th, 2016, 07:06 PM
If you would see what effects genetic engineering has on crops and animals, you would not support it in humans.
http://media.philstar.com/images/the-philippine-star/business/agriculture/20150906/Genetically-Engineered-Corn-1.jpg

Oh no!

lliam
September 8th, 2016, 09:44 PM
If I had the technology and knowledge I would create a race of humanoids that are

but humanoids aren't human. humanoids just have a appearance resembling of a human being. eg androids and such.


Thus, you can't define your creatures as a human race if you are creating humanoids.

The more correct formulation would probably have been to say, that you would create a race of humans with such and such features, characteristics and so on.


But whilst I read through your list, I guessed, you should forget genetics. Instead you may do a better job creating androids with the appropriate technology.

Much on your list is genetically hardly feasible. I think it is possible to manipulate genes (or even generate) so that individuals arise, who have a higher intelligence and a certain urge to move. But that doesn't mean that each of these individuals is tending to do so.

Genes don't define an individual. They only make options available. So they'll just reveal specific properties and characteristics during the socialization of a person. Or something like that.

Even if each of your creatures has the same gentic potency, the expression of intelligence will vary considerably.


Also, if these differences shouldn't particularly be serious noticeable in the first generatoins, they will obviously be fact in the tenth generation, for sure.

Because life and evolution allow not to cheat.

The only way I see would be to prevent your creatures to reproduce themselves.

But that would technically be monocloning orsuch. Genetic zombies or puppets ... a living video game.

To put it bluntly: It would imo be just raped life.

By contrast, Victor Frankenstein's creature would almost look like an angel fresh sent from heaven among those perfect created "humans".

ImCoolBeans
September 9th, 2016, 10:31 AM
TWPR :arrow: ROTW

I think this is more of a debate topic, and will get more relevant answers in Ramblings of the Wise.

ethan-s
September 9th, 2016, 10:33 AM
image (http://media.philstar.com/images/the-philippine-star/business/agriculture/20150906/Genetically-Engineered-Corn-1.jpg)

Oh no!

You do know that when they first create a new variety of GM crop that the first round is all mutated and weird? They then just select the one that looks like the original crop.

Also, the chemicals they spray on these things are very harmful to the soil. They tie up the trace minerals and make them unavailable for years and years and years.

This is all easily verifiable info. If you doubt me, look it up.

Reise
September 9th, 2016, 10:49 AM
You do know that when they first create a new variety of GM crop that the first round is all mutated and weird? They then just select the one that looks like the original crop.
Yeah, it's called artificial selection. Any problem with that?
Nowadays we know quite more about DNA to know what to modify though.


Also, the chemicals they spray on these things are very harmful to the soil. They tie up the trace minerals and make them unavailable for years and years and years.
The point of GMO crops is to make organisms that are naturally resistant to diseases (along with a few other - perhaps more questionable - things).

------------------------

I'm all for genetic engineering by the way.
I'll also agree that the OP is in complete SciFi fanboy dream.

ethan-s
September 9th, 2016, 01:42 PM
Yeah, it's called artificial selection. Any problem with that?
Nowadays we know quite more about DNA to know what to modify though.


The point of GMO crops is to make organisms that are naturally resistant to diseases (along with a few other - perhaps more questionable - things).

------------------------

I'm all for genetic engineering by the way.
I'll also agree that the OP is in complete SciFi fanboy dream.

What's wrong? The FDA does not test the new product. The company does. Also, don't you think that if the plant "evolved" the way it is, we should leave it alone?

Reise
September 9th, 2016, 02:36 PM
What's wrong? The FDA does not test the new product. The company does. Also, don't you think that if the plant "evolved" the way it is, we should leave it alone?

It looks like they do test the crops:

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=Biocon

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ucm096126.htm

If we had the possibilty to eradicate diseases, don't you think we should do it?

Arkansasguy
September 9th, 2016, 03:21 PM
If I had the technology and knowledge I would create a race of humanoids that are

-beautiful
-athletic
-intelligent
-healthy
-would have gymnastic skill
-skilled in combat
-artistic, They would have beautiful weapons and space ships
-love sci fi and fantasy

image (https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/feiapu0judkdh409q43h.JPG)
image (https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/oo6y1sepncs0u7jt1td7.JPG)
image (http://img03.deviantart.net/3f07/i/2006/266/e/8/eldar_shrike_bomber_finished_by_addinarr.jpg)

It should be illegal. The only genetic alteration that should be tolerated is non-germ line genetic therapy specifically for legitimate medical purposes.

mattsmith48
September 9th, 2016, 04:12 PM
No! That's how horror movie starts!

MaeFae
September 9th, 2016, 05:40 PM
I think genetic engineering is fantastic! Think of all the diseases/disorders we could cure. Huntington's, Epilepsy, Alzheimer's, etc. No doubt it would be very regulated as with any new breakthrough :)

Flapjack
September 11th, 2016, 11:56 AM
I think genetic engineering is fantastic! Think of all the diseases/disorders we could cure. Huntington's, Epilepsy, Alzheimer's, etc. No doubt it would be very regulated as with any new breakthrough :)
I feel the same:)

Paraxiom
September 12th, 2016, 04:42 AM
If I had the technology and knowledge I would create a race of humanoids that are

I'll go into the qualities you've presented here.


beautiful

Is this not too subjective to attempt objective genetic alteration to achieve?


athletic

intelligent

I'm not against athelticism at all, but I don't see how much good would come out of having everyone be of similar / the same athletic ability, as well as the same degrees of intelligences.


healthy

Genetics alone cannot inherently make someone healthy. It's particular lifestyles of exercise and food intake that contribute to this, i.e. the environment one is in.

would have gymnastic skill

skilled in combat

I say the same as I did for the athletic ability and intelligence, though I wonder if you anticipate some wars that this combat will be needed for.


artistic, They would have beautiful weapons and space ships

love sci fi and fantasy

How would genetic engineering manage to make any of these four?


Yeah, it's called artificial selection. Any problem with that?
Nowadays we know quite more about DNA to know what to modify though.


The point of GMO crops is to make organisms that are naturally resistant to diseases (along with a few other - perhaps more questionable - things).

------------------------

I'm all for genetic engineering by the way.

I would hope that you are not for genetic engineering where it isn't necessary and/or where it is ethically questionable (here meaning the potential degree of pain/dysphoria felt by GMO animals and such).


I'll also agree that the OP is in complete SciFi fanboy dream.

Probably. :D


Also, don't you think that if the plant "evolved" the way it is, we should leave it alone?

The plant evolved because of it interacting in certain ways with its environment and vice-versa. We humans are now part of its environment. Going by the physics and biology of this, there's nothing that us humans are doing to the plant that is 'against' any evolutionary process, though I grant it that it's a unique situation compared to the lifetime of Earth's biosphere.

Reise
September 12th, 2016, 05:49 AM
I would hope that you are not for genetic engineering where it isn't necessary and/or where it is ethically questionable (here meaning the potential degree of pain/dysphoria felt by GMO animals and such).

I'd see not a lot of problems in the idea of parents choosing what their kid would look like, in a far away future if it's what you are thinking about.
Though I'm likely to be dead when this idea will come to existence, if it does, of course.

I'd see not a lot of problems in experimentation on voluntary humans as well.

And I'd see not a lot of problems in humans modifying their DNA with advanced technologies simply on the basis of their own will (I'm not talking about significant physical modification though).

Recent discoveries are quite encouraging by the way.

However, unless protecting species I don't see any need to genetically modify animals (as I'm excluding the idea of making them better "food").

ethan-s
September 12th, 2016, 04:03 PM
How are you going to genetically engender a human? We do not have the technology to safely do that yet or anytime soon.

Porpoise101
September 12th, 2016, 04:05 PM
How are you going to genetically engender a human? We do not have the technology to safely do that yet or anytime soon.
We know how to do it. Using CRISPR technology seems to be the way forward.

By the way, we do use GM human stem cells already to treat severe burns among other things. Edit: it is currently in experimental clinical trials, but still. We are doing it now.

Reise
September 12th, 2016, 04:08 PM
How are you going to genetically engender a human? We do not have the technology to safely do that yet or anytime soon.
CRISPR Cas9 has been a major discovery in the recent years and is really promising for genetic engineering.

ethan-s
September 12th, 2016, 04:09 PM
Okay. But be ready for mutations and defects of all kinds. When you mess with mother nature she strikes back.

Reise
September 12th, 2016, 04:14 PM
Okay. But be ready for mutations and defects of all kinds. When you mess with mother nature she strikes back.
It's actually Mother nature that created this DNA editing tool in the first place.

Accidents will surely happen, this is not a problem.

jxxx_z
September 12th, 2016, 05:51 PM
I wouldn't mess with that, just to be safe

Paraxiom
September 13th, 2016, 06:00 AM
I'd see not a lot of problems in the idea of parents choosing what their kid would look like, in a far away future if it's what you are thinking about.

Personally I'm more a fan of both the parent and child not deciding what they fundamentally physiologically look like, rather than the child realising that they are permanently such and such because the parents thought it would be nice for them. I mean, it can be done, but could people not just be okay with their hair/eye colour as examples?

If such genetic alterations are done, I expect that the children with these alterations will be fertile and a generation off these future adults will 'default' have features coming from the decisions of those 2 generations ago, unless another round of genetic alteration is done again. It can be done, but whatever the logistics of it are, I would wonder if a good proportion of humans would have their fundamental appearance as such because of the fashion/etc tastes of the previous generation.

I'm not wanting to take a stereotypical conservative stance on this. Rather I am suggesting what I'm seeing as potential body insecurities getting to a level where your descendants live with the direct consequences of your actions because of this insecurity. If I was one such descendant I wouldn't be majorly upset (personally), but I would be asking why my parents thought it alright to have them predetermine certain permanent aspects of my body before I would have any say in it.


Though I'm likely to be dead when this idea will come to existence, if it does, of course.

Perhaps not.


I'd see not a lot of problems in experimentation on voluntary humans as well.

That I'm okay with.


And I'd see not a lot of problems in humans modifying their DNA with advanced technologies simply on the basis of their own will (I'm not talking about significant physical modification though).

By no significant physical modification, do you mean no noticeable physiological traits?

If you're for extending lifespan with genetic modification as a factor, then I'm all for that.


Recent discoveries are quite encouraging by the way.

Hence why it may be sooner than many think.


However, unless protecting species I don't see any need to genetically modify animals (as I'm excluding the idea of making them better "food").

Alright.

Reise
September 13th, 2016, 09:14 AM
Personally I'm more a fan of both the parent and child not deciding what they fundamentally physiologically look like, rather than the child realising that they are permanently such and such because the parents thought it would be nice for them. I mean, it can be done, but could people not just be okay with their hair/eye colour as examples?
At a moment you can't think with today's standards where a lot of people still criticize adoption for the same reasons
If such technologies becomes widely available things will change.
I can't predict the future but if such customs come to existence one day I won't be surprised, and I won't especially be against it.
Even if such an idea is lightly "spooky", "sick", whatever.


If such genetic alterations are done, I expect that the children with these alterations will be fertile and a generation off these future adults will 'default' have features coming from the decisions of those 2 generations ago, unless another round of genetic alteration is done again. It can be done, but whatever the logistics of it are, I would wonder if a good proportion of humans would have their fundamental appearance as such because of the fashion/etc tastes of the previous generation.
The point is not to create a master race by the way.
I assume parents' behaviors (and thus, human behaviors) are wide enough so we everyone won't look the same. I'll agree that it would be a disaster on a "evolutionary" basis if certain traits came to be discriminated by aesthetics reason.


I'm not wanting to take a stereotypical conservative stance on this. Rather I am suggesting what I'm seeing as potential body insecurities getting to a level where your descendants live with the direct consequences of your actions because of this insecurity. If I was one such descendant I wouldn't be majorly upset (personally), but I would be asking why my parents thought it alright to have them predetermine certain permanent aspects of my body before I would have any say in it.
Your parents even nowadays have a considerable weight in the determination of the person you'll be. The way they raise you, feed you etc.
In the end, you're like your parents created you, nah?
Furthermore if such kind of things is done it'll probably be by gametes modification or at a very early stage of the pregnancy process, like before natural implantation.


By no significant physical modification, do you mean no noticeable physiological traits?
I mean it better not end up with someone wanting a third arm.
Better see it as an evolved aesthetic surgery.

Lifespan extension will surely be very common, this raise other problems of course.

ImCoolBeans
September 13th, 2016, 11:23 AM
I believe genetic engineering is wrong and unnatural. I know there is no fully turning back at this point but I believe we're unfortunately going to go too far with it. I hear people say all of the time that life is a miracle and that we should cherish it. I don't think that we should be toying with it and playing creator. It's a dangerous, and unforeseen road that I doubt we understand to its full extent.

Paraxiom
September 13th, 2016, 01:43 PM
At a moment you can't think with today's standards where a lot of people still criticize adoption for the same reasons
If such technologies becomes widely available things will change.
I can't predict the future but if such customs come to existence one day I won't be surprised, and I won't especially be against it.
Even if such an idea is lightly "spooky", "sick", whatever.

Sure.


The point is not to create a master race by the way.

I wasn't thinking that you had that in mind. I wasn't thinking about it either, but as you mention it it is one tool that could be used by some hypothetical powerful Neo-Nazism organisation or something similar.


I assume parents' behaviors (and thus, human behaviors) are wide enough so we everyone won't look the same. I'll agree that it would be a disaster on a "evolutionary" basis if certain traits came to be discriminated by aesthetics reason.

That is one of the main reasons I express caution toward this particular technology.


Your parents even nowadays have a considerable weight in the determination of the person you'll be. The way they raise you, feed you etc.
In the end, you're like your parents created you, nah?

They were immense factors yes, but I am able to change my ways as an adult; this is why I said 'permanent' in the physiological alterations that this technology would do. Our starting position in life doesn't determine the path we will take throughout that life in any irreversible way - we have choice in how we can act. Genetic modification is a permanent action.

I'm not going so far as to be vigorously against such technology being practiced, but I am expecting some (not all) displeased descendants coming out of this because of that technology. I would prefer that such technology for aesthetic reasons not be a thing.


Furthermore if such kind of things is done it'll probably be by gametes modification or at a very early stage of the pregnancy process, like before natural implantation.

I know; before the formation of consciousness or personhood.


I mean it better not end up with someone wanting a third arm.
Better see it as an evolved aesthetic surgery.

Yes.


Lifespan extension will surely be very common, this raise other problems of course.

I would expect so, yes.

Reise
September 13th, 2016, 07:42 PM
I believe genetic engineering is wrong and unnatural. I know there is no fully turning back at this point but I believe we're unfortunately going to go too far with it. I hear people say all of the time that life is a miracle and that we should cherish it. I don't think that we should be toying with it and playing creator. It's a dangerous, and unforeseen road that I doubt we understand to its full extent.
You are conscious that the "natural/unnatural" argument is totally sterile and fallacious to an extent?
Nobody talks about toying or playing creator by the way



I wasn't thinking that you had that in mind. I wasn't thinking about it either, but as you mention it it is one tool that could be used by some hypothetical powerful Neo-Nazism organisation or something similar.
An association of people who agree to make their children like that or that based on their beliefs would really be sick.
And that's probably a moral limit to the idea of genetic engineering on humans.


They were immense factors yes, but I am able to change my ways as an adult; this is why I said 'permanent' in the physiological alterations that this technology would do. Our starting position in life doesn't determine the path we will take throughout that life in any irreversible way - we have choice in how we can act. Genetic modification is a permanent action.
It does determine a lot of things already, both physically and psychologically.
I would agree that most of people are raised in pretty equilibrated conditions and can thus embrace a wide range of "ways" on their own.

Even though it might be "permanent" I wonder what is the more scary, letting my parents choose the way I'd look, or uncontrolled artificial randomness subject to replication errors we like to call "mutations".

In the end you can still think that if you weren't born that way you wouldn't have been born at all.



I'm not going so far as to be vigorously against such technology being practiced, but I am expecting some (not all) displeased descendants coming out of this because of that technology. I would prefer that such technology for aesthetic reasons not be a thing.
Displeased for what?
Because they weren't born "naturally"?
or because they feel disturbed of the way their parents chose the way they look like?
There are different stages though, I don't especially imagine parents debating for weeks on every physical aspect of the child.


I know; before the formation of consciousness or personhood.
Rather early because it is easier to modify one or two cells than a fetus at week 10.
But it'd look obvious that unless exceptional medical need such modifications on a fetus are not enviable.

Paraxiom
September 13th, 2016, 08:37 PM
An association of people who agree to make their children like that or that based on their beliefs would really be sick.
And that's probably a moral limit to the idea of genetic engineering on humans.

Indeed.


It does determine a lot of things already, both physically and psychologically.

If you mean the physiological genetic modifications, then I meant that yes.


I would agree that most of people are raised in pretty equilibrated conditions and can thus embrace a wide range of "ways" on their own.

Yes.


Even though it might be "permanent" I wonder what is the more scary, letting my parents choose the way I'd look, or uncontrolled artificial randomness subject to replication errors we like to call "mutations".

Clearly I'd go for the former option. I'm for the genetic modification being done for harmful mutations and the like.


In the end you can still think that if you weren't born that way you wouldn't have been born at all.

If one embraces their genetic modification by reason of parents' aesthetic views, then yes.


Displeased for what?
Because they weren't born "naturally"?
or because they feel disturbed of the way their parents chose the way they look like?

The latter (hopefully not the former).


There are different stages though, I don't especially imagine parents debating for weeks on every physical aspect of the child.

I don't imagine most would either.


Rather early because it is easier to modify one or two cells than a fetus at week 10.
But it'd look obvious that unless exceptional medical need such modifications on a fetus are not enviable.

Indeed.

lliam
September 13th, 2016, 10:53 PM
No doubt it would be very regulated


imo it should be regulated from its beginnings.

ImCoolBeans
September 14th, 2016, 10:14 AM
You are conscious that the "natural/unnatural" argument is totally sterile and fallacious to an extent?
Nobody talks about toying or playing creator by the way


I have to disagree with you. I don't think it is neither sterile nor fallacious. It may be a part of science, which is natural, but that does not occur in nature and in my opinion crosses the line. I didn't claim that anybody in this thread said that -- I did.

Reise
September 17th, 2016, 06:25 PM
If you mean the physiological genetic modifications, then I meant that yes.

No I'm rather talking about the raising process.
For example the way your parents feed you, what they authorize you to do and what "customs" they teach you are significant factor for your way of life as an adult and thus on your body.
I agree this is not really at the same level as s modified phenotype though.


Clearly I'd go for the former option. I'm for the genetic modification being done for harmful mutations and the like.
And for me, it's the contrary.
Not everyone will be disturbed by such kind of things. And if customs spread it is very likely that only future conservatives will be against it.

Though I understand the idea to stay along with some sort of "classic" process in order to keep some stability to the very concepts of family, parenthood, how humans represent themselves etc.


If one embraces their genetic modification by reason of parents' aesthetic views, then yes.
What I mean is that the "consciousness creation" process, and thus the development of the child is a so complicated process (or at least the complexity of the structure is astounding compared to what it's based on, aka simply DNA) that the very "you" won't simply exist if your DNA wasn't that way.
That's also why I find some questions like "imagine you were born a girl" stupid.

I have to disagree with you. I don't think it is neither sterile nor fallacious. It may be a part of science, which is natural, but that does not occur in nature and in my opinion crosses the line. I didn't claim that anybody in this thread said that -- I did.
Flying isn't natural for humans as well.
I don't see you complaining about being able to go chill on Spanish beaches within a few hours though.
The natural argument is used for everything and the fact that it doesn't occur in nature in no way undermines the idea of genetic engineering.
It's an argumentum ad naturam. And yes, it is a fallacy.

Flapjack
September 17th, 2016, 06:35 PM
I would love to have been genetically engineered to be smarter or stronger or whatever advantage they decide is cool but I don't think it is fair for the rest of the population when people are being born with advantages. I am 100% against fluorescent humans or GE super soilders. I think removing genetic defects is AWESOME but advantages or altering for the sake of altering is a deffo no.

I rambled quite a lot in this post xD