Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Genetic Engineering

annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2010 3:31:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm required in my Biotechnology course to enter a convention called BioExpo. My topic is "Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering". I'm focusing on genetic engineering in humans and not plants or animals. Through my research, I've encountered many different perspectives on the implications of genetic engineering which made me wonder...

Does anyone here have any problems with genetic engineering? Most who do, focus on the manipulation of genes for the "betterment" of the species. I'm currently reading Michael J. Sandel's book, " The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering" and a good summarization of his problem with genetic engineering is:

"that they represent the one-sided triumph of willfulness over giftedness, of dominion over reverence, of molding over beholding.…What would be lost if biotechnology dissolved our sense of giftedness? … If the genetic revolution erodes our appreciation for the gifted character of human powers and achievements, it will transform three key features of our moral landscape—humility, responsibility, and solidarity….A Gattaca-like world, in which parents became accustomed to specifying the sex and genetic traits of their children, would be a world inhospitable to the unbidden [the downtrodden unwashed], a gated community writ large."

Thoughts? Opinions? Comments?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2010 3:36:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/28/2010 3:31:21 PM, annhasle wrote:
I'm required in my Biotechnology course to enter a convention called BioExpo. My topic is "Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering". I'm focusing on genetic engineering in humans and not plants or animals. Through my research, I've encountered many different perspectives on the implications of genetic engineering which made me wonder...

Does anyone here have any problems with genetic engineering? Most who do, focus on the manipulation of genes for the "betterment" of the species. I'm currently reading Michael J. Sandel's book, " The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering" and a good summarization of his problem with genetic engineering is:

"that they represent the one-sided triumph of willfulness over giftedness, of dominion over reverence, of molding over beholding.…What would be lost if biotechnology dissolved our sense of giftedness? … If the genetic revolution erodes our appreciation for the gifted character of human powers and achievements, it will transform three key features of our moral landscape—humility, responsibility, and solidarity….A Gattaca-like world, in which parents became accustomed to specifying the sex and genetic traits of their children, would be a world inhospitable to the unbidden [the downtrodden unwashed], a gated community writ large."

Thoughts? Opinions? Comments?

I'm actually taking a Bioethics class right now. We actually read that very article. For other objectors, you might look at Habermas and Kass.

Also, read Elizabeth Fenton: "Liberal Eugenics and Human Nature: Against Habermas"
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2010 3:46:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/28/2010 3:36:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/28/2010 3:31:21 PM, annhasle wrote:
I'm required in my Biotechnology course to enter a convention called BioExpo. My topic is "Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering". I'm focusing on genetic engineering in humans and not plants or animals. Through my research, I've encountered many different perspectives on the implications of genetic engineering which made me wonder...

Does anyone here have any problems with genetic engineering? Most who do, focus on the manipulation of genes for the "betterment" of the species. I'm currently reading Michael J. Sandel's book, " The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering" and a good summarization of his problem with genetic engineering is:

"that they represent the one-sided triumph of willfulness over giftedness, of dominion over reverence, of molding over beholding.…What would be lost if biotechnology dissolved our sense of giftedness? … If the genetic revolution erodes our appreciation for the gifted character of human powers and achievements, it will transform three key features of our moral landscape—humility, responsibility, and solidarity….A Gattaca-like world, in which parents became accustomed to specifying the sex and genetic traits of their children, would be a world inhospitable to the unbidden [the downtrodden unwashed], a gated community writ large."

Thoughts? Opinions? Comments?

I'm actually taking a Bioethics class right now. We actually read that very article.

Well, that's convenient. Lol

For other objectors, you might look at Habermas and Kass.

I've read objections from both of them. I find Habermas's argument to be essentially Dworkin's who I have also read. This idea that moral and immoral will become indistinguishable is hardly justified - but I have to keep my nihilism in check will writing. <sigh>

Do you have any suggestions of articles to read from Habermas? I didn't find many.

And UGH. I cannot stand Kass. What a liberal piece o' annoying crap... Hopefully you don't like him and if you do, no offense.

The "Playing God" argument makes me lol in both Dworkin's and Kass's work.

Also, read Elizabeth Fenton: "Liberal Eugenics and Human Nature: Against Habermas"

That I have not read - thanks.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2010 3:56:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/28/2010 3:46:09 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/28/2010 3:36:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/28/2010 3:31:21 PM, annhasle wrote:
I'm required in my Biotechnology course to enter a convention called BioExpo. My topic is "Ethical Issues in Genetic Engineering". I'm focusing on genetic engineering in humans and not plants or animals. Through my research, I've encountered many different perspectives on the implications of genetic engineering which made me wonder...

Does anyone here have any problems with genetic engineering? Most who do, focus on the manipulation of genes for the "betterment" of the species. I'm currently reading Michael J. Sandel's book, " The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering" and a good summarization of his problem with genetic engineering is:

"that they represent the one-sided triumph of willfulness over giftedness, of dominion over reverence, of molding over beholding.…What would be lost if biotechnology dissolved our sense of giftedness? … If the genetic revolution erodes our appreciation for the gifted character of human powers and achievements, it will transform three key features of our moral landscape—humility, responsibility, and solidarity….A Gattaca-like world, in which parents became accustomed to specifying the sex and genetic traits of their children, would be a world inhospitable to the unbidden [the downtrodden unwashed], a gated community writ large."

Thoughts? Opinions? Comments?

I'm actually taking a Bioethics class right now. We actually read that very article.

Well, that's convenient. Lol

For other objectors, you might look at Habermas and Kass.

I've read objections from both of them. I find Habermas's argument to be essentially Dworkin's who I have also read. This idea that moral and immoral will become indistinguishable is hardly justified - but I have to keep my nihilism in check will writing. <sigh>

I didn't say that I agreed with Habermas.

Do you have any suggestions of articles to read from Habermas? I didn't find many.

Articles? Not particularly. We read The Future of Human Nature.

And UGH. I cannot stand Kass. What a liberal piece o' annoying crap... Hopefully you don't like him and if you do, no offense.

I f*cking hate Leon Kass.

The "Playing God" argument makes me lol in both Dworkin's and Kass's work.

Also, read Elizabeth Fenton: "Liberal Eugenics and Human Nature: Against Habermas"

That I have not read - thanks.

Though it isn't "genetic engineering" per se, you might also read Margaret Talbot: "Brain Gain". It's in the New Yorker--it's a great article about neuroenhancers.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2010 4:00:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/28/2010 3:56:45 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/28/2010 3:46:09 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/28/2010 3:36:10 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/28/2010 3:31:21 PM, annhasle wrote:

I've read objections from both of them. I find Habermas's argument to be essentially Dworkin's who I have also read. This idea that moral and immoral will become indistinguishable is hardly justified - but I have to keep my nihilism in check will writing. <sigh>

I didn't say that I agreed with Habermas.

I know - and I'm glad you don't. Otherwise I'd cyber slap you.

Do you have any suggestions of articles to read from Habermas? I didn't find many.

Articles? Not particularly. We read The Future of Human Nature.

Oh, that's what I read... Dammit.

And UGH. I cannot stand Kass. What a liberal piece o' annoying crap... Hopefully you don't like him and if you do, no offense.

I f*cking hate Leon Kass.

Good boy. <pat on the head>

The "Playing God" argument makes me lol in both Dworkin's and Kass's work.

Also, read Elizabeth Fenton: "Liberal Eugenics and Human Nature: Against Habermas"

That I have not read - thanks.

Though it isn't "genetic engineering" per se, you might also read Margaret Talbot: "Brain Gain". It's in the New Yorker--it's a great article about neuroenhancers.

Since bioethics interests me a lot, I'll definitely check it out.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2010 4:01:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/28/2010 3:53:29 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I want a zebracorn, damnit.

We all have dreams, I guess.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2010 4:30:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am all for bioengineering for it coud help to prevent certain diseases and physical defects from occurring in humans as well as allow for humans to be better adept at survivingh in certain conditions (such as space . . .) http://www.debate.org...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2010 5:13:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/28/2010 4:30:21 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I am all for bioengineering for it coud help to prevent certain diseases and physical defects from occurring in humans as well as allow for humans to be better adept at survivingh in certain conditions (such as space . . .) http://www.debate.org...

Uh, the only way we could survive in space is if we somehow engineer a generation of anaerobic humans (in which case we would have engineer them to be either aerotolerant or facultative). The only anaerobic beings of which I can currently conceive are bacteria.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2010 6:46:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/28/2010 5:13:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/28/2010 4:30:21 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I am all for bioengineering for it coud help to prevent certain diseases and physical defects from occurring in humans as well as allow for humans to be better adept at survivingh in certain conditions (such as space . . .) http://www.debate.org...

Uh, the only way we could survive in space is if we somehow engineer a generation of anaerobic humans (in which case we would have engineer them to be either aerotolerant or facultative). The only anaerobic beings of which I can currently conceive are bacteria.

I am talking about low gravity, radiation, and extended periods of time without essential nutrients problems not the issues with the vacuum of space . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 1:32:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have not read the authors mentioned in this thread, but I will. I want to add to the conversation though. My problem with humans genetically engineering anything is the fact that we use arbitrary standards for "perfection". We suck when it comes to speciation compared to nature. We always have. C. Darwin recognized this and made this point clear in "Origin of Species". We may be able to make an edible banana or get a weenie dog from a wolf, but we don't look at the whole picture well enough. Should we stop? Well, no, but we should recognize that the standards we hold for our species may prove to be arbitrary in the future.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 4:23:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/29/2010 1:32:01 AM, sherlockmethod wrote:
I have not read the authors mentioned in this thread, but I will. I want to add to the conversation though. My problem with humans genetically engineering anything is the fact that we use arbitrary standards for "perfection". We suck when it comes to speciation compared to nature. We always have. C. Darwin recognized this and made this point clear in "Origin of Species". We may be able to make an edible banana or get a weenie dog from a wolf, but we don't look at the whole picture well enough. Should we stop? Well, no, but we should recognize that the standards we hold for our species may prove to be arbitrary in the future.

Or species physical structure is already arbitrary . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 9:32:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Watch Gattaca - it raises many of these same issues, about whether giftedness exists if you were genetically engineered. And also how this affects people differentially, since only the rich can afford genetic engineering.

I want a kid with blue eyes - supposedly I should be allowed to choose something so minor. But that opens up the door to choosing the gender of your child, which could have major societal implications down the road.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 11:00:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/29/2010 4:23:23 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Or species physical structure is already arbitrary . . .

Species may be hard to define, but isolated gene pools, given how evolution works, is not an arbitrary standard.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 1:27:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
in my bioethics course we read "our posthuman future" by francis fukuyama. though its not all about genetic engineering he does devote a good portion of the book to it. his basic argument there seems to be that we will create a permanent underclass of the unenhanced that will be like slaves to those who have made themselves genetically superior. keep in mind though that he pronounced "the end of history" in the 1990s. so....

anyways, my guess is that we won't be as good at is as we think we are... most of our early attempted at genetic engineering have come up against completely unexpected barriers. we have a lot more to learn.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 2:40:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/29/2010 1:27:24 PM, belle wrote:
in my bioethics course we read "our posthuman future" by francis fukuyama. though its not all about genetic engineering he does devote a good portion of the book to it. his basic argument there seems to be that we will create a permanent underclass of the unenhanced that will be like slaves to those who have made themselves genetically superior. keep in mind though that he pronounced "the end of history" in the 1990s. so....

anyways, my guess is that we won't be as good at is as we think we are... most of our early attempted at genetic engineering have come up against completely unexpected barriers. we have a lot more to learn.

Ahhh, good book. We read Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go.
fatdan33
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 8:56:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The very second we are born we start grooming our children to be first who we ourselves are (class, race, work, ideals, morals, so forth), second what we want them to be, third the life that we all wished we had. Society has evolved this way from the start. Why wouldn't we push forward in genetic engineering. We spend every day in school trying to specialize our knowledge to what ever end we like. We specialize our training when we work out for what ever sport we are playing. We specialize our skills to what ever job we do. Worrying about what might happen socially shouldn't stop us. How would that moral leap be any different from every other moral snafu that has been made over the last several thousand years. First it starts out as an atrocity, then barrier, then over come as a society. What ever we do as a species we are always going to be pushing forward, challenging the old ways, and creating new ways.
A fat kid to the fat end... are you going to finish that?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 9:21:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm all for Genetic Engineering, particularly enhanced bio-mechanical parts (Repo-Men anyone?) The future of Evolution would be founded by man-made choices.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 5:33:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/28/2010 6:46:40 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/28/2010 5:13:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/28/2010 4:30:21 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I am all for bioengineering for it coud help to prevent certain diseases and physical defects from occurring in humans as well as allow for humans to be better adept at survivingh in certain conditions (such as space . . .) http://www.debate.org...

Uh, the only way we could survive in space is if we somehow engineer a generation of anaerobic humans (in which case we would have engineer them to be either aerotolerant or facultative). The only anaerobic beings of which I can currently conceive are bacteria.

I am talking about low gravity, radiation, and extended periods of time without essential nutrients problems not the issues with the vacuum of space . . .

So ... bacteria then?
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 6:56:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 5:33:29 PM, Puck wrote:
At 11/28/2010 6:46:40 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/28/2010 5:13:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/28/2010 4:30:21 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I am all for bioengineering for it coud help to prevent certain diseases and physical defects from occurring in humans as well as allow for humans to be better adept at survivingh in certain conditions (such as space . . .) http://www.debate.org...

Uh, the only way we could survive in space is if we somehow engineer a generation of anaerobic humans (in which case we would have engineer them to be either aerotolerant or facultative). The only anaerobic beings of which I can currently conceive are bacteria.

I am talking about low gravity, radiation, and extended periods of time without essential nutrients problems not the issues with the vacuum of space . . .

So ... bacteria then?

We can change our own structure to fit the needs of space so if that's what you want to say say it . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 6:58:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 6:56:52 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/30/2010 5:33:29 PM, Puck wrote:
At 11/28/2010 6:46:40 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/28/2010 5:13:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/28/2010 4:30:21 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I am all for bioengineering for it coud help to prevent certain diseases and physical defects from occurring in humans as well as allow for humans to be better adept at survivingh in certain conditions (such as space . . .) http://www.debate.org...

Uh, the only way we could survive in space is if we somehow engineer a generation of anaerobic humans (in which case we would have engineer them to be either aerotolerant or facultative). The only anaerobic beings of which I can currently conceive are bacteria.

I am talking about low gravity, radiation, and extended periods of time without essential nutrients problems not the issues with the vacuum of space . . .

So ... bacteria then?

We can change our own structure to fit the needs of space so if that's what you want to say say it . . .
Since when?
I miss the old members.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2010 8:00:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/30/2010 6:58:40 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 11/30/2010 6:56:52 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/30/2010 5:33:29 PM, Puck wrote:
At 11/28/2010 6:46:40 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 11/28/2010 5:13:21 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/28/2010 4:30:21 PM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
I am all for bioengineering for it coud help to prevent certain diseases and physical defects from occurring in humans as well as allow for humans to be better adept at survivingh in certain conditions (such as space . . .) http://www.debate.org...

Uh, the only way we could survive in space is if we somehow engineer a generation of anaerobic humans (in which case we would have engineer them to be either aerotolerant or facultative). The only anaerobic beings of which I can currently conceive are bacteria.

I am talking about low gravity, radiation, and extended periods of time without essential nutrients problems not the issues with the vacuum of space . . .

So ... bacteria then?

We can change our own structure to fit the needs of space so if that's what you want to say say it . . .
Since when?

I have stopped caring . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2010 10:11:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is anyone here opposed to the use of genetic engineering for humans, based upon the lack of consideration for the "consent of future generations"?

If interested or confused by what I mean, read the following abstract:
http://jetpress.org...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2010 10:20:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/1/2010 10:11:22 PM, annhasle wrote:
Is anyone here opposed to the use of genetic engineering for humans, based upon the lack of consideration for the "consent of future generations"?

If interested or confused by what I mean, read the following abstract:
http://jetpress.org...

Opposing it on that grounds means you would have to also oppose abortion and circumcision.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2010 10:35:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/1/2010 10:11:22 PM, annhasle wrote:
Is anyone here opposed to the use of genetic engineering for humans, based upon the lack of consideration for the "consent of future generations"?

If interested or confused by what I mean, read the following abstract:
http://jetpress.org...

I don't think this is the subject of the thread. Robot put forth a notion that is not substantiated in science. I don't know where he gets his information, but we do not know how to do what he proposes, nor do I think his experiment is worthwhile. I am familiar with this paper, but it misses the subject of the thread.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2010 5:54:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/1/2010 10:35:02 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
At 12/1/2010 10:11:22 PM, annhasle wrote:
Is anyone here opposed to the use of genetic engineering for humans, based upon the lack of consideration for the "consent of future generations"?

If interested or confused by what I mean, read the following abstract:
http://jetpress.org...

I don't think this is the subject of the thread. Robot put forth a notion that is not substantiated in science. I don't know where he gets his information, but we do not know how to do what he proposes, nor do I think his experiment is worthwhile. I am familiar with this paper, but it misses the subject of the thread.

The thread is about genetic engineering, correct? Well, if the use of genetic engineering becomes popular and is used to alter our children's DNA, then the argument that the "consent of the future generations" needs to be considered is actually quite relevant. So, to clarify the intentions of my post, is this argument that is critiqued in the paper above (see link) something that people on DDO agree with?
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2010 8:22:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/3/2010 5:54:10 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 12/1/2010 10:35:02 PM, sherlockmethod wrote:
At 12/1/2010 10:11:22 PM, annhasle wrote:
Is anyone here opposed to the use of genetic engineering for humans, based upon the lack of consideration for the "consent of future generations"?

If interested or confused by what I mean, read the following abstract:
http://jetpress.org...

I don't think this is the subject of the thread. Robot put forth a notion that is not substantiated in science. I don't know where he gets his information, but we do not know how to do what he proposes, nor do I think his experiment is worthwhile. I am familiar with this paper, but it misses the subject of the thread.

The thread is about genetic engineering, correct? Well, if the use of genetic engineering becomes popular and is used to alter our children's DNA, then the argument that the "consent of the future generations" needs to be considered is actually quite relevant. So, to clarify the intentions of my post, is this argument that is critiqued in the paper above (see link) something that people on DDO agree with?

it seems to me that if you're going to take that line, everything we do that may have long term consequences is subject to the same criterion. every action becomes a moral quagmire because of what we may be "robbing" from future generations. i think the only relevant issue would be quality of life for the individuals who are genetically engineered, and ensuring that they don't become organ farms...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2010 8:24:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/3/2010 8:22:30 PM, belle wrote:
it seems to me that if you're going to take that line, everything we do that may have long term consequences is subject to the same criterion. every action becomes a moral quagmire because of what we may be "robbing" from future generations. i think the only relevant issue would be quality of life for the individuals who are genetically engineered, and ensuring that they don't become organ farms...

although actually if it becomes possible to engineer someone to be verifiably unconscious their entire life then i would probably have no problem with them becoming an organ farm... thats really not necessary though, since we will probably be able to grow individual organs before we can engineer a philosophical zombie :p
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...