someone might know about this:
Is it possible, that genetic engineering would make it such that sperm from an unmodified person is unable to naturally fertilise a modified person's egg? or modified sperm unable to fertilise unmodified eggs.
I do not know much about the mechanisms, but isn't there a lot of stuff involving proteins and so on that surround the egg, that only lets 1 sperm in?
Could that protein be altered by engineering, intentionally or otherwise?
What about immune response to sperm?
Yes it is possible in theory. I am not saying we could do it right now, but the theory has already been put into practise with plant zygotes (ie plant sex cells). This was done by plant genetics companies to stop GM strains breeding with wild ones. Has had mixed success but still, the technique is there.
With vertebrates, this isnt currently possible (I dont think), but off the top of my head it would be feasible.
And yes - that would have some interesting consequences for a weird future where GM people couldn't breed with non GM.
And, again, I am not saying we are in any way ready for such *now*. It will likely take a generation till that really happens. And before that we will have done this extensively with animals and plants.
Also, we will not jump right to "designer babies". It will come gradually. The first "test subjects" will be likely those where even the use of an experimental technology will be preferable to doing nothing, i.e. children from couples whose families have a history of strong hereditary diseases.
We could agree that people will not always make rational decisions. So? That is human nature for you. How is that an argument for or against something? It is a universal factor, it applies everywhere.
*Yes, that was intentional.
As for GM crops, they have been around for the last 20ish years if you restrain yourself to the crops in which we have inserted on purpose some genetic material. Otherwise GM crops have been with us from the first days of agriculture except back then it has been done by random chance while now its done in the lab with us knowing what we are doing. Before those companies can place a new plant on the market they have to go trough testing which is on par with the tests done by pharmaceutical companies before they can launch a new medicine. But some people fear the unknown, things they dont understand so they express "concern" .
I'm not saying nobody ever makes a rational decision. It's just that it's very rare, especially when we feel strongly about something one way or the other.
And that is a good argument against giving people the power to choose, expecting rational choices. Ok, framed like this, it's not only an argument against eugenics but also against democracy and free market. However, that's a discussion for another thread.
b) I am not talking about the GM of humans based on our CURRENT knowledge of it. This is now the 3rd time I repeated that. The last time was in the post you quoted.
16 years actually. That is still less than a generation or two, what has been used earlier in this thread as long term effects of human GM.As for GM crops, they have been around for the last 20ish years if you restrain yourself to the crops in which we have inserted on purpose some genetic material.
And you think it won't when we start to GM humans?Before those companies can place a new plant on the market they have to go trough testing which is on par with the tests done by pharmaceutical companies before they can launch a new medicine.
Not only that. But also abortion, medical treatment, which field to study, basically *everything*.And that is a good argument against giving people the power to choose, expecting rational choices. Ok, framed like this, it's not only an argument against eugenics but also against democracy and free market.
Something which is universal is essentially meaningless. If you take it as argument for allowing or not allowing a thing you also have to apply it everywhere. You can condense it to "Humans have no right to free will because they make mostly no rational decisions". I do not see that as valid reason to deny free will.
Last edited by Aramendel; July 29 2012 at 06:21:16 PM.
Susceptibility to situationally-attributed behaviour:
Susceptibility to influence by authority or conformism:
Susceptibility to emotional influences:
Attribution of negative motives to holders of different opinion:
Influence of nutrition on decision-making process:
Influence of irrelevant psychological factors on political choices:
Examples of bias types affecting most people (most with studies cited):
But the thing is - this does prove "humans make irrational decisions", but not "humans make the vast majority of their decisions not rationally".
How exactly can human genetic engineering cause "serious and/or permanent damage to the planet or the race as a whole"?Not everything. Just anything above a certain threshold of chance of causing serious and/or permanent damage to the planet or the race as a whole. Decisions on matters such as environmental policy, healthcare policy, human rights, education, warfare and human genetic engineering should all probably never be left to popular opinion.
You are still extremely vague about that, the only real thing you mentioned there was "changes in society and healthcare that would have been impossible to forecast". Lets ignore that this can also mean positive changes and simply say "negative changes in society and healthcare".
Well, so does smoking and drinking, eating too fat food, having unprotected sex, having too many (or too few children), etc. By the very same argument we shouldn't be able to decide those things too. They are a nonissue if only few people do them but have a major negative effect if too many people do them. Just like genetic engineering of ones children.
Also, everything you mentioned there are decisions about nationwide policies while human genetic engineering would be about individual decisions. They do not fit in there, they are in another ballpark.
That is actually the smallest problem. The real issue is how they effect the ecosystem in the long term, especially non-GM plants and animals. And this is something which is impossible to test, you only can release them and see what happens. Which is exactly what we did when we introduced GM crops at the end of the 90s.You can not compare the complexity of a plant to a human. You dont need that long of a time period you just need to asses they arent harmful to humans.
And, again - could you *please* finally realize this? - I am not talking about the current GM technologies and knowledge. You cannot compare their complexity to a human, but neither can you compare our knowledge of genetics now to that what we will have when we finally start to GM humans.
Last edited by Aramendel; July 30 2012 at 06:44:04 PM.
Loving the discussion - more + to the Serious Business forum
I think that where I stand is a series of contradictions based on selfishness as much as anything else.
If I meet a woman and we decide to have children, if the option to tweak certain characteristics is available I'd probably take it. Things like "less likely to be a fatty", "More likely to be tall", "Huge johnson" etc. Whether things like that are available and RELIABLE by the time I have kids (next 10 years) who knows, but it's possible to some degree at least.
This is based on "give them the best chance possible to succeed"
My view on eugenics on a large scale is less clear, in that I would not want to see a Gattica society.
Similarly, I would be against every man and his dog/The Man having my genome on file. The implications are (as discussed here) around the potential misuse.
I have a slightly tangental question, but not sure whether deserves it's own thread: The "right" to have children. Is this a eugenics question, or should I start a new topic? My interest comes from the usual - unending news reports of people having children who can't afford/look after them, and then abusing them/killing them etc. I am heavily conflicted on this subject, as my libertarian principles support a degree of "survival of the fittest" and lack of interference from authorities, but at the same time holy shit we don't just allow any person to drive a car/own a gun/fly a plane, they have to prove they're not a completely useless human being - but anyone can have a child.
Steam: JLordMan | Origin: JForce1
I agree with most of that JForce. I would use trait selecting for my kids if I could.
makes you think
"Teachers are teachers because they are pedos. Thats why they want to work in a job around children, its a well known fact." #Nonsesense
Just let this subforum die already.
Thermonuclear Banana Split - A not-really-weekly Eclipse Phase campaign journal