• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Genetic modification, what do you think about it GAF?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayDubya said:
It's not really a question of playing God or not, although I guess it is for the religious set, but my concern is always going is that even though we can do various things, whether or not we should do them.

If they violate human rights, we should not do them. Of course, we already engage in various scientific protocols and medical procedures that violate human rights.

It's like genetic screening of your offspring - innocent in and of itself, useful information, but it can too easily be coupled with eugenics, and such is already, currently frequently encouraged by numerous members of the medical community.


GM food? Bring it on, whatever. There's really no reasonable argument for the other side on that one. Screening? Fine. Therapy that fixes a problem, great. The use of genetic screening to cull the undesirables is where I draw the line, and as I said, we already do this.
Click to expand...


Who are you to tell someone what they can or can't do with their body?
 
msv said:
Lethal to an egg? Why would that matter?
Click to expand...

If it's an egg, you can hardly screen it for its adult characteristics because that's only half the genetic code for that lifeform.

I suppose if you want to allow for screening on the sperm / egg level, but that's even more the realm of science fiction than anything else described in the thread so far.
 
You were talking about IVF, that means it's in it's egg stage... Why would you try to alter the DNA after proliferation and not before???
 
I support it. I'm against its uses for military purposes, but they're probably using it already anyway, so let it help the public too. The main purpose being fighting diseases, but what the hell, I'm not against aesthetic uses either.
 
I would like to see some greater effort in testing before we jump headfirst into something that we know so little about. After reading the Rama series I'm extremely hesitant when it comes to genetic manipulation because its pretty much impossible to know the outcome of what you're getting into without a trial and error method at this point.
 
HolyStar said:
Who are you to tell someone what they can or can't do with their body?
Click to expand...

HolyStar
Doesn't want to cure cancer
(Today, 08:02 AM
 
Human genetic manipulation is going to happen when technology allows it, it's unstoppable. Think about it: people will be able to give better opportunities to their childs. People will pay as much as they can for this. It's human nature.
 
Atreides said:
Human genetic manipulation is going to happen when technology allows it, it's unstoppable. Think about it: people will be able to give better opportunities to their childs. People will pay as much as they can for this. It's human nature.
Click to expand...
the free market demands it jaydubya.
 
Atreides said:
Human genetic manipulation is going to happen when technology allows it, it's unstoppable. Think about it: people will be able to give better opportunities to their childs. People will pay as much as they can for this. It's human nature.
Click to expand...
I'm really opposed to genetic manipulation for that reason. There's no way to really gauge the generational effects of genetic manipulation. So yeah, it might give my kid a 42 inch vert and 4.1 40 yard dash time, but at the same time I may be dooming my entire bloodline because of some super recessive trait that some researchers didn't think was important enough to properly study.

If someone could convince me that there actually was extensive testing and more than just IMANGIN THE POSSIBILLILLYS organizations floating around asking for money then I'd be a lot more receptive to the idea. I honestly believe that misuse of genetic manipulation possesses the potential to be much more damning to the human race than nuclear power. For example, we fucked up by bombing Japan and we learned shortly after that we were dealing with something that demanded great care. If we fuck up with this, then we may not even be aware of the consequences until 5-6 generations later and by that time it may not even be possible to rectify the situation.
 
DY_nasty said:
I'm really opposed to genetic manipulation for that reason. There's no way to really gauge the generational effects of genetic manipulation. So yeah, it might give my kid a 42 inch vert and 4.1 40 yard dash time, but at the same time I may be dooming my entire bloodline because of some super recessive trait that some researchers didn't think was important enough to properly study.

If someone could convince me that there actually was extensive testing and more than just IMANGIN THE POSSIBILLILLYS organizations floating around asking for money then I'd be a lot more receptive to the idea. I honestly believe that misuse of genetic manipulation possesses the potential to be much more damning to the human race than nuclear power. For example, we fucked up by bombing Japan and we learned shortly after that we were dealing with something that demanded great care. If we fuck up with this, then we may not even be aware of the consequences until 5-6 generations later and by that time it may not even be possible to rectify the situation.
Click to expand...

Uh, testing has been going on for years. Did you think we'd just start injecting shit into our DNA and go "oops" if people died? :lol
 
msv said:
You were talking about IVF, that means it's in it's egg stage... Why would you try to alter the DNA after proliferation and not before???
Click to expand...

You can't implant an egg, as it's a singular, haploid cell. What are you on about?
 
zon said:
Uh, testing has been going on for years. Did you think we'd just start injecting shit into our DNA and go "oops" if people died? :lol
Click to expand...
People have been going "oops" since the birth of invention, its just our luck that we've ONLY fucked up this much.

And even the testing we have now is nothing more than singular, independent guess and check work with lab mice and, on the greatest scale, farm animals. I want to see genetically engineered animals go through about 10 generations before I'm down with it.
 
JayDubya said:
You can't implant an egg, as it's a singular, haploid cell. What are you on about?
Click to expand...
What? The zygote dude, it contains a single diploid nucleus, i.e. the start of embryonic development. Which is a fertilized egg in common terms...

msv said:
Lethal to a zygote? Why would that matter?
Click to expand...
That better?
 
msv said:
What? The zygote dude, it contains a single diploid nucleus, i.e. the start of embryonic development.
Click to expand...

A zygote is not an egg.

Which is a fertilized egg in common terms...
Click to expand...

Not as such.

Once fertilization has occurred, you're no longer dealing with an egg cell or a sperm cell, so whatever common or layman terms you're relying on, they're inaccurate.
 
2nltzev.jpg
 
JayDubya said:
A zygote is not an egg.
Click to expand...
An egg is not the correct medical term. The correct term is a definitive oocyte. So what you said about the egg was incorrect according to your logic.

Not as such.

Once fertilization has occurred, you're no longer dealing with an egg cell or a sperm cell, so whatever common or layman terms you're relying on, they're inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Well, I've already stated that the correct term is a zygote. An 'egg' cell is not a correct term either way, since you're not 'no longer dealing with an egg cell', there was no 'egg' cell to begin with. Anyways, the term is a zygote, I corrected myself for your sake, so let's continue.
 
msv said:
An egg is not the correct medical term. The correct term is a definitive oocyte. So what you said about the egg was incorrect according to your logic.

Well, I've already stated that the correct term is a zygote. An 'egg' cell is not a correct term either way, so you're not 'no longer dealing with an egg cell', since there was no 'egg' cell to begin with. Anyways, the term is a zygote, I corrected myself for your sake, so let's continue.
Click to expand...

It's not just a matter of semantics. Oocyte and egg refer to the same thing. Zygote and egg do not.

And no, "lethal to an egg" does not have the same significance as "lethal to a zygote," even if you ultimately decide both are justifiable, there is a demonstrable, important difference.

So again, no, I do not believe the "Gattaca" methodology of creating multiple blastocysts, screening them, and discarding the undesired ones is justified. Although, we do this now, albeit at a less morally ambiguous (for some) life stage - it's called "selective reduction," which is a nice way of saying "feticide through lethal injection."
 
msv said:
An egg is not the correct medical term. The correct term is a definitive oocyte. So what you said about the egg was incorrect according to your logic.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with JayDubya, but this is a pretty pathetic attempt to save face.

Also, this topic (in the OP) is so 1990s.
 
JayDubya said:
It's not just a matter of semantics. Oocyte and egg refer to the same thing. Zygote and egg do not.

And no, "lethal to an egg" does not have the same significance as "lethal to a zygote," even if you ultimately decide both are justifiable, there is a demonstrable, important difference.
Click to expand...
Dude, it's a fucking fertilized egg, who cares? You were confused by the terms I used, I corrected/explained myself.

Dr.Guru of Peru said:
I don't agree with JayDubya, but this is a pretty pathetic attempt to save face.

Also, this topic (in the OP) is so 1990s.
Click to expand...
Save face? Because I bitch about useless stuff the same way he did? It's the same complaint JayDubya gave dude. He understood I was referring to a 'definitive oocyte' when using the term 'egg' but not 'zygote' when I used the term 'fertilized egg'.
 
msv said:
Dude, it's a fucking fertilized egg, who cares? You were confused by the terms I used, I corrected/explained myself.
Click to expand...

What confusion? You made an equivocation that I disputed. IVF does not involve the implantation of eggs. Technically, zygotes can't implant either, there has to be some mitosis and development first to reach the life stage of blastocyst.

In any event, we've seemingly cleared up whatever semantics were in our way.
 
JayDubya said:
Technically, zygotes can't implant either, there has to be some mitosis and development first to reach the life stage of blastocyst.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by implant? Zygotes at 2-4 cell stages are inserted in the uterus.
 
DY_nasty said:
People have been going "oops" since the birth of invention, its just our luck that we've ONLY fucked up this much.

And even the testing we have now is nothing more than singular, independent guess and check work with lab mice and, on the greatest scale, farm animals. I want to see genetically engineered animals go through about 10 generations before I'm down with it.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, to compare say, inventing gunpowder, with the way scientists work today is just silly.

You really believe that scientists wouldn't test it thoroughly before experimenting on humans? Do you really think they'd forget to monitor the first human test subjects the following decades before they even consider to make it available to the general populace?

Scientists aren't a bunch of retarded kids y'know.
 
White Man said:
I'm basically for it all, although I am more interested in having our brains interfacing with machines. I'm interested in augmenting the brain and nervous system, so this is the sort of news that gets my boner on:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926696.100-rise-of-the-ratbrained-robots.html
Click to expand...
Wow that's the shit. I wonder how hard it must be to devise such an interface. Too bad there's only a few in or outputs, you'd think a set of 300,000 neurons would be able to handle much more. I'm curious to see if it could handle web/normal/hd cams or other sorts of more detailed input coupled with more complex output when more complex interfaces are made. They could feed the neurons the visual/audio output of some games and output the actions, would be interesting to see what would happen. Haven't they done this already with a flight simulator? I wonder what the in/output was composed of.

Edit: Article on the flight sim. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/02/brain.dish/ Just 60 electrodes though. So not much parallel input/output sadly.
 
Sign me the fuck up.

Life is a program and we've been given the SDK decades ago. Whatever your so called god opposes he's done more than enough to lock it off and will do more if necessary.
 
Sol.. said:
Sign me the fuck up.

Life is a program and we've been given the SDK decades ago. Whatever your so called god opposes he's done more than enough to lock it off and will do more if necessary.
Click to expand...
...

...

...

Surely you aren't suggesting that firmware updates are on the cards? I wouldn't mind Skype or Remote Play though...
 
Short of a civilization or world ending event, it's inevitable. Technology and Genetics will converge upon mankind and vastly change what it means to be human. Well, they are already are, honestly. People go through cosmetic proceedures, take medicine and apply lotions or creams today. People use prosthetics and carry around what are increasingly becoming portable computers today. It's just a matter of pushing these conveniences to their natural end game.

People who don't like it can feel free to go join the Amish.
 
It presents an ethical quandry that needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. The most obvious problem is "where does it stop?" Which (sort of) begs the question, should we even start?

If we can cure disease by genetic modification, I can't say I'd vote against GM - but what if a couple based carrying a fetus to term based on whether or not it may have down syndrome?

On a lighter note, consider the Simpsons outcome: Tomacco produced some VERY angry barnyard animals.
 
BladeWorker said:
If we can cure disease by genetic modification, I can't say I'd vote against GM - but what if a couple based carrying a fetus to term based on whether or not it may have down syndrome?
Click to expand...

Already happens. Frequently.
 
JayDubya said:
If they violate human rights, we should not do them. Of course, we already engage in various scientific protocols and medical procedures that violate human rights...

...The use of genetic screening to cull the undesirables is where I draw the line, and as I said, we already do this.
Click to expand...
Two questions:
1. Any other medical procedures that you are against other than those that involve a zygote or fetus?
2. Would you propound that pregnant women ought to give birth to these "undesirables" if some fetuses are carrying untreatable mutations so harmful that survival is nil outside the uterus?

JayDubya said:
It's like genetic screening of your offspring - innocent in and of itself, useful information, but it can too easily be coupled with eugenics, and such is already, currently frequently encouraged by numerous members of the medical community.
Click to expand...
That's an unfair accusation, as the most common reason for American women undergoing abortions today is because the pregnancy was unwanted in the first place (e.g., contraception failure, rape, etc.), regardless of how "perfect" or "undesirable" the baby would have been. No obstetrician today would advocate abortion if the reason was "I want a baby better than normal," which I infer from your quote saying that OB-Gyns advocate eugenics. If you object to reasons such as cystic fibrosis or Down's syndrome, I can understand that; I am unsure to your position in cases of much more serious, often lethal, fetal abnormalities like I asked above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What do you think about age differences in relationships?
2 3 4
198
3K
Outlier replied
  • Poll
Do you think the Sequel Trilogy should be decanonized?
2 3 4 5
213
936
Major Insano replied
What would you do if you got this email?
Opinion  2
91
645
Peggies replied
How often do you think about dying?
Cringe  2
57
2K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
If the OOT of Star Wars were re-released as the offical version what scene(s) do you think would be important to keep?
45
414
BlackTron replied
Top Bottom