Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Ethics of Genetic Engineering.

Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 12:43:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If you are talking about regular genetic engineering that is already used in a bout 90% of the food we eat, then there is no question about it's ethics.

I assume you mean the more controversial human application. There are words to be said here. I think that genetic engineering could have deep effects if commercially used on ignorant humans.

The premise of human GE is for the better -- healing human flaws with a touch of the genome before a human is born. A baby who might be born blind or missing a limb can be "fixed".

However, it can have unwanted side effects. A tiny change in something as high information-entropy as the human genome could have wide spread effects. An arbitrary example is that genes that controls eye color could also unknowingly control important heart function. This is why more research is needed before GE can be commercially used.

Another concern is the systematic abuse of GE. Genetic doping in some athletes has become a sad reality in the competitive world of sports. Parents could possibly arbitrarily manually change their baby's eye color or even gender. There is no clear line between beneficial GE and abuse.

Further, GE could separate the rich and poor in an even more distinct manner. The rich could simply genetically modify themselves with "positive" traits like strength, intelligence, height, etc, creating a permanent and distinct chasm between the rich and poor classes.

In conclusion, further research into GE could bring us into very dangerous and murky waters, like the development of the atomic bomb. Does it need to be stopped? I don't know.
0x5f3759df
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 8:36:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 12:43:15 PM, Bullish wrote:
If you are talking about regular genetic engineering that is already used in a bout 90% of the food we eat, then there is no question about it's ethics.

I assume you mean the more controversial human application. There are words to be said here. I think that genetic engineering could have deep effects if commercially used on ignorant humans.

The premise of human GE is for the better -- healing human flaws with a touch of the genome before a human is born. A baby who might be born blind or missing a limb can be "fixed".

However, it can have unwanted side effects. A tiny change in something as high information-entropy as the human genome could have wide spread effects. An arbitrary example is that genes that controls eye color could also unknowingly control important heart function. This is why more research is needed before GE can be commercially used.

Another concern is the systematic abuse of GE. Genetic doping in some athletes has become a sad reality in the competitive world of sports. Parents could possibly arbitrarily manually change their baby's eye color or even gender. There is no clear line between beneficial GE and abuse.

Further, GE could separate the rich and poor in an even more distinct manner. The rich could simply genetically modify themselves with "positive" traits like strength, intelligence, height, etc, creating a permanent and distinct chasm between the rich and poor classes.

In conclusion, further research into GE could bring us into very dangerous and murky waters, like the development of the atomic bomb. Does it need to be stopped? I don't know.

Changing your DNA won't necessarily make you stronger, smarter or taller. There are environmental factors as well. The rich already have access to education that the poor can't afford, so changing their DNA won't give them much of an advantage as far as intelligence is concerned.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 9:15:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 8:36:19 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/10/2013 12:43:15 PM, Bullish wrote:
If you are talking about regular genetic engineering that is already used in a bout 90% of the food we eat, then there is no question about it's ethics.

I assume you mean the more controversial human application. There are words to be said here. I think that genetic engineering could have deep effects if commercially used on ignorant humans.

The premise of human GE is for the better -- healing human flaws with a touch of the genome before a human is born. A baby who might be born blind or missing a limb can be "fixed".

However, it can have unwanted side effects. A tiny change in something as high information-entropy as the human genome could have wide spread effects. An arbitrary example is that genes that controls eye color could also unknowingly control important heart function. This is why more research is needed before GE can be commercially used.

Another concern is the systematic abuse of GE. Genetic doping in some athletes has become a sad reality in the competitive world of sports. Parents could possibly arbitrarily manually change their baby's eye color or even gender. There is no clear line between beneficial GE and abuse.

Further, GE could separate the rich and poor in an even more distinct manner. The rich could simply genetically modify themselves with "positive" traits like strength, intelligence, height, etc, creating a permanent and distinct chasm between the rich and poor classes.

In conclusion, further research into GE could bring us into very dangerous and murky waters, like the development of the atomic bomb. Does it need to be stopped? I don't know.

Changing your DNA won't necessarily make you stronger, smarter or taller. There are environmental factors as well. The rich already have access to education that the poor can't afford, so changing their DNA won't give them much of an advantage as far as intelligence is concerned.

There is a difference between knowledge and intelligence. Inteligence in a combination of prenatal genetic and epigenetic factors, whereas knowledge depends on postnatal environmental factors.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 9:55:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 9:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:36:19 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/10/2013 12:43:15 PM, Bullish wrote:
If you are talking about regular genetic engineering that is already used in a bout 90% of the food we eat, then there is no question about it's ethics.

I assume you mean the more controversial human application. There are words to be said here. I think that genetic engineering could have deep effects if commercially used on ignorant humans.

The premise of human GE is for the better -- healing human flaws with a touch of the genome before a human is born. A baby who might be born blind or missing a limb can be "fixed".

However, it can have unwanted side effects. A tiny change in something as high information-entropy as the human genome could have wide spread effects. An arbitrary example is that genes that controls eye color could also unknowingly control important heart function. This is why more research is needed before GE can be commercially used.

Another concern is the systematic abuse of GE. Genetic doping in some athletes has become a sad reality in the competitive world of sports. Parents could possibly arbitrarily manually change their baby's eye color or even gender. There is no clear line between beneficial GE and abuse.

Further, GE could separate the rich and poor in an even more distinct manner. The rich could simply genetically modify themselves with "positive" traits like strength, intelligence, height, etc, creating a permanent and distinct chasm between the rich and poor classes.

In conclusion, further research into GE could bring us into very dangerous and murky waters, like the development of the atomic bomb. Does it need to be stopped? I don't know.

Changing your DNA won't necessarily make you stronger, smarter or taller. There are environmental factors as well. The rich already have access to education that the poor can't afford, so changing their DNA won't give them much of an advantage as far as intelligence is concerned.

There is a difference between knowledge and intelligence. Inteligence in a combination of prenatal genetic and epigenetic factors, whereas knowledge depends on postnatal environmental factors.

How are you measuring intelligence? IQ tests just show that you've had a lot of practice doing IQ tests.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 9:57:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 1:30:59 AM, Jack212 wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?

There are no inherent ethical considerations that I'm aware of.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2013 10:20:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 9:55:17 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/10/2013 9:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:36:19 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/10/2013 12:43:15 PM, Bullish wrote:
If you are talking about regular genetic engineering that is already used in a bout 90% of the food we eat, then there is no question about it's ethics.

I assume you mean the more controversial human application. There are words to be said here. I think that genetic engineering could have deep effects if commercially used on ignorant humans.

The premise of human GE is for the better -- healing human flaws with a touch of the genome before a human is born. A baby who might be born blind or missing a limb can be "fixed".

However, it can have unwanted side effects. A tiny change in something as high information-entropy as the human genome could have wide spread effects. An arbitrary example is that genes that controls eye color could also unknowingly control important heart function. This is why more research is needed before GE can be commercially used.

Another concern is the systematic abuse of GE. Genetic doping in some athletes has become a sad reality in the competitive world of sports. Parents could possibly arbitrarily manually change their baby's eye color or even gender. There is no clear line between beneficial GE and abuse.

Further, GE could separate the rich and poor in an even more distinct manner. The rich could simply genetically modify themselves with "positive" traits like strength, intelligence, height, etc, creating a permanent and distinct chasm between the rich and poor classes.

In conclusion, further research into GE could bring us into very dangerous and murky waters, like the development of the atomic bomb. Does it need to be stopped? I don't know.

Changing your DNA won't necessarily make you stronger, smarter or taller. There are environmental factors as well. The rich already have access to education that the poor can't afford, so changing their DNA won't give them much of an advantage as far as intelligence is concerned.

There is a difference between knowledge and intelligence. Inteligence in a combination of prenatal genetic and epigenetic factors, whereas knowledge depends on postnatal environmental factors.

How are you measuring intelligence? IQ tests just show that you've had a lot of practice doing IQ tests.

You can't legitimately measure intelligence. Also, IQ test scores don't show "that you've had a lot of practice doing IQ tests." IQ test scores show one's ability to achieve a certain score on IQ tests. If you score 130 on an IQ test, it does not mean you have a 130 IQ, it means you have at-least a 130 IQ. You can score less than your potential, but you cannot score higher than your potential.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 8:27:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 10:20:26 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/10/2013 9:55:17 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/10/2013 9:15:57 PM, DanT wrote:
At 8/10/2013 8:36:19 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 8/10/2013 12:43:15 PM, Bullish wrote:
If you are talking about regular genetic engineering that is already used in a bout 90% of the food we eat, then there is no question about it's ethics.

I assume you mean the more controversial human application. There are words to be said here. I think that genetic engineering could have deep effects if commercially used on ignorant humans.

The premise of human GE is for the better -- healing human flaws with a touch of the genome before a human is born. A baby who might be born blind or missing a limb can be "fixed".

However, it can have unwanted side effects. A tiny change in something as high information-entropy as the human genome could have wide spread effects. An arbitrary example is that genes that controls eye color could also unknowingly control important heart function. This is why more research is needed before GE can be commercially used.

Another concern is the systematic abuse of GE. Genetic doping in some athletes has become a sad reality in the competitive world of sports. Parents could possibly arbitrarily manually change their baby's eye color or even gender. There is no clear line between beneficial GE and abuse.

Further, GE could separate the rich and poor in an even more distinct manner. The rich could simply genetically modify themselves with "positive" traits like strength, intelligence, height, etc, creating a permanent and distinct chasm between the rich and poor classes.

In conclusion, further research into GE could bring us into very dangerous and murky waters, like the development of the atomic bomb. Does it need to be stopped? I don't know.

Changing your DNA won't necessarily make you stronger, smarter or taller. There are environmental factors as well. The rich already have access to education that the poor can't afford, so changing their DNA won't give them much of an advantage as far as intelligence is concerned.

There is a difference between knowledge and intelligence. Inteligence in a combination of prenatal genetic and epigenetic factors, whereas knowledge depends on postnatal environmental factors.

How are you measuring intelligence? IQ tests just show that you've had a lot of practice doing IQ tests.

You can't legitimately measure intelligence. Also, IQ test scores don't show "that you've had a lot of practice doing IQ tests." IQ test scores show one's ability to achieve a certain score on IQ tests.

If you score 130 on an IQ test, it does not mean you have a 130 IQ, it means you have at-least a 130 IQ. You can score less than your potential, but you cannot score higher than your potential.

These claims are contradictory, as IQ is percentile-based. Insofar as IQ scores underestimate real IQ, they overestimate it proportionally.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 8:33:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 10:20:26 PM, DanT wrote:

You can't legitimately measure intelligence. Also, IQ test scores don't show "that you've had a lot of practice doing IQ tests." IQ test scores show one's ability to achieve a certain score on IQ tests. If you score 130 on an IQ test, it does not mean you have a 130 IQ, it means you have at-least a 130 IQ. You can score less than your potential, but you cannot score higher than your potential.

how is that? I'd imagine a few lucky guesses could inflate someone's score.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 8:47:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 8:33:50 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/10/2013 10:20:26 PM, DanT wrote:

You can't legitimately measure intelligence. Also, IQ test scores don't show "that you've had a lot of practice doing IQ tests." IQ test scores show one's ability to achieve a certain score on IQ tests. If you score 130 on an IQ test, it does not mean you have a 130 IQ, it means you have at-least a 130 IQ. You can score less than your potential, but you cannot score higher than your potential.

how is that? I'd imagine a few lucky guesses could inflate someone's score.
Or it could deflate the score.
And why would you guess on an IQ test? That would be like guessing on an eyesight test. It does you no good.
You would need to make allot of guesses to impact the score in any significant way. IQ tests take hours to administer, because there are so many questions.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 8:49:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/10/2013 1:30:59 AM, Jack212 wrote:
What are your thoughts on this?

I have no problem with it. If you think it's scary, think about how scary this is:

Stupid people tend to have stupid children, and smart people tend to have smart children. Stupid people tend to have more children than smart people. The stupid children of the stupid people tend to have more children than the smart children of the stupid people, and the stupid children of the smart people tend to have more children than the smart children of the smart people. The stupid children of the stupid children of the stupid people tend to have more children than the smart children of the stupid children of the stupid people, and the smart children of the stupid children of the smart people tend to have fewer children than the stupid children of the stupid children of the smart people.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 8:50:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 8:47:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/11/2013 8:33:50 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/10/2013 10:20:26 PM, DanT wrote:

You can't legitimately measure intelligence. Also, IQ test scores don't show "that you've had a lot of practice doing IQ tests." IQ test scores show one's ability to achieve a certain score on IQ tests. If you score 130 on an IQ test, it does not mean you have a 130 IQ, it means you have at-least a 130 IQ. You can score less than your potential, but you cannot score higher than your potential.

how is that? I'd imagine a few lucky guesses could inflate someone's score.
Or it could deflate the score.
And why would you guess on an IQ test? That would be like guessing on an eyesight test. It does you no good.
You would need to make allot of guesses to impact the score in any significant way. IQ tests take hours to administer, because there are so many questions.

It's just as likely that it would inflate it, as it's percentile-based.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2013 9:05:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/11/2013 8:47:02 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/11/2013 8:33:50 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/10/2013 10:20:26 PM, DanT wrote:

You can't legitimately measure intelligence. Also, IQ test scores don't show "that you've had a lot of practice doing IQ tests." IQ test scores show one's ability to achieve a certain score on IQ tests. If you score 130 on an IQ test, it does not mean you have a 130 IQ, it means you have at-least a 130 IQ. You can score less than your potential, but you cannot score higher than your potential.

how is that? I'd imagine a few lucky guesses could inflate someone's score.
Or it could deflate the score.
And why would you guess on an IQ test? That would be like guessing on an eyesight test. It does you no good.
You would need to make allot of guesses to impact the score in any significant way. IQ tests take hours to administer, because there are so many questions.

And who said anything about randomly guessing? It's called margin of error, and exists regardless of how people go about taking the test.