(September 16, 2012 at 11:01 am)IATIA Wrote:

(September 16, 2012 at 10:47 am)Haydn Wrote: Could you elaborate?

Yes, I could.



Oh... You meant WOULD.

Allegedly, we have mapped the human genome. With the ability to modify the DNA, we can eliminate genetic defects, but also decide what traits we desire in a particular subject.

It would be possible to create a 'happy' slave race for the select few in power. Genetic alterations could be delivered via viruses through food and water.

The ultimate variations and control would be devastating to the 'peasants'.

Sounds like the plot to a Sci-Fi . Sounds quite good

(September 16, 2012 at 10:47 am)Haydn Wrote: Now i ask you - is it wrong to 'modify' the genetics of an indivdual and tamper with them to create a new human being, one that is fundamentally different to the one which it would have been prior to the tampering?

It's not black and white.

My opinion is, that it really depends on what modifications you're making. It also depends on what you consider to be a 'benefit'.

Quote:And im sure alot of people think not , i was to hear..... why?

My guess is a lot of people have varying reasons, but it comes down eventually to that they don't think it's moral.

My personal reason for thinking it's a bit iffy is that the child has no choice in the matter.

Then again, no one gets to choose how they're born anyway. But this whole idea of tampering with genes just seems to promote eugenic ideals. Something I'm not particularly into

See more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics


Frankly though, seen as I don't believe in objective morality at all, it doesn't bother me all too much, and I am not saying I am against it per se. I just that I think it should always be done in the best interest of the child first, and humanity second. Just mho.

---

(September 16, 2012 at 11:14 am)Haydn Wrote: Sounds like the plot to a Sci-Fi . Sounds quite good

Yeah, you could say that, but considering atrocities have already been done in the name of eugenics it's more science than fiction.

(September 16, 2012 at 11:15 am)Napoléon Wrote: Yeah, you could say that, but considering atrocities have already been done in the name of eugenics it's more science than fiction.

Yes i am familiar with Eugenics. If you are talking baout the 1000's of forced sterilisaions in the States at the start of the 20th century , or Nazi eugenics then yep , some very bad (and mis-guided) things were happening .
But thats not what is happening here. And i don't see this , or some dystopian fantasy being a good argument against progress with this.

(September 16, 2012 at 11:25 am)Haydn Wrote: But thats not what is happening here. And i don't see this , or some dystopian fantasy being a good argument against progress with this.

And I agree with you. Although, you asked why people might argue against it, there's your answer.

(September 16, 2012 at 11:25 am)Haydn Wrote: But thats not what is happening here. And i don't see this , or some dystopian fantasy being a good argument against progress with this.

Perhaps not, but that is the way it usually starts and we have a bad habit of not learning from history.

I see a lot of good in this new science, but I also see the great potential for misuse. It would seem that now is the time to set regulations in place to discourage or displace these potential threats.

(September 16, 2012 at 11:30 am)IATIA Wrote:

(September 16, 2012 at 11:25 am)Haydn Wrote: But thats not what is happening here. And i don't see this , or some dystopian fantasy being a good argument against progress with this.

Perhaps not, but that is the way it usually starts and we have a bad habit of not learning from history.

I see a lot of good in this new science, but I also see the great potential for misuse. It would seem that now is the time to set regulations in place to discourage or displace these potential threats.

We can't place regulations without prior knowledge of what is being regulated. Experimentation must be permitted to form any type of conclusion on the matter.

---

I'm not making reference to Nap in-particular but I love it when people call it "playing God". Presumably they're talking about making decisions to fundamentally alter the course of nature as opposed to not existing and consequently making fuck all difference.
Its a phrase thats thrown around whenever a feat of science is so incredible it would be considered a miracle if not for the fact it can be explained rationally.
I take this phrase being used to describe this leap forward as a sign we're making steps in the right direction, that we're taking the reins on a runaway carriage as it were.
Mankind has the right to have control over its own destiny and it is responsible enough to deal with the delicate issues that will emerge with the self-correcting mechanism it has developed over millenia of trial and error.

(September 16, 2012 at 2:37 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: We can't place regulations without prior knowledge of what is being regulated. Experimentation must be permitted to form any type of conclusion on the matter.

Just in case I have not made my position clear, I have no qualms in general with this technology. However, even at an experimental stage, we might consider some rules.

Theoretically, we carry the genes of Cro-Magnon and perhaps Neanderthal which could entice experimentation to revive these ancient humans. Who knows what else gene manipulation could bring about and what of the resultant "creatures' from an experiment gone bad. Can anyone say "Island of Doctor Moreau"? In 1896 it was science fiction, today we have potential reality.

As to "prior knowledge of what is being regulated", history suggests what will happen. General rules set in place now can help the future of this technology and the exploitation of same. Call me cynical if you will, but i have read enough history to know that good intentions tend to go bad often enough to warrant a critical look at the possible misuse of this technology.