|
| Thread: Baby making project.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 04, 2011 12:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There might be in the future a legislation that governs the ratio of male and females in the world to deal with that
of course it would be easier if we just wouldn't create the problem.
without saying that this legislation would also create a lot of problems.
but well, that's humans for you, they have to create problems for themselves to solve so that they feel like they are actually useful...
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 12:57 AM |
|
Edited by smithey at 01:26, 04 Apr 2011.
|
@ Mvass - From what I've understood by her (Selcy's) previous posts, she finds the act to be wrong simply because of ethics of it, as she has claimed before, unless it is to save the baby from a defect it is as same as playing god, she finds it to be unethical to alter genes over facial features because she sees kids as a blessing and not as something that should be altered for parents "needs"... hence it is wrong from her point of view
@ Corribus - I don't really know whether you're serious when comparing apples/dogs with humans or just trying to make a "logical/rational" point however I will answer your question in 2 manners :
a. My subjective point of view - I like apples, I like dogs, many people I dont like, however if it were ever up to me to save an apple, a puppy or a human I even dislike, I would still choose human life over that of a dog or an apple, and even though I value and respect the beliefs of many of those who see animals as equals to us, I believe majority of us still see humans as more worthy than animals, I am amongst that majority as well because I believe that our brain capability makes us aware of the concept of death/existance while animals just have instincts (probably feelings as well) but no higher understanding of things as complexed as existance, and I'm not even going into what apple thinks 
b. Logical point of view - If you believe in god then we humans are made in his image, hell haven all that hence humans >>> animals, If you don't believe in god then you believe humans invented god/religion which pretty much qualifies as being as egocentric as we can be, placing ourselves above any other life forms existing on our planet or even within or outside our galaxy, human specie is an egocentric one hence humans >> animals by default of human's way of thinking
so if you want to compare one life form to another then you can compare humans with apples and dogs but IMO (and luckily so) ameba is not as same as a dog nor is a dog as same as a human hence your sentence makes no sense in the world we're living in, if it were so and one life form would be equal to another... well, laws and societies as we know them would simply seize to exist
EDIT : @ Mvass, sorry I've reached my limit so I'll do this one last edit and leave you all for today -
playing god = unethical (by religious standards as well as certain moral ones)
altering babies for your selfish needs = unethical (procedure on a baby without its permission, I can choose to change my given name however I won't be able to choose my eye color, eventually I get to live with their decision for the rest of my life without having a choice or ever being heard)
for something to be considered unethical no physical harm is necessary...It's unethical to lie even if those lies cause no harm
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 01:14 AM |
|
|
I'm trying to get her to explain why it's unethical. Something can't be unethical by itself - it has to harm someone. How does it harm the baby to be female or have blue eyes?
It's not even a procedure on the the baby - it's determining its genetic makeup before it's conceived, so nothing is done to it. Altering babies for "selfish needs"? So? If you're better off and the baby is no worse off, what's wrong with that?
As for lying, it's considered unethical because it's harmful in general, even though individual lies may not be harmful. The same can't be said about genetic modification.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 03:11 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't forget there is absolutely no "fairness" in human life until we, humans, make it fair. We already did it with societies, law
We did?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 03:33 AM |
|
|
Without knowing the source of that quote, I bet on the life of my dog that it was Doomforge.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 05:18 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:31, 04 Apr 2011.
|
@Smithey
My comparison is a serious one. It is not my intent to imply that apples or dogs are necessarily equivalent to humans. Although, it'd be interesting for you to try to demonstrate using logic that this is not the case for the purposes of the discussion at hand.
The purpose of my comparison is to find an underlying problem with her logic. It is true that beliefs don't really need to be (and often aren't) self-consistent. However, if you're going to insert yourself into a discussion, you're going to have to defend you argument using logic, which DOES need to be internally consistent. I'll also point out that many people don't realize that their beliefs are actually based upon very poor logic or very poor information or both. Beliefs are often formulated using other heuristics such as emotions, feelings, etc., and many people only realize this when they're forced to examine the logic behind what they actually believe in. Thus selcy (or whoever) may actually find questions such as the one I asked to be very useful, because they may help her make personal choices (or construct her personal belief system) using facts and sound logic rather than knee-jerk emotional responses. In the end she may not change her beliefs, and that's of course perfectly acceptable. I for one would rather have people make their choices - whatever they are - from an informed position, and questioning one's beliefs can never yield anything but positive results toward that end..
Quote:
a. My subjective point of view - I like apples, I like dogs, many people I dont like, however if it were ever up to me to save an apple, a puppy or a human I even dislike, I would still choose human life over that of a dog or an apple, and even though I value and respect the beliefs of many of those who see animals as equals to us, I believe majority of us still see humans as more worthy than animals, I am amongst that majority as well because I believe that our brain capability makes us aware of the concept of death/existance while animals just have instincts (probably feelings as well) but no higher understanding of things as complexed as existance, and I'm not even going into what apple thinks
Red herring. The issue here is not what you would save given some sort of life-or-death choice. The point is that DNA is DNA - it doesn't really matter where it comes from. The chemicals that make up genetic materials in different species are virtually identical. What we are speaking of is different processes. In the one case, we have a process whereby we consciously create a specific genotype/phenotype by selective breeding. That is, forcing animals with certain traits to mate with animals with certain other traits to gradually arrive at a desired endpoint - a creature with a certain type of DNA. This process does take a considerable amount of time, and it also has the benefit (as far as your average Joe is concerned) that it doesn't require a laboratory or sophisticated equipment. On the other hand, we have a process of genetic engineering, which allows us to go in with a pair of metaphorical tweezers and specifically design the DNA we want. In some sense, the outputs of these two processes are (or can be) exactly the same - we arrive at creatures that possess a desired kind of DNA. It is the process which is different. And because people clearly have no problem with Honeycrisp apples or Golden Retrievers or any of the other hundreds of examples of human genetic engineering resulting from selective breeding (because make no mistake - genetic engineering is what it is), we can safely conclude that it is the process which determines acceptability.
Admittedly, I did make a jump there to human engineering, so I am to some degree comparing apples to oranges (or apples to humans, as it were), so let's take a step back for moment and ask a slightly different question. Do you have a problem with genetically engineered foods?
If the answer is yes, then it's clearly the process of molecular manipulation of genetic material that you have qualms with.
On the other hand, if the answer is no, then your issue is likely related to a belief that the human genome is somehow more sacred than those of animals and plants.
So - which is it?
Quote:
b. Logical point of view - If you believe in god then we humans are made in his image, hell haven all that hence humans >>> animals, If you don't believe in god then you believe humans invented god/religion which pretty much qualifies as being as egocentric as we can be, placing ourselves above any other life forms existing on our planet or even within or outside our galaxy, human specie is an egocentric one hence humans >> animals by default of human's way of thinking
Whoa, Silver!
First, I don't believe in god, so any argument predicated on god as a premise immediately fails. Second, I completely reject the notion that an atheist philosophy requires one to believe that humans are superior to other life-forms, or that it is by default egocentric.
More to the point, if we're going to turn this thread into yet another tired discussion about what is a true Christian, then I'm out of here.
Beyond that, I see no reason whatsoever to conclude from the premise that all life forms are "equal in value" (whatever that means) that laws and society would cease to exist.
EDITS: Grammar.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 07:38 AM |
bonus applied by angelito on 07 Apr 2011. |
|
Let's ask the other way: What is WRONG with genetic engineering?
Because one way or another humans change and alter nature and themselves since they started to develop a medicine. Cosmetical operations, skin-grafting, changing "sizes" of all kinds, leg lengths.
Vaccinations, for example, are a deliberate infection with a lab-weakened strain of a dangerous plague - nothing natural about it.
Organ transplantations...
So what's the deal with genetic engineering?
My theory is, we, as a race, are not able, yet, to grasp the idea of altering fundamental human traits by altering them at the point of origin. Gives us the creeps. You can tell that by looking at "horror stories" about any issue, and there are a lot when it comes to genetic engineering.
One main reason of concern with ALL genetic engineering is the way this is done. I'm not really deep into the matter, but I suppose, the best way to alter existing DNA would still be with specifically tailored virusses, who do the changing, a most elegant way, in my opinion, however a dangerous one as well: you have to make sure that the virusses do what they are supposed to, not more, and that they die soon. And you have to make mutation impossible in their short life-cycle.
Tailored virusses and bacteria would have a lot of other uses as well - for example with waste-disposal -, however the problem is the same: there is some danger in going that road, because due to the fact that it CAN be done, that they have simple DNA - virusses are called that way in the infermation technology as well for a good reason -, they can CHANGE fast: alter their own DNA, doing things they are not supposed to. While we can do a lot against bacteria, we are more or less helpless against virusses beyond the capabilities of our immune system.
This won't stop us humans though, to succeed or die trying. Once we will manage the technology, we'll start experimenting with ADDING strains, not only changing them. It makes a lot of sense as well, god or no god. If we CAN do something we WILL do something, because at the end of the day we have not that much to lose, really, do we?
The only way to go is forward - albeit in a responsible way!
Think about the blessing it would be, if all genetical defects could be cured before birth.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted April 04, 2011 12:25 PM |
|
|
Just a small hint here while the topic still has a nice growing and very interesting points given by a couple of posters:
Do NOT turn this into a question about religion or bible or anything like that! I will immediately delete those posts and take further actions if needed.
I will let the thread grow a little more and then hand out some +QP. There are already some +QP worthy posts present....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 12:53 PM |
bonus applied by angelito on 07 Apr 2011. |
|
Fortunately, the topic has not been overrun by Elodin yet.
So, on topic. I always thought there is a bright and shiny future for the human race in the genetic course. Because that's the only way we can reach true equality in life.
Why is life not equal? Well, looks, intelligence, health - everything is pretty much hard-coded in us. Some people are afraid to "play God" by altering this, but I'd say NOT altering this (if it was possible) would be playing God. I don't think there's anything noble or awesome in the fact that you are what you are because of a dice throw. It's not a D&D rpg session, after all. A person that is born stupid or ugly or sick is as "lucky" as Cristiano Ronaldo, only in the opposite way. And sure, good looking guy would certainly be afraid of losing his superior status if everybody could be born good looking, but from the perspective of an average Joe, it would be totally awesome to remove the minuscule chance of getting born as "homo superior" and replace it with a certainty.
Would it be boring? As I said before, I don't think so. What would change is that people would be free of "typical" visual defects (hence wouldn't have inferiority complex and could develop their personalities better), also would be on average much more healthy and - possibly - more intelligent overall, which would contribute to much higher social and ethical standards of human race. People are pretty weird, scared of so called "boredom" this would bring. What kind of boredom would it be if there were no longer genetic diseases, look-based depression, social prejudice and our race would function a thousand times better? Again, I can think only of one kind of people that can be afraid of this: superiors, having their position established via better intelligence, looks or other dice-rolled character traits and afraid of suddenly losing their superiority.
But again, if you are defined by a dice roll in your life and your identity relies on genetic traits, I'd say you're a really, really boring person and not superior at all.
Why? Because genes and everything they bring would not stop people from being special. There would be still adventurous, curious people with lots of passion for different things in the world, and couch potatoes with no real personality. So tell me, dear homo superior, what are you actually afraid of? that such a couch potato may look as good as you? Let him! He'd still be a boring guy with no interesting hobbies. That obviously doesn't come from his intelligence or looks.
I think identity is best defined by actions, not potential. A person that did much in life, and lived three times the life experience of others would be still an amazing, interesting guy/gal. I can't honestly think of any reason such a person would be boring in an "equalized" world.
Let's address this "boring" part one more time. Imagine everyone gets good looking and smart. Once you actually cope with the fact you're not so special anymore (which is not your doing anyway), you can embrace the possibilities of such world. Think of it! Everything is better in such world. Even the "normalized" looks you're so scared about are actually a blessing. When searching for a partner that has similar character to yours, you no longer have to care about whether such a person will repulse you visually and thus fall to the "just friend" box.
Also, it would open much more possiblity for everyone. Right now, even if you dream about being a model or a soccer player, you probably can't, because your dice roll prevents you. But, being a person "engineered" to have a high "roll" in everything that counts, you could do it. YOu could do whatever you want. The world would be filled by people that do their job because they really LIKE and WANT to do it, and not because their dice roll pushed them in that way.
Also, it would definitively end the whole "I got born with super dice roll so I can do nothing and take million $ per month because of it". Which is in my eyes extremely unfair. Entertainers earning $$$ for nothing because they got a good dice throw at conception did really totally nothing to deserve their "gift" and a child dying of cancer in the age of 10 did nothing to deserve such fate. We learned to accept it, but if there was a chance to change it, I'd so totally be for it. After all, the poor "entertainer" that suddenly is not so special anymore and his hurt ego doesn't even compare to the fact that humanity just prevented a terminal disease and granted a kid a normal, happy life.
"Homo superior" should be possible to everyone. No longer based on a stupid dice throw. That's a future I really hope for, even though I will never experience it in life.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 01:11 PM |
|
|
Here I simply disagree.
Elimation of defects and illnesses is one thing. This thing has one big advantage: it's pretty easy to find a reasonable definition for what is a defect/illness and what is not.
Adding "abilities" is another thing. We know, for example, that bats have a superior immune system. Or that certain amphibiae can regrow limbs and so on. And so on. Stuff that will make humans more "robust". This MIGHT be an option, provided this could be done.
But more than that? You could just as well clone humans in the lab. A LOT more important than the genetic aspect is the economic aspect - the growing-up, how you are educated, how much care parents put into education and so on.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 01:12 PM |
|
|
You think tinkering with intelligence wouldn't improve the ease of learning, which would directly improve overall education?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 02:04 PM |
|
|
I'm not sure, "intelligence" is boostable via genetics at all, and if so in which way.
"Defects" would be obvious, but the rest?
What IS intelligence anyway? I don't think there is even a strict definition.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 02:14 PM |
|
|
@ Corribus
Quote:
My comparison is a serious one. It is not my intent to imply that apples or dogs are necessarily equivalent to humans. Although, it'd be interesting for you to try to demonstrate using logic that this is not the case for the purposes of the discussion at hand.
I shall do my best
Quote:
The purpose of my comparison is to find an underlying problem with her logic. It is true that beliefs don't really need to be (and often aren't) self-consistent. However, if you're going to insert yourself into an argument about a topic, you're going to have to defend you argument using logic, which DOES need to be internally consistent. I'll also point out that many people don't realize that their beliefs are actually based upon very poor logic or very poor information or both. Beliefs are often formulated using other heuristics such as emotions, feelings, etc., and many people only realize this when they're forced to examine the logic behind what they actually believe in. Thus selcy (or whoever) may actually find questions such as this to be very useful, because they may help her make personal choices (or construct her personal belief system) using facts and sound logic rather than knee-jerk emotional response. In the end she may not change her beliefs, and that's of course perfectly acceptable. I for one would rather have people make their choices - whatever they are - from an informed position, and questioning one's believes can never yield anything but positive results toward that end..
Ok, even though I'm neither on your or Selcy's side since i see things less of a balck vs white, I will do my best to follow through.
Regarding the topic of logic and beliefs, it's an understatement to claim that many people base their beliefs on logic, whoever does so is actually an abnormality since humans by definition aren't objectiveQuote:
Regarding the "questioning one's believes can never yield anything but positive results toward that end" you are wrong IMO since questioning ones beliefs can in fact lead to devostating results to that person, people are individuals hence each and every one may react in a different manner to "ground shaking revelations" when it comes to their beliefs
Regarding Selcy, I dont know her, I've read a couple of her posts, I think its safe to assume that her stance on this specific topic will remain unchanged regardless of what anybody says
Quote:
Red herring. The issue here is not what you would save given some sort of life-or-death choice. The point is that DNA is DNA - it doesn't really matter where it comes from. The chemicals that make up genetic materials in different species are virtually identical. What we are speaking of is different processes. In the one case, we have a process whereby we consciously create a specific genotype/phenotype by selective breeding. That is, forcing animals with certain traits to mate with animals with certain other traits to gradually arrive at a desired endpoint - a creature with a certain type of DNA. This process does take a considerable amount of time, and it also has the benefit (as far as your average Joe is concerned) that it doesn't require a laboratory or sophisticated equipment. On the other hand, we have a process of genetic engineering, which allows us to go in with a pair of metaphorical tweezers and specifically design the DNA we want. In some sense, the outputs are exactly the same - we arrive at creatures that possess a desired kind of DNA. It is the process which is different. And because people clearly have no problem with Honeycrisp apples or Golden Retrievers or any of the other hundreds of examples of human genetic engineering resulting from selective breeding (because make no mistake - genetic engineering is what it is), we can safely conclude that it is the process which determines acceptability.
I’m sorry but simplifying things to level where you claim DNA is DNA is absurd to me since one sequence can be the difference between us exchanging posts here and being unable or unaware of the wonderful world of internet, logic which you’ve asked me to use is not the same as hypothetical reasoning, claiming DNA is DNA is just that, and what I refer to as throwing an extremely wide net AKA reaching.
Quote:
Admittedly, I did make a jump there to human engineering, so I am to some degree comparing apples to oranges (or apples to humans, as it were), so let's take a step back for moment and ask a slightly different question. Do you have a problem with genetically engineered foods?
If the answer is yes, then it's clearly the process of molecular manipulation that you have qualms with.
On the other hand, if the answer is no, then your issue is likely related to a belief that the human genome is somehow more sacred than that of animals and planets.
So - which is it?
Genetically engineered foods, I don’t really use it but the answer is no, I have no issues with it. Regarding my view I have already explained in the part where I’ve used the term my subjective point of view, that indeed I see humans above animals
Quote:
Whoa, Silver!
First, I don't believe in god, so any argument predicated on god as a premise immediately fails. Second, I completely reject the notion that an atheist philosophy requires one to believe that humans are superior to other life-forms, or that it is by default egocentric.
More to the point, if we're going to turn this thread into yet another tired discussion about what is a true Christian, then I'm out of here.
Beyond that, I see no reason whatsoever to conclude from the premise that all life forms are "equal in value" (whatever that means) that laws and society would cease to exist.
1.whether you believe/not believe in god is irrelevant since you don’t represent humanity, majority of people do believe thus making my statement regarding human beings as egocentric ones a valid statement, we atheists believe that humans invented religion, if majority of humanity believes there is a special divine plan and that they are special as opposed to other creatures on this or other planet then humans are egocentric, or do u disagree with that ?
2.There is no such thing as atheist philosophy requiring one to believe anything, there is no set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.
I don’t believe in god, does that make me an atheist ? sure, if you want to call me that go ahead, I don’t really care about those labels nor will I share your opinions or views on certain topics just because we both are atheists in your book.
3.I believe we are superior to animals because of our brains, call it evolution of a specie or whatever you like. I think, I use logic, there is an "I" hence I’m superior to animals who 99% of the time just react according to their instincts.
If you believe that you/me are/is equal with a bug (another life form) I cant tell you that you’re wrong because you’re entitled to that opinion as it is after all your opinion, however I don’t thinks the same way nor do at least 99% of the people around the globe. Agreed ?
4.If all life forms are equal in value (one cat’s life is no less scared than one man’s life) then the set of values, laws within our society which are meant to preserve us humans would crumble and fall, squashing a bug = killing a human, if we were to believe that society as we know it would cease to exist…. IMO
5. BTW, off topic - I'm new here, can someone explain to me what happened with religion in here that it is such "a big bad wolf" because I have yet to encounter any religious person in here ? 
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 02:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm more into shooting humans in rockets to the moon, not finding even more ways of creating them. 
LOL, why moon, lets be smart about it, guys to mars, girls to venus
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 03:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm not sure, "intelligence" is boostable via genetics at all, and if so in which way.
"Defects" would be obvious, but the rest?
What IS intelligence anyway? I don't think there is even a strict definition.
Right now I don't think we now, but eventually, we probably will. If there's a way to manipulate the development of a brain into forming an Einstein-potential organ, why not?
Obviously Einstein's intelligence came from the physical build of his brain, where else? And if we had a clue, we probably could alter the brain development to mimic that.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 04:00 PM |
|
|
I have several issues with that.
When you mention Einstein, we are not talking about intelligence, but about GENIUS, which is something completely different.
Second, there are a lot of different "ways" humans can be a genius: mathematically, scientifically, in arts, a practical genius (engineering) and so on. Basically there is no limit to the way humans can, well, reach beyond limits and I don't think it's that easy to, if possible at all, to find the genetical "buttons" to press to reach the desired result.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 04:09 PM |
|
|
|
before we can even think of equality, a few people will have to try first (probably the richest ones, as some said before) and provided that it gives them an advantage over average people, they will probably try (and most likely succeed since they have the power) to maintain the inequality
|
|
selcy
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 04:11 PM |
|
|
I guess this is going quite a few steps ahead of the sperm bank where you can also choose the intellegence of the father for example the donor is a lawyer or doctor instead of a cleaner or traffic warden. He has blue eyes and brown hair etc. Although this is still choosing your baby in someways its not like altering the DNA.
Its like most things it perfectly acceptable in the right place say for reducing genetic disabilities where the affected gene can be replaced. The only thing is what do we call a defective gene? Is it someone with asthma or diabeties or someone with downsydrome or epilepsy? What defines a disability? What happens to the baby if it doesn't turn out the way the parents have chosen when its born?
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 04:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I have several issues with that.
Second, there are a lot of different "ways" humans can be a genius: mathematically, scientifically, in arts, a practical genius (engineering) and so on. Basically there is no limit to the way humans can, well, reach beyond limits and I don't think it's that easy to, if possible at all, to find the genetical "buttons" to press to reach the desired result.
Again, it's obviously the brain, what else? Soul? Fairy magic?
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 04, 2011 04:21 PM |
|
|
@ Doomforge
"It's the brain", isn't saying much, as obviously.
@ Selcy
"Defective" means: incomplete, garbled, not there.
|
| |
|
|
