Genetically Modifying Humans

[GeminiinimeG]

Ok basically what do you guys think about genetically modifying humans. Wouldnt it be great to modify our genes and have the eyes of a falcon, the Immune system of a crocodyile, and perhaps be able to grow limbs that we lose for one reason or another? Perhaps be able to run at extreme speeds like cheetas or even have a litle cute tale like a money

[AzurePhoenix]

Sure it'd be great. Can't do it though. We have nowhere near the knowledge need to even fully understand those things, much less manipulate them on such a large, delicate scale.

[GeminiinimeG]

actually human DNA is just a litle more complicated than other plant or animal DNA we do have the knowledge to do it dude

[AzurePhoenix]

What we don't have is the knowledge need to make all the parts fit together, to properly control every hormonal reaction needed throughout a lifetime. All of that is insanely complex and delicate, and has to be discerned beforehand, with lots, and lots of simulations, mostly because people wouldn't be happy with all of the many horribly disfigured semi-human clones that would result from the early stages of testing

 

I mean, look at how many clone-embryos we have to go through to get the successful birth of just one dog (Who is known today as Snuppy). We're still way off "Dude"

The researchers transferred 1,095 dog embryos into 123 females, inducing three pregnancies. One fetus miscarried, and one clone died of pneumonia after three weeks.

[Mokele]

Think of it like this: We know how a jet airliner works. We know how a Ferrari works. But just because we understand the parts does *not* mean we can put a jet engine on a Ferrari without extreme difficultly. The key is in the *interactions* of the parts.

 

Same thing here. We know *some* of the genetics involved (not all), but it's those innumerable interactions that make things so complicated.

 

Mokele

[Katana]

There are many factors that we don't either know or are capable of understanding. For anyone even sorta thinking how great it would be you must look at both sides of the coin. Dark Angel is the perfect example. ( a tv show on fox a couple years ago). But it pertains that she was always being hunted, never thought of as human. It may be great to have the super capabilities but not everyone is so open minded. Most in the US are even arrogant and judgemental.

When you modify a kid it makes me think of American Girl dolls. There's a kind where you can pick the hair, eyes etc...in my oppinion, totally making someone perfect takes all the fun out of life and our goals to learn.

[Bio-Hazard]

We aren't that far off.. I believe it took about 2000 mice death to make a mouse from two female mice.

 

So you've got about a 1/8000 chance probably to make a super-mutant human.

I do agree to the human hunt factor.. even the Vanilla Skies factor where humans with ESP become created and they have emotional breakdowns from all the mind reading. People would probably hunt them and make them sex slaves or just keep disecting them.. We can't just do it individually. Although eugeneics is a great idea, people would fight over the idea because they aren't special.

 

Even those who are more talented intellecutally take anothers job because of money. When people become aware of their life and surroundings and throw away materialistic possession, then perhaps we could work as equals.. but people won't work as equals..

 

Life isn't fun anways, I wanna be like Gene Starwind and explore space. If we could be better than we are now, the worst thing that happens is what happened in the Animatrix.

[rakuenso]

It's insane to think we can understand billions of years of evolution in 200 years.

[RyanJ]

It's insane to think we can understand billions of years of evolution in 200 years.

 

Well... if you think about it we don't.

For example we don't know how half the body works with any accuracy - if we knew exactly how our genes worked then we should be much better at understanding the human body.

We arn't even shure what a lot of the actual "code" does... We may know the sequences and how its put together but we still have a long way to go before we understand and can change the code with any accuracyQ!

 

Biology and genetics are fast changing subjects - they are always chaning, adding new ideas, removing old ones etc. Keeping up with it all can be a real pain!

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Helix]

 

Ok basically what do you guys think about genetically modifying humans.

 

 

 

Well' date=' that's like my answer for "what do you think about immortality?" I'm for it, obviously. But is it feasible? Right now that's a resounding 'No'. But even in the future I think the chances of the type of altering you're talking about it small, at best. For example::

 

Wouldn't it be great to modify our genes and have the eyes of a falcon, the Immune system of a crocodyile, and perhaps be able to grow limbs that we lose for one reason or another? Perhaps be able to run at extreme speeds like cheetas or even have a litle cute tale like a money?

 

 

Again, that would be amazing but that has a couple glaring flaws. Scientifically, that's not possible. When you say "eye" you mean our eye...yes that's a stroke of logic on my part. But when the body says "eye", it means the complicated network of blood vessels, retinal cells, rods, cones and partially dead epithelial cells (lens) that make up that eye. See? In biology it's not: face, arm, eye or even mouth. It's the basic blocks those are made of. So, scientifically, that's not possible (in the way you phrased it. We could maybe have altered eyes or something. Just not a falcon's. Out body doesn't think in those terms.)

 

From a moral point of view, that may not be possible. Look at stem cells. That's a viable technology yet it has made almost imperceptible progress in the States. Why? Moral (political) opposition. People will argue about the boundaries of humanity. That this is creating a new species. That's a large problem to deal with. Because at the end of the day, science is logical, fundamentalists are not.

[RyanJ]

From a moral point of view' date=' that may not be possible. Look at stem cells. That's a viable technology yet it has made almost imperceptible progress in the States. Why? Moral (political) opposition. People will argue about the boundaries of humanity. That this is creating a new species. That's a large problem to deal with. Because at the end of the day, science is logical, fundamentalists are not.[/quote']

 

Again another example of religions (and people who don't know what they are talking about most of the time) that limit the progression of society. Think how great it could be - your heart is defective get some stem cells and grow a new one with no need for regection - a prefect match to your own... What the hell is wrong with that?

 

it also remings me of theose stupid religions people who will not accept blood transfusions and then compline when they arn't allowed to ahev the opperations because there is a greater risk they could die... the reasons they wll not alow the transfusion? Apparently when the blood if removed from the body it is "dead" and "polluted"... stupid people...

 

Back to the moral point of view: is it moral to stop someone having a treatment that could save their life? I'd say not...

 

As for creating a new species - a load of crap again. We could say that humans evolv with every generation, nature improves upon its self. by their arguing chidren are a different species to the older adults... make any sence too you? If they continue to go along those lines then why not just say the children are suuperior due to their more advanced genes?

 

I don't get these people - same thing with GM vegetables, despite the fact it could save lives its immoral... stupid people who know nothing...

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[dttom]

I've also thought about this before, I think that's great if we can make it, but what hidder us is something about human morality.

[RyanJ]

I've also thought about this before, I think that's great if we can make it, but what hidder us is something about human morality.

 

True but don't they see in the end they are stopping peoples chances at surviving so now is that moral?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Conceptual]

Genetics are the templates of life but a cell is more than just DNA and a multicellular animal is more than just the sum of its cells. Humans can make their bodies do things it was not intended to do. If we pertubate the DNA within one set of cells, the whole body needs to integrate the change. This may result in slack somewhere else.

 

What is needed is a new approach that can better take into consideration multicellular integration. The brain of an animal appears to be the highest expression of the entire organism. The blood supply appears to be the base potential. It is not cooincidendal that nervous and circulatory tissue is everywhere within the body. These should create an hydrogen bonding potential gradient for all the cells of the body. The brain output is variable, while the blood potential is much less so. Picture these as the poles of a integrated circuit. Everything in the middle will help connect the potential.

 

The brain and consciousness can manipulate the DNA. For example, if one thinks of food they can make themselves hungry. This hunger feeling, if extended beyond natural, can be traced back to certain genes becoming more active, increasing the production of the specific mRNA and then the specific proteins needed to generate the enhanced chemical output rate required to feel more than naturally hungry.

[ecoli]

The brain and consciousness can manipulate the DNA. For example' date=' if one thinks of food they can make themselves hungry. This hunger feeling, if extended beyond natural, can be traced back to certain genes becoming more active, increasing the production of the specific mRNA and then the specific proteins needed to generate the enhanced chemical output rate required to feel more than naturally hungry.[/quote']

 

Actually, this is not manipulating DNA. While I can't do what you say, and indeed, I have never heard of anyone doing it (you should really source stuff like this - show a study) but for now I'll take your word for it.

 

Increasing the expression of the hormonal "hunger response" genes would not be considered manipulating DNA.

[RyanJ]

Actually' date=' this is not manipulating DNA. While I can't do what you say, and indeed, I have never heard of anyone doing it (you should really source stuff like this - show a study) but for now I'll take your word for it.

 

Increasing the expression of the hormonal "hunger response" genes would not be considered manipulating DNA.[/quote']

 

 

I agree with you - after conception your [acr=Deoxyribonucleic acid]DNA[/acr] is not alrered intentionally though exposure to certain things like carcenogens and cosmic radiation etc. can cause some unwanted changes in your [acr=Deoxyribonucleic acid]DNA[/acr]. The only way for your [acr=Deoxyribonucleic acid]DNA[/acr] to be altered is using some outside influence such as described above or by people modifying the genes at a really young age. (This is as far as I know anyway)

 

Not actaully 100% shure about that though as we don't really know a great deal about the [acr=Deoxyribonucleic acid]DNA[/acr] yet

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Conceptual]

You are both correct in the sense that the DNA does not physically change its base sequence during a consciously induced hunger reaction. However, the fixed DNA is still alterred with respect to its steady state genetic expression. Figure it out, there are genes connected to instincts, therefore if one can consciously manipulate the instinct out of a natural cycle one is also manipulating those genes. Causing mutations is a different matter unless the nervous potential also has an impact on gamete cell formation, which is very likely since nervous tissue is nearby.

[Mokele]

Actually, it's the reverse of what you said. Your body runs low on fuel, setting biochemical pathways into motion that eventually trigger certain nerves that produce what we call "hunger". The brain is slave to the genes, not the other way around.

 

Mokele

[dttom]

True but don't they see in the end they are stopping peoples chances at surviving so now is that moral?

 

Cheers' date='

 

Ryan Jones[/quote']

You have to understand that most of the human being in this world is shortsighted.

I've heard that male's DNA set is degenerating because of the Y-chromosome, though I'm not sure that is that true, but if this's true, women in the future may need to clone themseleves to maintain the existence of human being, however, cloning human is not allowed today(if we practise now, we may know more about that and the possibility of sucessful clones will become higher and higher). That's just like modiflying huamns.

[RyanJ]

You have to understand that most of the human being in this world is shortsighted.

 

So true... in the end these techniques will be used as they can save lives - the only thing immoral here is having the knowledge and not using it. Anyone agree with that?

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[dttom]

So true... in the end these techniques will be used as they can save lives - the only thing immoral here is having the knowledge and not using it. Anyone agree with that?

 

Cheers' date='

 

Ryan Jones[/quote']

However, if the outside pressure is too strong, you can't do a thing even there's a need to do so. So I think the first thing need to do is to change what most people think about modifying genes as well as cloning. Agree?

[RyanJ]

However, if the outside pressure is too strong, you can't do a thing even there's a need to do so. So I think the first thing need to do is to change what most people think about modifying genes as well as cloning. Agree?

 

Yea definatly. Worst thing is that most people that protest this stuff don't know what its like to have a child or someone close to them with ain incurable genetic dissease, I don't either and I hope I never do.

 

Most of these people also don't even know that cloning an genetic engineering actually are all about (I'm not shure I do either mind you ) - education is the first step to acceptance in this case I think

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Bio-Hazard]

Well, that's like my answer for "what do you think about immortality?" I'm for it, obviously. But is it feasible?

 

Yeah, but you're going to p*** off the gov. and the pope if you do it as an underground procedure. But if they don't find out.. and everyone works together....

 

This is why I'm trying to get into neural science, because I figure somehow we can speed up the learning process, exponentially. Like upgrading fromt pentium I to a pentium II

[RyanJ]

This is why I'm trying to get into neural science' date=' because I figure somehow we can speed up the learning process, exponentially. Like upgrading fromt pentium I to a pentium II[/quote']

 

I agree with that. If you can educate people about its benefits then with luck more will accept it and it can be practiced. There will still be some of those annoying "moral activists" though...

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[rakuenso]

You have to understand that most of the human being in this world is shortsighted.

I've heard that male's DNA set is degenerating because of the Y-chromosome' date=' though I'm not sure that is that true, but if this's true, women in the future may need to clone themseleves to maintain the existence of human being, however, cloning human is not allowed today(if we practise now, we may know more about that and the possibility of sucessful clones will become higher and higher). That's just like modiflying huamns.[/quote']

 

What's wrong with being shortsighted, altruism is a dead art anyways.

 

Why would women need to clone themselves? Cloning in it self doesn't have much a of therapeutic purpose unless your attempting to derive ESCs, which once again thanks to MHCs, would only work on the person who wanted the clone.