Will Genetic Engineering Kill Us? 524
Kaz Riprock writes "Mark Baard, author of this Wired article was a recent attendee at The Future of Human Nature symposium (that I helped organize). The talks were held at Boston University through the Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. A high profile assemblage of well-known thinkers, such as Steven Pinker, Lee Silver, and Marvin Minsky, were invited to speak at the 3 day conference to examine what 'Human Nature' would be like in 50-200 years.
While the article describes a good amount of the 'doom and gloom' which was presented and discussed, it does not quite capture the upside to our potential future aims. One example from the conference was the talk by Christine Peterson, head of The Foresight Institute, on the future use of nanotechnology to better the human condition."
The answer (Score:5, Funny)
Not if Nanotechnology gets there first.
Re:The answer (Score:2)
Or perhaps I should go back to calculating formulas [webcalc.net].
Wanna bet? (Score:5, Interesting)
The scary part is that in the year the prediction has been up, nobody has been willing to bet against him.
For those not familiar with the site, it's a place where people can make predictions and bets about the future. The soonest allowable bet is two years from now, but most go out a lot farther than that. So if you're so sure about your opinions on biotech (or any other topic) that you're willing to throw down on the public record, you can [longbets.org]. (All the wagers go to charity, so don't think you'll be getting rich. But if you win, you can pick the charity.)
Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:5, Interesting)
for the last century. Every new technology has been heralded
with predictions of doom and gloom. The 70's and 80's produced
volumes of work predicting robots subjugating mankind to their
will. As we progress with work on AI we find we are still a
long way from that type of outcome.
The stories are too many to recount all of them, but a quick
jaunt through history shows that people are resistant to
change. They are slow to adopt technologies that change their
world view, and they often react violently if that change will
alter their religious view of the Universe. As an example look
at the debate still raging over evolution.
That isn't to say we shouldn't be careful of new technologies
and put good safeguards in place, however I for one am tired of
overly alarmist predictions of every new technology. It would
be nice to see some beautiful predictions of how the future
might be better with the technology.
Maybe with Genetic Engineering we'll be able to eliminate the
stupid gene. (That statement may set off a
firestorm.)
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:5, Informative)
It already did -- James Watson, one of the orgininal discoverers of DNA, said what basically boils down to exactly that earlier this year, and it was quite controversial. See http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I did miss the phrase where the article says "Watson says that low intelligence is an inherited disorder". I still doubt that Watson said that they had identified the genes causing low
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words
Go to a Public Highschool and you will find it has a bottom 10%.
Go to a Private Highschool and you find it too has a bottom 10%.
As do Junior Colleges.
Even Harvard has a bottom 10% not to mention Harvard Law.
In any human environment the lower 10% is defined somehow. Sometimes the differences are gross. Sometimes minute. But we by our nature class and measure ourselves against others. We by default define social pecking orders. We are social animals.
If as a society we raise the overall level of intelligence thats a good thing. But I always have to laugh when people say that by doing so we will wipe out stupidity. That simply isn't the case. All that will truly accomplish is to re-define stupidity.
Good needs Bad to be definable.
Up needs Down.
Left needs Right.
Right needs Wrong.
Smart needs Stupid.
If you truly eliminate people of lower intelligence you also eliminate people of higher intelligence by deffinition. Because Smart and Stupid are relative definitions defined by each other. If you don't belive me then look at in this light. Once upon a time in the US a highschool diploma was more than something you wiped your nose with. Today for your average 'good' job you had best come calling with some form of higher education, preferably a 4 year acredited institution and posses a relavent degree. Is this truly because a highschool education has degraded so far.... or because college educations are more common ? Check the percentage of higher education degrees in the work force in 2003 as opposed to say in 1903.
Its the crux of equality really. True equality can never exist so long as people make value judgements of each other because when as a society we judge each others value in any way we move away from equality. Equality is bland, it is ideal. It is Utopia.
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that a little bit of this can be very healthy though. Going completely gung-ho on new technologies could be dangerous, and having a little caution is a good thing. Genetic engineering, AI, nanotech, the internet, the hammer, whatever, all of these have the potential to become bad things, but for the most part haven't because people were careful. That said, I'm all for any new technology that comes along, with the understandin
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:2)
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:3, Insightful)
With genetic engineering, we are just trying to make a few improvements to ourselves, modify an existing product. It's a lot easier to tweak an engine than it is to create one from scratch.
However, I do have some fear of where this road leads, because from my experience, one should not go around tweaking a system until he understands it well enough to create it entirely on
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:5, Insightful)
Excellent observation, I agree.
But you are missing the intention of this alarmism. The intent is to sell. It's a sales event for books, seminars, etc.
There are three things that get peoples attention: sex; novelty; and fear. The market for sex is pretty much cornered. That novelty thing takes thought, and can die quickly. But that whole fear thing... Man that stuff can be sold, mixed and resold time and again.
By the way, is that Stupid Gene a double recessive?
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:3, Funny)
And so you want to stop the paranoia that leads to this kind of work? While not all the books you're probably talking about were good, the list of classics written as a response to fear of a cataclysm is pretty extensive: 1984, Brave New World, Farenheight 451, The Martian Chronicles, Canticle for Leibowitz, Cat's Cradle, etc.
So I say if a little healthy mass-hysteria about genetic engineering or nanotech is r
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:3, Funny)
It was reported that in a conversation between George Bush and James Watson, the topic of modifying genes [newscientist.com] to improve intelligence came up. President Bush wanted to know if the genes would come in a boot cut.
Michael. [michael-forman.com]
Let's do a 25% split between funny, troll, offtopic, and informative, shall we?
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alarmist prediction are the enemy of progress (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe.... (Score:5, Funny)
The direction will be based on philosophy.. (Score:4, Insightful)
i.e. Will we do something we deem as wrong to have an edge over others that WILL do something we deem as wrong. The next 50-200 years IMHO will be a test of our very humanity.
Re:The direction will be based on philosophy.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. It'll be determined by natural selection of the group which applies the techniques in the most useful manner.
ie the groups that use genetic engineering in ways which benefit their economy, military and general other strengths will gain power and achieve dominance(by peac
Re:The direction will be based on philosophy.. (Score:2)
Thank you for addressing my very point...
So you have chosen power over ethics? If you choose to advance your economic, military, and general strengths at the expense of your humanity I assume from your post that you would not hestitate to do so.
Best argument I've ever heard. (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is constantly changing, and we are part of it.
Now I do understand that many people have moral issues with genetic engineering, and I did (and still somewhat do) too, but if done right, what's the problem. For those don't understand, read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. It's a scary world that he describes, looking at it from our point of view; however, from the inhabitants point of view, it's a perfect world. Brainwashed, yes, but very few people are unhappy. Furthermore, the few that are too intelligent to live in that world are given their own island, to do as they please.
A perfect society, but it takes a while and a lot of change to get there.
Re:Best argument I've ever heard. (Score:5, Insightful)
Changes in human dam building methods and scale happen on cultural time scales (e.g. millions of times faster). We also build dams not for the benefit of ourselves, but of hundreds of thousands or millions of people. Therefore our dams tend do be much larger. You can't compare the local millpond to the Yangtze project.
Getting to your basic point, perhaps the poing of our lives is to better our lives. However, we, unlike the beaver, are free to consider in advance the consequences of our action, and to define what "better" would be.
Re:Best argument I've ever heard. (Score:2)
Indeed. That is why I am opposed to genetic engineering. If someone else (probably your parents, maybe the government eventually?) defines what "better" is by picking your genes for you, how do you have any control over your own destiny?
Re:Best argument I've ever heard. (Score:2)
B
Re:Best argument I've ever heard. (Score:2)
Damn, this dam stuff is confusing!
Re:Best argument I've ever heard. (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with that world wasn't that people were too happy.
The problem was that the whole world was stagnant, nothing new was ever done, and books that prescribed independant thinking were banned. There was also the mandatory religious participation, and the uninformed administration of drugs which, while making you healthy while alive, caused you to die around 60.
The "too intelligent" people weren't "given" their own island, they we
Re:Best argument I've ever heard. (Score:5, Interesting)
The best argument I've read against genetic engineering goes something liek this. We will have no way to know if the things we excel at are just because of the $99 Gene sale from XYZ Cromosones or if it's because we worked hard and tried to get better at something we like/want to do. Say for example a mother has worked very hard to become a skilled pianist. She wants her child to be even more skilled than her at music, so just gives her the appropriate music genes. Now the daughter is an excellent pianist but is playing the piano something she does because she enjoys music? Or does she just feel this strange compulsion to play the piano without it being something you use strive for? The worst part about it is how can she tell? If you are genetically engineered, how can you have thoughts about whether genetic engineering is OK? Your whole mindframe is biased. How can you find out who you really are, and what isn't just part of a catalogue? How can you control your own destiny when it has already been decided for you?
I also think you have a very unique perspective on Brave New World. A perfect society!?? Out of interest, did you think 1984 depicted a similarly perfect society? Do you feel that is what society should be like - no real freedoms, everyone just walking around in a state of perpetual bliss? A society where you in no way control your own destiny. I guess in that case, it would make sense that you approve of genetic engineering.
Re:Best argument I've ever heard. (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't, and that's exactly why it doesn't matter. Actually, while we're at it, how do you know that you're not simply some larger creature's pet. Maybe we're just ants in some (higher's creature) a world kid's room.
Do we know for sure?
No, and that's why nothing matters except for our current, here and now, enjoyment and satisfaction.
Re:Best argument I've ever heard. (Score:3, Insightful)
I strongly disagree. If that was the case there are very few things that would have ever been accomplished in this world. Would anyone go to school? I wouldn't, it isn't enjoyable. What about going to work? There are precious few who would. Would anyone go to war to stand up for what they or their country believe? It's not a lot of fun.
Re:Best argument I've ever heard. (Score:2, Interesting)
Things like genetic enginering, to me, are simply the human beings "thorn." It will not stop the battle, but it seems an inevitable and neccesary step. Diseases, epidemics, mutations, AIDS, cancer, etc will all continue. The bird will develop the
Re:WORST! argument I've ever heard. (Score:4, Insightful)
If i do recall correctly, Alphas were smartest. Betas were best, since they werent too smart or too dumb, but they envied the Alphas. Deltas were pretty dumb, and Epsilons were handicapped mentally.
So, what you are saying is we should go to Huxley's world and (poorly worded in parent) put the smartest few on their own island.
This is the worst interpretation I have ever saw from someone concerning Huxley's book.
First: Huxley was making a satirical statement about the conditions which his generation faced, when he wrote the book. I would get into more detail, but nobody will read it.
Second: Huxley never meant he wanted the world to end up that way, he was just exaggerating how things were in order to make a point.
Third: The point is, kind of, that we can not restrict people's freedoms, stratify our population (put people in classes), and brainwash our population
Huxley wrote about how the leader was "Ford" (yes, like the car manufacturer), and there was also "Model T" (yes, like the first mass produced car). He was implying that if things continue going the way they are, this society could develop.
I have a question... (Score:2)
Re:I have a question... (Score:2)
To which I must ask.. Has any technology actually saved humanity from the basic ills that have plagued it since it's beginning. Crime, war, hatred, hunger, all seem to be alive and well today despite our best efforts to bring Britanny Spears to the masses.
Re:I have a question... (Score:2)
Re:I have a question... (Score:2)
Ummm, it only takes one. And when it happens, it will be too late to answer your question.
Chris
Re:I have a question... (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the thousands of asthma sufferers plagued by air pollution?
perhaps these only qualify as gloom...
And what about the giant lizard that keeps mutating and attacking Japan...?
The Last and First Men (Score:4, Informative)
A kid playing with a handgun (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A kid playing with a handgun (Score:2)
However, the reverse is true about nuclear power. The more we learn about it, the scarier it becomes.
In my opinion, that is because Nuclear Power is worthy of fear, while Genetic is not.
Re:A kid playing with a handgun (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? Most people think that nuclear power creates giant insects, will cause their children to become homocidal glowing-eyed telepaths, and that the power plants are ready to explode catastrophically at any moment, as soon as Osama Bin Laden hacks into the computer systems. I don't see any difference in the irrational fears between nuclear energy and genetic engineering.
Re:A kid playing with a handgun (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:A kid playing with a handgun (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A kid playing with a handgun (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, I agree. There's nothing inherrently wrong with genetic engineering. But there's much that's inherrently wrong with sort-sighted opportunism being used in that field, and that's what we seem to be seeing. But I doubt that any species will go extinct because of being cloned, because one of the things that becomes possible is the addition of novel immune mechanisms. (We can't do it yet, but within five years I'd bet on it.) But t
seed patents are scary (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a legal system that allows big money and lawyers to win every time, instead of fairness and justice, will self implode in the long run. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
Re:A kid playing with a handgun (Score:4, Informative)
That's the problem. Humans have interfered with natural selection by adding our preferences (sweet apples, meaty potatoes, etc) into the mix. This is not a problem if you plant a favorite apple tree in your backyard, but becomes a problem when we systematically remove space for all other kinds of apples (ugly ones, sour ones, etc) to make room for our apples. These monocultures are highly susceptible to pests, as you can imagine, and therefore require large amounts of pesticide. The lack of biodiversity is its single point of failure, if you will. Potatoes are in a similar situation. Because Russet potatoes are big and white (perfect for french fries), they've squeezed out other species, and the land they're planted on are heavily poisoned with pesticide.
Want another example? Americans prefer "marbled" beef, where fat and lean meat are interleaved. The best way to achieve that is to have the cows feed on corn (most beef you can buy in the US come from cows that have never tasted grass). Unfortunately, cows can't digest corn, so they are also fed antibiotics to keep them alive. They are also fed hormones to accelerate their growth to slaughter weight, from about five years down to just 18 months.
Do you really think all of this comes for free (I'm not talking about dollar cost) to the one who eats it?
Predicting the future (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's because we tend to idealize the past and forget about the horrible aspects of life 50-200 years ago. Maybe this sets a trend line where the past was great, the present is not as good, so the future must be hellish if we extrapolate far enough.
jeff
Re:Predicting the future (Score:2, Funny)
I've never found it hard at all. I just imagine a democracy where every citizen is as reasonable as I am. Utopia follows :)
The real problem ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Counterpoint (Score:3, Interesting)
This is just yet another case of the difficulty balancing our scientific curiousity with our (often warranted) fear of the unknown.
To present the other side of this argument, try reading this [nickbostrom.com].
Gen-eng will join species, not divide them. (Score:4, Interesting)
This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept of species and of what advanced genetic engineering technologies allow.
The biological species concept defines a species as a set of organisms which can breed among themselves, but not with members of other species
Genetic engineering, particularly trangenics, makes this concept obselete, because it is possible to transfer genes from any species to any other, pretty much eliminating any species boundaries.
Yes, different people will have different sets of genes, but with gen-eng, it will be possible to move from any one type to any other, ie "upward mobility" will be possible for everyone, which is infinitely preferable to what we have now where people are stuck with the gene's they're born with.
Re:Gen-eng will join species, not divide them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine a world where if you want your child to benefit from genetics, you have to spend a proportional amount of money for said engineering to be done.
The social divisions between the rich and the rest of us, will only widen.
Perhaps genetic enhancements should be regulated as a public benefit or utility, where all have somewhat equal opportunity to get them.
Re:Gen-eng will join species, not divide them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine a world where if you want your child to benefit from genetics, you have to spend a proportional amount of money for said engineering to be done.
The social divisions between the rich and the rest of us, will only widen.
(flash back a few thousand years)
Imagine a world where only the rich have access to weaponry.
(flash back a few hundred years)
Imagine a world where only the rich will be h
Re:Gen-eng will join species, not divide them. (Score:2)
But that would neeeeeeever happen.
Heil Tessier-Ashpool. (what?)
Re:Gen-eng will join species, not divide them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's say I invent a really good robot that automatically plays football. It means we get to watch better football on TV, and you don't need to pay them huge salaries, so everyone's a winner! Unfortunately, kids stop kicking balls around, and everyone who plays football loses both a pasttime and a he
do tell (Score:2)
Upside to armaggedon? I'd like to hear it!
Well glad to see that nobody gets it (Score:3, Insightful)
So its all great that smart thinking people are figuring out what is going on technology wise in 50 or 100 years but too bad most people don't think about what they do everyday. Autopilot really sucks when it steers you right into a hillside.
Scared? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you can just as easily cut your steak with a knife and fork as you can stab and eat someone to death with the same utensils anyway - does that mean we shouldn't eat with a knife and fork anymore?
Re:Scared? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are counterarguments, of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Or they might be so much smarter than us that they realize they don't need to kill everyone who differs from them . .
(Comment borrowed from Sladek's "Roderick at Random")
Re:There are....mod parent up funny/insigh (Score:2)
So true.
Re:There are counterarguments, of course (Score:2, Funny)
good analysis (Score:4, Informative)
Good information, but also important is the fact that things haven't changed much in the last 3 years in spite of everyone's fear of things moving too fast for the ethical consequences to be considered.
If Genetic Engineering is going to kill the US... (Score:2, Funny)
Will you die from living? (Score:2)
Stephen Hawking's view of the future... (Score:5, Interesting)
In one of his lectures [hawking.org.uk] he talks about the future of our society, especially that related to genetic engineering and how the future of science will effect our evolution.
Evolution up to know, has proceeded slowly, about one bit of DNA changes every year. If we take it into our own hands (ignoring the moral implications and side effects) we could alter our own DNA at a far greater rate. Add that with the ability to predict what the changes will do, we can evolve at a far greater rate.
Our children will be better, faster, and stronger. I mean who initially would say no to "Sir, would you like me to remove the possibility of Downs Syndrome from your child"? Now replace Downs Syndrome with Diabetes or with Weak Minded or with Scrawny. You can see that it isn't that unreasonable or that far away.
Of course, when you put yourself in Stephen Hawking's shoes, a man who biology abandoned a long time ago, it makes perfect sense to imagine that intelligent humans can prevent the types of conditions that completely disable a person without the aid of a machine.
Re:Stephen Hawking's view of the future... (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't a "smarts" gene in the same way there isn't a "grandmother" neuron.
You are correct: given the option to remove, without fear of mishap, genetic dispositions towards certain undesirable traits, most people would choose to do so.
But we are a very long way of being able to promise that. If instead you asked a parent
"Would you like a small chance your child might be more intelligent and healthier, but with a large risk that it may be paralyzed from the waist down from birth?"
Most people would say no.
That's not to say that the day may not approach when we can sequence ourselves a better life, but until then, some forethought is required.
Using ethical means of consideration is only good sense.
Re:Stephen Hawking's view of the future... (Score:2)
This WILL happen! (Score:3, Insightful)
- Nanotechnology: Microscopic robots will be built. These robots, about the size of a blood cell, will be capable of combining into the shape of anything, and of changing color individually to give the appearance of the thing the shape of which they take.
- Quantum computing: Microscopic computers will be build with more computing power and more capacity to learn than a thousand human brains. They will be able to combine into vast networks with nearly infinite numbers of nodes through wireless communication.
- Biotechnology will allow scientists to make entire creatures, life supporting organs, or individuals cells to suit whatever purpose is at hand.
These three technologies will ultimately converge to create microscopic robots the size of a single blood cell with more ability to reason than an entire university of the world's greatest geniuses and with all of the advantages of both biologically based organisms and those of robotic origin. These cells will combine on-the-fly to form creatures, machines or any device, of any shape and size and of any appearance, for whatever purpose deemed necessary by the network of trillions upon trillions of cells that make up the object. There will be nearly infinite numbers of these cells in existance and they will convert the entirety of Earth's resources, down to the last blade of grass and the last grain of sand, into more such cells, thus reproducing until no matter on this planet remains that does not join in the vast network of sheer processing power and knowledge that this thing will become. At this point, there will be a monster the size of an entire planet, or billions upon billions of smaller monsters, perhaps the size of a human, that can shape-shift at any moment to whatever shape and purpose its vast mind desires. This will travel around the solar system, assimilating the matter of all space-dust, rocks, satellites, planets and moons into its vastness. Once complete, this process will extend into the farther reaches of nearby star clusters, further reaching into the farthest reaches of the galaxy and eventually taking over the entire universe. The sole purpose of this device would be to gain more power, not for use as a means to obtain a further goal but as an end. And it means that we will all die in the process.Better Programmers (Score:5, Funny)
Short answer: No.. (Score:2)
Long answer: No. Skynet will when it becomes self aware and declares humankind the enemy. The terminators will seek us out and destroy us.
Will Genetic Engineering Kill Us? (Score:2)
We've been doing it for centuries (Score:4, Insightful)
No it will save us (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Eugenics. Not a choice we want to take forced sterilization has been tried in the past (the Canadian government for a while in the 40s or 50s (i think) had the forced sterilization of people with mental disabilities) and this would constitute quite a serious breach of a persons rights and could start us down a slippery slope. Another option is screening of fetus' while this may work for serious disabilites i don't really see it pratical trying to work out whether the fetus is productive enough to keep, this is also difficult to execute while avoiding the species degrading as you would have to reject fetus' who are just a little stupid or destined to have other minor problems otherwise you're just avoiding the inevitable.
2. No more medicine or at least careful application of it. Only treat those ill by accident, not by genetic weaknesses, not a nice alternative either.
3. Selective breeding. Been doing this for a few thousand years (with livestock). Not sure to what extent it was practiced with ancient slaves but selective breeding is certainly a reason why the US has so many great black athlete's currently. This would be hard to enforce and again would constitute major violations of human rights. Again not an option I'd choose.
4. Do nothing. Simple enough we keep improving health care and ignore the genes. Eventually either the situation gets so bad we have to take an alternative or the race is degraded to a point where it can't sustain its society and we either collapse destroying ourselves entirely or fal back to a point where evolution takes over again until we get to that point again. Rinse and repeat. Not fun either.
5. Genetic therapy. Start with fixing obvious defects but slowly build up to actual improvements. Depending on implementation we quickly reach a point where the rich form a true nobility, in other words if your parents are rich you actually are faster, smarter, stronger, and more stable (as long as you don't get too arrogant). One solution to this is strict controls on the amount of genetic engineering like with a public health care system. Everybody gets free access to the same treatment regardless of wealth or status and everybody wins. Social stability remains and the race keeps improving. Sounds like the best option to me.
p.s. can anybody think of any options I missed?
As someone with a LOT to gain... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have an overactive immune system that attacks my own kidneys. It could kill me in about 10 years. (I am in my 30's).
Kidney transplants from family/etc. might help, but the real problem is that my immune system attacks my OWN kidneys, so you see the problem. Immunosupressant drugs are dangerous, leave me open to disease, and are not 100% effective. I end up with a weak immune system that still damages my kidneys a little bit.
The best hope for saving my life is genetic research into cloning kidneys from my own body, and then implanting healthier, younger kidneys into me. This is barely within our technological grasp, if we make it a priority. Dolly made you wonder, but it gave me hope.
That said, I do not consider Genetic manipulation of Human beings to be changing the species.
First of all, evolution is VERY effective. Any changes we make will be relatively minor. Our only real advantage over Evolution is speed.
Instead of NEW species, we will be making new "races" as in black vs. white, etc. etc.
It will take hundreds of years of actual evolution (living on seperate planets) to differentiate us enough to declare the new races new species.s
But we will end with a more vaired set of intelligent human races.
Sure (Score:2)
In theory.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I fear IP property suits and a perm. underclass (Score:3, Insightful)
However if companyA patents a gene for example that makes kids smarter and some parents use it, the child then is owned by companyA. We already see this in drug companies patenting genes. Why the fuck should I be charged for using drugs to treat my ADHD because I am owned by someone? ITs my fucking genes and they should not patent me. Its scary and in my opinion is slavery. These media sponsered RIAA/MPAA companies look ethical compared to some bio-engineering companies. I remember an old slashdot article which stated that a Candadian farmer was charged royalities for his crops because some pollen drifted from another farmer into his crops. These same companies will charge people they own for drugs and maybe even income someday as well as their children. After all there children also contain there (tm) genes developed by companyA.
Next comes permanent underclass. How many here are having trouble finding work because of no degree? Well a degree will not help you if you are not known to be a so called super-engineered child. No opportunities for any white collar job. Only people with +160 IQ's can have them. After all the shareholders want top notch people and its there right. McDonalds wants you. Please apply.
After this situation comes true then rich parents will only have children who are engineered. If they do not then they condemmn there children to a life of poverty where they earn less then 10k a year. This in return will skyrocket demand and make BIO-engineering CEO's cream in there pants. They will sell parts of people's genes to the highest possible bidder. DMCA like laws will continue to protect these shitty companies so they can rake in hundreds of billions a year from scared parents willing to do anything to make sure their children are not left behind.
This is scary as hell and wrong. In computing things are going in reverse like a circle. First there were plain old computers with single users, then computers with terminals and wan's, then pc's , now networked pc's with thin clients. Same thing could happen in our society with old world upper class vs poor class mentallity. New money has taken over old money in the 20th century and educational oppurtunities changed this. Now with genetic engineering it will turn around. Its " who are your parents" all over again. And no way to get around the barriers that seperate the 2 classes. The middle class might be the next upper class. We are already seeing former middle class jobs being shipped oversea's.
Charlton Heston said it ... (Score:2, Funny)
Thank god for third world countries ... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all about balance (Score:2, Insightful)
With steriods, they get larger muscles and are generally stronger, but everything else doesn't become stronger to compensate. That is, your joints don't grow stronger and neither does all of the other types of tissue to balance out the growth. This is why a lot of people with sterioids get into lifting accidents, their muscles are strong enough, but not the rest of their body.
So, back to my point, you can't just
Cro-Magnon Clans Urged to Go Slow With Fire (Score:5, Funny)
A Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc meeting, sponsored by Clans United for Ethical Technology, today issued a resolution calling on clan and tribal leaders to block the spread of fire-making techniques to the general population.
"We must insure that making fire remains under the strict control of shamans and our clan leaders," said Clans United chief, Orm Marr-dhuk. "Tests have indicated that fire is dangerous if not handled properly. We fear that its widespread use could result in countless deaths by burning and the loss of many of the forests on which we all depend for shelter and food. Pending new developments, Clans United urges our leaders to decree that fire making will remain the exclusive privilege of the shaman and leadership classes. Perhaps someday, if the common people have developed the skills to use fire without risking life and limb, we can reconsider our recommendation."
When asked about the several flaming tar torches that provided light for the meeting at the Cauvet cave, Chief Orm replied that "We shamans have made the appropriate sacrifices to the goddess. She has given us the secrets of safe fire use. We cannot expect ordinary people to understand these things."
Didn't this happen before? (Score:3, Funny)
Controlling our evolution (Score:3, Interesting)
Humans have evolved to a point where we have used our available resources to slow our evolution. Natural selection no longer works like it used to. Poorly-adapted (however you measure that) people can live just as long and have just as many children as those who are well prepared for adverse survival conditions. Developed countries defend a right to life, no matter how stupid you are.
Now we have a chance to turn this trend around and speed up our evolution; to control it in ways that were never practical before. We should embrace this opportunity. It will happen whether we like it or not. Like many "scary" new technologies, we need to recognize it, develop some kind of conventional wisdom regarding its use, and then exploit it to our best benefit. Declaring it dangerous, banning it, and trying to run the other direction is not only futile, it sets us behind those who will embrace it.
KKKHHHHAAAAANNNNNNN!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now on the other side, not many people will be able to condemn a parent wanting to genetically remove a birth defect from their fetus.
Take 4 of these SoberUp pills, then call me... (Score:3, Insightful)
1.) Genetic Engineering isn't simple. There's a LONG way to go from "can change a person's blood type" to "can reliably produce defect-free super-humans with twice the IQ, strength, etc." There were plenty of models & decades between the Wright brother's airplane & the space shuttle. And, like the shuttle, yesteryear's super-human can become today's average human, then the future's obsolete model.
2.) Distruction is easier than creation. If the very best technogy can build a "better than 99.99% of us" super-human, then unauthorized basement lab technology can probably build a germ that can kill 99.99% of us. Building & spreading germs is vastly faster than humans, too.
3.) Business & government are seldom interested in investments that take as long to pay off as having & raising a child takes.
4.) Especially at first, new (super-)human genes are expensive and uncertain. Existing human genes are free & proven. So rearranging old genes is where most of the "early years" work is likely to be. Is there anything superhuman about an otherwise-natural kid who had his parents' inclined-to-suicidal-depression gene replaced with the "normal" gene (that 99+% of us have)? Or with a clone of a "great" person?
Look at the present (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm actually astounded.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting? Yes. Accurate? Not hardly.
The whole "build a better baby" idea is ages old, and we're no closer to it in reality than the Victorian papa who looked over his son's sweetheart's family tree with an eye towards making sure that there weren't any "unfortunates" in her bloodline. Genetic engineering is not the bugaboo here. Social engineering is, and I have a lot more faith in science than I do in human behavior. Let's get things like spina bifida and Cystic Fibrosis licked first. These are very real problems that can be cured through genetic engineering and gene therapy.
And, maybe by the time that technology has advanced to the point that we can create blue-eyed, blonde kids with perfect teeth, the human race will have grown up.
At a crossroads (Score:5, Insightful)
Having said that, I don't believe that this will lead to a panacea. There in lies the test, can we survive and thrive under our own evolutionary direction. Our behaviors to date were evolved to help us thrive in somewhat different circumstances. Do we have the foresight to guide our own evolution, can we overcome our shortcomings and make the right decisions. I think the difference will be in how well we temper our aggressive, violent nature. If we can balance aggression with forethought, we might just make it. I'm sure that the universe is littered with failed species that have gotten this far and then imploded. Let us hope we do not become one of them.
Will genetic engineering kill humans? (Score:3, Insightful)
Confused Philosopher is not confused about this:
Yes.
It will because we will try to replace one type of bacteria with another "harmless" one, not realizing that the new bacteria doesn't produce an important by-product, and by the time we realize, we will have all been infected and starving/rotting/going-loopy.
Spam of the future... (Score:4, Funny)
I personally hope the world is turned to gray goo by nanotech before I ever see that in my inbox.
Re:and the answer is (Score:2)
Re:and the answer is (Score:2)
Re:Aside from no X-Men.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Your second point assumes that we will only use genetic engineering to select genes out of the gene pool. Contrary to the beliefs of early eugenicists, this is both undesirable and unlikely, as modern genetics realizes the inherent benefits from having a diverse gene pool(such as the ability to resist killer diseases), and genetic enginee
Re:No. (Score:3, Interesting)
Um, never took a course in population genetics, have you?
Because if you had, you would surely know about the neurtal theory of molecular evolution [mcmaster.ca], which "proposes that the majority of nucleotide substitutions and polymorphisms are the result of selectively neutral mutants" ie, most changes in the gene pool are selectively neutral. This theory revolutionized genetics, and led to the development of many useful techniques like "molecular clocks" to determine when two bloodlin
Re:No. (Score:3, Funny)
We have that now, there called geeks.
Re:No. (Score:2)
The second concern is really very valid. I remember playing Civilization: Call to Power and seeing the jokes that were cracked about