Transhumanism

[Ygrene Imref]

So, you are against genetically manipulating an embryo to for example remove an unecessary gene that only leads to cancer if it is present?

Absolutely, 100% against genetic manipulation - especially done by humans.

I would never trust another human to alter my genetics. The idea is asinine to me; there is already enough academic dishonesty, immorality and lack of ethics for procedures that have nothing to do with something as serious as genetic manipulation, or transhumanism.

Even if it was my daughter/son, I wouldn't let someone else alter their genetics - with the hope that my child will be fine now, or later. I put my faith in other things.

But, I would also never voluntarily have children and bring them into this world (and, thank God I have none now,) so my response may be skewed. I am sure appeals to emotions as a parent will make plenty of people do things they know are ridiculous (in my opinion,) which is why I will never willingly put myself in that situation in the first place (procreation.)

EDIT: My decision is based on my (cynicism) philosophy, and experiences. It is not based on religious reasons (hopefully that was clear.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Absolutely, 100% against genetic manipulation - especially done by humans.

Wow.....

So, you'ld rather have a child get a cancer at age 5, then to allow for a genetic treatment that would produce a healthy child instead?

That's....... I want to say "immoral".

I would never trust another human to alter my genetics. The idea is asinine to me; there is already enough academic dishonesty, immorality and lack of ethics for procedures that have nothing to do with something as serious as genetic manipulation, or transhumanism.

Do you also use the same reasoning when it comes to non-genetic medical sciences?
How about having your eyes lasered to prevent going blind?

Even if it was my daughter/son, I wouldn't let someone else alter their genetics - with the hope that my child will be fine now, or later. I put my faith in other things.

I'ld call that serious child abuse and neglect.

A befriended couple of ours are both carriers of a certain gene. It is known that if both parents have that gene, it has a 70% chance of causing serious problems in the child. Most likely, it will not survive pregnancy (and seriously put the health of the mother at risk in the process). And if it somehow manages to survive till brith, chances are even bigger that the child will have to deal with all kinds of complications which would result in having it spend most of its first years in a hospital with uncountable amounts of surgery which it will likely again not survive. The chances of it all turning out okay are close to nihil.

However, by rather routine genetic manipulation, all that can be avoided and it could be ensured that it is a normal pregnancy, with the normal average risk factors that everyone has to deal with.

But you would prefer to run the risk of 7 out 10 of extreme problems, death, suffering, etc?

yeah, I don't get that.

But, I would also never voluntarily have children and bring them into this world

That's fine for you, but it makes it actually even worse.... because now you aren't even talking about YOUR OWN children, but about the children of other people.


Also, just because I can't help myself,... I have a son that's almost 2 years old. While I didn't really have a "child wish" before that lovely boy, I can honestly tell you that it is the best thing I have ever accomplished in my entire life.

To each his own off course. But if my experience can be generalized in any way, I can tell you that your entire idea of "children" takes a 180° turn the second your baby boy grabs your finger and throws you a smile. Best moment ever. I cried like a child.

I am sure appeals to emotions as a parent will make plenty of people do things they know are ridiculous (in my opinion,) which is why I will never willingly put myself in that situation in the first place (procreation.)

I don't consider it an appeal to emotion, but rather an appeal to reason and compassion.
In fact, in a lot of such situations, the "reasonable thing" oftenly is the very opposite of what emotion / beliefs would suggest.

For example... The other day I read an article about some woman who got a child of which the doctor adviced to abort it because of all the complications, but the woman wouldn't have it and she persisted and had the child.

The author of the article wrote it as if that woman was some kind of hero and the ultimate form of "self sacrifice" etc.

I felt the exact opposite was true. She was anything but a hero and if anything, it was the ultimate form of egoism. Because she put her OWN desperate wish to be a mother above the well-being of her unborn child. Her decision wasn't geared towards what was best for the child... it was geared towards her own desires and wishes.

The child now faces a lifetime of suffering, disability and being incapable of living independently. He'll spend most of his days in a hospital bed and will have to deal with surgery upon surgery upon surgery.

I'm going off-topic, I realise....
But just to illustrate that we have likely VERY different ideas concerning the morals and ethics of medical practices.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Wow.....

So, you'ld rather have a child get a cancer at age 5, then to allow for a genetic treatment that would produce a healthy child instead?

That's....... I want to say "immoral".



Do you also use the same reasoning when it comes to non-genetic medical sciences?
How about having your eyes lasered to prevent going blind?



I'ld call that serious child abuse and neglect.

A befriended couple of ours are both carriers of a certain gene. It is known that if both parents have that gene, it has a 70% chance of causing serious problems in the child. Most likely, it will not survive pregnancy (and seriously put the health of the mother at risk in the process). And if it somehow manages to survive till brith, chances are even bigger that the child will have to deal with all kinds of complications which would result in having it spend most of its first years in a hospital with uncountable amounts of surgery which it will likely again not survive. The chances of it all turning out okay are close to nihil.

However, by rather routine genetic manipulation, all that can be avoided and it could be ensured that it is a normal pregnancy, with the normal average risk factors that everyone has to deal with.

But you would prefer to run the risk of 7 out 10 of extreme problems, death, suffering, etc?

yeah, I don't get that.



That's fine for you, but it makes it actually even worse.... because now you aren't even talking about YOUR OWN children, but about the children of other people.


Also, just because I can't help myself,... I have a son that's almost 2 years old. While I didn't really have a "child wish" before that lovely boy, I can honestly tell you that it is the best thing I have ever accomplished in my entire life.

To each his own off course. But if my experience can be generalized in any way, I can tell you that your entire idea of "children" takes a 180° turn the second your baby boy grabs your finger and throws you a smile. Best moment ever. I cried like a child.



I don't consider it an appeal to emotion, but rather an appeal to reason and compassion.
In fact, in a lot of such situations, the "reasonable thing" oftenly is the very opposite of what emotion / beliefs would suggest.

For example... The other day I read an article about some woman who got a child of which the doctor adviced to abort it because of all the complications, but the woman wouldn't have it and she persisted and had the child.

The author of the article wrote it as if that woman was some kind of hero and the ultimate form of "self sacrifice" etc.

I felt the exact opposite was true. She was anything but a hero and if anything, it was the ultimate form of egoism. Because she put her OWN desperate wish to be a mother above the well-being of her unborn child. Her decision wasn't geared towards what was best for the child... it was geared towards her own desires and wishes.

The child now faces a lifetime of suffering, disability and being incapable of living independently. He'll spend most of his days in a hospital bed and will have to deal with surgery upon surgery upon surgery.

I'm going off-topic, I realise....
But just to illustrate that we have likely VERY different ideas concerning the morals and ethics of medical practices.

You believe genetic manipulation is fine.

I dont, and I listed a few reasons why. It is your choice to subject your own children to whatever you - in your parental opinion - deem to be "good," or appropriate.

What I find appropriate for my unborn children is that they be born naturally with all alleged flaws. And, because I do care for my child, I would rather raise him/her to live with what one considers a flaw or ailment, than have another possibly corrupt, immoral, unethical human manipulating my child''s genes.

That's me. The push for transhumanism is also a reason why I will never have children: the lot of these generations seem to think they can outrun their defects and errors in genetics with technology. It is folly; if I ever have children I would never subject them to the alteration of their genetics by another human.

Just in case I wasn't clear, I don't care what problems my child may have, I would never alter their genetics in order for them to gain what the fickle world paradigm considers a detriment.

For me, the uncanny valley of a genetically altered/transhuman is abysmal.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

By the way, I have never been to the hospital.

Well, I went twice in my life - one to be told I was OK, and released, and the other was for stitches. I told my relatives (a couple who are in medicine, others elsewhere in discipline) that I would rather die than go to a hospital. This is especially given what they telle about academic medicine, and practices in hospitals.

I am not a doctor of medicine, but I do know enough biochemistry to combine aspects of my genetics with proper nutrition in order to stay healthy.

I am fortunate in that my family covers most disciplines, so that I don't have to trust strangers with my livelihood.

Transhumanism is already happening. In fact, it has happened in the past. I hear from my own family in medicine what they do every week concerning ethics, morality, and downright neglect of patients. I would never subject my children to that. Ever.

These are the same type of people who prescribe medicine that induces more of the problem you are trying to remedy. If they aren't perfect in perscription, why would they be perfect in genetic alteration? If you are OK with less than perfection manipulating your genetics, that is your (general audience) prerogative.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Just in case I wasn't clear, I don't care what problems my child may have

It's a good thing that you don't want to have children.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

It's a good thing that you don't want to have children.

How incredibly dishonest, mean spirited and revealing of you - chopping off 2/3 of my actual statement in order to hide what I made very clear. And then, to use my statements on procreation as a smear against my character - as if I would endanger my children because I don't believe what you believe? You have a lot of nerve, or anonymous courage. This is what I said:

"Just in case I wasn't clear, I don't care what problems my child may have, I would never alter their genetics in order for them to gain what the fickle world paradigm considers a detriment."

I have to quit conversing with you. Cheers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How incredibly dishonest, mean spirited and revealing of you - chopping off 2/3 of my actual statement in order to hide what I made very clear.

That part stood out. I don't see anything in the rest of your posts that somehow makes that statement ok.

I'm a father. There is no context in wich I could ever utter those words.

And then, to use my statements on procreation as a smear against my character - as if I would endanger my children because I don't believe what you believe?

That is exactly what your post implies. That you are willing to endanger your children, just because of your own ignorance and faith based beliefs.

You sound like an anti-vaccer or someone who would "pray" for the fever to go away instead of actually going to see a doctor. You've also been expressing your extreme resentment of hospitals etc. You're not that big an exception in this, you know... every couple weeks, there's a story in the papers about how a child was left to die because the parents "didn't believe in medical treatments".

Yes, I will happily repeat my statement: it's a good thing that you don't want to have any children. It doesn't sound like you would be a responsible parent.

You have a lot of nerve, or anonymous courage. This is what I said:

"Just in case I wasn't clear, I don't care what problems my child may have, I would never alter their genetics in order for them to gain what the fickle world paradigm considers a detriment."

I read your full post. And like I said: there's nothing in there that changes anything.
The many people who left their children to die instead of seeking medical treatment, also believed all kinds of nonsense concerning medical treatments, vaccinations, etc.

These people were convinced that they were doing the right thing by praying to their god instead of seeing a doctor. I'm not saying that there is mal-intent at play, nore am I accusing you (or them) of such. Nevertheless, these people do get a guilty charge in court for child neglect etc.

I AM saying that such people are unfit to be parents. Clearly.

Yes, I know you are talking about genetic stuff specifically. However, your comments concerning resentment of hospitals and medical treatments in general, are making all kinds of alarm bells go off.

Furthermore, you also write as if you have definatly made up your mind already. You are against genetic treatments, full stop. You aren't even willing to be informed it seems. You have already made up your mind to such an extent that you even started your statement with "i don't care what problems my child may have". That's how determined you are in this.


If my child would have a problem, any problem, I will not rest until I find a solution. To the point of desperation if it concerns serious problems.

I have to quit conversing with you. Cheers.

Bye.

 

[Radrook]

This isn't an issue of kind but of degree. We can enhance human abilities to a degree without warping humanity beyond all recognition. The point is where to draw the line. That's where ethics and even Christianity should become relevant.

The danger is that in the hands of the non-Christian and unethical anything might seem OK and we might wind up with the grotesque and totaly non-human as a result.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...The danger is that in the hands of the non-Christian and unethical anything might seem OK and we might wind up with the grotesque and totaly non-human as a result.

I wouldn't worry about that - repeated studies have suggested that there's no significant difference overall between the religious and the non-religious in ethical and moral decision-making. As one might expect, our shared evolutionary heritage seems to provide a basic moral framework.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

This isn't an issue of kind but of degree. We can enhance human abilities to a degree without warping humanity beyond all recognition. The point is where to draw the line. That's where ethics and even Christianity should become relevant.

The danger is that in the hands of the non-Christian and unethical anything might seem OK and we might wind up with the grotesque and totaly non-human as a result.

The line, I staunchly believe, is crossed when the technology becomes a part of your genetics or neurology. It isn't evil to get a prosthetic limb; it may be dangerous if you interface your brain to technology, or manipulate genes to enhance ability - even to remove imperfections.

And, since humans are doing it, it will always beg the question of whether or not the technological enhancements and helps are EUGENICS - whether or not it won't become about creating advanced altered humans, and using money to dampen access to the technology (i.e. only the rich can afford it anyway.)

 

[Radrook]

I wouldn't worry about that - repeated studies have suggested that there's no significant difference overall between the religious and the non-religious in ethical and moral decision-making. As one might expect, our shared evolutionary heritage seems to provide a basic moral framework.

I agree 100 %. Claims to Christianity mean NOTHING if the persons making the claims are hypocrites. As for religious, the Aztecs and Canaanites were very religious an practiced human sacrifices to their Gods. So I have absolutely no illusions about the benefits of being religious in relation to morals. In fact, my difficulties in life have been predominantly with people claiming Christianity while behaving like imps as opposed to claiming to be atheists. So if I gave another impression my apologies.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I agree 100 %. Claims to Christianity mean NOTHING if the persons making the claims are hypocrites. As for religious, the Aztecs and Canaanites were very religious an practiced human sacrifices to their Gods. So I have absolutely no illusions about the benefits of being religious in relation to morals. In fact, my difficulties in life have been predominantly with people claiming Christianity while behaving like imps as opposed to claiming to be atheists. So if I gave another impression my apologies.

That sounds rather close to the 'No True Scotsman Christian' fallacy... But I wasn't talking about hypocritical claims to Christianity - just that it seems that Christians (hypocritical or otherwise), non-Christians, and atheists, in general, all have a fundamental morality in common. Studies have even been done with a newly contacted Amazonian tribe, and no significant differences were found.

If you haven't already seen them, you might find the Trolley Dilemmas interesting reading (of course, these have to be reformulated in culturally relevant ways for people with no experience of trolleys and such).

 

[Radrook]

That sounds rather close to the 'No True Scotsman Christian' fallacy... But I wasn't talking about hypocritical claims to Christianity - just that it seems that Christians (hypocritical or otherwise), non-Christians, and atheists, in general, all have a fundamental morality in common. Studies have even been done with a newly contacted Amazonian tribe, and no significant differences were found.

If you haven't already seen them, you might find the Trolley Dilemmas interesting reading (of course, these have to be reformulated in culturally relevant ways for people with no experience of trolleys and such).

Well, please consider that those who say that calling Christian hypocrites non Christians constitutes the No True Scotsman Fallacy must be unfamiliar with the following scriptures.

Titus 1:16 ESV

They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.

2 Timothy 3:5 ESV /
Having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

Matthew 7:15 ESV
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

Matthew 7:21-23 ESV /
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

BTW
Thanx for the link. Will look it up.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You are 100% mistaken.
So in order to avoid the No True Scotsman, fallacy I have to tag people who wipe their hypocritical buts with Jesus' teaching while calling themselves Christians? Really? How very convenient!

It totally ignores the fact that Jesus himself and his Apostles provided us with clear criteria by which such claims can be evaluated as authentic or not. Your opinion that those instructions mean absolutely nothing is irrelevant.

BTW
There is NOTHING surprising in finding that there are people claiming Christianity who are indistinguishable from those who imitate the Devil.
Neither does the Bible identify those persons as Christians as you choose to do.

You're reading a whole lot more into what I posted than I either said or meant. Did you get out of bed the wrong side?

 

[Radrook]

You're reading a whole lot more into what I posted than I either said or meant. Did you get out of bed the wrong side?

Sorry if I misunderstood and came across as rude or grumpy. But please note that every single time that I mention that some people are not Christians I keep getting the same reply of committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy which just isn't so. Try to see it this way. If you were to disqualify certain persons from being atheists and I kept saying that you are making the No True Scotsman Fallacy then I would be saying that you don't know what an atheist is even if you yourself are an atheist or that their is no possible way of defining what an atheist is and everybody or anybody can claim it equally as validly.

Eventually such a response might begin to grate on your nerves. So perhaps I permitted it to grate on mine and if indeed I came across as being rather rude then I apologize since my purpose on this forum is not to get anyone angry at me but to clarify instead in a calm way in order to promote further calm discussion.

Also, yes, I am having trouble with my health at present and that contributed. But I am feeling a better now. However I do appreciate online exchange of ideas and do hope that this won't cause a permanent rift. Thanx for your patient reply.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sorry if I misunderstood and came across as rude or grumpy. But please note that every single time that I mention that some people are not Christians I keep getting the same reply of committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy which just isn't so. Try to see it this way. If you were to disqualify certain persons from being atheists and I kept saying that you are making the No True Scotsman Fallacy then I would be saying that you don't know what an atheist is even if you yourself are an atheist or that their is no possible way of defining what an atheist is and everybody or anybody can claim it equally as validly.

Maybe you have a narrower definition of Christian than me. For me, it's just someone who believes - or professes to believe - the tenets of Christianity.

Also, yes, I am having trouble with my health at present and that contributed. But I am feeling a better now. However I do appreciate online exchange of ideas and do hope that this won't cause a permanent rift. Thanx for your patient reply.

I'm sorry to hear you're unwell; I hope things improve soon.

 

[Radrook]

Maybe you have a narrower definition of Christian than me. For me, it's just someone who believes - or professes to believe - the tenets of Christianity.

I'm sorry to hear you're unwell; I hope things improve soon.

I went over my original reply and modified it to remove the offensive parts.

True, I guess we have different views of what constitutes being a Christian.

Thanks for the well wishes.

Regards Radrook


BTW
Just looked up the link and copied the whole article to my WP. I was presented with similar hypothetical situations during my ethics course. Fascinating subject.