Human genetic modification?

[Frozen_Heart]

After having a debate about genetically modifying human embryos to remove genetic diseases, I've been surprised to find that my friends and family are all strictly against it.

So I've decided to take the question here to see what you guys think of the matter.

Personally I'm all for it as long as the change is something that would otherwise affect the persons quality of life. (Aka no designer babies)

[Albert VDS]

The main reason, at least that what I think, is that people don't understand how it works/what it is.

DNA essentially is code or you could even call it firmware, and by genetically altering it you can remove "bugs".

It's potentially the biggest tool to improve the human race.

And you are right, there should only be changes which improve the quality of life(of course also within it's limits).

Changing DNA just to have a blond child is like giving your kid cosmetic plastic surgery, it's not their choice and can never be.

[Greenfire32]

Yeah it's a very thin line to walk, but I'm all for it if it improves quality of life. For instance, if we can for certain eliminate genetic diseases such as inherited diabetes or cancers, then do it.

But if you want a red haired baby just "because," then no.

This is like the atomic bomb. It's one hell of a tool. But it can only be used for 1 thing and 1 thing alone. Otherwise the whole world would come apart.

[Nuke]

nukes can be used for a couple of things.

bring on the mutant babies!

[Tex_NL]

A classic movie you really should watch; Gattaca.

[Guest]

It's the same with anything new. People are scared and will only listen when people try it and it works.

A few years ago if they wanted the LHC to be turned on they'd spout rubbish about black holes that they knew nothing about. It's the same here.

It will slowly come into more and more use, and people will forget they were ever against it.

[RainDreamer]

Well, I am all for human genetic modification in order to make our lives better. However, there is no promises that it will do so. Even if the technology is completely safe and its uses are completely benevolent, you gotta think about the economics of it too. Like any complicate medical procedures, it is gonna cost banks. Who is going to be able to afford it? Well, the ones with money of course.

Perhaps there might be government policies that provide such treatments for lower cost, or have insurances that now extend over genetic deficiencies, but both of that is going to be difficult to get either way for most people (think about the insurance policies currently when your family has known genetic problems...). So we are going to see rich people even more healthier from generation to generation, and poor people just gotta pray that life doesn't deal them some genetic diseases because they got not much else they can do.

Of course things may happen otherwise, perhaps the technology will actually be so innovative and cost effective that everyone is going to be able to get it, and human race as a whole is going to benefit from it. Though I suspect it will still get its price jacked up for profit either way.

All that said, I think it is still a worthy endeavours to look into our genetic material and eliminate problems before they manifest, and it will surely be beneficial to the human race. We just have to look at the big picture, see what the implications are for our technology, and prepare for its consequences.

[pincushionman]

…as long as it's only for fixing defects, and not to…

This is where this stops being a good idea. What constituted a defect? More importantly, which defects deserve to be fixed - well, pre-fixed, so to speak, in this manner? Because once something is shown it can be altered, someone will offer that for a price, regardless of how necessary it is.

EDIT: That's not to say I'm against it - that would be thowing out the baby with the bath water. You just have to keep aware that this is one of those circumstances where you can't throw out the the bath water and still keep the baby.

Edited April 23, 2015 by pincushionman

[Deutherius]

Knowing what it's like living with a genetic disease, I am all for it.

My mom has the Marfan syndrome, pretty much the whole bad package (heart valve and aortal defects, problems with eyes, lungs, bones, joints...), and I have inherited the same thing. While I have learned to accept it, and it partly makes me who I am, it is one of the reasons why I don't particularly want an offspring - s/he would most likely have to deal with the same thing.

If genetic modification has the power of sparing my children these problems (and many more), I wouldn't hesitate, and I believe my mom would go for it as well, if she had the chance.

[Darnok]

The main reason, at least that what I think, is that people don't understand how it works/what it is.

DNA essentially is code or you could even call it firmware, and by genetically altering it you can remove "bugs".

It's potentially the biggest tool to improve the human race.

Yeah it's a very thin line to walk, but I'm all for it if it improves quality of life. For instance, if we can for certain eliminate genetic diseases such as inherited diabetes or cancers, then do it.

But if you want a red haired baby just "because," then no.

So "baby designer" is wrong, but "designer of our species" is fine?

Can you predict the consequence such adjustments for the entire species?

How do limits and common sense work is illustrated by plastic surgery.

These operations also were intended to improve the standard of living and serve only aesthetics, and in the meantime, we have plenty of Barbie with a low IQ, but very good looking at the pictures. Very good looking for fans of artificiality of course.

And how do you think the people whose children have been corrected will treat those people who could not afford to corrections?

We had something like that in Germany during WW2, and not only then.

Often in our history, there have been times when one group of people believed to be better because of its advantages or origin, and due to the fact that they consider themselves superior they will also believed that they deserve privileges. Precise the same way group of people after corrections will be thinking of those who can not afford corrections.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Darnok

[KerikBalm]

I'm all for it, and have even proposed doing it on the "down-low" through use of undisclosed additions to sperm bank deposits

Humans should have photolyase... we mammals are freaks of nature for not having it, but exposing ourselves to the sun!

[Bill Phil]

Problem is, no one wants to donate embryos. No one wants to be a surrogate for this. Good luck having it happen anytime soon.

DNA is complicated. There's a lot of "junk" DNA, but we just don't know what it dies. Perhaps it's important. Perhaps not. You can't just change DNA for a better quality of life. You have to change a sequence little by little to see each change. That's per person. So it would take either a lot of people or a lot of generations.

[-Velocity-]

As soon as it can be done safely, we need to do it. There are lots of improvements that could be made to us. As I've said before, one of the main problems with humans is that we're adapted to the "tribal caveman" style of life by millions of years of evolution. We're still essentially wild, "undomesticated" animals, and never have we properly adapted to civilization and the supremacy over natural pressures. One of the processes by which we could better adapt would be genetic modification.

And this latest episode it just goes to show you- if one group of people won't embrace genetic modification, another group will. Once the technology to modify our genetics exists and proliferates and advances, it's going to happen whether you like it or not. It's better to embrace it and learn to do it safely and positively. Once we actually make "Intelligent Design" come true, designing ourselves to be a civilized, united species instead of a tribal caveman species, truly wonderful possibilities can be unlocked.

[-Velocity-]

And it might be far easier to modify humans in ways to reduce our proclivity for violence than you might think. An example is chimpanzees vs. bonobos. Bonobos are only separated from chimps by probably less than one million years of evolution, but they have vastly different societies. Chimpanzees live in violent, male-dominated social groups, while bonobos live in a peaceful matriarchal groups. Chimps commonly kill each other, while bonobos supposedly never kill each other (or at least, almost never).

So perhaps by closely studying the genetic difference between chimpanzees and bonobos, we can discover changes we could make to humans to make us less like chimpanzees and more like bonobos. At least, that's my idea.

But really, is there any real question of what the major difference between chimps and bonobos really is? It's the females. It's the fact that females are the guiding force in bonobo "society". In humans, how many wars do women start? How many violent female dictators have there been in history? How many murders to women commit (hint: it's only about 10%). How many of our problems can simply be traced down to nothing more complicated than testosterone? Being "manly" generally implies that you are unempathetic, unexpressive, violent, and seek dominance. The very fact that this is seen as a virtue is part of the problem with us!!! Being "manly" is the exact opposite of being virtuous!

I'm not saying that we necessarily need to reduce testosterone or anything like that- that could actually be dangerous. We have a more complicated task- we need to find a way to make men as empathetic as women. As Stephan Hawking himself recently said, "the problem with humans is that we do not have enough empathy" (or something to that effect). Testosterone appears to affect the brain or brain development in a way that makes men more prone to violence, less prone to empathy, and more dominant over women. That's what we have to change. Not only would we get less violence and a more peaceful society, men would probably take a more active role in child rearing. So the same modification that could lead to fewer wars and murders could lead to stronger families!

And no, I am not a woman. I'm a man, disgusted by all the horrible things humans do and that are, overwhelmingly, done by men, not women.

[SuperFastJellyfish]

...But really, is there any real question of what the major difference between chimps and bonobos really is? It's the females. It's the fact that females are the guiding force in bonobo "society". In humans, how many wars do women start? How many violent female dictators have there been in history? How many murders to women commit (hint: it's only about 10%). How many of our problems can simply be traced down to nothing more complicated than testosterone? Being "manly" generally implies that you are unempathetic, unexpressive, violent, and seek dominance. The very fact that this is seen as a virtue is part of the problem with us!!! Being "manly" is the exact opposite of being virtuous!

And no, I am not a woman. I'm a man, disgusted by all the horrible things humans do and that are, overwhelmingly, done by men, not women. ...

You can't use 'how many wars do women start?' as a way to argue violent behavior. Men are simply bigger and stronger than women, in general, so they have been dominant more often. Which leads to more chances for a male to start a war as there have been more males than women in dominant roles in the many different societies humans have had.

Edited April 23, 2015 by SuperFastJellyfish

[Bill Phil]

And it might be far easier to modify humans in ways to reduce our proclivity for violence than you might think. An example is chimpanzees vs. bonobos. Bonobos are only separated from chimps by probably less than one million years of evolution, but they have vastly different societies. Chimpanzees live in violent, male-dominated social groups, while bonobos live in a peaceful matriarchal groups. Chimps commonly kill each other, while bonobos supposedly never kill each other (or at least, almost never).

So perhaps by closely studying the genetic difference between chimpanzees and bonobos, we can discover changes we could make to humans to make us less like chimpanzees and more like bonobos. At least, that's my idea.

But really, is there any real question of what the major difference between chimps and bonobos really is? It's the females. It's the fact that females are the guiding force in bonobo "society". In humans, how many wars do women start? How many violent female dictators have there been in history? How many murders to women commit (hint: it's only about 10%). How many of our problems can simply be traced down to nothing more complicated than testosterone? Being "manly" generally implies that you are unempathetic, unexpressive, violent, and seek dominance. The very fact that this is seen as a virtue is part of the problem with us!!! Being "manly" is the exact opposite of being virtuous!

I'm not saying that we necessarily need to reduce testosterone or anything like that- that could actually be dangerous. We have a more complicated task- we need to find a way to make men as empathetic as women. As Stephan Hawking himself recently said, "the problem with humans is that we do not have enough empathy" (or something to that effect). Testosterone appears to affect the brain or brain development in a way that makes men more prone to violence, less prone to empathy, and more dominant over women. That's what we have to change. Not only would we get less violence and a more peaceful society, men would probably take a more active role in child rearing. So the same modification that could lead to fewer wars and murders could lead to stronger families!

And no, I am not a woman. I'm a man, disgusted by all the horrible things humans do and that are, overwhelmingly, done by men, not women.

It's not testosterone. It's society itself. Societal definitiona of what you should be dictate most humans.

Btw, in bonobos, a group of makes doesn't trust another group of males until the first group's females mate with the new group. Personally, I don't like that.

[Brotoro]

One of the problems is that manipulating genes is still hit or miss as to what results you're going to get (one bit of DNA code can affect many different things). So the experiments needed to find the result you want could end up making a lot of defective humans, which many people object to.

[Mazon Del]

To be quite honest. I am for human genetic modification. Even beyond simple quality of life adjustments. If I want to go through a (probably quite painful) process over the course of (probably 6-7) years in order to have fur, feathers, a tail, wings, or whatever, why does someone else get to tell me I cannot do this? Sure, there is the argument about passing things along to my children, but there are plenty of "outs" for this. First, parents get to decide a HUGE amount of things for their children. What medical procedures to get, where they go to school, where they live, (before a certain age) who they can be friends with. You can't quite claim a designer baby if I'm leaving its genetics up to random chance like everybody else, just with a different setup (presumably I'd be with someone of compatible germlines). Another one, what if something is done (extraction & preservation, sterility, wonky alterations so the changes cannot be passed on [if possible]) such that my children cannot inherit my features?

At the risk of possibly starting a threadlocking argument, I feel the following is a valid question.

Why do I have to STAY human if I choose not to be?

[Bill Phil]

Mazon Del, your cards have already been dealt. No stacking the deck now.

I'm all for using genetics to cure diseases, such as Tay Sachs and worse. Because then a life has been saved. But changing yourself because you want to, barring th impossibility, isn't reasonable. You have to work with what you've been dealt. That's what life is about.

[Superluminaut]

We should, and beyond just disease. Let's press beyond our limits.

[*Aqua*]

I'm all for using genetics to cure diseases, such as Tay Sachs and worse. Because then a life has been saved. But changing yourself because you want to, barring th impossibility, isn't reasonable. You have to work with what you've been dealt. That's what life is about.

That means stagnation. If you don't go forwards you go backwards.

Humanity already disconnected from natural evolution. What usually died because of genetic disabilities can now survive and even produce offspring.

I don't think man will survive the next 10 000 years or so if he doesn't change and adapt to new circumstances (one of them is the human domination of Earth). So we need to alter our DNA. If it will include a pair of wings or something like that I don't know but something needs to be done when we are be able to do so.

[wizisi2k]

I am 100% against this at the current level because of the problems it can induce. However, since it has been begun, it's going to end up something like Khan OR people from the anime Gundam Seed. Those are the two extremes I can see. How long is the question. One of those was a war the other became a civilization in space. If it can be used to cure a disease, it will either be suppressed OR insanely expensive for normal people. If it can be used for that, it can be used to enhance unborn people-and that will be priced outta reach of normal people.

[Bill Phil]

That means stagnation. If you don't go forwards you go backwards.

Humanity already disconnected from natural evolution. What usually died because of genetic disabilities can now survive and even produce offspring.

I don't think man will survive the next 10 000 years or so if he doesn't change and adapt to new circumstances (one of them is the human domination of Earth). So we need to alter our DNA. If it will include a pair of wings or something like that I don't know but something needs to be done when we are be able to do so.

Not at all...

Natural Selection still works, you know. Homo sapiens is merely a chapter in the book of humanity. Each of us are less than a letter. The next chapter will be the next human species... And it doesn't necessarily require direct genetic modification.

Heck, the only thing I can see being done through genetic modification is the removal of redundant organs/systems and improving efficiency of the useful ones.

Plus, all major genetic changes must occur early in embryonic development. So, one can not just change him or herself.

[magnemoe]

Not at all...

Natural Selection still works, you know. Homo sapiens is merely a chapter in the book of humanity. Each of us are less than a letter. The next chapter will be the next human species... And it doesn't necessarily require direct genetic modification.

Heck, the only thing I can see being done through genetic modification is the removal of redundant organs/systems and improving efficiency of the useful ones.

Plus, all major genetic changes must occur early in embryonic development. So, one can not just change him or herself.

Natural selection work as spreading protection against lethal diseases who kills in young age.

Anything who can be fixed by eating pills or an operation is not an evolutionary handicap, even most types of infertility is not

Has been an few changes the last 10.000 years, mostly increased disease resistance after living for thousands of years in crowded cities with no sanitation or health care, one curios one is the mostly the ability to drink milk, not everyone has this, mostly groups who never held cattle or other animals to take milk from.

It will not be another human species, not even in 100.000 years, say an million years and I agree. Low evolutionary pressure and people move around a lot.

[Bill Phil]

Natural selection work as spreading protection against lethal diseases who kills in young age.

Anything who can be fixed by eating pills or an operation is not an evolutionary handicap, even most types of infertility is not

Has been an few changes the last 10.000 years, mostly increased disease resistance after living for thousands of years in crowded cities with no sanitation or health care, one curios one is the mostly the ability to drink milk, not everyone has this, mostly groups who never held cattle or other animals to take milk from.

It will not be another human species, not even in 100.000 years, say an million years and I agree. Low evolutionary pressure and people move around a lot.

I don't understand your first sentence... at all...

I never said that this would be an evolutionary handicap, just that direct genetic modification isn't really necessary, and that progress is being made as to natural evolution.

There will be another human species within the next few hundred thousand years. Homo sapiens has only been around a few hundred thousand, and since everything is going faster nowadays... I wouldn't be surprised to see a successor in the next 200000 years.