Where would it stop?

Only time will tell.

Show me a parent who wouldn't take their kid to get a polio vaccine.

Why should genetic cures or preventions be viewed any differently?

Unbelievable!

Let's see, there is a gene which determins skin color, how fat your hips will be, how big your breasts will be, if you will have male pattern baldness, your eye color, skin color, hair texture.

If we begin 'designing' life and we succeed in eliminating certain genes, what happens if the earth tilts and we need dark skin or we need hips that can retain extra fat to keep us warm?

What is homosexuality is a combination of several somewhat benign genes, do we give up a happy disposition for a heterosexual, or do we give if most of silicon valley so we avoid Aspergers disorder?

To avoid Alzheimers a couple obscure genes must be affected but we find that a longevity gene is one that must be sacrificed but in so doing we can no long pass that gene on to our offspring. Offspring that may NOT have gotten Alzheimers.

Also consider the fact that we can currently refer to our heritage to discover if disease may in fact be heretitary. If we begin altering genes we no longer have a scientific trail to follow when new disease come up. We can search for 30 years through the genome of an individual only to find that the disease in not genetic.

IF we find the capability to manipulate genetics, it must be very limited and it must be available to anyone. To offer such technology only to the elite means that we will be creating a society were class has only two divions, the genetically weak and the genetically altered.

Well, if history is any example of human behavior we can count on the rich and powerful getting their way whilst the peasants remain beggars.

To think that's going to change is truly a pipe dream. Why should that change? We live in a society that is based on competition.

What you're talking about is socialism. You'd be booed off the floor at a political rally.

Abra:
Sorry, James, but in boxing that's called "A hook below the belt", which calls for disqualification!

Clearly, what Redykeulous meant has nothing to do with the material possessions (or the "ownership of the means of production of the goods").
But it would be a damn shame, if the process of gene modification would be available only to those who can afford it -- for that isn't a garantee of their genes are any better than those of peasants...

According to James, the whole nieghborhood is 'better' without downs kids.

s1ow's post hit the nail dead on center!

It seemed like a fair punch to me.

The definition of socialism includes this phrase: “the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively””

The key phrase in Redy’s post was:

“must be available to everyone”

Now as I saw it, Redy was proposing that whomever was providing it, should not be allowed to deny it to anyone for any reason, including whether or not they could pay for it. So who would pay for it if not the society as a whole. That looks to me like a fair example of “collective ownership of the means of distribuition”.

DNA is unnecessary. Sterilization will prevent undesirable genes from entering the population "through the back door". Those unfortunate individuals with learning disabilities, physical or mental handicaps or a high probability of developing Alzheimer's, heart disease and cancer etc. can be monitored and euthanized relatively early in the course of their illness before they become too much of a drag on society, a ready source of transplant organs, cell research lines and also supplying a source of meat.

We have to get these decisions into the hands of those who are intelligent enough to make them responsibly and out of the hands of those whose personal stake in the outcome will obviously prevent them from being objective and rational.

It will be reassuring when we can take the possibility of mutation out of the equation. Sure, natural selection will be a thing of the past, but evolution need not stop. It will only become deterministic rather than random. We will have the ability to only produce physically and mentally desirable traits which will only get better and better until we evolve to the penultimate form of the human being. Of course we will be able to adopt characteristics of other organisms which currently have desirable traits such as limb regeneration, color mimetic capability, compound eyes, and ultrasonic hearing. Our olfactory sensation can be improved by a factor of a million or so, and with advances in hair sensilla we can develop much improved tactility. Brain evolution will have to keep up to process the new information of course. This is the emergence of true humanity, what we can become, our notion of what is attractive will change and it is only up to ourselves....

Sacrifices have to made for the future of mankind.



"Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9ihKq34Ozc

So is clean air and water.

What is your point?

It is a long way from socialism.

The sickle cell gene causes those who have it to have immunity to malaria.

Who decides which is 'better'?

I was just saying how people will react. I'm not even against socialism myself, I think socialism would be great.

Socialism is not dictatorship like many people erroneously believe. It is quite possible to have a democratic socialism.

Right now we have a democratic capitalism. Dog-eat-dog competition. Capitalism is absolutely based on a division between those who compete well versus those who don't compete so well.

Capitalism is all about financial division. How can that be avoided in capitalism?

WOW, scary.

I would say the only variable between these two ideas is if we could alter our genes AFTER we where born and have our bodies repair themselves, or be repaired by our technologies . . .


How does that play out?


Of course its situational. Again perhaps the best of both worlds could be had, Malaria is a parasite, perhaps upon the detection of the parasite a genetic switch is made, sickle blood cells are produced to wipe out the infection and then done away with when no longer needed . . . the best of both worlds.

It may be pie in the sky, but I have no reason to believe bio tech will not be able to do it someday.

Yes you're absolutely right Michael. James believes that the world would be a better place if there was no such thing as disease and genetic failures.

If I could cure those kids I would. I'm sure Jesus would too. Legend has it that Jesus was a great healer and everyone seemed to like the stories about him. I have no problem being recognized as a man who would love to heal childern.

I salute our doctors and medical researchers.

Sorry to hear that you don't.

Great post minus the gab at the end.


_________________________________

I still think there is a way to split the difference between the idea of cloning situationally perfect poeple, and deciding how you want to be this year . . . or day based on what serves your environment and desires.



Its deterministic now, nature and man both select. What they select from is random, but the whole system is made deterministic based survival of the selected groups.

This would only make it so death was not the factor of division, but birth.

Humans would look at what was needed to best survive in our environments, both social, and natural, and then formulate the best genes for the next generation.

However, what would be even better then that?

I pose one possible solution, that each person can choose themselves, and we do not need a central body of rational well meaning people to choose for us how we change our genes. If we could rebuild our bodies at will . . .

I always imagine the star wars Bacta tanks when I think a long these lines. I am actually writting a sci fi book with some of these ideas, SO DONT STEAL EM !!! HAHAHA.

Gattaca ...Gattaca






Genetic predisposition only has a 30% influence....on the manifestation of a disease...

Its different for different diseases.

ok...Auto-immune diseases 30%

Who gets to decide what is 'better'?

Every downs kid I know is extremely happy and careless. That seems to be 'better' to me than a genetically 'perfect' existence determined by those who think their idea of 'better' is best for all.

Of course there are those who treat them as if something is 'wrong' with them.

What is wrong with being extremely happy?

By the way you're talking here is appears that you are viewing Downs Syndrome is a blessing. So I guess from your point of view Downs Syndrome shouldn't even be thought of as a disease or genetic malfunction.

I found this on the web:

"The physical features and medical problems associated with Downs syndrome can vary widely from child to child. While some kids with DS need a lot of medical attention, others lead healthy lives."

So maybe you've only seen examples where the effects of Downs Syndrome weren't very profound. Clearly the effects of this condition can vary widely between individuals.

The particular boy I was referring to is in pretty bad shape. He's not about to live a normal healthy life. It also appears that this affected the development of his brain quite a bit. So it was with this example in mind that I offered my views.

When it comes to Downs syndrome, the answer may change depending on the social and legal situation.

Personally, I would absolutely be against a centralized authority dictating that would-be parents screen out Downs syndrome...but then again, at this time, I would be absolutely against a centralized authority dictating anything regarding genetic screening. (Though I might change my mind as I learn more about genetic disease and the options we have).

But what about the case where a couple can decide whether or not to have a Downs kid? Would it be wrong for them to decide not to have a Downs kid? If personality/character of the parents is such that they think they would not want a Downs kid, would we want such a kid to be born to those parents?

Personally, I don't think it would be wrong for parents to choose not to have a Downs syndrom child.

I have not read the entire thread, but since I believe in reincarnation, my opinion is based on that. If I am going to reincarnate into a human body, I would want it to be a good one.

Why propagate bodies with genetic diseases? If they can be prevented or corrected why not prevent or correct them?

All the moral stuff is basically built on the premise that we are not spirit having a human experience in a human body.

If you were a spirit looking for a body to inhabit would you pick one with flaws? I don't think so.

To a person who does not believe they are anything more than flesh and bone etc, and that any life at all no matter how imperfect, is to be encouraged to propagate indiscriminately, well don't complain about this imperfect world.

We as a species should discover how to improve on our bodies for the sake of the future of mankind. There may come a time when we can even regrow a severed limb and live disease free.

But even a selection of 'good genes' does not guarantee that you will not have an imperfect body because the spirit animating the life form does have an influence on the genes.

This does not mean I would advocate involuntary sterilization, but if a young person wanted to be sterilized they should not be prevented from doing so or denied that choice by doctors, which is the mostly case today. For many years, women even found it impossible to get birth control because of so-called moral issues.