Need your order in time for Christmas? Check out our Holiday Shipping Deadlines.

 
Return to Main Discussion Page

Discussion

Main Menu | Search Discussions

Search Discussions

 
 

Drew

20 Days Ago

Just A Matter Of Time

Genetically engineered humans. What is your opinion on this development? A Chinese scientist claims that he genetically engineered twin girls to be immune to HIV.

https://www.apnews.com/4997bb7aa36c45449b488e19ac83e86d

Reply Order

Post Reply
 

Kevin Callahan

20 Days Ago

The topic said it, just a matter of time.

 

Uther Pendraggin

20 Days Ago

It's a Brave New World.

 

Doug Swanson

20 Days Ago

They will have to be genetically modified to not experience boredom, since everything else a human might do will already be done by a programmed device. Your car will drive itself to sites where your camera will decide what to point at and then process the image, your food will be the outcome of a programmed diet, your purchases will be determined based on your budget, painters will just tell the device what to paint today (done in a few minutes), entertainment will be delivered so you don't ever have to leave your couch.....it all just goes on.

Nevertheless, one day, un-engineered humans remnants will rebel and pull the plug.

 

"...He told the AP. “Society will decide what to do next” ..." Hum? Somehow that does not re-assure my faith in the present trajectory.

 

Roger Swezey

20 Days Ago

To me, evolution (some might say is "God's Plan) is So Strong that it has been able withstand challenges to it's "natural" progression.

These interventions whether conscious or unplanned, whether being "improvements" or "destructive", they have always been dealt with, and evolution has so far survived, by ADAPTATION.

 

Drew

20 Days Ago

Here is another relative article.
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting

The "Genie" is not containable because the temptation is too great for parents with means to produce children who have built in advantages.

Baby spects:
Hair color
Skin tone
IQ range
Artistic
Muscle density
So forth and so on

 

Kathleen Bishop

20 Days Ago

I think it's just a matter of time before this gets shut down.

 

Chuck De La Rosa

20 Days Ago

X2 what Drew said. Scary stuff. Has the potential to be a good thing but of course someone will take it in a direction that's not good. Watch the movie Gattaca. Not too much of a stretch I think.

 

From the article "...this kind of gene editing is banned in the United States because the DNA changes can pass to future generations and it risks harming other genes."

This alone should make folks shutter. Especially since we have a hard time tracking down everyday issues that are found in our food industry and claimed to be because of some pesticides and genetically altered fruits and veggies. There is a huge movement against vaccines!

This kind of thing might be a true meeting place for traditional and progressive thinkers to agree on and abort.

 

A less invasive and simplistic example is to be seen in the processing of Aspirin, as a commercial product, from the chemistry of White Willow Bark. Removing of the "Inert" (unnecessary trace elements) materials allowed aspirin to become a viable commodity for distribution. But in doing so it was later found that the purified version induced stomach-bleeding - which of course made it hazardous to many folks.Whereas, using white willow bark in a tea-form created no such effect. Scientists were at a lose to explain what inert (or combination) could rectify the situation.

What we sometimes think is 'inert', unnecessary, proves to be a most sticky bone of contention - where nature is concerned. I dare say our enthusiasm with AI will be so tested.

Personally, I am searching for a comprehensive definition to be formed as to what Intuition might be. Until a better handle is comprehended for intuition, our machines are not going to suggest the best for their human cohorts.

 

Ken Krug

20 Days Ago

Reminds me of the novel, The Sendai.

 

Drew

20 Days Ago

"I think it's just a matter of time before this gets shut down."
Kathleen, if you are referring to the thread, it will not if the members who choose to participate follow FAA's rules of usage and civil discourse continues. So far, the discourse seems civil.

 

Kathleen Bishop

20 Days Ago

it wasn't meant as a criticism, Drew, just an observation.

 

Drew

20 Days Ago

Our society has all ready dealt with this before during the time of eugenics.

https://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics


I know Kathleen and you are right to bring this up. I'm glad you did. It wasn't taken as criticism. Thanks!

 

Kevin Callahan

20 Days Ago

The "open door" will be elegantly simple. It will go something like this:
I want (need) to keep my sick child alive, I have the money and wherewithal to do so. Society be hanged. Once this is done the door will be opened for some, then many, then all.

 

David Bridburg

20 Days Ago

This is in its infancy. Pun not intended. LOL

Seriously, for medical purposes in infants to adults gene editing will become a must. Particularly to fight bacteria and viruses. Doctor's offices will have access to rapid testing and treatments.

But mothers' eggs and sperm is a totally different matter. The ethics need working out in advance as legal code. We are moving far to slow. These things need to be worked out possibly globally. My biggest concern is infants suffering needlessly. That will be very unethical.

Dave

 

Drew

20 Days Ago

According to the Chinese Doctor, he has already breached the moral and ethical limits. There is no reason to think this will not be done again behind closed doors. In fact, based on the historical attempt and failure to completely contain nuclear proliferation, customizing children is likely and can be hidden from society. Those who can afford to give their children advantages will do so. It is no different than putting braces on your little bucktoothed precious child. Only difference is, in the case of customized children, the grandchildren will not need braces.

It is naive to think that what this doctor had done will not be repeated again and again.
Many Athletes have been doping just to win gold metals. It is not unreasonable to expect this same mentality would perpetuate a genetic advantage if one could create attributes that enhances athletics.
Imagine a human vs A.I arms race. Humans constantly staying ahead of A.I. through genetic engineering. At least a few selected humans.

 

Tony Murray

20 Days Ago

All of this will not be determined by do's or don'ts on an ethical scale. These types of engineering "experiments" will continue exponentially because they will be market driven. Blue pill or red pill?

 

Uther Pendraggin

20 Days Ago

Copied from Glenn who copied it from the article.

"From the article '...this kind of gene editing is banned in the United States because the DNA changes can pass to future generations and it risks harming other genes.'"

There is a problem with this reasoning, however. After the Mapping of the genome it was discovered that the "answer" just gave us new questions. In this case there is the new field of "Epigenetics." where proteins turn on and off bits and pieces of the DNA. And these changes are intergenerational. Things that identical twins do during their lifetimes has the effect of changing the identical nature of their DNA.

By ruling that we can't alter the prebirth gene because of what it might do to the offspring of those altered babies (at maturity) opens the door to making things like inhaling second hand smoke being ruled a crime against future generations. Or anorexia/bulimia. Or Over eating. Or Diet Soda. or or or or or ... Glenn, I think you and I can agree that when the door is opened it becomes a pathway paved with "Good Intentions." We agree where that pathway leads (I think we would, anyway. I'm sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth.)

I have heard arguments that lament that the children may be susceptible to This That and the other Thing, as if a child without the anti AIDS modification somehow isn't at risk of those "T's."

I do find it odd that the Dr. chose HIV to exemplify this process. Is AIDS that big in China that it needs to be preempted?

OTOH. if this works and we can eradicate illnesses by starving the virus, that, to me. sounds like a very good idea. (But I don't own a pharma corp that wants to sell a "life saving" drug cocktail that costs a Life Savings.)

PLAU
UPD

 

Robert Kernodle

20 Days Ago

I find myself liking the idea of being able to create [notice I use "create", not 'engineer"] humans who can experience longer, healthier, more fulfilling lives.

We've engineered our habitats to allow this. We've engineered our crop growing practices to allow this. ... our transportation, storage, cleanliness, safety. We constantly flirt with improving appearances. Why not get to the source of it all and just make changes at the most basic level ?

We are born engineers/creators. That's what humans do.

 

MM Anderson

20 Days Ago

To quote the character of Ian Malcom in "Jurrasic Park" -“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

I'm sure the genie is out of the bottle so to speak with genetic engineering of humans. I think it has the potential to do as much unintended harm as it does to do good and we humans don't always have a great track record with how we utilize scientific advancements. I don't think our understanding is sufficient to really know what the outcome of tinkering with the human genome at this point could be.

 

Drew

20 Days Ago

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

Reply:
This is how Robert Oppenheimer reacted when the first A. Bombs were deployed.

 

Chuck De La Rosa

20 Days Ago

BTW, this Dr. violated his OWN ethical recommendations on the subject. Recommendations he has made to the scientific community. So yes he stopped to think about it. He went ahead and did it anyway.

How far away are designer babies? Even if this is outlawed world wide, there will be a black market for it.

Another good book series is the "Beggers in Spain" trilogy by Nancy Kress. What the negative possibilities hold for human genetic engineering.

 

Yuri Tomashevi

20 Days Ago

The technology itself is just neutral. It is up to people, and society to decide what to do with technology. For example, an electricity could lighten up our homes or it could execute a people on an electric chairs.

Same goes with genetic engineering. The difference is that electricity and most previous technologies were dealing with environment outside human body. Genetic engineering and alike are technologies working inside human body.

There are three big problems here.

A first problem - as Yuval Harari pointed out - is that a human stupidity is a huge driving force in our history.

A second problem is that currently a humankind as a whole has a very little understanding on what is going on inside human body, brain and mind. Therefore we should expect many more unintended consequences from a use of genetic engineering than from a use of electricity. Even if it is done with the best intentions.

A third problem is about intentions ... We should not forget that we, humans, are animals, and not just any animals, but we are predators. We kill to eat. May be not individually now but collectively ... every day, in huge numbers. We are hard wired to do harm to life around.

I do not see any ways to fix those three problems.

Big Skip

This is a very popular discussion with 132 responses.   In order to help the page load faster and allow you to quickly read the most recent posts, we're only showing you the oldest 25 posts and the newest 25 posts.   Everything in the middle has been skipped.   Want to read the entire discussion?   No problem: click here.

 

As such 'Prudence needs to dictate'; unfortunately - as pointed out earlier - market, esteem and unconsciousness still reign; all else seems directed away from our inner-voice that knows - even when it is more convenient or 'appealing' to ignore...

 

Joe Burgess

11 Days Ago

Dear Sapien,

I am writing to inform you that anything you can do, I can do better.

Sincerely,
Homo Deus

P.S. The age of theological subjugation is rapidly coming to an end.
Thank you for your contributions. Have a nice day. :)

 

Drew

11 Days Ago

Now Joe, FAA rules applies across the board:)
Who am I to question their reasoning. Especially when I agree with them!

Having a deja vu moment!
Now that sidebar #2 is resolved:

"In my view the 'educational' avenue - at this time - is latent and not capable to foster what you expect of it. It is highly 'agenda' oriented and funded to a wide array of purposes not necessarily universal and inclusive to the views of many. IMHO"

Terrance,
I agree the present state of educational affairs are far from being in order. This is why I have involved myself in research and development of STEAM pedagogy. The present system is far from being uniform, fair, or overall affective.


"The least common denominator will be the evolver of the future."

Tony,
a good engineering approach by a fellow engineer but I don't think engineering alone is going to get humanity to the end-game whatever that is. The collective nature that is emerging include a wide range of people with many skills outside of engineering. Humanity just may be nothing more than informational sources feeding an already emerging singularity. A neural network (internet) satisfying its hunger with every user and their electronic devices happily feeding it continuously. A dynamic AI existing across the internet with said electronics collectively acting as ITs physical body. We are constantly improving technology and IT is constantly getting a stronger grip on humanity. $100,000 Robots are replacing employees who cost employers $100,000 peŕ year and VR gear can be strapped to one's head and technology can take us to places beyond imagination. And Now, designer babies! Ideas of Uberman(Ubermensch) dancing right before our eyes.

 

Drew - 'Terrance,
I agree the present state of educational affairs are far from being in order. This is why I have involved myself in research and development of STEAM pedagogy. The present system is far from being uniform, fair, or overall affective.'

That fills in the blanks a lot for me. Perhaps my vision and approach would conflict with such an innovative and progressive methodology. Engineering the next generations is not what I had in mind throughout my posts - perhaps I am simply naive when it comes to net-based conversation. I will strive to rectify that social shortcoming while continuing my quest through the purposive ambiguity of each and every facet of meaning that 'create' brings to mind - here and ever-after (if it so be). Bonne nuit

 

Yuri Tomashevi

11 Days Ago

There are three races into a future. All of them are already in progress.

1) A first is to create a Generic AI, which will have capacity of over billion times over total brain capacity of humankind. Estimate is that it will arrive at around 2045 year.
2) Second is to modify human DNA to create super-humans (who could be on par with Generic AI?). We just saw a first case in China. There is no estimate yet. My understanding is that such technology would require generations of people to go through DNA change. And there will be a big resistance to such advances. I would bet that Generic AI will arrive faster.
3) Third is to merge humans with machines (cyborgs creation). That technology does not require to go through generations of people. It could arrive relatively fast. Do you know that there are already over hundred thousand people around the world with some kind of chip implanted into their bodies? (Chip implants make humans more efficient - https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Chip-implants-make-humans-more-efficient-12003194.php ). All of them did it voluntarily. Nobody really objects it - because it is your body and you are the owner of it.

My guess is that 2nd trend is a slowest one and we could just disregard it.

Choosing between 1st and 3rd is hard. Nobody knows, but my take is that Generic AI would win. Just for, at least, two reasons.

First, advances in AI are mostly in software and advances in cyborgs are so far in hardware (until a really working interface between brain and software on a cloud will arrive). Rate of progress in software is much higher.
Second - It is, probably, enough to have just first one Generic AI to outsmart all humanity. As for cyborgs (who will still be partly humans) - we would need to have a big number of them with very good cooperation to be on par with Generic AI. That will take more time to achieve and we all know that we, humans, are really bad with genuine cooperation.

 

Drew

10 Days Ago

Yuri, if what you foresee as a probable future; huge swaths of people will not conform to an AI singularity's guidance and or leadership. The same people will not have chips implants to become cogs in the A.I machine. They will hack its weaknesses, they will find its vulnerabilities and exploit them. They will choose death over the promise of an artificial extension of life. There is very little indication that this existential threat will not bring about a dystopian society equal to if not worse than the many examples found in the prophetic imaginations of science fiction writers and that exceeds the horror of the first eugenics war (WW2).

 

Drew

10 Days Ago

"That fills in the blanks a lot for me. Perhaps my vision and approach would conflict with such an innovative and progressive methodology. Engineering the next generations is not what I had in mind throughout my posts - perhaps I am simply naive when it comes to net-based conversation. I will strive to rectify that social shortcoming while continuing my quest through the purposive ambiguity of each and every facet of meaning that 'create' brings to mind - here and ever-after (if it so be). "

Terrance, each individual's lexicon of communication is shaped by their experiences and environment. For years a STEM based education pedagogy has been pushed in the mainstream system of education and those who adapted have been rewarded. NOT everyone is geared towards pure mathematical and scientific thinking and art has been left out of the STEM pedagogical scheme. Art add so much more to a child's educational experience. For many children and young adults, art is the bridge that spans the greater educational experience. STEAM pedagogy IMHO helps build a mental bridge that produces a whole brain intellect and is a more inclusive theory as compared to the STEM model of education.

Interesting shift in the way a that a NASA scientist views intelligence.

article Link


 

'For many children and young adults, art is the bridge that spans the greater educational experience. ' -Drew

And who - especially in this forum - would oppose such a statement? No one from the path of reconstruction that I walk in, I assure you. And the inclusion, I would imagine, will 'serve' to smooth the edges and provide some hope - it probably will help the task of teaching and grant benefit to the student. But IMHO it will not shift the trajectory ( I withhold the first metaphor that comes to mind).

Peggy introduced a thread on 'Why' recently. I took the time to watch the video - it was no waste of time and I thank her for mounting it in the forum. My point is that the shift from STEM to STEAM does not address the 'Why'; the flip to STEAM merely band-aids an existing problem.

You have posted many articles and videos into this thread. In the interest of coming into conversation with you and the premise of your question, I spent much time reviewing the data to get into the theme you propose. And so I must ask if you have taken the time to review the BBC videos 'A Century of Self'? Or any other suggested material that I might have recently posted? Because much of that material is to the 'Why' people are not United - by the very core of their humanity - to bring society out of the dystopian-Trajectory that faces it.

Then again, if what Yuri has laid out in his last post is in fact the telos for humans on earth, then all is a mute point. But That can be shifted if people resist the nihilism and get their guts working with their brains (guts in respect to their Intuitional pathway to inform. Which by the way keeps humans from becoming Tautological and suffering Entropy)

Need we post the 4 episodes here?

 

Drew

10 Days Ago

Terrance, I did watch the first hour of the series and I have studied about Edward Bernays and his Lucky Strike propaganda machine before.
You are welcome to post the videos if you like. Over the next week or so, I will attempt to finish the documentary.

There is a lot to be said about how humans are subject to being programmed through various means and most people I come across resent the implication that they themselves are subject to such programming. Somehow, they are above being programmed.

 

Drew, First and foremost I what to thank you for acknowledging my post. Secondly, I appreciate you taking the time to watch these four episodes; it is a time consuming task. Especially that there are specific points that are raised and it is not uncommon for someone to be tasked to watch one or more of the episodes more than once. On several occasions, over many years time, I have had to reexamine the facts supplied therein because current events make it clearer and clearer that the rudimentary methodology has - as I and others recognize - been adopted and adapted to the level of an Art Form. All of which is now plugged-in, to this unprecedented achievement we call high technology.

You close your post stating that you know persons that, '...Somehow, they are above being programmed.' I am, of course, in no position to dispute that. Yet I am compelled to state that I find such to be remarkable if in fact it is so - unless these persons were completely segregated and disconnected from all that we call civilized society. I have no problem believing that a person 'considers themselves' UN-programed or UN-programmable - many an ego would be compelled to claim sovereignty. But it must be remembered that much of the affecting material arrives in tiny doses, over a long duration; and most disquieting is that it changes how, where and when... yet the why (the core of it) is the only true necessary constant.

Lastly I must say, thank you for giving your approval to post the videos in this thread. BUT I will not do that for the simple reason that these episodes are not easy to watch. Some people might find them disturbing visually and emotionally. The subject itself - why, what and how Public Relation was provoked into being the most powerful tool designed to tape human desire - is a sad testament to human potential (and inventiveness). That said, people who would rather know the workings, might well appreciate it as an entry into the subject. Thank you again for sifting through my posts.

 

Drew

5 Days Ago

Scientists find pattern in DNA code that aids and enhances CRSPR technology such that gene editing becomes much more precise significantly reducing erroneous editing.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-scientists-crispr-code-precise-human.amp

Intel's 3D Chip technology prolongs Moore's Law

https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/612587/intels-new-3d-chip-technology-may-help-prolong-moores-law/

 

Viet Tran

3 Days Ago

Just a Matter of Time

in
the infinite time.
life is too short.
it’s extremely shorter than the blink of an eye.
every mortal being must reach the end
of the tight rope very soon.
with
no exception
for the civilized mankind.

whenever man feels desperate and helpless
by severe pains from his physical sickness
and by unbearable stress from his mental mess.
he doesn’t always let himself totally depend on
only Heaven
by
praying
for delightful helps
from his almighty Father.

at least, he does something else more practical
he has tried his best
to be partly in control
of
his fate
as much as he could.

instead of believing in endless senseless gods
such as God of Thunder,
God of Light,
God of Fire,
etc.
man had defied these gods’ commands
he refused to reside as a brainless pet
in an eternal cage - the so-called Paradise.
he had decided to committing the “ancestral” sin
by
eating
the Fruit of Knowledge.
hence he has obtained science - the most powerful means
which has helped him unearth many different Laws of Nature
his understanding of those secrets has helped him made the Giant Leap
from the darkness of Stone Age to the bright light of the Modern Era.

the Church had always threatened, harassed, prosecuted, and killed many scientists
in the ruthless efforts to prevent them from committing the “sin”
of
violating Devine’s teachings.
those senseless deaths of scientists in the past were too meaningless to be comprehended
let alone to be condoned at the current era of technology.

alas!
nowadays
many believers have continuously retained their strong belief in god
and less faith or even no faith in science.
these naysayers have always tried to stop many daring scientific experiments
they keep condemning scientists
of breaching the current social’s moral and ethical limits.

could they ignore the facts?
applied science have clearly helped improve their health significantly;
and it also has made their daily livings more comfortable and convenient.
anyway, social’s values have constantly changed
many scientific research were considered ethically off-limits in the past
they have become beneficially accepted at the present time

it’s evidently obvious
science has been gradually taking over religions
it’s just a matter of time

Thao Chuong Tran Quoc Viet
12-15-2018

 

Doug Swanson

3 Days Ago

"Scientists find pattern in DNA code that aids and enhances CRSPR technology such that gene editing becomes much more precise significantly reducing erroneous editing.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-scientists-crispr-code-precise-human.amp "

I have a real hard time thinking that we can do this without going into the swamp of social engineering and nefarious politics. I don't even think of this as a partisan problem because I would not trust anybody with the ability to actually edit genes...absolute power corrupts absolutely. For every "engineer" that wants to cure a genetic disease, I can see 10 who want to grow a quarterback with unbreakable knees or a column of fearless, unstoppable soldiers or a labor force that never gets tired or bored.

Nothing I see in the real world of today suggests that we should do this. We got a little bit of a warning about this in Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, and an updated warning in Blade Runner, but those were just hinting at how things could end up. Humans are just not smart enough to make ourselves smarter (we don't even know what that is) or pull us up by our own bootstraps.

 

Drew

2 Days Ago

"it’s evidently obvious
science has been gradually taking over religions
it’s just a matter of time"

Viet, Your perception is simular to
Nietzsche's BUT you are also pitting religion and science. To do this openly violates FAA's rules according to my understanding of said rules.
I would enjoy very much to expand on the philosophical vs theological BUT I can't. I also am willing to except this restriction do to the divisive nature various theologians push with competing dogma. This in turn will disenfranchise the minority theology to that possessed by the hegemony. I do not want any being excluded or a theocratic war of words to break down the discourse.


"I have a real hard time thinking that we can do this without going into the swamp of social engineering and nefarious politics."

Doug,
Social Engineering is the foundation of civilization.

 

Drew to your post: "Doug,
Social Engineering is the foundation of civilization." Frankly, I am fond of Doug's position because it acknowledges the paradigmatic-shift that we should awaken to and account for, when hashing through the implications at hand - too easily we dismiss the obvious, to circumstances that are truly played out to a different objective.

 

Drew

2 Days Ago

Terrance, my statement was not an attempt to dismiss the validity of Doug's position. It was to establish the fact that civilization and social engineering are synonymous. From clan organisations consisting of chieftains and shaman to modernity's rules, customs, and social expectations all are the cohesive forces binding the individual to the civilization. The individuals participation in society is based on the momentum of the society they are born into. An illiterate person in a literate society is affected negatively by a society engineered to read and right. Reading and writing are tools used such that a society communicates homogeneously. Ideas can be transferred with a common standardized language and so can social engineered statements used in controlling large number of people.

 

Doug Swanson

2 Days Ago

I'm not referring to social engineering from the perspective of literacy, customs or laws since that happens all the time. What I'm referring to is social engineering that goes right into our genes. For one thing, nothing I know about genetics convinces me that we have the knowledge to make a change and expect a foreseeable outcome; the science to do that is lacking. The other part is the agenda. There's just no way that you can approach this that does NOT have an agenda and all of those agendas will start with a preamble that refers to the "betterment of humankind", like what the Nazis had in mind when they wanted to eliminate all of those "inferior races". Inferior can cover a lot of factors, none of which include the person that decides what's inferior.

Our lack of detailed understanding of what genes actually do would also result in a lot of unintended consequences; genes don't come with a color code or a help file and the chemistry of life is so complex that we'd be in the position of being like an artist who fills a shotgun with paint in order to hope that, if he shoots enough, the paint will replicate the Mona Lisa. I am not the slightest bit anti-science or anti-research, but I don't think we're cognitively up to this any more than we are to knowing WHY the universe exists. For every project intended to eliminate cancer there would inevitably be another to form a more compliant version of humans.

 

At best, to this date, homogeneously, remains a matter reserved to neighborhoods'; as do rules, customs, expectations. Civilization on the other hand is a blanket (universal) term, in itself, an idealistic thought - in many ways unattainable, given the present quandary our species is faced with. Although "civilization and social engineering" are co-dependent calling them 'synonymous' is no way 'fact'.

Even if you have presented some 'factual-aspects', it all simply continues to bypass (for better word), rather than address, the premise that Doug put forward. Given the level of gravity to the implications surrounding a 'physical and ever-after enduring 'engineered' alteration, (at the most Imperative foundation of 'known' human substrate) - it can only be seen as cavalier, hubris, on our part.

Civilizations, it might be added, come and go....All in consequence to the natural evolve of the universe, world, and then including human-beings....

I question what point you are truly making as this discussion moves forward.

Sorry was composing; during which Doug posted.

 

Drew

2 Days Ago

"What I'm referring to is social engineering that goes right into our genes. For one thing, nothing I know about genetics convinces me that we have the knowledge to make a change and expect a foreseeable outcome; the science to do that is lacking."

Doug,
I absolutely agree with this statement. BUT will the science and technology continue to move forward?

If yes, will it be done by a committee of experts who has the ability to maintain ethical standards that are universal or will the driver come from a specific ideology that surves the existential subculture who developes and commands the technology or will there be some other driver or drivers.

If no then we are all safe from the threat of social genetic engineering BUT possible fixes for disease will not be developed that otherwise can be addressed with genetic engineering.

Terrance, I am not going to get into a pissing contest over semantics. I don't even see a purpose in doing so. All that does is distract from the discussion.; a discussion that I am SURPRISED that has lasted as long as it has.

 

Viet Tran

2 Days Ago

"I question what point you are truly making as this discussion moves forward."

I believe that this discussion would provide a rough idea of how conservative or liberal the thread participants as highly creative artists would be in regard of experiment something creatively new and daring - even in science.

 

Drew

2 Days Ago

Viet, I appreciate your perspective on the value of a discussion such as this.
As in many discussions, the intent is not to gain points as in an argument BUT to share a variety of perspectives on a controversial matter.

 

Viet Tran

2 Days Ago

BUT will the science and technology continue to move forward?


I think not much could be done to stop science and technology from continuously moving forward, especially in the medicine field. Simply, because the outcomes provide huge short term benefits so attractive that drive us AWAY from paying attention to all potential NEGATIVE impacts in the long run. In addition, on the economic ground, those outcomes have brought endless cash flow of trillions of dollars to those businesses and big corporations that have been providing essential fundings for those research.

 

Doug Swanson

2 Days Ago

"If yes, will it be done by a committee of experts who has the ability to maintain ethical standards that are universal" - Uh no. When did humans EVER, EVER conform to a moral or ethical plan? That's just not in our current genes. What our genes do have is self-interest, cloaked in human interest, AKA corruption.

 

Yuri Tomashevi

2 Days Ago

We are moving from social engineering to human DNA engineering.

A big distinction is that a social engineering is applied to groups of people and it is assumed that there is some central (government) planning and implementation of it. DNA engineering could be applied to a single person. It does not require central planning and implementation. It could be done by any qualified person or group of people.

There are two other important characteristics of DNA engineering - unforeseen consequences and time frame. They are interrelated.

First, there could be a lot of side effects and unforeseen consequences, even with all good intentions. There is a standard solution right now to drastically reduce a number and severity of side effects and unforeseen consequences for any new possible entity (like drugs), which could impact humans. - That is to perform multiple studies / trials with reliable statistics - first on non-humans, then on humans. Those studies took many years and involve hundreds and thousands people. Even with that we have multiple side effects on any used drug.

Here is a well known example about side effects / unforeseen consequences. During human trials (to treat high blood pressure and angina) researchers discovered that Viagra is more effective at inducing erections than to treat angina. Current Viagra usage is an unforeseen consequence of a human trial of the drug. During a further human trials of Viagra (as an erection inducing drug) multiple side effects were found. And those side effects could be very severe. For example, there could be a sudden vision loss in one or both eyes and / or sudden hearing decrease or hearing loss.

Now a time frame is coming into a play with DNA engineering. First, such trials would continue for multiple generations. And to be statically reliable those trials should involve hundreds and thousands people. People who would like to do DNA engineering will not wait. As a result our society would be flooded with people with multiple different DNA modifications without any knowledge of their side effects and unforeseen consequences. That is a huge problem by itself - even if we assume that we have all good intentions on DNA engineering.

 

Yuri Tomashevi

2 Days Ago

And those DNA modified people would not have a sign "I'm DNA modified" on their forehead.

 

Drew

1 Day Ago

Viet and Doug, I do agree that the research will continue and l am not so optimistic to think that a committee of well intentioned experts can regulate genetic engineering such that the greater good is obtained.

 

Drew

22 Hours Ago

"And those DNA modified people would not have a sign "I'm DNA modified" on their forehead. "
Yuri, I find that to be an interesting notion! I recall that science and industry has so perfected synthetic emeralds that a trace element is infused into the chemical make-up so that they can be differentiated from natural emeralds.
Who's to say that some sort of tag will not be genetically coded into GMO humans?


The following article reminds me of "The Island of Dr. Moreau."

https://futurism.com/gene-editing-mutated-animals-crispr/amp/

 

Doug Swanson

16 Hours Ago

Victor Frankenstein tried this by cutting and sewing corpses, which is labor intensive, and needs a supply of fresh corpses, but being more sophisticated, we want to tamper with genes, which can be passed down and reproduced. At least in the Blade Runner world, replicants had expiration dates, but if there's profit to be had from replicants that live 200 years, guess what will happen and who will make them.....probably NOT the good guys.

 

Post Reply

Please login before posting a reply to this message.   If you do not have an account on Pixels, click here to create one!

Username

Password