|
| Thread: Baby making project.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted April 05, 2011 05:25 AM |
|
|
|
Elodin, you wouldn't recognize a circular argument if it jumped up and punched you in the face, and I cannot state loudly enough that I have no interest in discussing any topic with you whatsoever.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 08:26 AM |
|
|
There is a fine line between science fiction and reality. Since this is a HoMM forum, everyone knows about the Wizards of Ashan who did, what I feel is what a sizable amount of people envisions, when we talk about genetic engineering.
Reality looks a bit different, though. What we are laking about at the moment, is gene therapy, when it comes to humans, and in my opinion there is nothing wrong with trying it. If a disease has its roots in a genetic defect or disorder, then it's pretty logical to try and solve the problem at its roots.
However, this doesn't seem to be as easy as it would look in theory. The current method seems to have its hazards, and we miss vital information and a precise method of slipping genes in or repairing them without doing anything else.
Genetic engineering with humans is something else completely. While they are busy experimenting with mice, this isn't the real thing. Until the mechanisms and consequences aren't completely clear, there are two problems here:
a) one day you'll have to test things on humans
b) you'd have to isolate the test candidates from the rest of the gene pool, lest the changes are not inherited by others, before possible side effects haven't been ruled out.
At this time, with the current knowledge we have, I don't think there is any realistic target that would justify experimenting with this. Until we haven't completely decoded the human genome, know, what every gene does and all their interactions and correlations, amd. most importantly, the regulatory sequences, which are actually as important, since they somehow decide the actual expression of a game, it would be dabbling abround, and dabbling around is definitely not the way to go here.
For the purpose of this discussion this means, before you'd think about EXPANDING the human genome (trying, like Doc Connors in Marvel's Spiderman to slip in amphibiae material to be able to regrow lost limbs), you'd try for OPTIMIZING what is there by determining how the regulatory sequences have to be "set" so that the "beauty" or "intelligence" genes would be expressed in the wished way.
Life extension is another question here, but it may just well be that if you change something to get a wished-for result, you'll change something else as well, that won't be THAT wished-for, and it might well be impossible to get it all.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 11:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@ DF: I'd love it if everyone had the potential to be equal, but I don't think that I would like it if one day everyone was... Just blame it on me getting stuck in a mindset where people compete for everything and only the best rise to the top, but I think that most people would agree that the idea of everyone being absolutely the same and equal is... Unnatural.
Because people are too stuck to the concept of being better than others. It's their ego that cries here.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 11:21 AM |
|
|
Everyone being equal makes everyone exchangable with everyone else. It would be like cloning from one person. Variatio delectat, knew the Romans - variation is delightful, and taste varies, and that is good.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 11:23 AM |
|
|
Being genetically the same will not make people identical or interchangeable. And people won't even be genetically identical.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 11:26 AM |
|
|
This has really developed too far for me to catch up with. So just a little thought in regard to automatization to use versus the acimov problem.
It is not a problem that people lose income due to automatization, because we only need income to get what we want and when stuff is automatic, you don't need to pay people to get what you want.
Further more, there's no one saying we need to develop a new consciousness that we'll then use as a slave. New consciousness is great and should be equally threated, but what we would use for automatization is of course systems that are not in any way alive.
It's like this. We may be just brains in a body, but we use our arms, our hands, to create stuff. Does it mean we're living in a society as a parasite to our arms and hands? No. We use cars and machinery to quite a lot already, it doesn't mean we're in any way parasite to those.
The same goes with robots, as long as we for some obscure reason don't make robots both alive and slaves.
You may say that the system, if completely automatic, could go on without us. I have no doubt about that, how long would depend on how well the system was made. But this doesn't make us a parasite either, after all think about the sun, it radiates heat down to Earth, it does so independent of us, yet we need it to survive, it doesn't mean we're in any way a parasite, because we get the energy served like that.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 11:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Everyone being equal makes everyone exchangable with everyone else. It would be like cloning from one person.
No, everyone being equal doesn't mean everyone is the same.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 12:23 PM |
|
Edited by Smithey at 12:29, 05 Apr 2011.
|
@ Corribus
Quote:
The problem is that any sort of value scheme is by definition subjective. I think it's going to be difficult to argue any sort of logical point when you're using a subjective value system, because for someone to accept your argument, they're going to have to accept your value system as a premise. And there's always going to be someone who rejects your value system.
But of course it is subjective, by definition it is how I view things (emphasis on I), your point of view is just as subjective.
I'm really curious though on what is your value system and why do you view animals and humans on the same level, both emotionally and rationally ?
Quote:
Your logic may be internally consistent using your value system (although I'm not convinced it is), but you can't extend that to any sort of universal truth.
There is no universal truth on this subject, universal truth exists in simple matters such as "all that lives must die", this is a far more complexed issue, pick random people from different areas of expertise and everyone will have their own truth, none of us will have the universal one.
Quote:
Anyway, this is dragging the discussion far afield. Getting back to the issue, you still haven't really explained what makes humans "special". When I say your judgement is emotional, I don't necessarily mean something like "love" or "anger". I mean emotional in the sense that it's not a cognitive deduction. It's a feeling, an affective heuristic. It's going to be hard to demonstrate, using logic or scientific reasoning, that humans are special (in some specific, well defined way) and therefore genetic engineering should be ok for animals but not for humans. That's an emotional judgment, or so goes my contention.
But you are wrong, I don't know what is by your definition "logic or scientific reasoning" but "Productivity" is indeed just that,a cognitive deduction.
Saving my sister over anyone else in the world without thinking twice, that is an emotional decision and one I would do over and over again however I claim that a scientist, who is working on a cure for whatever, is more "special" (as you call it) than my own sister, well that is rational logic, no emotions in that statement and I dont understand how can you not see that ?
Regarding We're more special hence we shouldn't modify human genes, that is indeed emotional reasoning that's why it is considered as an ethical reason (ethics are emotional), however that is also one I have yet claimed !
I said we are more "special" than animals and explained why.
Whether we're more special than animals/plants is irrelevant to me, as stated before, I fear genetic modification because it is like opening Pandora's box, some applications might be really good however people as a specie tend to push boundaries and when it comes to genetic modification, crossing that already very thin line is scary to me. 
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 01:23 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 13:24, 05 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
Although Angelito seems to be forbidding anyone from making arguments from anything but the atheistic religion perspective so arguments are somewhat hamstringed. Certain philosphies simply can't stand on their own and desparately need moderatator support in my opinion.
Quote:
@ Elodin: Remember on page 7 where Pan said that religious posts that attempted to derail the thread would be purged?
Actually, I did not advance religious arguments, although atheists did. What I objected to was slurs against me, which are a violation of the COC, but which will not be penalized, based on previous biased moderation experiences.
As promised before, offtopic and irrelevance will be handled immediately. A bit of vacation for you....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 01:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Everyone being equal makes everyone exchangable with everyone else. It would be like cloning from one person.
No, everyone being equal doesn't mean everyone is the same.
That's just semantics - it means "equality" is somehow definable and measurable. Take beauty. If you want to make everyone equally beautiful but look different you'll have to define beauty so that "different models" can be compared and be considered equal.
It's the same with everything else , every other attribute.
That doesn't seem to be possible. Which means you are arguing without any grounds.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 01:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That doesn't seem to be possible. Which means you are arguing without any grounds.
I'm not going to get drawn in your semantic battles (like how would we definite beauty after introducing visual equality), forget it. If you have any other arguments, I'd like to listen however.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 02:01 PM |
|
|
Equality of attributes and character is, by its nature, grounded in the perceptions of an individual. You cannot make everybody equal without making everybody the same, so that everybody has the exact same criteria that they follow for what they consider appealing or unappealing.
I like raven-haired brunettes more than blonds. I value mellow people more than austere people. Not everybody has these criteria and I cannot, with authority, say that my preferences are a universal standard.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 02:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
That doesn't seem to be possible. Which means you are arguing without any grounds.
I'm not going to get drawn in your semantic battles (like how would we definite beauty after introducing visual equality), forget it. If you have any other arguments, I'd like to listen however.
No. Listen to blizzard. It is YOU who creates possibilities purely with language (equal - same), when "equal" in your sense is not defined and very probably IMPOSSIBLE.
You cannot argue that way.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 02:29 PM |
|
|
What you both don't get is that I never cared for subjective opinions on both beauty or intelligence. There are be people that enjoy, for example, morbidly obese people and consider them extremely sexy, for them, our criteria wouldn't matter. Still, for most reasons, if possible, obesity of such kind should be avoided and is considered unhealthy (and unattractive).
You get my drift?
Equal chance means your genes don't make your skin look great at the age of 60 while your buddy looks like a wrinkled centenarian at the age of 40. THAT'S equality if you both have the same potential.
to simplify: beauty is subjective to a point where you can't identify a type that is the best and can be applied to everyone.
However you surely can remove common flaws that make people less attractive (and that's my point).
That's why people would still be different in looks (because there is no way to make a "perfect" look) but wouldn't be "flawed" with, say, horrible teeth.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 03:09 PM |
|
|
*Sigh*
Size: what is "too small" and "too big"?
Flaws: What is acceptable and what not? How equal must teeth be? How healthy? Which colour is fine foer everything? Is white skin better than tanned? How much difference between body halves is acceptable? Hair should grow where and where not?
Could you even engineer something like > X >, so that things would be within a certain range of "acceptable values"? Or would you have to check every possibility and, getting a "flawed" one decide for a specific correction?
In short: are "flaws" objectively definable?
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 03:14 PM |
|
|
@Forge:
But you're listing rather extreme examples. In most cases, whether an attribute or characteristic is appealing or unappealing can vary greatly from person to person. Whether you talk a lot or talk a little. Whether you like a temperate or tropical climate. Whether you like to be muscular or trim. Whether you like visionaries or down-to-earth people. Whether you like tanned or fair skin. The examples can go on and on.
It's even questionable whether intelligence is ultimately a good thing for an individual. It is suspect that a 100 IQ individual has the highest probability of living an enjoyable life, since they can relate to the largest group of people. Stupid and bright people can more easily feel left out and often end up flocking to smaller, more selective social circles.
My point being that equality in terms of genetics is indeed highly subjective and is in many ways an abstract concept rather than something that can be neatly quantified. Sure, you may be able to make all humans more intelligent, and all humans free from genetic diseases, but there's still a host of other attributes out there that aren't necessarily good or bad. Variety, if anything, is best because it allows society to cover all of its bases. If the world consisted of nothing but blizzardboys, I guarantee there would be a severe shortage of lawyers.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 03:16 PM |
|
Edited by Jabanoss at 15:17, 05 Apr 2011.
|
@JJ
Isn't these kind of discussions meaningless?
I mean it up everybody to decide for themselves what they should change, right?
Not really of course, since it's the parents that are the ones to make the decision...
But aside from that fact, changing cosmetic things shouldn't really be a problem. Some people would want their children to be "what they consider beautiful", and other parents wouldn't care at all.
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 03:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In short: are "flaws" objectively definable?
As I told you before, I'm not going to start the semantic war on definitions. It's pointless. Again, like teeth: we treat occlusion problems now most often because of aesthetic reasons. A gene manipulation in the future could ensure we all have regular teeth, reducing the amount of teenagers that feel like crap because of it. Hope you won't start discussing something as obvious as those flaws.
Quote:
@Forge:
But you're listing rather extreme examples. In most cases, whether an attribute or characteristic is appealing or unappealing can vary greatly from person to person. Whether you talk a lot or talk a little. Whether you like a temperate or tropical climate. Whether you like to be muscular or trim. Whether you like visionaries or down-to-earth people. Whether you like tanned or fair skin. The examples can go on and on.
Those would still vary. But you wouldn't have skin problems, bad teeth, symmetry issues, and all those things that can definitively reduce one's physical attractiveness while being a dice roll effect.
Quote:
It's even questionable whether intelligence is ultimately a good thing for an individual. It is suspect that a 100 IQ individual has the highest probability of living an enjoyable life, since they can relate to the largest group of people. Stupid and bright people can more easily feel left out and often end up flocking to smaller, more selective social circles.
If everyone was 200 IQ, nobody would have an issue with relating, since it would be the obviously biggest (and only) group around. Bad example. (No, I'm not a fan of using IQ as intelligence measuring).
Quote:
My point being that equality in terms of genetics is indeed highly subjective and is in many ways an abstract concept rather than something that can be neatly quantified. Sure, you may be able to make all humans more intelligent, and all humans free from genetic diseases, but there's still a host of other attributes out there that aren't necessarily good or bad. Variety, if anything, is best because it allows society to cover all of its bases. If the world consisted of nothing but blizzardboys, I guarantee there would be a severe shortage of lawyers.
You all seem to imply I want to make a race of clones, which is extremely annoying. No matter how many times I try to explain otherwise, this argument is being repeated, over and over. It's so tiresome I'm really done with discussing this. Think whatever you want, if you know better then me what I'm thinking, what's the point of me posting anything.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 03:37 PM |
|
|
The reason I brought up intelligence is because probably all of us make the assumption that an exceptionally intelligent person is genetically superior to some average guy that works as a retail manager, though it's completely questionable which one is actually living a more rewarding life.
And yes, I think your train of thought will ultimately lead to a race of clones (though I won't comment on whether that is good or bad). I guarantee that when you eliminate certain extremities, people will become increasingly particular on the finer details.
I think you need variety in the gene pool so different people can pursue different professions, but then it's possible that you could make different castes, with people engineered to enjoy and suit X or Y profession.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 03:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
all of make the assumption that an exceptionally intelligent person is genetically superior to some average guy
That's because nobody has rigorously defined a metric to grade 'superiority'. In point of fact, I don't think anyone CAN define such a metric that is likely to be accepted by everyone.
As I've stressed before, value is subjective. You can't speak of it in general terms.
|
| |
|
|
