I'm not going to inflict painful genetically related disorders on my own children just because some uneducated zealot somewhere thinks it is more ethical that way.
Wow. Unusually strong words for what has so far been a rather friendly discussion. Seems like a nerve has been hit...
More than a few educated zealots think that unchecked eugenic use of genetics is wrong. Numerous science-fiction authors of great fame and repute have espoused such beliefs for decades. Scientists and moralists throughout the years have cried "Caution!" when such an issue is raised. It even raises the hackles of your average well-educated person. Why? Probably because there is something fundamentally unsettling about toying with our most basic building blocks.
There is anyway a fuzzy line between genetic and symptomatic treatment (pills) of such disorders. You either don't treat a disorder at all, or you treat it with every available technology you have.
There is indeed a fine line between genetic and chemical treatment of genetic disorders. However, using genetics for the purposes of "refining" or "bettering" a people is called eugenics, and eugenics is a slippery slope that is fraught with little but problems.
I am not advocating the abandonment of gene therapy. There are great strides presently being made in this field, and there are wonderful possbilities of treating genetic disorders as well as general illness and trauma. But gene therapy does not involve eugenic practices such as you are espousing.
It is one thing to be born with an abnormality that you as the patient choose to correct through therapy (gene, psychological, chemical, whatever). It is quite another for someone else to make that decision prior to your creation.
As someone else pointed out further down in the thread, most of us are cautioning against eugenic practices via genetic engineering. We're not saying good can't come out of genetics research, just that you have to be damn careful in the application of said research, particularly when it comes to toying around with as yet unconceived/unborn people.
Yes, that embryo that became you would not exist. But in its place would be an individual without those physical imperfections but all the mental abilities, and guess what? That individual would be YOU!
There would be another individual, yes, but it would not be me. It would be the child of my parents, yes, but it would not be me.
I'm not advocating genetic engineering here. I just get tired of hearing that silly argument of if such-and-such never happened, I WOULDN'T BE HERE as if that would be a terrible tragedy.
Me not being here would most definitely alter the course of events that are intertwined with my particular life. I cannot say the world would be a better place, nor can I say it would be a worse place, should a more genetically perfect being have taken my place. That is not the point.
By using such an example, I was trying to drive home to the other readers how quickly they too could become obsolete. How they too, despite being important in many people's lives and quite possibly having made important tangible and intangible contributions to society, could have been ineligible for being born under situations such as those possible with genetic engineering.
I am not saying we are perfect. I am saying that the imperfection and struggle are more important than perfection that has that much less struggle.
Thinking like this is just silly and pointless. Arguing a point based on it is futile and proves nothing. And most of the time it's used to justify a series of completely random events and circumstances in the past as a preordained reason for one's existence, or something to be thankful for because you really wish things were better and need to rationalize it.
Not as a reason for my existence, but as evidence of my existence. As evidence that imperfection often drives development, and that perfection does not.
Just try telling that to the poor genetically superior individual whose chance to exist was usurped by the imperfect person who was born instead!
There is no reason that person could not be born normally. There is no reason that person could not have already usurped the "me" that exists right now. It is just that the "superior" being is nearly statistically impossible given the current course of nature. Why is the statistically remote viewed as better?
It is not a person's raw intellectual ability that determines what they think. It is not a person's raw emotional predispositions that determines how they feel.
Will the eradication of "imperfections" such as very-low intelligence, bad-eyesight, strength, being over or under-weight, bi-polar disorder, et cetera, lead to a better society?
Will it lead to people who are less predisposed to racism, violence, genocide, intolerance, or any of the more uglier sides of human society?
And at what cost?
These are all important questions that are oftentimes ignored by the technology-hungry. Already we turn a blind eye to the problems of social homogenization. Do we really want to carry such a phenomenon to a planetary level?
Just as we cannot fully dismiss the technology blindly, we cannot fully embrace it blindly. This is something that could easily threaten our very existence, for various reasons already discussed in other threads on this forum.
I urge caution, and a realization that we cannot see patterns in the future, yet there are patterns for us to find in the past. By eleminating epilepsy, we save people hardship, but do we also eleminate future Van Gogh's? By eradicating the possibility of organ failure, do we remove what may be someone's only chance at fully realizing their mortality? By removing aggressive tendencies, do we really solve the issues of domestic violence?
How are we as a people fundamentally better for this technology?
It seems that your most besic fear is from taking responsibility. By arguing that we should deny the right to choose a better life for our children to *everybody*, you assume that you yourself will not have to make the choice. While this is convenient, it is a lie. By denying it to everybody, you are also forcing a choice on your children.
My basic fear is the abuse of this practice. You cannot ignore the negative consequences of such practices, and hope that everything will work out for the better. You must proactively examine the impact such developments would have, otherwise you run the risk of trying to clean up what could be a gigantic human-rights disaster.
The crux of the issue is who decides what can be eradicated? Where is the line of "acceptable" drawn? Using you practice, it would probably not be long before you, or at least large portion of who and what you are, are deemed unacceptable for future generations. Do you really believe that you and your minor imperfections are so wrong or horrific that you would have them erased for eternity?
Instead, why not leave behind a legacy of how to overcome such obstacles. To show others that the human element is stronger than the sum of its parts. That varying degrees of struggle is part of our existence...
The opposite viewpoint, that nobody can be healthier, stronger, or brigther than the medium is not a society I' want to live in.
That is not the point being made. The point being made is that those with imperfections are just as capable of making a contribution to society, signifigant or not. Certainly some will have to work harder than others...but that is the order of nature.
Why make the order of nature even more sharply defined, where the struggle is on the parents to choose the best engineered child, instead of the struggle appropriately being placed on the following generation to overcome their obstacles and make a better world on their own merits?
I think you are forgetting to look at the one real problem with this technology: an imperfect and biased being is making decisions on how to make a more perfect being. Inherently this is flawed...all of the different and sometimes contradictory elements in the human condition are there for a reason...wholesale removing them in an arbitrary fashion alters us completely.
Get a grip, people. Genetic engineering is a big step, yes, but engineering our bodies is nothing new.
You are not a spoiler. In reference to your assertion that we already engineer ourselves, I'd like to point you to my other post where I draw the distinction between engineering after the fact, as we do now everyday, and engineering BEFORE THE FACT which is the subject of discussion.
It is this eradication before the fact that bothers me. Certainly you have engineered your personal limitations to what you consider an acceptable minimum, but does that mean you should not have had them in the first place?
Did not your brush with mortality during the episode with your appendix change your view on your own place in existence? Did it not give you some insight or point of view you may not have had before? Did it not at least get you THINKING about your life and where you stand?
What if that had not happened. Would you have had the same revelations? Possibly. Would they have been as strong? Or as clear? Possibly not...since any biological abnormality had been erased from you BEFORE you were born. Thus your chances of personal reflection and realization are lessened because of engineering before the fact.
Engineering before the fact is the topic of my concern. Trials, tribulations, and eventual healing/conquest through gene therapy is one thing. Never needing to bother with the struggle because of gene engineering is quite another.
But had you been born not being mildly bi-polar, would you then not have been a complete person?
I would have been a whole person, yes. I am not denying that engineered peoples are not whole. I am asserting that engineered peoples are more likely to be less unique, since uniformity in the gene pool will lead to uniformity elsewhere. As we remove "abnormalities," what cost do we pay?
Would you not have been able to fit into society?
Engineered, I may or may not have fit into society better. Were my shortcomings engineered away before birth, would I have fit in better? I submit there is a decent possiblity I would have. Most of my "conflicts" with "society" have come from my imperfections, or more accurately my difference that set me apart from the norm.
True, it is a difficult decision. But it doesn't mean we should abadon any attempts to do so and just leave things as they are.
By leaving the decision making to others, or to leave it to people on a case by case basis as each genome mapping is discovered, we are left wide open to decisions that affect us at our most basic level. How long would it be before they decided to eradicate something dear to you?
Many of the best artists were somewhat insane. If we had been able to avoid many mental disorders at that time, we may not have had them. But would you be willing to decide that having some great art is worth allowing a person to suffer such a fate during their life?
I would be willing to leave it to the order of the universe. Something chose that person to be that way, whether you believe in a higher power or the higher order of the chaos of existence. I personally think the trials and tribulations presented by such a something have far greater benefit than if they were erased from existence by our collective arrogance.
There are good possibilities...but they are buried among countless problems, all based upon what seem to be some very basic human desires -- order, uniformity, et cetera. If there is no struggle between our nature and that of the universe, how are we to know who and what we are?
Detection and correction post-occurrence is one thing, and gene therapy has the possiblity of providing a bright future for people who have problems such as those you've stated.
Genetic engineeringBEFORE the fact has many more dangerous implications and is more ripe for abuse.
Are there terrible diseases and disorders that could be prevented and eradicated from the human genome? Probably.
Are we better off for doing it? Maybe.
Who draws the line as to what is beneficial via eradication and what is not?
Perhaps the gene for bipolar disorder could be eradicated, and thus many people would be saved the trial of living a life of highs and lows. But as a person who is mild bi-polar, I see that struggle as INTRINSIC to my personality and being.
Just as I forgo chemical mood alteration, I would definitely resist the temptation to genetically eradicate such an integral part of my person. My life, my art, my work -- they are all closely tied into who I am, and who I am is defined by all of my "normal" AND abnormal attributes.
Who draws that line? You? Me? Someone else? A committee? A government? A committee of governments? A convention of planetary diplomats? Who has the knowledge necessary to make such a sweeping and deeply altering decision?
I certainly hope you don't count yourself capable of such a decision...
I am of the opinion that we are largely defined by our so-called imperfections. It is our imperfections that add character and flavor to otherwise bland personalities.
Where would I be without my imperfections? I would be another boring person slogging away through this world, not standing out from the herd.
Where would I be if my parents had followed a course of genetically engineering their children? I would NOT be around because I am predisposed to being overweight, under-athletic, and have less-than-perfect vision despite having an excellent mind and capacity for learning and thought.
Where would YOU be under such a system? Probably non-existant.
I'm not arrogant enough to think that I would be perfect enough to slip through their filters, but I am arrogant enough to think that I deserve just as much right to exist as a "perfect" engineered alternative.
I've worked in the information systems branch of the medical industry for the past four years now. I've seen time and again how badly patient records are protected electronically in clinic, hospital, and corporate office.
Where possible, I've always taken steps as the chief technology employee to protect the patient's records and rights to privacy. I've tightened security systems, making workflow in the clinic a little more attentive to computer usage, so that our patients could rest with the knowledge that all steps had been taken to protect their privacy.
This development scares me. Certainly there is the possiblity to use this information to detect patterns otherwise unseen, but largely such patterns are detected from abstract databases already maintained at the state or inter-state level. For example, cancer clinics maintain tumor information at the state level not only for statistical reporting usage, but also for usage as a pattern detector. But the patients are ultimately proctected from becoming anything more than a number.
A nationwide system with full medical records runs dangerously close to causing mroe harm than good. The patients are no longer a statistical element whose anonymity is fairly well protected by abstraction from their medical chart. Instead, their medical chart is now a part of this database? I am indeed most concerned as to where this development will lead.
Obviously it could be a Good Thing for both patients and their physicians to have quick and ready access to a patient's medical record and history. However, the rush of technology must be tempered with a careful evaluation of necessity. Is it absolutely necessary for this sytem to be available to both the public and physicians. Would it not instead be better served as a carefully controlled, non internet, system available only through licensed professionals?
I would say the patients should express any concerns they have to the proper branch of the AMA. They can try to protect this information all they want. The ultimate question is whether or not the information needs to be made available in such a venue in the first place.
In regards to your query about how much water it would take to cover the entire earth, I would like to point out for your edification, one small flaw in your assumptions.
You are assuming that the flood of Babylonian and Herbrew myth did indeed cover the whole earth. You are looking at this from your "small world" perspective of the 20th century.
Just because you as a person of this time can get from where you are to any other place on the planet within 24 hours does not mean that the world was just as accessible to ancient peoples.
To people of times past, places the size of some of the states in the USA would have been "the whole world." For many, "the whole world" was whatever had been explored around their immediate kingdoms. When such people wrote "...and the water covered the whole face of the earth," they meant THEIR world, not YOUR world.
How much water did it take to flood the states surrounding the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers several years ago? I bet it was enough to completely drown out some small countries...possibly even enough to put most or all of ancient Babylon under water. To the Babylonians, their entire world was flooded. To us, it was "just a few states."
The world today is not the same place it was all those years ago, and neither are we as humans the same. We live in a time where the world and its geography is no longer a total impediment to us. Thus, our view of the world, and our interpretations of writings about this world are tainted by our current "small world" culture.
One must always take past AND present culture into account when reviewing history and mythology.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not going to inflict painful genetically related disorders on my own children just because some uneducated zealot somewhere thinks it is more ethical that way.
Wow. Unusually strong words for what has so far been a rather friendly discussion. Seems like a nerve has been hit...
More than a few educated zealots think that unchecked eugenic use of genetics is wrong. Numerous science-fiction authors of great fame and repute have espoused such beliefs for decades. Scientists and moralists throughout the years have cried "Caution!" when such an issue is raised. It even raises the hackles of your average well-educated person. Why? Probably because there is something fundamentally unsettling about toying with our most basic building blocks.
There is anyway a fuzzy line between genetic and symptomatic treatment (pills) of such disorders. You either don't treat a disorder at all, or you treat it with every available technology you have.
There is indeed a fine line between genetic and chemical treatment of genetic disorders. However, using genetics for the purposes of "refining" or "bettering" a people is called eugenics, and eugenics is a slippery slope that is fraught with little but problems.
I am not advocating the abandonment of gene therapy. There are great strides presently being made in this field, and there are wonderful possbilities of treating genetic disorders as well as general illness and trauma. But gene therapy does not involve eugenic practices such as you are espousing.
It is one thing to be born with an abnormality that you as the patient choose to correct through therapy (gene, psychological, chemical, whatever). It is quite another for someone else to make that decision prior to your creation.
As someone else pointed out further down in the thread, most of us are cautioning against eugenic practices via genetic engineering. We're not saying good can't come out of genetics research, just that you have to be damn careful in the application of said research, particularly when it comes to toying around with as yet unconceived/unborn people.
Jason
# Jason A. Dour
Yes, that embryo that became you would not exist. But in its place would be an individual without those physical imperfections but all the mental abilities, and guess what? That individual would be YOU!
There would be another individual, yes, but it would not be me. It would be the child of my parents, yes, but it would not be me.
I'm not advocating genetic engineering here. I just get tired of hearing that silly argument of if such-and-such never happened, I WOULDN'T BE HERE as if that would be a terrible tragedy.
Me not being here would most definitely alter the course of events that are intertwined with my particular life. I cannot say the world would be a better place, nor can I say it would be a worse place, should a more genetically perfect being have taken my place. That is not the point.
By using such an example, I was trying to drive home to the other readers how quickly they too could become obsolete. How they too, despite being important in many people's lives and quite possibly having made important tangible and intangible contributions to society, could have been ineligible for being born under situations such as those possible with genetic engineering.
I am not saying we are perfect. I am saying that the imperfection and struggle are more important than perfection that has that much less struggle.
Thinking like this is just silly and pointless. Arguing a point based on it is futile and proves nothing. And most of the time it's used to justify a series of completely random events and circumstances in the past as a preordained reason for one's existence, or something to be thankful for because you really wish things were better and need to rationalize it.
Not as a reason for my existence, but as evidence of my existence. As evidence that imperfection often drives development, and that perfection does not.
Just try telling that to the poor genetically superior individual whose chance to exist was usurped by the imperfect person who was born instead!
There is no reason that person could not be born normally. There is no reason that person could not have already usurped the "me" that exists right now. It is just that the "superior" being is nearly statistically impossible given the current course of nature. Why is the statistically remote viewed as better?
It is not a person's raw intellectual ability that determines what they think. It is not a person's raw emotional predispositions that determines how they feel.
Will the eradication of "imperfections" such as very-low intelligence, bad-eyesight, strength, being over or under-weight, bi-polar disorder, et cetera, lead to a better society?
Will it lead to people who are less predisposed to racism, violence, genocide, intolerance, or any of the more uglier sides of human society?
And at what cost?
These are all important questions that are oftentimes ignored by the technology-hungry. Already we turn a blind eye to the problems of social homogenization. Do we really want to carry such a phenomenon to a planetary level?
Just as we cannot fully dismiss the technology blindly, we cannot fully embrace it blindly. This is something that could easily threaten our very existence, for various reasons already discussed in other threads on this forum.
I urge caution, and a realization that we cannot see patterns in the future, yet there are patterns for us to find in the past. By eleminating epilepsy, we save people hardship, but do we also eleminate future Van Gogh's? By eradicating the possibility of organ failure, do we remove what may be someone's only chance at fully realizing their mortality? By removing aggressive tendencies, do we really solve the issues of domestic violence?
How are we as a people fundamentally better for this technology?
That is what I'd like to see people discuss.
Loving the discourse,
Jason
# Jason A. Dour
It seems that your most besic fear is from taking responsibility. By arguing that we should deny the right to choose a better life for our children to *everybody*, you assume that you yourself will not have to make the choice. While this is convenient, it is a lie. By denying it to everybody, you are also forcing a choice on your children.
My basic fear is the abuse of this practice. You cannot ignore the negative consequences of such practices, and hope that everything will work out for the better. You must proactively examine the impact such developments would have, otherwise you run the risk of trying to clean up what could be a gigantic human-rights disaster.
The crux of the issue is who decides what can be eradicated? Where is the line of "acceptable" drawn? Using you practice, it would probably not be long before you, or at least large portion of who and what you are, are deemed unacceptable for future generations. Do you really believe that you and your minor imperfections are so wrong or horrific that you would have them erased for eternity?
Instead, why not leave behind a legacy of how to overcome such obstacles. To show others that the human element is stronger than the sum of its parts. That varying degrees of struggle is part of our existence...
The opposite viewpoint, that nobody can be healthier, stronger, or brigther than the medium is not a society I' want to live in.
That is not the point being made. The point being made is that those with imperfections are just as capable of making a contribution to society, signifigant or not. Certainly some will have to work harder than others...but that is the order of nature.
Why make the order of nature even more sharply defined, where the struggle is on the parents to choose the best engineered child, instead of the struggle appropriately being placed on the following generation to overcome their obstacles and make a better world on their own merits?
I think you are forgetting to look at the one real problem with this technology: an imperfect and biased being is making decisions on how to make a more perfect being. Inherently this is flawed...all of the different and sometimes contradictory elements in the human condition are there for a reason...wholesale removing them in an arbitrary fashion alters us completely.
Jason
# Jason A. Dour
Get a grip, people. Genetic engineering is a big step, yes, but engineering our bodies is nothing new.
You are not a spoiler. In reference to your assertion that we already engineer ourselves, I'd like to point you to my other post where I draw the distinction between engineering after the fact, as we do now everyday, and engineering BEFORE THE FACT which is the subject of discussion.
It is this eradication before the fact that bothers me. Certainly you have engineered your personal limitations to what you consider an acceptable minimum, but does that mean you should not have had them in the first place?
Did not your brush with mortality during the episode with your appendix change your view on your own place in existence? Did it not give you some insight or point of view you may not have had before? Did it not at least get you THINKING about your life and where you stand?
What if that had not happened. Would you have had the same revelations? Possibly. Would they have been as strong? Or as clear? Possibly not...since any biological abnormality had been erased from you BEFORE you were born. Thus your chances of personal reflection and realization are lessened because of engineering before the fact.
Engineering before the fact is the topic of my concern. Trials, tribulations, and eventual healing/conquest through gene therapy is one thing. Never needing to bother with the struggle because of gene engineering is quite another.
Jason
# Jason A. Dour
But had you been born not being mildly bi-polar, would you then not have been a complete person?
I would have been a whole person, yes. I am not denying that engineered peoples are not whole. I am asserting that engineered peoples are more likely to be less unique, since uniformity in the gene pool will lead to uniformity elsewhere. As we remove "abnormalities," what cost do we pay?
Would you not have been able to fit into society?
Engineered, I may or may not have fit into society better. Were my shortcomings engineered away before birth, would I have fit in better? I submit there is a decent possiblity I would have. Most of my "conflicts" with "society" have come from my imperfections, or more accurately my difference that set me apart from the norm.
True, it is a difficult decision. But it doesn't mean we should abadon any attempts to do so and just leave things as they are.
By leaving the decision making to others, or to leave it to people on a case by case basis as each genome mapping is discovered, we are left wide open to decisions that affect us at our most basic level. How long would it be before they decided to eradicate something dear to you?
Many of the best artists were somewhat insane. If we had been able to avoid many mental disorders at that time, we may not have had them. But would you be willing to decide that having some great art is worth allowing a person to suffer such a fate during their life?
I would be willing to leave it to the order of the universe. Something chose that person to be that way, whether you believe in a higher power or the higher order of the chaos of existence. I personally think the trials and tribulations presented by such a something have far greater benefit than if they were erased from existence by our collective arrogance.
There are good possibilities...but they are buried among countless problems, all based upon what seem to be some very basic human desires -- order, uniformity, et cetera. If there is no struggle between our nature and that of the universe, how are we to know who and what we are?
ta,
Jason
# Jason A. Dour
Detection and correction post-occurrence is one thing, and gene therapy has the possiblity of providing a bright future for people who have problems such as those you've stated.
Genetic engineering BEFORE the fact has many more dangerous implications and is more ripe for abuse.
Are there terrible diseases and disorders that could be prevented and eradicated from the human genome? Probably.
Are we better off for doing it? Maybe.
Who draws the line as to what is beneficial via eradication and what is not?
Perhaps the gene for bipolar disorder could be eradicated, and thus many people would be saved the trial of living a life of highs and lows. But as a person who is mild bi-polar, I see that struggle as INTRINSIC to my personality and being.
Just as I forgo chemical mood alteration, I would definitely resist the temptation to genetically eradicate such an integral part of my person. My life, my art, my work -- they are all closely tied into who I am, and who I am is defined by all of my "normal" AND abnormal attributes.
Who draws that line? You? Me? Someone else? A committee? A government? A committee of governments? A convention of planetary diplomats? Who has the knowledge necessary to make such a sweeping and deeply altering decision?
I certainly hope you don't count yourself capable of such a decision...
Jason
# Jason A. Dour
I am of the opinion that we are largely defined by our so-called imperfections. It is our imperfections that add character and flavor to otherwise bland personalities.
Where would I be without my imperfections? I would be another boring person slogging away through this world, not standing out from the herd.
Where would I be if my parents had followed a course of genetically engineering their children? I would NOT be around because I am predisposed to being overweight, under-athletic, and have less-than-perfect vision despite having an excellent mind and capacity for learning and thought.
Where would YOU be under such a system? Probably non-existant.
I'm not arrogant enough to think that I would be perfect enough to slip through their filters, but I am arrogant enough to think that I deserve just as much right to exist as a "perfect" engineered alternative.
Scarey prospects indeed.
Let imperfections reign,
Jason
# Jason A. Dour
I've worked in the information systems branch of the medical industry for the past four years now. I've seen time and again how badly patient records are protected electronically in clinic, hospital, and corporate office.
Where possible, I've always taken steps as the chief technology employee to protect the patient's records and rights to privacy. I've tightened security systems, making workflow in the clinic a little more attentive to computer usage, so that our patients could rest with the knowledge that all steps had been taken to protect their privacy.
This development scares me. Certainly there is the possiblity to use this information to detect patterns otherwise unseen, but largely such patterns are detected from abstract databases already maintained at the state or inter-state level. For example, cancer clinics maintain tumor information at the state level not only for statistical reporting usage, but also for usage as a pattern detector. But the patients are ultimately proctected from becoming anything more than a number.
A nationwide system with full medical records runs dangerously close to causing mroe harm than good. The patients are no longer a statistical element whose anonymity is fairly well protected by abstraction from their medical chart. Instead, their medical chart is now a part of this database? I am indeed most concerned as to where this development will lead.
Obviously it could be a Good Thing for both patients and their physicians to have quick and ready access to a patient's medical record and history. However, the rush of technology must be tempered with a careful evaluation of necessity. Is it absolutely necessary for this sytem to be available to both the public and physicians. Would it not instead be better served as a carefully controlled, non internet, system available only through licensed professionals?
I would say the patients should express any concerns they have to the proper branch of the AMA. They can try to protect this information all they want. The ultimate question is whether or not the information needs to be made available in such a venue in the first place.
ta,
Jason
# Jason A. Dour
In regards to your query about how much water it would take to cover the entire earth, I would like to point out for your edification, one small flaw in your assumptions.
You are assuming that the flood of Babylonian and Herbrew myth did indeed cover the whole earth. You are looking at this from your "small world" perspective of the 20th century.
Just because you as a person of this time can get from where you are to any other place on the planet within 24 hours does not mean that the world was just as accessible to ancient peoples.
To people of times past, places the size of some of the states in the USA would have been "the whole world." For many, "the whole world" was whatever had been explored around their immediate kingdoms. When such people wrote "...and the water covered the whole face of the earth," they meant THEIR world, not YOUR world.
How much water did it take to flood the states surrounding the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers several years ago? I bet it was enough to completely drown out some small countries...possibly even enough to put most or all of ancient Babylon under water. To the Babylonians, their entire world was flooded. To us, it was "just a few states."
The world today is not the same place it was all those years ago, and neither are we as humans the same. We live in a time where the world and its geography is no longer a total impediment to us. Thus, our view of the world, and our interpretations of writings about this world are tainted by our current "small world" culture.
One must always take past AND present culture into account when reviewing history and mythology.
ta,
Jason
# Jason A. Dour