Autonemesis

What have you got against cane toads?

tronvillain

Koyaanisqtsi:
Well, it all depends on what you mean by "properly" and "side effects." Do you mean that the genetic changes will be impossible to carry out correctly, that those genetic changes will necessarily have unforseen developmental effects, or that genetic engineering will have unforseen societal effects? Also, did you have a bad day or something?

Perhaps not, but there have been countless things that mankind has done well enough.

The Other Michael

And as Jerry Pournelle likes to say: "better is the enemy of good enough".

cheers,
Michael

emphryio

OK, I'm sorry about the frogs. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

But concerning whether or not we should experiment with an entire new technology? Absolutely. Of course there will be mistakes but we still have to try, although with caution.

We must pursue knowledge and probably through trial and error.

For instance, we have now learned to be very careful about introducing new species into different habitats. (And besides it's only Australia anyway.)

[ June 30, 2002: Message edited by: emphryio ]</p>

ChrisJGQ

I feel that we must, eventually improve humans through genetic engineering. Due to our intelligence, we adapt our environment to suit us, not vice versa. Our weakest, and least intelligent all reproduce. The only way we can really improve is genetic engineering.

echidna

The second sentence would appear to contradict the first, but maybe I understand what you’re trying to say …

And where would that leave your good self, out of curiosity ?

Suffice to say, I suspect you’ve done little to convince anyone. Presumably you’ve read the thread ? Do you have anything to counter the objections to genetic engineering ? Maybe that a cane toad rooting his dead sister for 8 hours really isn’t such a bad thing ?

echidna

Oh I’m sorry for the tone (OK, not sorry enough to edit it away), it’s just that the boinking cane toads thing just put me in a silly frame of mind.

ChrisJGQ

The second sentence would appear to contradict the first, but maybe I understand what you’re trying to say …

I was stating that since we adapt our environments to suit us, and not the reverse, the mechanism of natural selection isn't going to be weeding out negative mutations, nor will it be 'rewarding' positive ones. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, as I doubt anyone truly wishes anyone else would die, simply because of lower than average intelligence, or a genetic predisposition to some condition.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Captain Violence:
Our weakest, and least intelligent all reproduce.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And where would that leave your good self, out of curiosity ?

I'm glad you have a sense of humor, but I'm not really sure that a jab is relevent or productive to the topic at hand.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Captain Violence:
The only way we can really improve is genetic engineering.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suffice to say, I suspect you’ve done little to convince anyone. Presumably you’ve read the thread ? Do you have anything to counter the objections to genetic engineering ? Maybe that a cane toad rooting his dead sister for 8 hours really isn’t such a bad thing ?

True enough, none of us wants to see a world filled with nearly identical humans-drones, or anyrthing like that.... But over the course of the years, while our technology has changed, I feel that our weaknesses are still as present as ever, and the societies we create, as well as our individual lives, are destined to be flawed due to human weaknesses.
Perhaps I'm hoping genetic engineering would help in this respect, just because I believe it's our only chance. The potential for abuse is huge, but I fail to see how a 50 point increase in the IQ of the average citizen would be harmful. (I'm not saying that higher IQ is a panacea, it's merely an example.)

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: Captain Violence ]</p>

Tom Sawyer

I don't personally see anything wrong with genetic engineering. Granted, there's going to be abuses of that technology, but that doens't invalidate the technology as a result. It's a tool and no better or worse than the person who's using it.

People are going to use genetic engineering technology, trying to stop it would be like King Canute standing on the shore trying to order back the tide - it just won't work. Even if 9 out of 10 governments ban the technology, there'll still be more than enough places in the world where scientists can go and research it and then those places will reap the economic windfalls that result and the places that banned it will have to expend resources to combat the huge black market that springs up.

Yes, the future is going to bring us a lot of bad things that result from the study of genetic technology, but it's also going to bring us a lot of good things as well. Both are inevitable facts and all we can do is try to maximize the good things and limit the damage of the bad things.

GeoTheo

I think its wrong because the human genome belongs to God and not to whomever wants to screw with it.
If I were an atheist I would still think it was wrong on the grounds that the Human Genome belongs to collective humanity. Changing the germ line (is that the right term?) Could possibly have more profound effect on the future of humanity than anything previously done by a human being. What would give someone a right to do this?
I think as this comes closer to being possible and likely you will see more and more international treaties regulating this. That is a good thing to have international treaties for. It is the type of issue that ultimately affects humanity as a whole.