[Discussion] The "Ethics" of Genetic Manipulation

[Livewire]

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.

Hypothetically speaking, what about other technological advances? Any sort of proposed disease fighting would be decades in the future, so by then there could be a multitude of ways to prevent that bleak Dystopian world. By then we could be actively colonizing other planets by then for all we know. Or a single child policy similar to China's.

Even with common diseases gone, people will still die. There's natural disasters, murders, and still old age will eventually run its course. It won't grant immortality. (yet)

 

[Headfirst For Halos]

I'm ok with it, but something bugs me about it. That is designer babies. Humankind will abuse such a scientific advancement as we always have abused other things. So I'm leaning more on the "no" side.

 

[Captain Fabio]

I think that if the research is going in the direction of helping to cure incurable deceases, then it is a good thing and will benefit us in the future.

 

[Livewire]

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...

Well who's to say this isn't natural? Genetic manipulation occurs by itself in nature, with or without man present. Remember corn, as in the cob variety, as we know it today was created by a natural hybridization of two strains of wild corn. No corn = You can erase the last two and a half thousand years of human progress.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

My only problem with genetic manipulation is that there will always be the person who will decide that something that is not truly a malfunction of someone's DNA, such as hair colour, eye colour, intelligence, ect. and try to eliminate particular populations with the genetic manipulation, kind of like what the Nazis wanted.

At the moment I currently see the idea more beneficial than anything though - we could eliminate a lot of genetically passed diseases using this.

Personally I would not resort to the genetic manipulation of my children unless one of my children was born with a terminal genetic disorder, and I was planning on having another.

 

[Livewire]

My only problem with genetic manipulation is that there will always be the person who will decide that something that is not truly a malfunction of someone's DNA, such as hair colour, eye colour, intelligence, ect. and try to eliminate particular populations with the genetic manipulation, kind of like what the Nazis wanted.

At the moment I currently see the idea more beneficial than anything though - we could eliminate a lot of genetically passed diseases using this.

Personally I would not resort to the genetic manipulation of my children unless one of my children was born with a terminal genetic disorder, and I was planning on having another.

That's true, there could be people who could manipulate this to suit their racist, bigoted viewpoints. But I would imagine that this would be regulated heavily by the Government, as it should be.

Only if there were something very wrong, disease wise, would I resort to using genetic therapy.

 

[Blue Nocturne]

If it serves a useful purpose, such as curing diseases or other scientific andvancements, then I'm all for Genetic Manipulation. There's no convincing reason against it.

However, I'm a bit wary of the use of Genetic Manipulation for making people stronger, more attractive, intelligent, etc. because, unless it was free, which it wouldn't be, it would just create a larger divide between the rich and the poor and less wood for the poor to bridge the gap. While the rich can afford such manipulation so their kids can have the intelligence of a dozen super computers, and hence get great jobs and become richer, the poor will generally be at a distinct disadvantage. So unless it's used as an initiative to make the entire population better, or it is at least more available, I'm leaning against use of Genetic Manipulation for designing people.

 

[Gardenia101]

When you think of it, the religious views that are against cloning do not see the benefits of such a scientific front. They want the whole world to become like them and to not have people do things that are against their views. I say that they should do it because it can save lives and in the future, you can "Design a baby"- choose the hair, eyes, skin tone, and more! Anyways, this kind of thing can also make people stronger and more efficient- a country could have some of the best soldiers and then some. It all depends on how one looks at it.

Yes, but we don't really need any more war, do we? You're also failing to see our views, and you seem to be refusing to accept the downsides to such a thing. Design a baby? How would YOU feel if your parents told you that you're really just a clone of someone? How would YOU feel? Cloning soldiers would just make more gut-splattering violence, and life in some areas would NEVER be safe.

As for a cure to cancer, I say that if we can't cure the common cold, we won't be curing that for quite a long time.

 

[poopnoodle]

Yes, but we don't really need any more war, do we? You're also failing to see our views, and you seem to be refusing to accept the downsides to such a thing. Design a baby? How would YOU feel if your parents told you that you're really just a clone of someone? How would YOU feel? Cloning soldiers would just make more gut-splattering violence, and life in some areas would NEVER be safe.

if we're mature enough to recognize that an individual is an individual regardless of origin, surely admitting to being a clone wouldn't be a problem. having undergone a similar situation- being adopted- i can vouch for the notion that nurturing facts of origin at an early stage in childhood makes for acceptance of descent in the long run. would cloning be entirely different? i don't see why it should be.

about cloning soldiers- i'd truly hope we're past negotiating via war at such a point in humanity :( i'd hope cloning would be used for positive things like health and strengthening our species rather than detrimental things- and i'm with you on the thought that creating mindless fighting drones would ultimately be detrimental, i'd certainly have issues with it. we also have overpopulation to consider, but that depends on the state of our world come the time cloning is an "easy task" to undertake.

 

[DarkVhozon]

What bugs me is that people will focus on the totally useless part of genetic manipulation. I ca already see a world where designing a baby is the most popular thing and yet we spend o time on the more helpful parts of it like curing disease for some economicly fueled reason. And as for cloning, it could force the world into other forms of science we would need to survive,such as colonizing a planet or making a place to live in space. Genetic Manipulation could really help the world out if we get past its useless advantages. Use it to its full potential. While cloning could seem unethical who says that we will just clone people or will it be nothin but armies of clones.

Bottom Line: Gentic Manipulation can help as long as the goals are beificial to our race.

 

[Livewire]

Yes, but we don't really need any more war, do we? You're also failing to see our views, and you seem to be refusing to accept the downsides to such a thing. Design a baby? How would YOU feel if your parents told you that you're really just a clone of someone? How would YOU feel? Cloning soldiers would just make more gut-splattering violence, and life in some areas would NEVER be safe.

As for a cure to cancer, I say that if we can't cure the common cold, we won't be curing that for quite a long time.

How do you know any of that is true? Seeing as no child has ever been cloned, then had been told that they were a clone, all your doing is making wild speculations. You're assigning a negative connotation to something you are ill informed of.

Cancer =/= Common cold. They are wildly different diseases, and require vastly different treatments. Again, lets try not to make unfounded generalizations.

 

[Amai]

If it will save lives then I am for it.

If it is to make your kid have blue eyes, blond hair, and so on, then I am against it.

 

[Livewire]

If it will save lives then I am for it.

If it is to make your kid have blue eyes, blond hair, and so on, then I am against it.

Agreed. I mean, I can understand if you'd want as a parent to tweak certain physical aspects of a baby, but I'd be worried more about dabbling with a person's personality and the Mind moreso than physical appearance.

 

[Ascaris]

lol whats the need of highlighting that this is a discussion in square brackets; it is automatically understood that a thread on a forum is made to propagate discussion.

on topic i dont see a point in forgoing all of the scientific and medicinal progress we've made just because a few people have the belief that it is something that is arbitrarily forbidden by a higher power. if genetic manipulation can save someone suffering from cancer then by all means go ahead with it. messing around with human genetics only borders on unethical when the person isnt giving consent to the treatment or he is unaware of whatever risks and side-effects that may be caused. and from a religious perspective, if there is a god out there and he doesnt like the strides we've made in science over the past century then we're already pissing him off by posting on internet forums so instead of trying to forgo the damage that has already been done why not just move forward and ensure that people can live better lives.

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

I'm all for genetic manipulation for things like food, or preventing diseases like cancer. If in the future it's used in warfare to create fully matured humans in 4 years or something, then I'm against it. Providing it's used for the right purposes it's definitely a plus. So many lives could be saved by furthering this technology. I've pretty much got the same view on this as I do on stem cell research - if it's saving millions of lives it should be done. I have a couple of relatives who have both died from cancer and a grandfather who currently has it, and it's tragic seeing them go through it. If future generations don't have to deal with it the world will be a better place.

 

[Roxichu]

Funny that I should come across this only a few hours after finishing BioShock.

Anything that works to end human suffering is a boon to any straight thinking person.

Unfortunately, religion is a powerful force in society that requires that you don't think straight. Which is why the "genetics" issue is even debated in the first place.

We shouldn't take those who object to beneficial genetic modification on the grounds of religion (which is almost always Christianity) seriously. If the Christian religion had it's way, we'd still be in the Dark Ages dropping like flies to the Plague. Christianity is anathema to scientific progress, and human happiness in general.

If we want to go down the road to longer and healthier lives, at some point we have to drop the fear of "playing God" and the associated religious-mythological ********.

 

[Eliminator Jr.]

Unfortunately, religion is a powerful force in society that requires that you don't think straight. Which is why the "genetics" issue is even debated in the first place.

There are reasons to debate genetics issues other than religion, for example, what if the technology is misused? It's not all people saying "we're playing God", there's a little bit of "what if we stuff up?" in there too.

We shouldn't take those who object to beneficial genetic modification on the grounds of religion (which is almost always Christianity) seriously. If the Christian religion had it's way, we'd still be in the Dark Ages dropping like flies to the Plague. Christianity is anathema to scientific progress, and human happiness in general.

I disagree here as well. Even though I'm agnostic myself (ie. no religion), it's still important that we still take their opinions seriously. We don't have to agree, but listening is essential to making an informed decision. (Also, happiness isn't dependent on technology imo, I'm sure people were just as happy five hundred years ago).

Although yes, you do make a point with the whole Dark Ages thing, technically the whole "playing God" thing must apply to medicine as well (in other words, you can't go "altering genes is wrong, it's not how God intended, meanwhile I'm going to get this disease cured so I don't die [as God intended]").

 

[dragoniteuser]

I think that a lot of people posting here aren't really introduced to the subject.
Genetic engineering has already helped to cure, or at least treat a lot of "deceases".
Now, when you say that we're "playing God", I think you've watched too many SF movies. Also, I agree with Live_Wire, genetic manipulation occurs in nature frequently.
Also, why do you think that you can change someone's personality, That post made me laugh like crazy. You can't alter someone's personality by gene therapy, nor do i see why anyone would want to do or profit by changing someone's personality.

 

[Livewire]

I think that a lot of people posting here aren't really introduced to the subject.
Genetic engineering has already helped to cure, or at least treat a lot of "deceases".
Now, when you say that we're "playing God", I think you've watched too many SF movies. Also, I agree with Live_Wire, genetic manipulation occurs in nature frequently.
Also, why do you think that you can change someone's personality, That post made me laugh like crazy. You can't alter someone's personality by gene therapy, nor do i see why anyone would want to do or profit by changing someone's personality.

Maybe not by genetic means yet, but it's rather easy to alter one's personality via a lobotomy or other procedures to the frontal cortex of the brain. The military/CIA has researched into lobotamies to make "unfeeling" soldiers, so..