Does will be ethical to artificialy be means of genetic engineering to increase human IQ

[Pawelk198604]

I have mixed feelings about this. Some people will case that it will deminish chance of people genius born this way. But I think it bring more good than harm. I wll glad to know you opinion about this.

I started debate about this

http://www.debate.org/debates/Does-will-be-ethical-to-artificialy-be-means-of-genetic-engineering-to-increase-human-IQ/1/

[Darnok]

That is wrong question, first you should ask do we really need genetic engineering to become smarter.

[MinimumSky5]

If we're going to use genetic engineering on our species, lets use it to eradicate genetic diseases, rather than make those who won the genetic lottery win bigger.

[lajoswinkler]

If it is applied to everyone, then yes.

Unfortunately, it would not, and everything would gradually turn into a dystopia.

[Pawelk198604]

If it is applied to everyone, then yes.

Unfortunately, it would not, and everything would gradually turn into a dystopia.

Dystopia?

[r4pt0r]

If it is applied to everyone, then yes.

Unfortunately, it would not, and everything would gradually turn into a dystopia.

People get born with advantages over others all the time, thats just life.

I see no problem with any genetic tinkering.

Those people who say "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should" confuse me. bit off topic but if we are ever able to clone mammoths, you can be dang sure I want to see one cloned.

[MinimumSky5]

Dystopia?

A horribly unequal society, normally with some form of disaster that either has or is in the process of occurring (e.g. Panem from the Hunger Games, Mega-City One in Dredd)

[Darnok]

A horribly unequal society, normally with some form of disaster that either has or is in the process of occurring (e.g. Panem from the Hunger Games, Mega-City One in Dredd)

and ....-Germany (during WWII)

why I can't write ....?

[magnemoe]

If it is applied to everyone, then yes.

Unfortunately, it would not, and everything would gradually turn into a dystopia.

GM on this level is pretty much nanotech. High development cost and low unit cost. No current GM does not work like that however to use it on humans you would need to get the error rate almost to zero who again will require an automated process, its not like you can try this hundreds of times like the often do with GM on plants.

Now if you have an product with an high development cost, low unit cost and high demand you always go for the mass marked.

Cures for genetic diseases is likely to be more expensive as they are more custom made and have less customers, also an high chance the custumer himself is not paying so its no need to keep the price low.

[lajoswinkler]

Dystopia?

Opposite of utopia.

People get born with advantages over others all the time, thats just life.

I see no problem with any genetic tinkering.

Those people who say "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should" confuse me. bit off topic but if we are ever able to clone mammoths, you can be dang sure I want to see one cloned.

It's not what I was talking about. I'd very much like for diseases to be eradicated. The problem is that humans are a horrible species that turns all opportunities into the worst shape possible before (if ever) realizing things could be done better. It would turn into castes.

Increasing IQ, "beauty" (determined by some .......) and health combined for rich classes only... That would end up badly.

[Pawelk198604]

A horribly unequal society, normally with some form of disaster that either has or is in the process of occurring (e.g. Panem from the Hunger Games, Mega-City One in Dredd)

Opposite of utopia.

It's not what I was talking about. I'd very much like for diseases to be eradicated. The problem is that humans are a horrible species that turns all opportunities into the worst shape possible before (if ever) realizing things could be done better. It would turn into castes.

Increasing IQ, "beauty" (determined by some .......) and health combined for rich classes only... That would end up badly.

I know what it means, but I do not know how it relates to my question?

What harm would be if people were able to increase IQ with the help of science?

[peadar1987]

It depends. If it's available to everyone at an affordable price, wonderful, go for it. Roll it out like we do with vaccinations.

If it's only available for rich people, well, I'm a socialist at heart, and don't think that the disparity of opportunity between rich and poor should grow any greater. An equal society is more important to me than a small, select class of Ubermensch being able to improve themselves and widen the gap between them and the rest of the population even further.

[lajoswinkler]

The gap would grow horribly. I'm telling you, that would turn the society towards an actual SF dystopia.

Even today, chronically poor nations, on average, have lower IQ, because lots of people grows up malnutritioned. If you don't feed kids properly in the first years of life, brains on average don't end up optimal.

Now widen the gap with this and it gets very bad.

Just imagine if vaccinations (great example, btw) weren't available to everyone by humanitarian help.

[Tex_NL]

This discussion has come and gone several times already here on the forum.

Go and watch the movie Gattaca. Then you'll know why genetic engineering in humans is a BAD idea.

[NFUN]

This discussion has come and gone several times already here on the forum.

Go and watch the movie Gattaca. Then you'll know why genetic engineering in humans is a BAD idea.

Because movies always reflect reality. I'm not saying the issues presented are impossible, but they aren't certain either. One can't use the results from one imagined scenario to discount all other possibilities, in fact, movies should warn us of risks and inspire us to prevent them, not discourage any advancement at all

In any case, humanity would probably have developed some type of cheap, highly effective birth control that would allow women to only get pregent when she desired that was more ubiquitous than forms today, possibly even deactivating genes until they were needed. What I find more messed up about the movie is (IIRC) that the parents were biased against their non-enhanced child when it was their stupid, easily prevented mistakes that put him at a disadvantage in the first place. Otherwise, that Universe was decent. Besides from ethical objectors, the technology would certainly be rolled out to those who couldn't currently afford it (the middle class could), with government programs helping if it did not. From the point of view of that society, normal people are a drag on society, and costly, so even if ithat society was a unempathetic dystopia it would have reason to give the technology to all within a few generations. The Third World would be likely screwed, but they are now, and eventually they would be treated too. People in Gattaca cared so much about enhancement and were so biased about it charities would likely sprout up offering it to expectant Third World mothers. Besides, manned missions to Titan, man!

Edited July 16, 2015 by NFUN

[magnemoe]

This discussion has come and gone several times already here on the forum.

Go and watch the movie Gattaca. Then you'll know why genetic engineering in humans is a BAD idea.

Hollywood tend to get GM as realistic as combat in space.

Stuff with high development / fixed costs but low unit cost becomes mass marked, or more accurate they do not take off before becoming mass marked: Computer and mobile phones is the best examples but most industry products with wide interest and modest production cost follows the pattern, also medicine you have to pay for yourself.

Yes it will still cost money so if you are poor you are unlikely to afford it. In the beginning it will be expensive, see price development on TV screens, this has some benefits as you get limited exposure in the beginning so bugs get caught.

I see it as an good thing to do if you can do it safe. Now you might get some issues like how the various mods will interact in the next generation, it will not be one but multiple sets also because of price, might be cheaper to do another treatment in another country. You will get fashions. God know that something like goths will do with it

In the end its some chance we might end up as multiple species.

[Pawelk198604]

This discussion has come and gone several times already here on the forum.

Go and watch the movie Gattaca. Then you'll know why genetic engineering in humans is a BAD idea.

Well i watched Gattaca and it's one of my favorite movie, it's would be great to debate it too.

I have Asperger, recently i watched video about young promising aspi scientist Jacob Barnett, BTW he has 16 years old with 170 IQ, i'm only 100 IQ I have to admit that I envy him

Would not it be nice if we all had such an intelligence quotient or even greater?

[Darnok]

So who is going to be second category citizen the one with modified genes or we?

How long it would take for super-IQ humans to start to think they are better and we are just using their resources while they would use those resources much better because they are smarter?

Edited July 16, 2015 by Darnok

[vger]

People get born with advantages over others all the time, thats just life.

I see no problem with any genetic tinkering.

"Harrison Bergeron?"

[AngelLestat]

it seems wrong, but I prefer this than become obsolete against machines.

[KerikBalm]

So who is going to be second category citizen the one with modified genes or we?

How long it would take for super-IQ humans to start to thing they are better and we are just using resources they would use much better because they are smarter?

The ones that could afford it would already be the 0.1% that have all the resources.

They'd look down on us peasants even more than they already do.

[Darnok]

The ones that could afford it would already be the 0.1% that have all the resources.

They'd look down on us peasants even more than they already do.

You are right, but your children can be smarter than their children, because of evolution, while with gene engineering it would be impossible?

[Tex_NL]

The reason I mentioned Gattaca is simple. The how and why in the movie doesn't matter, what it does display nicely is what can and probably will happen. Genetic modifications will split the human race into two classes; those with modifications and those without. Nowadays we can't even share things like food and water with those less privileged. Millions die of thirst and starvation. Thinking 'we' would share the genetic mods would be delusional.

Those with money and power can afford to get modified. They will be stronger, faster, smarter and healthier. AS a result they will be richer and more powerful. Those who can not afford modifications, or choose not to for for example religious reasons will earn less and suffer poorer health. They simply can not compete with those modified. They will become second class citizens.

Only after the human race reaches the emotional maturity to share fair and equally genetic modifications will not split society.

[magnemoe]

The ones that could afford it would already be the 0.1% that have all the resources.

They'd look down on us peasants even more than they already do.

The same way only the rich has phones, computers and cars.

The only thing only the very rich has is stuff like palaces, yachts and private jets.

Note an important difference between the groups, the last is very expensive to build and to maintain but outside of the jets who is modified passenger planes they are cheaper to develop.

If your main concern is high developing costs you want to get the volume up.

- - - Updated - - -

Note that China has shown interest in using GM to increasing IQ, it will sell well in China even if small increases. Problem is that the genes for intelligence is very complex and not well mapped.

I think other health issues included slower aging is more promising in the short term.

Also messing around with brain chemistry has some obvious dangers then not knowing exactly that you are doing, changes who keep blood pressure down or prevent diabetics should be simpler, lower risk and having larger effects.

It will also change the discussion from should we do it into other are doing it should we also do it too?

[YNM]

I think the main problem is going to be ethics. Changing the human genome means something to die off in the process from some failure (yeah, no way to get rid of it). Anyway, I don't have any idea over how genomes can affect intelligence - AFAIK intelligence can't be inherited, only passed by habits of the parents. Also, IQ can be raised way simpler than changing some genetic things, not to mention we must know what kind of intelligence they want to have.