Genetic modification of our species should be available

Heya ATSers.

I would like to present a case as to why we should be able to legally modify our species, including a pathway to such tests, and the benefits of such a movement.

First off, I am agnostic. Often when people talk about tinkering around with mankinds biology, they suggest it is against gods creation, it is the darkside, etc etc etc.

My question is...why?

first off, if I was religious, I would make the same argument about taking fertility drugs, flying an airplane, driving a car, or communicating on a computer
studies show eating various fruits allows for a fetus to become less likely to deal with diseases, less chance of autism, etc. these studies are all over the net..feel free to research that on your own. This in itself is a form of genetic modification...its loading the dice for the prosperity of the child based on our knowledge and investigation.

As far as the rest (flight, computers), all modifications for our enhancement that are not part of our original makeup...one could argue that the moment we picked up a stick is the moment we started becoming more than our simple programming allowed for.

So, what is the ethical dilemma of genetic modification of the DNA itself to increase lifespan, hyperintellect, extreme health, etc..if we found that by eating green tomatos often while pregnant altered the genetic structure of the fetus to increase its brain capacity and IQ by 40%, would not most expected mothers be eating green tomatos to make sure their child gets an edge? This is the same thing.

So, this whole meddling around with mother nature is a bunk argument...

Next will be the getting there argument. How do we get there..last thing we want to do is create 100,000 failed attempts before finally getting it right...thats alot of dead or tortured fetus's.
Fair enough point...of course GM and cloning tech has come a long way since Dolly, however there is still learning curves to be had with any new genetic treatment.
I would suggest mice...moving it to primates, and eventually humans. I would also suggest once its prepared for human trials, to use abortion patience during this phase. The fetus will be terminated, however, with a quick payout for purposes of science, that in itself could reverse it...have the mother carry it full term taking the treatments, or even grown in a test tube and worse case senario, it meets the fate that was going to happen anyhow..but best case senario, it lives and becomes the next step in our evolution.

Imagine of race of human beings where the average human being makes Einstein look like a simpleton, a lifespan potentially in the thousands of years, incredibly healthy as a natural state.

Why are we not pushing for this as a entire species movement? we can create gold from iron...or at least brilliance from our monkey selves...close enough.

So...thoughts? additions?

I come across an interesting question in my mind once I think about this topic.

Would genetic modification be the end of our natural evolution, and the beginning of synthetic evolution or would it still place itself within the category of natural.

Let's think about this for a second. The fact that we evolved to have the abilities of cognition, sentience, critical thinking, problem solving, and ingenuity places us in a different category than a majority of the other beings in the universe. Would the utilization of those abilities to allow ourselves to become "greater" be considered the end of natural evolution, or would the use of those gifts just further our natural evolution. Is it natural for intelligent, capable beings to begin to genetically and or cybernetically modify their populations? Somehow, I think its completely natural. Making use of one's evolutionary advantages is natural, in my mind. However, I'm curious of the direction we will take. Its an unknown, I know the destination, but not the path we travel. Its the beginning of apotheosis...or maybe the beginning was the second when we began to supplement our shortcomings with tools.

The path is nebulous, but the end result is clear. If we make it past our social issues, our planet's death, and the eventual heat death aka Big Crunch...godhood awaits...

reply to post by TheOneElectric


Thanks for the post.
as a "transhumanist", I personally see things such as genetic modification, cybernetics, etc..as a continued evolution of our species. I deem those whom think differently as sort of like evolution luddies whom in essence are dead end mindsets.

Perhaps one day in the future, we will consider the homo sapian species (the purebreds) the same way we consider the neanderthals...their inability to adapt caused their evolutionary mark to stop around this era.

Right now, the species is pondering these tools and wondering if it is indeed a good thing to continue using and enhancing them, however, toolmaking and using to enhance ourselves has been the one factor alone that allowed us to go from odd cave dwelling monkeys to where we are today...I wonder if birds contemplate if they should keep trying to fly better by plucking out damaged feathers.

There is no reasonable argument demonstrating why we shouldn't do this beyond simply current scientific limitations..but that is overcome with the maturing of the field.

What would be really impressive is if they could do this to people who are already alive.

I think it would have a lesser ethical impact as test subjects could object to it if they needed to.

Three cheers for transhumanism!
Aslong as it's voluntary and available for a low price or even free if possible.
Then I'm all for it and would even donate to try to get it started.
It's our only key to immortality, IMO.

Originally posted by splittheatom
What would be really impressive is if they could do this to people who are already alive.

I think it would have a lesser ethical impact as test subjects could object to it if they needed to.

Oh, I agree. I do hope that there is genetic therapys that will give us already born some advantages. Sadly, I know it will be much cheaper to change a zygote than a fully formed human genetically..so we might have to undergo constant treatments verses a one time change.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
It's our only key to immortality, IMO

Perhaps, but taking the whole immortality concept out, it is definately a key to a higher quality of life...give be 120 years youthful and intelligent before death and I am happy.

I don't think life is about holding on to as many years as possible so much as trying to make the years we got as productive and healthy as possible. here is where I think science is failing us a bit...concentrating on extending the lifespan for soo long and not spending enough time truely trying to fix conditions like skin damage over time, neural connection breakdown, etc...aka, treating the disease of getting old.

if we lived in a world where everyone looked and felt physically like they were 20 years old, you would have to then judge a person based on how they acted and who they were, not some made up wrinkle reward system.

When I first read the OP the first thing that came to mind was Gattaca.

In "the not-too-distant" future, where genetic engineering of humans is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class, Vincent (Ethan Hawke) is conceived and born without the aid of this technology. Suffering from the nearly eradicated physical dysfunctions of myopia and a congenital heart defect, as well as being given a life expectancy of 30.2 years, Vincent faces extreme genetic discrimination and prejudice.

Source Gattaca Synopsis.



In the context of genetics and the movie Gattaca, the debate is of the respective roles of original genetic makeup and environment in determining the true potential of a person. The movie’s theme is “There is no gene for the human spirit.” As the film points out, there are still sub-classes of humans within this progressive and ideal world that serves only to service the higher classes. If your not one of US, then your one of THEM! While the idea of creating a 'better' human by artificial means does sound tempting, it will only make the gap between the have's and have's not that much wider. Who decides who should be 'enhanced' and who should be left out? Alas, i'm afraid this would ultimatly be down to simply who has the money and power to make this happen.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Because the short answer is there are too many theistic folks in our society who believe "the creator" doesn't want you to do that.

Aside from religious superstition, our species' maturity falls waay short in what is needed to fairly implement such a program. Can you imagine medical corporations only giving the option to the ultra rich? The rest of us would be soo screwed. You have to evolve beyond the need for "money" first. If we ever accomplish that, then I believe we would have earned the right to get into that.

I'm personally for it. Death is not desirable. Yet it looks like at this stage I don't have much choice. I'm stuck in a society where money is more important than knowledge.

Unfortunately, I suspect there might be some who have already beaten us to the punch..... www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tYGhZ2X0I0

reply to post by Scramjet76


government and health industry has only to gain from a exceptionally healthy long lived population.

you now need to purchase health insurance...so you got money constantly fueling the medical and corporate industries with rapidly declining cases overall...and the government would continue to gain taxes while eliminate social security, or at least stave it off for a very long time (if we live for say...200 years, they could say SS no longer kicks in until like 170.

I think the harder issue would be to get intellectual treatments implemented frankly, but the healthy and long lived seems to be almost a no brainer as to being mostly benefits.

Resources are the only potential concern...if we are living exceptionally longer, we will end up consuming far more...so might have to implement a breeding reduction program...perhaps sterilization would be part of the requirements for treatment...who knows...such things can be considered once its green lighted.


As far as the gattica reference...well, that is already naturally occuring.a brilliant person will not hire a intellectually challenged person for a job requiring "smarts"...but, this is reflected in university achievements...I would suggest if a person whom has not been treated has passed advanced courses in a subject, that person would get the same consideration as a genetically modified person.

I think that as a race we might want to think about feeding, clothing, educating and keeping healthy the billions of people we already have here now before we start making people live until they are 120.

I don't think theres anything wrong with genetic modification as a whole, I just wonder if we will ever be intelligent enough to use it properly without getting severe unintended consequences, things like this

Coho salmon engineered for transgenic expression of growth hormone were more aggressive predators in simulated natural environments.

Although I appreciate that you did not use the term yourself, I find it pretentious when people use the term ''transhuman'' to describe what, in all intents and purposes, is the concept of a ''designer baby''.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
So, what is the ethical dilemma of genetic modification of the DNA itself to increase lifespan, hyperintellect, extreme health, etc..if we found that by eating green tomatos often while pregnant altered the genetic structure of the fetus to increase its brain capacity and IQ by 40%, would not most expected mothers be eating green tomatos to make sure their child gets an edge? This is the same thing.

There's a huge problem with modifying the DNA of a prospective child.

If, hypothetically, the technology was there to alter the genetic make-up of an unborn child, then I'd agree with it, if it was to ''correct'' any hereditary predisposition towards a debilitating disease that the prospective child may potentially have.


The problem lies with where we draw the line...

For example, if we isolated the ''gay gene'', would it be permissible for a mother to sanction the ''correction'' of this gene when she she found out there was a high likelihood of her child being born with it ?

After all, that would be beneficial to the child.


How about if a black lady living in a white country had the option of genetically ''correcting'' the skin colour of her child... ? Would that be ok ?

I'm positive it must be easier to grow up in the West if you have white skin, so should the potential to make your child ''white'' be acceptable and available ?

Originally posted by SaturnFX
So, this whole meddling around with mother nature is a bunk argument...

Not really.

Anyone who's well educated on the theory of evolution, which includes the process of natural selection, knows and understands the shortfallings of transhumanist fantasies.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I would also suggest once its prepared for human trials, to use abortion patience during this phase. The fetus will be terminated, however, with a quick payout for purposes of science, that in itself could reverse it...have the mother carry it full term taking the treatments, or even grown in a test tube and worse case senario, it meets the fate that was going to happen anyhow..but best case senario, it lives and becomes the next step in our evolution.

Mate, you may need some help !

There is no ''next step'' in evolution.

The ''next step in our evolution'' is happening now. As we breed, then the ''next step'' will be obvious in a few thousand generation's time; after some retrospective viewing.

Evolution is not about progressing, but being best equipped at adapting to and surviving the environmental strains and rigours that we - and every other animal - are subjected to.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Good points Saturn.

Resources are the only potential concern...if we are living exceptionally longer, we will end up consuming far more...so might have to implement a breeding reduction program...perhaps sterilization would be part of the requirements for treatment...who knows...such things can be considered once its green lighted.

We might need to implement a breeding reduction program anyways lol. The chinese have already taken such measures on in their own society. Sterilization is one option. But it really would depend on the modifications. Do they allow you to live to 150 years or 1500 years?

Anyways, the first step is science has to pinpoint exactly why we age to begin with. I've heard everything from "free radicals" to chromosomal telomeres.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Mate, you may need some help !

There is no ''next step'' in evolution.

The ''next step in our evolution'' is happening now. As we breed, then the ''next step'' will be obvious in a few thousand generation's time; after some retrospective viewing.

Evolution is not about progressing, but being best equipped at adapting to and surviving the environmental strains and rigours that we - and every other animal - are subjected to.

I don't think he needs any help at all. It is logical for an intelligent being who's evolutionary advantage is brainpower to be curious about augmenting that ability.

It might be the only way to help keep us from going the way of the dinosaurs. I would say planetary disasters qualify as "environmental strains." I would say that being trapped on a rock flying through space at 67,000 miles per hour with nukes all pointed towards eachother is an "environmental strain."

What qualifies as an "environmental strain" in your mind?

Originally posted by Scramjet76
I don't think he needs any help at all.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
It is logical for an intelligent being who's evolutionary advantage is brainpower to be curious about augmenting that ability.

Of course.

That is not up for debate.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
It might be the only way to help keep us from going the way of the dinosaurs.

Please explain to me how the potential for homo sapiens to go extinct would be alleviated or dispelled by any genetic engineering ?

What exactly would be altered in our genome, to prevent us from becoming extinct ?

Originally posted by Scramjet76
I would say planetary disasters qualify as "environmental strains." I would say that being trapped on a rock flying through space at 67,000 miles per hour with nukes all pointed towards eachother is an "environmental strain."

Nonsense !

You're talking philosophically here.

I have a squirrel that comes regularly to my back garden, and feeds on the seeds that I put on my bird table...

Is it aware or affected by what we know, and human knowledge ? Of course not.

Why do you think that we are any different ?

Originally posted by Scramjet76
What qualifies as an "environmental strain" in your mind?

An ''environmental strain'' would be something along the lines of someone or something relying on a plant or animal to subsist their existence, and the previously mentioned plant or animal to become unobtainable through environmental factors that may, or may not, be caused by a natural environmental cause.

For example, I'm quite susceptible to suffering from colds... If I'd been emigrating with my tribe 10,000 years ago to a place that had a high level of rainfall, then I'd have probably died or became ill; ergo, the environmental strain of the conditions that I was living in may well have killed me off.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

Nonsense !

You're talking philosophically here.

I have a squirrel that comes regularly to my back garden, and feeds on the seeds that I put on my bird table...

Is it aware or affected by what we know, and human knowledge ? Of course not.

Why do you think that we are any different ?

That's the whole point Holmes. We are the only animals on this earth capable of thinking philosophically. Other animals aren't aware that they are flying through space at 67,000 mph. Other animals don't realize that the cold war was all about posturing and threatening the destruction of the planet. So it has no environmental strain on them.

Other animals have no imagination like we do. That is what seperates us from them. We don't need to see pluto in the night sky to know that it exists. That is what knowledge and imagination do.

Don't you think that if a great white shark had the ability to augment his fins and teeth that he would? With so many yummy fishies in the ocean....

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Although I appreciate that you did not use the term yourself, I find it pretentious when people use the term ''transhuman'' to describe what, in all intents and purposes, is the concept of a ''designer baby''.

Transhumanism is many things, one of which is utilizing our understanding of genetic therapys, modification, and cloning...but its far more than that. I wont lecture you on it though, any interested can simply do the google thing

The problem lies with where we draw the line...

For example, if we isolated the ''gay gene'',

Gonna stop you there, I see where you are going.
Ultimately your saying how much control should the parent have in tailor making their child.
Well, first off, people do selective breeding naturally..go with the skin color they are attracted to, the figure they enjoy, the intellect they are comfortable with, etc. our attraction superficially is about what we like, but on a deeper level, we migrate towards successful breeding based on our lineage.
I find it interesting that with mass migrations around the world, the racial barriers are becoming less and less significant...but intellect is becoming more pronounced decade by decade.

A gay gene...well, at the risk of sounding like a homophobe (I am not..not much anyhow, I imagine all straight men are to some degree), I think sure...if the parents want to make sure that biological aspect is removed or altered, then so be it....or if they wanted to make sure they were gay.
I talked to a gay collegue one day about 10 years ago. there was research done that found evidence of homosexual behavior to be a biological issue. I asked him if he would take a treatment that would make him hetrosexual
He said no, because everything he knows about himself and his core being revolves around that, however, he would have not minded if it was given to him as a baby before he became the person he has. He said if a treatment like that came to be, it will only work before life...because you can't change a persons core being and expect them to be the same.
Fair enough.

However, I would prefer things like this at least initially be left completely up to random chance.I dont personally like the idea of someone choosing every single attribute a child will have (blue eyes, blonde hair, tan pigment skin)...but the more general aspects...higher brain functions, healthy body, no decay, efficient immune system...
and leave the superficial alone and up for nature to decide.

After all, if everyone looked like Brad and Angelina, the world would look very bland in its standard beauty.

Anyone who's well educated on the theory of evolution, which includes the process of natural selection, knows
and understands the shortfallings of transhumanist fantasies.

Care to further that statement? I am fairly up to date on darwins theory, and overall find that to be the most likely aspect.
I see this as a step in evolution (there are endless steps until we stop changing the environment which we exist in...and that wont be happening anytime soon)

Mate, you may need some help !

One way to turn a discussion into meritless blatherings is to insult the subject with hints of mental disorder without the courtesy of at least posting why you believe "help" is needed.

There is no ''next step'' in evolution.

The ''next step in our evolution'' is happening now. As we breed, then the ''next step'' will be obvious in a few thousand generation's time; after some retrospective viewing.

How can you say something, and then go the opposite way in the very next sentence?

Evolution takes place in four steps.

•DNA modification which
•gives survivability advantages followed by
•producing offspring with the same trait and finally
•there are multiple recipients of the same trait where a species is created.

Source - 4 steps of evolution

Evolution is not about progressing, but being best equipped at adapting to and surviving the environmental strains and rigours that we - and every other animal - are subjected to.

I considered a few ways to answer this...instead of splitting a hair on progression verses simple adaption, I think I have a simplier way

I believe in intelligent design.

not as a theory on how we came to be, but rather as a good idea on where we go from here. I think we need to stop simply waiting for mother nature to catch up with our progression and instead we need to start designing where we wish to go as a species. technological and biological progress towards a new species of humankind.




For now, we are simply standing outside knowing its going to rain holding a towel to dry off = reactionary evolution

We need to instead, put on raincoats and get umbrella's = proactive designing

Originally posted by Scramjet76
That's the whole point Holmes. We are the only animals on this earth capable of thinking philosophically.

Says who ?

Have you got a valid empirical/scientific source for your claim ? Or is it just your own personal conjecture ?

Originally posted by Scramjet76
Other animals aren't aware that they are flying through space at 67,000 mph.

Says who ?

Have you got a valid empirical/scientific source for your claim ? Or is it just your own personal conjecture ?

Originally posted by Scramjet76Other animals have no imagination like we do.

Says who ?

Have you got a valid empirical/scientific source for your claim ? Or is it just your own personal conjecture ?

Originally posted by Scramjet76
That is what seperates us from them.

No, what separates ''us'' from ''them'' is the fact that if we had sex with them, then we wouldn't be able to create any fertile offspring.

That is all.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
We don't need to see pluto in the night sky to know that it exists. That is what knowledge and imagination do.

What evidence do you have that Pluto exists ? How do you know that other animals don't have imaginary planets in their thoughts ?

Originally posted by Scramjet76
Don't you think that if a great white shark had the ability to augment his fins and teeth that he would? With so many yummy fishies in the ocean....

Don't you think that if humans had the ability to get rid of negative and unproductive emotions such as anger, hate and jealousy, then they would ?

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Scramjet76
I don't think he needs any help at all.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

You know, that got me thinking.
You clearly see someone whom has a difference of intellectual viewpoints as yourself as someone whom is probably mentally unstable.

Speaks volumes about the person needing to use that tactic verses deliberate on their own merit.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Don't you think that if humans had the ability to get rid of negative and unproductive emotions such as anger, hate and jealousy, then they would ?

edit on 5-10-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)

Those emotions have caused us to become warlike, warfare has brought us above other species in regards to manipulation of the environment around us...create a better fighting machine.

To remove such emotions and make us apathetic or content drones would certainly destroy our technological evolution and put us right in a dead end path...actually, perhaps not right now at this exact moment...but right up until the last 40 years or so.