Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Genetic Engineering...
- Thread starter javaguru
- Start date
javaguru
Banned
Mo gene
I hear evangelicals are defeating your lifestyle...
For it, the movie Gattaca is a great movie, but the dude who was not genetically engineered reaching his liflong dream.
Great 'HUman Spirit' movie.
I'm all bout it.
However, yeah I"m down for Genetic Engineering.
Doesn't eliminate my world view at all.
We are much more than just causal mechanisms, and I don't this contradicts this understanding.
Great 'HUman Spirit' movie.
I'm all bout it.
However, yeah I"m down for Genetic Engineering.
Doesn't eliminate my world view at all.
We are much more than just causal mechanisms, and I don't this contradicts this understanding.
digimon7068
New member
the next great frontier in performance enhancing. . .good luck developing a test for that NFL/MLB/NBA/et al. . .
javaguru
Banned
Geneinfo - Genetic engineering and Gene therapy
"Genetic engineering refers to the deliberate design of an entire organism. The process involves altering the genetic material of a single cell in a very small developing embryo, which then develops into an entire organism, with the altered genetic material in every cell.
There are many questions raised by the possibility of genetic engineering in humans; for example, whether it is ethical to value some genetic traits over other and what those traits might be. There are also concerns about the consequences of altering a few select genes, since genes interact in very complex ways, and we may not be able to predict all the consequences of any specific manipulation.
Genetically engineered plant products, which, for example, grow more quickly or are more resistant to disease, are quite common today. However, plant cells are, not surprisingly, very different from those of humans. First, the nature of plant genetics makes it easier to insert and remove genes from the genome. In addition, plant seeds are accustomed to being exposed to harsh environmental conditions. Thus, plant cells can be relatively easily manipulated in the laboratory and then used to grow genetically modified crops. Genetic manipulation of some laboratory animals, such as flies and mice, is also routinely used in research.
In contrast, the technology available to manipulate human genes and embryos is not well developed. The human genome is unusually resistant to manipulation, so we currently do not have technology with allows the efficient removal and insertion of genes in human cells. Also, if it were ever to be done, human genetic engineering would have to be carried out on a zygote or very small embryo in a laboratory. Because the normal environment of a developing human embryo in the womb is very sheltered and controlled, the embryos are extremely sensitive to any handling. Currently, very small human embryos are handled in infertility clinics and in limited cases of screening for genetic disease. Even with the aid of powerful drugs and implantation of multiple embryos, the survival rate in these cases is still quite low. Given the difficulties in manipulation of human genes and the delicate nature of human embryos, our technology is far from being able to produce a genetically engineered human.
Despite the limitations in our current technical ability to manipulate embryos, the ethical and moral questions raised are both fascinating and important. If and when the technology to engineer human embryos becomes available, we hope to have explored the many possible ramifications, so that we can regulate and apply genetic engineering in a thoughtful and safe manner."
"Genetic engineering refers to the deliberate design of an entire organism. The process involves altering the genetic material of a single cell in a very small developing embryo, which then develops into an entire organism, with the altered genetic material in every cell.
There are many questions raised by the possibility of genetic engineering in humans; for example, whether it is ethical to value some genetic traits over other and what those traits might be. There are also concerns about the consequences of altering a few select genes, since genes interact in very complex ways, and we may not be able to predict all the consequences of any specific manipulation.
Genetically engineered plant products, which, for example, grow more quickly or are more resistant to disease, are quite common today. However, plant cells are, not surprisingly, very different from those of humans. First, the nature of plant genetics makes it easier to insert and remove genes from the genome. In addition, plant seeds are accustomed to being exposed to harsh environmental conditions. Thus, plant cells can be relatively easily manipulated in the laboratory and then used to grow genetically modified crops. Genetic manipulation of some laboratory animals, such as flies and mice, is also routinely used in research.
In contrast, the technology available to manipulate human genes and embryos is not well developed. The human genome is unusually resistant to manipulation, so we currently do not have technology with allows the efficient removal and insertion of genes in human cells. Also, if it were ever to be done, human genetic engineering would have to be carried out on a zygote or very small embryo in a laboratory. Because the normal environment of a developing human embryo in the womb is very sheltered and controlled, the embryos are extremely sensitive to any handling. Currently, very small human embryos are handled in infertility clinics and in limited cases of screening for genetic disease. Even with the aid of powerful drugs and implantation of multiple embryos, the survival rate in these cases is still quite low. Given the difficulties in manipulation of human genes and the delicate nature of human embryos, our technology is far from being able to produce a genetically engineered human.
Despite the limitations in our current technical ability to manipulate embryos, the ethical and moral questions raised are both fascinating and important. If and when the technology to engineer human embryos becomes available, we hope to have explored the many possible ramifications, so that we can regulate and apply genetic engineering in a thoughtful and safe manner."
L
lartinos
Guest
why not, seems like it could do alot of good.
L
lartinos
Guest
robot hookers would be great
javaguru
Banned
One concern, it would create true racism. You would have members of society that would be smarter, stronger, faster, more resistant to disease and more attractive. How would the "super humans" treat normal humans?
It would be an expensive procedure so only those of higher economic status would be able to afford it. This would create a bigger gap between the wealthy and poor.
Finally, the religious peeps would flip out over "playing God."
L
lartinos
Guest
Yeah, I hear you...
But fuck the religious fanatics, maybe we can make a whole race of people who aren't morons like them. Super smart people could help make the world better, discover ways to fight disease etc.
Lots of hot pussy everywhere...
People would love it.
javaguru
Banned
They did manage to hurt stem cell research, never underestimate the power of old time religion.
Doudtful they would be bulletproof.If i can't have it, would probley kill to get it.
javaguru
Banned
They would just dodge your bullets Matrix style.
Shit,never thought of that.LOL
javaguru
Banned
pin
Banned
Wtf???
Did you click on the links? If you do you'll get the point.
mrplunkey
New member
No it didn't. I thought the embryonic stem cell research ban was retarded too, but it didn't hurt the research effort.
mrplunkey
New member
It is happening already. People are bifurcating into two classes. Now that people are far more mobile and seeking-out mates of similar socioeconomic status, we are forking into upper and lower ability classes. Expect the intelligent and educated to become more so. Expect the unintelligent and uneducated to become more so as well. Problem is, the latter group reproduces a good 2-5x more than the former.
Good times.
PICK3
New member
mrplunkey
New member
How does this differ from the 1800s? It was much more prevalent then than now.
In the 1800's, unless you were royalty there was probably a 95% chance that you'd marry someone within 20 miles of your home.
Think about your parent's parent's parent's. Chances are they met as gradeschool sweethearts and decided to start a family. Now the smartest and most driven seek-out people more like themselves.
mrplunkey
New member
If I use words like "bifurcating" will I score more poon
It depends. If the guy is gay, probably so.
javaguru
Banned
The eugenics program of European aristocrats resulted in genetic diseases and insanity.
javaguru
Banned
What about gene therapy? You and Steve get married and your first born is diagnosed with downs in the womb...do you intervene to "fix it"?
mrplunkey
New member
That's because they aggressively inbred themselves.
In this day and age, I'd argue that many (if not most) highly-talented people meet primarily in college or in the workplace, both of which tend to group people of similar abilities and interests.
P.S. Yeah, you should point-out that I'm hiding behind elusive words like "highly-talented" in an effort to avoid using the word "intelligence". Then you should point-out that intellect has so many facets that the notion of measuring it and ranking it in some ordinal fashion is pure folly. But I won't respond to your challenge because I know it's a hornet's nest. Trust me on this one, I've seen me do it before.
Maybe I'm thinking longer ago -- when royalty married royalty and peasants married peasants. There was less cross-breeding than now.
mrplunkey
New member
Maybe I'm thinking longer ago -- when royalty married royalty and peasants married peasants. There was less cross-breeding than now.
But remember, when royalty married royalty, what percentage of the population did that represent? Maybe 0.1%? Maybe 0.01%?
And royal marriages weren't based on similar intellects and interests. That was simply a function of the vagina you happened to emerge from. Today's upper-talent mate selection criteria is far more complex.
Now procreation based on intellect is happening across a good 5% or 10% of our population, which would be a 50-1000x increase. That's still a minority of people, but at 10% you'll start to see the effects.
gene therapy, in my opinion is very different from genetic engineering. What you're asking is if I'd genetically alter my child before it was born. The answer is no.
mrplunkey
New member
So fast-forward 25 years. You and your beau both get routinely genetically screened. They tell you that based on your genetic profiles, there is a 25% chance you will have a child with a serious genetic defect. They offer you an alternative -- do artificial insemination and they will screen your top 6 embryo's and make sure the defect isn't present. And better yet, you can choose the gender and a few other key attributes of the child if you want to know. Are you going to do it?
javaguru
Banned
Even if you knew your child had a genetic mutation that could be easily corrected? The difference between being a low level manual laborer or a scientists as their highest achievement? To me it's almost immoral to resign someone to mediocrity when they could achieve much more by correcting a defect.
mrplunkey
New member
Even if you knew your child had a genetic mutation that could be easily corrected? The difference between being a low level manual laborer or a scientists as their highest achievement? To me it's almost immoral to resign someone to mediocrity when they could achieve much more by correcting a defect.
But what if that mutation was part of human evolution? Richard Dawkins has gone to all this work figuring out evolution's invisible hand effects and you're gonna go screw it up???
javaguru
Banned
But what if that mutation was part of human evolution? Richard Dawkins has gone to all this work figuring out evolution's invisible hand effects and you're gonna go screw it up???
We can eliminate traits that are obviously detrimental. It would change the trend of supporting negative traits via social entitlement programs.
Even if you knew your child had a genetic mutation that could be easily corrected? The difference between being a low level manual laborer or a scientists as their highest achievement? To me it's almost immoral to resign someone to mediocrity when they could achieve much more by correcting a defect.
Nope
And I don't have to explain or justify it to you. I have my reasons, and I do not believe my stance is immoral. That's all I'm going to say to you on the matter.
plunky, nope. I'm either giving birth without scientific intervention (beyond basic medical care), or it's not happening at all and I'll adopt. If I'm ever faced with a likelihood that a child I bore would be born with a defect, there's plenty of children not born from my body that I can love equally.
javaguru
Banned
Nope
And I don't have to explain or justify it to you. I have my reasons, and I do not believe my stance is immoral. That's all I'm going to say to you on the matter.
plunky, nope. I'm either giving birth without scientific intervention (beyond basic medical care), or it's not happening at all and I'll adopt. If I'm ever faced with a likelihood that a child I bore would be born with a defect, there's plenty of children not born from my body that I can love equally.
I forgot you have the Palin factor.
javaguru
Banned
Nope, that's not it.
Explain?
No, because inevitably that will lead to a debate with you, and you don't play nice.
But my reasons have nothing to do with religion.
mrplunkey
New member
This is interesting! (and no, I promise I'm not trying to bust your balls)
So if your child needed in utero surgery prior to birth in order to have a "normal" lifestyle, would you refuse?
What if you had an infection? Wouldn't you take antibiotics during pregnancy?
And what about premature contractions? Would you accept medical intervention if the alternative was possibly a miscarriage?
javaguru
Banned
I'm very nice with reasons not based on ancient mythology.
The last two fall under the medical care I said I would accept. The first is too fuzzy and unclear to respond to.
mrplunkey
New member
Yeah, but you are very aggressive when it comes to religion. You've been hurt before and it shows.
I do think her perspective may be interesting, though.
javaguru
Banned
Yeah, but you are very aggressive when it comes to religion. You've been hurt before and it shows.
I do think her perspective may be interesting, though.
Not really, I would expect a liberal Dem to try and convert me too....it has happened.
I'm quite open to Jesusy claims based on evidence...I still go to church with my mother....I don't care about them as long as they don't try to impose their will on me.
If you consider expecting evidence for claims "very aggressive" than I'm guilty.
javaguru
Banned
It's your decision, but I can't imagine a mother that wouldn't do everything in their power to give their child a better life.
lol...that's what I'm talking about when I say you don't play nice...you make digs like this when i'm trying to back away peacefully. I would give my child the world, and that's not at all incongruent with my stance here. You don't have to understand it.
mrplunkey
New member
You know that's not what I'm talking about. You have a very seldom seen, emotionally irrational response that only comes out when people talk about jebus. It's ok. Many have been hurt before. Just don't let it hold you back personally or professionally.
We probably see eye-to-eye on 90% of issues, including atheism. I'm just a person who believes faith is good for people who want it, whereas you can become a little evangelical at times.
javaguru
Banned
lol...that's what I'm talking about when I say you don't play nice...you make digs like this when i'm trying to back away peacefully. I would give my child the world, and that's not at all incongruent with my stance here. You don't have to understand it.
On numerous occasions I've admitted that I don't understand wiminz.
When I got married, it was obvious my wiminz was super smart and pretty but she had some physical issues as a child...I'm a eugenics asshole...thinking about the children that could have been.
javaguru
Banned
You know that's not what I'm talking about. You have a very seldom seen, emotionally irrational response that only comes out when people talk about jebus. It's ok. Many have been hurt before. Just don't let it hold you back personally or professionally.
We probably see eye-to-eye on 90% of issues, including atheism. I'm just a person who believes faith is good for people who want it, whereas you can become a little evangelical at times.
Like the 9/11 hijackers? If you go to the religion forum and watch my recent posts..2/3 of Al Queda Operatives have a college education and are middle class.
mrplunkey
New member
Yeah, I'm still not willing to trash a couple billion people's religion because a handful of them decided to behave horribly.
Science damn it!
javaguru
Banned
You accept the belief the universe was created a few thousand years ago?
This war is about fundamentalism...When 2/3 of people believe in Noah's arc literally and 44% of Christians believe Jesus will only come back when the planet is at its worst within the next fifty years to introduce paradise...
javaguru
Banned
lol...that's what I'm talking about when I say you don't play nice...you make digs like this when i'm trying to back away peacefully. I would give my child the world, and that's not at all incongruent with my stance here. You don't have to understand it.
So what belief would make you reduce your child to the lowest position in society when you could have intervened?
javaguru
Banned
Racist!
Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't going to get into this with you?
Once again, I peacefully declined, once again, you passively aggressively tried to draw me in. Give up - I'm not explaining my stance to you. It's very deeply thought out, heartfelt, a choice of both love and logic, and none of your business.
javaguru
Banned
Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't going to get into this with you?
Once again, I peacefully declined, once again, you passively aggressively tried to draw me in. Give up - I'm not explaining my stance to you. It's very deeply thought out, heartfelt, a choice of both love and logic, and none of your business.
Huh? You never tried to explain your crazy wiminz views... I know wimiz don't think about the long term and assume the manz will get it...I was married..
lol, I've said several times in this thread that I have no interest in explaining myself to you or defending my opinions. I've declined to respond several times. I'm still not going to.
My views are not crazy, they are just none of your business.
Give up...seriously. You're itching for a fight that i'm just not going to give you.
javaguru
Banned
lol, I've said several times in this thread that I have no interest in explaining myself to you or defending my opinions. I've declined to respond several times. I'm still not going to.
My views are not crazy, they are just none of your business.
Give up...seriously. You're itching for a fight that i'm just not going to give you.
I only ask for an explanation...
I really want to understand me some wiminz...I'm not kidding....I'm honest about my manz. I'll answer any counter argument...
mrplunkey
New member
No, you know I don't believe that.
But I do firmly believe the invisible hand of evolution instilled religious leanings into human beings. And I also believe you interfere with those leanings at your own peril.
Ignoring the notion that religion has played a significant role in our evolution is just as naive as ignoring fossil records and insisting the world is only 6,000 years old.
javaguru
Banned
We need to quash the Jesus Gene...it leads to silliness.
mrplunkey
New member
You've been hurt before. It's ok. You need a big, loving Jesus hug!
All kidding aside, the hostility is probably holding you back. Remember, having such an emotional response to anything religious is still allowing yourself to be controlled by religion. The opposite of love is indifference, not hate.
javaguru
Banned
Religion is just another form of tribalism that needs to be overcome. It may have served a purpose twenty thousand years ago but in a modern society it's dangerous. The Palestinian question would have been solved long ago but for the belief that a patch of desert was promised to someone in the bronze age by a magic man in the sky.
Tatyana
Elite Mentor
We have had classical genetic engineering or humans 'playing God' for as long as we have had agricultural societies.
I personally think the dog is the finest example of this.
We have a modern day eugenics already - it's called pre-natal Down's syndrome screening (+Edwards and neural tube defects) and most European countries have nation wide programs.
It isn't true eugenics as women do not have to be tested, nor are they forced to terminate pregnancies if the embryo is found to have one of these disorders.
In Sardinia and a few other Mediterranean countries, the cost, both economically and socially for the treatment of children with beta-thalassaemia has required that people are screened to see if they are carriers before they are married.
If both are carriers, then they have to undergo pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to have children. If they don't, they forsake on the universal health care for their children in this country.
For those of you who think this is dreadful, I suggest you do some reading on the thalassaemias, it is not a disease you would wish on your worst enemy.
The British courts have approved HLA matching and pre-implantation genetic selection for 'sibling saviours', so when the first born needs a bone marrow transplant for example.
We have also started an umbilical cord bank, which is a new source of stem cells, not only for the child that it came from, but for others, again, related to stem cell donations for bone marrow transplants.
One other correction: Eugenic began in ernest around 1910 with Charles Davenport in the US, where he forcibly sterilised 40, 000 women in mental institutes. Of course Eugenics culminated in Hitler, but the Swiss did carry on the practice of sterilising mental institute patients until the 1960s.
As far as genetic engineering goes, I would bet that every single one of you has already benefited from genetic engineering.
That little blue line on home pregnancy tests? Genetically engineered monoclonal antibodies to beta-HCG from mouse hybridoma cells (transformed myeloma cells).
Know someone with type one diabetes? recombinant or genetically engineered insulin has been around since the 1970s.
Factor 8 and 9 used in the treatment of haemophilia were close to follow insulin.
For any of you taking growth hormone, guess what, recombinant hGH = genetically engineered.
If you have had a hepatitis vaccine = recombinant/genetically engineered hepatitis B virus.
As far a gene therapy goes, about 2000 people have been treated, 1700 of them in the USA.
The first genetic disorders that will probably benefit will be single gene disorders like haemophilia or cystic fibrosis, although to date, it really isn't working that well, and there is a moratorium on trials as far too many people have died, mostly due to the immune reaction from the viral vector for the genes.
Several have also developed leukaemia.
I think that cancer treatment will be the breakthrough for genetic engineering, as monoclonal antibodies to epitopes specific to your cancer type will identify (opsonise) cancer cells so your own immune sytem can identify and kill them.
This isn't some futuristic science technique, genetic engineering is here now, and it will probably be people wanting healthy children that will push it through despite any ethical or moral issues.
mrplunkey
New member
Religion is a mixed bag, just like many other important facets of life. Should we eliminate cars because thousands of people die in them every year? Should we eliminate prescription drugs because millions of people abuse them? Maybe we should shut-down the Internet too, because part of its bandwidth is being used for child pornography and sexual predators.
And no, the palestian question is about territory -- which is a theme for war that most likely pre-dates even religion.
javaguru
Banned
Most Israelis have no problem splitting the land..it's the religious zealots that take issue.
I won't address your first point because it's a specious argument.
This video will give you my points...I know you like to argue #2 and #3...
FORA.tv - The Clash Between Faith and Reason
javaguru
Banned
Wait, you equate driving cars with believing in ancient mythology and carrying out bronze age ideology (murdering people)?
There is a natural explanation for everything you listed and it is a cost benefit, unrelated to superstition. However, believing in Santa Clause and killing people for non belief is more of a detriment than a benefit. I expect more from you even though you have an untenable argument.
mrplunkey
New member
I've heard those arguments before. They seem tired to me.
My favorite part is him talking about how we "don't have a specific word for not being an astrologer" trying to argue that atheism is without context and non-philosophical. But then something occurred to me. I've never seen anyone write books and go on the lecture circuit about not being an astrologer either. But wait a tick... he's written books and given numerous talks specifically about atheism. If it is truly the base state of man and a purely non-philosophical issue, he should stop pontificating his atheist views and get a real job.
mrplunkey
New member
Wait, you equate driving cars with believing in ancient mythology and carrying out bronze age ideology (murdering people)?
There is a natural explanation for everything you listed and it is a cost benefit, unrelated to superstition. However, believing in Santa Clause and killing people for non belief is more of a detriment than a benefit. I expect more from you even though you have an untenable argument.
Now see what I mean about your overly emotional response to religion? You've obviously been hurt. You realize that aggressively opposing religion doesn't mean you are free of it. As a matter of fact, it means you're still being driven by it.
And you should recognize this too. It's like the chick who's so determined to not be just like her mom that she defines herself as "not her mom". But isn't that just another flavor of wiring her own identity directly into her mother? Ain't that a bitch?
You've decided in your own head that the detriments of religion outweigh the benefits. Yet you've failed to quantify either one, and instead choose to present it as fact. Do you know what accepting something even in the absence of fact is? Yeah, it's called faith -- and it sure looks like you've got a ton of it.
javaguru
Banned
You made his point, Religion makes atheists....
It's a good point, Zeus was king shit back in the day...ask Christians or Muslims if they believe in Zeus.....they're atheists when it comes to any other god than their chosen one...they are equal when it comes to evidence. Stupid is as stupid believes..
mrplunkey
New member
You made his point, Religion makes atheists....
It's not a matter of belief. It's a recognition of the overwhelming evidence that suggests religious affiliation served an evolutionary purpose. Or are you going to tell me next that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?
You're in some pretty serious denial here, and hiding behind words like "stupid" isn't making it any less obvious.
javaguru
Banned
javaguru
Banned
I concur, religion is a man made way of controlling people. It's like every other dogmatic belief system that wants to control humanity. If you believe in religion you must be an Obamamaniac...
mrplunkey
New member
Keep your appendix...Jesus made it....
Well using your logic, we should hoist each of our six billion people on the planet onto an operating table and cut-out their appendix. Since we don't use it anymore and it's only a source of trouble, it needs to be removed from everyone. Never mind the 92.3% of people who never have problems with it -- those feeble-minded fools need to schedule their surgeries and get that thing removed.
Maybe I should write a few books and go on a speaking tour explaining to people how "stupid" they are for not getting it carved out, even if their appendix isn't harming them. All those poor sheep need my brilliant, enlightened insight instead of being a bunch of Jesus freaks.
javaguru
Banned
No, you disregard it and cut it out when it becomes a problem, which is what we have done. Unfortunately, Americans can't do it with mythology,it's one area where the euros have it right.
mrplunkey
New member
Millions of Americans have already cut it out -- they are called atheists. But just because a relatively small percentage (less than 10%) get it cut out, we shouldn't tell the remaining 90%+ that they are silly, superstitious, feeble or stupid for keeping theirs intact.
An appendix, like religion, doesn't cause harm in the vast majority of people. When it does cause an issue then sure, let's remove it. It's easy to cite a few spectacular cases of failure for both of them, but the argument of surgery for all still fails.
Similar threads
