[Discussion] The "Ethics" of Genetic Manipulation

[Livewire]

Beginning in 1996 with the first true cloning of Dolly the sheep, Science has advanced to the point that human kind now has the power to effectively play "God" (If you want to call it that) by manipulating genetic processes to advance our understanding of the field of genetics. However, with this advanced genetic understanding, humans can treat many, if not all, the major diseases that plague mankind- Heart Disease, Diabetes, Cancer, etc could be effectively wiped out as a threat with the proper genetic research and development. But as with many major scientific developments, ethical and moral questions are raised from traditionalists and Religious institutions. Should we use the tools Science has given us to improve our quality of life? Or are there things mankind is not meant to dabble in?

Discuss.
​

 

[LadySurreal]

We should restrict on how we use it. Humans always abuse what they have, use it for the betterment of the Earth's biodiversity or let us die due to our ignorance.

Example:
Through the sacrifices of animals (this is from a vegetarian) and humans, we know their lives are not in vain because thanks to them, we have a cure for even the most lethal diseases.

Another one is:
Cloning. A pervert (especially a rich one) can simply yank a hair off my head and make a clone me for his own selfish desire. This will soon spread out (like liposuction in the West and Foot-binding in the 'Old' China) and the number of artificial life will outnumber the natural life form. Cloning only if there is a USE for it, not because we want to have sex with the dream girl/boy so we yank a hair or preserve spit/leftover food just for that, or because we need soldiers, etc.

 

[Stratos99]

Of course we should at least attempt it, we shouldn't let 'ethics' which more times than not turn out to be religiously driven hamper the development of the human race. The simplicity of the question you pose is unreal and I can't wait to see how many people's heads it flies over.

 

[Livewire]

We should we strict on how we use it. Humans always abuse what they have, use it for the betterment of the Earth's biodiversity or let us die due to our ignorance.

Example:
Through the sacrifices of animals (this is from a vegetarian) and humans, we know their lives are not in vain because thanks to them, we have a cure for even the most lethal diseases.

Another one is:
Cloning. A pervert (especially a rich one) can simply yank a hair off my head and make a clone me for his own selfish desire. This will soon spread out (like liposuction in the West and Foot-binding in the 'Old' China) and the number of artificial life will outnumber the natural life form. Cloning only if there is a USE for it, not because we want to have sex with the dream girl/boy so we yank a hair or preserve spit/leftover food just for that, or because we need soldiers, etc.

I agree for the most part, but that's not how it works really. You can't just pull out a strand of hair, then a perfect, healthy clone pops out of the test tube. It's so much more complicated than that. What your envisioning is many years away yet.

Of course we should at least attempt it, we shouldn't let 'ethics' which more times than not turn out to be religiously driven hamper the development of the human race. The simplicity of the question you pose is unreal and I can't wait to see how many people's heads it flies over.

I worded it simplistically and broadly in order to make it a discussable topic without the religious zealots going on the offensive. But you're very right- People see "cloning" in the headline and it's like a Volcano erupted. Those discussions get heated quickly when people who obviously aren't qualified to speak, continue to do so.

 

[twistedpuppy]

Of course we should at least attempt it, we shouldn't let 'ethics' which more times than not turn out to be religiously driven hamper the development of the human race. The simplicity of the question you pose is unreal and I can't wait to see how many people's heads it flies over.

Religion will definitely come up and in a way it should. Although there is a fine line between religion and ethics, they both stand for morality. What is right and what is wrong.

When it comes to genetic research and development I think we have to first look at what are our exact motivations behind it and how we choose to carry out our intentions.

 

[KanadeTenshi]

Beginning in 1996 with the first true cloning of Dolly the sheep, Science has advanced to the point that human kind now has the power to effectively play "God" (If you want to call it that) by manipulating genetic processes to advance our understanding of the field of genetics. However, with this advanced genetic understanding, humans can treat many, if not all, the major diseases that plague mankind- Heart Disease, Diabetes, Cancer, etc could be effectively wiped out as a threat with the proper genetic research and development. But as with many major scientific developments, ethical and moral questions are raised from traditionalists and Religious institutions. Should we use the tools Science has given us to improve our quality of life? Or are there things mankind is not meant to dabble in?

Discuss.
​

Well, standing there and praying to god certainly isn't helping, if you ask me.
As for what I bolded.. I think that only if it's for a good cause. IIRC, most medical things were made with Science's help. Almost everything around us can be called science.. well, let's say electronical devices; they improved out quality of life of course - up to the point it's strange if you do not posses a TV or the such in your house.
Well, maybe that was a strange or wrong example - but yes, but only to a certain degree.

 

[poopnoodle]

the human form, capabilities, and behavioral traits are- more or less- genetically determined, and i think our natural diversities (all things seen as 'flaws' or afflictions considered) are part of what establishes our identity as humans. biotechnology is leading us to radical measures of human manipulation at a staggeringly fast pace- the only thing i think may really be in danger here is the human identity. but is it at risk, or are we looking at conscious evolution that is essential to the growth of human species? is it okay to strive for perfection, is it okay to redefine humanity? personally, i don't believe we're violating any morals except for man-made ones by transforming our species and working to increase longevity- in fact, while the argument against genetic manipulation is that we're infringing on nature, these goals are really a part of human nature. no man can confidently say what we are and aren't meant to 'meddle' with, and if we're sitting here letting the discomfort in progress consume us and using morality as an excuse, we're hindering our quest for truth.

 

[Rogue planet]

What happens when all the world's diseases are cured and the planet is plagued with overpopulation in the future? We end up living in some sort of dystopia where the whole planet has been urbanized.

 

[LadySurreal]

What happens when all the world's diseases are cured and the planet is plagued with overpopulation in the future? We end up living in some sort of dystopia where the whole planet has been urbanized.

Population control.
China, USA, India, and soon Nigeria should be concerned about their population.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

I think that using stem cells and etc is okay up to a point. I'm not quite on board for the whole clone thing, mainly because they will just be used to cut open and harvest the organs out of, or some other horrible fate. That is rather inhumane. Now, if we use clones in a more humane way, I'm okay with it.

Also, if we just use stem cells to remake specialized cells in things that need them, I am quite fine with that as well.

We might end up getting somewhere great, but at the cost of what? The ends don't justify the means.

 

[Stratos99]

Religion will definitely come up and in a way it should. Although there is a fine line between religion and ethics, they both stand for morality. What is right and what is wrong.

When it comes to genetic research and development I think we have to first look at what are our exact motivations behind it and how we choose to carry out our intentions.

Religion does not stand for what is right and wrong universally, people who partake in it have their own set of ideals based off of whatever religion they're following is. Take Christianity, they regard the human body as a sacred temple holding our souls in which we're all connected through Jesus and The Holy Trinity. For that reason they might oppose genetic manipulation, because people that are cloned aren't God's creation and thus won't have a soul.

However not everybody partakes in Christianity and they have no grounds to use a religion as leverage to hinder our progress. It's not that they can't oppose it but they'll need legitimate reasons, something like Vendak brought up, if they wish to argue why we shouldn't be doing something.

 

[Spherical Ice]

Pff guys, what do you mean when they invent, wheezy's already got one >>

Hm, personally I think it should be used only in an emergency, mainly because it'll just cause more problems on the overpopulation front.

 

[twocows]

Aren't we already "playing God" by choosing to help terminally ill patients to begin with? The argument that we're "playing God" seems silly to me. I believe the Catholic Church made the same arguments many years ago about many now common forms of medicine.

The only potential part of genetic manipulation I would take contention with would be if we found some way to alter a person's personality. I fully support preventing genetic diseases, and I really wouldn't care if it was used to change appearances, but we should not fundamentally change who a person is on the inside.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

What happens when all the world's diseases are cured and the planet is plagued with overpopulation in the future? We end up living in some sort of dystopia where the whole planet has been urbanized.

This is true we have messed with the natural order of things, bacteria and Virus's help keep our population down...I know it's sounds cynical but there has to be sicknesses if not then we will kill ourselves...

 

[PlatinumDude]

Regarding this issue, I don't know what my stance is on it. Sure, the animals have every right not to be mistreated/experimented on, but I can also see the benefits that genetic manipulation brings, particularly curing diseases.

 

[Yuoaman]

I am definitely for the advancement of medical science, by any means necessary. I've lost a lot of important people in my life and in several cases having better medical care could have meant the difference between life and death. I don't see any problem with improving the standard of living, it isn't as if it changes what a person is fundamentally. :\

 

[Rogue planet]

Population control.
China, USA, India, and soon Nigeria should be concerned about their population.

Then people start arguing that it's a breach of human rights, they'll be breaking the law left, right and center. Child abandonment, more abortions sending the pro-lifers crazy, ridiculous regulations put in place to stop people having children. It's not possible to regulate on a global scale, it's barely possible to implement in a single country. It just makes a crazy situation even crazier.

To answer the question, I simply don't know. It's wrong to let people die when it's possible to save them, but at the same time it's going to make the population growth even worse when we start preventing a lot of deaths. It seems like that's an inevitable route for our planet though.

 

[Melody]

I do not oppose such genetic manipulation in order to heal the sick. As long as we stay well away from raising the dead, I think we'll do just fine.

 

[Livewire]

I am definitely for the advancement of medical science, by any means necessary. I've lost a lot of important people in my life and in several cases having better medical care could have meant the difference between life and death. I don't see any problem with improving the standard of living, it isn't as if it changes what a person is fundamentally. :\

That. ^

As long as we aren't using it to engineer biological weapons or for methods of war, we should be actively pursuing it.

I think that using stem cells and etc is okay up to a point. I'm not quite on board for the whole clone thing, mainly because they will just be used to cut open and harvest the organs out of, or some other horrible fate. That is rather inhumane. Now, if we use clones in a more humane way, I'm okay with it.

Also, if we just use stem cells to remake specialized cells in things that need them, I am quite fine with that as well.

We might end up getting somewhere great, but at the cost of what? The ends don't justify the means.

I'd imagine if cloning were mainstream science, that harvesting doubles wouldn't be allowed for a multitude of reasons. Plus we can already grow our own organs anyways.

Imagine a world without Cancer. No more suffering for millions of people. I'd say the means are justified in that case.

 

[Esper]

Aren't we already "playing God" by choosing to help terminally ill patients to begin with? The argument that we're "playing God" seems silly to me. I believe the Catholic Church made the same arguments many years ago about many now common forms of medicine.

The only potential part of genetic manipulation I would take contention with would be if we found some way to alter a person's personality. I fully support preventing genetic diseases, and I really wouldn't care if it was used to change appearances, but we should not fundamentally change who a person is on the inside.

This is more or less my feelings on the subject, though if it were possible to genetically root out violent (and I'm talking homicidal, lack-of-any-control violent) personality traits in people then I think I would be okay with that.

I don't feel there is anything inherently wrong about genetic modification as long as we spend enough time studying the effects of it so we don't do something harmful by accident (like giving people a greater risk for heart attacks, or introducing a species into an environment that knocks the food chain out of whack). The one thing that really bugs me is designer babies, the idea that rich parents will build their children to be smarter and prettier than the rest of us. I'm not really against using technology to make us smarter - I'm kind of ambivalent on that subject - but I don't like the idea that only some people would get this privilege and not everyone.