All about South Korea > Korea Newsroom

Future tech debate: The morality of Human Genetic Modification

<< < (2/7) > >>

Chadwickhhs:
I'm worried we're not reaching each other but talking past each other. I'm right with you on the argument, I'm just saying that better or worse genes is a subjective statement. We certainly have developed preferences for one or the other or a conception of what we think "should be" but in the natural world there isn't any such mandates.

As for variation, every evolution is the result of it. All subjective "progress" and all of that specialization you noted is a result of diversity. Dogs are a good example of this. Mutts tend to be smarter and stronger than most pure breeds which develop consistent ailments. Pure corgis, for example, suffer from hip displacement. Pure golden retrievers suffer from intestinal failures. Mutt dogs dodge many of the issues of their parents.

The main point of what I was saying is it doesn't matter how much the total population increases, or what the proportionality of "favorable" types is. As long as the number of people suited to the future environment exists within the mess of the gene pool they will not shrink off as dramatically as the general population. It's again sort of a tragic concept but you need to look at the die off from a carrying capacity event as bonus people. It's not the top of the line that usually dies off in that sort of event. It's like getting chased by a bear, as long as your faster than second place it doesn't matter if there were 2 or 20 runners.

My only comment was nothing "dilutes the gene pool". It doesn't usually snuff out anything. It just buffers it. And if it does you can hardly say that snuffed out material was superior.


And mobbing is just when a group of smaller weaker things band together to kill off a predator. Crows attacking a hawk, small dogs attacking a wolf. Neitzche claimed Christians and Buddhists were guilty of this. Coercing self sacrifice to not be left behind. I don't necessarily agree with him.
 

woman-king:

--- Quote from: Jrong on April 24, 2012, 05:33:58 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

I just gotta ask...is this kind of the Jrong vision of an ideal future?

woman-king:
I think it's a good thing.  The benefits seem to outweigh the potential backdraws, in my opinion.  A lot of the opposition to this is based on hyped-up "what if" scenarios and a lot of conjecture.  The advancement of medical research and technology has been incredibly beneficial to humanity, or at least to the people who are able to benefit from it.  Yes, there is a huge problem right now of unequal access, but let's work on solving that, not on stopping research.

Jrong:
It seems like "an" ideal future within a capitalist context. My ideal, ideal future would be totally different.

Gansie:
Well, I studied Genetical Engineering and I cannot begin to describe all the awesome and mindblowing applications of this technology. We actually oooh-ed and aaaah-ed in some of our lectures!  :P

And although people have been studying genetics and biochemistry for quite a while now, we have only discovered the tip of the iceberg. So it's a very exciting field at the moment.

However, all my modules had ethics components and we had to have endless debates on every topic. As much as we will be able to create superbeings and heal diseases, I think there will be a lot of resistance. Many people still do not trust GM foods, afterall.

I think the greatest issues will not be about the side-effects of the technology, as much as the social implications.

Perhaps H.G. Wells was onto something when he wrote about the Eloi and the Morlocks in the Time Machine...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page