stonze Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weAuiCXQKzo Its amazing what you can do with science. Its also scary what can be done as well. This is a very informative video, so please watch with a open mind, and comment in my thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Far too many clips of the nazis and starting most sentences with "some say..." The slippery slope / floodgates argument is old, hackneyed, and pretty much fallacious whenever it is used. The HFEA and medical ethics committees around the world are very aware of stopping incremental erosion of ethical standards. The constant speculations that if we can do 'this' - then doing 'that' is only a step away and thus inevitable is flawed and ignores the entire concept of eternal ethical standard making. It you speak to any scientist practising in life sciences you will find that ethical restraints are increasing and are more demanding. We can have a great debate about this subject - and it is a debate that must be held; but the constant repetition of "master race" and "designer babies" muddies the water. I used to like Horizon - it was the best science uk regular programme (after james burke finished); but now it is too sensationalist and desperate for controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hobble Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I am in favour of genetic engineering. I believe it could allow for a huge breakthrough in human evolution. I don't advocate "designer babies", where you pick blonde hair, green eyes, 6' tall, etc., but if could eliminate genetic diseases through manipulation of some sort, then why not. Humans are not under the same pressures of natural selection as we once were. Our survival is no longer dependent on our physical fitness, leading to some impairments to increase in the gene pool (ie. poor eye-sight, however I know this is not necessarily purely genetic, due to increase in amount of reading and strain on the eyes). If we could correct these through gene therapies, then it would compensate for the lower level of natural selective pressure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 I'm all for genetic engineering, I want them to create a Titanide and transfer my consciousnesses into it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanide_(Gaea_trilogy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 ...leading to some impairments to increase in the gene pool (ie. poor eye-sight, however I know this is not necessarily purely genetic, due to increase in amount of reading and strain on the eyes). Is there any data to support the idea that photons entering the eye after bouncing off a piece of paper leads to more damage to the eye than photons entering the eye after bouncing off trees and bushes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Actually, extensive close-view activities such as reading are associated with higher rates of refractive myopia. Due to the many factors pertaining to near-sightedness it is probably not easy to elucidate how much excessive near-sight-accommodation actually does (and certainly it has little to do with photons per se). It should also be noted that this effect was not found in all studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Actually, extensive close-view activities such as reading are associated with higher rates of refractive myopia. Due to the many factors pertaining to near-sightedness it is probably not easy to elucidate how much excessive near-sight-accommodation actually does (and certainly it has little to do with photons per se). It should also be noted that this effect was not found in all studies. When i was a kid the adults around me would give me a hard time about reading telling me it would ruin my eyes. They often went so far as to take books away from me. When i turned 45 or so my arms suddenly were too short to allow me to read... Evidently they were correct... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akh Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) When i was a kid the adults around me would give me a hard time about reading telling me it would ruin my eyes. They often went so far as to take books away from me. When i turned 45 or so my arms suddenly were too short to allow me to read... Evidently they were correct... Funny stuff. I think its a good example of how much we still do not know. I am not opposed to genetic screening at a certain level, but I have severe reservations about the wisdom of our engineering. There is a difference, all be it a thin one. How do we know that forced selection, or engineering of a particular gene that is seen to be detrimental, does not cause greater harm under different conditions? A fairly straight froward example is sickle cell anemia. Elimination of this gene would prevent death from sickle anemia. At the same time, in the absence of a universal, easily obtainable, inexpensive and widely administered vaccine, does elimination of the gene result in a quantifiable benefit? Maybe other "detrimental" genes purvey resistances to other diseases. Maybe a "bad" gene provides genetic flexibility that allows humans to survive the next pandemic. Extend these issues into one of the least understood biological components; the mind. You have an ever greater example of how such changes might do greater harm. What if a gene for some form of mental illness was also responsible for creativity and intelligence? What if a gene for aggressiveness was linked to survivability in extremely adverse conditions? What if it is found that a particular gene impacts apathy? What about empathy? Too much or too little of either may have grave consequences. Overall, I can't see the wisdom of intentionally imposing a genetic bottle neck on humanity. We may not ever know what "detrimental" gene may actually have benefits. But I also do not feel that we should halt our drive to understand all we can! Even if we do find absolute benefit to genetic engineering, by following economic principles, this type of engineering will not be available to all...it will only be available to those who can afford it. There is already enough hierarchy in the human condition. There is already enough inequities. Why add another, possibly quantifiable, level? Edited August 17, 2012 by akh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 When i was a kid the adults around me would give me a hard time about reading telling me it would ruin my eyes. They often went so far as to take books away from me. When i turned 45 or so my arms suddenly were too short to allow me to read... Evidently they were correct... There is only one logical way to deal with this. Artificial arm extensions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha2cen Posted August 20, 2012 Share Posted August 20, 2012 http://www.youtube.c...h?v=weAuiCXQKzo Its amazing what you can do with science. Its also scary what can be done as well. This is a very informative video, so please watch with a open mind, and comment in my thread. Is the vaccination a human modification? Current technology is at the level of protein modification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaiski Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 what to say about GM humans... has anyone watched gundam seed? that should sum up pretty well the pros and cons of GM humans PRO: adapted to your environment(space) smarter stronger tougher more healthy CONS: normal humans(or at least a portion of them) wont like you that much not much else dose anyone see a very large bias here? or course there will be a few mistakes along the way(rogue experimentation into [come up with something], simple mistakes resulting in bad results, the occasional riot or protest) but in the end you will have better more healthy individuals. but the truth is why stop at the baseline human design? [puts on mad scientist hat] why not super-genious octopus? I mean once you expand the body size, tweak it for survival on land and water, and reinforce its biology, you have a really good body design. you can theoreticaly grow the brain as large as you want since the skull is only a single bone plate. its far easier to regenerate damage without bones no vertebrate, means no back pain, no arthritis, no broken bones and who hasen't ever wished to have 8 arms(that 6 more then you usually have) [takes off mad scientist hat] but truthfully humans are really badly designed organisms, sure we have big brains, but our intelligence and aptitude for tools originated from what is believed to be a single mutation. and our body design has suffered quite badly for this, we have poor bone structure, an appendix, quite a high incidence of cancer, baldness, tendency towards neuro-degenerative diseases, no real regeneration to speak of, and really poor adaptation to any environment. why should we not improve on the next generation? we do it with cars, we do it with our food, we do it with our houses. what’s really wrong with doing it with ourselves? we have the techniques and the technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now