Genetic Engineering

[Overload]

Do you believe we should be able to choose traits for our children such as hair color, eye color, or even heightened intelligence? What about genetic mutations like those of The Real Ice Man from "The Real Super Humans" where he can raise his core body temperature. We could possibly guide our evolution to best suit us. Also, being able to make children be born with a higher level of intelligence would probably be beneficial as it might lead to more inventions, scientific discoveries, etc. If we ever figure out how to do these things, do you think we should? Would it be too expensive for the average person and would only the rich be able to afford it? Would this, in turn, create two separate species of human beings that would co-exist?

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this, just interested in hearing the opinions of others.

 

[Eor]

I think this is an interesting subject. There's the basics that I'm sure everyone would agree with, that is that if a parent can change their childs gender to make sure they don't get a genetic defect that could kill them (all of my uncle's male children have died because of something like this), or even impair them, then they should be allowed to. I don't think anyone against GE is against that, so let's just get that out of the way as common ground.

Is it even possible to genetically engineer someone to have a higher intelligence? That is the main thing that is wary for me. I would fear a doomsday scenario type event where the rich could make their children very smart and powerful over the rest of society, who doesn't have the money, and by the time the price would be lowered for them the super-children (it's ridiculous when stated like that) would already be the new upper class and would then find better ways, which would be expensive and so on.

But despite the fact that I fear it, I don't really think it's likely. Thinking about if that was added today, I wouldn't see too many people actually doing it.

But beyond that, on just regular features like how people look, I'm against it as being frivolous, but I think that if someone wants to they can. They'd be stupid, though. Concepts of beauty changes, and not just in fashion sense. "Plump" women used to be considered incredibly desirable.

I do, though, wonder how it'd be done and how it'd affect our gene pool. Genetic variation is crucial to our survival, it's why we've thrived and expanded across the globe. The closer our genes become the more dangerous breeding becomes (example: inbreeding), as well as the fact that genetic variation is why species can adapt to environmental change. That, I think, is the real danger that can come from this, not the conspiracy theory super children one I have.

Edit: I realized I didn't give an opinion for or against. I'd give it an "Eh". Some things are nice, but overall I think it's bad for the purposes it'd probably be used for. I do not, however, think it should be illegal. It'll probably end up similar to plastic surgery in that a few people do it, unless it turns out to be incredibly cheap, which I think is pretty much not going to happen as anything relating to genetic change is probably expensive as ****. I wouldn't do it unless I could avert a problem I mentioned in the first paragraph, but if someone wants to make their kid look different, then all for them. Unless they want their kid to be like, orange or something to make them different. Then we should just shoot them.

 

[GoldShadow]

It's not so much a matter of how, or whether it's realistic. We can already screen for a lot of conditions like Down syndrome, congenital deafness and blindness, Tay Sachs, Huntington's, hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, and others.

We already know that a number of traits like height, intelligence, quantitative ability, weight, and others are under some level of genetic control. I can easily foresee genetic enhancement (ie, actively altering embryos to have genes that predispose the child toward being smarter, stronger, etc.) becoming a realistic possibility in a few years, maybe 5 or 10 or 20 years, but definitely within our lifetime. So it's not a question of how or whether it's realistic. It will happen. And plenty of people already use IVF and PGD to handpick certain traits for their children. If people knew they could actually make their children better than average, then they would most certainly do it if they could afford it.

The question is, is it right? Should we allow it to happen? And I say that yes, absolutely. In fact, we should strongly encourage it.

I would fear a doomsday scenario type event where the rich could make their children very smart and powerful over the rest of society, who doesn't have the money, and by the time the price would be lowered for them the super-children (it's ridiculous when stated like that) would already be the new upper class and would then find better ways, which would be expensive and so on.

So basically a Gattaca type scenario, right? It seems like a legitimate concern on the surface.

But in discussions of any new technology, I always view the "inequality" argument as a bit of a straw man. Every new technology is always available to the rich first. If we withheld the use of any new technology just because not everyone would have access to it, then we'd still be stuck in the stone age (metaphorically speaking).

Genetic enhancement will benefit all of society. John Harris brings up a few good points in his book [FONT=&quot]Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People[/FONT]. Look at it this way. Just because we can't provide it to everybody, doesn't mean we should withhold it from everybody. Take kidney transplants for example. It would be great if everybody on the waiting list who needed a kidney got one, but unfortunately there aren't enough. And what about the rich who can afford the insurance to pay for a transplant? Not everybody can afford it; should we suspend kidney transplants altogether for everybody? Absolutely not, because that would not do any good, only harm. If, someday, there are enough kidneys for everybody and it becomes cheaper and affordable for everybody, that would be great. But in the meantime, we shouldn't put a ban on kidney transplants.

Besides, as Harris points out, if we want technology to get somewhere (available and affordable for everybody), it needs to start somewhere (with people who can afford it).

Also, being able to make children be born with a higher level of intelligence would probably be beneficial as it might lead to more inventions, scientific discoveries, etc.

Hit the nail on the head. Even if there is some inequality, won't the rest of society still tolerate it and encourage it because it will help everybody else? If your daughter is trapped in a burning building, wouldn't you want an enhanced firefighter in there rescuing her? If your brother is fighting a war halfway around the world, wouldn't you want him and his buddies to be enhanced so they have the best chance of survival? If you're sick and in the hospital, don't you want the doctor to have the best memory and intelligence? When you're traveling across the country in an airplane, don't you want the pilot to have excellent motor skills?
So you see, despite the inequality, the rest of society benefits due to the trickle down effect.

Genetic variation is crucial to our survival, it's why we've thrived and expanded across the globe. The closer our genes become the more dangerous breeding becomes (example: inbreeding), as well as the fact that genetic variation is why species can adapt to environmental change.

We have already essentially stopped human evolution thanks to the advent of modern medicine. Biological evolution has been superseded by cultural and social evolution. We have thrived and flourished because evolution gave us brains and intelligence, and we've used that to build boats and buildings and sunscreen and raincoats and parkas and fire and tools.

Inbreeding is not an issue here. First of all, making better people wouldn't make us any more closely related than we already are. The reason inbreeding is dangerous is because of recessive disorders. This is when both parents are carriers of a recessive allele. Inbreeding means that two people with the same recessive allele are more likely to get together and have children (and if one of these children has two copies of the recessive gene, he/she will have the disease or condition). This is completely unrelated to enhancement. In fact, using enhancement, we could remove these conditions altogether.

Remember that the entire point of modern medicine and technology is to fight evolution and death. Do you wear glasses or contacts? Ten thousand years ago, having bad vision or severe allergies could be a death sentence. That's what "variation" means; some in society have good vision, some have great vision, and some have poor vision. Some are allergic to pollen, some are not, and some are very allergic. Some people will go into anaphylactic shock if stung by bees. Modern technology and medicine have made it so these things are no longer likely to kill you.

So essentially, by actively enhancing people, we would still be "evolving", but it wouldn't be natural selection, it would be artificial and self-directed. We are directing our evolution to make us better people.

Now, some people like to make a distinction between "biological" and "mechanical" enhancements. Glasses are mechanical, they do not alter the body. And even Epi-Pens and Claritin, though they have a physiological effect, do not permanently alter the body's physiology and biology. Not only that, all of these are therapeutic; they only restore the body to normal function. They don't enhance.

Alright; but what about microscopes or telescopes or binoculars? These are clearly mechanical enhancements that allow human vision to extend far beyond "normal" function. What about vaccines? Vaccines are biological enhancers because they fundamentally alter your body's immune physiology; since vaccines are given to people who are healthy, not sick, they are not "therapies" that restore normal function. They are enhancements.


There is plenty more to be discussed on this issue. These are just a few of the reasons we should encourage enhancement and engineering.
If anybody's interested, this is the book I referred to earlier:
http://www.amazon.com/Enhancing-Evo...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240174571&sr=8-1

 

[Eor]

Well how would genetic engineering work, though? Could you, say, change your genes after you're born and have them effect you? Could you become a fireman and then be enhanced for it, or would your parents at birth have to decide "he'll be a fireman" and then give you those traits?

I was never for outlawing it, I said in my post I was all for letting it happen, just that I didn't really like it for naturalistic purposes. I don't have a real understanding on it, but I more saw it as being used for beauty purposes then real changes, in which case I'd be against it as removing the freedom from the child. Yes, I'd want a genetically enhanced fireman to save my daughter. I'd also want someone who, say, ***** and tortured her to death would be tortured and murdered. I'm also against the death penalty, so personally while I'd want that it wouldn't make it right.

 

[Overload]

I do agree with Eor that things like choosing things like hair and eye color. You make a good point, GoldShadow. If we withheld emerging technology from people just because it wouldn't be readily available to all, we wouldn't really advance. Even if we were split into the genetically enhanced humans and those who weren't, everyone would eventually benefit from these things. At first DVD players were pretty pricey and not everyone could afford them, but now nearly everyone can afford them.

 

[GoldShadow]

Well how would genetic engineering work, though? Could you, say, change your genes after you're born and have them effect you? Could you become a fireman and then be enhanced for it, or would your parents at birth have to decide "he'll be a fireman" and then give you those traits?

Actually, they're both possible options. You could either alter them before implantation using IVF, or later on after birth or in adulthood with gene therapy. Gene therapy has been used with some success for treating disease, and it's only going to become more effective in the future. Gene therapy, like regular treatment or medication, is not permanent, although in some cases it probably would be possible to make it permanent. I don't think we have that technology yet, but I can see it happening in the future.

I was never for outlawing it, I said in my post I was all for letting it happen, just that I didn't really like it for naturalistic purposes. I don't have a real understanding on it, but I more saw it as being used for beauty purposes then real changes, in which case I'd be against it as removing the freedom from the child.

Ah, alright, I see what you were saying.

As for the freedom of the child thing though, no child has any freedom. No child gets to pick his or her parents. No child gets to pick his or her genes. Actively altering them would be no different. I don't think it makes sense to look at it as taking away the child's autonomy/freedom. Look at the way things are and always have been; children have never had autonomy. They've never been able to pick their genes or their parents. Childrens' parents have always made decisions for them. How to raise them, how to feed them, clothe them, treat them, what to let them eat, what medication to give them, when to take them to the doctor, and just about everything else. They would never live to grow into adulthood if decisions were not made for them. It would be no different from the way things are now.

Yes, I'd want a genetically enhanced fireman to save my daughter. I'd also want someone who, say, ***** and tortured her to death would be tortured and murdered. I'm also against the death penalty, so personally while I'd want that it wouldn't make it right.

Fair enough... but would you agree that having an enhanced fireman is much better for society (whether it's right or wrong) than adopting "an eye for an eye" criminal justice system?

 

[SuperBowser]

My friend asked me an interesting question the other day which is kind of relevant to this discussion. I'm interested to see what other people think.

As genetic technology continues to improve could we ever reach a point where society decides that certain illnesses should simply not be allowed? Obviously, I don't mean this for minor things, but extreme diseases such as Eor's own example or Tey-Sach's disease where the child will die at a young age and will suffer a painful existence up to that death.

Should parents ever be legally obliged to not have such children when they are already aware of the disease?

 

[Eor]

Actually, they're both possible options. You could either alter them before implantation using IVF, or later on after birth or in adulthood with gene therapy. Gene therapy has been used with some success for treating disease, and it's only going to become more effective in the future. Gene therapy, like regular treatment or medication, is not permanent, although in some cases it probably would be possible to make it permanent. I don't think we have that technology yet, but I can see it happening in the future.

Interesting, I did not realize that

Ah, alright, I see what you were saying.

As for the freedom of the child thing though, no child has any freedom. No child gets to pick his or her parents. No child gets to pick his or her genes. Actively altering them would be no different. I don't think it makes sense to look at it as taking away the child's autonomy/freedom. Look at the way things are and always have been; children have never had autonomy. They've never been able to pick their genes or their parents. Childrens' parents have always made decisions for them. How to raise them, how to feed them, clothe them, treat them, what to let them eat, what medication to give them, when to take them to the doctor, and just about everything else. They would never live to grow into adulthood if decisions were not made for them. It would be no different from the way things are now.

That's a good point, I retract my earlier claim. Except for the orange part

Fair enough... but would you agree that having an enhanced fireman is much better for society (whether it's right or wrong) than adopting "an eye for an eye" criminal justice system?

Yep yep