Limits to Genetic Experimentation or Anything goes?

[Ygrene Imref]

But unfortunately we are forced to trust humans for the sake of enhancing survival potential.
The construction of society with its rules and regulations is based on the trust that the vast majority will abide and assure a survival supportive environment. We trust that humans have set up the traffic lights right. We trust that the drivers will not plow through the crossing people. We trust that the surgeon assigned to perform heart surgery isn't going to castrate us as a freebee. So trust in the not totally trustworthy humans becomes an unfortunate and sometimes costly necessity.

I don't trust anyone at all. Everyone is capable of being an agent of evil, and a lot of them make a career out of it. Even family exploits the ones they love.

But, that is just me. I would rather die, for example, than go to an American hospital, or any hospital. I certainly won't let anyone in this world that I distrust alter the genetics of my future offspring. Ever.

 

[Radrook]

But the mindset is still there.

How many people had to be rescued in 1865 from rich people whose conscience was stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

How many people had to be rescued in 1945 from scientists whose conscience was stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

How many people had to be rescued in 1965 from average people whose conscience was stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

How many people need to be rescued since 1972 from the medical profession whose conscience is stunted by thinking like an evolutionist?

Reducing people down to genes and tissue and molecules can lead to holocausts.

This is what happens when technology advances over Bible-respecting individuals.

So from your standpoint bio-engineering will only serve to be a tool for these people whose consciences have been dulled by godless evolution idea into viewing humans as mere animal commodities to tamper with as they wish? Reminds me of the novel I read called A Brave New World. Rather stark prophetic projection of a dismal future where technological progress has indeed taken the course you are describing to a very disturbing extreme.

Brave New World - Wikipedia

 

[Radrook]

I don't trust anyone at all. Everyone is capable of being an agent of evil, and a lot of them make a career out of it. Even family exploits the ones they love.

But, that is just me. I would rather die, for example, than go to an American hospital, or any hospital. I certainly won't let anyone in this world that I distrust alter the genetics of my future offspring. Ever.

Well, we are in agreement on several things

1. Rather dying than letting USA surgeons surgically brandish scalpels .
2. Not trusting anyone including family.
3. A lot if not the majority of folks make a career out of being predatory

 

[Radrook]

I don't see how you could make such a sweeping statement without context.
Surely there are things that would be okay in genetically manipulating embryo's?
In fact, I'ld even say that there are things that, if we have the technology, would be IMMORAL to NOT do.

Take a couple among my circle of friends.
Both the dude as the girl both are carriers of a certain gene which, if both parents have it, results in a 70% chance of serious deformity of the child, which also exposes the mother to a serious health risk during pregnancy.

If it gets activated, chances are first rather low that the baby will survive at all. And if it gets to be born, it will be seriously handicapped.

If you KNOW this, and if we HAVE the technology to make sure that the embryo does NOT have that particular gene..... why would it be a problem to genetically manipulate it in such a way that that particular gene gets removed and/or deactivated, which would result in a healthy baby?

In fact, as I said, would it not be the exact opposite? Would it not be a moral DUTY to genetically manipulate it?



Obviously.... but I'ld think that the whole point of genetic manipulation is to improve things... not to cause additional suffering.

I totally agree! It would indeed be a moral duty to genetically assure that no deformity is transmitted as it is also a moral duty not to inflict unnecessary suffering on sentient creatures.
But of course that is where the term "unnecessary" comes in. Who determines what is and what isn't necessary? I would say that if anything can be accomplished equally well without the infliction of suffering on animals then that method should be the ethically right one to choose. Using another method because it is less in order to augment profit is unethical.

So it's a matter of values and which ones we are willing to give priority. However, from a totally ethical, objective viewpoint the unnecessary infliction of pain is indeed immoral. So that does provide us with a certain guideline and we are not left totally in the dark.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Well, we are in agreement on several things

1. Rather dying than letting USA surgeons surgically brandish scalpels .
2. Not trusting anyone including family.
3. A lot if not the majority of folks make a career out of being predatory

300,000 people die from preventable medic error a year. The number is likely higher. I know how doctors prescribe a pain med that causes, say, liver problems. Then, s/he refers you to a hepatologist friend. The hepatologist friend give you med for that, but it also destroys your hormone balance. So, the hepatologist sends you to an endocrinologist. And so on.

And, if you are absolutely mentally done with the shenanigans, you may get a highly recommended psychiatric "friend" reference to help you. They give you meds, and then those med end up giving you even more mental issues. So, you get put on an additional medicine.

All the while, your body is dehydrating itself providing water for these drugs - so maybe you get sent to an internalist.

Humans are a commodity in healthcare; they are not in the business of curing or killing anything for the betterment of health. Most Western hospitals, especially in the States rely on chronic sickness, not well-being or cures, to make money. If you stay sick, you help feed the medical beast.


The other two trust problems are likely my personal fault. It may not be a thing to be proud of, but no matter how much I love or care about someone if they cross me beyond a point, then I completely drop them. They are absolutely dead to me with no regrets. Indeed, I have a lot of dead relatives, friends and associates.

 

[Radrook]

300,000 people die from preventable medic error a year. The number is likely higher. I know how doctors prescribe a pain med that causes, say, liver problems. Then, s/he refers you to a hepatologist friend. The hepatologist friend give you med for that, but it also destroys your hormone balance. So, the hepatologist sends you to an endocrinologist. And so on.

And, if you are absolutely mentally done with the shenanigans, you may get a highly recommended psychiatric "friend" reference to help you. They give you meds, and then those med end up giving you even more mental issues. So, you get put on an additional medicine.

All the while, your body is dehydrating itself providing water for these drugs - so maybe you get sent to an internalist.

Humans are a commodity in healthcare; they are not in the business of curing or killing anything for the betterment of health. Most Western hospitals, especially in the States rely on chronic sickness, not well-being or cures, to make money. If you stay sick, you help feed the medical beast.


The other two trust problems are likely my personal fault. It may not be a thing to be proud of, but no matter how much I love or care about someone if they cross me beyond a point, then I completely drop them. They are absolutely dead to me with no regrets. Indeed, I have a lot of dead relatives, friends and associates.

So they sicken you in order to refer you to a buddy?
I hadn't realized that there was that type of medical inter-professional money-grubbing cooperation going on. My aversion is primarily based on negative personal experiences involving gratuitous acts of physical and psychological cruelty.

As for family, of course there is a limit that should not be crossed and is very often crossed. My flaw has been being excessively trusting and forgiving and taking the blame to my own detriment.
I think your policy is the wiser of the twain.

 

[Radrook]

I'm okay with improving on any basic traits in humans, just we'd need to be cautious.

One concern is that genetic enhancements might become readily available to the very wealthy alone and in that way create a class of humans who stand apart by their unusual physical appearance.

 

[Shemjaza]

One concern is that genetic enhancements might become readily available to the very wealthy alone and in that way create a class of humans who stand apart by their unusual physical appearance.

There's no reason to assume they'd be unusual in appearance. But the rich having advantages over the common people is already a sad fact of our civilizations.

The advantage is that as this technology matures it could become viable for to provide it to more and more people. Even the most selfish oligarch would see the benefit of a genetically healthier population.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Bologna!
Science attempts to vindicate itself with the No True Scotsman Principle.

Nope. Reality is what it is, no matter how humans behave.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But it isn't the accuracy that he is focusing on. It is the use of the theory to perpetrate and justify injustices such as slavery as it was extremely inhumanely practiced in the USA

Errr.... slavery in the US was justified by pointing at the condoning of slavery in the bible.

and Hitler's ' master race idea which led to extermination camps.

The primary reason he was able to get away with it for so long, was by exploiting 2000 years of prosecution of jews, by christians.


PS: Darwin's origins of species, was on the ban list of the nazi's.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But of course that is where the term "unnecessary" comes in. Who determines what is and what isn't necessary? I would say that if anything can be accomplished equally well without the infliction of suffering on animals then that method should be the ethically right one to choose.

You just answered your own question.
Unnecessary means unnecessary. If there is a method to accomplish the same goal without suffering of any kind (even if that method costs more, takes longer, is more dificult,...), then obviously that is the way to go.

That's the whole point of "unnecessary suffering" - to not inflict it, when there are other options.

 

[Radrook]

You just answered your own question.
Unnecessary means unnecessary. If there is a method to accomplish the same goal without suffering of any kind (even if that method costs more, takes longer, is more dificult,...), then obviously that is the way to go.

That's the whole point of "unnecessary suffering" - to not inflict it, when there are other options.

Not as simple as might first appear. Economic consequences on humans could be justifiably factored in. That could make compassion to the animals involved seem either unfeasible or else immoral.

For example, in some cases dismissal of employees in order to make that compassion economically viable would inflict human suffering. So it would then become an issue of whose suffering takes precedence.

How many animal sufferings equal one intense human suffering due to loss of employment? Better yet. How many human lives lost because of slowing down of research are worth showing compassion to how many rabbits?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not as simple as might first appear.

Never claimed it was easy to determine. I'm fully aware that those are the kinds of statements that take 5 seconds to state, but weeks of debate to practice - and even then still not being completely convinced that the conclusion is the best one available.

How many animal sufferings equal one intense human suffering due to loss of employment?

Let me stop you right there... the loss of a job is not really what I consider "suffering" in this context.

Better yet. How many human lives lost because of slowing down of research are worth showing compassion to how many rabbits?

That's better.

 

[Radrook]

Never claimed it was easy to determine. I'm fully aware that those are the kinds of statements that take 5 seconds to state, but weeks of debate to practice - and even then still not being completely convinced that the conclusion is the best one available.


Let me stop you right there... the loss of a job is not really what I consider "suffering" in this context.



That's better.

If one has three or more kids and a wife to support-believe me-the loss of a job in the absence of a quick replacement with equal salary is definitely a cause for intense suffering. Especially in countries unable to provide their citizens with an adequate safety-net such as is available in the USA,.

 

[Radrook]

Errr.... slavery in the US was justified by pointing at the condoning of slavery in the bible.



The primary reason he was able to get away with it for so long, was by exploiting 2000 years of prosecution of jews, by christians.


PS: Darwin's origins of species, was on the ban list of the nazi's.

So was the inquisition? The burning people and skinning them alive in public squares after gauging out their eyes and ripping out their tongues? That proves absolutely nothing except a Satanic attempt to malign the Bible. The Bible doesn't condone the savagery practiced by the slave system in the USA.

Also, I am not claiming that evolution officially condones racism. I am merely saying that in the same way that the Bible was used as an excuse, so too were Darwin's ideas.

BTW

Hitler:

This article offers indisputable evidence to the contrary about Hitter's ideological connection to evolution
Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust

 

[Radrook]

There's no reason to assume they'd be unusual in appearance. But the rich having advantages over the common people is already a sad fact of our civilizations.

The advantage is that as this technology matures it could become viable for to provide it to more and more people. Even the most selfish oligarch would see the benefit of a genetically healthier population.

The reason for assuming differences in appearance of those capable of availing themselves of genetic enhancements is the human tendency to enhance physical appearance by any means possible. That's why we have these human females strutting around with these ridiculously large burgeoning bazooms and bodybuilders who uncannily resemble the Hulk on steroids.

 

[Shemjaza]

The reason for assuming differences in appearance of those capable of availing themselves of genetic enhancements is the human tendency to enhance physical appearance by any means possible. That's why we have these human females strutting around with these ridiculously large burgeoning bazooms and bodybuilders who uncannily resemble the Hulk on steroids.

In both those cases you are dealing with a subculture proclaiming those ideals.

The goal of diet, drug, surgical and lifestyle advantages used by the very wealthy is to attain an image of effortless natural youth and beauty. Body builders and the obviously surgically modified are punch lines to jokes... where as the American fixation on straight white teeth is just a marker of wealth and class.

It's not like the super rich go a step further and have have glowing, neon fangs like in some kind of cyber punk dystopia.

 

[Radrook]

In both those cases you are dealing with a subculture proclaiming those ideals.

The goal of diet, drug, surgical and lifestyle advantages used by the very wealthy is to attain an image of effortless natural youth and beauty. Body builders and the obviously surgically modified are punch lines to jokes... where as the American fixation on straight white teeth is just a marker of wealth and class.

It's not like the super rich go a step further and have have glowing, neon fangs like in some kind of cyber punk dystopia.

Glowing fangs would indeed be rather flashy! LOL!

 

[DogmaHunter]

So was the inquisition? The burning people and skinning them alive in public squares after gauging out their eyes and ripping out their tongues? That proves absolutely nothing except a Satanic attempt to malign the Bible.

If you say so. More then likely the people of the inquisition would have disagreed.

The Bible doesn't condone the savagery practiced by the slave system in the USA.

Except that it does. Perhaps you should reread the "rules" of the OT.

Also, I am not claiming that evolution officially condones racism. I am merely saying that in the same way that the Bible was used as an excuse, so too were Darwin's ideas.

The difference is that evolution is a scientific model of reality - not an ideology nore a handbook on how to organize society

This article offers indisputable evidence to the contrary about Hitter's ideological connection to evolution
Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust

Try a proper academic source instead of one that literally made a million dollar business out of bad mouthing biology.

 

[Radrook]

If you say so. More then likely the people of the inquisition would have disagreed.



Except that it does. Perhaps you should reread the "rules" of the OT.



The difference is that evolution is a scientific model of reality - not an ideology nore a handbook on how to organize society



Try a proper academic source instead of one that literally made a million dollar business out of bad mouthing biology.

Statement:

If you say so. More then likely the people of the inquisition would have disagreed.

Response:

Not the victims.
--------------------------------
Statement:

Except that it does. Perhaps you should reread the "rules" of the OT.

Response:
No need! I know them by heart.

-----------------------------------

Statement

The difference is that evolution is a scientific model of reality - not an ideology nore a handbook on how to organize society

Response:
There is nothing scientific about seriously flawed ideas.

---------------------------------------------------

Statement:

Try a proper academic source instead of one that literally made a million dollar business out of bad mouthing biology.

Response:

The information stands or falls on its own merit.
------------------------------------------------------------

BTW

Cogent criticism of quack ideas isn’t bad-mouthing biology