All about South Korea > Korea Newsroom

Future tech debate: The morality of Human Genetic Modification

(1/7) > >>

Chadwickhhs:
Genetic Modification isn't a foreign thing. We've been using it on plants and animals for at least a decade now. Why there is always the initial "playing god!" reaction,  the more reasonable concerns tend to surface thereafter. Genetic Modification of people is an looming minefield of moral implications; some more valid than others.

On the one hand, genetic modification offers pragmatic fixes for inherited genetics. A person with a form of anemia, dwarfism, and all other sorts of "flaws" can be guided back to preferred status. This allows families with problematic traits like potentially alcoholism or schizophrenia from suffering those inflictions.

However, in a materialistic society genetic fashion runs the threat of popularizing traits to the point of overabundance. A common (but somewhat tired) claim is the eugenics argument that the future of GM is the Nazi dream of a Blonde Haired Blue eyed future. The more realistic dilemma is the guiding towards a more homogenous culture which shares susceptibility to viral strains or fails to provide the advantages brought on by diversity thinking.

A more immediate threat (as mentioned in the Drone thread) is the fear that a generation to be could become indentured to the loans taking out on their development. GM on people is unlikely to be cheap until the technology is commercialized and made more efficient (like any new hardware or technology). This means those who have the means have the ability to develop incredible advantages over the middle and lower classes before those technologies become available. Whether you feel the society should be able to stagnate the wealthy from producing more gifted offspring or whether you fear a class of super-men dominating and enslaving the poor is an issue of liberty and  economic ideology.

There's also the abortion argument, which I tend not to like. Rick Santorum, an American who recently dropped out of the American Presidential race shared the comments that simply knowing the details of your child may promote abortion in the case that flaws exist. A GM baby born into a family too poor to give it the competitive edge may choose not to have children until they could afford to make it worthwhile. There's also that religious edge that these sorts have that GM are unnatural and evil. But they wear glasses, use antibiotics and essentially don't understand how or when human life scientifically occurs.

JRong mentioned in the other topic that many of these problems presuppose a capitalist basis. A society where energy is abundant and renewable may not have these problems. But an ever aging and increasing population of healthy individuals would certainly introduce new strains on the planet regardless. Could a future of superhumans exist in a socialist state as a form of social right. Could GM be introduced in a sort of welfare/public (or affirmative action) function for all members of society? In general where does the community stand on tweaking evolution or leaving it to chance.

I for one think that we shouldn't limit the technology when chance can be so barbaric. Every new technology that makes a major impact changes the world and the laws arrive later. The transition into organized and fair use may be turbulent but I personally think we should embrace the future... but hopefully predict and prevent the social issues I mentioned. (Maybe a Buy one get one free system where you can only get your child Augmented if you also cover the development of a waiting list poverty child.... oh man Sci-Fi novel idea)

Related topics: Schmeat, Organ farming, Gene therapy, Stem cell research

Jrong:
Chadwickhhs, your writing is a little hard to read but I think I understand most of what you're saying.

One capitalist scenario I don't like: Rich people are able to acquire the technology while others aren't. They would live for hundreds of years longer than the average person and use most non-engineered humans as slave labour (as they do now).

One capitalist scenario I'm OK with:
The use of robots by this time is so pervasive that robots will be doing all of the slave labour -- labour that is currently done by housekeepers, hotel staff, wait staff, assembly line staff, etc. anything we can call "menial and degrading". Because of the ability of robots to do all of the base jobs, there won't be a need for human slave labour. The only job openings for humans to work at will be for "higher" things -- this will also exponentially increase technology and inter-galactic space travel (seriously). The government of the future world will impose a mandatory restriction on the amount of children you can have. Of course there will be a backlash from people not wanting the government to tell them what to do, but those who are born "un-evolved" and without $ to genetically alter their children will be given lots of comforts/benefits if they agree to sterilization. Because of this, only the rich (genetically-altered) will procreate while the poor (those who accept sterilization) live in comfort for the rest of their lives. Win/win.

Another scenario involves the loss of importance of material things: Eventually, we will have developed something like you saw in Star Trek. A machine that can create anything by putting the atoms together correctly. Want a burger? Just press the button. A nice car? Same. This is totally within the realm of possible. Because of the lack of importance of material things, all of a sudden, and the free availability of anything "material", capitalism will be gone.

Also, there could be govt constraints on genetic manipulation requiring part of the process to greatly increase empathy and lower testosterone (as has been discussed already on huffpost). The greater empathy given to the powerful would equalize the world.



Anyways, this topic could go so many directions.

cherylblossom:
Considering that everyone believes they have an unalienable right to produce offspring (in whatever number), I think genetic modification is the only hope for our species. The indiscriminate breeding, regardless of genetic suitability or 'fitness', directly opposes the processes by which nature weeds out genetic flaws to produce superior species by way of evolution. By superior, of course, I mean better adapted to their environment.

With no natural predators, and unrivalled prosperity, we can go about spreading and adulterating the human genome with dangerous impunity.  But an interesting point arises here: never before have creatures had the ability to adapt their environment to them. It's always the other way around. And so this lessens the need for our adaptation and encourages this impunity. But it has to come to a head eventually. The eye is the most obvious victim of genetic dilution. In the animal world, if you can't see a predator coming, you and your funny myopic genes die. And rightly so, for the good of the species. With us, however, we make a pair of glasses, shoot the predator, and then go on to spawn a litter of short-sighted infants. Now, what of other organs? The brain? What of disease resistance?

The moralistic issues surrounding eugenics deriving from Nazi experimentation has unfortunately tainted a pragmatic field of science which, in the grand scheme of things, just makes sense. So, genetic modification, a whole other can of worms, may be an inevitable alternative. And it is inevitable: the march of science and human curiosity is unstoppable, and, in this case, bolstered by that most powerful drive to want the best for our kids. It's do or die.

Chadwickhhs:
To CherylBlossom:
Even though I support GM on people I don't support your eugenics argument because it doesn't illustrate evolutionary comprehension. Loaded words like diluted gene pool misrepresent survival of the fittest. A common misconception is that "more stupid people" are breeding while the intelligent choose to restrict birthing. Even if an intelligent couple only puts forward one child and we had multiple (mentally or otherwise) handicapped children competing in an environment it hardly matters whether there are 3, 10 or 20 of them if the intelligent child is the only one that is suited for the environment. You're drawing presumptions of universal value but evolution isn't necessarily progress by your terms.

It's a little rough but you can think of all of society as a painting. Throwing on extra layers of paint doesn't necessarily make it prettier but the unnecessary layers are the first to flake off anyway so the original or defended layers aren't at risk. The only risk people suffer from what you consider as low genetics is a social and philosophical "Neitzche mobbing scenerio," it's not biological.

Nature favors variation. It's not dilution, it's options. What you consider weak could provide some kind of advantage in another environment. The difficult task is figuring out which could and which couldn't eventually prove useful.

cherylblossom:
Chad:

Evolutionary comprehension -- huh? Eugenics is controlled reproduction because nothing natural exists to control it for us. It's less palatable than GM, particularly thanks to the old Germans, so I don't see much future in that. But it does make sense, as compared to our current laissez-fare procreation (see my point about the eye).

By 'diluted gene pool' I meant a genome riddled with mutations ill-suited to the environment. Survival of the fittest is just the opposite of that.  And then I raise the point that we are able to alter our environment to our needs, but not completely, which is why I think GM will have its way with us.

Nowhere do I broach your point about stupid people breeding more. In this world, poor people do, and rich people, caught up in work and life and the hefty costs of preparing a child for that life, naturally (!) have fewer children. It's about means and education, not intelligence. And by the way, intelligence is but one aspect of our species, among many. My 'presumptions of universal value' extends only insofar as the particular environment in question, but since we humans are a global force, and it's luck and intelligence that got us here, I'd rate smarts as being an important characteristic.

Please explain this "mobbing scenario."

And finally, nature does and does not favour variation. Sex exists to shuffle the genes to help with disease resistance and whatnot, but in terms of variation of the phylogeny of a species, I think of the poor cheetah. So specialised (read: without genetic variation) is this beast to its environment that slight changes can (are) render(ing) the cat an anachronism and out of place. It evolved that way, in a relatively stable environment. As for us, with our powers to change the environment, is dilution, sorry, 'variation' as necessary or desirable as you imply? You're allowing it at random, without controls as in nature, so I'm not sure what good can come of it.

But whatever. This may all be moot given the environmental and resource-scarcity horrors that await us in the potentially not-too-distant future. Whatever our genes, we eat too much and we are too many - doing just what animals do in the absence of predators. If only we were smarter, eh?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page