From GMO Corn to GMO humans..?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by stylinexpat, Dec 2, 2018.

  1. stylinexpat, Dec 2, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018

    stylinexpat macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #1
  2. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #2
    Can she be mute as well? ******* hides under table ******

    Joking aside. If you are pro vaccinations would you be against this? Genetically superior kids. Should that not wipe out the diseases out there?
     
  3. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #3
    Im a bit confused as to what the topic is actually about here??? The link isn't about GMOs or anything of the sort.
     
  4. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #4
    I think he meant to link this article: https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/30/health/gene-edited-babies-he-jiankui-intl/index.html

    Genetically modifying humans is an interesting debates. Being able to edit out genetic diseases like Tay Sachs and Sickle Cell Anemia think you can certainly make a case for. Of course, you then have the slippery slope of using the technology to insert enhancing traits such as IQ, athletic abilities, etc into the genome. You’d then create a situation where the wealthy can afford to make their children genetically superior to naturally born children.

    Using the technology to remove genetic conditions from children I think is justifiable. Using the technology to make children genetically superior or to determine asthetic features is extremely dangerous socially and unethical.

    What this doctor did is quite unspeakable though. This is essentially non-consentual, highly dangerous and risky is to make sure human experimentation. As far as we’ve come with genetics, there is far more we don’t understand than we do understand. The subject of epigenetics is just emerging and we really don’t understand it- basically there is much more to you than your genome- how your DNA is packaged and environmental factors are extremely important. The unforeseen health consequences of fiddling with these girls’ DNA could be terrible, and perhaps worse their future children could suffer consequences as well.
     
  5. FrankieTDouglas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    #5
    If the technology exists and someone wants to genetically alter him or herself, or their child in the womb, then sure! Go for it. Pro-choice applies to more than just abortions.
     
  6. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 603

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #6
    She can, but she can also be much stronger than you, and force you to stay under the table!

    I am an educated molecular biologist, and works in vaccine development, so of course, I am completely pro vaccination, whatever that means (I can't see how anyone can be against vaccinations, if one is just mildly educated or spend half an hour researching the topic, if one has an opinion about it - But that's not what this thread is about, so make a spin off thread if there's any replies to this in particular).

    And while I think curing diseases, is a an amazing thing, there are several issues here:
    1. Curing disease X is bound to be a thing for the developed world. The slow trickle of money to the developing countries will make curing disease X down there something that happens decades, if not unlikely, much longer.
    2. While curing disease X is fine, if disease Y is only prevalent in developed countries, developing a cure for disease Y will likely take forever, if it ever happens, sparking even more diversion between developed and developing countries. And this is not just a matter of economy - People from developed countries *will* actually then be better humans! Nazis and other radical nationalists will be *loving* this. And this is a big problem! Just see how there's now wanna-be nazis and the like in more and more high positions now, the US being a prime example.
    3. Only a subset of diseases will be currable. HIV? Potentially. Ebola? Potentially. SARS or the flu? Unlikely. Genetic disorders? Absolutely possible, and this is where the greatest potential lies.
    4. When the first step has been taken, then there's no stopping it, and this is why scientists are in outrage about it. Creating superhumans is possible, it will be done, again creating a cannyon between people with money and people without. Creating an immune, but disease carrying human as a weapon? Absolutely possible.
    5. Creating controllable human slaves that has to obey your smallest wink, because you have included a genetically engineered death switch? Also absolutely possible.

    There are so many problems here, and it will be impossible to regulate it for good, so scientists are generally just for a complete ban. Of course, it doesn't mean that governments aren't doing it, because, well, weapons and nationalism.

    Well, Trump may be genetically engineered since he's such a super human... According to himself.. :p Although given his general level of intelligence, I am not sure he believes in DNA.
     
  7. decafjava macrumors 68040

    decafjava

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Location:
    Geneva
    #7
    I'm glad we have MR members who have actual scientific knowledge here - I read some many especially on social media who are talking out of their *** .

    I am horrified about the potential abuse of this tech - and am not sure we should use it even to eliminate disease until we gain more understanding and wisdom about what this power conveys.
     
  8. Huntn macrumors demi-god

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #8
    If people can do it, take a short cut to breeding in desirable/superior traits, they will. However, caution should be paramount.

    Humans have been breeding desirable traits into animals for years, but my impression is that pedigree dogs, can be less healthy than muts. Part of the reason is that because they are coveted and controlled by humans, they have been removed from normal Darwinism, evolutionary standard of the fittest surviving. Purebreds seem to have a variety of physical issues, such as large dogs with bad hips, possibly due to breeding choices made by humans.

    For humans, our knowledge and technology may seem to be make us, exempt from Darwin pressure, but it is still there, not as physical fitness, but in the form of making smart or stupid choices. And breeding animals is childs play as compared to genetic modification, and unintended consequences. We need to be very careful.
     
  9. stylinexpat, Dec 3, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018

    stylinexpat thread starter macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #9
    I made a mistake. I updated links. My apologies. Wrong link was attached
    --- Post Merged, Dec 3, 2018 ---
    I made a mistake and inputed the wrong link, my apologies. I fixed it. Link you attached is correct. Many thanks
     
  10. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    I can’t wait for the black market of embryo eugenics. Again, I think there’s a strong argument for GM’ing diseases out of people but there’s also a strong counter argument.

    It’s true there are examples of selective breeding, humans to extent partake in this naturally when they instinctively choose who they’re going to have children with. Obviously we seek out out partners with desirable traits. Things are still happening on a natural level with selective breeding.

    Selective breeding in dogs has essentially lead to inbreeding. The primarily issue if two related animals have the same recessive gene that would normally be ignored by a better dominant gene, you end up getting two copies of the bad recessive gene making it exhibit itself. So this wouldn’t necessarily happen in GM humans, you could actually prevent it, but there is a whole host of other issues tinkering with genomes. Changing the DNA sequence changes it’s epigenetics, such as how the chemical structure naturally packaged itself, which can have unknown results. So it’s really not as simple as splicing in and/or out DNA.

    One of the problems with the Ashkenazi Jewish population is that thousands of years of breeding exclusively with other Jews has created a very small gene pool. That’s why you see a lot of genetic diseases in Jews, some almost exclusively to the Jewish population such as Tay Sachs. It’s essentially the consequences of inbreeding only over thousands of years.
     
  11. stylinexpat thread starter macrumors 65816

    stylinexpat

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #11
    Had GMO veggies, genetically modified animals so people can the dogs that they like at home and now we have genetically modified humans coming up. I think the government in China liked this guy is why he vanished. We could use a guy like you. With 1.5 billion people in our country we could use some modifications in our genes lol.
     
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    gene pool would clean itself IF we just removed all the warning labels from products and culled 95% of lawyers...........:eek:
     
  13. Huntn macrumors demi-god

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #13
    Well, I think this has been a problem in any rural area with small populations. It’s very easy for people and their descendents to keep marrying into the same families over and over again.

    I won’t mention the State, but while doing some genealogy research, we ended up in a small isolated town up in the mountains, and there were some very strange looking and acting people on the street, but the “acting” part could also be somewhat of a cultural issue when strangers (us) appear.
     
  14. Zenithal, Dec 3, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2018

    Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #14
    This is something ethicists should be discussing in a wide consortium of individuals from different legal and medical backgrounds. That said, I'm surprisingly fine with this and it's something I was curious about roughly 20ish years ago when the idea of genetically modifying animals was being discussed.

    It and just about anything in the world can be abused. That's an overused argument. I do see it being an ethical issue for some. The idea of helping parents/families who have innate illnesses running through their genetic code and alleviating those issues is grand. In an ideal world, people will be born without congenital issues and even mitigate or completely avoid problems down the line by catching and fixing problems that may pose a risk 10-40 years from that child's birth.

    If you could eliminate blindness, DMT1, deafness, cognitive development problems, bad eyesight, etc. then why not?
    --- Post Merged, Dec 3, 2018 ---
    I'll say it. The Appalachians? I've heard that, too. It's believable. It's an issue with rural areas in some nations, too. There used to be some old Soviet research alluding to drug use having an impact on genetic development for a child long before the 9 month carry period for a woman. I only found about it while in big G overseas, and that was simply relayed/translated to me.

    Going with Goldberg's post because this is something him and I have discussed about at length is that apart from some abuses, some cultures like the one he mentioned are rather inclusive. It doesn't help that a large number of Ashkenazi Jews were wiped out during the Holocaust and that its outcome still affects the populace of the region let alone global numbers. As a modern people, we humans still carry some fundamental development problems. This isn't so much the case in the US where most people are a blend of ethnic origins, but it will be one day. Scientifically speaking, for a species to thrive, genetic mixing must occur. Too much insular behavior will be the death of the species. In other words, conservative nations that look down on marrying into another ethnicity will be prime for genetic problems down the line. Which may range from 50-300 years.
     

Share This Page

13 December 2, 2018