Perfection of the Human Species?

[verh]

The Human Genome Project was completed in ~2003, so we know the entire human genome already. Scientists aren't going to be like "do'oh" and accidentally alter the wrong gene, making us more vulnerable to diseases or whatever. Testing periods would happen before more people could have their genes altered, of course.
And yeah, I obviously am not suggesting we put humans in like a lab where we breed them selectively. I'm just pointing out that if everyone had an "intelligence fetish" then the human species would literally become more intelligent over time because the most prolific breeders would be those with the genes for greater intelligence.
It's unfortunate that people can't sign forms to be genetically altered when they are still in development (lol), because I would have more than likely signed myself up for the betterment of humanity via scientific testing.

They know the code, but not how changing one little part effect what the code means. The best way I can explain it is like the sentence "Lets eat, grandpa." Say the Comma is a gene that makes us dumb, so we take it out. We know how it will affect that one trait, but it can change how the rest is interpretted. "Lets eat grandpa."

 

[Druiddroid]

You guys seem pretty opposed to the idea of facilitating evolution or directly altering genes, so let me pose you this question: does it bother you that humans have naturally evolved (and may be evolving today)? In other words, why is it so fucked up to ease along evolution if its inevitable anyway? And that's taking a moral position (not even mentioning the fact that empathy/emotions/morals didn't even exist at one point [like with 99% of animals]).

not opposed, just apathetic, why would it bother anyone, why would it be fucked up, lol@emotionless animals: i can see fear in a guinea pig

 

[Yde]

What verh said. Knowing the code doesn't mean knowing what each part of it does.

 

[Metamorfos]

Letting the human species evolve would be very sociogeographically dependant. Who would first gain access to the technology that enables an identity to gain an intellectual or physical advantage via genetic modification? The wealthy people. Not the poor South. You would further increase the gap between North and South. What would you do with the South? Ignore that population or not deem them to be striving for perfection? Or would you just wait till they finally get up to par with the North? Or just even remove them?

You also speak of average IQ being increased. This implies variance. As we all know, mutations early on in lifestages lead to people being born with lesser IQ or physical impairment. How would you fit these people into the "perfection" in human species? The day science will be able to correct these "deviations" (bad wording, I know) of "normal" nature will take many many years from now on.
Furthermore, if current science, can't prevent/alter the mutations of unborn children nowadays, how are they supposed to alter humans genetically in the semi-distant future (like maybe 250 years) without heavy repercussions. There are so many interactions going on in our genes. We have the code, yes. In order to need to know which effects an alteration of that code will have both on short term but definately so on the long term, requires our understanding of interactions between all genes and their products.

Striving for higher IQ, for perfection also could lead to lesser genomic diversity in the human species as you will basically select against "dumber" individuals causing their genepool to be lost in the process (although you could possibly store this somehow). Genomic diversity is crucial in our buffering against certain pathogens. That's why you don't plant a forest with the clones of just one or two trees. To prevent natural/economical disaster.

You could make the assumption that all these "problems" might be overcome by technological advance sooner or later. But let's be honest, there are many technologies nowadays that are rather threatening for humanity than helping them.

Scientific research is also just that, research. The application of the results of these scientific studies are implemented in the society by policymakers, not the scientists. The policymakers are chosen by the people and therefore it's the people that ultimately can choose. The people will always have certain ethics or morale (as long as they are free people ofc). Given the current diversity between cultures, communities, political systems and their associated widely varying ethos, it would be near impossible to establish the perfection the human species as a whole as you describe it.

At least, that's how I look at it. I probably stated a lot you already knew but w/e.

 

[Jesus]

You guys seem pretty opposed to the idea of facilitating evolution or directly altering genes, so let me pose you this question: does it bother you that humans have naturally evolved (and may be evolving today)? In other words, why is it so fucked up to ease along evolution if its inevitable anyway? And that's taking a moral position (not even mentioning the fact that empathy/emotions/morals didn't even exist at one point [like with 99% of animals]).

As a huge fan of science and evidence, I think Science should stay out of certain things. The problem these days with Science is they are not only finding answers for things, but they constantly want to change everything from its natural aspect.

I personally think we should just leave the way nature intends to do things and just live life. By this I mean to stop modifying how we're being developed, stop modifying foods, etc. This is just my opinion though.

 

[Druiddroid]

my what

 

[Doop]

Lol, you guys are taking this a little bit too far into the logistics side of things. Obviously the public is and will probably always be opposed to the idea, but if all you do is cite the present and don't consider possibilities, then you aren't really thinking.

As for the many people who have claimed that scientists don't know much about how altering genes really affects animals or whatever, you are partly right and partly straying from the point of the topic. First, sorry if I didn't stress enough that I meant for this topic to be somewhat hypothetical/forward looking thing. In other words, even if scientists made mistakes in the altering of genes today, who is to say that 100 years from now the same mistakes will be made? Secondly, it is important to point out that none of us are scientists and all of your guys' (and my) speculation is... speculation. Unless you can point to a specific incident where a scientist intended to alter one gene and accidentally caused some far-fetched viral outbreak in test subjects (like someone suggested), then you are just being alarmist.

lol@emotionless animals: i can see fear in a guinea pig

Yeah, more intelligent animals like guinea pigs have basic "emotions" like fear to help them survive. Of course, there are tens of millions of species of animals on earth, the vast majority of which are unintelligent invertebrates like insects. There is no evidence of "emotions" in these types of animals. Most just have the most basic of interactions with their environments, like positive and negative taxis to move towards or away from things like food or potential threats to survival. Humans constantly anthropomorphize animals. Most humans (like you, I'm guessing) are only familiar with a few animals, as if dogs and cats are all there is in the world.

What verh said. Knowing the code doesn't mean knowing what each part of it does

That's completely ridiculous, geneticists aren't retarded. People treat science in general like it is some sort of primitive process, as if "we don't really don't understand anything about the universe, man".






Since a lot of you are caught up in the logistics of genetic engineering, I just want to point out one more thing: your opinion is irrelevant if there is a human out there who wants to be genetically altered/tested; scientists can alter their genes if that person wants them to. Obviously it would open up a lot of possibilities to genetically alter developing humans, but there is no way to get consent from something that doesn't even have a fully developed brain yet. Either way, genetically altering an adult could definitely still have some effect since proteins are constantly being created according to the DNA's code.

 

[Doop]

One more thought: is it more unethical to examine a developing fetus' DNA for a disease or to let the grown human die from the disease years later?

 

[Druiddroid]

you could say all animals act for survival towards positive/negative taxis a la determinism (no free will), the question is consciousness not emotions

insects are actually quite interesting and altruistic
Ants create a lifeboat in the Amazon jungle - BBC wildlife - YouTube

you can throw away the condescending attitude, while it was funny at first it's just annoying now

 

[verh]

A specific example of things happening that scientists didn't expect is that the life spam of artificial animals is considerably lower, especially bio-luminescence animals.

Another thing is that scientists use dead viruses to get the mutations into the cells, except they're not always dead.

Also, an opinion is only irrelevant if it's wrong, and by definition an opinion can't be wrong.

"Strong genetic determinism: gene G almost always leads to the development of trait T. (G increases the probability of T and the probability of T, given G, is 95% or greater).Moderate genetic determinism: more often than not G leads to the development of T. (G increases the probability of T and the probability of T, given G is greater than 50%).Weak genetic determinism: G sometimes leads to the development of T. (G increase the probability of T, but the probability of T is still less than 50%.)Geneticists have a term – "penetrance" – that is similar to what we have in mind here. Penetrance is often defined as the percentage of members of a population that will have a particular phenotype, given a particular genotype [32].Strong genetic determinism is not very common: the vast majority of traits are either moderately or weakly determined by genetics [​

33

,​

32

]. There are several reasons why strong genetic determinism turns out to be rare. First and foremost, the environment plays a very important role in the expression of most genes. An individual with the genetic potential to be six feet tall will not reach this height if he/she lacks a proper diet during childhood; an individual with a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism will not develop this disease if he/she never drinks alcohol. The complex interaction and interdependence of genes and environments, a fundamental and frequently ignored reality of biology, undermines the notion that genotypes alone determine (or cause) phenotypes [​

34

,​

35

]. Second, most traits are epistatic: they are determined not by a single gene but by many different genes. Dozens or even hundreds of genes may play a causal role in the genesis of complex traits such as intelligence, personality, or athletic ability. So, a single gene may only have a small influence on the development of the trait [​

32

]. "​

Genetic modification and genetic determinism

No ones saying scientists are "retarded", just that it isn't understood changing a little part entirely effects something. Just because someone wants to be altered, doesn't necessarily mean they should be. An excellent example is heroin. Just because people want it doesn't mean they should take it.

 

[Yde]

Verh, I appreciate your effort. While I do understand genetics, genetic engineering and evolutionary mechanisms, and usually would love to discuss them, I personally lost my interest when the terms ridiculous, retarded and irrelevant opinion were brought forth.

 

[Kearbear]

Since a lot of you are caught up in the logistics of genetic engineering, I just want to point out one more thing: your opinion is irrelevant if there is a human out there who wants to be genetically altered/tested; scientists can alter their genes if that person wants them to.

And as you pointed out earlier there is no way to get consent from someone in the developmental stage, so in this case the fact that there is any risk at all means that it would be completely unethical to even try.

Unless you can point to a specific incident where a scientist intended to alter one gene and accidentally caused some far-fetched viral outbreak in test subjects (like someone suggested), then you are just being alarmist.

Did you know that at the end of the 1800s/beginning of the 1900s doctors never purified/disinfected anything because they did not know about bacteria, or chose not to believe in it? In fact, most doctors would wear scrubs covered in blood and other materials as a badge of honor of how many patients they'd dealt with. Nowadays we would consider such behavior to be imbecilic and inept, but the doctors of that time were not stupid.

That's not an example in genetics of course (verh gave a few of those) but you get the idea. I should think that the mere fact we don't understand the human body completely - the brain alone is set to baffle scientists for further decades - should mean that we are no where near close to understanding the process that calls this body into being.

There will always be things about our world we don't know about. Naturally geneticists are very intelligent people, but they will always be subject to the limitations of what is considered "common knowledge" at the time. I don't think we will ever be in a place where genetics and the long lasting implications of altering them is an area of such comfort that we can change what we will to be changed without compunction.