Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Should we genetically engineer a better humanbody?


Scar

Recommended Posts

This Debate will be 1 v 1.

This Debate will focus on the For and against issue's surrounding genetically enginering A healthier and more appealing human Body.

First two people who register their Interest will then move into their Opening Posts. I will flip a coin to see which side each debater will take.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or problems original.gif

Good Luck , May the best debater Win thumbsup.gif

Edited by Scar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 24
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Universal Absurdity

    8

  • tigger

    8

  • BurnSide

    3

  • Scar

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

tigger,

This thread has been started specifically as a topic for debate between two yet to be named members. If you wish to participate in the debate, let the organizer know of your interest in your post, just don't state your opinion about the subject to be debated. Read the debate FAQ's pinned to the top of this category to familiarize yourself with the guidelines. Scar will undoubtedly delete your post as it doesn't really belong here.

MM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tigger,

This thread has been started specifically as a topic for debate between two yet to be named members. If you wish to participate in the debate, let the organizer know of your interest in your post, just don't state your opinion about the subject to be debated. Read the debate FAQ's pinned to the top of this category to familiarize yourself with the guidelines. Scar will undoubtedly delete your post as it doesn't really belong here.

MM

i believe i AM letting the organiser know of my interest by starting off a debate, therefore waiting for a rebuttle (if infact i am the lucky winner on being on the board as you so stoically put it) and as you say "two yet to be named members" no one has yet been named, and no other person has shown interest.... i cant see when or if another entity on this board pm's someone else now can i..... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay tigger your in thumbsup.gif

Out of interest, You intial post looked like you were commenting on the subject rather than registering an interest to take Part.

In Future Tigger , A simple "Im in" Will suffice thumbsup.gif

I have tossed a Coin And

UniversalAbsurdity will be Arguing For

Tigger Will Be Against

You are both asked make a maximum of five posts making up the body of their arguement, as well as one introductory and one conclusion post.

Tigger Since this is your first debate please take the time to read over the debate FAQ

FAQ

Good Luck To both of you thumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opener:

I will prove that genetic manipulation is definetly a positive move for the human race. If evolution is true, then it seems that we are at a standstill, considering that survival of the fittest no longer applies to the human race. The next logical step is to take evolution into our own hands, and gradually build ourselves a better, more efficent body, that is more resistent to disease, and random mutations (disabilities)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re-buttle

my object is to disprove the positive effects on genetic manipulation, and to show its downfall not only in the fabric of human existance, but society

It would, in theory, be possible to go much faster in the development of Homo Sapiens - to create super-strong men, or super-intelligent ones - but it is much more questionable whether this will in practice happen by genetic manipulation. For one reason, the interaction of human genes, especially those controlling intelligence, is so complex that it would not be possible - within the foreseeable future - to easily predict the outcomes. The super-strong might be subject to crippling auto-immune diseases. The super-intelligent might be impotent. Thus, the parents of the baby to be are more likely to worry about negative defects than positive advances; and this will result in considerable conservatism, in terms of opposition to any changes, at the level of the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the interaction of human genes, especially those controlling intelligence, is so complex that it would not be possible - within the foreseeable future

Impossible now is always possible in the future, science fiction movies are proving that all the time. Of corse attempts to alter the intelligence level of humans would be very far off in the future. But this is not the topic of the debate.

The super-strong might be subject to crippling auto-immune diseases. The super-intelligent might be impotent.

And the skeptics will be more open minded laugh.gif . Speculation, is just that. Throwing opposites together look good in a debate, and thats about it. Lets stick to the facts on this one, shall we?

the parents of the baby to be are more likely to worry about negative defects than positive advances; and this will result in considerable conservatism, in terms of opposition to any changes, at the level of the individual.

Genetic manipulation done before a baby is born is not the only kind of manipulation there is. Gene therapy for example in adults is used to deter hereditary conditions, as well as treat the paitent. Of corse genetic manipulation before birth would be left up to the individual, but as soon as there are a couple hundred people with perfectly fine, manipulated kids, the conservatisim will die down. Also as with any new technology, availability will be an issue at first. With time and perfection of tecniques, the technology will be readily available cheap and easy to anyone who would like it.

We humans have been involved in genetic manipulation for quite some time, and hazards proposed by skeptics have never been seen before. Evidence is seen in the multitude of dog breeds and the fact that corn grows more than 4'' long, among many other things.( i know that we were not actually going and manipulating genes physically, but the proucess would be similar because of the gradual changes)

So why not turn the table? why not make attempts at perfecting the human body? Sure we have a lot to learn when it comes to gene interaction but why should that stop the process alltogether? Just because there is a considerable amount of information about gene interactions that we need to learn, does not (by any means) mean that it should not be done. So why not start working on ourselves? We have been very successful in the past.

post-71-1088693830.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Impossible now is always possible in the future, science fiction movies are proving that all the time. Of corse attempts to alter the intelligence level of humans would be very far off in the future. But this is not the topic of the debate.

Genetic manipulation done before a baby is born is not the only kind of manipulation there is. Gene therapy for example in adults is used to deter hereditary conditions, as well as treat the paitent. Of corse genetic manipulation before birth would be left up to the individual, but as soon as there are a couple hundred people with perfectly fine, manipulated kids, the conservatisim will die down. Also as with any new technology, availability will be an issue at first. With time and perfection of tecniques, the technology will be readily available cheap and easy to anyone who would like it.

We humans have been involved in genetic manipulation for quite some time, and hazards proposed by skeptics have never been seen before. Evidence is seen in the multitude of dog breeds and the fact that corn grows more than 4'' long, among many other things.( i know that we were not actually going and manipulating genes physically, but the proucess would be similar because of the gradual changes)

We are not speaking of movies here, and that is of no relevance, movies are just simple thoughts played out by actors and cast members on a screen play, imagining what may happen if 'an evil doctor' got his hands on dna etc. We are talking about genetic manipulation of a human being. Still to this day, doctors do not know how the human brain works... they know what certain hemisheres control the areas of the body.. but dont know exactly how this confers to movement, emotion etc.

What you are putting forward here is that ppl will have to become human guinea pigs, in order to make our race stronger, and resistant to diseases. No person in their right mind would put their unborn child through the processes of having them put through this indignity. It will take many children to go through this process until 'the right one' is made, specifically to order. (Maybe just like what hitler wanted, a race of blue eyed, blonde haired children...the aerian race) and it will be even harder to find a person (woman) to put this 'thing' in her body. to allow herself to be a guinea pig also. but maybe with the correct 'funding' they will find some poor sap to use to their advantage

Many people are steering away from ge foods, not knowing of the consequences after eating it. what will it do to their bodies now, and in the near future. PLus that and the fact that plant cells are, not surprisingly, very different from those of humans. The nature of plant genetics makes it easier to insert and remove genes from the genome. In addition, plant seeds are accustomed to being exposed to harsh environmental conditions. Thus, plant cells can be relatively easily manipulated in the laboratory and then used to grow genetically modified crops.

With reference to animal genetic manipulation, it really hasnt been done in a lab, but breeds are interbred.. and family members are inbred too. Many dog breeds, cat breeds, and other animals that have been bred specifically to look a certain way, have extreme genetic defects.. from breathing problems, to prolapsing eyeballs, gastric torsions, problems with their hips, etc.. the list goes on.. all in the hope for a 'perfect breed' of animal.. which is no doubt not perfect at all. and has to be put down due to human error. is that what we will do if an error occurs with genetic manipulation of humans?

In effect, where in other animals it might be largely an economic issue, in humans such genetic engineering is a moral issue - bringing into question exactly what is human. The easy way out is not to pose the question - and this will, I suspect, be what happen over the first half of the 21st century. This will be reinforced by another human instinct, that of self-preservation. If we really could create a new race of super-humans, how many would want to consign ourselves - as a result - to the category of second-class citizens? In the short and medium term, I suggest that few, apart from fanatics, would choose to do so. In the longer term, however, it may be an issue with which humanity may be confronted. It was certainly seen as a very important issue by many of those involved in our research.

Scientific developments in this field have moved faster than we anticipated. It now seems that we will potentially be able to do almost anything we want to within the next 25 years. Even so, the 'commercial' developments will - as we anticipated - be set by ethical decisions.

Edited by tigger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not speaking of movies here, and that is of no relevance

Still to this day, doctors do not know how the human brain works... they know what certain hemisheres control the areas of the body.. but dont know exactly how this confers to movement, emotion etc.

If you're going to point the finger about relevance, i'd suggest you not mention the brain in this debate. We're not talking about advancing the human brain geneticly, we're talking about the body on this one mmmk?

And about my movie comment, i think you may have missed the point. Science fiction has the tendancy to turn into science fact.

What you are putting forward here is that ppl will have to become human guinea pigs, in order to make our race stronger, and resistant to diseases

That would be a very stupid extreme, to what i believe we as humans should do with the human body. What should be done is intense study of genes, mapping their interactions, and testing on lab rats to assure that we get the desired result.

No person in their right mind would put their unborn child through the processes of having them put through this indignity. It will take many children to go through this process until 'the right one' is made, specifically to order. (Maybe just like what hitler wanted, a race of blue eyed, blonde haired children...the aerian race)

You call it indignity, i call it our next logical step. And you keep referring to unborn children. I understand that this would bother you, but its not the only way to geneticly alter humans for the better. I refer to gene therapy again.

I dont believe it will take "many children untill the right one is made, specificly to order" Firstly because if its done after years of genetic study, there will be no mistakes, any side effects will already be well known and accepted before any manipulating is done. Secondly "to order???" i'm not arguing for vanity here. what should be done is strictly for the better of the human body, not appearance. Resistance to disease, better immune systems, more efficent bodily functions, longer life spans, all would do nothing more than better the human body.

About the hitler comment, I saw it coming as soon as i got my side assigned. Unfortunately for you, i'm not proposing that we wipe out anyone who is not 'pure' and who is not of a certain decent (blue eyes, blonde hair). Nor am i attempting to cleanse the world. I'm all for the better of ALL mankind, not excluding ANY race.

it will be even harder to find a person (woman) to put this 'thing' in her body. to allow herself to be a guinea pig also. but maybe with the correct 'funding' they will find some poor sap to use to their advantage

Its nice to know that you would refer to an unborn child as a "thing". Altered or not, a fertilized egg (embryo) is a human being.

Finding a woman to take on the pregnancy of a manipulated child will not be difficult. Test tube babies are done all the time, and the knowledge that you would be bettering the human race with your child would most definetly be incentive.

Funding? finding some poor sap? I strongly disagree with your insinuations. I highly doubt that when genetic research gets to the point that we are ready to have babies altered to have a better body, that the scientists doing all this work would have to pay some "poor sap" to do it (i assume you are referring to getting some homeless woman or otherwise helpless fool to do this, which is rediculous, any woman doing this would have to be in excellent condition, and health, to ensure the baby has every advantage)

With reference to animal genetic manipulation,.......all in the hope for a 'perfect breed' of animal.. which is no doubt not perfect at all.

I understand your argument here, i do have to disagree on some points. We are not trying to make 'the perfect animal', different breeds of dog are bred for a specific purpose, Unfortunately inbreeding is an option when it comes to doing this with dogs, which is a major cause of defects. This will not be done with humans.

In effect, where in other animals it might be largely an economic issue, in humans such genetic engineering is a moral issue - bringing into question exactly what is human. The easy way out is not to pose the question - and this will, I suspect, be what happen over the first half of the 21st century. This will be reinforced by another human instinct, that of self-preservation. If we really could create a new race of super-humans, how many would want to consign ourselves - as a result - to the category of second-class citizens? In the short and medium term, I suggest that few, apart from fanatics, would choose to do so. In the longer term, however, it may be an issue with which humanity may be confronted. It was certainly seen as a very important issue by many of those involved in our research.

How do morals bring into question "what is human?" I dont believe we're attempting to incorporate animal, or any other genes in with ours.

You are trying to use the self preservation instinct against genetic manipulation? This makes no sense to me. Evolution (if true) has aparently stopped or come to a slow creep when it comes to humans, unfortunately sickness, disease, and defects are not sucumbing to our evolutionary fate. Antibiotics are being made stronger and stronger, we have diseases that are incureable, There are passed on diseases and defects. Somehing should be done to put a stop to whatever can be stopped.

Consigning ourselves to "second class citicens" is an argument from the ego. In all respects, a genticly altered himan would look, act, and think, no different than a normal human being. The only difference would be better resistence to that which plagues us today (already mentioned above).

Any 'research' on this subject that ive seen on the net has been from "fanatics" on your side of the argument. Real resarchers do not post their findings on the internet, because people steal material and plagerize. This type of study, and research will be done strictly in labratories, with findings published in recognised scientific publications. There may only be a rare snipet or two available on the net.

Besides that, most of what I HAVE read on this subject has been opinions of those who fear change. Its funny that they are the only ones to say something, when the majority of people would not be bothered with this kind of research dont say anything at all. It seems the skeptics are only trying to spread their fear .

Scientific developments in this field have moved faster than we anticipated. It now seems that we will potentially be able to do almost anything we want to within the next 25 years.

Yes, but it will take much longer than that for actual changes in human genetics to take place. In these next 25 years, we have a lot of learning to do. It may take even longer to start the process of gradual changes. Regardless, it should be done, to ensure the longevity of the human race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

talking about the human brain has relevance, if you genetically modify a zygote, that has a family history of some kind of mental disorder etc, then relevance comes into fold. secondly, if this kind of technology does come in, of course people are going to want their children to look a certain way (especially if there is a history of obsesity in the family tree), and for the manipulation you are arguing for, this means they will have more muscle and less fat for a fitter body.

you cant alter an immune system, this is impossible. there will always be a new strain of flu, measles etc which will mutate, and again it is an evolutionary aspect, it comes down to survival of the fittest.

we are as humans, animals... and splicing genes, eradicating certain parts from the dna chains and replacing them with dna implanted with new information is infact making the perfect animal, or beings, if that makes you feels better. Animals (dogs and cats) are not always bred for a 'specific purpose' as you so eloquontly put. many of these new breeds that are manufactured have so many problems, that they are better off euthanized, because it is more humane to let them die, than to let them live. (sinueses in the vertebraes of rhodesian ridgebacks, prolapsing eyeballs in many of the short nosed breeds of dogs and cats, spinal problems in the longbody, short legged dog breeds, breathing problems, luxating patella's the list is endless)

My arguement in what is human, is what measure or what line do we take as what is human and what isnt? are we going to say that someone with downes syndrome is not human, someone who is a conjoined twin not human? who will be the person who says what is and what isnt?

evolution is happening all the time. albeit slow in the ways we look at it, but it is happening. self-preservation has been around for quite some time, and much of it, unfortunately was due to race issues. ppl believing that white ppl were above those of other ethnicities, making (for example) the african americans ride at the back of the bus, drink from other watering fountains, because (due to propaganda) they believed they harboured nasty 'viruses'... self preservation due to genetic manipulation would leave ppl wary.

anti-biotics are less resistant than they used to be, due to docters over prescribing them.. certain infections cant be treated anymore with antibiotics, and docters have to go to further extremes to make sure the infection is halted. no two people are alike, and in saying so.. who is to say that with the genetically altered humans, that they would automatically be resistant to diseases? would we need to use two genetically altered humans to procreate? what would happen if a genetically altered human, and a 'normal' human procreated?

it is nothing about fearing change, as change happens all the time.. it is about not knowing the research what is and has been done.. knowledge is power. and if ppl (being the generel public) want to know what is going on, then it should be readily available.. no 'snippets', no little titbits here and there... this would perhaps change ppl's views on the work that is and has been done, so to put their minds at ease.

if scientists wanted the research to be done, and done well, then dont you think they would collaborate together, and of course the tasks would be performed in a laboratory... any scientist willing to put their name, and skill behind this kind of work would only work in on... not in some back yard shed.

gene therapy for a single gene disorder might aim to replace the mutated copy of the gene with a normal one. but because gene therapy aims to alter only some cells in an individual (those affected by the genetic condition), and because it seeks primarily to relieve the suffering of disease, there are generally less ethical objections. nonetheless, there are still questions about the possible consequences of manipulating a few genes which may interact in complex ways with many others. in addition, there may be detrimental effects of the method used to introduce the therapeutic genes. for example, modified viruses are common vectors used in experimental gene therapy.

i do agree that there is a great deal of research and experimentation in this area, but there are, at this time, no cases of successful lasting, gene therapy treatments. with the main barriers to gene therapy are the access to the affected tissues and the possible consequences, the challenges of manipulating the human genome. what has been learnt is that human embryos do not react well to handling in the laboratory, and it is similarly difficult to manipulate other human tissues, because they generally cannot survive outside the body (nor can the body survive without them!). and even when this barrier can be overcome, as in the case of accessible cells like blood cells (for anemia) and lung surfaces (Cystic Fibrosis), it is a great challenge to make human cells accept engineered dna. with some experimental cases, it has been possible to introduce genes into cells for therapy, but the effects have always been temporary, because the cells react by turing off the altered genes or cutting them out of the genome. research in gene therapy is moving forward, and there are many new approaches being investigated but have not been proven clinically as they are all theoretical or experimental at this time.

the question is why do we need to protect the longevity of the human race anyway? look at how we are already destroying the earth... are we going to make ppl live longer so they can see its demise? dont forget, there are ice-ages for simple reasons.. survival of the fittest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You pointed out the relevance of your referring to altering the human brain, only after i had pointed out the irrelivance of two previous statements. Funny how it went from genes controlling intelligence, to which hemisphere controlls what, and finally your relevant statement. Unlike normal gene therapy, Viral protein carriers would not be used on the brain, because they are too big to get through the'blood-brain barrier' Other safer methods are used for any gene therapy on the brain.

Diseases such as parkinsons or alsheimers would be primary candidates for gene

therapy on the brain. There is more known about the brain than you have stated, The problem areas associated with these diseases have been studied intensely, when we are ready to move ahed with gene therapy in this part of the human body, no mistakes will be made, intelligence,and body controlling aspects of the brain will not be affected.

Obecity is not a vanity issue. It's a health issue. Certainly altering genes to rid humans of the obecity problem would not go hand in hand with "to order" children.(blue eyes blonde hair...hitler..you know, the negatives that you attempted to use for your argument)

Altering the immune system is possible. There are immune system disorders that have been successfully treated.

The recent successes in gene therapy by French scientists are indeed encouraging for this entire field of research. The French scientists were able to correct a genetic immune system disorder in three infants by removing a sample of bone marrow cells, infecting these cells with a virus carrying a corrective gene, and then infusing these "corrected" cells back into the patients. The corrected cells

then went on to divide and produce healthy immune cells. It helped in this case that the corrected cellswere healthy enough to survive and duplicate, while the cells in the patients that remained untreated quickly died out, leaving only the good cells.

2320' target='_blank'>Source Article

I do not know of any breed of dog that was not bred for a specific purpose. Even if it was as simple as companionship, or looks. Unfortunately we do not make dog breeds for the benefit of the animal, its for the benefit of man. For that, the animals do sometimes suffer, but not untill their purpose has been served, which is the reason we were involved in their genetic activity in the first place. Look what has been accomplished in our efforts to breed dogs for specific traits, countless animals each breed with its own purpose, no matter how vein, silly, or useful. All

without the slightest bit of knowledge of what we were doing with their genetics (besides the obvious traits that are plainly visable) Any genetic manipulation to humans will have well over a thousand times the care, and research that it took for any one breed of dog.

Your argument on what is human is preposterous. If you're a human, youre a human. there are no lesser humans, nor is there another species of human. A bit

of an extreme in this debate.

Likewise, its doubtful that geneticly altered humans would be any different than you or me, an edge on what plagues man today is the only difference there would

be. Another thing, people who suffer from debilitating diseases could be cured with genetic manipulation, with enough time perhaps there would be no more debilitating diseases. Do you honestly think that a doctor, who has been geneticly altered to not have the ailments that we as humans have today, would refuse his services to someone who hasnt? How could we possibly have an issue on what is human and what isnt when we have eyes? its plainly visable when you look at anybody.

Self preservation out of fear is one thing, self preservation due knowledge is completely another. Had people not been given propaganda about other ethnicities, it would have been a different story. Just as as genetic manipulation arises fears in some today, when the knowledge is more readily available, fears will subside, self preservation will prevail. After all, the only reason for genetic manipulations in humans would be for health and longevity. A healthier, better

body.

As for resistance to disease, there has not been enough study to determine if humans could be resistent to all disease. What could be done is the manipulation of how the human body produces antibodies, to give us an edge on illnesses. Also, as the bacteria, or viruses that cause the illness adapt and change, so does our own defense against them. With genetic manipulation, humans could go a long time-illness free. By the time any bacteria or virus has overcome all of our

defenses against it, altering our genes to overcome it should not be difficult at all.

Your question pertaining to altered humans procreating, although interesting, dosent really matter. Humans are humans, we're not changing that. As for the genetics involved I'm sure there would be no effect physicly visable. Genes are passed on, so whatever beneficial manipulation either parent had would be equally as beneficial to the child.

it is nothing about fearing change, as change happens all the time.. it is about not knowing the research what is and has been done.. knowledge is power. and if ppl (being the generel public) want to know what is going on, then it should be readily available.. no 'snippets', no little titbits here and there... this would perhaps change ppl's views on the work that is and has been done, so to put their minds at ease.

I'm glad we see eye to eye on this. The more i look up information on this subject, the more i find. I guess it takes a bit of interest to find research and test results on a science that will be more commonly used in the distant future. For now, as i stated earlier the research currently being done is published in recognised scientific journals and publications, which are not generally published on the internet. ( i would like to add that these publications are available to the public, you just have to have the interest in finding them)

What makes you think that genetic research is not being done by groups of scientists in labratories? Do you have any proof to suggest this? an article? a tidbit or snippet?

Research such as this is by no means being done in some backyard shed, by nameless chemists and physicists. Anyone qualified to study genetics for any use is probably working in a labratory for this or some other scientific purpose. If not, they are working in some other field, letting their knowledge and talent go to waste.

Gene therapy is a new science, still in the process of trial and error. Any voulenteers that undergo gene therapy are well aware of the risks involved, as well as the means of altering their genetics (the viral vectors used for implanting the gene)These individuals are making it possible to further study gene interactions, advancing our knowledge, and science so that it will be possible to make the human body better for the benefit of all.

i do agree that there is a great deal of research and experimentation in this area, but there are, at this time, no cases of successful lasting, gene therapy treatments.

I have posted an article that disagrees with this opinion of yours

Although you have a point about human embryos not responding well to handling in the labratory, or outside the womb. Altering a fetus is not the only way to manipulate genes. DNA is the same in every cell in the human body. Any serious defect could be altered before an egg is fertilized. Either sperm or egg could be modified to change the targeted gene.

True, genetic therapy is THERAPY, meaning it needs to be repeated, scientists are working on better ways to get the manipulated gene to be more readily accepted in older paitents.Younger paitents however, seem to take the changes better

'Theoretica or experimentall' i assume you meant that scientists were doing

experiments on animals to see if they get positive results to prove their theories. This is commonplace, without a process like this, there would be no science.

The longevity of the human race must be assured for obvious reasons

I believe you were the one who brought up the self preservation issues.

Regardless on what damage you think we're doing to this planet, we will never destroy it. It will always be home to humansThe biggest bomb that we have is only capable of destroying a city,not even one percent of the surface area of the planet. There is no way we could destroy it.

Oh, and i do believe we survived the last ice age that earth had there is proof in frozen wooly mammoths that still have arrows in them, as well as knife marks, and arrowheads stuck in the bones of mammoths that died before the iceage. Humans have proven themselves to be the fittest, the next logical step is to ensure that we stay there.

[EDIT]- the only editing ive done is to add spaces where my notepad did not paste correctly.

Edited by UniversalAbsurdity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
 

Whether or not i have taken my time to point out the relevance to the human brain is really of no importance as it seems to me you have little or no knowledge at all on genetic engineering... the brain, it's functions and malfunctions, (whether or not alzeihmer's is in the genetic make-up of a persons family) can only be controlled and the dna removed before the person in question is born.... genetic engineering can't be performed on a subject that is a person, and no longer a zygote... and even though docter's do know of alzheimers, there are still too many variable controls that goes into the fact that why some ppl will get this disease? so how can a protein be taken out if it may in fact not be there?

also with genetic engineering, many subjects have to be tested upon that is in the direct family, if a person is more prone to carry and pass on a genetic problem, to see where a certain protein 'lies' in the dna, so they know where it is to splice it out.

obesity is not a genetic problem, but a health problem.. it comes from ignorance and laziness.. ppl not willing to eat a proper and nutritious diet and exercise, but eat fatty foods, full of carbohydrates, and sit around.. some may have a lower metabolism, but this can be corrected without gentic manipulation.

my argument for a genetically altered human, that has had a new protein inserted into their dna is of quite some relevance.. how is this going to affect a new being when they procreate..? will it cause some gross mutation because the dna from one person, cannot read the dna from another? for example, certain strains of maize that were developed, were found to be poisonous to insects that ate it, but when those strains cross-polinated with other varieties of wild and domestic maize, the relevant genes were passed on in unintended ways (link)

the reason why i argue so strongly with the dog and cat issue of breeding them for a specific purpose, is because i have seen first hand the pain and suffering they go thru to look a specific way.. and yes, they are made that way for a human justification, just as genetic manipulation will be for man's benefit.. so they will feel better about themselves to produce a genetically perfect human, that is not natural

also my arguement as to what is human may seem perposterous to you, but you are taking away what is human.. humans have genetic problems (as does any other breed on this earth i am well aware of), you are taking away a fibre of morality, and saying that a person having downs syndrome is not classed as human, so we have to take away this part in the dna so that these ppl who may be recessive carriers (that may pass this gene on) of the gene can have children that fit more snugly into society.. i have eyes, i see, but i also have a heart to, and sympathy.. how are ppl with certain genetic problems going to feel when others (being geneticists and docters) say "don't worry, we can take this part of the dna away, so they (the children)won't feel like a lower citizen of society". ppl with genetic problems have no worries in todays society, as there are many services that can help them, if there problems are greater than that of a more able bodied person

the only way to help the human race live longer, is to slow down a little, or a lot, depending on which way we look at things.. every body of water on the earth is polluted to some extent, this can't help a genetically modified person if they are eating fish from the sea that has been poisoned.. the air we breathe is contaminated by pollutants, even the products we use on our body is being taken into the cells, and corrupts them.. which can lead to cancer.. and other illnesses. genetically modifying a person/s make-up, will not necessarily make them live a longer healthier life... you are just looking at the simple take, which could make it the crutch off problems

it is a little unintelligent to think that the planet earth will never die.. no, not in our lifetime, or children's lifetime.... it may take many millions of years. but with life, there is death, so of course one day the planet will die, and maybe then, we will have inhabited mars, or some other unfortunate planet, that can be raped by the greediness of humans, so it can be used to their full advantage (i spoke nothing before of using a bomb to destroy the earth, so i dont know where that idea came from, it is quite perposterous) .. the sun, could infact become a super-star, which over years, grows and envelopes the surrounding planets, before it collapses back in on itself

i gave the ice-age as an example of a survivor story, yes.. the neanderthals of the time did survive that time.. but their physiological make-up helped them through this adversity.. humans have changed with the earth (darwin's theory).. even though an ice-age would take thousands of years to come about, i doubt whether we would survive it again, which in turn comes to survival of the fittest once again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thank you tigger for pointing out that we have much more work to be done in understanding protien interactions, this was going to be my next point. Genetic manipulation for building a better body should not be preformed untill all the protein interactions are mapped, and any effects are well known. You said it yourself, it'll be at least 25 years before we know just what we can do. It will be longer before we know what will happen when we do it.

if this kind of technology does come in, of course people are going to want their children to look a certain way (especially if there is a history of obsesity in the family tree), and for the manipulation you are arguing for, this means they will have more muscle and less fat for a fitter body.

obesity is not a genetic problem, but a health problem.. it comes from ignorance and laziness.. ppl not willing to eat a proper and nutritious diet and exercise, but eat fatty foods, full of carbohydrates, and sit around.. some may have a lower metabolism, but this can be corrected without gentic manipulation.

Would you make up your mind?

You misunderstood, about man's benefit. I understand your worries, having seen dogs and cats suffer, but we did not in any way have their best interests in mind.

What makes you think that we wont have our own best interests in mind? It seems we would not have to change a thing, as that is always what we are striving for.

saying that a person having downs syndrome is not classed as human, so we have to take away this part in the dna so that these ppl who may be recessive carriers (that may pass this gene on) of the gene can have children that fit more snugly into society..

A person with downs syndrome, (or any other debilitating disease) is no less human than anyone else. Why should they be secluded from society?

Genetic manipulation for the better of all mankind is inevitable. These next 100 years or so will be the biggest turning point in the history of man. It could go either way. If we are to survive (especially in the earth scenario given by you) we will have to leave this planet one day. Why let what plagues humankind here affect our long term future? Why not ensure that those who we send to colonize space stations, and possibly other worlds are better suited for longevity (Freedom from disorders, and knowledge of how to correct future problems) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
What makes you think that we wont have our own best interests in mind? It seems we would not have to change a thing, as that is always what we are striving for.

you talk about not changing a thing... but 'things' have to be changed for a better genetically enhanced body do they not? i am not saying in any sense at all that ppl with genetic problems are more or less of a human than the next, more able bodied person.. but to take this so called problem away, makes them segregated, and a lower class of human, and there-in lies one of the many problems

i think this will pull at many fabrics of the human society, moral being one of them. even if this technology did come to hand, and ppl were genetically modified, you've got to ask yourself how many years, and ppl will we have to go through to get the right speciman.. so we know for sure, the job has been done correctly? and even if it was, who's to say that if we left our planet for another, that through evolution etc, we wouldnt have more debilitating diseases that our genetically modified bodies couldnt cope with?

there are far too many extenuating circumstances that will take into effect with genetic engineering. some we know of, many we dont have a clue on (so it will be fly by the seat of our pants, and hope like hell the right thing has been done) for us to even be tweaking with what binds us together as a society of people.. i dont think it is our best interest at all, it will breed fear and greed and this sort of technology, if it comes to fruition it will be out of reach for the normal work-a-day joe person, third world countries etc, where a lot of genetic abnormalities occur.

genetics occur for a reason, be it the evolutionary survival of the fittest, or what ever you like to name it... but to increase evolution, if that infact is what we will be doing.. wont that increase the possibility of the demise of the human race? i think its best we leave pandora's box closed, because if we were to open it, we dont know what we might get out of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you talk about not changing a thing... but 'things' have to be changed for a better genetically enhanced body do they not?

Did you read my post? Any of them? I'm arguing for change! Genetic manipulation would bring much change, for the better.

Posted on Jul 30 2004, 04:21 AM

saying that a person having downs syndrome is not classed as human, so we have to take away this part in the dna so that these ppl who may be recessive carriers (that may pass this gene on) of the gene can have children that fit more snugly into society..

Posted on Aug 19 2004, 01:37 AM

i am not saying in any sense at all that ppl with genetic problems are more or less of a human than the next, but to take this so called problem away, makes them segregated, and a lower class of human

Are you getting information from multiple sources? It seems you contradict yourself alot.

How do you figure on that? (2nd quote) It seems what you are saying is:

Little johnny has down syndrome, he dosent play with other kids much, and requires alot of time, care and effort to maintain. One day he will grow up and have to live in a home with many others like him, seperated from all the rest of society because he cannot fit in. UNLESS! we alter his genes a bit, find what is wrong with him and make it right, so he can join in with society. He can have friends, get a job and support himself. Imagine how good he will feel without his disability!...... Nah, dosent sound like a good idea to me. better not, It would make him less of a human. huh.gif ( i know you said it would make them segregated, but i had a hard time fitting that into the interpertation, it made no sense)

ask yourself how many years, and ppl will we have to go through to get the right speciman.. so we know for sure, the job has been done correctly?
It seems to me that lab rats have done a remarkable job at doing this for us. That is what they are for us, test subjects or "specimen(s)" as you so eloquently put it.

who's to say that if we left our planet for another....we wouldnt have more debilitating diseases that our genetically modified bodies couldnt cope with?

Perhaps taking the knowledge and technology of genetic manipulation with us might be a good idea. We should probably bring doctors too... never know when you'll catch a cold.

there are far too many extenuating circumstances that will take into effect with genetic engineering. some we know of, many we dont have a clue on
And we've both made it clear that it will be at least 25 years before we know what can be done. This will most likely include a mapping of proteins(example) and their actions/reactions with each other, which would be the root of any problem that occurs due to genetic manipulation. With knowledge, the right things can be done and alterations to genes will go without problem.

if it comes to fruition it will be out of reach for the normal work-a-day joe person, third world countries etc, where a lot of genetic abnormalities occur.

Hardly out of reach to the regular joe, genetic altering is not an expensive process, no operating, no large amount of doctors are needed. Genetic defects are diagnosed, The inactive viral protein carriers (for now, studies are being donr for alternate ways of administering protein changes) are injected, you are kept for a period of time to ensure safety, then you go. Simple and inexpensive. Third world countries will continue to recieve as much free medical attention as they have been. People wont change, genetics will.

but to increase evolution, if that infact is what we will be doing.. wont that increase the possibility of the demise of the human race?
Evolution works backwards? If evolution is correct, it is the only reason that any species- man or animal- is still here. Really, i dont quite understand your way of thinking.

There wont be a "pandora's box" if we first make sure we have a working knowledge of every part possible, and how each reacts with the other parts. The future may be scary to some, but then again i was afraid of the dark as a child. now i cant sleep with the lights on. Change is good. Especially well thought out planned, studied, examined, tested change. original.gif

My edit was to combine a previously broken quote

Edited by UniversalAbsurdity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

i have all of your posts u.a., and it seems you are the one contradicting yourself, and cutting and editing my posts to suit your own agenda... it is you, not i, in favour of genetic engineering, and you are the one who seems to think that ppl with a genetic condition is of a lower class than those who have a seemingly perfect dna set-up.

another thing that has to come to hand here is spontaneous genetic malformation... this can happen at any time, and in no way can be predetermined by a scientist, and may happen more frequently, if we were to play god as such, by dappling in ppl's genetic hardware.

i do how-ever disagree with you very strongly on the fact the the average and below average paid person will not be able to afford such a luxury... look how expensive it is now for ivf.. it costs thousands of dollars for ppl tp try and implant a zygote into a females uterus, and thats if it works... think how much more expensive this kind of technology will be, as more work will be involved to make sure that it is a "pure" zygote, free from any abnormalities (they think....)

evolution happens at a very gradual and very slow rate.. so that a species develops with its changing environment. to increase our evolution, which is something that could happen when tampering with dna, a change comes about and so suddenly, who knows what can happen?

we have evolution for a reason... it is survival of the fittest, every species has it, and for the reason that those who are strongest survive. it may seem harsh, but it is nature

ps the reason why you were and still are scared of the dark, is the way you were perhaps brought up (sorry).. the way a parent brings a child up to think that a boogey man is under their bed, poisons them from all that there is in the world, it tarnishes a once untarnished precious little mind, and that is sad. parents, and ppl in general shouldnt instill their phobias on fragile, malleable young minds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and it seems you are the one contradicting yourself, and cutting and editing my posts to suit your own agenda...
I have not contradicted myself once, you've done so twice, all i did was point it out. My own agenda is to prove that genetic engineering will be beneficial to all mankind. When making a reply, i quote what it is i'm referring to, so there is no confusion. Sorry to hear that this bothers you

and you are the one who seems to think that ppl with a genetic condition is of a lower class than those who have a seemingly perfect dna set-up.

On the contrary, i have not referred to anyone with DNA/genetic problems as a 'lower class'. Any statement made about people with problems, were just that, they have problems. It makes them no less of a human, as i have stated before.

another thing that has to come to hand here is spontaneous genetic malformation... this can happen at any time, and in no way can be predetermined by a scientist, and may happen more frequently, if we were to play god as such, by dappling in ppl's genetic hardware.

This is exactly why there will be at least 25 years before we know just what can be done, again as i have stated before. Tests will have to be done on lab rats, generations will have to pass before any manipulating will be done on a regular basis in human paitents. By that time, techniques will be perfected, and should be cost-effective for the majority of people.

we have evolution for a reason... it is survival of the fittest, every species has it, and for the reason that those who are strongest survive. it may seem harsh, but it is nature

An edge for the fittest has always been the ability to survive, adapt and change. We as humans, bring change onto ourselves, quite a bit more drastic change than mother nature inteded (i am referring to our enviornment here) If we cannot adapt naturally to changes, currently being the fittest, why not ensure adaptability? we will have the knowledge to do so, we will have the means to do so. For milenia, evolution has worked blindly, and aparently gave us the ability to think, study, and adapt our enviornment to ourselves, Why is genetic engineering a better healthier body not the next step? after all it was evolution that got us as advanced as we are.

Perhaps that was the reason.

Nothing evolved because of something it could do but chose not to.

ps the reason why you were and still are scared of the dark, is the way you were perhaps brought up (sorry).. the way a parent brings a child up to think that a boogey man is under their bed, poisons them from all that there is in the world, it tarnishes a once untarnished precious little mind, and that is sad. parents, and ppl in general shouldnt instill their phobias on fragile, malleable young minds
I'm sorry, but you dont know me or my parents, if you read a bit closer you would see that i was once afraid of the dark, but now i cant sleep with the lights on. All that tells me is you dont pay attention to what it is that you are reading, a point further made by your contradictions in earlier posts. As for your assumptions with my parents, they are both deaf, they cannot hear, cannot speak, due to this, they never heard of the bogey man or any thing similar. They never said anything to me to prompt any fears. My fear of the dark as a child was brought on by no one but myself.

You obviously missed the point in my comment about fear of the dark. Otherwise you would have commented on what it was, as opposed to off topic assumptions that did nothing to help you in this debate. By the way, the point was in the next line down

The future may be scary to some, but then again i was afraid of the dark as a child. now i cant sleep with the lights on. Change is good. Especially well thought out planned, studied, examined, tested change.

I see that you had nothing to say about this. I wonder why.

This is my last post allowed on this debate. In closing, the point was clearly made. Genetic engineering is the next logical step in human evolution. Otherwise we would not become capable of doing so. Can you prove otherwise? I think not.

The only points strongly debated by you were points prompted from fear of the unknown. Its going to be a long time before genetic manipulation is commonplace, by then, genetics and protein interactions will be well known. There will be nothing to fear, and your arguments will mean nothing as well.

tigger, it has been fun. thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the future if judges could wait until The Debate Organiser or Saruman posts that the debate is finished, it would be appreciated. grin2.gif

Lottie, i feel the judging is a little pre-mature since the debate is not over, so i've deleted the judging post. Thank you. original.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

where as i have made two typegraphical errs, and i do realise that (on obesity, and your post on your parents), i have pointed out to you, that you have also erred... to which you seem a wee bit miffed.. i am not bothered by making a mistake, not in the slightest, it is human to err, but perhaps you will take this part of the genome out too, so ppl wont make mistakes?

you have not intentionally labelled ppl with genetic malformations as lower class in so many words, but to change the genetic make-up of ppl, just because they may have some child with a malformation in fact proves that you do think they are different, and need to be changed to fit more snugly into society.

you also seem unaware of what spontaneous means... it means this, and i quote

Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated. Spontaneity happens naturally, without any reason... how can you say that with "25 years before we know just what can be done, again as i have stated before. Tests will have to be done on lab rats, generations will have to pass before any manipulating will be done on a regular basis in human paitents. By that time, techniques will be perfected, and should be cost-effective for the majority of people."? genes will mutate, there is nothing that can be done to stop this, no matter how much research is done..

A body does not choose to adapt to a certain environment, it does so naturally. to fit into the order of life.. if a person cannot naturally adapt to an environment, then i'm sorry but tought luck.. to ensure that the human race is a strong and viable race, the weak must perish to ensure that the strong thrive. whats the point of implanting a genetically engineered ova, into a body that wont be able to support it? it will only make the new life forming within weak also.

the reason why i dont always pick up on certain comments in your posts is that i dont believe they will mean anything to add to my rebuttle, i apologise for not reading properly your last post. but all parents do make errs too, (as does the rest of the world), be it conciously or subconciously, and it forms the way we are today as ppl..

you are obviously a very arrogant man to think that a persons view on a topic means nothing, and it shows also in the way that your comments come across. how can you think at all that a persons arguements mean nothing? everyone's arguements have validity, and just because they dont suit you, and your lifestyle does not mean that they cannot be justified and represented

genetic manipulation will be the downfall of human society and is no benefit to humans. change may be good, but nature is greater, and it is nature that documents the way we live, no matter how much scientists like to 'fiddle' with the human body, nature always takes over and triumphs in the end

cheers universal... the fur has flown lol, take care

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you both for a truely great debate! I'm very impressed with how this one went with the both of ya. grin2.gif

And now it's off to the debate judges. Thank you again! thumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Damn what an amazing and long debate!

Great job both of you!

Debater 1: Universal Absurdity

Relevancy:8

Countering:9

Style:7

Persuasiveness:8

Total:32

Debater 2: Tigger!

Relevancy:6

Countering:8

Style:7

Persuasiveness:7

Total:28

Edited by AztecInca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lottie

What a great debate! You both did really well thumbsup.gif Here goes.. this is not easy!

Debater 1: Universal Absurdity

Relevancy:8

Countering:8

Style:7

Persuasiveness:8

Total:31

Debater 2: Tigger!

Relevancy:8

Countering:8

Style:7

Persuasiveness:9

Total:32

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow..... This was a great way to start the day...

Debater 1: Universal Absurdity

Relevancy:8

Countering:8

Style:7

Persuasiveness:7

Total:30

Debater 2: Tigger!

Relevancy:7

Countering:8

Style:7

Persuasiveness:6

Total:28

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And the results are in.

First off, thank you both Tigger and UA for such a fine and successful debate, it's been awhile since i've seen such a good one go all the way though.

Tigger, you scored a fantastic average of 29 points which is a great score.

UA takes the cake with only a couple extra marks ontop of Tigger and a total average of 31 points.

Thank you both once again for taking part! thumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.