Should humans genetically engineer themselves?

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

I'm under-qualified to have this type of conversation?

Do you support the Chinese Doctors human experimentation work, yes, or no?

And any person getting mutilated, or having their bodies being changed via the human experiments, or dying from a human experiment, is pretty sick isn't it?

People living with a limb missing, because it was amputated, is that fair to the voluntary volunteer? 

Would you volunteer to help the Chinese Doctor out with the Human Experimentation?

Would you volunteer to become a human experiment if he asked you to? 



"@TKDB Seems you are completely under-qualified to have this type of discussion. Whenever you realize that your lack of knowledge completely bars you from saying or doing anything useful, let me know.

If you don't care to learn about what is going on with the subject matter, what makes you assume that you have anything important to say whatsoever? You are like a child trying to take a part in adult affairs. You are so clueless you don't know how little you know.

Goodbye." 

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer Kind of seems like you are making an argument from ignorance here. Just because we do not at this time have a complete understanding of genetics, doesn't mean that it is impossible to do so.

This is of course, irrelevant for the single-letter mutations that cause many genetic diseases. We already know what it is that causes the problem, and because most people are not afflicted we can say with some certainty that removing the genetic abnormality will have little or no affect on the population.

While I certainly don't think that the methods used by Dr. He Jiankui were the most sound, that doesn't mean that such research should not take place. The mutation that causes HIV immunity is known as CCR5-delta 32 and it evolved naturally in Europeans before it was implanted into the Chinese twin.

If putting the gene into someone is mutilation, then how can we ignore the fact that the parents of some people who have the gene natural put it into their children by giving birth to them? The parents of everyone deliberately gave their children their genes through conception! It makes no difference if it is via a lab or by sexual intercourse.

Let's say there are two people who carry a recessive trait for a disease like Huntington's. If the parents Have a child, there is a 25% chance that the child will have this neurodegenerative disease. Why would that not be mutilation by your very same logic?

piloteer

@ZeusAres42

I've always considered you a wise and informed debater, and I will let you decide which of us has the more logical argument. As far as consent being involved in eugenics, I can say for sure that that is out of the question. It cannot happen. The parents may be able to give consent, but that is also up for debate when it comes to eugenics because a government entity may have self serving reasoning for not letting parents have consent. I can also tell you that any gene that is altered or removed also serves other purposes other than the adverse ones they may give us. The gene the Chinese doctor altered also protects the children from west Nile virus and helps regulate white blood cells, which will leave them more susceptible to not only west Nile virus, but any and all viruses because their bodies ability to regulate white blood cells have been compromised. It could even make them more susceptible to HIV which is the virus they were trying to prevent.

 Germ line gene editing has been proven to be disruptive to other genes near the editing process which can also cause further health issues. Also take note of the fact that Happy_Killbot hasn't mentioned the fact that the Chinese government is keeping the results of the procedure a secret, because they want to distance themselves from the procedure and the doctor who performed it.

Not only can germline editing cause adverse genetic affects for the individual, they can alter the human genome adversely. Any adverse effects from this procedure can be passed on to the offspring of the people it happened to. When the ideals of eugenics are applied to the procedure, it becomes even more destructive, and most geneticists and the bulk of medical care providers agree that the morality of the procedure is not well intentioned. Happy_Killbot argued on a different thread that we should use this procedure to eliminate "undesirable" genetic features, and use it for a more equal society. He cannot attest for the fact that doing that will make all humans more closely related which in turn will cause even more genetic disorders, because just like what happens when close relatives have kids, a less diverse gene pool will cause more genetic disorders to happen. Obviously Happy_Killbots feelings on eugenics is more extremist than any doctors would be willing to go, and eugenics is not necessarily the intention of the procedure, but germ line editing and it's adverse effects is still not morally sound.                     

Happy_Killbot

@ZeusAries42 I do not now nor have I ever advocated for eugenics. This is a classic straw man fallacy.

Eugenics is about purposefully breading humans the way that humans have bred animals and plants to gain desired traits. Genetic engineering is not only not eugenics, but in fact is completely removed and based on actual science.

The assertion that genetic engineering can cause other health problems is a valid concern, but in the context of genetic engineering it is nullified by the fact that the problems can be corrected with additional genetic engineering, once proper understanding is achieved. This understanding is not possible without both further continued research and practical experimentation.

The argument I made on a different thread, which @piloteer does not adequately make, is and to summarize, that some traits such as susceptibility to addiction have genetic causes, and that any society that allows drugs to be readily available will on average, disadvantage these individuals economically and physically. Thus drugs should not be introduced lest they make things inherently unfair, unless everyone was genetically similar enough that such genetic differences are statistically irrelevant, and this might be accomplished through genetic engineering if necessary.

ZeusAres42

piloteer said:

@ZeusAres42

I've always considered you a wise and informed debater, and I will let you decide which of us has the more logical argument. As far as consent being involved in eugenics, I can say for sure that that is out of the question. It cannot happen. The parents may be able to give consent, but that is also up for debate when it comes to eugenics because a government entity may have self serving reasoning for not letting parents have consent. I can also tell you that any gene that is altered or removed also serves other purposes other than the adverse ones they may give us. The gene the Chinese doctor altered also protects the children from west Nile virus and helps regulate white blood cells, which will leave them more susceptible to not only west Nile virus, but any and all viruses because their bodies ability to regulate white blood cells have been compromised. It could even make them more susceptible to HIV which is the virus they were trying to prevent.

 Germ line gene editing has been proven to be disruptive to other genes near the editing process which can also cause further health issues. Also take note of the fact that Happy_Killbot hasn't mentioned the fact that the Chinese government is keeping the results of the procedure a secret, because they want to distance themselves from the procedure and the doctor who performed it.

Not only can germline editing cause adverse genetic affects for the individual, they can alter the human genome adversely. Any adverse effects from this procedure can be passed on to the offspring of the people it happened to. When the ideals of eugenics are applied to the procedure, it becomes even more destructive, and most geneticists and the bulk of medical care providers agree that the morality of the procedure is not well intentioned. Happy_Killbot argued on a different thread that we should use this procedure to eliminate "undesirable" genetic features, and use it for a more equal society. He cannot attest for the fact that doing that will make all humans more closely related which in turn will cause even more genetic disorders, because just like what happens when close relatives have kids, a less diverse gene pool will cause more genetic disorders to happen. Obviously Happy_Killbots feelings on eugenics is more extremist than any doctors would be willing to go, and eugenics is not necessarily the intention of the procedure, but germ line editing and it's adverse effects is still not morally sound.                     

Thank you but I cannot make that decision. I like both of you and think you both make good points. I don't think it would matter much anyway who I said was the most logical. I will leave the arguments you have with each other between you two.

piloteer

@Happy_Killbot

Yes Happy_Killbot, it is impossible to have a complete understanding of genetics, because we would need to know what will happen in the future to know the real consequences of removing or altering genes. We cannot know whether a future environmental event will make certain genes in the human genome become paramount for the continued existence of the human species. It is obviously you who is ignorant because you yourself do not know what genes cause the "undesired" affects, because if you did, you'd also know that it isn't just one gene that causes the affects, it's many, and the affects are also a cause of certain genes working in conjunction with others. If you can tell us for certain how the procedure in China has effected those children, then I'll probably be asking you what lottery numbers to play, because we connot say for certain how those genes will affect those children, or how it will affect the human genome until the future.   

 Every single doctor who has had anything to say about the procedure done in China have all agreed that that procedure should not have been done on a human, it's still only fit for use on lab mice. Whether the consequences of disrupting or damaging other genes that is caused by germ line editing can be fixed is yet to be seen. But the consequences of the damage caused to the human genome will remain with the procedure for as long as it's used. Genes can have more than one purpose, and altering them can diminish, or eliminate the other purposes. The CCR5-delta 32 is not the only gene that affects our susceptibility to the HIV virus. There are many other genes that affect that circumstance, and they all have other purposes in our bodies also. The fact that removing or changing them will remove or change the other affects on our bodies will not be fixed by technology, it will always alter the human genome even if there's no damage to other genes caused be germ line editing.

It was you who argued that we have no consent to our genetic makeup, so how can you argue that the parents purposely put genes into their children. Not only can we not purposely cause circumstances to happen to others when those circumstances were out of our control in the first place, but we would have to know exactly what genes we have, and our partners genes, how they'll work in conjunction with each other, and exactly what random alterations will occur in the body of the child for us to purposely do put genes into our children. Purposely putting our genes into would mean to know what genes we have, how they will work with our partners genes, and how they'll be altered in the children. That's not the reality of the situation. Your argument is baseless and incomplete. 

When our human genome becomes more similar to everybody else's, the chances for recessive traits to coincide with others becomes more likely. Mine is not an argument against helping others with genetic disorders, it's an argument to reject procedures that are objectively ineffective and destructive, and accept other more reliable methods with less adverse or no consequences. Genetic engineering in humans will always have adverse side effects, and will only cause more problems, regardless of the technological advances involved.                      



    

piloteer

@ZeusAres42

Just some food for thought for you. You decide for yourself, or you can decide not to decide. It's your world, no pressure either way.   

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer If we are required to know the future in order to genetically engineer humans, then what about politics, economics, engineering, and resource extraction? All of these things also effect society in the future, so if you are to argue that we can't do genetic engineering because it could effect the future adversely, then this would also apply to these and other sciences.

The climate is changing at a rapid pace, and in the future it may do so at an even faster rate. The ability to genetically engineer ourselves may be key to surviving these types of extinction events. Evolution takes many generations to occur and lots of death and suffering. Through genetic engineering, we can take a short cut and achieve this in a single generation with little or no suffering.

If you can change one gene to get a certain effect, but that gene has other purposes, it may need to be necessary to supplement this change with other changes in order to mitigate other problems. This however, does not mean that we should never practice genetic engineering on humans, it just means that more research is necessary.

"It was you who argued that we have no consent to our genetic makeup, so how can you argue that the parents purposely put genes into their children."

I was making a point about the absurdity of your claim that artificial genetic modification is somehow dangerous while natural genetic modification via child birth is not. These circumstance are in our control, i.e. you can chose not to have kids.

"Purposely putting our genes into would mean to know what genes we have, how they will work with our partners genes, and how they'll be altered in the children."

This is even more absurd, it's like you think that somehow doing something with a purpose is not as good as doing something without a purpose or control over it. Control of a situation will beat expecting good things to happen 999 out of 1000 times. If it is possible for us to have this information, and there is nothing in science that suggests we can not get this information, we should get it and do everything in our power to understand what it means, and once we have a sufficient understanding we should exploit that information for gain. That's not controversial, that common sense.

The assumption that this will somehow make everyone the same is laughable. If anything, doing this would make people more diverse as new genetic information is incorporated into our genome. On top of this, the removal of recessive traits that lead to genetic diseases may be eliminated meaning that there would be a 0% of anyone getting them! This is literally the #1 reason to engage in genetic engineering! Your assertion that this will somehow cause recessive genetic diseases to occur is yet another argument from ignorance.

Consider this diagram: If just one of the parents is genetically engineered, then there is a 0% of the children having the disease, but a 50% chance they will be a recessive carrier and potentially proliferate the disease.

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Do you support the Chinese Doctors human experimentation work, yes, or no?

And any person getting mutilated, or having their bodies being changed via the human experiments, or dying from a human experiment, is pretty sick isn't it?

People living with a limb missing, because it was amputated, is that fair to the voluntary volunteer? 

Would you volunteer to help the Chinese Doctor out with the Human Experimentation?

Would you volunteer to become a human experiment if he asked you to?  

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Do you support the Chinese Doctors human experimentation work?

Would you volunteer to help the Chinese Doctor out with the Human Experimentation?

Would you volunteer to become a human experiment if he asked you to?  

Xink3ranime

I think it would be better to leave it to individual people. I mean I understand the other sides of the argument but I have a question. If a woman looks ugly, should she have a right to get plastic surgery if its available? I think that woman should do what she wants. Looking at it from a philosophical point of view, next I would ask, "What if she was your wife?" or, "What if she was you sister?. Like the trolley problem. But I prefer to leave it at that.  
 

Happy_Killbot

@Xink3ranime People doing what the want with their own bodies because they consent to it is just fine, the issue with genetic engineering is that the changes have to take place before the person is even conceived.

It's not a matter of: "Do you want to make yourself beautiful and free from disease?"

It's a matter of: "Do you want your children to be beautiful and free from disease?"

MayCaesar

TKDB said:

@MayCaesar

Would you volunteer to help the Chinese Doctor out with the Human Experimentation?

Would you volunteer to become a human experiment if he asked you to?

Depends on what kind of experiments we are talking about, and a reward for agreeing to do so. I might or might not.

Prisoners of German camps were not asked this question. They were not even ordered to participate in experiments; they were physically delivered there and strapped to iron beds. Quite a bit of difference, would you not agree?

John_C_87

MayCaesar said:

TKDB said:

@MayCaesar

Would you volunteer to help the Chinese Doctor out with the Human Experimentation?

Would you volunteer to become a human experiment if he asked you to?

Depends on what kind of experiments we are talking about, and a reward for agreeing to do so. I might or might not.

Prisoners of German camps were not asked this question. They were not even ordered to participate in experiments; they were physically delivered there and strapped to iron beds. Quite a bit of difference, would you not agree?

I don’t agree and it looks as thought the difference is simply to give the outward appearance of legality.

Again the Idea of a united state shapes a agenda female specific amputations are not abortion. The issue has a lot to do with the inability of woman to create themselves as all equal as though all woman have pregnancy abortions not all woman must admit it.. 

piloteer

@Happy_Killbot

I never said we are required to know the future to do genetic engineering. I said we would have to know what will happen in the future to know whether a gene should remain in the genome because it will be needed in some future event for humans to continue existing. The truth is, even if we somehow could know the future, it probably still wouldn't help with giving us any insight on the effects of genetic engineering, because we simply may not ever know why certain genes are able to help our species continue on, even after the fact. We can do genetic engineering all we want, but we will never be able to know if what we're doing with our genes now will actually be beneficial, or be disadvantageous, or if it will do nothing. I am saying that your argument about us being able to get a "complete understanding" of genetics through technological advances is absolutely false. We would have to know the future to do that.

Stop saying you're not talking about eugenics, because what you are arguing for is the definition of eugenics. Eugenics actually had nothing to do with racism, it was hijacked by unscientific and unethical people who believed they could objectively determine which genes are good and which ones aren't. And they based those determining factors on the visible features of people they simply didn't like. Not much has changed with modern eugenics, because it still has the premise that we can add some sort of value of beneficial or deleterious effects on the human genome to certain genes, regardless of the fact that we would need to see into the future to be able to evaluate the true benefit of any and every gene. Eugenics deals with "genetic health", which is exactly what you've been promoting this whole time. This coupled with the fact that on a different thread you argued that we should discourage people to have children with genetic disorders, and encourage them to abort their pregnancies. Nobody in the scientific or medical community are calling for the use of genetic engineering to rid the human genome of "undesirable" traits. I will concede that the use of genetic engineering on humans is not specifically for the purpose of eugenics, and it's actually geared toward treating illnesses, but I won't concede that it could be used for eugenics, and I certainly won't concede that eugenics is what you are arguing for. All of this falls right in line with eugenics.

 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/eugenics

https://knowgenetics.org/history-of-eugenics/

https://knowgenetics.org/is-eugenics-happening-today/

Your desire to want us to be able to gain control of our evolution is the most telling sign of an argument for eugenics. The most egregious aspect of that is the fact that you didn't even know evolution is a continuing process, and you actually argued that """human evolution was effectively halted 12,000 years ago at the dawn of civilization. Genetically speaking, we are the exact same creature that lived back then as today"""". That is blatantly false!!! I had to point out to you that blue eyes, human tolerance to milk from cattle, and our modern diet are all changes that took place since the dawn of civilization, and evolution is probably happening faster now then it did 12,000 years ago. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/recent-human-evolution-traits-2016-8

The fulcrum that drives evolution are the random genetic mutations that happen in every human being. Most mutations are neutral and have no observable effect. Over many generations, strands of mutated genetic information become combined to create an observable genetic trait. The only deciding factor on whether the new trait is a success is whether the person who has the new trait can have children and introduce the new trait into the genome. The effect of the genetic trait itself is usually not the deciding factor of success, because other environmental circumstances can also effect whether that person can have children. They may be killed in a car accident before they reach the age of fertility. That wouldn't mean it was the genetic trait itself that was unsuccessful, it was just that the person didn't get to pass the trait on. But genetically speaking, that trait was not a success, and it was winowed out of the gene pool. But if that person did make it to an old enough age to have children, and did pass the gene on, the genetic trait becomes a success. But much of the time, the deciding factor in the success of a genetic trait is not the trait itself, it's just because of environmental circumstances.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution

Introducing eugenics as a regulatory measure for controlling our evolution will have no advantageous consequences on the human genome, but it will certainly reduce the speed of our evolution, and could freeze it altogether. If genetic mutations are seen as incorrect genetic information, or genetic mistakes, they could be edited out of the gene pool because they're seen as mistakes regardless of the fact that the true impact of those mutations on our DNA is still yet to be seen. When genetic mutations are inhibited from entering into the genome without a certain amount of scepticism of what its effect will be, our evolution will become stifled. Your concept of a more equal society flies directly in the face of a rapid evolutionary growth. You absolutely cannot want to have control over our evolutionary biology with the hopes of rapid evolutionary growth and also have a more equal society. To have a more genetically equal society would mean inhibiting differentiation of genetic traits that come about from genetic mutations. But on the flip side, if you want rapid evolution to take place, you cannot allow genetic mutations to become the pariah of genetic mechanics. They must be allowed to happen for evolution to take place. Your argument is inconsistent, and contradictory to itself.

           https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/evolution ;               

Your claim that we could know how genes will be altered in our children if they are genetically modified is absolutely false. We cannot determine beforehand what random changes will be made to the genetic code of the child, because they're RANDOM, and no amount of genetic engineering will change that fact. The proteins that control our genetic makeup will always make random changes to the genetic code. Even though it's very rare that it happens, when they're working with billions of genes, it's gonna happen. We all have genetic changes in us that makes us slightly different from our parents. It's those changes that cause evolution. Genetic engineering cannot make it so we suddenly know what random changes will occur in the DNA of unborn children. The little graphics you posted are misleading, because they describe the circumstances of genetic engineering on a specific disease. If one of the parents are treated for a certain disease by way of genetic engineering, the child will not get that specific disease, but it certainly doesn't mean they will not get any diseases because random genetic mutations will still occur, and other untreated diseases may still exist. It also doesn't mean that another disease will appear in their genetic family line in future generations. Genetic engineering is not a cure all process that can be fixed in one shot.

The idea that when one problem arises from germline editing techniques can be fixed by more germline editing is counterproductive and unscientific. First, there's the fact that any problems that come from germline editing may actually be worse than the problem they were trying to address. Next, there's also the fact that any techniques we use to litigate problems from earlier edits will actually compound those problems and cause even more problems that will need to be addressed. If we were to continue chasing the problems with more editing, we'd need to rewrite the entire human genome, and in the end it would be unlikely we'd have a better product.     
    

        

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer I think my counter point about knowing the future holds even after your clarification.

WE are not talking about eugenics. YOU are talking about eugenics. I am talking about genetic engineering.

The term eugenics was coined in 1883, while Genes were not discovered until 1905, and genetic engineering was first used in 1973. The time divide alone ensures that we are not talking about the same thing. Heritability was partially understood at the time eugenics was popular, but it was not until much latter that we knew about the root cause, something we still do not fully understand. 

Eugenics is about creating a master race. I'm just trying to eliminate genetic diseases and maybe someday give people advanced genetic abilities from birth.

https://www.nature.com/articles/gim2003376

I already explained what I meant when I said humans have effectively broken evolution, but let me explain it again, this time in picture form:



None of these plants exist in nature! We made them to suit our needs. We broke evolution! The same applies for most domesticated animals, (cats are the exception) domesticated plants, and humans. We have been overcoming nature for our entire history, but then why is taking direct control too far? Is this not evolution? Exploited at our hands none the less?



Right now, we are in the middle of the 6th extinction, and the blood is entirely in our hands. The only animals and plants that survive will be the ones which humans deem useful enough to keep around. All others will either have to adapt to our brave new world or be exterminated by our hands. Times are changing faster than our culture can keep up, let alone evolution. The only way forward is to take control on a genetic level, to uplift everything to our standard of survival.

What you don't understand is that not everything has to be leveled. Only the things that give one person a disadvantage over another, not the things that aid people in specialization. Consider, if you were a firefighter, wouldn't you want to be able to see infrared? That way you could glimpse through the smoke and locate heat sources and injured people. Does this make you less equal than someone who has gut modifications that allows them to get more nutrients from plants? Or a surgeon who has special muscle enhancements that allows for very fine steady movements?

No. No it doesn't. The ability to remove genetic disorders or even enhance human abilities doesn't mean different legal treatment, it just means some people are better suited for certain tasks than others, and only detractors should be removed, such as dying before you turn 20 because your heart is malformed.

"Your claim that we could know how genes will be altered in our children if they are genetically modified is absolutely false. We cannot determine beforehand what random changes will be made to the genetic code of the child, because they're RANDOM, and no amount of genetic engineering will change that fact."

OK, up until this point I thought we were both basically on the same page about what genetic engineering is.

"The little graphics you posted are misleading, because they describe the circumstances of genetic engineering on a specific disease."

No, this is what I was always talking about, exactly like in the diagram.

"It also doesn't mean that another disease will appear in their genetic family line in future generations. Genetic engineering is not a cure all process that can be fixed in one shot"

Why does it need to happen in one shot? Kind of seems like you are grasping at straws here. If you can do it once, you can do it again. If you do it enough times to enough people, the problems become ubiquitous and are slowly phased out.

" If we were to continue chasing the problems with more editing, we'd need to rewrite the entire human genome, and in the end it would be unlikely we'd have a better product."

We have GMO crops, from which products are made that you can not possibly have avoided and have most likely consumed without knowing. As a prof of concept that genetic engineering techniques work and do not have the negative effects that you seem to think, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that such problems, although possible are thoroughly rebuked by these real world examples. This is especially true in the case of single gene disorders, where there is no credible threat except the fear of brighter future, unwillingness to change ourselves for health, and a denial of possibility.

xlJ_dolphin_473

I am of the strong belief that humans should never genetically engineer themselves, even if it would lead to a higher quality of life.
My reasoning:

• If there were some unknown side effects, there would be no way of removing them from the gene pool. We could see the end of humanity if we started to mess with our genes without knowing the side effects.
• Even if we did know the side effects, there is a moral issue. If some people are genetically altered, those who had not been altered would be inferior to the altered people. Even with something as simple as illness, if someone got genetic immunity, they would have a biological advantage over someone who had not. This is unfair.
• People who could afford the treatment could essentially buy themselves longer lives by getting genetic engineering. Why should richer people be able to live significantly longer than poor people, simply because of their background?

I think it is not worth improving human life quality when there is a risk of drastically worsening human life quality. Even if the risk is reduced, there are moral and financial issues too.

Happy_Killbot

@xlJ_dolphin_473 The possibility of side effects from genetic engineering is duly noted, and through research I think it is reasonable that we can discover and alleviate these issues.

As for people being genetically superior due to enhancement, I only have to pint out that right now, some people have the diseases and this is inherently unfair and biased against them. If you are going to die before your 20's due to some genetic abnormality, many of which are caused from single gene disorders, you will not get the same opportunity in life someone else might. Only through genetic engineering can these inherent natural biases and inequities be remedied.

The price will be high at first, but if there is a demand the price will drop. A lot of people assume that it will be expensive somehow, but I don't think this is fair considering that if we did it at scale, it might only cost a few hundred dollars, not even a fraction of the costs of raising the child, and this investment will save you money if it removes diseases that cost way more in the long run.

Take the CRISPR Cas-9 kit, which if you watched the video I posted is one of the tools they used. You can buy this kit for only $169 and get to work doing this kind of stuff in your garage.

https://www.the-odin.com/diy-crispr-kit/

That same guy from the video I posted does all sorts of cool things, like right now he is trying to make a calculator out of human neurons.

The risks exist, but they can be mitigated. It's sort of like cave men arguing that they shouldn't use fire, because it is dangerous. If we stayed in that mentality, where would we be today?

Plaffelvohfen

I think we already are in different ways... The human ego prevents most people from realizing that we are, right now, just a transition model... Most people think we are a finished product, that our current form/genetic make-up, is definite, some go as far as saying we're "perfect", made in the image of some fancied "god"...  But in 500 000 years, we should be as different from our 2020 selves than Homo Heidelbergensis is from our current form...

With this underlying bias, the next possible evolutionary step will probably be treated as a disease/malformation and may have already appeared somewhere but since we're a "finished product", any deviation from this perfect form would require correcting under such a premise no? 

For the first time though, we are (or could very soon be) able to design our future selves... The fundamental problem is a moral one in this regard,  we can only really modify the next generation, we can genetically "patch/repair" an adult but say we wanted to make humans with gills and able to thrive underwater to colonize the oceans, we could not do that for ourselves, only for subsequent generations of humans, this is the real dilemma... 

We could search for the genetic recipe to create in future humans even more cortex layers, thicker and more foldable with greater neuronal density in future generations which would result in higher cognitive capacities, but I can understand how this could be terrifying for many people... 

Anyway, even if we do not genetically engineer ourselves, we are already enhancing ourselves (transhumanism)... I would not be surprise to see (I obviously won't, too old... But I can imagine...) a branching in our evolutionary tree and quite soon (in evolutionary terms) with such new branches as "Homo Cybernicus" or cyborgs for example... 

piloteer

@Happy_Killbot

My argument is not an argument against GM crops, it only applies to GM on humans. I have no qualms with GM crops. Your argument to try and morally link the two falls short of overcoming my argument.

The reason genetically modified crops do so well is because we artificially control the environment in which they grow. We put aside land just for the purpose of growing the crops. We make sure the soil has the correct chemical compounds with which they can grow more efficiently. To say that we can somehow influence or know the future because we do so well with crops is disingenuous. We artificially create the environment our crops grow in, but that doesn't rule out some environmental circumstance that can render our artificial environment useless when it comes to growing crops. 

 We DO NOT and CANNOT decide which species live or die. Whether it be crops or any other species on earth, we cannot know what environmental changes may affect our ability to grow crops, or even to continue living on as a species on this earth. Since we cannot see into the future, we cannot know what genes would be the most effective at giving us an enhanced ability to overcome any environmental changes that may effect our ability to continue as a species. The only truly effective way to help ensure our continued existence as a species is to let all genes remain in the genome, and encourage new genes to flourish. GM on humans doesn't facilitate the growth of new genes, or apply the merits of each and every gene. GM on humans seeks to destroy genes it sees as "undesirable", regardless of the fact that we cannot actually ever know whether those "undesirable" genes may be needed for some future environmental event. 

My clarification on knowing the future is air tight and easily overcomes your argument. You are trying to misrepresent my argument by claiming I say we shouldn't do genetic modifications on humans because we don't know the future, but that isn't my argument. YOU claimed that we could get a "complete understanding" of genetics through technology. My argument is simply pointing out that is most certainly wrong. We cannot get a "complete understanding" of our genetics no matter how much technology we pile on it. We would need to know the future to actually have a "complete understanding" of our genetics. There is a limit to our ability to completely understand our genetics, and if you don't agree with me, feel free to make a counter argument to that point, because you haven't made any yet. 

The next piece of your "counter argument" is your retort to my claim that genetic modifications can't let us determine what random mutations will take place in an unborn child. What was your counterargument to that?!?!

"""""OK, up until this point I thought we were both basically on the same page about what genetic engineering is.""""

 Uuuuuuuuuuum ya, that's not a retort. You have done nothing to demonstrate how it is that genetic modifications can let us determine what random mutations will take place in an unborn child. As it stands right now, you're basically just arguing that the protein in our bodies that print out our genetic information, will somehow know when there's been an artificial modification to the code and therefore the protein will not make any mutations on the code, or it will tell us of the mutations beforehand. If you'd like to add some clarification to your argument, please feel free to do so because it seriously needs it.

I said:  

"The little graphics you posted are misleading, because they describe the circumstances of genetic engineering on a specific disease. "It also doesn't mean that another disease will appear in people's genetic family line in future generations. Genetic engineering is not a cure all process that can be fixed in one shot."

You said?!?!

""Why does it need to happen in one shot?"

Need I remind you who it was who claimed we could rid the entire human genome of any diseases in as little as one generation? It was you!!! This goes along with my point about how any modifications we make to a gene will have consequences that could easily be worse than the disease the modification was used to treat in the first place. I pointed out how there would need to be even more modifications to remediate the problems made by the initial modification, and those modifications will too have unforseen consequences that would need further modifications, and on and on it will go. If we chase the rabbit down the hole, we'd end up rewriting the entire human genome all the way through, and the outcome could be something that can't even be considered human, and there's no promise we'd have a better product. Your retort to that was basically just, so what? Hmmmm geee, that's not a retort...........uh wait a minute. I get what's going on now. You're not making any counterarguments to my points. I see now!!!

Perhaps you are correct that the bulk of the scientific community that does believe genetic  modifications on humans is a viable option are not talking about eugenics. Just so we're clear here, I'm not accusing them of arguing for eugenics, I'm accusing YOU. Do you deny that you argued we should encourage people to have an abortion if there child has a genetic disorder? Is it not you who is arguing that there are undesirable genes that adversely affect the human gene pool? You can call it what you'd like, but I will call it by its definition. It's eugenics. Eugenics is not about building a master race, it's about "genetic health", and that's what you've been arguing for this whole time. And just to rub salt in the wound, you've also been arguing for the creation of a superhuman race. I already posted the TRUE definition of what eugenics is, but just in case we forgot, here it is.

eugenics

[ yoo-jen-iks ]SHOW IPA

SEE SYNONYMS FOR eugenics ON THESAURUS.COM

---

noun (used with a singular verb)

the study of or belief in the POSSIBILITY OF IMPROVING THE  QUALITIES OF THE  HUMAN  SPECIES or a human population, especially BY SUCH MEANS AS DISCOURAGING REPRODUCTION BY PERSONS HAVING GENETIC DEFECTS OR PRESUMED TO HAVE INHERITABLE UNDESIRABLE TRAITS (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

I'VE HIGHLIGHTED ALL THE JUICY BITS. YOU'RE WELCOME 

I can't deny that this is an interesting conversation, and I enjoy being involved in it. I look forward to your retorts to my arguments.     

 

                    

piloteer

@Plaffelvohfen

You may not be to old to see the fruits of technology come to fruition (wow, that comment was asinine). Some people believe that the first person who will live forever has already been born. It seems to me that robots are the best option for colonizing underwater, or on some distant planet. It's far more likely that the idea of transhumism will be accomplished through robotics instead of genetic modifications on humans. It's very likely that by the year 2050, we will be able to upload the entire contents of our brains to the cloud. This will mean every memory, emotion, characteristic, and desire will be digitized. We will live in the machines, and as long as they live, so will we. Robotics is the wave of the future, not neo-eugenics.        

Happy_Killbot

@piloteer Changing the environment in which crops grow is only half of the picture. The other half is that we changed the plants to suit that environment. Consider round-up resistant corn. It has a bacteria gene that creates proteins which can break down the herbicide found in round up. There are two parts here: genetic and environmental. Likewise with humans, our modern world is nothing like the one our hunter gatherer ancestors were raised in. Our environment changed, so it is perfectly justified to think that we should change ourselves to better fit that environment.

We actually decide which species live and die all the time, mostly unintentionally. Most of the mega fauna that went extinct in the last 50,000 years did so because of humans. Today, many species go extinct in the rain forest and oceans of the world because of man-made pollution and land clearance. All of the species that are thriving, are ones that have either adapted to humans or were domesticated by humans.

The problem with natural human evolution, is that many of the desirable traits are nowhere to be found in the human genome. Take for example, genes which allows our bodies to breakdown cellulose. This can not be found in any humans. If it was, and we could add it through trans-genetic engineering, then humans would be able to eat wood and get more energy from a plant-based diet.

 My counter for your "needing to know the future" argument is also sound and stands. I gave the example of politics, and how implementing a law today might have unknown future consequences. So by your own reasoning, we should not change any laws either.

In fact, just to drive this point home:

"My clarification on knowing the future is air tight and easily overcomes your argument. You are trying to misrepresent my argument by claiming I say we shouldn't do legal changes on laws because we don't know the future, but that isn't my argument. YOU claimed that we could get a "complete understanding" of laws through technology. My argument is simply pointing out that is most certainly wrong. We cannot get a "complete understanding" of our Laws no matter how much technology we pile on it. We would need to know the future to actually have a "complete understanding" of our laws. There is a limit to our ability to completely understand our laws, and if you don't agree with me, feel free to make a counter argument to that point, because you haven't made any yet."

See how silly that is as an argument that we should not change our laws?

That fact that we could rid the human population of all genetic diseases in one generation is still a valid point. Now I understand that practically this isn't possible, but even if it took 3 or 4 generations that is still really good considering that we would be saving countless lives and improving everyone's life.

No, we would not have to re-wright the entire human genome, that is ridiculous, obviously we keep the parts people want for themselves and only remove the parts they don't. At the end of the day the control and the risk will be in the hands of citizens because that's how liberalism works.

I am still not talking about eugenics, nor was I ever and I have made that clear. You are just getting triggered for no reason whatsoever.

I don't have any problems with abortion, so if the parents decide they want to abort their baby because it has a genetic disorder, that would not be my decision now would it?

There are many single-gene disorders and other more complex ones that can be eliminated through genetic engineering. If you have one of these disorders, you are severely disadvantaged when compared to those who don't, in particular through medical expenses, shorter life span, and general wellness. I did not say they are genetically inferior, I just pointed out this harsh reality. Your comment would be as silly as if I accused you of saying that everyone should have genetic diseases.

If you accuse me of being for Eugenics one more time, I'm going to start arguing with you the way you are arguing with me so you can see how dumb it makes you look.

Plaffelvohfen

piloteer said:

@Plaffelvohfen

You may not be to old to see the fruits of technology come to fruition (wow, that comment was asinine). Some people believe that the first person who will live forever has already been born. It seems to me that robots are the best option for colonizing underwater, or on some distant planet. It's far more likely that the idea of transhumism will be accomplished through robotics instead of genetic modifications on humans. It's very likely that by the year 2050, we will be able to upload the entire contents of our brains to the cloud. This will mean every memory, emotion, characteristic, and desire will be digitized. We will live in the machines, and as long as they live, so will we. Robotics is the wave of the future, not neo-eugenics.        

A few points...

Forever doesn't exist, the universe (as far as we now know anyway) has an expiration date or at least matter does... Why would anyone want to exist, in a conscious state, after the current Stelliferous Era is beyond me...  To me, eternal life is a deeply nightmarish concept tbh... Now, to believe that the first person who'll live to be 500 years or older maybe possible, "forever" is a non-starter...

Uploading the entire content of our brains is not a transfer of consciousness, it's just a copy of information... You'd just be copying information of yourself to the cloud, but you'll only ever experience being the original, and the copy will only ever experience itself, an original cannot become the copy, by definition... If that copy does actually produces a consciousness in the cloud, that would still not be you, it would be more like a digital clone... Considering this, 2050 is more than optimistic for what you imagine, since we know so little, right now in 2020, with regards to the nature of consciousness.

I do agree that cybernetic transhumanism will occur before a genetic revolution, but we'll first have to go with "add-ons" to our biological self, something like grafted programmable memory modules with a library of different DLCs like math, languages, techniques, etc... We'll definitely see a Johnny Mnemonic before we can even dream of uploading ourselves in the Matrix... Mmmm, 2 Keanu movies... coincidence?