PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts On Genetically Engineered Humans


True_Avery
12-13-2007, 06:44 AM
I've been doing some research lately on genetics and where research is, or could be heading. Recently scientists discovered a way to cure Sickle Cell Anemia in mice using stem cells recovered from the mouse's skin. Currently this cannot be used on humans, as it will give us various cancers in the process, but research is indeed taking steps forward for cures to genetic diseases.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20071208/fob1.asp

But, this could only be the beginning. Through many theorized research, we could one day create a human being from scratch. It would be very much a trial-and-error project to create living, breathing humans... but theoretically it could be done. I've read a few things on current research that can help determine how your child can look through chromosome manipulation...

Lets take Lance Armstrong for a quick example:
Lance has a hearth that is 30% larger than the average human. Large hearts are commonly associated with fantastic athletes, and lance has the ability to outperform the average human being in stamina. He has a resting heart rate of 32-34 beats per minute with a max heart rate at 201 bpm. Armstrong's most unusual attribute may be his low lactate levels. During intense training, the levels of most racers range from 12 μL/kg to as much as 20 μL/kg; Armstrong is below 6 μL/kg. The result is that less lactic acid accumulates in Armstrong's system, therefore it is possible that he feels less fatigue from severe efforts, and this may contribute to his ability to sustain the same level of physical effort as other elite racers with less fatigue and faster recovery times. Armstrong also has a number of other fantastic genes that give him many different advantages over normal humans.

We could go in and take the genes that make his heart so large and give it to a child: giving the child the ability to become a fantastic athlete with a number of advantages in fitness and self-health.

But, then the question comes...

Should we do it? Should we one day be allowed to edit and create humans like this?

On one hand, you could go in and decide what your child looks like, and how your child could grow. You could give them a fantastic metabolism, a larger heart, a naturally fit body that is resistant to keeping large fat deposits, perfect vision, no balding, a great immune system, etc. You could eliminate genetic diseases from them and decrease the likelihood of a number of different things that could go wrong with them later in life.

There are even theories on taking genes from other animals and giving them to humans. Like the muscles of a cheetah, which are about the same size as our muscle, but much stronger with better reflex time. If you did it right, you could make a human that could run amazingly fast, and be strong without having muscles the size of a truck.

But then there is the other side, and I'd like to give a scenario for this:

Tomorrow, you discover there are genetically engineered humans.

Tomorrow, you see on the news that a baby has just been born. The first complete, healthy, "man-made" baby. This baby has been genetically altered to be, in a sense of the word, "perfect".

This baby will grow up with:
- A larger heart
- Perfect and possibly enhanced vision
- An advanced muscle system
- Clean of the capability of getting many genetic defects
- A fast yet fit metabolism
- A fit body
- Photographic memory
- An advanced brain
- The potential ability to run, jump, leap, fight, etc like a pro
- The potential to live longer and healthier than most humans
etc etc etc

This baby is now at the mercy of the world, and is in of itself a person. Still a human being, just altered to have all of the aspects of a "perfect" human. By "perfect", they mean the most capable of surviving and being incredibly fit. This baby was born through a normal mother, but carries traits given to it by the scientists. Eye color, skin color, hair color, height, etc all calculated in advance.

How do you react to this? If you take personality out of the picture, this baby will grow up to be possibly the most physically advanced human on the planet. This person will be physically better than you in nearly every way. But, this person will still grow up as a human. This person will still have a childhood, will still go to school, will still have dreams, will still fall in love, and will do everything that a human being does...

But, how do you react? Do you laugh and one day hope to see what someone like this could be capable of? ... Do you protest and ask for the discontinuation of the research? ... Do you sign up to get your next child made to be like this? ... Do you hunt this child down and kill it for being an abomination against nature?

And how would society as a whole treat someone like this? Think about it.

Would we ever let this person into sports? Ever? Could being made physically more able than the other athletes be considered cheating? Ruining the game for everybody else even though the person loves sports?

Society hates homosexuals. We hate people of different races. We hate people of different religions, cultures, countries, etc. Humanity fears and hates what it does not understand or refuses to understand. Would this person simply be persecuted its entire life, maybe even killed by extremists? Would religions view this person as being devout of a soul for being made scientifically?

You could go down to the research center and ask to have your next baby made like this to give it the best physical life possible. You could go down to the research center and burn the place to the ground. Your kids could end up beating up the child for being a freak due to your own prejudices. Your child could end up being bullied and possibly killed for even existing.

I have a sneaking suspicion that people like this wouldn't even be considered humans. They would be considered a freak against nature by the world. They would be persecuted to no end, and their existence would be of constant debate. People wouldn't see the nice woman there... they would mostly likely only see a soul-less model kit that happened to come out well.

So, how do you react to this baby being born?

I am not exactly interested in the massively scientific aspects of this, as all of this is still theory. I'd just ask to take most of this at face value, as I'd like to hear responses on what you and society would think about genetically altered human beings.

Darth InSidious
12-13-2007, 08:43 AM
Two words: eugenics, war.

Tommycat
12-13-2007, 09:16 AM
One word: Gattaca

Achilles
12-13-2007, 12:18 PM
I think that we're going to have a very difficult time justifying how it's ok to treat/cure/erradicate a disease, yet not ok to prevent it completely via genetics.

I think that we're going to have a very difficult time justifying how it's ok to select a mate for favorable genes (something we may have been doing sub-consciously since the dawn of our kind), but not select favorable genes themselves.

But suppose we can engineer the "perfect" human. Is that going to fundamentally change the human experience? Lance Armstrong my have a larger heart that gives him a competitive advantage athletically, but he still had to train like mad to accomplish what he did. He still had to deal with testicular cancer. He still ended up divorced from his wife. Not to mention, who knows what kinds of problems that enlarged heart may give him when he's older?

I'm much more scared by the kinds of stuff Ray Kurzweil talks about (humans and machines being virtually indistinguishable) than I am by any kind of nightmare "Gattaca" scenario. But that's just me.

Darth InSidious
12-13-2007, 12:20 PM
^Personally, I find both fairly unsettling.

Aeroldoth
12-13-2007, 01:31 PM
I can name that tune thread in three points!

1) Clones, genetically altered, and cyborgs WILL be a reality one day.

2) They WILL suffer persecution, prejudice, bigotry, harassment, assault, intolerance, murder, maimings, and other forms of social and professional discrimination.

3) Concrete physical differences WILL lead to a more solid line between the have's and have not's.

I remember being impressed by Pres. Clinton's ban on genetic discrimination in the federal workplace, feeling it farsighted.

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/20000208.html

Web Rider
12-13-2007, 03:10 PM
I'd sign up. I can't say I can find any valid reasons not to "improve" people through any means that won't harm others. As a society, we need to be far more preventionary than our usual reactionary, and you can't get much more preventionary than having genetics that simply make it out of the question.

Though you're generally right that they'd probly get a lot of crap from the world in general, but that's nothing new, and hardly a good reason not to do something. Scientists got flak for going against the grain, blacks got flak for being black, homosexuals get flak for being gay, heck, I get flak for having glasses.

All I can hope for is that by the time we're anywhere close to successful at this sort of thing, people are a bit more accepting. In a meantime there are a variety of healthy breeding practices I think people would do well to practice, and much from the same standpoint of: "you can't honestly tell me you don't want your child to be healthy."

You could probably get rid of a lot of what plagues mankind if people were a little more careful about who they had sex with.

Pho3nix
12-13-2007, 03:57 PM
Genetics are the next big thing in medicine, so this sort of thing will become a reality. It's a huge issue.

I'm not really sure what to think of it. I don't think they would be tolerated/integrated well into society and if you'd make a lot of these "perfect" humans they would probably form their own groups, schools, political parties etc. I see many problems already.

tk102
12-13-2007, 03:58 PM
This is a topic that's bothered me since watching Gattaca years ago (has it been 10 years?) and I haven't brushed it off as unlikely fiction. In that movie, I found the arguments to persuade Vincent's parents to go through with genetic modification convincing. Wouldn't we want to reduce chances of disease in our children? Wouldn't we want to give him/her the best head start we could? And the clinching line to the parents: "The baby will still be you. Just the best of you."

Of course the dystopia of that movie is the result of all these positive intentions.


I'm much more scared by the kinds of stuff Ray Kurzweil talks about (humans and machines being virtually indistinguishable) than I am by any kind of nightmare "Gattaca" scenario. But that's just me.Really? I'm the opposite. Eugenics involving newborns scares me more than an adult seeking to augment themselves through technology.

I remember being impressed by Pres. Clinton's ban on genetic discrimination in the federal workplace, feeling it farsighted.I forgot about that one. Thanks for the link. :)

mur'phon
12-13-2007, 04:30 PM
On one hand I think it would be a step forward, on the other hand it would probably make the diference betwen rich and poor even larger. I know however that if I have children (not likely), I would probably do whatever I could for them, if it means choosing a good mix of genes, so be it.
On a side note, I think I would enjoy being a cyborg.

Web Rider
12-13-2007, 04:32 PM
I'm not really sure what to think of it. I don't think they would be tolerated/integrated well into society and if you'd make a lot of these "perfect" humans they would probably form their own groups, schools, political parties etc. I see many problems already.

Black people, homosexuals, hispanics, whites, Nazis, and Jews already do that.

I think I would enjoy being a cyborg.
We need a transhumanism vs cyberpunk debate now.

Corinthian
12-13-2007, 05:18 PM
As cool as it sounds, I can't feel it's a good idea. Maybe I just watched a little bit too much "The Wrath of Khan", but the idea of effectively removing the "Genetic Lottery" seems like a bad idea. Besides, it seems like opening Pandora's Box. Yeah, hope's still in there, but you open the door for positive genetic enhancements, and inevitably, I foresee a Clone of the Attack of the Clones.

Achilles
12-13-2007, 05:22 PM
Really? I'm the opposite. Eugenics involving newborns scares me more than an adult seeking to augment themselves through technology. Help me understand the difference between immunizing a baby against disease and making it genetically immune?

Regarding eugenics, I acknowledge that fundamentally that's what we're talking about, but my concern is that most readers are going to have a knee-jerk association with Nazi Germany, etc. Genetically making humans immune to all forms of cancer would be eugenics. Does that scare you too?

Aeroldoth
12-13-2007, 05:52 PM
I foresee a Clone of the Attack of the Clones.

There was a Deep Space Nine episode that dealt with this (a few actually). Apparently at some time in the past parents were augmenting their fetuses in various ways. These then grew up and decided their genetically superior minds were better qualified to rule. When the masses didn't agree, war broke out.

The altereds (Homo Superiors?) were defeated and alteration was banned. Star Fleet didn't allow altereds in, and the episode examined views on both sides when Dr. Bashir's dirty little secret that he's altered, is revealed.

Oddly, I don't think cyborgs will face the same level of prejudice that clones and altereds will face. We already have plastic surgery and artificial limb/ organ replacement. I think the gradual integration of tech into people's bodies will be seen as desirous, rather than negative.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-13-2007, 06:46 PM
So, how do you react to this baby being born?Steal it and raise it as my personal assassin/bodyguard.

John Galt
12-13-2007, 06:56 PM
I'd see it as a step in the right direction. I mean, if it could help move humanity forward one individual at a time, I'd have no problem with it, assuming we're capable of replacing Natural Selection(which is largely eliminated by society) as a means of our own advancement.

What would really scare me is if the Human race differentiated into two seperate species that were incapable of interbreeding with one another.

MJ-W4
12-13-2007, 07:15 PM
As long as no-one is forced to undergo changes, things will eventually even out on their own. It seems impossible to stop humans from being human, after all. When there's too many Kens and Barbies, everyone differing from the norm will be all the go.

tk102
12-13-2007, 07:49 PM
Help me understand the difference between immunizing a baby against disease and making it genetically immune?

Regarding eugenics, I acknowledge that fundamentally that's what we're talking about, but my concern is that most readers are going to have a knee-jerk association with Nazi Germany, etc. Genetically making humans immune to all forms of cancer would be eugenics. Does that scare you too?
Certainly preventing disease is a noble cause. This is the area of genetic research that is the most widely embraced by the general population I would wager. Therefore it's likely that this will be the first area where genetic manipulation of embryos will take root. Now, once we decide this is okay, it becomes easier to give the ok stamp for other improvements and that's why I am worried.

Obesity for example is being called an epidemic. It leads to heart disease, diabetes, etc. Rather than treat these secondary diseases with genetic resistance, it seems to make more sense to simply make the child resistant to obesity in the first place. Toggle the genes that maximize metabolic rates of lipids and now not only are you resistant to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes, you also have a slim, energetic child. That's a nice side effect.

So why not, if we can, improve all attributes in this way: STR, INT, CON, CHA? Certainly people will pay for it if they can. And we've already made other genetic improvements. So what's the big deal?

As mentioned the gap between the haves and have-nots will now continue to widen. And unlike a simple monetary gap which can change over a lifetime, you've created a genetic gap which is permanent. Life becomes easier for these people because they are more intelligent, charismatic, and beautiful. They have longer lifespans and fatter wallets. If they have children with a mate who's likewise altered, they'll create a lineage.

Meanwhile the natural children will get left behind, and having this backdrop of perfect to contend against, will despair. And unless there's some post-embryotic genetic solution, there's nothing they can do about their inferiority. In Gattaca, the reason Vincent is a hero is because he does not despair.

The reason I'm not quite as fearful of the Kurzweil prophecies is because 1) they're voluntarily undertaken by the recipient, 2) anyone could receive these at anytime in during their life, and 3) they are not inheritable augmentations and maybe I'm wrong here but I assumed 4) they're reversible.

Web Rider
12-13-2007, 08:04 PM
To curtail these "have/have not" problems, you establish free health care for all, and then slip in something about how genetic improvements are covered by health care, since the less one gets sick the less health care is needed right? That's good for the government, lots of people paying with few people using.

Achilles
12-13-2007, 08:10 PM
<snipped lead-in>

So why not, if we can, improve all attributes in this way: STR, INT, CON, CHA? Certainly people will pay for it if they can. And we've already made other genetic improvements. So what's the big deal? This is a text-book example of a slippery-slope argument.

Not saying that you're wrong, just saying that if being presented as an argument for why we shouldn't look at genetic modification with an open mind, then it's weak ;)

As mentioned the gap between the haves and have-nots will now continue to widen. And unlike a simple monetary gap which can change over a lifetime, you've created a genetic gap which is permanent. Life becomes easier for these people because they are more intelligent, charismatic, and beautiful. They have longer lifespans and fatter wallets. If they have children with a mate who's likewise altered, they'll create a lineage. All great points, but I think we're still jumping a little ahead to the aforementioned nightmarish Gattaca scenario.

Meanwhile the natural children will get left behind, and having this backdrop of perfect to contend against, will despair. And unless there's some post-embryotic genetic solution, there's nothing they can do about their inferiority. In Gattaca, the reason Vincent is a hero is because he does not despair. Take this pill. It will switch off the gene that is responsible for cancer. Once everyone in the world has taken this pill, all future generations will be immune.

Yes, we're a long, long way off from post-embryonic gene therapy in a convenient gel-cap form, but I hope the above hope to illustrate the divide between your argument and mine.

The reason I'm not quite as fearful of the Kurzweil prophecies is because 1) they're voluntarily undertaken by the recipient, 2) anyone could receive these at anytime in during their life, and 3) they are not inheritable augmentations and maybe I'm wrong here but I assumed 4) they're reversible.Same have-have not risks. In fact, I would argue they would be significantly pronounced considering that the haves would have them long before the have-nots and are not as likely to be aimed at altruistic goals such as disease immunity, etc. My 2 cents.

Thanks for the great post.

tk102
12-13-2007, 08:50 PM
This is a text-book example of a slippery-slope argument.

Not saying that you're wrong, just saying that if being presented as an argument for why we shouldn't look at genetic modification with an open mind, then it's weak.I don't find giving the label of "slippery slope" to an argument makes the argument inherently weak. Of the many slippery slopes that have been presented in the threads here and the Senate, the one regarding ever-escalating genetic manipulations seems to me to be one the most likely. The reason of course is because the benefits are fast and obvious while the downside requires long-term and broad social perspectives.

Simply put, people do not often act with such ideology in mind. I drive to work everyday shoulder to shoulder with reptilian-minded (http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=427) commuters in their huge pickups and SUVs. They like being above the crowd, able to move whatever they want (though they're just driving to work), and feeling like they'll be protected in an accident. These same people are the ones who consume the most gasoline, reduce visibility for other drivers, and cause fatalities for those in smaller vehicles. Therefore I find it equally likely that the same mindset would drive people to create taller, stronger, disease-resistant children despite social consequences which they will not empathize with.

Take this pill. It will switch off the gene that is responsible for cancer. Once everyone in the world has taken this pill, all future generations will be immune.
I have no problem with that as long as it was made as imminently available as other immunizations.

Same have-have not risks. In fact, I would argue they would be significantly pronounced considering that the haves would have them long before the have-nots and are not as likely to be aimed at altruistic goals such as disease immunity, etc. My 2 cents.I'm sure they would be pronounced as mechanical/electrical augmentations typically draw the eye. But that type of artificiality may serve as it's own check.
Thanks for the great post.:) Thanks should go to True_Avery for her OP.

Web Rider
12-13-2007, 09:03 PM
I have no problem with that as long as it was made as imminently available as other immunizations.
you mean like the flu shot which is limited in number, only a few can afford, or those promised will ever get, and not widely accessable to all.

Yes, that's why you deal with the issue of getting the healthcare and making it available to everyone, for little to no cost, and then you roll out the cures.

tk102
12-13-2007, 09:41 PM
That's another topic altogether. :D

Darth InSidious
12-14-2007, 08:23 AM
I think we need to draw a line between valid medical preventative care and procedures that will be designed purely for cosmetic or social reasons.

Provided that there is universal access to genetic healthcare - by which I mean the treatment for larger hearts, no cancer, etc then fine. Once their's an inequality in who can get it, 'tho...

We also need to be careful of the 'designer baby' mentality - not just because of it's possible effect on the child as an individual, but think of what could happen if we started to follow 'fashions' in what children look like? Every generation would end up looking identical to one another. You would be able to tell a person's birthdate by their looks. Just think of the cultural stagnation...And that's just from looks. Imagine if we could alter brain chemistry, too...

SilentScope001
12-14-2007, 11:11 AM
I remember being impressed by Pres. Clinton's ban on genetic discrimination in the federal workplace, feeling it farsighted.

Actually, I'm upset about it. Genetic discrimnation is the only discrimination that I know of that makes sense. If you got genes that make you predisposed to get a higher chance of getting Alzhimers, then you got genes that make you predisposed. That may very well be an important desicion in hiring, especially when you want to hire someone to work in a job for a long, long time, the fact that they are likely to get Alzihmers might be a material fact.

This isn't skin color where it doesn't matter what skin color you are...this is actual genes, and it is these genes that determine who you are.

2) They WILL suffer persecution, prejudice, bigotry, harassment, assault, intolerance, murder, maimings, and other forms of social and professional discrimination.

Actually, if they are genetically superior, then it would be us purebreeds that will suffer discrimnation and hatred. But of course, the genetically superior would have a valid reason for their oppression of us.

Web Rider
12-14-2007, 04:25 PM
Actually, I'm upset about it. Genetic discrimnation is the only discrimination that I know of that makes sense. If you got genes that make you predisposed to get a higher chance of getting Alzhimers, then you got genes that make you predisposed. That may very well be an important desicion in hiring, especially when you want to hire someone to work in a job for a long, long time, the fact that they are likely to get Alzihmers might be a material fact.

This isn't skin color where it doesn't matter what skin color you are...this is actual genes, and it is these genes that determine who you are.
A predisposition to something does not mean it will happen.
"Oh, you're predisposed to cancer, we can't hire you."
How is that relevant to me working inside at a desk all day?
In short, it's not. Genes do not determine who you are, genes determine WHAT you are. The nature vs nurture determined WHO you are.

Actually, if they are genetically superior, then it would be us purebreeds that will suffer discrimnation and hatred. But of course, the genetically superior would have a valid reason for their oppression of us.
They would also require greater numbers. A few enhanced people aren't going to be very successful at oppressing everyone else. Not to mention if they were "imporved", I should hope they aren't just as disposed to oppressing, hatred and discrimination as we are, that certainly wouldn't go very far to show they are "improved".

SilentScope001
12-14-2007, 04:30 PM
A predisposition to something does not mean it will happen.
"Oh, you're predisposed to cancer, we can't hire you."
How is that relevant to me working inside at a desk all day?

Sure it does. Say you got cancer because you are predisposed to cancer thanks to genes.

Does that mean the company should pay for your health insurance and pay for the cancer, when you were already predisposed to such cancer to begin with?

It would cost the company a lot of money, especially because you knew you were a risk factor.

But I suppose hiring people based on if they get cancer or not might be considered, well, dumb. Alright then. But at least make sure that we don't treat all people with genetics the exact same way. They have viable differences. And if there is a gene for IQ, and if we discover it, then maybe discrimnation based on that might be okay (or at least, breed that gene out of the system!).

They would also require greater numbers. A few enhanced people aren't going to be very successful at oppressing everyone else.

Not really. Who's going to afford genetic enginnering? The Rich? Or at least the "cutting-edge" part of gene thearpy.

You're likely going to have a division between Gene-Rich and Gene-Poor, and the Gene-Rich, having great genes, and also being the childern of rich people, are going to very well start oppressing the purebreeds. If not for their talents, then at least due to the fact that the Gene-Rich are...well, rich.

If it is however "universal healthcare" then, we'd all likely enough be "uncleansed heretics" anyway, so no need to worry.

Not to mention if they were "imporved", I should hope they aren't just as disposed to oppressing, hatred and discrimination as we are, that certainly wouldn't go very far to show they are "improved".

You said it yourself. You only change WHAT you are, you don't change WHO you are. :)

Web Rider
12-14-2007, 04:46 PM
Sure it does. Say you got cancer because you are predisposed to cancer thanks to genes.
Does that mean the company should pay for your health insurance and pay for the cancer, when you were already predisposed to such cancer to begin with?
It would cost the company a lot of money, especially because you knew you were a risk factor.
Compared to the profits my working for them is making? hell yes they should. Especially since their discrimination is based on a hypothetical and has no relevance to my performance on the job. Being white puts me at a higher disposition to cancer than blacks. Being black puts you at a higher disposition to sickle-cell anemia. And now we're back to square one.

But I suppose hiring people based on if they get cancer or not might be considered, well, dumb. Alright then. But at least make sure that we don't treat all people with genetics the exact same way. They have viable differences. And if there is a gene for IQ, and if we discover it, then maybe discrimnation based on that might be okay (or at least, breed that gene out of the system!).
But like cancer, what is in your genes for IQ is not necessarily what your IQ is. Yes, it would be a better point to discriminate from, but a high IQ isn't necessarily required(or wanted) for all jobs. You can't have obedient little workers who are also highly intelligent.

Not really. Who's going to afford genetic enginnering? The Rich? Or at least the "cutting-edge" part of gene thearpy.
addressed above, that's why you establish the healthcare for everyone first.

You're likely going to have a division between Gene-Rich and Gene-Poor, and the Gene-Rich, having great genes, and also being the childern of rich people, are going to very well start oppressing the purebreeds. If not for their talents, then at least due to the fact that the Gene-Rich are...well, rich.
addressed already.

If it is however "universal healthcare" then, we'd all likely enough be "uncleansed heretics" anyway, so no need to worry.
no matter what stance you take you will always get people who don't want to. That's the whole point of making it free and optional.

You said it yourself. You only change WHAT you are, you don't change WHO you are. :)
Nature vs Nurture. It's both. Yes, you can be more presidposed to certain things, and that does have a hand in determining the kind of person you are, but that's quite variable.

Aeroldoth
12-14-2007, 05:26 PM
We also need to be careful of the 'designer baby' mentality - not just because of it's possible effect on the child as an individual, but think of what could happen if we started to follow 'fashions' in what children look like? Every generation would end up looking identical to one another. You would be able to tell a person's birthdate by their looks. Just think of the cultural stagnation...And that's just from looks. Imagine if we could alter brain chemistry, too...

Somebody already addressed this:

# _Number Twelve Looks Just Like You_ (vhs/ntsc)

* first aired: 1/24/64
* "Given the chance, what young girl wouldn't happily exchange a plain face for a lovely one? What girl could refuse the opportunity to be beautiful? For want of a better estimate, let's call it the year 2000. At any rate, imagine a time in the future when science has developed a means of giving everyone the face and body he dreams of. It may not happen tomorrow - but it happens now in the Twilight Zone."

Marilyn Cuberle doesn't want to submit to the Transformation, a supposedly voluntary operation that makes them identical to everyone else. Her family and friends try and convince her to go ahead with the Transformation. She tries to escape from a hospital, and ends up in a room with a doctor and nurse. She emerges from the hospital looking and thinking just like everyone else.

"Portrait of a young lady in love - with herself. Improbable? Perhaps. But in an age of plastic surgery, body building and an infinity of cosmetics, let us hesitate to say impossible. These and other strange blessings may be waiting in the future - which after all, is the Twilight Zone."

What better conformity than genetic?

Actually, I'm upset about it. Genetic discrimnation is the only discrimination that I know of that makes sense.

You don't like it? Really?! Have you seen Gattaca? Clinton's EO is one of the few gvt actions I think is truly wonderful, a win-win all 'round.

I remember when Clinton announced this, it received almost no attention in the press, and I sometimes wondered if I was the only one who had even noticed. Clones of the future will be very thankful for this. It's rare IMO for politicians to be proactive instead of reactive, let alone care about problems that aren't yet manifest.

If you got genes that make you predisposed to get a higher chance of getting Alzhimers, then you got genes that make you predisposed. That may very well be an important desicion in hiring, especially when you want to hire someone to work in a job for a long, long time, the fact that they are likely to get Alzihmers might be a material fact.

WHAT!?! We shouldn't hire somebody because, fifty years from now, they might be a less effective worker, maybe, possibly? Talk about a slippery slope! So we shouldn't hire women because they might get pregnant? We shouldn't hire the poor because they might become criminals? We shouldn't hire foreigners because they might go back to their homeland? We shouldn't hire drivers because they might get in a car accident? We shouldn't hire whites because they might become bigots?

Certain genetic and environmental factors may make a person more or less disposed for all sorts of things. However, we don't go around arresting people because they might commit a crime, maybe, possibly, fifty years from now. In a business sense, people should be valued for what they can bring to the job now. Money is paid for work done, plain and simple. If you won't, say, do evolutionary research on zebrafish, then you don't get paid. If, and when, a person can no longer do a job, then the contract is broken, not because of some nebulous possibility that may never come about.

http://pupant.imeem.com/video/wZcWORVc/adultswim_ponda_babas_bad_day_animation_video/


This isn't skin color where it doesn't matter what skin color you are...this is actual genes, and it is these genes that determine who you are.

50% Nature, 50% Nurture.

Actually, if they are genetically superior, then it would be us purebreeds that will suffer discrimnation and hatred. But of course, the genetically superior would have a valid reason for their oppression of us.

Discrimination and bigotry have nothing to do with superiority or worth. They occur with numbers and power. A oppresses B because A is larger, or is more powerful.

SilentScope001
12-14-2007, 06:44 PM
Okay, just did some research, and genetic discrimnation in the workplace is still legal, but it is getting rid of soon. And to be perfectly honest, the law might be seen as useless.

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/24/87/89.html

An article about a bill in the House in 2007 that would ban this discrimantion.

The vast majority of employers don’t care about genetic information, Fishman says. So, they may not be up in arms about the bill that is zipping through Congress.

"Most of my clients are worried about getting good employees," Fishman says. "They’re not concerned about whether you have a trait for a disease that may or may not manifest during your employment."

And IBM has made genetic data offlimits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/business/10gene.html
I.B.M., the world's largest technology company by revenue, is promising not to use genetic information in hiring or in determining eligibility for its health care or benefits plans. Genetics policy specialists and privacy rights groups say that the I.B.M. pledge to its more than 300,000 employees worldwide appears to be the first such move by a major corporation.
***
addressed above, that's why you establish the healthcare for everyone first.

You don't go and say, "Alright, all we have to do is implement this Social Progam first, and then everything is fine."

You deal with the cards you dealt with. There is no universal health care in US. People don't want universal health care. Any policy will likely enough have lots of insurance as well. And even if there is universal health care, we shift the burden from companies to governments, so it will still be just as expensive. Can the government provide the 'same' level of genetic engineering that a millionare receive? I don't know...

From what I see, they'll be 'gene-rich', and 'gene-poor', and nothing you can do about it. And, I'm okay with it. The rich are constantly able to afford more stuff than the poor, and they will receive better health care, and will in the end, have better childern and become genetically superior. It'll be a part of America. And who knows? It may be a part of other societies too.

Certain genetic and environmental factors may make a person more or less disposed for all sorts of things. However, we don't go around arresting people because they might commit a crime, maybe, possibly, fifty years from now.

But being more disposed to something makes it reasonable that you keep an eye on that person rather than plugging your ears and pretending everything is normal.

To be fair, what I really want to have is that genetic discrimnation exist, but for insurance. If you are predisposed to cancer, you should get higher preimums due to cancer. Altough, if this fabled universal health care pops up in the US, then the government will still pay for your treatment anyway, but at least they know what is to be expected.

50% Nature, 50% Nurture.

But geneticis can control Nature. Behavoirists can control Nurture, but we should stick to the skillsets that we have. If genetic engineering can make humans 50% better, then that's a good thing. Want to make "nurture" better, then fund behavoir research.

But it seems we know more about science than we do about the human pysche, and we can use science right now, while studying the human pysche is far more complex. Better to use the tech we got.

Discrimination and bigotry have nothing to do with superiority or worth.

Sure it does. People think themselves as superior to other people because they are egoistic, they really want to feel themselves as awesome, and they love the gifts that they have gotten in life. The fact that those people can very well be superior however should however make you realize that this discrimnation does seem valid.

Remember, we are dealing with a 'sterotype' of ubermensches with high intellect, high beauty, and high strength (for the gene-rich, of course). If someone is smarter, prettier, and stronger than you are, you have to admit that they can make a good argument on why they are in fact superior to you.