Eugenics and Genetic Engineering

[Heartless Angel]

Alpha made a thread similar to this a couple years back, but I think I'm thinking just different enough to be considered a separate topic. If any mods disagree, do feel free to lock or delete this, or whatever it is you do with ID threads you deem unnecessary.

First, the broad definition of eugenics, "The scientific study of methods for genetically improving the human race". This can range from selective breeding, to genetic screening, to genocide against races someone deems 'genetically unfit'. Eugenics as a whole is a pretty broad topic. Theories of eugenics have been responsible for many atrocities throughout history, the most obvious being the holocaust. But I'd like to think its rather unpleasant history won't affect anyone's judgment of the idea in its entirety. The primary reason I'm currently pondering this topic, is Star Trek. In both the original series and Enterprise, references are made to a "eugenics war", which I believe the original also identified as World War 3. The general idea is, that certain geneticists began engineering genetically superior humans, and I mean vastly superior, like five times normal human strength, superhuman resistance to disease, doubled life expectancy, accelerated intellectual development, etc. Basically the idea of a "super soldier", except not made specifically for war, but as a model for what all humanity would eventually become. The fictional geneticist who started these experiments was also quoted saying, "With superior ability, comes superior ambition", and this geneticist was later murdered by a genetically enhanced human. Then this small faction of these superhumans basically united to take over the planet, and started the war, and then some shit happened... but never mind that. The subject I'm interested in here is the idea of attempting to genetically enhance our species.

Now, I'm guessing I'm not alone in saying I'd be against any sort of mandates on who can or can't have kids, or forced sterilization and euthanasia of those deemed genetically inferior, or abortions of genetically inferior unborn children. What I might not be against however, would be the genetic engineering of specific desirable traits, or removal of undesirable ones in unborn children. I'm actually not entirely sure where I'd stand on this. And I'm not just thinking along the lines of eradicating specific disabilities that are considered abnormal, but actually making a 'better' human race, improving upon normality.

If we discovered that there was a simple genetic alteration we could make in embryos to make the children live an extra 30 years, or be immune to cancer, more resistant to certain toxins, or or any number of improvements on what is currently considered to be 'normal' for a person, should we?

Is there a limit to what sorts of enhancements we should be willing to engineer into ourselves if we wanted to alter our genome in the first place? At what point do we finally say, no, we shouldn't do this, even if we are able? Is there a such thing as a bad improvement? Are there 'flaws' that are worth preserving?

Should we allow that sort of genetic tampering in individuals, even if we don't accept it as a society? Or would the threat of creating a real life Khan be too great to risk using it on anyone if we're not using it on everyone? Would it be safer to improve each generation a little at a time instad of making Khan with his five times human strength, double lifespan, triple intellect, and all that in the first batch of engineered children?

That kinda raises another issue, would we even be able to adequately raise a generation of children who are superior to us? Would they be intelligent adults by the time they understood their superiority? Or would we have stupid 12 year olds with the desire and ability to take over the world?

So I guess the most basic question this all boils down to would be this.

Should we open up this can of worms at all? Are we looking at the bright future of the human race, or a Pandora's Box that we'll never be able to close?

[Lacquer Head]

This goes with cloning and etc, I can't see a reason for it to NOT be legal other than morality, which is the worst possibly reason for decision making. Personally, I think creating super humans would have a devastating effect on the planet. If we end up immune to all natural threats, it's super-overpopulation time. Although I do want to live for ever and have wings and shit, that would be cool.

[Heartless Angel]

That's another thing I should've brought up in the OP, since I'm a moral nihilist, I'm rather hoping this won't be an exclusively ethical debate. Factual analyses of the outcomes is probably the best thing to look at. And overpopulation due to lack of deaths is something I considered as well. So there's one limit we'd have to consider, nothing that would upset the cycle of life and death in a way that would cause unmanageable population growth.

[Lacquer Head]

Well, the only ethical issues I could see would pertain to possible human testing. Since most of this already exists with animal testing. The real goal that I could see would be harvesting organs and stem cell type stuff. I mean, blind people could see, paraplegics could walk again, etc etc. I really can't see research into anything else until it's become so simple to do it'd be like plastic surgery. I could see in 200 years, furries able to become anthropomorphic creatures lol if it's what some one wants, why not? As long as it doesn't pose a threat to others. Although, military forces would be building various super soldiers if we aren't going the robot wars route.

[Order]

Overpopulation?
What, is there a gene you can alter that stops people from flipping thier z28 on the highway, overdosing, murder, blah, blah, blah.

Bring on the science.
I honestly don't believe that you can make a person immune to all disease from birth. I dont think you could even make a person age more slowly.
But science has done the impossible before.
Bring on the science, damnit!

[Heartless Angel]

You wouldn't have to make everyone immortal to increase the population. Removing deaths by certain diseases, and delaying deaths by old ages would shift the balance of life and death in life's favor. People would still die, but substantially more people would be born than would be dying at any given time.

We can already make people immune to some diseases, it'd just be a matter of upgrading the immune system. As for aging, we kind of already have. The average life expectancy of a man 200-300 years ago was around 50/60. You're doing pretty bad now if that's all the longer you last. That's just modern medicine at work, if you could change the person itself, you could do more than that.

[Lacquer Head]

We're already suffering from extreme over population. Especially in places such as China and India. There are no real threats any more. There are still diseases that kill us and cancer and such, but it's not nearly as big of a threat as before. Humans have spread to all corners of the Earth and conquered it. Look at all the damage we are doing to planet right now, it wont take long before it starts hitting us hard. People are working on cleaner and more efficient things, but not even close to enough.

[Heartless Angel]

We're hitting our carrying capacity. Actually we probably hit it a while ago, but we're working around it. We're long overdue for another bubonic plague to wipe out about a third of the human population. In any case, removing human vulnerabilities that can be fatal further increases life's lead over death, and the population increases even further.

[Order]

I dont think Earth is actually in danger of being over populated.
China and inda have plenty of problems, crowding is merely a symptom of disease.

Seriously, most of russia, japan, and the US are sparsely populated.
There is a lot of space which is not inhabited. Its just major cities and third world area which suffer from crowding population.

Besides, Im positive some freak virus would pop up if the population were exessively dense. Living in extremely close quarters with lots of people does make a noticeable impact on your resistance to illness.

[Lacquer Head]

We're running out of life supplies. The seas are being over fished, forests are being plowed for houses, killing off mass amounts of animals, then there is all the trash and pollution. Eventually the oil supplies will be tapped, water is actually more of a problem than you think. I think it's 1% of the Earth that is covered in USABLE water.

[Heartless Angel]

Yeah, carrying capacity has to do with more than just space. Food gets stretched thin, as it already is on a global scale. In any case, the finer details of the effects of overpopulation is not the purpose of this thread... so. Let's attempt to stay somewhat on course. I'm all for thread derails when it's switching to a necessary subtopic that adds value to a position on the primary topic, but this isn't really that important of a detail in the broad scope of the topic.

[Lacquer Head]

As for forced sterilization and stuff...I'm a bit conflicted. In the end, I see the good it can bring, but it's still taking away a lot of human rights. But I would like to see something that sets a certain amount of children you can have before you have to pay fines or extra taxes.

Picking and choosing "superior" genetics sounds a bit too Hitler-ish though, depending on what you mean. If you can remove stuff like genetic diseases and disorders, yes, but once it gets into eye color and stuff...

[Heartless Angel]

fine against having a certain number kids if you're deemed to have an undesirable gene would be a relatively innocuous way to increase the overall prevalence of 'good genes'.

Superior genetics in the sense I'm thinking would be limited to things that have some objective basis for being considered superior, resistance to weaknesses other humans face, increased ability, things like that. Being German does not have any significant genetic benefits that justify the holocaust as a eugenic policy. Or that would justify any other eugenic policy.

As far as policies go, genetic engineering is probably the only one I'd really put my support behind at this point in time, since that's the one that wouldn't have to deprive anyone of rights to have kids, or commit genocide.

[Lacquer Head]

lol I meant EVERYONE be punished after having 1-2 kids or something. As for such genetic engineering, it's still a matter of opinion on what is superior. It just has that Nazi like feel to it, you know? I mean, done right it would be beneficial...but in the world we live, it would NEVER work out fair and right.

[Heartless Angel]

I'd think it'd be fairly simple to determine objectively whether or not a human with a doubled lifespan, or immune to cancer, or with doubled physical strength is or is not superior to a normal man. As long as nobody's trying to call being white a genetic advantage (which again, there isn't any significant evidence to support a claim like this), we don't really have a problem there.

[Lacquer Head]

That's what the problem is lol there will be PLENTY of people going for that. As for super strength and such, I don't really see the point. Although, a super human that turned to crime could be a very bad thing lol "HE JUST TOOK 2 .50 CALIBER ROUNDS TO THE CHEST AND HE'S STILL GO-"

Obvious just silly theory, but you see where I'm going. The issue is proving why it's necessary to people. There will also be the religious people that freak out because you're playing God or whatever.

Then there will also be certain Government agencies and such developing super soldiers and even extremist groups dabbling. Do the possible benefits outweigh the dangers. Then there is the X Men effect >_> People get scared when super humans start coming into the world.

[Heartless Angel]

Which is why I wouldn't want it at all unless it became something we did everywhere, on all children. If superpowers were considered normal, they wouldn't really be superpowers anymore.