The Era of Genetically-Altered Humans Could Begin This Year

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
If the UK Parliament approves a new form of in-vitro fertilization this summer, it will give the go ahead for the first pre-birth human-DNA modification.

The U.S. is not nearly as close to approving mtDNA replacement as the UK seems poised to do; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will start reviewing the data in earnest in February.
Click to expand...
 
We're on the cusp of some amazing-slash-terrifying shit.
 
Oh goodie, now we can get the wonderful world of Gattaca that much sooner ... although there are certainly some potential benefits we have to be very careful to avoid Eugenics or some of the other dangers of gene manipulation
 
Eugenics never died, it just went into hibernation until technology could catch up to the practical side of it.
 
Eugenics is a GOOD thing in theory, the problem was just who gets to decide what is and is not desirable. And when the state assumes that control, you have an issue. Individuals already assume that role when they seek a mate; in reality they are basically just looking for a partner with the best genetics they can snag for themselves (all our universal concepts of beauty really involve identifying healthy genes).

The most obvious use of this would be to prevent known genetic birth defects. Even the healthiest of couples can have dormant genes that in luck of the draw can result in a severely retarded child for example, and that is not only bad for the child but really ruins the parents lives too. Last I heard, while its still a bit of an unknown, we have identified hundreds of genetic problems that lead to retardation and general chronic health issues.

And good eugenics is really the only way the human race can advance at this point, as we have reached a stage where natural selection for survival of the fittest simply no longer applies. In fact, we find that our greatest doctors, scientists, engineers, and the like, particularly female ones (they make up more than half the population) are reproducing below replacement level, while the least intelligent in Western society are having the most children. That clearly demonstrates that our "natural" selection now is essentially saying that those that reproduce the most are the most fit, but any fifteen year old with a beer can make a baby, and in fact some of our dumbest guys and gals end up having many kids with many partners. And thanks to social welfare systems and adoptions and the like, their children are surviving just fine, only to themselves end up having five kids a piece.
 
Soon, HardOCP will have a [H]uman section with guides on modding and overclocking your little [H]uman.
 
BTW, are you guys familiar with the Belgian Blue?
belgian-blue-cow.jpg


That muscular physique is achieved merely through a eugenics program, no steroids or hormones or any of that nonsense. And the most interesting thing is that the breed was just started recently, so its interesting how rapidly you can achieve a single desired characteristic through selective breeding programs.

Hell, we know about that from dogs, as you can put a toy chihuahua next to an irish wolfhound and a bloodhound and notice clearly differentiated bodies and behaviors, all bred from big ol' wild wolves at one point in time. But just like with dogs, you have to be careful with eugenics programs, as dogs are a perfect example of. Many were selectively bred for particular characteristics, and they excel at those without question, but at the sacrifice of other issues that were overlooked like hip problems or gum disease and so forth. Luckily, a greater understanding of genetics is allowing breeders to keep the good and get rid of the bad, and they've eliminated the biggest problem of inbreeding which was done for far too long by breeders that didn't know any better back in the day.

You know what would be really interesting is that humans are becoming more and more specialized as time goes on, where at first in hunter gatherer societies everyone had more or less the same skillset and did everything themselves, now we are becoming extremely focused on doing one thing extremely well... and it works out better that way regardless. It'd be neat to see a civilization where they developed a caste system where that was pursued on a genetic level. Like with ants, you'd have super soldiers bred for physical prowess, fearlessness, discipline, etc, artists bred for creativity, scientists bred just for raw intelligence, etc. Of course, I wouldn't want to live there, since I might not like being born to the "worker bee" caste, lol!
 
What's going to be next? Inter-species breeding to get anime/human hybrids? Don't be messing with things that you're not supposed, they should focus on finding the perfect ingredients to make trees grow money.
 
Yeah but it won't affect those outside of the States, every country can print boat loads of money but they choose not to as it will harm the workings of the economy. I want tree buds to grow money right now.
 
I see no ethical concerns for using this to fix known harmful genes tied to specific diseases. I'd be concerned if they were trying to select for intelligence or athletic talent or something like that.
 
The article is highly misleading.

Mitochondrial DNA Is completely separate from individual human DNA. It resides in the mitochondria separate from eukaryotic DNA that is contributed from the mother and the father. Mitochondria are believed to have evolved separately and are in fact symbiotic organisms that live within our cells. As long as mitochondria produce ATP, their genome has no bearing on biological traits, uniqueness, or behavior of a human.
 
Look at this:

_62907355_pnt_slide1_624x398_2.gif


Notice how the nucleus is not altered in any way.

The egg preserves its original DNA.
 
Humans can be improved. It's a simple fact. You can prattle on about slippery slopes and eugenics and Hitler, but if we can make ourselves smarter, faster, stronger, and healthier, we should.

Animal breeders have a simple set of rules they use when deciding which animals to breed, designed to select the genetically fittest specimens for procreation. It makes complete sense and near everyone would agree with that. Yet the moment the slightest fraction of similar logic is applied to humans, the word Nazi starts getting thrown around.

I'm not saying sterilize people with low IQs or genetic diseases. Wouldn't it be nice, though, if their children could be spared idiocy and sickness? It's good for them and it's good for the species. What's good for the species is of chronically low priority to us, but it's going to become more and more important as time goes on.
 
If this was nuclear DNA, the question is how many whoopsies would happen and would manipulation be banned because of them.
 
Oh, the old Nazi eugenics dreams have finally met acceptance and are coming true. But now with smiling faces and warm hearts.

*wipes tears from eyes*
 
Ducman69 said:
Eugenics is a GOOD thing in theory, the problem was just who gets to decide what is and is not desirable. And when the state assumes that control, you have an issue. Individuals already assume that role when they seek a mate; in reality they are basically just looking for a partner with the best genetics they can snag for themselves (all our universal concepts of beauty really involve identifying healthy genes).

The most obvious use of this would be to prevent known genetic birth defects. Even the healthiest of couples can have dormant genes that in luck of the draw can result in a severely retarded child for example, and that is not only bad for the child but really ruins the parents lives too. Last I heard, while its still a bit of an unknown, we have identified hundreds of genetic problems that lead to retardation and general chronic health issues.

And good eugenics is really the only way the human race can advance at this point, as we have reached a stage where natural selection for survival of the fittest simply no longer applies. In fact, we find that our greatest doctors, scientists, engineers, and the like, particularly female ones (they make up more than half the population) are reproducing below replacement level, while the least intelligent in Western society are having the most children. That clearly demonstrates that our "natural" selection now is essentially saying that those that reproduce the most are the most fit, but any fifteen year old with a beer can make a baby, and in fact some of our dumbest guys and gals end up having many kids with many partners. And thanks to social welfare systems and adoptions and the like, their children are surviving just fine, only to themselves end up having five kids a piece.
Click to expand...

I think it still has slippery slope elements though ... the movie Gattaca had an interesting end note that they cut out of the final movie:

In a few short years, scientists will have completed the Human Genome Project, the mapping of all the genes that make up a human being. We have now evolved to the point where we can direct our own evolution.
Had we acquired this knowledge sooner, the following people may never have been born:
Abraham Lincoln — Marfan Syndrome
Emily Dickinson — Manic Depression
Vincent Van Gogh — Epilepsy
Albert Einstein — Dyslexia
John F. Kennedy — Addison's Disease
Rita Hayworth — Alzheimer's Disease
Ray Charles — Primary Glaucoma
Stephen Hawking — Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Jackie Joyner-Kersee — Asthma
Of course, the other birth that may never have taken place is your own...
Click to expand...

There is certainly a benefit to eliminating diseases that cause premature death ... the slippery slope comes if parents start to choose the specific traits that their child should have (IQ, musical talent, athletic talent, etc)

As for genetic manipulation allowing us to evolve, that too is artificial ... we evolve best when we are in new environments that force evolution and natural selection to occur (when we eventually move into space or to other worlds, for example) ... targeted selection might result in traits that are attractive but that don't enhance overall survivability (like short nose dogs and other domestic animal traits we like but that don't make the animals more likely to survive ... generally they would be less likely if we weren't there to offset their disadvantage)

If we are careful then genetic manipulation does have some benefits ... other elements like cloning though should definitely be discouraged (especially cloning combined with genetic manipulation) :cool:
 
kbrickley said:
I think it still has slippery slope elements though ... the movie Gattaca had an interesting end note that they cut out of the final movie:



There is certainly a benefit to eliminating diseases that cause premature death ... the slippery slope comes if parents start to choose the specific traits that their child should have (IQ, musical talent, athletic talent, etc)

As for genetic manipulation allowing us to evolve, that too is artificial ... we evolve best when we are in new environments that force evolution and natural selection to occur (when we eventually move into space or to other worlds, for example) ... targeted selection might result in traits that are attractive but that don't enhance overall survivability (like short nose dogs and other domestic animal traits we like but that don't make the animals more likely to survive ... generally they would be less likely if we weren't there to offset their disadvantage)

If we are careful then genetic manipulation does have some benefits ... other elements like cloning though should definitely be discouraged (especially cloning combined with genetic manipulation) :cool:
Click to expand...
I'm all in for weeding out lower IQ. Why? Because menial jobs suited for such people are disappearing. What are we to do with them then? Pay them just for existing?
 
Smashing Young Man said:
I'm all in for weeding out lower IQ. Why? Because menial jobs suited for such people are disappearing. What are we to do with them then? Pay them just for existing?
Click to expand...

We going to have AI replace those low rate simple jobs especially ones at your fast food take-away McDonalds and such, it'd be robots programmed to make burgers.
 
Ducman69 said:
BTW, are you guys familiar with the Belgian Blue?
belgian-blue-cow.jpg


That muscular physique is achieved merely through a eugenics program
Click to expand...

Slight differences though

1) Through selective breeding if you get undesirable traits you simply kill said animals that have them, making sure those "undesirable" traits never accidentally make it back into the herd. Although they tend to keep steers separate from cows, how's that going to work with humans? Pretty sure killing them because they have undesirable traits might seem too Hitler like... and sterilizing them so they can't procreate might have the same result.

2) "We" have already done a human version of eugenics, there's a reason our black athletes are very large and strong, because way back in the days of slavery we bred big with big to get big workers. Sad part in our life.

3) The above story talks about combining DNA from 3 sources, that is not anything that can physically happen in nature with humans.
 
MajorDomo said:
If the UK Parliament approves a new form of in-vitro fertilization this summer, it will give the go ahead for the first pre-birth human-DNA modification.
Click to expand...

Here's how this will play out:
People will bitch about man playing God.
Other people will use this technology.
Everyone will accept that it's pretty good shit.

We see this same thing happen repeatedly. Anyone over 40 remembers all the uproar about Artificial insemination (i.e. test tube babies. Now all the groups who were against (mostly religious groups) have no problem with it at all.

There's certainly ethical issues that can arise from GMPs, but in many countries, the ethical issues occur from knowing the sex of a baby.

Hopefully this is used for good, but we know that in some cases it will be used for bad. Until proven otherwise, I believe it will mostly be used for good.
 
CorruptedOne said:
No, I think Bush got their first.
Click to expand...

Yep, any topic can become a "Thanks Obama" thread. :rolleyes:

On actual topic, the myostatin inhibitor research is actually kinda neat. Increased muscle mass almost at will. I also know they've made great strides in replicating parts and creating new things, like that lady that got a synthetic lens in her eye that docs said they could tweak to let her pick up UV if she wanted.

The science of it is fascinating, though I agree with the earlier commenter saying that it gets painful when you look at who is administering or selecting what. It's not right for one group or one body of government to control that. It's barely right for any person to use it. But, we're getting to the point where we'll need it to advance. Increased intelligence, stamina, viral resistances, and altering how we take in smog or other things could be very desirable in the future.
 
Wolfkin said:
Now that's a slippery slope to travel down.
Click to expand...

It is. However, if I was given the chance for my kids, I would have. Both of my children have developmental delays and have some physical abnormalities.

I'd give my right arm to be increase their chances at a normal life.
 
Ducman69 said:
Eugenics is a GOOD thing in theory, the problem was just who gets to decide what is and is not desirable.
Click to expand...

Stop right there.

History has a lot of say about the Eugenics movement.

#1 and most paramount thing to keep in mind The idea of the "betterment" of mankind through genetic manipulation is 100% GODLESS. If you don't don't believe in GOD then this idea of "making" a better man ultimately leads to one class of people better than other; the underclass eventually being considered subhuman and then their life having no value. The idea of identifying and eliminating predisposition for decease and "weakness" in the genes is the same idea that HITLER had with his master race. These ideas were the fuel for the gas chambers and ovens in Triblinka and Auchwitz.
This started with Niezsche's call for the rise of the Ubermensch. A human being that was driven only by the quest to conquer and without the need for religion or sentiment of any kind. Eugenics fueled the idea of Margaret Sanger; the founder of Planned Parenthood.
This woman considered people of dark skin (African descent) of low intelligence and sub human. She believed black women should be rendered infertile so they could not reproduce. Here ideas are carried on today through federally funded abortion clinics in nearly every city in America.
Because of the devastating effects on man kind with the death toll in the untold MILLIONS only one label can be applied to the idea of Eugenics. EVIL.

OH, because it is 80 years later we are much better and smarter than the Nazis?
Look at the world today and give me your answer.




Didn't think so.
 
nilepez said:
Anyone over 40 remembers all the uproar about Artificial insemination (i.e. test tube babies. Now all the groups who were against (mostly religious groups) have no problem with it at all.
Click to expand...
Yeah the problem with artificial insemination is that it is now an argument of overpopulation which is my big complaint with it, I'm in no way in favor of in-vitro and do wish it'd go away. Not everyone needs to have their own genetic child. And of course you get the freaks who can't let go of the half dozen kids that get implanted in them in the process and you're left with your Octomoms of the world.
 
kbrickley said:
There is certainly a benefit to eliminating diseases that cause premature death ... the slippery slope comes if parents start to choose the specific traits that their child should have (IQ, musical talent, athletic talent, etc)
Click to expand...
Men and women already do that by choosing traits they desire in a mate, this is just more control over that.

And its silly and illogical to believe they would have been unable to achieve what they had without asthma, alzheimer's, dyslexia, epilepsy, manic depression, etc. If anything, they may have been able to achieve so much more, and in fact there may be more Einsteins that never made it big because of health issues that could have been eliminated from the population.
kbrickley said:
As for genetic manipulation allowing us to evolve, that too is artificial ... we evolve best when we are in new environments that force evolution and natural selection to occur (when we eventually move into space or to other worlds, for example)
Click to expand...
That's the whole point, that is impossible now. Technology and social welfare systems have made natural selection process at the very least undesirable, if not impossible. We won't allow our weak to die or have tournaments involving survival of the fittest, or would want future generations to go en masse into environments so hostile that only the strong survive to breed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top