Transgenics and human enhancement

[jwintons]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Samildanach)
death doesn't have to be for all if the environment is big enough to support an unlimited number of biological units. eg space. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Sam, the environment is not big enough to support an unlimited number of biological units! The first lesson in any economics or environmental course is that resources are scarce and finite.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Samildanach)
If you look at micro-environments such as island environments which are in effect isolated 'mini-natures' they get along quite happily with just death between predators and prey as a pastime. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

No they don't! Even the smallest island has a vast array of death, predators, and prey: termites that feed of decaying trees. Birds that visit to eat seeds from trees. Crabs and other sea animals that live on the beach and shore who eat one another. The fish who live near the shore who feed off one another... the list goes on.




</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Samildanach)
As for nature being a malicious untamed force standing in the way of human progress.....for a lot of our history thats exactly what it was and to some extent continues to be. I accept there is no esential guiding force behind nature that is malicious but its essential effect on our culture has been a selection pressure to avoid getting caught in the negative extremes thus forcing us to progress as a race to the point where we are now. Look at your car or house if you want an example. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

What are you talking about!? The notion that nature is just an obstacle of human progress demonstrates a total lack of knowledge on the issue. What do you think we have used to acquire the house and car? the Environment! Stop thinking of the environement as something that is seperate from us. We are a part of it and everything that humans have gained has been taken from the natural world.
What is your point for godssakes??!

It is difficult to discuss this issue with you when the facts that you produce are flat out incorrect. I think that we need to alter this debate by introducing evidence, because neither of us will understand the other's argument otherwise.

[Samildanach]

First of all your replys demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what I was talking about. If you look at the first comment you criticize, the example of an unlimited environment is "SPACE" you know that large thing you see when you look up....key clue it has stars in it. That is for ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES capable of sustaining unlimited biological units if we could engineer them to live in it.
Two with regard to microenvironments if you read it more carefully you have just supported my point.
As for nature being an obstacle to human progress....I mean come on how can you think otherwise. Through out our evolution it provided us with a challenge much the same as predators did. Learning to avoid anything that can kill you evolves you as a species. What did we use to aquire the house and car? our brains..of course, as soon as we begun to manipulate atoms we alter the environment and it becomes artificial....ie house and cars don't naturally occur so they most definitely were NOT aquired through the environment they were aquired through the deliberate manipulation of natural materials.
I make a clear distinction between a natural earthly environment and one that humans have clearly influenced by applying their inventions to it. You reasoning is flawed jwinstons. Read what I wrote again but read it more slowly next time, you might understand it better if you consider what I'm saying rather than trying to pull my arguments to pieces while not understanding them. Before you criticze something understand it. Thats kind of a key element in being able to make intelligient debate.
As for my point, my point is we as a race should use whatever technologies are necessary to get off this mudball and start to engineer ourselves and our own environments rather than being subjected to this limited ecosphere....in short lets take our future by the both hands and get started with self directed evolution.

[dalin]

It's 'replies'. Sorry, I'm a stickler for spelling. hehe

Back on topic..

Nature is necessarily an obstacle to human progress, and that of all other species for that matter. The notion of Survival of The Fittest expresses the fact that if a creature doesn't struggle against natural forces (weather, predators, etc.) it dies out. However, nature itself also provides means for survival that we can utilize (e.g water, food, and more recently oil, etc.). Nature is a dynamic system in which each element has a check. Consider some pest (could be anything) whose population is kept at a reasonable level by predators.

Now the prospect of transgenics brings hope as well as concern. On one hand we can detect and address hereditary defects/shortcomings, such as predisposition to diseases. How this manipulation would in turn affect the systems we inhabit, it's difficult to say. But we live in such artificial environments nowadays that the effects could be hardly noticeable. I think the social implications are worth more investigation.

Someone mentioned the availablity of transgenics to all people. True, with time the technology will eventually trickle down to the masses. But after how long? I think the idea of being able to buy an advantage is horrible. If transgenics does become available, it should be made available to all at once, or at least a significant portion of the populace (coverage by Medicaid possibly?)

[Pooeypants]

You can delete your own posts, I don't seem to have a delete button for others, only edit...hmm

I hate to admit fear of the unknown, but here goes. Once we start dabbling with our essential makeup, who knows where we'll end up? I'm not saying that should stop us, just make us proceed with caution. Of course, transgenics WILL begin to impact our lives in succeeding generations,whether we as individuals approve or not, because there will be those willing to take the risk with embreyos, cloned or otherwise, and eventually with their unborn children. And of course those with the money will have access first. Perhaps "struggle against natural forces",those with the genetically enhanced capacities, will inspire those who find themselves left behind to take advantage of some of the monetary resources our country has to offer, in the way of grants and scholarships, and choose to study transgenics for themselves and their family line. Then they could not only improve their monetary success, but would effectively be able to "evolve" their subsequent generations. Just a thought.

[van]

hmm... Gattaca..

[Samildanach]

There is the trade off that while access to transgenics technologies will be only for the rich at first they will also be taking at least some of the initial risk to prove these things are viable and provide significant advantages to make it worth adopting on a large scale

[Sandy]

I bred for brains! My entire family were musicians and I figured it was time someone became an intellectual. Both of my girls were educated in a very academic series of schools with no television in the home. Their lives were filled with art, music and Shakespeare. I had little to do with how they matured other than to guarantee they knew the rules of behavior. Both girls are University Graduates who speak 3 languages and between them have visited every country in the world.

This kind of engineering seemed to work for us.

[Samildanach]

Thats all very well Sandy but we are talking about shifting the limits of human evolution not training ourselves to the limits of current evolution. How would you liked your girls to have the memory to be able to have learned thirty languages and the co-ordination to be able to play every instrument ever created.
Thats the kind of dreams we are playing with here shifting the ultimate limits on humans by re-engineering their basic architecture.

[Sandy]

You have to remember I was breeding kids in the 50s when human enhancement meant a face lift. I thought I was helping evolution!

[van]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Samildanach,)
There is the trade off that while access to transgenics technologies will be only for the rich at first they will also be taking at least some of the initial risk to prove these things are viable and provide significant advantages to make it worth adopting on a large scale<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

you'll probably find that the rich won't have to worry about that, because the technology will be made available to "needy" people first (aka guinea pigs). it'll be along the lines of "well your son is going to die, or we can trial this new procedure on him. your choice." that's how they'll make it all work, and then it'll be available to the rich who want it to further increase the gap between themselves and the working class.

probably.

[Samildanach]

I did say SOME of the risk...even if it works well in a trial group there are still potential long term effects to consider.