The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Ok, so recently there was some news that cell stem research has been approved on embryos, and last year we had a group claiming that they had cloned another human.
Obviously when altering anything natural there will be ethical and moral concerns expressed by many, but is it wrong to genetically alter corn so it yields larger cobs and is more cold resistant? Well, if it is safe to eat and there are no side effects, why would it be??
However, would one consider it wrong to genetically mutate an embryo to make the person who it will no doubt develop into a stronger, smarter, faster etc human? Is it even wrong to remove genetic traits that would still be carried by the "child" but not suffer from it? Is it wrong to make people less susceptible to certain diseases?
Would it, for example, be wrong for a military power to create a cloned army of expensible soldiers who had been genetically modified to make the better suited to combat (Like faster reasction times, stronger, better stamina etc)? This type of person would ion effect have been born to kill.
Just thought it would make an interestic topic to discuss.
T
Obviously when altering anything natural there will be ethical and moral concerns expressed by many, but is it wrong to genetically alter corn so it yields larger cobs and is more cold resistant? Well, if it is safe to eat and there are no side effects, why would it be??
However, would one consider it wrong to genetically mutate an embryo to make the person who it will no doubt develop into a stronger, smarter, faster etc human? Is it even wrong to remove genetic traits that would still be carried by the "child" but not suffer from it? Is it wrong to make people less susceptible to certain diseases?
Would it, for example, be wrong for a military power to create a cloned army of expensible soldiers who had been genetically modified to make the better suited to combat (Like faster reasction times, stronger, better stamina etc)? This type of person would ion effect have been born to kill.
Just thought it would make an interestic topic to discuss.
T
Page:
tken wrote:
> Not once did I mention anything to do with religion or
> "God". Anyway, scientists are often accused of hating
> religion because science and faith often conflict. Are you saying
> that even if an athiest said the exact same thing and backed it up
> with scientific evidence it would clearly be a case of a
> "religious fanatic trying to justify things through God"?
I know you didn't mention it, but the phrase "They say the spread of plague and cholora and small pox etc was nature's way of "cleansing" and preventing things such as overcrowding." just seems that kind of religious shoe-horning.
> Its happened to an extent with Nuclear armament has it not?
> Obviously its not going to prevent people from reading up or
> developing this kind of technology on their own, but it certainly
> will slow it considerably.
Well, yes, but getting the materials needed for making a nuke is extremely difficult and likely to be noticed. But working on genes can be done in a lot of labs with machines already used for other purposes - it would be a lot harder to control.
Of course, yes, making it illegal would slow things down, if only because those hell-bent on doing it anyway would have to work in secret. But no-one can deny this is probably going to happen anyway - regardless of the legality of it.
> Agreed, this is exactly the point that I am making. I think it is
> dangerous to play around and make public the likes of this
> technological advancement when we have no idea of the long term
> effects. Sure it may be ok in the first generation of GM humans,
> maybe even in the second and third, but if by the fourth glaring
> side-effects become apparent that cannot be reversed, there will be
> no contingency plan and it could be catastrophic.
Indeed
> Mother and father.
> If a mother is a carrier of a certain gene and father is a carrier,
> the chance of the child being a carrier is high.
> If only one parent is a carrier, the chance of child being a carrier
> is obviously lower.
>
> Then there is the situation where only if the mother and father had a
> cartain gene would a child have it, and if not then it would not be
> passed on.
>
> Then again there is the situation where genes skip generations.
Aye, I understand all that - I was wondering if a gene can actually become weaker. It can occur less often through the generations, yes (like they're saying that blonde hair might eventually never occur naturally) - but in those rarer cases when it does occur, won't it be just as severe as in the earliest generations?
> Not once did I mention anything to do with religion or
> "God". Anyway, scientists are often accused of hating
> religion because science and faith often conflict. Are you saying
> that even if an athiest said the exact same thing and backed it up
> with scientific evidence it would clearly be a case of a
> "religious fanatic trying to justify things through God"?
I know you didn't mention it, but the phrase "They say the spread of plague and cholora and small pox etc was nature's way of "cleansing" and preventing things such as overcrowding." just seems that kind of religious shoe-horning.
> Its happened to an extent with Nuclear armament has it not?
> Obviously its not going to prevent people from reading up or
> developing this kind of technology on their own, but it certainly
> will slow it considerably.
Well, yes, but getting the materials needed for making a nuke is extremely difficult and likely to be noticed. But working on genes can be done in a lot of labs with machines already used for other purposes - it would be a lot harder to control.
Of course, yes, making it illegal would slow things down, if only because those hell-bent on doing it anyway would have to work in secret. But no-one can deny this is probably going to happen anyway - regardless of the legality of it.
> Agreed, this is exactly the point that I am making. I think it is
> dangerous to play around and make public the likes of this
> technological advancement when we have no idea of the long term
> effects. Sure it may be ok in the first generation of GM humans,
> maybe even in the second and third, but if by the fourth glaring
> side-effects become apparent that cannot be reversed, there will be
> no contingency plan and it could be catastrophic.
Indeed
> Mother and father.
> If a mother is a carrier of a certain gene and father is a carrier,
> the chance of the child being a carrier is high.
> If only one parent is a carrier, the chance of child being a carrier
> is obviously lower.
>
> Then there is the situation where only if the mother and father had a
> cartain gene would a child have it, and if not then it would not be
> passed on.
>
> Then again there is the situation where genes skip generations.
Aye, I understand all that - I was wondering if a gene can actually become weaker. It can occur less often through the generations, yes (like they're saying that blonde hair might eventually never occur naturally) - but in those rarer cases when it does occur, won't it be just as severe as in the earliest generations?
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Anywho ... no, I don't think Mother Nature suddenly decides to
> introduce a new disease after calculating that an area is
> overcrowded. It all seems a bit like some religious fanatics trying
> to justify such things through God etc etc.
>
> Possibly overcrowding results in diseases - what with sharing water
> supplies, close proximity allowing viruses to travel easily etc - but
> I don't think disease occurs due to overcrowding, if you see what I
> mean. If all the facilities were in place, a place could become
> completely overcrowded with no magic bugs appearing from nowhere.
> Psychological effects aside.
Not once did I mention anything to do with religion or "God". Anyway, scientists are often accused of hating religion because science and faith often conflict. Are you saying that even if an athiest said the exact same thing and backed it up with scientific evidence it would clearly be a case of a "religious fanatic trying to justify things through God"?
> But you can't really limit all those things. Not wholly. People will
> work independantly, regardless of laws. I could well see gentic
> modification happening on the black market - which isn't always
> located in some dirty back-alley in Russia.
Its happened to an extent with Nuclear armament has it not? Obviously its not going to prevent people from reading up or developing this kind of technology on their own, but it certainly will slow it considerably.
> Yes, I know. But people are going to want to press ahead with these
> things - regardless of where the technology is at. Like that group
> who claimed to have cloned someone - the technology isn't ready by
> far, it's not safe or tested out fully - but they pressed on.
> Everyone wants to be first, many of them regardless of the risks.
Agreed, this is exactly the point that I am making. I think it is dangerous to play around and make public the likes of this technological advancement when we have no idea of the long term effects. Sure it may be ok in the first generation of GM humans, maybe even in the second and third, but if by the fourth glaring side-effects become apparent that cannot be reversed, there will be no contingency plan and it could be catastrophic.
> Can you water-down genes?
> I don't know enough about it really. Surely you've got the disease
> gene or you haven't.
Mother and father.
If a mother is a carrier of a certain gene and father is a carrier, the chance of the child being a carrier is high.
If only one parent is a carrier, the chance of child being a carrier is obviously lower.
Then there is the situation where only if the mother and father had a cartain gene would a child have it, and if not then it would not be passed on.
Then again there is the situation where genes skip generations.
It can get quite complicated really unless you read it properly from a book.
T
> Anywho ... no, I don't think Mother Nature suddenly decides to
> introduce a new disease after calculating that an area is
> overcrowded. It all seems a bit like some religious fanatics trying
> to justify such things through God etc etc.
>
> Possibly overcrowding results in diseases - what with sharing water
> supplies, close proximity allowing viruses to travel easily etc - but
> I don't think disease occurs due to overcrowding, if you see what I
> mean. If all the facilities were in place, a place could become
> completely overcrowded with no magic bugs appearing from nowhere.
> Psychological effects aside.
Not once did I mention anything to do with religion or "God". Anyway, scientists are often accused of hating religion because science and faith often conflict. Are you saying that even if an athiest said the exact same thing and backed it up with scientific evidence it would clearly be a case of a "religious fanatic trying to justify things through God"?
> But you can't really limit all those things. Not wholly. People will
> work independantly, regardless of laws. I could well see gentic
> modification happening on the black market - which isn't always
> located in some dirty back-alley in Russia.
Its happened to an extent with Nuclear armament has it not? Obviously its not going to prevent people from reading up or developing this kind of technology on their own, but it certainly will slow it considerably.
> Yes, I know. But people are going to want to press ahead with these
> things - regardless of where the technology is at. Like that group
> who claimed to have cloned someone - the technology isn't ready by
> far, it's not safe or tested out fully - but they pressed on.
> Everyone wants to be first, many of them regardless of the risks.
Agreed, this is exactly the point that I am making. I think it is dangerous to play around and make public the likes of this technological advancement when we have no idea of the long term effects. Sure it may be ok in the first generation of GM humans, maybe even in the second and third, but if by the fourth glaring side-effects become apparent that cannot be reversed, there will be no contingency plan and it could be catastrophic.
> Can you water-down genes?
> I don't know enough about it really. Surely you've got the disease
> gene or you haven't.
Mother and father.
If a mother is a carrier of a certain gene and father is a carrier, the chance of the child being a carrier is high.
If only one parent is a carrier, the chance of child being a carrier is obviously lower.
Then there is the situation where only if the mother and father had a cartain gene would a child have it, and if not then it would not be passed on.
Then again there is the situation where genes skip generations.
It can get quite complicated really unless you read it properly from a book.
T
tken wrote:
>life expectancy stuff.
Kinda moving into another area now - it's a catch 22 situation, and I don't have the answer. Increase people's lives, make people healthier for longer = good thing. More years living off other people's hard work = bad thing.
> I think the introduction of stem cell research etc has to be looked
> at in a less selfish way than "there is a good chance my child
> will be born with spinabifida, take that gene out so they'll be
> fine".
>
> How is that in anyway a selfish thing?
> My my ...
>
> Of course, if my father had to have a heart bypass because he had
> eaten badly all his life and not taken care of himself, I would want
> it to be carried out. Would my decision be unbiased and based on the
> good of mankind? Of course not, it would be completely selfish. I
> love my father and I don't want him to go away - even if this fault
> may very well have been his own doing. If my grandmother developed
> lung cancer through smoking 40-a-day for 40 years, was now at
> retirement age, been through the menopause, and had a bad hip, would
> I want doctors to do everything in their power to keep her alive for
> another 6 months, 2 years, 5 years? Of course. Once again, it would
> be through pure selfishness though. She would not be contributing
> anything to the economy (in fact, she would be "taking
> back"), her house (if she succumbed and died, say) could have
> been used to house a newly-married couple who work full-time and are
> planning to start a family.
You're way off base here.
Doing those things would be selfish, yes. But stopping a child who - through absolutely no fault of their own - is going to lead a life of suffering from having to go through that ordeal. There's nothing selfish there. It's for the wellbeing of another person, who has done nothing to deserve such a thing.
> Please do not resort to hypocrisy. Clearly by the first
> "they" you mean a governing body, and by the second you
> probably mean so-called "bad scientists", just as its
> pretty clear that by my "they" I meant so-called
> "experts". I don't believe that you're really as naive to
> have never heard it mentioned that the circle of life in nature
> includes things like epidemics.
I just didn't know who you were referring to. What I meant was clear, as you said, but what you said was not clear to me.
Anywho ... no, I don't think Mother Nature suddenly decides to introduce a new disease after calculating that an area is overcrowded. It all seems a bit like some religious fanatics trying to justify such things through God etc etc.
Possibly overcrowding results in diseases - what with sharing water supplies, close proximity allowing viruses to travel easily etc - but I don't think disease occurs due to overcrowding, if you see what I mean. If all the facilities were in place, a place could become completely overcrowded with no magic bugs appearing from nowhere. Psychological effects aside.
> Also, in reply to your "making it illegal" point, it stands
> to reason that if you limit knowledge of a certain scientific
> technique, as well as limiting the equipment needed to carry out the
> said techniques, and limiting who has access to all the theories
> behind the said technique, then you will limit its use. Regardless
> of who can get hold of it on the black market, can you really see
> someone in a back street "lab" in Russia cloning another
> human or altering genetics successfully?
But you can't really limit all those things. Not wholly. People will work independantly, regardless of laws. I could well see gentic modification happening on the black market - which isn't always located in some dirty back-alley in Russia.
> Yes, I know that but my point being that until one has
> perfected the technology and determined that there are no
> major side-effects or long term damage, would it really be wise to
> give it widespread use? Example: Mobile phones are generally seen
> as a godsend by many people, especially in business. If we found out
> in 5 years time that it was making all men who used them and carried
> them in their trouser pockets sterile, and it was causing really bad
> genetic mutations in children, and brain tumours in anyone who used a
> mobile for more than an hour a day, what would be the outcome? If
> say 50% of the male population n a given country was deemed sterile
> due to his mobile phone, would that not automatically decrease the
> chance of population growth by 50%? Is there a way to magically make
> sterile men able t have children again?
Yes, I know. But people are going to want to press ahead with these things - regardless of where the technology is at. Like that group who claimed to have cloned someone - the technology isn't ready by far, it's not safe or tested out fully - but they pressed on. Everyone wants to be first, many of them regardless of the risks.
I don't want genetic alterations to happen before the time is right - but I do want them to happen, for all the good that comes with them.
Cloning, never.
> Evolution isn't only over one generation now, is it? Obviously it is
> possible that a person's child may carry the same gene and it become
> prominent in them. However, surely the more "watered down"
> this gene becomes, in time it will be eradicated completely?
Can you water-down genes?
I don't know enough about it really. Surely you've got the disease gene or you haven't.
>life expectancy stuff.
Kinda moving into another area now - it's a catch 22 situation, and I don't have the answer. Increase people's lives, make people healthier for longer = good thing. More years living off other people's hard work = bad thing.
> I think the introduction of stem cell research etc has to be looked
> at in a less selfish way than "there is a good chance my child
> will be born with spinabifida, take that gene out so they'll be
> fine".
>
> How is that in anyway a selfish thing?
> My my ...
>
> Of course, if my father had to have a heart bypass because he had
> eaten badly all his life and not taken care of himself, I would want
> it to be carried out. Would my decision be unbiased and based on the
> good of mankind? Of course not, it would be completely selfish. I
> love my father and I don't want him to go away - even if this fault
> may very well have been his own doing. If my grandmother developed
> lung cancer through smoking 40-a-day for 40 years, was now at
> retirement age, been through the menopause, and had a bad hip, would
> I want doctors to do everything in their power to keep her alive for
> another 6 months, 2 years, 5 years? Of course. Once again, it would
> be through pure selfishness though. She would not be contributing
> anything to the economy (in fact, she would be "taking
> back"), her house (if she succumbed and died, say) could have
> been used to house a newly-married couple who work full-time and are
> planning to start a family.
You're way off base here.
Doing those things would be selfish, yes. But stopping a child who - through absolutely no fault of their own - is going to lead a life of suffering from having to go through that ordeal. There's nothing selfish there. It's for the wellbeing of another person, who has done nothing to deserve such a thing.
> Please do not resort to hypocrisy. Clearly by the first
> "they" you mean a governing body, and by the second you
> probably mean so-called "bad scientists", just as its
> pretty clear that by my "they" I meant so-called
> "experts". I don't believe that you're really as naive to
> have never heard it mentioned that the circle of life in nature
> includes things like epidemics.
I just didn't know who you were referring to. What I meant was clear, as you said, but what you said was not clear to me.
Anywho ... no, I don't think Mother Nature suddenly decides to introduce a new disease after calculating that an area is overcrowded. It all seems a bit like some religious fanatics trying to justify such things through God etc etc.
Possibly overcrowding results in diseases - what with sharing water supplies, close proximity allowing viruses to travel easily etc - but I don't think disease occurs due to overcrowding, if you see what I mean. If all the facilities were in place, a place could become completely overcrowded with no magic bugs appearing from nowhere. Psychological effects aside.
> Also, in reply to your "making it illegal" point, it stands
> to reason that if you limit knowledge of a certain scientific
> technique, as well as limiting the equipment needed to carry out the
> said techniques, and limiting who has access to all the theories
> behind the said technique, then you will limit its use. Regardless
> of who can get hold of it on the black market, can you really see
> someone in a back street "lab" in Russia cloning another
> human or altering genetics successfully?
But you can't really limit all those things. Not wholly. People will work independantly, regardless of laws. I could well see gentic modification happening on the black market - which isn't always located in some dirty back-alley in Russia.
> Yes, I know that but my point being that until one has
> perfected the technology and determined that there are no
> major side-effects or long term damage, would it really be wise to
> give it widespread use? Example: Mobile phones are generally seen
> as a godsend by many people, especially in business. If we found out
> in 5 years time that it was making all men who used them and carried
> them in their trouser pockets sterile, and it was causing really bad
> genetic mutations in children, and brain tumours in anyone who used a
> mobile for more than an hour a day, what would be the outcome? If
> say 50% of the male population n a given country was deemed sterile
> due to his mobile phone, would that not automatically decrease the
> chance of population growth by 50%? Is there a way to magically make
> sterile men able t have children again?
Yes, I know. But people are going to want to press ahead with these things - regardless of where the technology is at. Like that group who claimed to have cloned someone - the technology isn't ready by far, it's not safe or tested out fully - but they pressed on. Everyone wants to be first, many of them regardless of the risks.
I don't want genetic alterations to happen before the time is right - but I do want them to happen, for all the good that comes with them.
Cloning, never.
> Evolution isn't only over one generation now, is it? Obviously it is
> possible that a person's child may carry the same gene and it become
> prominent in them. However, surely the more "watered down"
> this gene becomes, in time it will be eradicated completely?
Can you water-down genes?
I don't know enough about it really. Surely you've got the disease gene or you haven't.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> It's the other way around - the Chinese culture of, at the base
> level, wanting a male over a female child led to the overcrowding, as
> people kept on going until they got a boy.
>
> And that particular law led to countless, much worse problems.
> You're only allowed 1 kid, and you get the wrong gender? Well, just
> pretend you never had it, throw it in the street. Go team.
The point that I was making wasn't how the overcrowding became apparent, just that there was an issue of overcrowding that occurred naturally, without any intervention of science that would make people live longer. It stands to reason that if death rate < birth rate, there will be less room in a given area.
> The pensions crisis is due to life expectancy increasing. And people
> with serious diseases - I'll take Downs Syndrome as a general exmaple
> here - will still live that long. A cure would actually put less
> strain on the economy, as they'd be able to support themselves for
> longer.
This is exactly my point. Is there a reason why women go through the menaupause at a certain age? If we look at this very bluntly, once one reches a certain age there are limitations. If everybody's life expectancy is increased, it could be that a woman will reach the menopause only a third, or even a quarter into her life. By the time she reaches 70 for example, it may be the case that she retires (this may be due to not being able to compete with the younger generation) and then is no longer benefiting the economy at all. She is taking up living space, she is not contributing to the wealth of the country by working, she is using up valuable resources (elecricity, gas, food, water, etc etc etc). If this becomes more and more common, we will increasingly see a negative demographic pyramid from the population. The work of relatively few "young" will be used to support the older generation, of which the pool will be increasing all the time.
> What exactly would your solution be to all this?
> It's all fair and good saying there's a problem ... well, duh. You
> can't withold medical treatment to the ill, or halt natural
> lengthening of life expectancy. A cull? How's that?
Who said anything about halting natural life expectancy? Once any kind of scientific or medical intervention happens in a person's life then it is no longer natural - unless of course their appendix was removed by magic by mother nature, or that cancerous tumour suddenly disappeared. Ok so I'm taking your point to the extreme, but once again I make the point that every time we increase somebody's life by another 2 years (for example) with that comes problems, be that another 2 years of resources being used or whatever.
> I think the introduction of stem cell research etc has to be looked
> at in a less selfish way than "there is a good chance my child
> will be born with spinabifida, take that gene out so they'll be
> fine".
>
> How is that in anyway a selfish thing?
> My my ...
Of course, if my father had to have a heart bypass because he had eaten badly all his life and not taken care of himself, I would want it to be carried out. Would my decision be unbiased and based on the good of mankind? Of course not, it would be completely selfish. I love my father and I don't want him to go away - even if this fault may very well have been his own doing. If my grandmother developed lung cancer through smoking 40-a-day for 40 years, was now at retirement age, been through the menopause, and had a bad hip, would I want doctors to do everything in their power to keep her alive for another 6 months, 2 years, 5 years? Of course. Once again, it would be through pure selfishness though. She would not be contributing anything to the economy (in fact, she would be "taking back"), her house (if she succumbed and died, say) could have been used to house a newly-married couple who work full-time and are planning to start a family.
> And? As you say, that's always the way.
> They make it illegal, of course, but it still may happen. Show me any
> situation of good, and there's bound to be people taking advantage.
>
> What can you do about it, bar make it illegal.
>
> They already have this technology, you know. If people are so keen on
> tampering with genes, they would do doing it already on the black
> market.
>
> Absolutely regardless of whether gene manipulation becomes legal -
> it'll happen illegally anyway.
>
>
> The long term effects on mother nature cannot be gauged
> by us, we are but a small part in a big scheme of things. They say
> the spread of plague and cholora and small pox etc was nature's way
> of "cleansing" and preventing things such as overcrowding,
>
> 'They' at this point being who?
>
Please do not resort to hypocrisy. Clearly by the first "they" you mean a governing body, and by the second you probably mean so-called "bad scientists", just as its pretty clear that by my "they" I meant so-called "experts". I don't believe that you're really as naive to have never heard it mentioned that the circle of life in nature includes things like epidemics.
Also, in reply to your "making it illegal" point, it stands to reason that if you limit knowledge of a certain scientific technique, as well as limiting the equipment needed to carry out the said techniques, and limiting who has access to all the theories behind the said technique, then you will limit its use. Regardless of who can get hold of it on the black market, can you really see someone in a back street "lab" in Russia cloning another human or altering genetics successfully?
Example: I give to you tomorrow a book on the theories behind harnessing nuclear technology and creating a bomb. Would you have the nouse to undertsand everything in that book, then be able to get hold of all the materials needed, construct a bomb, and launch it?
> If defective genes are eradicated, there is no problem. That's the
> whole point.
>
> You don't get a small pox vaccine any more. Eradicated.
Yes, I know that but my point being that until one has perfected the technology and determined that there are no major side-effects or long term damage, would it really be wise to give it widespread use? Example: Mobile phones are generally seen as a godsend by many people, especially in business. If we found out in 5 years time that it was making all men who used them and carried them in their trouser pockets sterile, and it was causing really bad genetic mutations in children, and brain tumours in anyone who used a mobile for more than an hour a day, what would be the outcome? If say 50% of the male population n a given country was deemed sterile due to his mobile phone, would that not automatically decrease the chance of population growth by 50%? Is there a way to magically make sterile men able t have children again?
> Oh, I think I see actually ... well, someone carrying the disease
> gene might seem (and will be) perfectly normal until it becomes
> apparent in their children. So 'the fittest' people would still be
> carrying the gene with them.
Evolution isn't only over one generation now, is it? Obviously it is possible that a person's child may carry the same gene and it become prominent in them. However, surely the more "watered down" this gene becomes, in time it will be eradicated completely?
T
> It's the other way around - the Chinese culture of, at the base
> level, wanting a male over a female child led to the overcrowding, as
> people kept on going until they got a boy.
>
> And that particular law led to countless, much worse problems.
> You're only allowed 1 kid, and you get the wrong gender? Well, just
> pretend you never had it, throw it in the street. Go team.
The point that I was making wasn't how the overcrowding became apparent, just that there was an issue of overcrowding that occurred naturally, without any intervention of science that would make people live longer. It stands to reason that if death rate < birth rate, there will be less room in a given area.
> The pensions crisis is due to life expectancy increasing. And people
> with serious diseases - I'll take Downs Syndrome as a general exmaple
> here - will still live that long. A cure would actually put less
> strain on the economy, as they'd be able to support themselves for
> longer.
This is exactly my point. Is there a reason why women go through the menaupause at a certain age? If we look at this very bluntly, once one reches a certain age there are limitations. If everybody's life expectancy is increased, it could be that a woman will reach the menopause only a third, or even a quarter into her life. By the time she reaches 70 for example, it may be the case that she retires (this may be due to not being able to compete with the younger generation) and then is no longer benefiting the economy at all. She is taking up living space, she is not contributing to the wealth of the country by working, she is using up valuable resources (elecricity, gas, food, water, etc etc etc). If this becomes more and more common, we will increasingly see a negative demographic pyramid from the population. The work of relatively few "young" will be used to support the older generation, of which the pool will be increasing all the time.
> What exactly would your solution be to all this?
> It's all fair and good saying there's a problem ... well, duh. You
> can't withold medical treatment to the ill, or halt natural
> lengthening of life expectancy. A cull? How's that?
Who said anything about halting natural life expectancy? Once any kind of scientific or medical intervention happens in a person's life then it is no longer natural - unless of course their appendix was removed by magic by mother nature, or that cancerous tumour suddenly disappeared. Ok so I'm taking your point to the extreme, but once again I make the point that every time we increase somebody's life by another 2 years (for example) with that comes problems, be that another 2 years of resources being used or whatever.
> I think the introduction of stem cell research etc has to be looked
> at in a less selfish way than "there is a good chance my child
> will be born with spinabifida, take that gene out so they'll be
> fine".
>
> How is that in anyway a selfish thing?
> My my ...
Of course, if my father had to have a heart bypass because he had eaten badly all his life and not taken care of himself, I would want it to be carried out. Would my decision be unbiased and based on the good of mankind? Of course not, it would be completely selfish. I love my father and I don't want him to go away - even if this fault may very well have been his own doing. If my grandmother developed lung cancer through smoking 40-a-day for 40 years, was now at retirement age, been through the menopause, and had a bad hip, would I want doctors to do everything in their power to keep her alive for another 6 months, 2 years, 5 years? Of course. Once again, it would be through pure selfishness though. She would not be contributing anything to the economy (in fact, she would be "taking back"), her house (if she succumbed and died, say) could have been used to house a newly-married couple who work full-time and are planning to start a family.
> And? As you say, that's always the way.
> They make it illegal, of course, but it still may happen. Show me any
> situation of good, and there's bound to be people taking advantage.
>
> What can you do about it, bar make it illegal.
>
> They already have this technology, you know. If people are so keen on
> tampering with genes, they would do doing it already on the black
> market.
>
> Absolutely regardless of whether gene manipulation becomes legal -
> it'll happen illegally anyway.
>
>
> The long term effects on mother nature cannot be gauged
> by us, we are but a small part in a big scheme of things. They say
> the spread of plague and cholora and small pox etc was nature's way
> of "cleansing" and preventing things such as overcrowding,
>
> 'They' at this point being who?
>
Please do not resort to hypocrisy. Clearly by the first "they" you mean a governing body, and by the second you probably mean so-called "bad scientists", just as its pretty clear that by my "they" I meant so-called "experts". I don't believe that you're really as naive to have never heard it mentioned that the circle of life in nature includes things like epidemics.
Also, in reply to your "making it illegal" point, it stands to reason that if you limit knowledge of a certain scientific technique, as well as limiting the equipment needed to carry out the said techniques, and limiting who has access to all the theories behind the said technique, then you will limit its use. Regardless of who can get hold of it on the black market, can you really see someone in a back street "lab" in Russia cloning another human or altering genetics successfully?
Example: I give to you tomorrow a book on the theories behind harnessing nuclear technology and creating a bomb. Would you have the nouse to undertsand everything in that book, then be able to get hold of all the materials needed, construct a bomb, and launch it?
> If defective genes are eradicated, there is no problem. That's the
> whole point.
>
> You don't get a small pox vaccine any more. Eradicated.
Yes, I know that but my point being that until one has perfected the technology and determined that there are no major side-effects or long term damage, would it really be wise to give it widespread use? Example: Mobile phones are generally seen as a godsend by many people, especially in business. If we found out in 5 years time that it was making all men who used them and carried them in their trouser pockets sterile, and it was causing really bad genetic mutations in children, and brain tumours in anyone who used a mobile for more than an hour a day, what would be the outcome? If say 50% of the male population n a given country was deemed sterile due to his mobile phone, would that not automatically decrease the chance of population growth by 50%? Is there a way to magically make sterile men able t have children again?
> Oh, I think I see actually ... well, someone carrying the disease
> gene might seem (and will be) perfectly normal until it becomes
> apparent in their children. So 'the fittest' people would still be
> carrying the gene with them.
Evolution isn't only over one generation now, is it? Obviously it is possible that a person's child may carry the same gene and it become prominent in them. However, surely the more "watered down" this gene becomes, in time it will be eradicated completely?
T
tken wrote:
> At the moment, with perfectly natural ways of reproducing we have
> already seen at least one country limit the number of children each
> family can have due to the problem of overcrowding. This of course
> led to a higher population of males to "keep the family
> line" as it were.
It's the other way around - the Chinese culture of, at the base level, wanting a male over a female child led to the overcrowding, as people kept on going until they got a boy.
And that particular law led to countless, much worse problems.
You're only allowed 1 kid, and you get the wrong gender? Well, just pretend you never had it, throw it in the street. Go team.
> A large proportion of modified humans escaping death from diseases
> and the whole world ending up in a negative demographic pyramid and a
> severe case of overcrowding is actually a real possibility. We're
> already heading that way in the UK it seems, with the pensions crises
> and people waiting until later in their lives to have children. I
> believe they are looking at a similar problem in the USA with social
> security.
The pensions crisis is due to life expectancy increasing. And people with serious diseases - I'll take Downs Syndrome as a general exmaple here - will still live that long. A cure would actually put less strain on the economy, as they'd be able to support themselves for longer.
What exactly would your solution be to all this?
It's all fair and good saying there's a problem ... well, duh. You can't withold medical treatment to the ill, or halt natural lengthening of life expectancy. A cull? How's that?
> I know this is going to sound silly because its also a line from a
> comic book, but with the power that the scientists have to manipulate
> genes will come a great responsibility. There is no way that ALL
> scientists/doctors will "keep to the rules" (if indeed any
> are set) if they are offered a certain sum of money for example. As
> well as great ethical and morally sound doctors there will always be
> those who are slightly less responsible.
And? As you say, that's always the way.
They make it illegal, of course, but it still may happen. Show me any situation of good, and there's bound to be people taking advantage.
What can you do about it, bar make it illegal.
They already have this technology, you know. If people are so keen on tampering with genes, they would do doing it already on the black market.
Absolutely regardless of whether gene manipulation becomes legal - it'll happen illegally anyway.
> I think the introduction of stem cell research etc has to be looked
> at in a less selfish way than "there is a good chance my child
> will be born with spinabifida, take that gene out so they'll be
> fine".
How is that in anyway a selfish thing?
My my ...
The long term effects on mother nature cannot be gauged
> by us, we are but a small part in a big scheme of things. They say
> the spread of plague and cholora and small pox etc was nature's way
> of "cleansing" and preventing things such as overcrowding,
'They' at this point being who?
> and that evolution is the natural progression of the fittest of each
> species surviving and passing on the valuable traits to its young. If
> the young carry these defective genes, would it mean that every child
> from then on would need to be genetically modified to prevent these
> harmful/less desired traits becoming prominent?
If defective genes are eradicated, there is no problem. That's the whole point.
You don't get a small pox vaccine any more. Eradicated.
> Sex the regular way has worked so far. I think another valid question
> would be to look at how genetically deficient people (for example)
> have been welcomed as part of society and reproduced for as long as
> they have - if they were (God forbid) killed at birth, or not
> survived as a result of their impairments (as would happen in the
> wild, say), would we still see the genetic problems that we do now or
> would they have been eradicated by the "fittest" mating
> with each other?
I don't really see your point here, if there is one, and any relation to stem cell shizzle.
...
Oh, I think I see actually ... well, someone carrying the disease gene might seem (and will be) perfectly normal until it becomes apparent in their children. So 'the fittest' people would still be carrying the gene with them.
> Also, I know you're saying that clones have to be born naturally.
> Yes, its true. However, they have not solved the advanced rate of
> aging for clones, and the success rates are reaaaally low.
Well, it's less advanced ageing than continuing the cloned person's age onwards from birth.
> Furthermore, what is the benefit in cloning a whole human being?
There isn't one as far as I can see.
Just to make things clear - I'm really not for cloning at all. My earlier post wasn't directed at you, just making a few general points towards the more clueless people who rant and rave about it.
> At the moment, with perfectly natural ways of reproducing we have
> already seen at least one country limit the number of children each
> family can have due to the problem of overcrowding. This of course
> led to a higher population of males to "keep the family
> line" as it were.
It's the other way around - the Chinese culture of, at the base level, wanting a male over a female child led to the overcrowding, as people kept on going until they got a boy.
And that particular law led to countless, much worse problems.
You're only allowed 1 kid, and you get the wrong gender? Well, just pretend you never had it, throw it in the street. Go team.
> A large proportion of modified humans escaping death from diseases
> and the whole world ending up in a negative demographic pyramid and a
> severe case of overcrowding is actually a real possibility. We're
> already heading that way in the UK it seems, with the pensions crises
> and people waiting until later in their lives to have children. I
> believe they are looking at a similar problem in the USA with social
> security.
The pensions crisis is due to life expectancy increasing. And people with serious diseases - I'll take Downs Syndrome as a general exmaple here - will still live that long. A cure would actually put less strain on the economy, as they'd be able to support themselves for longer.
What exactly would your solution be to all this?
It's all fair and good saying there's a problem ... well, duh. You can't withold medical treatment to the ill, or halt natural lengthening of life expectancy. A cull? How's that?
> I know this is going to sound silly because its also a line from a
> comic book, but with the power that the scientists have to manipulate
> genes will come a great responsibility. There is no way that ALL
> scientists/doctors will "keep to the rules" (if indeed any
> are set) if they are offered a certain sum of money for example. As
> well as great ethical and morally sound doctors there will always be
> those who are slightly less responsible.
And? As you say, that's always the way.
They make it illegal, of course, but it still may happen. Show me any situation of good, and there's bound to be people taking advantage.
What can you do about it, bar make it illegal.
They already have this technology, you know. If people are so keen on tampering with genes, they would do doing it already on the black market.
Absolutely regardless of whether gene manipulation becomes legal - it'll happen illegally anyway.
> I think the introduction of stem cell research etc has to be looked
> at in a less selfish way than "there is a good chance my child
> will be born with spinabifida, take that gene out so they'll be
> fine".
How is that in anyway a selfish thing?
My my ...
The long term effects on mother nature cannot be gauged
> by us, we are but a small part in a big scheme of things. They say
> the spread of plague and cholora and small pox etc was nature's way
> of "cleansing" and preventing things such as overcrowding,
'They' at this point being who?
> and that evolution is the natural progression of the fittest of each
> species surviving and passing on the valuable traits to its young. If
> the young carry these defective genes, would it mean that every child
> from then on would need to be genetically modified to prevent these
> harmful/less desired traits becoming prominent?
If defective genes are eradicated, there is no problem. That's the whole point.
You don't get a small pox vaccine any more. Eradicated.
> Sex the regular way has worked so far. I think another valid question
> would be to look at how genetically deficient people (for example)
> have been welcomed as part of society and reproduced for as long as
> they have - if they were (God forbid) killed at birth, or not
> survived as a result of their impairments (as would happen in the
> wild, say), would we still see the genetic problems that we do now or
> would they have been eradicated by the "fittest" mating
> with each other?
I don't really see your point here, if there is one, and any relation to stem cell shizzle.
...
Oh, I think I see actually ... well, someone carrying the disease gene might seem (and will be) perfectly normal until it becomes apparent in their children. So 'the fittest' people would still be carrying the gene with them.
> Also, I know you're saying that clones have to be born naturally.
> Yes, its true. However, they have not solved the advanced rate of
> aging for clones, and the success rates are reaaaally low.
Well, it's less advanced ageing than continuing the cloned person's age onwards from birth.
> Furthermore, what is the benefit in cloning a whole human being?
There isn't one as far as I can see.
Just to make things clear - I'm really not for cloning at all. My earlier post wasn't directed at you, just making a few general points towards the more clueless people who rant and rave about it.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Many religions are also complete archaic toss.
>
> If it can stop people getting Downs or CF or whatever, then what's
> the problem? There's no moral dilema there.
Most religous people get all hairy about it, just like the whole abortion thing.
'Messing with what God wanted to make' or something, in other words, they believe that people with these sort of conditions are made as what God intended.
It's a load of rubbish.
> Many religions are also complete archaic toss.
>
> If it can stop people getting Downs or CF or whatever, then what's
> the problem? There's no moral dilema there.
Most religous people get all hairy about it, just like the whole abortion thing.
'Messing with what God wanted to make' or something, in other words, they believe that people with these sort of conditions are made as what God intended.
It's a load of rubbish.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> Many religions are also complete archaic toss.
>
> If it can stop people getting Downs or CF or whatever, then what's
> the problem? There's no moral dilema there.
Lets not turn this into a religion debate.
At the moment, with perfectly natural ways of reproducing we have already seen at least one country limit the number of children each family can have due to the problem of overcrowding. This of course led to a higher population of males to "keep the family line" as it were.
A large proportion of modified humans escaping death from diseases and the whole world ending up in a negative demographic pyramid and a severe case of overcrowding is actually a real possibility. We're already heading that way in the UK it seems, with the pensions crises and people waiting until later in their lives to have children. I believe they are looking at a similar problem in the USA with social security.
I know this is going to sound silly because its also a line from a comic book, but with the power that the scientists have to manipulate genes will come a great responsibility. There is no way that ALL scientists/doctors will "keep to the rules" (if indeed any are set) if they are offered a certain sum of money for example. As well as great ethical and morally sound doctors there will always be those who are slightly less responsible.
I think the introduction of stem cell research etc has to be looked at in a less selfish way than "there is a good chance my child will be born with spinabifida, take that gene out so they'll be fine". The long term effects on mother nature cannot be gauged by us, we are but a small part in a big scheme of things. They say the spread of plague and cholora and small pox etc was nature's way of "cleansing" and preventing things such as overcrowding, and that evolution is the natural progression of the fittest of each species surviving and passing on the valuable traits to its young. If the young carry these defective genes, would it mean that every child from then on would need to be genetically modified to prevent these harmful/less desired traits becoming prominent?
Sex the regular way has worked so far. I think another valid question would be to look at how genetically deficient people (for example) have been welcomed as part of society and reproduced for as long as they have - if they were (God forbid) killed at birth, or not survived as a result of their impairments (as would happen in the wild, say), would we still see the genetic problems that we do now or would they have been eradicated by the "fittest" mating with each other?
Also, I know you're saying that clones have to be born naturally. Yes, its true. However, they have not solved the advanced rate of aging for clones, and the success rates are reaaaally low. Furthermore, what is the benefit in cloning a whole human being?
T
> Many religions are also complete archaic toss.
>
> If it can stop people getting Downs or CF or whatever, then what's
> the problem? There's no moral dilema there.
Lets not turn this into a religion debate.
At the moment, with perfectly natural ways of reproducing we have already seen at least one country limit the number of children each family can have due to the problem of overcrowding. This of course led to a higher population of males to "keep the family line" as it were.
A large proportion of modified humans escaping death from diseases and the whole world ending up in a negative demographic pyramid and a severe case of overcrowding is actually a real possibility. We're already heading that way in the UK it seems, with the pensions crises and people waiting until later in their lives to have children. I believe they are looking at a similar problem in the USA with social security.
I know this is going to sound silly because its also a line from a comic book, but with the power that the scientists have to manipulate genes will come a great responsibility. There is no way that ALL scientists/doctors will "keep to the rules" (if indeed any are set) if they are offered a certain sum of money for example. As well as great ethical and morally sound doctors there will always be those who are slightly less responsible.
I think the introduction of stem cell research etc has to be looked at in a less selfish way than "there is a good chance my child will be born with spinabifida, take that gene out so they'll be fine". The long term effects on mother nature cannot be gauged by us, we are but a small part in a big scheme of things. They say the spread of plague and cholora and small pox etc was nature's way of "cleansing" and preventing things such as overcrowding, and that evolution is the natural progression of the fittest of each species surviving and passing on the valuable traits to its young. If the young carry these defective genes, would it mean that every child from then on would need to be genetically modified to prevent these harmful/less desired traits becoming prominent?
Sex the regular way has worked so far. I think another valid question would be to look at how genetically deficient people (for example) have been welcomed as part of society and reproduced for as long as they have - if they were (God forbid) killed at birth, or not survived as a result of their impairments (as would happen in the wild, say), would we still see the genetic problems that we do now or would they have been eradicated by the "fittest" mating with each other?
Also, I know you're saying that clones have to be born naturally. Yes, its true. However, they have not solved the advanced rate of aging for clones, and the success rates are reaaaally low. Furthermore, what is the benefit in cloning a whole human being?
T
Many religions are also complete archaic toss.
If it can stop people getting Downs or CF or whatever, then what's the problem? There's no moral dilema there.
But if anyone wants to make their kid have blue eyes or a little button nose, they can get screwed. It kind of voids the whole point of having a baby in the first place.
If it can stop people getting Downs or CF or whatever, then what's the problem? There's no moral dilema there.
But if anyone wants to make their kid have blue eyes or a little button nose, they can get screwed. It kind of voids the whole point of having a baby in the first place.
How about moral implications though?
You say that stem cell research would be only a benefit, and to some extent that is true - producing an organ that will not be rejected efor example. However, where there is technology of this ilk around there is always going to be a chance that it would be exploited, no?
Many religions believe that it is wrong for a woman to abort a foetus for example. If you are against abortion what would you opinion be of mutating a foetus in order to get a child who looks that little bit cuter, or is less likely to develop a cold etc? Is this kind of intereference "playing God"? Are we looking for these types of technology to rid us of experiences that define us as people?
I think there is an opportunity for this kind of technology to be exploited, yes. I don't believe that it will be all bad. Many of us may have been affected by things such as cancerous tumours for example - either directly or indirectly - and the chance to eradicate this problem I would agree is definitely a good thing.
However, the danger lies in how far the technology is taken, and what the long-term effects are on the human race.
T
You say that stem cell research would be only a benefit, and to some extent that is true - producing an organ that will not be rejected efor example. However, where there is technology of this ilk around there is always going to be a chance that it would be exploited, no?
Many religions believe that it is wrong for a woman to abort a foetus for example. If you are against abortion what would you opinion be of mutating a foetus in order to get a child who looks that little bit cuter, or is less likely to develop a cold etc? Is this kind of intereference "playing God"? Are we looking for these types of technology to rid us of experiences that define us as people?
I think there is an opportunity for this kind of technology to be exploited, yes. I don't believe that it will be all bad. Many of us may have been affected by things such as cancerous tumours for example - either directly or indirectly - and the chance to eradicate this problem I would agree is definitely a good thing.
However, the danger lies in how far the technology is taken, and what the long-term effects are on the human race.
T
Living with a person who could benifit from stem cell research I think that stem cells should be investigated on medical grounds, I think it would be wrong to use stem cell reasearch to try and create the perfect human, thats what Hitler tried to do! and failed completely
Page: