is our response to be happy at something hardwired in DNA? Up to what level we can change it?

[poetonbicycle]

A normal guy feels happy to see a woman's curve, whereas gay won't feel the same happiness when he looks at her.

Similarly, someone may find riverside beautiful, another one may not. My question is, can we modify human DNA and make an offspring who will have a different set of responses?

Edited October 20, 2018 by poetonbicycle

[pavelcherepan]

Don't confuse happiness with sexual arousal. Also, happiness is not a physiological effect and it's, therefore, hard to speculate on whether or not it's hard-wired in the DNA. But overall, a lot of positive emotions come as a result of dopamine and other neurotransmitters being released into the system often as a result of performing whatever action that's considered beneficial to the survival of the organism and/or spread of it's genetic information.

These responses potentially can be modified on a genetic level to come as a result of different actions, but I'm not entirely sure as to how much the science has progressed in this regard.

 

[Sensei]

I am ducking, and cats and dogs, are kissing me and licking my face.. Are they hardwired in their DNA to love me.. ? ...or they simply know who am I really... ?

(I love them too)

ps. People learn how to hate from incompetent parents, incompetent teachers, incompetent politicians, and incompetent society,  etc. They are learning to be afraid of strangers etc. people...

Nationalists, racists, sexists etc. are teaching their children to behave the same like them.. To hate people from some other groups..

 

 

[pavelcherepan]

24 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Nationalists, racists, sexists etc. are teaching their children to behave the same like them.. To hate people from some other groups..

Sensei, I'm confused as to how this relates to the question in the OP?

[Sensei]

8 hours ago, pavelcherepan said:

I'm confused as to how this relates to the question in the OP?

Initial post can be interpreted as hidden homophobic. It has premise that homosexuality in offspring can be fixed/prevented at genetic level. Nationalists are openly intolerant for homosexual minority. Surprisingly, in western culture countries, they're mostly white Christians... The one which should be the most tolerant, because their religion (if they're truly believing in it) is teaching to love people and the all living beings, are the most intolerant for other people...

Can homosexuality being induced in offspring by genetic modifications? I think so yes.

Can homosexuality being prevented in offspring by genetic modifications? No.

Let's begin from how it can be induced. People mostly feel passion to their partner (or partner-to-be), using their... nose. It's even used by some more professional matrimonial agencies, to scientifically find appropriate partner. Not every woman is appropriate for every man, and not every man is appropriate for every woman, regardless of how beauty they are. The same applies to gays, and lesbians. Natural smell of person is gathered by these matrimonial agencies and given to partners-to-be at mass, to check which person they will find attractive (without any other details like photography, because it could influence judgment). If both parties involved feel the same attraction, they're meeting together. In the normal world, it happens spontaneously during the first meeting, the first date, and perhaps without even knowing it by people. They say that "they feel something to newly met person", "something which they can't describe", sometimes they call it "animal passion". Smell (caused by chemical molecules) is information for the brain that partner-to-be has enough different genes and is healthy. Thus people have extremely rarely e.g. erection when mother, father, family member, is cuddling them (their smell is not appropriate!). Artificial modification (or natural mutation) of genes can change what chemical molecules are pleasant and attractive (and in the case of man, causes erection) for the brain.

If somebody is 100% homosexual, he/she won't have offspring, and won't spread genes to further generations, thus natural mutation (if homosexuality was result of it), will vanish from human population. Thus homosexuality  (i.e. what chemical compounds in smell are interpreted by brain as attractive) is rarely result of mutation in genes.

In XX century some farmers noticed, and complained, that their adult bulls are not interested in female cows (and caused lost of money on development of animal which at the end revealed to be useless and not interested in reproduction). Scientists started investigating this issue, and found that when there is increased level of testosterone in pregnant female in the essential moment of embryo development, it influences sexuality of animal. Higher level of testosterone can be result of stress. To quickly prove/disprove this theory scientists took hundred chicken eggs (because quicker cycle of life than cows), made little harmless hole in each of them, and using syringe with needle, added some precisely measured amount of testosterone. Result was that 100% of newly born chickens were homosexual regardless of their gender.

Homosexual people, LGBT, gays and lesbians, deserve tolerance (like any other living beings) and acceptance (especially from family members).

 

[pavelcherepan]

5 hours ago, Sensei said:

Initial post can be interpreted as hidden homophobic.

It is only your far-fetched assumption. There's not enough evidence to suggest the OP is indeed homophobic. 

Personally I think that when you see discrimination against any social group, you report it to mods and they deal with it, but until there's a definite case for such, we should just stick to science instead of becoming a bunch of easily offended social justice warriors. It's a science forum, duh.

Edited October 20, 2018 by pavelcherepan

[poetonbicycle]

10 hours ago, Sensei said:

To quickly prove/disprove this theory scientists took hundred chicken eggs (because quicker cycle of life than cows), made little harmless hole in each of them, and using syringe with needle, added some precisely measured amount of testosterone. Result was that 100% of newly born chickens were homosexual regardless of their gender.

Can you please share the document or link to related documents of this experiment? Thank you.

10 hours ago, Sensei said:

Can homosexuality being prevented in offspring by genetic modifications? No.

I am not a medical professional, the only knowledge I have about biology is from high school and internet searching. I have some thought on it, it could just be a stupid idea, but I'll really appreciate your insight on it.

As you stated, the testosterone level in embryo affects the sexuality of an offspring. Can this experiment be done? First, the testosterone level of a heterosexual embryo is noted (Just for calibration of testosterone level). Later in an embryo of a homosexual male gene (which is created using an assisted reproductive technique) testosterone level is measured and it is adjusted to the calibrated level. Will this increase the possibility to have heterosexual offspring? If you think I should educate myself on some topics before coming to this question, please suggest.

Edited October 21, 2018 by poetonbicycle

[pavelcherepan]

1 hour ago, poetonbicycle said:

As you stated, the testosterone level in embryo affects the sexuality of an offspring. Can this experiment be done? First, the testosterone level of a heterosexual embryo is noted (Just for calibration of testosterone level). Later in an embryo of a homosexual male gene (which is created using an assisted reproductive technique) testosterone level is measured and it is adjusted to the calibrated level. Will this increase the possibility to have heterosexual offspring? If you think I should educate myself on some topics before coming to this question, please suggest.

Many animals, like dolphins or bonobos don't discriminate and engage in sexual relationships with either sex as a form of social behaviour. I doubt, that sexuality is genetically controlled, but then I'm not expert.

[mistermack]

On 10/20/2018 at 7:32 AM, pavelcherepan said:

Don't confuse happiness with sexual arousal.

Why not, if it makes you happy? 

 

On 10/20/2018 at 8:05 AM, Sensei said:

People learn how to hate from incompetent parents, incompetent teachers, incompetent politicians, and incompetent society,  etc. They are learning to be afraid of strangers etc. people...

Nationalists, racists, sexists etc. are teaching their children to behave the same like them.. To hate people from some other groups..

They are just feeding a natural instinct. Humans evolved as territorial apes, to fear and fight their neighbours for territory and resources. It's not all-consuming, we can get along, but we do have natural aggressive instincts, which don't take a lot of priming. 

[pavelcherepan]

13 hours ago, mistermack said:

Why not, if it makes you happy?

Because sexual arousal doesn't make one happy, the release of it does 

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, pavelcherepan said:

Because sexual arousal doesn't make one happy, the release of it does 

When you get to my age, sexual arousal WILL make you happy.  Anything else is a bonus. 

[Sensei]

Many years ago, there was performed "mouse utopia experiment". Search YouTube for this keyword to see movies about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

Rats/mice were put in hermetic building, with abundance of food. They started breeding without limits.

At the nearly end of the experiment, before final extinction, scientists noticed that they started having sexual intercourse with the same gender mice..

Overpopulation causes aggression, conflicts and stress. High stress level means high testosterone level in pregnant females. Which resulted in higher than normal amount of newly born homosexual offspring..

 

Edited October 22, 2018 by Sensei

[mistermack]

"is our response to be happy at something hardwired in DNA? Up to what level we can change it?"     

In a lot of instances, it is hardwired. Children make us happy. We of course are hardwired for that, otherwise none of us would exist now. Our ancestors would just have abandoned their kids. And it's exactly the same hardwiring that makes us keep dogs.  Dogs make people happy in exactly the same way as kids. Cats too. they even SOUND like babies when they want feeding. 

And sex does make you happy. Not just the physical sensation of the act of sex, but the whole sex experience of having a partner of the opposite sex. In your teens and twenties, there is a lot of status involved, you feel great if some beautiful creature that all your mates fancy is interested in YOU. I can remember actually feeling I was walking on air once, going home after spending the night with a beautiful girl that I had been a bit obsessed with for quite some time. We didn't stay together, but it was true happiness while it lasted. It's not just sex, it's a whole combination of things. 

If you have wanted something for a long time, you feel happy for a while when you finally get it. Most people spend their lives wishing they were really rich. For the few who win the lottery, they often report feeling happy for a brief period, and then they come back down, as they get used to the new circumstances. In evolutionary terms, you need that reward, to make you try again. But it can't be permanent, or you would stop trying.

[kozalak]

If you are in somewhere inappropiate -work place...etc- sexual arousal could be a source of anxiety or anoyyance rather than happiness. Or for any reason, simply the person could  find sexual arousal as negative thing for a moment.  It's not a good example. Feelings related to basic needs are not good examples for happiness merely by themselves, in my opinion.

But then I'm often confused about what people mean by happiness. Happiness is a momentary feeling, isn't it? If we are talking about general satisfaction with our position and situation in life, isn't that being content with what we have? And while happiness is what we feel about one specific thing for a moment, or for a series of things related together; being content is more permenant. 

And if we could modify dna, I'd prefer the latter. Making people more inclined to being content, sounds better than making them more inclined to happiness. Happiness feels like something extra and momentary. Constant happiness does not sound good at all.  

Edited October 23, 2018 by kozalak