jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (18 posts)

What is your position regarding genetic engineering to improve

  1. gmwilliams profile image82
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/11849411.jpg
    the physical and intellectual quality of humankind, eliminating diseases and related defects?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Probably not the wise thing to do.  Every time we mess with nature we screw up.

      Plus, there is the question of what "improve" is - do we "improve" our intellect by making idiot-savants?  Our physique by making large breasted women?  Defects by eliminating all with brown eyes?  I don't think we're NEAR smart enough to answer these questions.

    2. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Ease pain and suffering. Sure. Gene therapy anyone?

      1. gmwilliams profile image82
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Gene therapy and diagnosis will be commonplace in future medical technologies.   With such gene therapy, diseases, particularly degenerative diseases will be reduced.   Genetic maladies such as mental retardation could be eliminated altogether.   This will be a magnificent thing indeed!

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yes to all of the above, But, (isn't there always a but?), we have to face the reality of unintended consequences and the reality that we don't know what we don't know.

          What if in our zeal to modify genes to "cure" what we know are problems, the sequence leads to mutations that we can not foresee?

          What if in fixing the "degenerative"  genes we start the ball rolling to  uncontrollable, (and unforeseeable), gene mutations/modifications that are worse than the cure?

          Science has brought us to the point of playing "God," but do we really know enough to assume that role?

          Understanding that we stand on a threshold of human achievement, the thought of what we don't know is as scary to me as the thought of what we are capable of doing.

          Just sayin'

          GA

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    The day we can inject a gene to save a child a slow, harrowing death such as from cystic fibrosis will be a day to celebrate.

    1. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Combine your response with that of Wilderness, and we have the start of an intelligent and interesting conversation.

      GA

  3. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    We shouldn't mess with things we don't understand.

    1. psycheskinner profile image81
      psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Once we did not understand the germ theory of disease, now we do.  The same will be true for genetic diseases in the future. Having watched a child die of a painful congenital disease, I hope that future arrives soon. That will one one more horror for the human race to put behind us like routine death during childbirth, the plague, and gas gangrene.

      1. gmwilliams profile image82
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        There will be THOSE who are against any form of progress and growth because in their "belief" , one should not go beyond certain parameters; however, these are the people who will be left behind.  The future belongs to those who break the rules, going beyond established parameters and paradigm to establish new ways of doing and seeing things.  After all, we all CO-CREATORS with the ability to create a new, more humane world.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          We do not have the ability now.  Only the possibility of the ability in the future, and not within the lifetime of anyone alive today.

      2. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        From a personal. and admittedly selfish perspective, I can understand the compassion of your response. I have endured similar circumstances in my life. From a personal perspective, I am with you 100%. But, even in our quest for cures and personal salvations, can we honestly ignore the potential problems of our meddling with nature?

        If our genes are as intrinsically entwined as we seem to understand they are, should we proceed. Should we tweak one  to accomplish "A" without fully understanding that there is a corollary affect on "B"?

        I understand compassion and hope, but I think Wilderness nailed it. We are over our heads in this arena.

        GA

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Low self esteem.

          1. GA Anderson profile image86
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That must be one of those "deep" thoughts, because I don't understand what you mean.

            GA

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You assume "we" are in over our heads. Perhaps because you don't understand it you assume no one understands it. Some understand their personal limitations are not the limitations of others.

        2. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          We used to be in over our heads with bacteria and we are still struggling with viruses.  But the answer is not improve medicine not to allow people to suffer and die.

          I single locus spontaneous mutation is not part of a person's identity.  It is a disease that happens to be genetic but is other no different to a disease that is bacterial, prior, virus or toxin.

          We already know that exact gene that is taking people with cystic fibrosis, with breast cancer, with many genetic disease.  I am boggled that you would just consign those people to horrible deaths because they go a mutations and so they... what, their 'true self' is a dead person and they should just lie down and die?

          They are not their disease. They are just the person suffering from it.  There are many good people I have known who had simple genetic diseases that will soon be curable and I celebrate that.

          What honestly to you expect the down side to be? People are already being experimentally cured with gene therapy and they have not turned into a 'mutants' and destroyed New York with their heat ray vision yet.  they just got better and went back to their families.

          1. GA Anderson profile image86
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Wow! You and Rad Man really missed the point I was making.  I was not saying genetic engineering was wrong. I was not saying we should not fix damaged genes that we have the capabilities to fix. I was not saying we should step back from it in awe and fear.

            I was saying that the "big picture" concept of genetic engineering is an ocean we are only beginning to fathom. I do not think that our ability to map our genomes means we also have the understanding of possible consequences we don't even know that we don't know about.

            You know, sort of like the old, "If a butterfly flaps its wings... etc." theory.

            GA

  4. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    If we are talking about choosing your kid's eye color or trying to make some "super-man", sure--that is new ground and an ethical minefield.  But curing disease, well, that's a good thing.

 
working