Good genes = Win?

[Cybran]

Bacteria and Viruses make people sick and cause death. These 1 cell and 1 sex organism multiply much much faster than Animals/Humans and evolve much much faster.

Sex and Gene mixing makes the offspring better prepared for the Germs and Illnesses that already exist, if all people had the same genes a single strain of a Illness would wipeout the entire human population.

second point - All should have the same genes so its "fair", in that case they should have the same Education and same parents(Maybe raised in camps like the Hitler youth??) Maybe we should all wear the same cloths so its all "fair". I dont buy in to this bull shit, we should Love our diversity and uniqueness, instead of looking for ways to become a grey goo

[Deleted]

Lucky for us many books and movies have been ahead of us and have shown us the results of genetic manipulation.
See if it becomes common then who will do the lesser jobs?

Increased automation coupled with lower need for labor.

[Martinussen]

You do not get a chance in life, but you take it.

[Deleted]

Lucky for us many books and movies have been ahead of us and have shown us the results of genetic manipulation.
See if it becomes common then who will do the lesser jobs?

If everyone had the education and knowledge to be Ph.D.'s in engineering/science etc, lesser jobs would be either automated or extremely well paying.

But obviously you're not born with that knowledge, so it doesn't matter.

[Deleted]

Mother nature has done a great job with evolution so far. I would be seriously uncomfortable with humans taking it into their own hands. If history has taught me anything: we tend to fuck shit up, trail and error, before we get it right. Considering we are talking the human genome here, no, just no.

Please, crazy scientists around the world, just relax :P Sure, play around with things like technology, prostetics, how we can advance our biology in these ways. Work on ways that more people can get better education and upbringing in society. But genetics? Not yet, please, not yet lol.

[Stir]

I think it would be a horrible idea.
Genetic manipulation would become a corporate good. Sorry; it won't be covered by insurances unless it is used to treat some life-threatening ill-ness... Because it isn't necessary.
As a result, only the rich will be able to buy this manipulation for their children, which would lead to a much, much greater disparity between those born wealthy and those born in poverty. So much so that, no matter the perseverance of the poor, they will become little more than slaves. Which, in effect, they already are, really, but now a biological difference will exist, which shifts the playing field somewhat dramatically.
Rather than equal opportunities, what we would get is some kind of post-apocalyptic world where most people live in conditions that are barely worth the nomer of a shanty town, while the few would live in large, tall spires, living long, lush lives. Most people would rot and fester as their environment becomes fouler and more harmful to them, while some people would live in eternal health and wealth, untouched by the many plagues that would pester those who live in conditions more or less similar to inustrial swinestalls. The world would become a horrible, horrible place.

It will also not accelerate evolution. To those saying that humanity will have to fuel its own evolution because of our lack of natural predators: We don't lack for natural predation. But our natural enemies are disease and other humans. Greed is the greatest motivator of evolution for us, and homo sapiens sapiens as we know it today hasn't been around for that long... And has been evolving along the way. To think that predation itself is the only way to 'force' evolution would be a fallacy. To even think that there is anything that 'forces' evolution would be a fallacy.
For instance, when humanity discovered fire, we adapted to a new diet. Our colon changed; lengthened slightly, to deal with the larger quantity of vegetable matter in our diet. We've still got a short intestine when compared to other omnivores, but we've definitely 'improved.'

But evolution is a slow process. Evolution is the piling up of mutations in individuals that 'made it.' If a mutation happens that has no impact on the human survivability, then that individual does not have increased or decreased chances to survive for long enough to produce offspring. As a result, this harmless mutation will be adopted in the genepool, but it won't give anyone an edge. It won't be selected for, either, by the way; it has no greater chance of being spread.
A mutation that gives us an edge would possibly be selected for, but these mutations are still exceptionally tiny and unnoticeable.
A mutation that hampers our survival will mostly not be kept in the gene pool. People with severe enough mutations like that will have significantly smaller chance to reproduce; either they die young, or, which is mostly the case, they simply won't have babies.

So from these three instances, you can see that evolution is still going on. It's a relentless development towards what might seem to be chaos, but is in fact simplicity (with more bits). It's not stopping. We can wonder where it will take us next, of course, but we'll never get there, and as long as we think of our species as 'human,' we'll be human. That is a cultural thing. We're not the same humans today as we were a hundred thousand years ago, but we still think of ourselves as human (though they had a different word). There is no clear moment where you stop being the one thing and start being the other; it doesn't work like that. What came first, the chicken or the egg? The difficult part in this question is to decide when something has stopped being a t-rex, and started being a chicken. And of course, there have been many species in between, species we wouldn't recognise as either, but were potentially both. When exactly did we stop being Homo Erectus, and start being Homo Sapiens? What was the final drop that made it so? This is absolutely impossible to tell.

[PizzaSHARK]

Hell no. Genetic diversity is a very good thing.



Now imagine that in the context you have suggested...

I'm indifferent on the idea of bioengineering humans, but I'd much rather we just stop trying to stop natural selection at every turn. I'm pretty sure that concept is still the best way to ensure the best genes reach the top while not having to forcefully omit the bad ones.

[Deleted]

As a result, only the rich will be able to buy this manipulation for their children, which would lead to a much, much greater disparity between those born wealthy and those born in poverty.

Yes, agree!

Which reminds me, in India, with the class system being so ingrained in the culture, and people hardly ever marrying outside of them, things have had such an effect that there is now actual genetic differences between the different classes, physical differences! This is why if you go to the hospital in india the doctor needs to know what class you are because some classes don't respond to certain antibiotics etc.

And yes, this idea that humans are somehow not affected by natural selection anymore (made popular by movies like 'Idiocracy') are just completely wrong and based on simple misconceptions of evolutionary biology.

[yeast]

I wouldn't have a problem with gene manipulation as long as it's used with caution, and not to create some sort of "perfect" human.
I think genetics play a smallish role in who we turn out to be, compared to other people. The way I see it, what people are is determined by their genes, but who they are is determined by their circumstances.

Didn't the Koreans create glow in the dark puppies?

Hell, if that's not a plus then what isn't!?




If I could be glow in the dark, that would be awesome.

It'd make hunting a bit of a hassle, don't you think?
And I hope they'll never need to hide from anything.

[Ishayu]

Well I happen to be a fairly strong supporter of gene manipulation, especially post-birth if it's even possible.

1) I support free, government-institutionalised pre-birth gene manipulation to weed out horrible diseases before we even get them. The brilliant thing about this approach is once we get rid of them, they don't spread to the children either. It's the best way to cure Down's syndrome and a myriad of similar diseases.

2) I also support paid-for cosmetic operations but ONLY post-birth. Of course it is yet unknown if this is actually feasible and there are good indications that it isn't, but if it is I support it. Why? The alternative is plastic operations, we can't stop it from happening, and the more we try to legalize it out of existence the worse it gets. Just control it. Make sure the correct technology is only in the hands of experienced doctors with the correct education. This will be an unfortunate side-effect of making the invention at all and trying to legalize it out of existence will only make the problem bigger; kindda like the war on drugs.

As someone else said, we need to use this. It may seem morally apprehensible to "tamper with God's creation", and I understand that point of view somewhat. It's a natural thing: If we change humans are they still humans, and isn't that a setback to my species if they are no longer humans? Kickstart enrage! Make BioShock references. Try to stop it in any way possible!

The problem is: We are NOT God's creation, God doesn't exist. We have been naturally selected through fierce competition. A competition we've become so good at we've gained a distinctly unfair advantage, which lets us deteriorate now. If we don't do something, eventually humanity WILL cease to exist. We will drown in our own prescriptions; and then - once there is almost nothing left, we will come back into the competition and evolve further.

We need to realize that random mutations happen and unless we either take nature's approach and kill everyone who aren't genetically sound then we ABSOLUTELY have to use gene therapy. I know which one of these two I prefer; it's not a difficult issue.

[Ishayu]

Well I happen to be a fairly strong supporter of gene manipulation, especially post-birth if it's even possible.

1) I support free, government-institutionalised pre-birth gene manipulation to weed out horrible diseases before we even get them. The brilliant thing about this approach is once we get rid of them, they don't spread to the children either. It's the best way to cure Down's syndrome and a myriad of similar diseases.

2) I also support paid-for cosmetic operations but ONLY post-birth. Of course it is yet unknown if this is actually feasible and there are good indications that it isn't, but if it is I support it. Why? The alternative is plastic operations, we can't stop it from happening, and the more we try to legalize it out of existence the worse it gets. Just control it. Make sure the correct technology is only in the hands of experienced doctors with the correct education. This will be an unfortunate side-effect of making the invention at all and trying to legalize it out of existence will only make the problem bigger; kindda like the war on drugs.

As someone else said, we need to use this. It may seem morally apprehensible to "tamper with God's creation", and I understand that point of view somewhat. It's a natural thing: If we change humans are they still humans, and isn't that a setback to my species if they are no longer humans? Kickstart enrage! Make BioShock references. Try to stop it in any way possible!

The problem is: We are NOT God's creation, God doesn't exist. We have been naturally selected through fierce competition. A competition we've become so good at we've gained a distinctly unfair advantage, which lets us deteriorate now. If we don't do something, eventually humanity WILL cease to exist. We will drown in our own prescriptions; and then - once there is almost nothing left, we will come back into the competition and evolve further.

We need to realize that random mutations happen and unless we either take nature's approach and kill everyone who aren't genetically sound then we ABSOLUTELY have to use gene therapy. I know which one of these two I prefer; it's not a difficult issue.

[Jackmoves]

The "work hard and you can get anywhere" as much as I wish that was true, is not.

We can just take some person that lives in the slums doing their best and trying their hardest. Whether said person is brilliant or not, if she / he wants tries her / his hardest, doesn't mean that said person will go up in life, sure some might. Doesn't mean everyone will.

Opportunities are sought and given, however if none are given it doesn't matter how much time you try to look for it if there aren't any.

Depends on where you are from I guess, sure there are always some that are pre-positioned for a greater life then others but if a sociaty got the right tools in place people can go places if they so wish, social mobility is extremly important for a wealthy, rich and successful nation thats why the state should work their ass off to eliminate ghettos, providing good education for all etc.

That is also why some restribution of wealth is necessary imo, you can easily tax rich people a bit more then the poor without hurting their chances or ruining their life style or scaring them away to tax havens.