• Log in or sign up for an account here: https://www.sythe.org/login

Genetic engineering of humans

Shredderbeam

Shredderbeam

Hero

Do Not Trade
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Sythe Gold
664
Messages
8,579
Location
NH, USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

As science advances, we find that experiments on animals involving genetic engineering are becoming more and more successful (lifespan of mice being doubled, metabolism of lizards being drastically sped up, rats being given brilliant night-vision, etc.).

This opens up a realm of ethical and moral dilemmas: We could make some tweaks to the human genome to ease suffering (to eliminate cancer, genetic defects, vulnerability to certain diseases, etc.), but with this, it is also possible to do such things as massively increase a humans intelligence, their physical endurance, etc.

Should genetic engineering of humans be allowed, and if so, what, if any, limits should be imposed on it? Discuss, argue, etc.
 
Hmm well that is a hard one. I have to say to a certain extent to test on humans use some sick people maybe some who are terminal that way you know they are going to die.But I guess even that way you will have liberal media all over the place and people being called monsters.....Is it worth it?

well Im gonna say its probably not worth especially for moral reasons. It's ethical yeah but many people disagree and now I'm just blabbering on but the point in simple is it should be done to a certain extent.
 
i think that it could help alot of people, but it would lead to overpopulation if our lifespans were doubled and diseases were cured. im sure a ton of religous nuts would be against it too
 
I agree with Jason^^
Only a tiny bit, and to a certain extent - don't let it go too far and turn us into some ugly stuff like Magi O.o




















































Just kidding :D
 
Sp pker5 said:
i think that it could help alot of people, but it would lead to overpopulation if our lifespans were doubled and diseases were cured. im sure a ton of religous nuts would be against it too
Click to expand...

Something I was also trying to state they would say its unatural and then you got lot's and lots of protesters talking about immorality and how we're all going to hell. But we also deal with overpopulation as it is not enough jobs for people and such if we increase lifespans and cure all diseases, houses will be smaller cities will be bigger and pollution increased tenfold.
 
I'm all for it. I don't think we should hinder our technological advancements just because we might not think that it's morally right. As far as overpopulation, if you can engineer a human, can you not control how many you make? It would actually help the problem of overpopulation I think.
 
dpunk said:
I'm all for it. I don't think we should hinder our technological advancements just because we might not think that it's morally right. As far as overpopulation, if you can engineer a human, can you not control how many you make? It would actually help the problem of overpopulation I think.
Click to expand...

If the average human's life is extended to 200 years, that would massively increase the population over time, as there would be less deaths.

Also, people would not be necessarily young and full of energy for these 200 years. Can society afford to support those over 65 for 135 years? I think not.

And what about enhancing one's own intelligence? Is there not something fundamentally wrong about that? That would mean that it would not be the naturally gifted who would be the brightest, but those with the most money.
 
shredderbeam2 said:
If the average human's life is extended to 200 years, that would massively increase the population over time, as there would be less deaths.

Also, people would not be necessarily young and full of energy for these 200 years. Can society afford to support those over 65 for 135 years? I think not.

And what about enhancing one's own intelligence? Is there not something fundamentally wrong about that? That would mean that it would not be the naturally gifted who would be the brightest, but those with the most money.
Click to expand...


Well instead of supporting 65 to 135 we could raise it to 135 because if we geneticallt engineered people to live longer couldnt we in turn make them more agile and basically stronger.???
As for inteligence i say Im all for it then we wouldnt have people complaining about work being too hard.
But just so society doesnt get all the same we only slightly increase people inteligence.

and Punk wouldnt that control of over population basically be considered murder?
 
Can't this be used to do bad things?
 
I don't really understand whats wrong with it. Why should their be limits? It could help cure diseases.
 
i think it would be good because we could stop all the diseases and limit how much each human could reproduce (unless of course you could reverse engineer to later adjust limits) it could be a good thing however i do not think it should make us smarter or stronger. its not just a quick decision. it would be along time before its put before the voters (if there is any in the time because the government takes over)
 
It's inevitable. We have already shaped our course of evolution through technology...I don't see why this is any different.
we invent clothes and fire, bugs and vermin thrive in fur - we lose body hair/fur
By the end of our lives you will see more and more of genetic manipulation as well as technological integration done to humans. Hopefully, it will be a time of great change for the overall good of mankind.
If you're interested in this sort of thing, I recommend you read some of the free books released by Marshall Brain. He's the guy who created howstuffworks.com and has some very cool ideas about the future.
http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm
 
First order of business... engineer the removal of body hair from the neck down. ;)

Anyhow, I don't see too much wrong with this. The main problem is the preliminary steps that have to be taken. We are becoming successful with animals, but we will no doubt make numerous mistakes on humans. These mistake could spawn many unethical instances.
 
nothing with this is wrong.. if it is lke above removing body hair from ppl who WANT it done.. but cloning and using them for organs is WRONG.. they too have feelings.. they after all ARE copies of us, not just a dummy with spare parts we need.. they ahve a reason to life too, but cloning shouldnt be done due to the fact of this and it could get to the wrong hands.. as well as the plant being poplated enuf.. if we cured the likes of diseases the world ould get more populated... and less resouces. we dont have to be afraid to die and try to save ourselves we are only afraid of what comes qwith death.. not seeing our families and loved ones, maybe pain with death and the unkown of what lies on the other side. ultimately we are trying to survive longer, thts it.
 
shredderbeam2 said:
If the average human's life is extended to 200 years, that would massively increase the population over time, as there would be less deaths.
Click to expand...

It would increase population, but there being less births would help it.

shredderbeam2 said:
Also, people would not be necessarily young and full of energy for these 200 years. Can society afford to support those over 65 for 135 years? I think not.
Click to expand...

If they can live that long, they should have the biological efficiency to back it up.

shredderbeam2 said:
And what about enhancing one's own intelligence? Is there not something fundamentally wrong about that? That would mean that it would not be the naturally gifted who would be the brightest, but those with the most money.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that intelligence could be readily increased. Sure mental capacity could, but your intelligence is what you make of it. Everyone has the ability to better themselves mentally, so even if your capacity to learn was bettered, the will to learn would still have to be present.
 
dpunk said:
It would increase population, but there being less births would help it.
Click to expand...

It would, but it's difficult to enforce without encroaching on civil liberties in Western nations.

dpunk said:
If they can live that long, they should have the biological efficiency to back it up.
Click to expand...

They should. I'm not sure if I would support mass lifespan lengthening if it didn't.

dpunk said:
I'm not sure that intelligence could be readily increased. Sure mental capacity could, but your intelligence is what you make of it. Everyone has the ability to better themselves mentally, so even if your capacity to learn was bettered, the will to learn would still have to be present.
Click to expand...

This is true enough.
 
Sp pker5 said:
im sure a ton of religous nuts would be against it too
Click to expand...

The only religion against it would be catholics and they would get a lot of influance

Cruel__Machine said:
First order of business... engineer the removal of body hair from the neck down. ;)
Click to expand...

Lol I agree im tired off seeing a jungle of hair when I look at my worry stone :) and hair on your back is gross

Cruel__Machine said:
Anyhow, I don't see too much wrong with this. The main problem is the preliminary steps that have to be taken. We are becoming successful with animals, but we will no doubt make numerous mistakes on humans. These mistake could spawn many unethical instances.
Click to expand...

Cruel is like the number 1 most religious person here and he thinks its ok.

Yes its true we will make mistakes but is failure not the best way to learn it is bad how the failures can lead to deaths though and even those animals that seem fines they cant talk we dont know how they feel.

People will always fight science and say its wrong or playing god some people refuse to get flu-shots because its playing god to regulate diseases.




Warning: Gets Offtopic below


We have good technology now and we have cancer cures but those religion people think its playing god to use drugs such as DCA and I think our government should fund it it seems promising (My grandfather has cancer and had part of his lung removed)

Source: http://clicktocure.org/sponsors/digg-this-to-fund-cancer-cure/

another cancer page

Scientists tested DCA on human cells cultured outside the body where it killed lung, breast and brain cancer cells, but left healthy cells alone. Rats plump with tumors shrank when they were fed water supplemented with DCA

Source: http://www.studentprintz.com/home/i...Story_id=c7794f20-dfb1-4494-892d-b529895da103
 
it should be allowed as long as its been tested and proven to work,
but after all who would volunteer for getting you're body modified.
Hopefully its going towards stopping cancer
 
i think that it should be allowed to some dagree as long as they use it to help sick people and not improce the human being, that would be scary if they started creating mutants ect
 
this question is irrelevant, the point is it is our nature to want more than fate has given us, so it is natural that even if the technology is outlawed, somewhere, somehow the genetic engineering will still be carried out
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Runescape Gamblingrunescape gambling
Back
Top