Assisted Evolution/Genetic Engineering

[Mr Skeptic]

I was wondering, what with me being kind of impatient, would it be possible to give ourselves a little boost rather than waiting around for evolution? What would be the best way to go about improving ourselves? Should we wait around, or take a more active role?

 

For example, there are a lot of shared structures we have with other critters. We could go hunting among them for improvements. What are the odds that we have the most efficient, say, mitochrondria? If we found a critter with more efficient mitochrondria, could we copy that to ourselves? Might we be able to copy a more efficient protein? What if we fixed the broken vitamin C pathway that we seem to have?

 

The second way I see is more direct genetic engineering. We are at the point where we can model proteins (albeit with great difficulty). Could we design more effective proteins? Or completely new ones?

 

I'd rather leave the ethical implications of genetically manipulating ourselves to a different thread, and keep this one for the practical side.

[iNow]

You could get quite a few ideas by watching the NBC program, Heros.

 

 

Save the cheerleader, save the world.

[Mr Skeptic]

You could get quite a few ideas by watching the NBC program, Heros.

 

 

Save the cheerleader, save the world.

 

While warping time and various other of their attributes would be fun, I would rather stick with doable improvements. Do you know any way we might genetically improve our race?

---

Also, I should mention that I would rather leave out Artificial Selection as it is a bit negative (deleting rather than creating) and would also have way too many ethical implications.

 

---

Also, I'm just looking for opinions, so don't be shy if you're not an expert.

[iNow]

Perhaps genetically engineer a greater predisposition toward social responsibility and care for others in the community.

 

 

That, and make bacon good for us.

[ecoli]

Perhaps genetically engineer a greater predisposition toward social responsibility and care for others in the community.

 

Nah... even this has too many moral implications. While there is such a thing as a altruism and kin selection, I don't think society or scientists should be able to decide this.

 

Entrepreneurship is something that resulted from selfishness, but rich CEOs and founders of corporation are some of the biggest donors to charities.

You have to get in order to give, I suppose.

[vampares]

I am fairly certain "stem cell research" is intended as a runner up to this concept. I have no doubt in my mind that an inferior or diseased outlook creates preservation pressure.

 

Given what I know about the present state of the genome I think many people would be eyeballing certain chromosomes for their own use. I know that certain group do obtain samples of DNA from the global population.

 

This displays the naivety someone who is f'd up has. I had grade school teachers who were this way. What you get is normalcy. Normalcy, 1) isn't all it's cracked up to be, 2) doesn't like illnormacy far more than illnormacy doesn't like it. Hate is dirty word. It is a disease that lives outside the body.

 

Also, I should mention that I would rather leave out Artificial Selection as it is a bit negative (deleting rather than creating) and would also have way too many ethical implications.

 

I think you are being more cautious than you need to be. This very concept presupposes terminations of test fetuses, especially if there is going to additions to the genome. With that in mind, what is wrong with an adjusted breeding selection? One that doesn't sterilize the population. Are there good ways to do this? You betcha! First employ RED tests at the intermediate school level. That would help genetic normalcy. It doesn't discriminate. It just tell a person who they should be looking for in a mate. Ace preservationist tactic.

 

Normalcy is not something that you get real hyped up about like the varsity QB or Aryan race. It's not a contest or a judgment call or something that can be cheated.

 

Normalcy solves real everyday problems. If I had were to shoot an apple off your head, and I didn't want to do that, and I was scared, I might close my eyes. At which point you may or may not (depending if youre blindfolded) realize that problems have not been solved, they have only been compounded dramatically.

 

There is a guy who works nights at the grocery store. He is in a wheelchair. A few days ago he said "he didn't like it". He is a young person and looking at him, I can't help but see myself in that position. I am the type of person who doesn't just wipe his brow and say "Thank God." If there is any possible way this could have been prevented -- artificially selected -- by law I think there ought to be a requirement.

 

For all of the resistance to this, there is a substantial public antibreeding pressure. It is rare that I ever hear an encouraging word to healthy individuals. Representations of "artificially selectable" couples in the media as happy traditional families would be a start.

 

The Elimination Factor (could make it a gameshow) is just as bad as attempting to alter genetics under the wrong auspices. Doing so is sure to lead to negative consequences. Some people live on these things. Do we not remove criminals from society? Prevent mad men from sabotaging our nations? Are people allowed to rape with impunity? -- why would anyone object to this? While the rapist may go to jail, it is he or she who owns the misdeed.

 

But where I think the resistance is, is in those who aren't bastards but know where they come from. This is an irresponsible motive that confuses financial/material normalcy with something more important. After all, what is there to be afraid of? I know the retards and p'a of this world aren't reading something like this on "scienceforums.net". No way in a million years. It will be a few of those who stand to benefit and need this sort of protection and order in their lives.

 

---

 

To elevate the genome I think both good and healthy breeding is in order. Other than that:

 

I think micro-studding males is an option. It reduces defects and ethnic tension. Especially on the small community level. It work with animals.

 

I think de-multi-culturalizing and ethic/common bond communities is an appropriate way to go. Not that out-breeding is bad. I think it is good. It takes in-mixing populations though. In America, we have lost the identities we inherited. What else is there?

 

If there is a repair that could be made to the human genome, I would be interested to hear about it. I don't think you'd have many takers.

 

To improve humans, tweak them, it would require experimentation. This means some sort of anti-tissue methods would be used. Debraining of embryos, etc. But isn't that an anti-affirmative artificial selection? I'd like to see science and policy that embraces the existing (and historic/ancestral) population rather than strays from it.