Slashdot Mirror
Will Genetic Engineering Kill Us?
Kaz Riprock writes "Mark Baard, author of this Wired article was a recent attendee at The Future of Human Nature symposium (that I helped organize). The talks were held at Boston University through the Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. A high profile assemblage of well-known thinkers, such as Steven Pinker, Lee Silver, and Marvin Minsky, were invited to speak at the 3 day conference to examine what 'Human Nature' would be like in 50-200 years.
While the article describes a good amount of the 'doom and gloom' which was presented and discussed, it does not quite capture the upside to our potential future aims. One example from the conference was the talk by Christine Peterson, head of The Foresight Institute, on the future use of nanotechnology to better the human condition."
When a beaver builds a dam, it's called nature. When man builds a dam, we're destroying nature. Is the purpose of our life not to better our lives? And if so, why should we not be allowed genetic engineering, cloning, going to different planets.
The world is constantly changing, and we are part of it.
Now I do understand that many people have moral issues with genetic engineering, and I did (and still somewhat do) too, but if done right, what's the problem. For those don't understand, read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. It's a scary world that he describes, looking at it from our point of view; however, from the inhabitants point of view, it's a perfect world. Brainwashed, yes, but very few people are unhappy. Furthermore, the few that are too intelligent to live in that world are given their own island, to do as they please.
A perfect society, but it takes a while and a lot of change to get there.
The real problem is the irresponsible way it's being handled. Shortly after the first field tests geneticly enhanced grain is in wide spread use. Now it looks like the insects have become immune to it and the "super weed" senerio has come true. Causually throwing animal genes into plants and plant genes into animals is terrifying. The standards are so lax a generation or two of the plant or animal and it's in the ecosystem. If you look at the effect 200 years of developement has had on the lanscape, what will 200 years of genetic tinkering do to the genetic landscape?
I think that a little bit of this can be very healthy though. Going completely gung-ho on new technologies could be dangerous, and having a little caution is a good thing. Genetic engineering, AI, nanotech, the internet, the hammer, whatever, all of these have the potential to become bad things, but for the most part haven't because people were careful. That said, I'm all for any new technology that comes along, with the understanding that any tool can be used to achieve both positive and negative ends.
- sig? who is this sig of which you speak?
"We might create a group of people much smarter than us, that might want to kill us," said bioethicist George Annas, chair of the Health Law Department of Boston University School of Public Health.
.
Or they might be so much smarter than us that they realize they don't need to kill everyone who differs from them . .
(Comment borrowed from Sladek's "Roderick at Random")
Um, does many thousands of people starving daily due to rampant overpopulation count?
What about the thousands of asthma sufferers plagued by air pollution?
perhaps these only qualify as gloom...
And what about the giant lizard that keeps mutating and attacking Japan...?
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
What truly scares me, is the possibility of only the rich being able to afford genetic "enhancements".
Imagine a world where if you want your child to benefit from genetics, you have to spend a proportional amount of money for said engineering to be done.
The social divisions between the rich and the rest of us, will only widen.
Perhaps genetic enhancements should be regulated as a public benefit or utility, where all have somewhat equal opportunity to get them.
Be kind. There are too many mean people out there already.
Excellent observation, I agree.
But you are missing the intention of this alarmism. The intent is to sell. It's a sales event for books, seminars, etc.
There are three things that get peoples attention: sex; novelty; and fear. The market for sex is pretty much cornered. That novelty thing takes thought, and can die quickly. But that whole fear thing... Man that stuff can be sold, mixed and resold time and again.
By the way, is that Stupid Gene a double recessive?
- High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
How is modern genetic engineering different then selective breeding? When farmers bred the two best cows or sheep, and then bred THOSE offspring, wasn't that genetic engineering of the breed? What about when you marry someone who looks a certain way? Are your children "genetically engineered" ?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Currently the human race is on the path to extinction (or at least significant degredation). The fact is that large numbers of people with genetic mutations and just plain bag genes that would of been eliminated from the gene pool are now living and reproducing. When it comes to the longterm survival of the species we really only have a few alternatives.
1. Eugenics. Not a choice we want to take forced sterilization has been tried in the past (the Canadian government for a while in the 40s or 50s (i think) had the forced sterilization of people with mental disabilities) and this would constitute quite a serious breach of a persons rights and could start us down a slippery slope. Another option is screening of fetus' while this may work for serious disabilites i don't really see it pratical trying to work out whether the fetus is productive enough to keep, this is also difficult to execute while avoiding the species degrading as you would have to reject fetus' who are just a little stupid or destined to have other minor problems otherwise you're just avoiding the inevitable.
2. No more medicine or at least careful application of it. Only treat those ill by accident, not by genetic weaknesses, not a nice alternative either.
3. Selective breeding. Been doing this for a few thousand years (with livestock). Not sure to what extent it was practiced with ancient slaves but selective breeding is certainly a reason why the US has so many great black athlete's currently. This would be hard to enforce and again would constitute major violations of human rights. Again not an option I'd choose.
4. Do nothing. Simple enough we keep improving health care and ignore the genes. Eventually either the situation gets so bad we have to take an alternative or the race is degraded to a point where it can't sustain its society and we either collapse destroying ourselves entirely or fal back to a point where evolution takes over again until we get to that point again. Rinse and repeat. Not fun either.
5. Genetic therapy. Start with fixing obvious defects but slowly build up to actual improvements. Depending on implementation we quickly reach a point where the rich form a true nobility, in other words if your parents are rich you actually are faster, smarter, stronger, and more stable (as long as you don't get too arrogant). One solution to this is strict controls on the amount of genetic engineering like with a public health care system. Everybody gets free access to the same treatment regardless of wealth or status and everybody wins. Social stability remains and the race keeps improving. Sounds like the best option to me.
p.s. can anybody think of any options I missed?
I stole this Sig
I have an overactive immune system that attacks my own kidneys. It could kill me in about 10 years. (I am in my 30's).
Kidney transplants from family/etc. might help, but the real problem is that my immune system attacks my OWN kidneys, so you see the problem. Immunosupressant drugs are dangerous, leave me open to disease, and are not 100% effective. I end up with a weak immune system that still damages my kidneys a little bit.
The best hope for saving my life is genetic research into cloning kidneys from my own body, and then implanting healthier, younger kidneys into me. This is barely within our technological grasp, if we make it a priority. Dolly made you wonder, but it gave me hope.
That said, I do not consider Genetic manipulation of Human beings to be changing the species.
First of all, evolution is VERY effective. Any changes we make will be relatively minor. Our only real advantage over Evolution is speed.
Instead of NEW species, we will be making new "races" as in black vs. white, etc. etc.
It will take hundreds of years of actual evolution (living on seperate planets) to differentiate us enough to declare the new races new species.s
But we will end with a more vaired set of intelligent human races.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
stupidity does not see race or sex or sexual orientation. it happens to whites, blacks, men, women, gay, or straight. it is not any thing like the nazi's idea of the perfect blonde, blue eyed man. heck, eliminating the stupid gene might help us all get integrated a little better, cause it seems to me that stupid people are often times the most racist/sexist.
Beer Die is the game of champions Learning To walk my own path.
Your second point assumes that we will only use genetic engineering to select genes out of the gene pool. Contrary to the beliefs of early eugenicists, this is both undesirable and unlikely, as modern genetics realizes the inherent benefits from having a diverse gene pool(such as the ability to resist killer diseases), and genetic engineering will allow us to further diversify our gene pool by extending it with genes from other species(I wouldn't mind a cow's ability to digest cellulose), and even with artificial genes.
But as the article points out - our genetic structure isn't a clear roadmap to these kind of traits.
There isn't a "smarts" gene in the same way there isn't a "grandmother" neuron.
You are correct: given the option to remove, without fear of mishap, genetic dispositions towards certain undesirable traits, most people would choose to do so.
But we are a very long way of being able to promise that. If instead you asked a parent
"Would you like a small chance your child might be more intelligent and healthier, but with a large risk that it may be paralyzed from the waist down from birth?"
Most people would say no.
That's not to say that the day may not approach when we can sequence ourselves a better life, but until then, some forethought is required.
Using ethical means of consideration is only good sense.
I see your point but this will most likely be the sole domain of first world countries. Will the population bump up? Very minimally if at all. First world countries are on the verge of ZPG (zero population growth) as it is right now. Saving one child out of 100 or 1000 is not going to make any kind of population spike. The over population is happening in third world or low end second world countries where this technology will propbably not make it to and if it does make it there the cost is going to be out of range of the people there. This is all very sad but the truth is sad. I really don't see overpopulation being the major problem with the technology.
Visit www.seriouslythough.com
For those don't understand, read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World...Furthermore, the few that are too intelligent to live in that world are given their own island, to do as they please.
If i do recall correctly, Alphas were smartest. Betas were best, since they werent too smart or too dumb, but they envied the Alphas. Deltas were pretty dumb, and Epsilons were handicapped mentally.
So, what you are saying is we should go to Huxley's world and (poorly worded in parent) put the smartest few on their own island.
This is the worst interpretation I have ever saw from someone concerning Huxley's book.
First: Huxley was making a satirical statement about the conditions which his generation faced, when he wrote the book. I would get into more detail, but nobody will read it.
Second: Huxley never meant he wanted the world to end up that way, he was just exaggerating how things were in order to make a point.
Third: The point is, kind of, that we can not restrict people's freedoms, stratify our population (put people in classes), and brainwash our population
Huxley wrote about how the leader was "Ford" (yes, like the car manufacturer), and there was also "Model T" (yes, like the first mass produced car). He was implying that if things continue going the way they are, this society could develop.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
I think Humans are reaching a crossroads that every intelligent species in this universe reaches at some point in its history. We are coming to understand the machinery of life and how we ourselves our put together. We now have or will soon posses the knowledge we will need to tweak and adjust human behavior by altering the way our minds form. We will be able to tweak and "improve" our bodies (Or the bodies of subsequent generations). This doesn't mean that our generation or even two or three generations out will be able to do these things, but that in the next 1000 years or so, we will see dramatic self directed changes in our form and function.
Having said that, I don't believe that this will lead to a panacea. There in lies the test, can we survive and thrive under our own evolutionary direction. Our behaviors to date were evolved to help us thrive in somewhat different circumstances. Do we have the foresight to guide our own evolution, can we overcome our shortcomings and make the right decisions. I think the difference will be in how well we temper our aggressive, violent nature. If we can balance aggression with forethought, we might just make it. I'm sure that the universe is littered with failed species that have gotten this far and then imploded. Let us hope we do not become one of them.
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
Will genetic engineering kill humans?
Confused Philosopher is not confused about this:
Yes.
It will because we will try to replace one type of bacteria with another "harmless" one, not realizing that the new bacteria doesn't produce an important by-product, and by the time we realize, we will have all been infected and starving/rotting/going-loopy.
Why slashdot? Why not?
Iregardless folks, stupidity is relative. If you actually manage to raise the bottom 10% it just means who makes up that bottom % will be smarter than the bottom 10% in the past. It will not change the fact that there will still be a bottom 10%. Though I wonder here if what is being discussed is mental retardation.. or simply the dense kid that studies hard but always gets D's because they just don't get it. Reducing genetic disorders would be a great and wonderfull thing. But societally there will need to be a replacement for the 'short bus kids'. A new rock bottom intelligence level will be created. Or those that used to be right above will simply be moved into the already existing bottom level. Either way as I said a bottom 10% will always be defined. Thus Stupidity is a fundamental societal existence. All that varies is what defines being stupid. Is it not being able to read/write ?? Or is it not being able to do diferential equations ?
In other words
Go to a Public Highschool and you will find it has a bottom 10%.
Go to a Private Highschool and you find it too has a bottom 10%.
As do Junior Colleges.
Even Harvard has a bottom 10% not to mention Harvard Law.
In any human environment the lower 10% is defined somehow. Sometimes the differences are gross. Sometimes minute. But we by our nature class and measure ourselves against others. We by default define social pecking orders. We are social animals.
If as a society we raise the overall level of intelligence thats a good thing. But I always have to laugh when people say that by doing so we will wipe out stupidity. That simply isn't the case. All that will truly accomplish is to re-define stupidity.
Good needs Bad to be definable.
Up needs Down.
Left needs Right.
Right needs Wrong.
Smart needs Stupid.
If you truly eliminate people of lower intelligence you also eliminate people of higher intelligence by deffinition. Because Smart and Stupid are relative definitions defined by each other. If you don't belive me then look at in this light. Once upon a time in the US a highschool diploma was more than something you wiped your nose with. Today for your average 'good' job you had best come calling with some form of higher education, preferably a 4 year acredited institution and posses a relavent degree. Is this truly because a highschool education has degraded so far.... or because college educations are more common ? Check the percentage of higher education degrees in the work force in 2003 as opposed to say in 1903.
Its the crux of equality really. True equality can never exist so long as people make value judgements of each other because when as a society we judge each others value in any way we move away from equality. Equality is bland, it is ideal. It is Utopia.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.