PDA

View Full Version : Genetics...


SithRevan
08-11-2007, 01:43 AM
Well I've been thinking lately, a lot I may add, about genetics and the future evolution of our race. I am wondering whether or not it is immoral to want to change the way our species functions, giving us longer life or opening up parts of the brain that could make our species highly intelligent or even recreating our genome entirely to make us a so called "Super Race." I like the idea of it, being able to have complete control over who I can become what I can look like and what distinguishig factors I can choose for myself.

Also other questions I've been pondering are ones like can these genetics changes be external, something that the whole world would be able to see? And to what extent we can make these changes... and if we do make them what could be the looming consequences?

Anyway enough of my rambling and question asking, I want to know your opinions.;)

Emperor Devon
08-11-2007, 02:29 AM
Well, I'd need to hear more of your perspective from the other side of the issue before I can offer any arguments/rebutalls. Why do you think it would/could be immoral?

SithRevan
08-11-2007, 02:44 AM
Well, I'd need to hear more of your perspective from the other side of the issue before I can offer any arguments/rebutalls. Why do you think it would/could be immoral?
I don't know, it's just every time I think of that subject I get this overwhelming sense that it would be wrong to do what we are most likly eventually going to do. I just think we may be crossing a barrier that we should never cross under any circumstance.

Adelphus
08-11-2007, 02:46 AM
I guess part of the potential immorality of it would be, do we have such a right to fiddle with ourselves? Do we have the right o use this make ourselves better than others?

Better yet, when people start changing their entire genetic makeup think about the new forms of elitism, racism, etc.

Atleast thats what I gathered.

Totenkopf
08-11-2007, 02:47 AM
On the surface, I'd say the main objection people would have vis-a-vis morality is that you're tampering with the "natural order" and trying to play God. Setting that aside, I guess much would depend on how you handled the manipulations. As ED indicated above, perhaps you could spell out (beyond attaining "shape shifting"/chameleon abilities) exactly how you would see this unfolding, so that questions of morality could be addressed more clearly.

But to address the consequences, there are several that come to mind. If people don't die (ie live much longer), there's overcrowding. How would crime be affected if people can shape shift or otherwise disguise their identity? Who would control such technologies and to what purposes (nefarious or otherwise) would they be used? How accessible would they be to the general public and at what cost? How would increased longevity/abilities affect people's personal senses of morality? Could have a considereable affect on marriage. Till death do you part might seem too long a sentence:xp: for most people, especially if you find yourself living for 2-3 centuries or more. Just a few ideas.

Jae Onasi
08-11-2007, 03:44 AM
The challenge is determining what's really desirable or not genetically. The sickle cell gene sounds bad, right? Well, those who have one sickle-cell gene and one normal gene are actually better protected from malaria than those with 2 normal genes. There are any number of genes that on the surface look detrimental but may have positive effects that we don't yet understand. That's reason enough to tread lightly in genetic engineering, though I wouldn't mind getting rid of some of the obvious cancer genes.

Achilles
08-11-2007, 03:26 PM
I am wondering whether or not it is immoral to want to change the way our species functions... The process itself is not immoral at all. We will have to question the morality of some of the specific options that might become available to us, but the act of changing isn't a problem (nature already does it).

giving us longer life or opening up parts of the brain that could make our species highly intelligent or even recreating our genome entirely to make us a so called "Super Race." I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here:
How would genetically altering our life span be any different than anything we've done previously? The human life span has exploded over the last couple of century, mostly due to refinements in vaccines, medical treatment of disease, illness, and injury, increased knowledge of health and nutrition, etc. We have already been making changes to our species to increase our lifespan so I don't see how it would suddenly become a moral dilemma.

Similarly, our species is already highly intelligent (i.e. able to learn or understand). We already seek to (artificially?) enhance this by attending schools and universities, reading books, and exchanging ideas with one another, etc.

As for a "super race", I'm assuming that you're referring to the practice of eugenics. I would argue that we already do this to a certain degree, but not in a controlled manner on a large scale. So, again, something to be careful with, but not anything that we aren't already doing.

I like the idea of it, being able to have complete control over who I can become what I can look like and what distinguishig factors I can choose for myself. Hmmm...I imagine stuff like that would have to be done before you are born. I can see gene therapy helping with an illness that you develop later in life, but I can't envision "genetic nose jobs", etc.

stoffe
08-11-2007, 03:42 PM
Hmmm...I imagine stuff like that would have to be done before you are born. I can see gene therapy helping with an illness that you develop later in life, but I can't envision "genetic nose jobs", etc.

Yes, it would mostly be the parents who do the choosing of how they want their offspring to be. I imagine one problem with designer babies would that if people can "build their own baby" like how they pick a model and accessories for a new car today then it should be as vulnerable to trends and fashion as many other products.

Thus you might end up with a whole generation of near-identical clones since that particular set of traits and appearance was high fashion at the time. :) Are you really special if everyone else is just as special as you are?

SithRevan
08-11-2007, 03:55 PM
The process itself is not immoral at all. We will have to question the morality of some of the specific options that might become available to us, but the act of changing isn't a problem (nature already does it).

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here:
How would genetically altering our life span be any different than anything we've done previously? The human life span has exploded over the last couple of century, mostly due to refinements in vaccines, medical treatment of disease, illness, and injury, increased knowledge of health and nutrition, etc. We have already been making changes to our species to increase our lifespan so I don't see how it would suddenly become a moral dilemma.

Similarly, our species is already highly intelligent (i.e. able to learn or understand). We already seek to (artificially?) enhance this by attending schools and universities, reading books, and exchanging ideas with one another, etc.

As for a "super race", I'm assuming that you're referring to the practice of eugenics. I would argue that we already do this to a certain degree, but not in a controlled manner on a large scale. So, again, something to be careful with, but not anything that we aren't already doing.

Hmmm...I imagine stuff like that would have to be done before you are born. I can see gene therapy helping with an illness that you develop later in life, but I can't envision "genetic nose jobs", etc.
I just wonder if it's right because we've done most of that stuff inadvertantly, by making out health better we've inadvertantly made our live's longer, by exchanging ideas and trying to learn more we've expanded our understanding and opened up parts of the brain that had laid dormant since the first human appeared on earth.

I still don't know about making physical chages to your body either, you may be right that that stuff would be done before you are born but you also have to look at the idea and fact of it. We once were all single celled back when our mothers were in their first stages of pregnancy. We all had to develope some way into what we've become and assuming after that process is done that those genes that molded us didn't just say to the body "see ya later" and dissappeared without a trace we should still have them in ourselves somewhere. So I think on that basis that we may be able to activate them and get the physical changes, like a nose job, done.

Achilles
08-11-2007, 04:30 PM
I just wonder if it's right because we've done most of that stuff inadvertantly, by making out health better we've inadvertantly made our live's longer, by exchanging ideas and trying to learn more we've expanded our understanding and opened up parts of the brain that had laid dormant since the first human appeared on earth. I would disagree that it has been inadvertent. No doubt that was the case early in our development, but not so for at least the last few hundred years.

I still don't know about making physical chages to your body either, you may be right that that stuff would be done before you are born but you also have to look at the idea and fact of it. We once were all single celled back when our mothers were in their first stages of pregnancy. We all had to develope some way into what we've become and assuming after that process is done that those genes that molded us didn't just say to the body "see ya later" and dissappeared without a trace we should still have them in ourselves somewhere. So I think on that basis that we may be able to activate them and get the physical changes, like a nose job, done.You mean embryonic stem cells? No they don't disappear, they become other cell types (nerve cells, heart cells, lung cells, etc). Adults have them too but they are very different than those found in early embryonic development. What they cells will do is become a certain cell type based on the instructions given, but what they won't do is change the shape of my nose or the color of my hair. You need to manipulate the genome to do that, and that has to happen before conception.

SithRevan
08-11-2007, 06:49 PM
I would disagree that it has been inadvertent. No doubt that was the case early in our development, but not so for at least the last few hundred years.
That sounds more plausable and it's something that I can to agree with you on.:D
You mean embryonic stem cells? No they don't disappear, they become other cell types (nerve cells, heart cells, lung cells, etc). Adults have them too but they are very different than those found in early embryonic development. What they cells will do is become a certain cell type based on the instructions given, but what they won't do is change the shape of my nose or the color of my hair. You need to manipulate the genome to do that, and that has to happen before conception.
So what would you theorize would happen if we did manipulate the genome of a fully grown adult in that way? I mean the cells like you said do change into different cells but the genome I'm sure wouldn't change at all from birth considering it's what make you... you and me... me. So what could happen?

Achilles
08-11-2007, 08:16 PM
So what would you theorize would happen if we did manipulate the genome of a fully grown adult in that way? I mean the cells like you said do change into different cells but the genome I'm sure wouldn't change at all from birth considering it's what make you... you and me... me. So what could happen? The answer is: who knows?
Before we discovered chemicals elements, our potential was limited. As our understanding grew so did our potential. A couple hundred years ago, nothing was made with manufactured polymers (plastics). Today nearly everything is. Today, research helps us map traits (including predisposition for disease, etc) to chromosomes at a pace that will seem infantile in the future. Years from now, you might be able to build a custom genome using the contents of the slurpee machine at 7-11. *shrugs*

Jae Onasi
08-12-2007, 12:35 AM
I still don't know about making physical chages to your body either, you may be right that that stuff would be done before you are born but you also have to look at the idea and fact of it. We once were all single celled back when our mothers were in their first stages of pregnancy. We all had to develope some way into what we've become and assuming after that process is done that those genes that molded us didn't just say to the body "see ya later" and dissappeared without a trace we should still have them in ourselves somewhere. So I think on that basis that we may be able to activate them and get the physical changes, like a nose job, done.

We have a copy of our entire genetic structure in every single cell in our bodies (except sperm/egg, depending on gender, which has only half our chromosomes). In order to make any changes, in this case, you'd theoretically have to alter every single gene copy in the entire body.

The other problem is that changing a structure or problem after it's formed may cause damage to surrounding tissues. For instance, take color vision. It's X-linked recessive, and theoretically would be fairly straightforward to fix. However, it's not just a matter of fixing the gene itself in someone who's already developed, it's fixing the structure, too.

Color vision problems result from the 'bad' gene that causes the red, green, or blue cones (the photoreceptors in the retina that see color) to make a pigment that doesn't work properly. Most people with genetic color vision problems have a problem with their green or red cones (with green being the more common of those two), while a defect in the blue cones is far more rare.

In order to change that, you would have to change every cell to have the correct gene. Since the cones are already 'programmed' to make the defective pigment for sensing color, you'd have to change every cone, without damaging the surrounding retina. Even if the cone automatically 'reset' itself to start making the correct pigment without intervention, it may cause subtle shape changes in the cell that could disrupt surrounding retina, causing vision problems.

On top of that, you'd have to also alter brain pathways. The brain pathways for sight are laid down very early in life, most of them before age 1. It's very hard to alter that after about age 7 or so. Since the brain lays down pathways for the incorrect color information instead of the correct color information early in life, if you fixed the cones and genes after the first year, and definitely past age 7 or so, the brain still wouldn't know what to do with the new color data. It wouldn't be able to perceive the new information, and it'd basically be a color 'lazy-eye' (amblyopia for those of you who play Trivial Pursuit).

It's not just a matter of fixing the coding. You have to also fix the functioning and the structures that have developed in a specific way based on the incorrect coding, and that might cause more damage than help.

SithRevan
08-12-2007, 12:53 AM
We have a copy of our entire genetic structure in every single cell in our bodies (except sperm/egg, depending on gender, which has only half our chromosomes). In order to make any changes, in this case, you'd theoretically have to alter every single gene copy in the entire body.
snipped rest of quote for just for readability and saving space purposes--Jae
So really, using the example of the nose job Achilles gave us up a couple posts, even if you were to get a genetic nose job or correct your nose's cartilage or bone structure you would still have to get the actual operation done for the body to actually accept it? Or am I missing something?

Couldn't the gene's from the Genome that formed your nose or color cones be reactivated to do the same thing? Just in a slightly older body? Or would that be totally just impossible?

Jae Onasi
08-12-2007, 01:15 AM
Well, if you reactivate the same genes, you're going to end up with a very similar if not identical result.

Even if you could change all the genes out to the new ones, you'd still have to remodel the existing tissues and organs into the new form--that wouldn't happen automatically.

SilentScope001
08-12-2007, 01:35 AM
Just so you know, genetic engineering is already being done in live humans.

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

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

Somehow, it is possible to pop a pill and then change your DNA. There we go. Gene Therapy. It works by acting as a virus, as that virus will go and spread to other cells and doing modification for all the cells in the human body. So it's pratical.

Is it good? Eh. The problems (and some objections in brackets) are:

1. Having a gene-rich class who have better health care versus gene-poor class which have worse health care (rebuttal: but we already got that)
2. Rich people will look alike (hah. Rich people all have different views of what look pretty and not. While the people of the future might all have the same upper body, they may have different lower bodies, eye colors, hair colors, skin colors, etc. The Rich hate each other and will compete to push their own radical view of what is beauty. So, we'll have genetic diversty amongst the rich.)
3. People can die due to treatment (Well, people can surivie and live longer due to treatment. Odds are high that people will surivie, but /shrugs)
4. Money will be wasted on changing the colors of eyes instead of curing BIG problems (true, but that already happens, the rich buy better cars and mansions, why not have them buy better eyes: "Rich people have it better than poor people. So what?"--Mr. Pickus, my philosphy teacher)

Note that some both the objections and the rebuttals both on the treatment aspect (health care) and enhancement aspect (making your life more awesomer). I was part of a presenation that focused on this and attended a lecture by a pro-genetic tinkerer (and an anti-genetic teacher), so I just repeated the stuff.

Jae Onasi
08-12-2007, 06:38 PM
I know some geneticists had tried an experiment with gene therapy about 15-ish years ago on a kid with a very rare and serious genetic disorder, using I believe a cold virus as the vehicle to bring the correct gene into his system. The kid unfortunately died from the attempt. I can't remember the details anymore since it's been so long, but I believe some of the cells had taken on the new gene and some had not. I'll see if I can find that particular case.

JediKnight707
08-12-2007, 11:30 PM
The idea of modifying your genes, is to me, terrifying. When you strap on Alec Baldwin's pants and become God, your messing with the natural order of things. This seems more inhumane then abortion. Rather than killing a baby, your making it perfect. Is that such a favorable outcome? The imperfections of our lives is what makes us... us. When you take away what makes us humans, then what are we?

The idea of a super race is insane. It's euthanasia to the greatest extent. You're becoming Hitler minded when you start to think like that. You would, essentially, kill off everyone else who wasn't a "super baby." Maybe not directly, but you would begin to kill off everyone who wasn't part of your regime. Let's say that all of the sudden, every single baby born tomorrow (and after that) had the ability to fly. Natural selection would have them survive, and the normal people die, in all likelihood. Not to mention the mental effect it would have on the people who didn't have wings. If you didn't have wings, you would be inferior. And, even worse, you would know you were inferior. You might say that the people who are poor are inferior to the rich. But the reason we never beat ourselves up over that is because we always believe that we will become rich. We all have the idea that one day we will become rich; be it through your job, retirement, the lottery, etc. But if you were born without wings and you saw someone with them, and you knew that you would never have them, depression would be inevitable, insanity a not-so far out possibility.

Emperor Devon
08-13-2007, 12:23 AM
When you strap on Alec Baldwin's pants and become God, your messing with the natural order of things.

This is bad... How, exactly? If humans can be god then let them be god! If they have the ability to be so, then all power to us!

This seems more inhumane then abortion.

Which, I may point out, is a perfectly humane expression of individual freedom that every woman should be allowed to have... But that's a separate topic. ;)

Rather than killing a baby, your making it perfect. Is that such a favorable outcome? The imperfections of our lives is what makes us... us.

Really now. And here I was thinking it's our talents that make us special and allow the human race to progress rather than our flaws.

When you take away what makes us humans, then what are we?

The ideal human. Since it's widely thought that flaws are bad and having less of what's bad is, well, good, something that is all good and no bad is the ideal.

The idea of a super race is insane. {dubious talk about the psychological effect of wings}

Even if everyone was in full support of genetic engineering, we are currently far from capable of introducing traits like wings into the entire human race's gene pool. Issues such as organ cloning are more realistic and more appropriate to put on the table, I think.

SithRevan
08-13-2007, 01:02 AM
I have to agree with what most of ED says.

If we have the powers to get rid of flaws and make our overall race better... well we should. And really if you think about it were not playing god... if this was not god's intent for us... well we would not be able to do it.

In all realism if you could get rid of a human flaw like lets say Cancer or AIDS with genetic engineering wouldn't you? I mean that effects more then half the world and in my book getting rid of something that can effect over half of our world's population is a good thing TBH.

Anyway, getting of topic for a moment, I'm more interested in what we would be able to do after birth because that would immediatly effect me.

SilentScope001
08-13-2007, 10:28 AM
I know some geneticists had tried an experiment with gene therapy about 15-ish years ago on a kid with a very rare and serious genetic disorder, using I believe a cold virus as the vehicle to bring the correct gene into his system. The kid unfortunately died from the attempt. I can't remember the details anymore since it's been so long, but I believe some of the cells had taken on the new gene and some had not. I'll see if I can find that particular case.

I think we actually covered said experiment. We also had another experiment where a group of victims from one diease got cured thanks to a new gene thearpy. As I said, there is the possiblity of death, but there is also the possiblity of success.

If we have the powers to get rid of flaws and make our overall race better... well we should. And really if you think about it were not playing god... if this was not god's intent for us... well we would not be able to do it.

But the reason I'm okay with it is because: it won't make us better in the long term.

Genes go and make us stronger more genetically but that won't really do anything. So what? I don't think this technology is going to be the "unlocking" to a new era of healthiness. I think it's going to help treat a few dieases, but more dieases will run ramptant and harm us all. Overall, dieases will evovle (they have to, really, or face exicition, they must learn our weaknesses and take advantage of it), counter us, and defeat us in the long term. So, in the end, genetic engineering won't do any ethical problems, because it would be ineffective. Oh, and better healthcare=more people. Cue the resource wars! :)

It will save lives, but antibiotics save lives and we don't call that "Playing God" nor do we see it as "Oh My God! We are becoming Immortal!" Because antibiotics has flaws. Too much antibiotics can make bacterium become more resistant to the antibiotics in question, making them even more deadlier. So, it will be the same thing here. Always be a pemmisit.
===
Altough I can sympathize with people's desires to not make us ideal. There was a Twilight Zone epsoide where a sinner dies and then goes off to Heaven and live an ideal life.

That man however got bored and depressed that he always win everything and that there is no challenge. He asked that justice be served and that he get sent to Hell.

God's response: This is Hell.

JediKnight707
08-13-2007, 11:06 AM
It will save lives, but antibiotics save lives and we don't call that "Playing God" nor do we see it as "Oh My God! We are becoming Immortal!" Because antibiotics has flaws. Too much antibiotics can make bacterium become more resistant to the antibiotics in question, making them even more deadlier. So, it will be the same thing here. Always be a pemmisit.
I think the difference between antibiotics and gene therapy is that antibiotics is a temporary solution. When you decide if someone should get a disease or not, rather than just curing the disease, its just not right.

Even if everyone was in full support of genetic engineering, we are currently far from capable of introducing traits like wings into the entire human race's gene pool. Issues such as organ cloning are more realistic and more appropriate to put on the table, I think.
I was using an analogy.

tk102
08-13-2007, 12:25 PM
The idea of modifying your genes, is to me, terrifying. When you strap on Alec Baldwin's pants and become God, your messing with the natural order of things. This seems more inhumane then abortion. Rather than killing a baby, your making it perfect. Is that such a favorable outcome? The imperfections of our lives is what makes us... us. When you take away what makes us humans, then what are we?

Reminds me of a movie...
Excerpt from Gattaca (1997):
Antonio: We were just wondering if, if it is good to just leave a few things to, to chance?
Geneticist: We want to give your child the best possible start. Believe me, we have enough imperfection built in already. Your child doesn't need any more additional burdens. Keep in mind, this child is still you. Simply, the best, of you. You could conceive naturally a thousand times and never get such a result.

...of course the parents go along with this line of reasoning and create Anton, the younger brother of naturally-born Vincent. The protagonist, Vincent, seeks to overcome his limitations, while Anton remains cocksure knowing himself to be genetically superior... It's a good movie that portrays some of the inherent fears of a future society split by eugenics. I don't know how the rift between haves and have-nots will be overcome unfortunately. It seems inevitable at the onset.

For medicine, genetics is a powerful tool in fighting disease, or better, prevent it from happening in the first place. By analogy, we put band-aids on wounds and airbags in cars. Debating the ethics of whether we should save or extend lives by using available treatment options doesn't seem to be the most productive use of our time.

Instead we should focus our critiques on how we practice genetic therapy. Physically, there is nothing more intimate than our own genetic makeup, so we must hold genetic treatments to high standards for safety and effectiveness. If the genetic treatment could affect the reproductive organs, the risk could also carried to future offspring of the patient.

As genetic treatments move beyond just curing genetic diseases and become more fashionable, we have to hope that our species will not destroy some aspect of itself in the attempt to improve some other trait. And as Jae said, the challenge is determining what's really desirable or not genetically.

And I agree with you JK707, we don't want to lose what makes us human. We need challenges to overcome so that we can stay motivated and to grow. I believe we'll still find obstacles to challenge us even if we have removed some of our current genetic shortcomings.

Just my random thoughts at the moment.

Achilles
08-13-2007, 12:36 PM
Reminds me of a movie... Heh. I've had Gattaca playing in my head since this thread started ;)

For medicine, genetics is a powerful tool in fighting disease, or better, prevent it from happening in the first place. By analogy, we put band-aids on wounds and airbags in cars. Debating the ethics of whether we should save or extend lives by using available treatment options doesn't seem to be the most productive use of our time. Agreed. Developing these technologies is absolutely no different from what we have done and continue to do. The only thing that changes is the "how".

Instead we should focus our critiques on how we practice genetic therapy. Physically, there is nothing more intimate than our own genetic makeup, so we must hold genetic treatments to high standards for safety and effectiveness. If the genetic treatment could affect the reproductive organs, the risk could also carried to future offspring of the patient. Hehe...he said "reproductive organs". :D

As genetic treatments move beyond just curing genetic diseases and become more fashionable, we have to hope that our species will not destroy some aspect of itself in the attempt to improve some other trait. And as Jae said, the challenge is determining what's really desirable or not genetically. In the interest of playing the resident b******, let's also not forget that natural selection acts as population control. If we genetically ween out all the weakness, then every human born will have the maximum possible natural lifespan. Unfortunately, we happen to be strapped to a planet with limited space and limited resources. At some point, we'll have to consider that by prolonging life, we'll need to reduce our population size.

Just my random thoughts at the moment.Ditto. :)

PoiuyWired
08-13-2007, 03:10 PM
I personaly don't think any genetic treatment to your "reproductive organs" would affect your offsprings much... I mean, a bigger weewee does not produce a stronger baby, though a minute one would get you a painful time in any public showers as deserved.

tk102
08-13-2007, 03:52 PM
:rolleyes:
You're misunderstanding me. If you receive genetic treatment, there is a chance the genes of the testes may be modified along with the sperm they produce.

SilentScope001
08-13-2007, 06:47 PM
I think the difference between antibiotics and gene therapy is that antibiotics is a temporary solution. When you decide if someone should get a disease or not, rather than just curing the disease, its just not right.

Hm. I don't know. Somehow, I'm not so certain I want cancer. I mean, I can see its postive points, yeah, but, well, it has some bad side-effects...

However, it does bring up another fear. Over-Evolution. Evolution creates the "fittest" species, but if a race adapts quite well in one enviroment, and then a brand new enviroment happens...that race is, well, a goner. One theory on why the dinosaurs died was because they adapted so much to the regural world that when the asteriod came and changed the climate of man, the dinosaurs could not surivie, as none had the genes that allowed them to adopt to the cold.

Could the same thing happen here? We modify our genes so that we adapt solely to this one enviroment, but when, um, a brand new disaster comes in and changes the whole enviroment to be hostile towards us, we'll all die off? If we did not modify the genes, then some of us, without the modifed genes, could surivie the disaster.

I think we will eventually modify our genes. The only thing I am arguing is that gene modification is not bad, but neither is it good. It just, well, is. We're still going to try and save lives, we're still going to succed, and we're still going to fail. When you wipe out death, then I'll start the protest marches, but until then, there is little to worry about.

Jae Onasi
08-16-2007, 01:24 AM
It will save lives, but antibiotics save lives and we don't call that "Playing God" nor do we see it as "Oh My God! We are becoming Immortal!"
We don't call use of antibiotics 'playing God' because these drugs don't change our genetic makeup. Antibiotics just kill bacteria.

Because antibiotics has flaws. Too much antibiotics can make bacterium become more resistant to the antibiotics in question, making them even more deadlier.

Technical note--it's incorrect use of antibiotics, rather than too much use, that contributes to antibiotic resistance. When antibiotics are prescribed for things other than bacteria it encourages local bacteria that survive to develop a resistance. If people take antibiotics for bacterial infections and take them only until they feel better, rather than completely cured, that also contributes to resistance. What happens when someone doesn't take the full course of antibiotics is that most of the bacteria die, but the strong ones survive. These strong bacteria then reproduce, making more strong bacteria that are harder to kill. You have to take the full course of the antibiotics to kill off the strong bacteria as well as the week so that they can't survive to reproduce and create resistant species.


Humor mode on:
In the interest of playing the resident b******,
Oh, you're just playing. Why the heck didn't you say that sooner? :D