Metanet Forums

Scientists in 1999 discovered that upon the alteration of a single gene in mice fetuses, their memory and ability to learn quadrupled. This of course leads to human intelligence and what effects this experiment could imply for humans. Do you believe it is ethically and practically good or bad to alter human performance through either drugs and/or surgery? This of course includes intelligence, appearance, athleticism, etc.

For reference, see http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/99/q3/0902-smart.htm

Ooh ahh. I posted my thoughts here! http://forum.therealn.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1747

I think we need to never do anything like this, because if we start, we will definitely get carried away and take it too far.

Science is born of man's brain, therefore a natural part of evolution. Genetic manipulation and enhancement will be the thing that cures cancers, aids, the side effects of ageing (frailty, loss of faculty, etc..), brain disorders in the womb (downs, for example), and so on.

Who is really against that kind of progress?

Sign me up. When do I get wings?

atob wrote:Science is born of man's brain, therefore a natural part of evolution. Genetic manipulation and enhancement will be the thing that cures cancers, aids, the side effects of ageing (frailty, loss of faculty, etc..), brain disorders in the womb (downs, for example), and so on.

Who is really against that kind of progress?

There will always be problems towards mankind. For instance, Chicken Pox used to be an unstoppable disease that killed thousands of people. Then came AIDS, and much more recently, the swine flu.

We can never treat and prevent all the diseases and biological threats toward us, and if we did, what kind of world would that be?

As for the topic, I'm with Gueseppi, we will get carried away and eventually take it too far.

what kind of world would that be?

One with low/non-existent death rates due to disease? Why is the continued existence of various diseases such a good thing?

Blackson wrote:
We can never treat and prevent all the diseases and biological threats toward us, and if we did, what kind of world would that be?

A better one?

Survival of the fittest is getting a bad rep these days, and to be fair it never really was welcome at parties. May as well be done with it.

Blackson wrote: As for the topic, I'm with Gueseppi, we will get carried away and eventually take it too far.

Take it too far, like a for instance...?

Blackson wrote:

atob wrote:Science is born of man's brain, therefore a natural part of evolution. Genetic manipulation and enhancement will be the thing that cures cancers, aids, the side effects of ageing (frailty, loss of faculty, etc..), brain disorders in the womb (downs, for example), and so on.

Who is really against that kind of progress?

Chicken Pox used to be an unstoppable disease that killed thousands of people.

You're thinking of smallpox.

We can never treat and prevent all the diseases and biological threats toward us, and if we did, what kind of world would that be?

"If man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings."

As for the topic, I'm with Gueseppi, we will get carried away and eventually take it too far.

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also the thin edge of the wedge or the camel's nose) is a classical informal fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

atob wrote:

Blackson wrote: As for the topic, I'm with Gueseppi, we will get carried away and eventually take it too far.

Take it too far, like a for instance...?

An example from history: Eugenics, which in case you don't know means selective breeding of humans. It was endorsed by the Nazis during World War II as a way of ridding the "pure" aryans of the "inferior" Jews, and other ethnic minorities.
The trouble with genetic engineering is that it is highly possible that it could lead to problems like the above.

cheesemonger wrote:

atob wrote:

Blackson wrote: As for the topic, I'm with Gueseppi, we will get carried away and eventually take it too far.

Take it too far, like a for instance...?

An example from history: Eugenics, which in case you don't know means selective breeding of humans. It was endorsed by the Nazis during World War II as a way of ridding the "pure" aryans of the "inferior" Jews, and other ethnic minorities.
The trouble with genetic engineering is that it is highly possible that it could lead to problems like the above.

But there was nothing good about eugenics from the beginning. Also, slippery slope fallacy.

According to a source... I don't remember which...

"Humanity has the means to split itself into two subspecies by the end of the century; those who have common access to genetic treatments and selection, and those who can't afford it."

scythe33 wrote:

cheesemonger wrote:

atob wrote:
Take it too far, like a for instance...?

An example from history: Eugenics, which in case you don't know means selective breeding of humans. It was endorsed by the Nazis during World War II as a way of ridding the "pure" aryans of the "inferior" Jews, and other ethnic minorities.
The trouble with genetic engineering is that it is highly possible that it could lead to problems like the above.

But there was nothing good about eugenics from the beginning. Also, slippery slope fallacy.

Yes, we can tell that what they did was wrong, but Hitler thought what he was doing was right. Yes, he was a nutcase, but the point is that it only takes one person to misuse their power for all kinds of problems to arise.
This does sound like the slippery slope fallacy, but I would argue that there isn't anything illogical in presuming that humanity might misuse technology: after all, we've already subverted the intended purposes of dynamite, aeroplanes and nuclear power...

GTM wrote:According to a source... I don't remember which...

"Humanity has the means to split itself into two subspecies by the end of the century; those who have common access to genetic treatments and selection, and those who can't afford it."

Which reminds me of the movie, Robots.

I disagree with the human modification to some extent, has it would be an easy...uhm... tool, in a lack of better word, to destabilize the world.

Though, I agree that the human modification would be somewhat good for the health side of the... uh... thing (;:|, lacking too many words).


But for increasing capacities, why would we need more? Per example, intelligence, athletics (we should not be upgradeable) -- do we actually need more?

What we need is to invest in worlds equality and travel to another nearby planet like mars and make colonies there. We're running out of space here!

i don't see why we need morality in the first place. i'm all for human modification.

yungerkid wrote:i don't see why we need morality in the first place. i'm all for human modification.

Please tell me that was sarcasm, because if it's not, you've just opened a bottomless can of worms.

cheesemonger wrote:

scythe33 wrote:

cheesemonger wrote:
An example from history: Eugenics, which in case you don't know means selective breeding of humans. It was endorsed by the Nazis during World War II as a way of ridding the "pure" aryans of the "inferior" Jews, and other ethnic minorities.
The trouble with genetic engineering is that it is highly possible that it could lead to problems like the above.

But there was nothing good about eugenics from the beginning. Also, slippery slope fallacy.

Yes, we can tell that what they did was wrong, but Hitler thought what he was doing was right. Yes, he was a nutcase, but the point is that it only takes one person to misuse their power for all kinds of problems to arise.
This does sound like the slippery slope fallacy, but I would argue that there isn't anything illogical in presuming that humanity might misuse technology: after all, we've already subverted the intended purposes of dynamite, aeroplanes and nuclear power...

Nuclear weapons have been perhaps the greatest asset to peace in history. I'm willing to bet that without the threat of mutually assured destruction, we would have had an all-out war with the Soviet Union in the '50s or '60s.

As Wilkie Collins wrote in 1870:

I begin to believe in only one civilising influence—the discovery one of these days of a destructive agent so terrible that War shall mean annihilation and men's fears will force them to keep the peace

Airplanes have revolutionized modern soceity, and dynamite (and high explosives in general) has more peaceful uses than destructive ones.

I can't imagine someone arguing that any of those were an overall negative for humanity.

Also, it is the slippery slope fallacy, because "sounds like" isn't an argument.

The eugenics example still doesn't work, because it wasn't a promising idea taken too far. Eugenics at any level are bad, primarily because they violate a person's right to consent to medical treatment. Surely that's not what you're arguing here?

atob wrote:

Blackson wrote:
We can never treat and prevent all the diseases and biological threats toward us, and if we did, what kind of world would that be?

A better one?

Survival of the fittest is getting a bad rep these days, and to be fair it never really was welcome at parties. May as well be done with it.

So everyone should be some biologically fixed sorcerer that never ages and is immune to all diseases? There would be no variety at all!

Blackson wrote: As for the topic, I'm with Gueseppi, we will get carried away and eventually take it too far.

Take it too far, like a for instance...?[/quote]

Like becoming dependent upon such things. If you've ever seen WALLE, basically like that. They all depend on technology to the point where they don't know how to do anything themselves. If it were to fail, it would be a disaster.

Man I really suck at this debating stuff. I can't seem to say what I want to.

If Space Seed is to be trusted, then the only real product of Eugenics was Khan.

Blackson wrote:

atob wrote:

Blackson wrote:
We can never treat and prevent all the diseases and biological threats toward us, and if we did, what kind of world would that be?

A better one?

Survival of the fittest is getting a bad rep these days, and to be fair it never really was welcome at parties. May as well be done with it.

So everyone should be some biologically fixed sorcerer that never ages and is immune to all diseases? There would be no variety at all!

That doesn't logically follow.

Blackson wrote: As for the topic, I'm with Gueseppi, we will get carried away and eventually take it too far.

Take it too far, like a for instance...?

Like becoming dependent upon such things. If you've ever seen WALLE, basically like that. They all depend on technology to the point where they don't know how to do anything themselves. If it were to fail, it would be a disaster.

You're already dependent on technology. It hasn't turned you into a functionless blob, and despite what Jimmy Neutron would have you believe, it likely won't, mostly because people don't want to be functionless blobs.

Blackson wrote:Like becoming dependent upon such things. If you've ever seen WALLE, basically like that.

I somehow don't think that Disney is a very good source to base your argument upon.

Well IF and thats a big IF, people learned self control and didn't take things to far it would be great. We wouldn't have to worry about diease everyone would be smarter thus solving all of our world's toughtest problems. (World peace anyone?)

scythe33 wrote: You're already dependent on technology. It hasn't turned you into a functionless blob, and despite what Jimmy Neutron would have you believe, it likely won't, mostly because people don't want to be functionless blobs.

Oh really? Couch potatoes would lead me to believe otherwise. People want comfort, in any form they can.

___

More related to the issue, I think both practically and morally it wouldn't work and is wrong.
Firstly, as stated before, genetic modification would perhaps only be available to the upper class, making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It would give unequal opportunity on a monetary basis, an extension of a system we already have in place (tutoring for example).
If this technology say, was to be sponsored by the state or was relatively inexpensive, then our entire social system/world would be filled with smart, wealthy, athletic, attractive people. It would destroy our entire social class system. Who would be the lower/middle class that are required to run a society? Who would be more qualified/smart/talented for the better jobs? Less qualified/smart/talented for the worse jobs?

Also, from a moral standpoint, I'm going to address

atob wrote:Science is born of man's brain, therefore a natural part of evolution. Genetic manipulation and enhancement will be the thing that cures cancers, aids, the side effects of ageing (frailty, loss of faculty, etc..), brain disorders in the womb (downs, for example), and so on.

Who is really against that kind of progress?

When people say 'Genetic modification is good for all of mankind,' who is it really good for. Because this type of progress destroys the identify of an individual, and it is individuals who make up a society. Although I agree that it can cure diseases, how far will this lead to? When we are able to restore memory to the elderly, who not quadruple memory for everyone? When a modification for a developmentally delayed man or woman raises their IQ 80 points, why not raise it for everyone? The man who wants this progress if only for himself is the man who either does not appreciate the skills he possesses or only seeks to better himself in the eyes of others, both of which are shallow reasons for such a drastic change.

It's the next step of human evolution.
Let's get on this, people! I want my brain running Linux already!

Well lets put it like this. Everything has its risk. So it would be our job to see if the benefits outweight the risks. And even the best of intentions can be abused if in the wrong hands. But i'm all for it. I think human modification would make a much brighter future.