• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

World's First GM Babies Born

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that these are useful adaptations?

No, I'm saying they ARE adaptions. We rely less on the appendix, head size is smaller at birth, our little fingers are shorter and less useful, same with our little toe. All these gradual changes over the course of the last 100,000 years. Not slow at all. And some of those are major adaptions.
 
Darn, I liked Gattaca, ok, the genetic discrimination was bad, but could happen and now you tell me not to rely on it. Pooh. I will still like the movie.

Don't get me wrong, I think Gattaca is one of the best science fiction movies of all time, but its still just a movie. It should inspire you to think about genetic engineering, but its not an educational course. If you are going to make government policy (or vote for someone who does) you need facts not scriptwriting.
 
No, I'm saying they ARE adaptions. We rely less on the appendix, head size is smaller at birth, our little fingers are shorter and less useful, same with our little toe. All these gradual changes over the course of the last 100,000 years. Not slow at all. And some of those are major adaptions.

Oh ok, I understand now. Thanks.

In my original comment, I did say the past 100,000 years, not before that.

Also, we have not yet found the evolutionary link that separates us from our nearest relative, so the jury is out on how much we have evolved exactly in the past 200,000 years or so.

Your comments do bring up another good point though. What we consider "useful" or "useless" now is highly subjective, and we should not be seeking to modify our genes without knowing just how crucial those adaptations are. Nature tends to know better than us.

The appendix, it turns out, has lymphatic-immune and gut flora modulating properties. Wisdom teeth have a harder time growing in now because our modern diet does not sufficiently allow for jaw size to develop and accommodate all teeth. Native people who still consume a paleo diet don't have the problem of jaw narrowing that modern people do.

A lot of modern diseases are the result of our own ignorance as we haphazardly consume or are exposed to unnatural chemical compounds. The average American is lacking in most of the major vitamins and minerals required for a healthy body to be free of disease.

Constantly looking for genetic explanations to the most common diseases, like cancer, heart disease, and neuro-degenerative disease, is a cop out from addressing the root causes, which can be found in the way modern humans are living.

We may have eliminated some diseases through modernization, but we have invited a host of others because of our mode of living. Based on how health issues continue to cascade the more we move away from the basic necessities of life, it's my opinion that genetic engineering will just invite more technological-based health problems that we will in turn need more technology to solve.

Why can't we just be satisfied with the way nature made us? There is nothing inherently wrong with being human as we are. The problem lies in always creating problems that need solutions, or trying to invite crazy technological interventions for problems that have simple cures.

Genetic engineering will just be another profit-based, class stratified technology that people will have to compete for access to, when the cures to problems lie all around us and potentially in other systems of medicine. I mean, we're decimating the Amazon basin right now, which contains untolled and yet undiscovered medicines that could provide hope for humanity.

I think electively engineering our children is a disaster waiting to happen, based on our sheer child-like ignorance and fascination with the concept of superman.

The world does not need super humans. It needs humans, as they are, to change their priorities.
 
Let me know when a Honda baby comes out. GM sucks.

I know, right. The GM baby is owned by the gubermint. Hey, the Dems will be funding genetically engineered liberal voters.
 
I'm an unabashed transhumanist. We should laud efforts to build upon, enhance, and reform our natural environments and that includes ourselves. There is nothing inherently positive about the natural, and so I'm excited to see changes to ourselves that improve the human condition both for the unborn and the already living.
 
Spoken like a true Libertarian.

Screwing up the human gene pool is everyone's *business*.

Spoken like a true conservative.

Coercion should never be initiated against others out of fear and prejudice.
 
Spoken like a true conservative.

Coercion should never be initiated against others out of fear and prejudice.

Well thank you.

I don't have any 'coercion' in mind but the fact that most scientist in the world wouldn't touch this procedure indicates to me I should be concerned.

My oldest Daughter and her husband had a hell of a time getting pregnant so, I'm sympathetic to those wishing for a child. My concerns regarding this practice extend to all humanity. This could be Pandora's box?
 
Well thank you.

I don't have any 'coercion' in mind but the fact that most scientist in the world wouldn't touch this procedure indicates to me I should be concerned.

My oldest Daughter and her husband had a hell of a time getting pregnant so, I'm sympathetic to those wishing for a child. My concerns regarding this practice extend to all humanity. This could be Pandora's box?
You're entitled to do all the hand wringing you want. Just mind your own yard and let others alone to do what they wish with thei own genomes.
 
You're entitled to do all the hand wringing you want. Just mind your own yard and let others alone to do what they wish with their own genomes.

I don't think so. Concern for the totality of human kind trumps ignorance and willfulness.

If one of my grand kids or a friend's grand [ or greatgrand] child end up breeding with one of these freaks of science, well, lets just say, I'd like to keep my options open.
 
The potential for enhancing the lives of individuals who would otherwise be born with serious health issues is enormous, and quite exciting. These are baby steps toward a future when no child will ever have to face a life of pain and crippling disease if inter-utero genetic modification can eliminate the genetic cause. This is a good thing. I'm not understanding the fear and negativity. This is truly an amazing and awesome scientific breakthrough!

I agree, but can understand the fear and negativity.

I have a god daughter with downs syndrome. I love her, and would do anything I could to help her have a happy life. If I could snap my fingers and make her downs go away, I'd do it in no seconds flat. And if I was a parent and knew my child was going to have something like that and I could spare them the pain and trouble that goes along with something so serious, I'd do what I could to help them with that.

I have a friend born without a leg beyond the knee one side and beyond the shin on the other. He's perservered wonderfully (was actually a wrestler in high school) but I don't doubt that if you ask him "hey, if you could've been born with both full working legs, would you have preferre that" that he'd say yes.

My family has a history of heart problems. Great grandfather died from a heart attack young. My grandfather died at 36 to a heart attack. My uncle has been on heart medication since he was in his early 20's. I could easily have seen my mom, if it was available, taking steps to remove the genetic disposition I'd have to heart issues.

I understand all those things and couldn't blame a parent one bit for doing them...and really could view them as very good things.

But I fully understand the worry over the technology....

How many steps is it from removing a genetic predisposition for Downs Syndrome to trying to impart a genetic disposition for high IQ?

How many steps is it from removing a genetic defect for a deformity to trying to tinker because they don't want a kid with freckles?

How many steps is it from removing the genetic predisposition for heart disease to actually trying to cultivate a heart capble of peek athlete levels cardiovascular activity in maturity?

I can fully understand the worry that we'll go from using it to correct/limit dabilitating handicaps to using it to create a "superior" breed of human for those with the cash to do it.

As to those saying it's unnatural...I have issues with that. Is it unnatural for a damn built by a beaver to block a water way? Is this tinkering not coming about due to our NATURAL ability to reason and think leading to us discovering the methods for which to do it?
 
You know what's interesting here is everyone hates Monsanto for its genetically altered seed but they are fine with doing the very same to human babies. apparently doing it in corn is evil in babies is good.:roll:
 
As an artist I do. The same part of the brain responsible for depression is the same part that deals with creativity. Who seriously wants to have a chronically depressed kid? So you start screwing around with one issue don't be terribly surprised if another thing goes too.

Even if you did have evidence for this, and this were true.... that'd almost be a reason to push it forward even more. You mean we will have less self loathing teenagers littering the internet with bad post structural poems instead of being productive members of society? Count me in.
 
You know what's interesting here is everyone hates Monsanto for its genetically altered seed but they are fine with doing the very same to human babies. apparently doing it in corn is evil in babies is good.:roll:

I think you will have to show that the same people who don't like genetically altered corn are in approval of genetic alterations with babies.

I worry about the unintended consequences of genetically altering anything.
 
Even if you did have evidence for this, and this were true.... that'd almost be a reason to push it forward even more. You mean we will have less self loathing teenagers littering the internet with bad post structural poems instead of being productive members of society? Count me in.

But then the value of bad poetry would shoot through the roof. I don't think you've thought this through.
 
As an artist I do. The same part of the brain responsible for depression is the same part that deals with creativity. Who seriously wants to have a chronically depressed kid? So you start screwing around with one issue don't be terribly surprised if another thing goes too.


I think this is the more salient point. Messing with genetics when we don't actually understand the full ramifications of such meddling is a recipe for pain and suffering.

I really don't get the enthusiasm... we can't even understand the human body well enough to avoid regularly producing medicines that kill us AND do what they are supposed to... but playing with human DNA is A-OK?
 
Last edited:
Ok, thanks.

I can't find the damn thing -- I know it's out there somewhere.

Oh well. Anyway, if they were able to cure depression without harming creativity it's hardly like I'd have a problem with that. I do find it kind of doubtful that there is a universal constant like the speed of light that demands that if you cure depression you MUST eliminate creativity.

Still, it's kind of hard to see how this doesn't lead to a Gattaca scenario.
 
But then the value of bad poetry would shoot through the roof. I don't think you've thought this through.


Maybe the scientists are just frustrated poets.
 
I think this is the more salient point. Messing with genetics when we don't actually understand the full ramifications of such meddling is a recipe for pain and suffering.

I really don't get the enthusiasm... we can't even understand the human body well enough to avoid regularly producing medicines that kill us AND do what they are supposed to... but playing with human DNA is A-OK?

This is circular reasoning. We don't understand genetics or medicine well enough for our practice of it to be perfect, ergo we should not be doing it until it is perfect. The problem in this is clear.

We have a firm enough understanding of genetics to make extraordinary progress in the field of gene therapy both for living humans and in-utero care. No one is forcing it on you, but the rest of us are happy to embrace our increasing ability to manipulate and master our biology for our own ends. It is a crowning achievement for our species.

PS: We can in fact make medicines that do not kill you. It is why 99.999% (probably some more 9's) do not kill you. We are fairly good at making medications.
 
I don't think so. Concern for the totality of human kind trumps ignorance and willfulness.

If one of my grand kids or a friend's grand [ or greatgrand] child end up breeding with one of these freaks of science, well, lets just say, I'd like to keep my options open.

Freaks of science? This post is an example of what I think a great struggle will be in the 21st Century. A fight between advocates of advanced gene therapy, prosthetics, and other means of technological enhancement and control and those who oppose them. The bio-luddites and technophobes are already coming out of the woodworks or rather have been entrenching for a few years now just look at Leon Kass, Francis Fukuyama, etc. It will only become more pronounced as time goes on. Those who support allowing these measures, experiments, and advancements to proceed unhindered will have to fight a bit harder for it I think.
 
This is circular reasoning. We don't understand genetics or medicine well enough for our practice of it to be perfect, ergo we should not be doing it until it is perfect. The problem in this is clear.

We have a firm enough understanding of genetics to make extraordinary progress in the field of gene therapy both for living humans and in-utero care. No one is forcing it on you, but the rest of us are happy to embrace our increasing ability to manipulate and master our biology for our own ends. It is a crowning achievement for our species.


This is an over statement of the level of human mastery. Hubris has always been the preamble of all great blunders.


PS: We can in fact make medicines that do not kill you. It is why 99.999% (probably some more 9's) do not kill you. We are fairly good at making medications.


And I am not arguing that we can't. I am arguing that the mistakes become horrific when they are genetic.
 
Why can't we just be satisfied with the way nature made us? There is nothing inherently wrong with being human as we are. The problem lies in always creating problems that need solutions, or trying to invite crazy technological interventions for problems that have simple cures.

Genetic engineering will just be another profit-based, class stratified technology that people will have to compete for access to, when the cures to problems lie all around us and potentially in other systems of medicine. I mean, we're decimating the Amazon basin right now, which contains untolled and yet undiscovered medicines that could provide hope for humanity.

I think electively engineering our children is a disaster waiting to happen, based on our sheer child-like ignorance and fascination with the concept of superman.

The world does not need super humans. It needs humans, as they are, to change their priorities.

I find this reasoning utterly horrifying. Why can't we be satisfied with nature? Because nature is terrible, nature kills people. Everything we have on this planet we battled against nature to create. From the animals we domesticated and who's evolution we artificially directed, to the buildings we raised and the ground we scraped against to make it possible. Almost all of our medical advances are an effort on our part to cope with the growth of civilization and check the ravages of nature from disease to water impurity. Natural is terrible, it is the artifice of man that is brilliant.

More technically accurate there is nothing inherently positive or negative about nature. Just because something is natural does not make it a positive thing.

With genetic engineering, gene therapy, and other bio-medical advances we have at last in our grasp the possibility of mastering our nature and improving upon the poor designs we were left with. The coming century and beyond offer the tantalizing prospect of defeating cancer & disease, improving our intelligence, accentuating our senses, and so much more. For the first time in our history we will have the opportunity to guide, at an individual level, our own evolution. It is a crowning achievement of our species, something true humanists everywhere should celebrate and welcome with excitement!

As for class stratified access to this care and technology, for all the woes about health insurance in the United States most people in the developed world have access to all the accoutrements of modern medical technology which at their inception (like the MRI) had been cost prohibitive. Gene therapy while currently very expensive like all commercialized products is almost certain to fall as adoption increases, moreover it is often a one time treatment as opposed to a long term maintenance cost which is attractive on a cost-benefit analysis. More pointedly perhaps is that personalized treatment from sequenced genomes and other associated genetic advances have already filtered into the mainstream.

Finally the journey to the post-human is our destiny, and it is a damn exciting one.
 
Back
Top Bottom