Transgenics and human enhancement

[Samildanach]

It strikes me as odd that transgenics with regard to human enhancement seems to be almost universally condemned by humanity as a whole. IMHO transgenics is one of our most promising tools to change the human form from being a weak vunerable lifeform to being somewhat chameleon like, ie being able to adapt to any environment through inherited characteristics regardless of where we get those characteristics from. After all genes are just code. Programmers generally don't have any qualms about grabbing code from other places if it fits what they need at the time (although you have to be careful with companies like SCO around :)) however the same principle surely applies.
Humans ie single cells that would develop into foetuses should be genetically edited as soon as possible to enhance desirable environmental survival characteristics as soon as they are researched.

[Impenitent]

become the mechanical ubermensch... the terminator was scary for a reason... self programming? lol... do you think they'd let you program yourself? a bunch of robo cops running about... we can rebuild him... 6 million dollar man? 6 trillion maybe... and what is the return on the investment?

[Samildanach]

Who said anything whatsoever about mechanical? I was speaking strictly in biological terms, and as for programming yourself....none of us do so nothing would change there. ROI is a faster turnaround on existing investment due to research increasing significantly not to mention the billions in license fees you could get for sucessful integration of animal genomes with human genomes. Imagine the license fees you could charge for an intelligence upgrade or a physical upgrade allowing abilities beyound current human capacity. Bill got himself rich off license fees...now its your turn. If they don't pay your licenses you stop giving them the customised enzymes which turn on the biological pathways which activate the new abilities.
Draconian but hey thats life.

[Impenitent]

improved through genes? that is the same as mechanical enhansement... it just bleeds... the problem is the same

[forecg]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
improved through genes? that is the same as mechanical enhansement... it just bleeds... the problem is the same<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

It is the same, but what's the problem? Is it wrong to choose a member of the opposite sex based on desired traits so that your children have them too? Is it wrong to sell glasses or hearing aids to people who have trouble seeing or hearing? It's true, transgenics really gives people the creeps and is only in its infancy, but is there any fundamental difference?

[NORMLperson]

The design between sexual preferences (because we have sex with the people whose traits we want in the next generation) and the technology that enables those with sensory deprivations (deafness, blindness) should be noted as two different topics. More notably, envirnoment plays a part in the development of any species in terms of their traits, and the word environment itself can encompass a large spectrum of locations where there are life systems. We'll focus on human environment and our systems of organization. That alone is not even a general topic because this world contains hundreds of different societies, beliefs and with that, different traits have evolved within different cultures, such as skin tone and body structure. This revitalization of the eugenics movement through its new euphenism called "transgenics" is perpetuating the idea of heirarchical values in terms of human traits. We all know the dangers of putting heirarchical categories on human traits with the destruction and lessons that past wars have left us with. Moreover, the access to this technology will, I predict, only be available for higher classes, leaving those without access in a 'stigmatized' placement. I'll close by inviting anyone to examine closely the physical traits of tribes that exist outside of the capitalist orbit and look at the strength, agility and speed of people who are raised without fastfood and television.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
improved through genes? that is the same as mechanical enhansement... it just bleeds... the problem is the same<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I think he's refering to genetic engineering and modification, totally different to mechanical enhancement as it can be passed on offsprings directly.

[ruiner]

no way, if you modify a human too much it will develop incompatibility with the mothers womb, one reason human skull and brain size never increased more is because it would get stuck at birth

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
no way, if you modify a human too much it will develop incompatibility with the mothers womb, one reason human skull and brain size never increased more is because it would get stuck at birth<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
True, and thats why human birth is so much more painful.

Perhaps if we grew them in artificial wombs...

[Samildanach]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
This revitalization of the eugenics movement through its new euphenism called "transgenics" is perpetuating the idea of heirarchical values in terms of human traits. We all know the dangers of putting heirarchical categories on human traits with the destruction and lessons that past wars have left us with. Moreover, the access to this technology will, I predict, only be available for higher classes, leaving those without access in a 'stigmatized' placement.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Transgenics is not just about perpetuating heirarchical values of human traits but also animal ones. I am not suggesting a less diverse more factory standard human model I am suggesting a continual upgrade process where new beneficial features and characteristics are added as and when we find them. As for the dangers associated with applying values to human traits...well its just a fact that some traits are more desirable than others. If you doubt me ask any human female who is going to select a mate, she will tell you what traits are desirable for her so to deny the self evident is pointless. As for these technologies being only available for the higher classes, you can use the filtering down argument for that one. What is expensive today is cheap tommorrow.

[NORMLperson]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Samildanach,)


Transgenics is not just about perpetuating heirarchical values of human traits but also animal ones. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Animals should not be included in trait modification because then we just break mother nature's cycle even more. We forget nature as we try to find the best method of nurture. Our resources can be better spent on getting the 'filtering down' process in full swing in terms of basic human liberties that some of us take for granted, such as access to a computer and the education to engage in a logical dialogue. We're getting excited already about altering our human bodies when we have forgotten to take care of the social body. Example, how does cosmetic surgery, for the purpose of vanity, solve anything within the sphere of our world's top problems, such as ecocide and global warming. Also, to assume that 'any female' would respond similarly to what is the 'ideal' traits in a mate is to assume the fact that men will do the same. With this, it is assumed that those who do not mate are those who are born with unwanted traits. But where do these unwanted traits come from? Certainly not from the 'mates with thee traits'.

[Samildanach]

Ok....mother nature....lets see...what did mother nature do for us.....hurricanes, disease, floods, death and disaster. I am not a nature advocate nor will I ever be. Nature is just the untamed environment that we evolved in theres nothing special about it apart from the fact that it produced a lot of other nasty predators we had to compete with. The filtering down process is something that occurs naturally anyway, why waste valuable resources on something that is more or less inevitable. Take for example any technology and slowly it travels around the planet. Computers are getting through to third world countries etc..albeit slowly but they are getting there. I disagree with cosmetic surgery..thats just an extravagance and has no functional purpose. The enhancements I am talking about will be primarily functional rather than cosmetic. In fact cosmetics should be sacrificed in favour of functionality. I agree completely with your analogy about traits and mating, not mating. Thats the way it is. Where do the unwanted traits come from?.....they are traits that used to offer a survival advantage in a specific environment and at one stage may have been the most desirable trait at a specific point and time. However they have been superceded by other traits as time went on although they have continued as any survival trait tend to become widespread.

[Impenitent]

computers in third world countries are great...

send more computers...

oh they need electric power plants and a delivery system first? mmmm...

but the information is all online for everyone to get...

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
computers in third world countries are great...

send more computers...

oh they need electric power plants and a delivery system first? mmmm...

but the information is all online for everyone to get...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
And what's the point of that post?

[Impenitent]

oh the irony

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Samildanach,)
Ok....mother nature....lets see...what did mother nature do for us.....hurricanes, disease, floods, death and disaster. I am not a nature advocate nor will I ever be. Nature is just the untamed environment that we evolved in theres nothing special about it apart from the fact that it produced a lot of other nasty predators we had to compete with. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Sam, are you kidding? you seem like an intelligent person, but to assume that "mother nature" is just some malicious, untamed force that exists as an obstacle of human progress is absolute stupidity and absurdity. Hurricanes, disease, floods, death, predators and disaster are all essential components of a healthy ecosystem; i suggest that you enroll in a high school level environemental studies class before posting any more opinions on the environment and making a fool of yourself.

[NORMLperson]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Samildanach,)
Ok....mother nature....lets see...what did mother nature do for us.....hurricanes, disease, floods, death and disaster. I am not a nature advocate nor will I ever be. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Who was here first? Us or nature. We will never be able to harness all that is embodied within the elements of nature, no matter how hard we try. It's a waste of time and resources to battle nature. We should embrace it for its beauty and sustainable living environments that we deplete as we kill animals and forests.

[Samildanach]

As far as I am concerned nature is just a system. Its a naturally evolved system which I happen to agree with you is a rather beautiful construct in terms of engineering science. However thats all it is. Putting one's romantic associations onto a system by calling it 'mother' doesn't change that fact, and are death disease and natural disasters a 'necessary part' of a healthy ecosystem?...I would accept that death is, I would not accept that disease, floods, hurricanes etc are necessary in any way at all other than to encourage biodiversity (and more death)...and ultimately death doesn't have to be for all if the environment is big enough to support an unlimited number of biological units. eg space.
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.
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. As for enrolling in a highschool environmental studeis course....lolol. I know enough to compete with whatever you can throw at me. So if you have any points you want to bring up go right ahead after all this is what a debate is all about.
If I make a fool of myself along the way so be it, at least I'm not scared to throw my opinions out there right or wrong as they may be.

As for you NORML sure Nature was here first...and this is significant how exactly? Please explain to me why we will never be able to 'harness all that is embodied within the elements of nature'.
and embraqcing nature is not my way of thinking at all. I think we should learn what we can from it and use the knowledge to build new environemnts.

[nalex]

To call nature a system is a bit of an adventure. It is a chaotic system at best, more interdependent accidents all colliding and rebounding chaos than structure and order. We impose our understanding upon these events and draw diagrams and see order, when in fact there is hunger and death and breakfast. Mating algorhythms are even more sophisticated.

I believe we live in a slender and fragile slip of an atmosphere that is barely able to hold its footing for the changes being introduced to its nature by our supremist arrogance. It is that we see ourselves with the eyes of "God" - that we see ourselves as a reflection of causation, that we believe in unlikely renewal.

[Samildanach]

I never said its a simple system. Its a very highly complicated system which would be hell to simulate completely accurately. However be that as it may it is a system albeit a chaotic one. But look up some chaos theory and you will find patterns within chaos.
I agree we probably are destroying our current eco-sphere but I also believe in equilibrium. Currently we are tilting the scales by changing the system. At some stage it will attempt to autocorrect and the results could be catastrophic for the human race to say the least.