genetically engineered/enhanced kids?

[floyd]

what would you do if genetically engineered kids were the norm? would you have engineered kids? natural kids? or no kids?

answer the question above based on the assumption that natural born kids will be significantly less intelligent and less healthy than engineered kids (because genetic engineering won't become the norm until there are big advantages to it).

also, would you expend any effort opposing this technology? why?

why is having children naturally better than genetic engineering (if you think so)?

[coffeezombie]

I have no problem with genetically engineered species of humans. I'm not sure I'd want to engineer my kids though without them having a say in the matter. They might hate me for life because of the choice I made for them. From a logical point of view, I don't think it's very ethically responsible, either. However, if other people were doing it and it was the only way such a child could compete in the world, then I would be forced to do it.

[floyd]

how do you know they would not hate you for having them naturally?

ethically responsible? shah...

[coffeezombie]

how do you know they would not hate you for having them naturally?

ethically responsible? shah...

What if your parents decided that they wanted you to have the genetic features of a monkey, just because it pleased them aesthetically? Would you like that?

[PenguinHunter]

This is a huge topic but my quick initial thought is that an over-genetically engineered population could risk being wiped out almost instantaneously because of a lack of diversity.

Genes have very complex secondary and tertiary functions that we have hardly begun to explore. Should we assume that the future genetic engineers will know absolutely everything there is to know about all human gene functions and their relationships with other genes?

Right now I'd say have natural children (if I had any) and actively oppose engineered kids (as actively as I ever oppose anything). I think the general feeling of my imagined future self would be that we probably jumped into something that appears to have immediate good effects but may hurt badly in the long-run. Sentiments that may hold up progress a bit but I like to think that it prevents humongous fuck-ups too.

Oh also would there be a risk of weird inbreeding type problems because there would be so many shared genes?

[PenguinHunter]

What if your parents decided that they wanted you to have the genetic features of a monkey, just because it pleased them aesthetically? Would you like that?

:lol: yeah, lots of room for abuse with something like this.

[PenguinHunter]

Is this supposed to be like you pick genes and we make a baby from scratch or we mess with the genes you already have in the fertilization process?

[coffeezombie]

:lol: yeah, lots of room for abuse with something like this.

Reading the Orions Arm (http://www.orionsarm.com) website gives all kinds of ideas about what kind of weird changes transhumanism might eventually bring.

[kwis]

What if your parents decided that they wanted you to have the genetic features of a monkey, just because it pleased them aesthetically? Would you like that?

If everyone else decided that looking like a monkey was the norm then you would like that. When we are talking about things that will actually effect other peoples percieved value of you then it becomes like a arms race. Not having the boost in int or being more prone to diseases makes you less appealing to pretty much everyone (assuming there isnt massive descrimination going on).

If there was any sort of negitive aspect to GE then I think there is room to complain. But I think most reasonable people will see their parents were trying to give their kid the best shot they could.

The whole transhumanism view reminds me of the Abh from the anime Crest of the Stars(if anyone has seen it).

[coffeezombie]

If everyone else decided that looking like a monkey was the norm then you would like that. When we are talking about things that will actually effect other peoples percieved value of you then it becomes like a arms race. Not having the boost in int or being more prone to diseases makes you less appealing to pretty much everyone (assuming there isnt massive descrimination going on).


Right, that's a good point, although I think any intellectual genetic enhancements are going to be pretty alienating for a long time, due to the way that humans seem to act. Being stereotyped as a "nerd" is never fun for a kid. Of course, soon enough, it will become the norm.

That opens up a whole new can of worms when talking about norms. There are some enormous potentials for violence and class struggle if genetic enhancements aren't made available for everybody but only for the rich. Hopefully people down the line will foresee this as these technologies become more and more available.

[PenguinHunter]

If everyone else decided that looking like a monkey was the norm then you would like that. When we are talking about things that will actually effect other peoples percieved value of you then it becomes like a arms race. Not having the boost in int or being more prone to diseases makes you less appealing to pretty much everyone (assuming there isnt massive descrimination going on).

If there was any sort of negitive aspect to GE then I think there is room to complain. But I think most reasonable people will see their parents were trying to give their kid the best shot they could.



yeah interesting. I was just thinking that the same parents who (maliciously) engineer monkey kids would be the same sort that look kids in the closet without food for a week or beat them with belts. So it really only add's a new dimension to the potential for child abuse but doesn't really make the problem worse.

[coffeezombie]

yeah interesting. I was just thinking that the same parents who (maliciously) engineer monkey kids would be the same sort that look kids in the closet without food for a week or beat them with belts. So it really only add's a new dimension to the potential for child abuse but doesn't really make the problem worse.

Who's to say it is malicious? Some people like monkeys. Of course, it is more likely that people will gengineer tiger or wolfen kids.

[PenguinHunter]

I didn't mean that all parents would make monkey children maliciously but if they have only done so for their own entertainment then they probably don't have their children's best interests at heart. But those sort of parents exist regardless of GE kids.

That orion's arm website is neat by the way.

[Misazeno]

That's a bad idea. Here is why....


Through out time, evolution has played a valuable part on the survival of man kind. Now lets fast foward a hundered years after the successful engineering of children are well established. Evolution has been interfered with. Now humans, who don't know as much as they thought they did, have a change in the conditions of earth. They don't have evolution to make the nessesary changes so humanity may survive.

Or even for sex. Evolution has no need for the penis or the vagina, so they disappear.

Or heck it could end the world... ever see resident evil :zombie:

[CoHo]

Through out time, evolution has played a valuable part on the survival of man kind. Now lets fast foward a hundered years after the successful engineering of children are well established. Evolution has been interfered with. Now humans, who don't know as much as they thought they did, have a change in the conditions of earth. They don't have evolution to make the nessesary changes so humanity may survive.

So?

If given the chance I'd hardware them until they had more in common with a microwave then anything biological

[moni]

That's a bad idea. Here is why....


Through out time, evolution has played a valuable part on the survival of man kind. Now lets fast foward a hundered years after the successful engineering of children are well established. Evolution has been interfered with. Now humans, who don't know as much as they thought they did, have a change in the conditions of earth. They don't have evolution to make the nessesary changes so humanity may survive.

Or even for sex. Evolution has no need for the penis or the vagina, so they disappear.

Or heck it could end the world... ever see resident evil :zombie:


NO SEX?? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

i don't know if it's "natural instincts" or society that's influenced me the most in believing that genetically engineering kids is pretty bad. of course there are pros to it... and cons (a lot of which we can't even come up with unless we're actually living through it). technological advances always fascinates me, but i can't help feeling uneasy when it comes to altering nature. even if genetic engineering was advanced, i'd still want my child to be born as nature intended. besides, it'd be fun to see how my child turns out.

[Imen de Naars]

That's a bad idea. Here is why....


Through out time, evolution has played a valuable part on the survival of man kind. Now lets fast foward a hundered years after the successful engineering of children are well established. Evolution has been interfered with. Now humans, who don't know as much as they thought they did, have a change in the conditions of earth. They don't have evolution to make the nessesary changes so humanity may survive.

Or even for sex. Evolution has no need for the penis or the vagina, so they disappear.

Or heck it could end the world... ever see resident evil :zombie:

From an holistic point of wiev, us engineering ourselves is just natural evolution and selection at work, since we are still a part of nature, obviously.

[cjs55]

Hmm...I think humanity has free-will, and that free-will is something that can oppose what is natural.

You could argue that whatever free-will decides is natural because free-will itself is natural. But I think it allows the choice to go either way.

[Promethean]

There wouldn't even be a hesitation for me to go with the engineered child. The idea of improving ourselves so dramatically that we make our old selves obsolete is truly heroic. It's striving, unselfish yet still egocentric, foward looking, brilliant etc, etc. There would certainly be problems as portrayed in many novels and films, Gattica comes to mind, but these need only be short lived. Besides genetic engineering would really only have to be done for a while. DNA being robust and quite resistant to mutation would ensure that humans using natual breeding would produce superior children for a long time to come without further interference.

However new DNA studies might be showing us that it may not be possible to create the superhuman that we envision with the best of all traits. It seems that many things like intellegence, physical prowess, etc. may only reach their highest point when certain DNA code portions are duplicated many times. Since there is only so much room for code, there might be now way to "max" everything out. Of course if we reinvent ourselves with 30 base pairs........

[Imen de Naars]

Hmm...I think humanity has free-will, and that free-will is something that can oppose what is natural.

You could argue that whatever free-will decides is natural because free-will itself is natural. But I think it allows the choice to go either way.

Either way...which are the ways?

I can't see a non-natural way, since you can use only natural forces and materials in engineering the child.

[nomir_dva]

That's a bad idea. Here is why....


Through out time, evolution has played a valuable part on the survival of man kind. Now lets fast foward a hundered years after the successful engineering of children are well established. Evolution has been interfered with. Now humans, who don't know as much as they thought they did, have a change in the conditions of earth. They don't have evolution to make the nessesary changes so humanity may survive.

I think that evolution has not applied to humans for a long time. Anyone can have children. In fact, less intelligent people probably tend to have more children because they fail to see the consequences of such a choice for themselves, their offspring, or the world in general. Some limited sort of evolution might exist during a famine or an epidemic, when 'better' people tend to find ways to survive, but in most cases and for most of the world's people, those conditions are not common. Modern medicine ensures a relatively high survival rate for children in even the poorest countries.


Or even for sex. Evolution has no need for the penis or the vagina, so they disappear.

As long as people are people, that won't happen. The brain will disappear first.

[Misazeno]

I think that evolution has not applied to humans for a long time. Anyone can have children. In fact, less intelligent people probably tend to have more children because they fail to see the consequences of such a choice for themselves, their offspring, or the world in general. Some limited sort of evolution might exist during a famine or an epidemic, when 'better' people tend to find ways to survive, but in most cases and for most of the world's people, those conditions are not common. Modern medicine ensures a relatively high survival rate for children in even the poorest countries.



As long as people are people, that won't happen. The brain will disappear first.

I see what you mean but I don't want humans to use medicine for every fault the human has. Evolution is the best way for humans to addapt in their enviroment. If we were forced to live on another planet, i would want humans to make the leeps in evolution then the human to try to keep it the same and use medicine.

[Division56]

I have several physical genetic flaws (severe allergies, keratosis pilaris, horrible eyesight...) that I would want removed.

And if they were smarter... why not?

[Misazeno]

I'm not saying the idea would be totally wrong. I would love to make genius's...

[coffeezombie]

I think that evolution has not applied to humans for a long time. Anyone can have children. In fact, less intelligent people probably tend to have more children because they fail to see the consequences of such a choice for themselves, their offspring, or the world in general.

Not sure about this. It's a different kind of intelligence than the one that you or I might have to get random women into bed and father lots of kids. Humanity sexually selects this type of intelligence from the genes of men, not INTP intelligence.

[Ka.avik]

Who's to say it is malicious? Some people like monkeys. Of course, it is more likely that people will gengineer tiger or wolfen kids.
<--
<-- Ya think?

[coffeezombie]

<--
<-- Ya think?


Yeah, I suppose this one gets talked to death over on the furry chat sites.

[panda]

It would be pretty fun to have retractable claws.

[Ka.avik]

Yeah, I suppose this one gets talked to death over on the furry chat sites. Buncha NFs, is my take on them. Yes & no...the assumption generally as to monkey/tiger is, if you can do one, why not do them all?

But as to how society would deal with a race of moreys (Andrew S Swann, Forests of the Night, -- but I invariably mispell something) essentially starts right after the first few -- and the question is not, would you make your children beautiful by your standards, but how well would they integrate with us 'pinks' ?

Or, of course the assumption is not if, but when...and the question is how we'll find ourselves with moreau coworkers who not only don't make a new pot of coffee...they shed everywhere....

[Ka.avik]

It would be pretty fun to have retractable claws. While I agree, it's the top-mounted, independantly swiveling ears that have my rapt fascination. They're just so expressive; perfect for enabling me to get all my nuances across in the short time it takes for me to spit my words out.

[illusivemind]

Originally Posted by Misazeno
That's a bad idea. Here is why....

Through out time, evolution has played a valuable part on the survival of man kind. Now lets fast foward a hundered years after the successful engineering of children are well established. Evolution has been interfered with. Now humans, who don't know as much as they thought they did, have a change in the conditions of earth. They don't have evolution to make the nessesary changes so humanity may survive.

I agree with this. Why? Well I'm from Australia. (No wait there's more to my argument) And we had a case here where a farm got a permit to grow a genetically modified type of canola plant. One that was completely resistant to all kinds of infestations and pesticides. Seems reasonable right? Chemicals cost a fortune, if you could just turn on the gene that mother nature was too slow and stupid in getting to in the first place, you'd save lots of money.

One problem. This plant cross-polinated with a weed. Now we have this weed that cannot be killed be chemicals. Oops. Just like anti-biotics.

Evolution is a delicate process of elimination that occurs of thousands of years. There are all sorts of pathogens that are potentially lethal to human beings inside varities of animals but are unable to be transmitted to us. But if we fiddle enough with the genome, who knows?

We mix a gene from jelly-fish that allows us to grow in the dark, but it turns out that this mutation when combined with this three other genes causes brain tumours...

Unless we are willing to wiat around for twenty generations to see all the possible (survival enhancing or destructive) effects of each mutation (as evolution does) we are seriously in danger of fucking ourselves up.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Agreed that this is new territory and there are error to be made while we learn the proper outcomes of such engineering. Over all - people have created a second wave of evolution - cultural evolution which adapts and changes faster. Genetic Engineering is subject to that cultural evolution and would be adjusted to mistakes. I would have no problem choosing good features via genetic manipulation for any future children, with the understanding that the alteration would have to have been thoroughly tested.

[illusivemind]

But could any test we conduct match the thoroughness of natural selection eyebyte_atWork?

Of course if we stipulate that the enhancements are safe then the question takes on a new quality. Is it immoral to refuse your child their best genetic potential?

If you are a consequentialist, then yes. If you are not you would need some virtue that goes beyond sentimentality and "oh no, we're playing god" as justification for not allowing genetic enhancements.

[eyebyte_atWork]

But could any test we conduct match the thoroughness of natural selection eyebyte_atWork?

Of course if we stipulate that the enhancements are safe then the question takes on a new quality. Is it immoral to refuse your child their best genetic potential?

If you are a consequentialist, then yes. If you are not you would need some virtue that goes beyond sentimentality and "oh no, we're playing god" as justification for not allowing genetic enhancements.


I don;t know - I want to play god.

I think it is our mandate as intelligent being to do so.

THe details of all this will always be up for debate - and I think thats great - but I defnitely think playing god is cool - and should be done.

[illusivemind]

Playing god in the sense of gaining more power to save people's lives? Yes.
Playing god in the sense of arbitrarily determining other people's lives? ...

[euterpenc]

I don't like responsibility... God has a lot on his hands...

Genetic enhancemant seems ok I guess, though kind of eerie. I vote for cyborg body enhancements.

[Ka.avik]

I vote for cyborg body enhancements.
So long as I get my expressive, highly acute rotating top-mounted floofy ears, I don't care the mechanism. But I think it would be cool to have a muzzle, like a wolf, too. But you'd have a permanent accent. I mean, you try saying peter piper with no lips!

[moni]

I don't like responsibility... God has a lot on his hands...

Genetic enhancemant seems ok I guess, though kind of eerie. I vote for cyborg body enhancements.


cyborg body enhancements! cool! i want some wings on my back so i can fly. :llama:

[kendoiwan]

I have an INTJ friend who is obsessed with things of this nature... he wants to join the military to sign up to be a test subject... *shudders* creepy if ya ask me though...

[booyalab]

I think it's a great idea. Look at the widespread fulfillment and wisdom the plastic surgery trend has produced in people.

[illusivemind]

I think it's a great idea. Look at the widespread fulfillment and wisdom the plastic surgery trend has produced in people.

If only we could use technology for good, instead of vanity!
Seems sexual selection is as alive in modern soceity as it ever was.

[cjs55]

And thanks to the current values of society, it's selecting some fairly shitty people.

I don't trust us to do anything other than very basic eugenics. Genetic manipulation may be a good idea in certain cases, but overall people have no fucking clue about the consequences of their actions on a greater scale.

[eyebyte_atWork]

Right - The best intentions are there when all this starts only to have walmart provide genetic engineering and cloning services to it's 40 gazillion customers at every day low prices.

Gods amoung ants. Ants out number gods and are the predominant consumer.

[Master O]

i find it a little creepy, but I see no need to jump on a moral high ground or anything.

If it was the norm, I think you'd be doing your children a disservice not to "edit out" serious flaws or enhance them with some extra IQ points or physical ability.

Of course if you come from a family with great genes, maybe it'd be nice to let it ride...

[eyebyte_atWork]

Very good point - but I think you're also illustrating a slow progression.

[misutii]

i wish i was a genetically enhanced ubermann, i could bring death and destruction on these petty rats, seriously though, if they had the tech i'd want to be one

[Amaris]

I don't know. Tricky issue. Assuming enhanced kids were the norm, by having normal ones you'd be making them different in all the worst ways- dumber, uglier, slower, not as able in the flying department. Say to someone, "Would you rather be stupid, incompetent, and fully human, or smart, winged, and a tad bit genetically engineered?" What do you think they'll choose? (Religion would come into it, of course, as well as all that moral business.. it would really depend on the person..)

I'd want to be genetically enhanced, providing it worked out okay. Forget society, evolution, and all this long-term stuff. I wanna fly, damnit!

[illusivemind]

How about you phrase the question like this?

Would you like modern science to alter the structure of your immune system? (So it doesn't kill your 'enhancements') There's very little risk, that we know of. But yes you maybe be increasing your chances of catching the Avian flu or some as yet unforseen fatal pathogen.

[Lee]

I just had a thought about this...

Learning is a process in which you adapt your behaviour in response to a mistake, presuming that the mistake did not result in the loss of your life.

We all have a perception of reality, which is information about the current state of the universe in relation to us. We then have feelings and thoughts about that information, these feelings are what give rise to preferences between experiencing different perceptual input.

We then take action in order to change our perception of reality to better satisfy our motivations, therefore aligning our perception of reality with our desired preferences. However this process of taking action is one in which mistakes are possible; should you overlook a piece of information or a rule of reality then you will fall foul and not succeed in your efforts to satisfy you motivations.

After an error has been made, you will attempt to reformulate your plan of action in light of the mistake, in order to avoid the same fate in the future so you can successfully satisfy your desire.

All learning arises from this process of trial and error.

Intelligence can be very simply defined as the ability to preempt your own mistakes, by having a conceptual model of the rules of the universe, and then using that model to reproduce behaviours that have succeeded in the past and spotting potential errors before making them.

Despite what some may seem to believe on these forums, feeling and thinking are not the antithesis of each other. Logic or reason cannot decide upon a course of action, you can only use them as a helpful tool when trying to decide upon what action to take, but ultimately any course of action taken to alter reality must be based upon a preference. You must prefer to use logic in the first place.

Even thinkers only do so in the service of thier feelings which tell them to trust in thier thinking.

Learning occurs on a biological level in your nervous system. All 100,000,000,000 neurons and 1,000,000,000,000 glial cells supporting them; and this is without mentioning the blood supply and associated sensory equipment necassary to make it all work.

There is nothing magical about the process of learning, it occurs through changes in neuron morphology when new dendrites, axons and synapses are formed... but also when the synaptic properties of neurons are altered.

The process that allows these neurons to adapt and learn is one where sensory input (perceptions) are compared to desired inputs; when the two are out of alignment, the brain produces emotions that set in motion a chain of behaviours in which we attempt to satisfy our motivation.

If these behaviours do not succeed in producing the desired change in our perception, we will essentially experience negative feedback which allows our brain to register that an error has been made; our plan of action is then edited to take into account this new information, so that we may avoid that mistake in the future. We then gain positive feedback of success and the neurons responsible will go through a chemical change to stimulate gene expression, this will strengthen the associated memories and allow us to repeat that principal or process in the future to solve similar problems.

But learning does not account for all we can do and all we are.

The behaviourists of the early 20th century were wrong when they claimed to be able to mould a child into anyone or anything they wished given the proper conditions. Much of what makes us human comes in our genes.

The morphology and behaviour of our neurons are not purely the result of sensory input. Actually, sensory input accounts for only minor alterations. The structure of an individual neuron with its soma, dendrites, axons and organalles is the result of our genes; the structure of our brain with its characterisitc folds, two hemispheres, cerebrum, brain stem and cerebellum is also the result of our genes.

Our design is orchestrated by the DNA contained in every cell nucleus, and the chemical messengers sent between individual cells. Almost every human will turn out almost exactly the same; the same bone structure, organs, brain organisation etc. all part of an intricate process to produce an organism designed for the enviroment it is required to live in.

But why? how has this occured?

The evidence suggests to me that this biological design is not the product of an intelligent creator, but instead the result on millions of years of evolution by natural selection.

The process of natural selection is analogous to learning, but on a species wide scale.

Any action performed is done so within the restraints of what the mind and body are physically capable of doing, these limitations are imposed by our genes. Genes in this case are analogous to plans put into action, if the plan succeeds it is kept because it satisfied a desire, and likewise if a gene resulted in the lifetime reproductive success of that individual increasing, then it is kept as it satisfied the desire.

Genes act like the ancestral record of all the problems we have already solved, such as walking upright, large memory, language, correct motivations, hands for tool usage, rib cage to protect vital organs etc. the process of natural selection can be seen as natures learning process, and in the case of mammals and specifically humans - nature has learnt how to learn. Realising this allows us to see the false dichotomy often seen in the "nature-nuture" debate.

It would appear that the ability to manipulate our own genes is this learning process going full circle, and we hope to manipulate genes in order to add to our innate list of problems solved, whether it be in the immunity to a disease, avoidance of disability or even increased intelligence.

We gather knowledge to solve problems, and the goal of the scientific method is simply to eliminate any mistakes (which explains its power). If we use our knowledge to further eliminate mistakes that prevent us from reaching our goals, then so be it. The inherent potential advantages to using genetic engineering are obvious, and in any world where we value the free market and personal freedoms, those that do not adopt new technologies that help us avoid errors will evetually adopt the new technology or dissapear altogether.

This does not mean that we should be hasty in our application of what is a technology still in its infancy, and the inevitable pressures from those who harbour religiously fuelled views against such advancements of knowledge will slow any acceptance of the technology anyway, however rest assured it will break through and with it, profound changes will occur to the nature of human society.

Many of which will be quite necassary if we wish to extend our reach beyond our own planet.

[Lee]

I personally would be happy for my child to undergo genetic manipulation, as long as the technology was safe.

Especially if it meant eradicating a potential genetic disease, preventing a disability or correcting some other abnormality.

Whether I would be willing for him/her to be manipulated in other ways to improve looks or intelligence depends again upon the reliability of the technology, but also the current social trends in the use of the technology. I would happily use the technology if it was necassary to place him/her on a more level playing field with his/her peers.

[lexiphanic]

Especially if it meant eradicating a potential genetic disease, preventing a disability or correcting some other abnormality.

And that would be a very easy decision to make.

[illusivemind]

How very Humean Lee, I love it!

We might disagree about the extent to which genes determine the life of a person, however your argument is sound. There is nothing inherently wrong (speaking secularly) with modifying / enhancing human genes with a view to a self-driven evolution.

However, the trial and error window is so very much narrower in comparison to learning to avoid the electrically charged cup-cake. Natural selection is quite willing to wipe out a whole species should s certain mutation not 'work'. Presumably we are not willing to concede to the same parameters.

If we can't get a canola plant right, how much faith do you have in ensuring scientists will prevent foreign pathogens from entering the human immune system?

So really I see nothing theoretically wrong with genetic manipulation, only practical objections… at this stage, which you identified quite accurately, ‘infancy’.

[Lee]

How very Humean Lee, I love it!I wasn't really aware until I looked it up, and yes it turns out I am being rather "humean"... to be honest I felt like I was being more original.. heh.


We might disagree about the extent to which genes determine the life of a person, however your argument is sound.Might we?


There is nothing inherently wrong (speaking secularly) with modifying / enhancing human genes with a view to a self-driven evolution. The question is whether it is ever inherently wrong... ever!

I don't think so, even if there are some who may disagree.


However, the trial and error window is so very much narrower in comparison to learning to avoid the electrically charged cup-cake. Natural selection is quite willing to wipe out a whole species should a certain mutation not 'work'. Presumably we are not willing to concede to the same parameters.What gives us our edge is our ability to generate simulations of reality in our brain, which we then use to predict and learn without having to make mistakes in the outside world, this allows us figure out the most likely answers to a problem, without having to follow up every possibility that may exist. We can then test those theories that are the most likely to be true at far less risk.

We also pass on our knowledge to the next generation and amongst each other, which allows us to learn from other peoples mistakes.

So, I chose the wrong words when I said "All learning arises from this process of trial and error." because I mean that the first instance of a piece of knowledge must come from an error, be it in experimental observations, or the simulation inside our brain. But after that knowledge has been gained humans can share knowledge.


If we can't get a canola plant right, how much faith do you have in ensuring scientists will prevent foreign pathogens from entering the human immune system?I am very confident that eventually science will reach a stage when these things are quite within our power.

[illusivemind]

I wasn't really aware until I looked it up, and yes it turns out I am being rather "humean"... to be honest I felt like I was being more original.. heh.

I hate it when that happens, we should’ve been born earlier. But it is comforting to find someone who doesn’t fall so easily for the Reason / Passion dichotomy.


Might we?

We might.
I have come to view childhood experiences as being more central to the construction of a person’s character than their genetic starting point. But I’m not a scientist.


The question is whether it is ever inherently wrong... ever!

I don't think so, even if there are some who may disagree.
I think talking about ‘inherent wrongness’ is problematic, mea culpa. However, would you suggest that genetic manipulation can never be wrong? What about with a view to say create more deadly strains of ‘Small Pox’?



I am very confident that eventually science will reach a stage when these things are quite within our power.

I think you and I agree on the morality (if there is such a thing) but we differ to the degree of optimism and perhaps trust placed on geneticists. I really think that without strict protocols and regulations a few ambitious scientists could do a lot of damage. I mean how much testing is done on GM foods before we ingest them? Are we really aware of possible long term side-effects of gene-splicing different foods are?

So long as the motivator of innovation is bottom lines, I have little faith in my long-term safety. But hopefully I can go one thread without starting another anti-capitalist rant.