Genetic Engineering

[headcase]

This is a subject I've been meaning to kick start for a while. As a first year genetics student, it's also something quite relevant to me. Unfortunately, whenever I've come across students or lecturers who oppose genetic engineering, I've been unable to provide counter-arguements until after the event due to my lack of knowledge on the subject. Hence, when confronted with fallacious references to the crops of "innocent farmers" being confiscated due to "accidental contamination", I could protest my disbelief at it, but had to conceed the point (see Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser).

Of course, genetic engineering is an extremely broad heading. Too broad for a proper debate. We could argue the benefits or risks of modifying crops, of curing disease, of screening fetuses or of selecting traits - each with their own broad range of sub-categories.

So I'll simply gauge a reaction for now. Is there anyone out there who opposed genetic engineering before I brought it up? Why so? If not, I'll provide my own reasons for supporting it and see where that leads us. If absolutely necessary, I'll oppose it for the sake of arguement. It's a method that often gives you the best understanding of the subject matter .

(It's probably worth noting that nothing I've studied this year covers the ethics or morality of genetic enginnering, so I don't have a head start in the subject. In fact, I spent most of the year studying chemistry and physics. I don't know why, you'd have to ask the college...).

[Maestro]

Well I'd have to say that genetic engineering in some senses is not wrong, per se, but a bad idea (crops).
Genetically engineering humans bothers me because when you screw with nature it always, without fail, every time damages or even renders ineffective something minute but at the same time important. Science is not a valid reason to screw someone up for life when they had a shot at a good one, if that makes sense.
I don't think there's anything morally wrong but it's a bad idea to do anyway because unless it's selective breeding then you're adding something that wasn't there before and, like certain GMCs, can cause problems.
Say you accidentally created a super plant that is immune to pesticides, spreads like wildfire, and grows in any environment. Unlikely as it is, that one switch could kill us all. In that sense it's wrong, but more because the risk not the morality.

[Steve_TPF]

I agree with Maestro on this one. While genetic engineering offers the potential to improve human life (through improved crops, faster-breeding aminals etc.) it also has the potential to completely destroy the ecological balance.

History if full or great ideas like thalidomide and asbestos that had far-reaching consequences. Great caution should be excercised when tampering with genetics.

[Paranoid Ecstasy]

I would just like to point out that we have always fucked with nature.
To get where we are today we had to mess with chemicals, screw with elements and try some dangerous experiments. This is not my opinion on genetic engineering, I just felt I should bring it up. I will express my opinion at a more reasonable hour. (3:45 A.M)

[Steve_TPF]

You might note that "fucking with nature" usually backfires at some point.

[kotorlover]

Isn't most of the resident evil games on this subject?
I dont know if that is correct and excuse me if im wrong on that.
Personally, Genetic engineering would be to much of a risk.

[CrookedKid13]

i know this is a bit off topic, but they are teaching that in high school, my grade 9 french book had a chapter on genetic engineering and manipulation (of course it was bias). and i just realized how adult these topics were, i mean, i consider myself much smarter than the average highschooler, but some other kids are very mailable, and they might just accept those morals without question, which is dangerous.

well, my opinion on genetic manipulation is this: do what you want, as long as you are sure you take every promotion to be safe, are trained in what you are doing, and you don't break any human rights laws.

[CyberWar]

That is one thing I find very peculiar in humans - they strive so much to improve everything around themselves and are never satisfied with the results, but never even attempt to improve THEMSELVES. Any proposal to do so is immediately hogwashed and beaten into ground, dismissed as evil, immoral and Nazi (when all appropriate arguments have run out).

The only way we can master the secrets that lie within the strands of DNA is by actively researching and testing theories, humans being no exception.

Eugenics combined with genetic engineering are the future of Mankind, and I believe Nietzsche's ubermensch will become a reality one day. That will be a day the super-humans will remember their past and laugh at the silliness of their ancestors, who failed to recognize the key to divination for so long.

[Steve_TPF]

That day will be a long time coming. But there are many ways to improve life without tampering with human genes.

[headcase]

You'd be suprised. Gene therapy is already being used to treat what are usually fatal diseases.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In 1993 Andrew Gobea was born with a rare, normally fatal genetic disease - severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID). Genetic screening before birth showed that he had SCID. Blood was removed from Andrew's placenta and umbilical cord immediately after birth, containing stem cells. The allele that codes for ADA was obtained and was inserted into a retrovirus. Retroviruses and stem cells were mixed, after which they entered and inserted the gene into the stem cells' chromosomes. Stem cells containing the working ADA gene were injected into Andrew's blood system via a vein. For four years T-cells (white blood cells), produced by stem cells, made ADA enzymes using the ADA gene. After four years more treatment was needed.

... and pre-implantation genetic screening is already improving human genomes, so it's already becoming acceptable to choose desirable genetic traits. Meanwhile, genetic therapy is developing safer and more efficient ways to alter the DNA of living human beings. Surely, as these two fronts evolve parallel to one another, one morally and the other technologically, it's inevitable that one day they will merge.

[CyberWar]

A nice example of what eugenics and genetic engineering can achieve together can be found in BattleTech fiction series. The Clans are a militant society based on the principles of eugenics, the pinnacle of which is the Clan warrior (eugenics, caste system of sorts and lifetime of training was also found in real-life Ancient Sparta). Clan warriors were gradually bred to form new races over several centuries, the results being the pilots (small and frail but extremely sharp-sighted and with lightning-quick reflexes), mechwarriors/tankers (a more robust, combat-oriented form of human average) and the elementals (giant and extremely strong power armour-wearing brutes). As an addition, all sub-races of the warrior caste are bred artificially and genetically enchanced in the process, the resulting offspring being known as trueborns (civil castes breed through arranged marriages). Only the fittest trueborns have their genetic material allowed into the Clan reproduction programme.

Although the Clans were largely the bad guys in BattleTech, I somehow find their society more utopian than anything else I've read in science fiction.

In fact, it was Thomas Moore, author of "Utopia", who first proposed a state-controlled artificial selection of humans. In practice, unfortunately, only the Spartans had it strictly enforced, but some form of eugenics was known in every other ancient culture (consider the strict marriage regulations of European aristocracy for example).

Only when these old principles are forsaken, or worse, ridiculed and dismissed, can abominations rise to walk the streets and diseases taint the blood of our race.

[CyberWar]

As for Steve_TPF's comment, I must point to what I stated earlier on:

If humans paid a fraction of the attention to bettering themselves that they instead pay to bettering their environment, we would soon have entire races of geniuses and supermen.

Or, from a more philosophical aspect (quoting the words of a Medieval bishop):

"When I was young, I set out to change the world, but failed. Then I set out to change my country, but failed. Then I tried to change my town, and also failed. I tried to change my neighbours, and too failed. Only now that I was old, I finally understood I had to change myself, and when I did, everything else started to change."

How come we are so afraid to physically apply the principles of philosophy known and willingly applied mentally from ancient times?

[sacrednines]

I have something to contribute to CyberWar's statement.

"The rational man adapts to the environment around him, the irrational man seeks to adapt the environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress rests on the shoulders of the irrational man."

I wish I could tell you who said that, but his name escapes me at the moment. I think thats relevant, unless I missed you point completely, in which case I apologize.

Adaptation to the environment is sort of a paradox. On the one hand, most of biological predecessors evolved complex attributes as the result of a changing environment. In our case we literally had to think ourselves through an ice age or two. On the other hand, the quote is right. If we remained in the figurative "garden" of our early species we would have never created technology, Prometheus would never have handed us the torch. And we'd have no progeny of intelligence. It depends on an individual's world view -- weather they are inclined to the progress of complexity or not.

In my opinion, thats the goal of the universe. The progression of complexity and intellect. If you look at the mechanisms that brought technology into existence, you find biology. If you look at the mechanisms that brought biology into creation, you find chemistry. If you look at the mechanisms that brought chemistry into emergence, you find the natural laws of physics, and there's not really anything beyond that except for the big bang. My point is, matter, by nature of the universe's base mechanisms, seems to want to get more complex, that is, to better store and process information. This idea is called "universal emergence".

So, genetic engineering my be a device that takes our biology to the new levels, but biology still can't hold a candle to the advance and eventual possibilities of technology. Genetic manipulation is at best a stepping stone, and at worst a trap door. Is not worth it in my opinion...

Technology as a means of bettering the human experience on the other hand... well, maybe even negating the human experience if were not careful...

...looking back I realize most of that was really off topic and I apologize.

[CyberWar]

But tell me, why should Humankind keep only what natural evolution has awarded them in its scant mercy? Nanotechnology, genetic engineering, cybernethics should all be used for the advancement of human species, and I am certain it would eventually bring us to a new level of awareness and understanding.

I am certain something will eventually force us to make this step and radically enchance our species by technological means.

[sacrednines]

I agree completely. After all, evolution (where its possible) is a law of nature. And since we've negated the law of natural selection, its up to us to invent our evolutionary successors.

"Let an ultra-intelligent machine be defined as a machine that can out perform man in any activity however clever. The development of better machines being one of those activities, an ultra-intelligent machine would be able to produce even more intelligent machine's than itself. There would necessarily be a thought explosion, where man's intellect would be left far behind. Thus, an ultra-intelligent machine is the last invention that man ever need create."

I wish I could remember who said that as well, but I just remember its from a computer programmer in the 70's. Again, it seems we're off topic.

[CyberWar]

That was said by Irwin John Good, a British mathematician speaking of the dangers of technological singularity.

You understood me right, as we will have to choose either the path of nature and return to the primitive, or the path of technology and ascend to near-godhood via scientific means.

[sacrednines]

ah, thanks for that. I have a terrible memory for names and dates. I tend to go through so much information that I exclude those details... I need to work on that.

[headcase]

There's already a thread discussing the possibility of a technological singularity. You might have to change your settings in the User CP to "View All Threads" to find it though. Back to genetic engineering (or the technological singularity and its relevance the genetic engineering...

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by headcase

You'd be suprised. Gene therapy is already being used to treat what are usually fatal diseases.

Sure, but until we start advancing humans through genetics (as opposed to fixing defects) we won't have any "super humans". At the moment it doesn't seem that science can improve on the current template for a human being.

Originally Posted by cyberwar

A nice example of what eugenics and genetic engineering can achieve together can be found in BattleTech fiction series. The Clans are a militant society based on the principles of eugenics, the pinnacle of which is the Clan warrior (eugenics, caste system of sorts and lifetime of training was also found in real-life Ancient Sparta).

Indeed they did. This can be done without genetic engineering though.

Originally Posted by cyberwar

If humans paid a fraction of the attention to bettering themselves that they instead pay to bettering their environment, we would soon have entire races of geniuses and supermen.

I agree, but not regarding the "soon" part. When I said there are ways to improve life without genetic manipulation I was referring to basic quality of life. Many people in the world do not have adequate food, shelter or medical care. These can be more easily fixed than any genetic defects.

As I have said, I believe in the potential of genetic engineering to improve life, but it will take time, and must be done carefully. Besides, the are many thing that can be (and should) be done without waiting for a "magic bullet" from genetic research.

Perhaps we should look at some examples of genetic engineering, and see how they have helped. (Or not).

[CyberWar]

I agree, but not regarding the "soon" part. When I said there are ways to improve life without genetic manipulation I was referring to basic quality of life. Many people in the world do not have adequate food, shelter or medical care. These can be more easily fixed than any genetic defects.

On this I must partly disagree. Genetic engineering is indeed only one of the tools needed to achieve the result, but I disagree on the quality of life. The latter, as Western society understands it, is directly counter-productive to the creation of a superhuman race. It is frequent hardship and difficulty that weeds out the weak and unfit, not the lavish idleness of the Western world. This emphasis on the "quality of life" is exactly the mindset that we must overcome if such goal as superhuman is to be realized and we wish to be part of it.

As an example, let's take a look at a stereotypical (no offense) American guy John Doe. Mr. Doe is a standard middle-class citizen. He works a small-time job in a big company, pays taxes, has a family, a house and a car just like every normal American (or Westerner in general, if you will) does. Sounds like one of your very neighbours, doesn't it?

However, Mr. Doe's spectre of interests is limited to watching TV, bowling and drinking beer with his buddies, going on a sunday picnic with his family (pretty much the only time he spends with family) and maybe fishing. He believes whatever is told on TV. John Doe has never read a book since finishing high school asides from a few manuals he needed for work. However, he enjoys reading yellow press. Like his presumably teenage children, he is therefore well-informed of which Hollywood celebrities got laid with each other last month, he possibly even knows what clothing brands each of them wears, what scandals they got involved in, he could even name over a 1000 brands if given the time to remember, basically, things that are completely irrelevant to his life. At the same time, Mr. Doe most likely does not know what is granted to him by the Bill of Rights. John Doe eats a lot of junk food and rarely engages in physical activities, meaning he's probably overweight and in poor physical condition. Although he, like most Americans, owns a gun for self-protection, it is doubtful he could kill someone, and even if he tried to, he probably wouldn't be able to hit anything further than 15 metres. The latter is because John spends a lot of time at the computer during work, so myopia is beginning to manifest as he grows older. His children learn from their father and dream to work in the office of a big company some day. John Doe, however, is happy with his small life. He likes what he has and wants nothing more. He is horrified to see on TV that people in other countries (he most likely doesn't even know where they are) live in conditions far below his own. However, for him, terrible conditions mean having no air conditioning and having to eat re-fried chicken for more than two days. So he firmly believes his way of life is the best for a human being (rich celebrities are obviously a little more than human to him, so they don't count).

I must disappoint all the believers in American dream - John Doe is, unfortunately, definately NOT eligible to ever become a superhuman. Why?
Because he lacks both the physical AND mental qualities to become one. He is a pathological consumer - he works to consume and consumes just to end up working more. Therefore, he is not self-sufficient, as his consumption abilites depend directly on the amount of effor he puts into providing for them. That means he lacks time, energy and interest to improve himself. Lack of self-improvement leads to poor intelect and physical capabilities, meaning John can be easily manipulated and will most likely not realize it, or be able to resist even when realising he's being used. Inability to recognize lies from truth and stand up for oneself leads to blind submission, the mentality of a slave. Submission results in inability to create and prevents one from ever becoming self-aware or self-sufficient, in short, leads to pathological consumption. And the circle repeats itself.

Why waste the miracles of technology on somebody that has no future?

[headcase]

Anyone here recieve medicinal insulin? It's almost certainly synthesised by genetically engineered E. Coli. Same deal with human Growth Hormone, along with several other hormones. A strain of rice which produced Vitamin A is also being made available. Vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of preventable blindness in children and is especially prevalent in parts of Africa and Asia where rice is the staple diet. This engineered rice could save the sight of 500,000 children annually and the lives of 50% of those.

Gene therapy has been used to successfully treat or cure SCID, Leber's congenital amaurosis, metastatic melanoma and diseases of the myeloid system. Meanwhile, recent developments show it could have the potential to treat thalassaemia, ALS, Sickle cell disease, Huntington's disease, cystic fibrosis, and some cancers.

Vitamin A Deficiency
Gene therapy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[CyberWar]

Vitamin A deficiency is the leading cause of preventable blindness in children and is especially prevalent in parts of Africa and Asia where rice is the staple diet. This engineered rice could save the sight of 500,000 children annually and the lives of 50% of those.

Ah, the overt concern of things irrelevant to one's life... (no offense intended) But tell me, why should WE spend OUR resources and use OUR achievements to feed, dress and cure the lazy parasites in Africa and Asia? We give, and they expect more, and if we stop giving, we become the "evil", "wasteful" and "avaricious" Westerners. They had 40 000 years to strive for their own betterment just like our ancestors did, but they chose not to. Why should we share the fruits of our development with them now?

I mean, we have more than enough problems to trouble with at our homes of Europe and America to be concerned over some unfortunate kids in Africa and Asia. The money currently wasted on humanitarian aids could be just as well put into betterment of our own society - there is no point in appearing charitable to others while one's homeland is a mess.

Millions die in the West every year from cancer. AIDS remains an unsolved problem so far. The reproductive rates drop catastrophically and the population ages with every following year. Our social systems are a mess, attracting largely-illegal immigration from the Third World, many of immigrants being lazy, uneducated religious fanatics that slowly overwhelm our population and parasitize on social welfares while contributing almost nothing and paying no respect to our customs and laws. Western civilization, and in longer term, white race in general, is nearing the brink of extinction. Sounds pretty grim, doesn't it?

What I meant to say with this whole lecture is that we shouldn't care if a million or 10 million African children die each year from diseases remediable with our technologies - only after we have secured a future for ourselves should we start assisting others. Call me a cynical, insensitive Nazi, but that is exatly the way I feel about this.

[CyberWar]

And yes, genetic engineering is a solution to many of the Western problems I mentioned above. The first and foremost thing we need to change is the mindset, technological means will follow.

[sacrednines]

Alright everyone, I apologize in advance for this painfully long contribution to the discussion.

Part I - Anti-progressive enthusiasm.
I agree with almost everything "CyberWar" mentioned... except I might have some personal empathetic disposition toward my fellow humans, whatever culture or certain lack of motivational persuasion they might have... and it could be argued that thats a weakness on my part, but the way I see it... Humanitarianism, as it pertains to those "spoiled" or "less advanced" cultures is helpful because it ensures the proliferation of our species' collective efforts. The more people we can keep alive, the better the chances we have for "raising" the next Einstein, Monet, or Hayden. Ideally, the more minds there are to contribute, the better the chances of a few attempting to actually to do so... IDEALLY.

However... I completely agree, the culture and value system surrounding individuals has an undeniable tendency (understatement) to effect their mindset. I find it astonishing that there was once (and certainly not now) an era that put intellect at the top of the value system; speaking eloquently, using reason, politeness, humaneness, understanding the political climate of the time, understanding the ramification of social habits, all that seems to have fallen by the wayside... at least that's apparent in my own surroundings (which is why I'm forced to discuss with people online... that is assuming if you are all indeed people and not some super advanced AI software... in which case, 010010100110!). Despite the fact, its a curious thing that there are still many (not enough) people that end up rejecting the ho-hum persuasions for mental expansion... I wonder why that is... and wonder why its near impossible for me to stay on topic...

What I mean to say is that engendering an environment in which people want to get smarter, healthier, more aware, is unappreciated to a terrifying level in my opinion. And any controversial (new) scientific achievement, like genetic engineering, is going to be poorly accepted by a society that just wants more for themselves than they want for others (like clinging to an anti-progressive, religious, dogmatic controversy for their own peace of mind, or pride). And if its a prevailing enough anti-progressive value system, then scientists might end up providing the supply for a anti-progressive demand. Kind of like the invention of television... "We all need culture exposure, news, and entertainment but we all hate using the mental energy required to read, observe, and interpret right? Hey I got an idea... lets put it all in a noisy box and delude it with ad-nausium so we can sell materialism to the masses, thereby getting richer by letting people get dumber, hurrah! (no disrespect to Mr Philo Farnsworth, but thats exactly what tv's become)

Part II - In our hands or our minds?
Its a fact that we've sort of negated the previous devices of conventional evolution... namely natural selection. We've decided to take it on ourselves to make a suitable environment instead of adapting to adverse one. Which is the process that, in large part with the exception of the pre-cambrian sexual revolution and inter species mutation, turned the gears of evolution. But, the remarkable development of intellect as a survival technique means that such inventive creativity plus an ability to manipulate our environment (opposable thumbs) plus the ability for bi-pedal travel (conserves a considerable more amount of energy than quadrupeds) would necessarily explode the speed of progression or evolution. The law of accelerating returns shows us this with exponentially increasing paradigm-shifts.

And genetic manipulation is the first time that a species has had the ability to influence its own biological evolution. Another paradigm-shift? We can no longer (or simply refuse to) depend on the environment to give us anything better than what we have in our heads now, well, we're not really letting it. So, to keep the evolutionary ball rolling we might have to either invent our evolutionary successor, a vaster intellect than our own, with technology, or biologically evolve ourselves with genetic manipulation... or both I guess. Figuratively you could say we've rejected god's (natural process's) plan for evolution and erected our own in its place...

Or rather, philosophically speaking, this new evolution (technology and biological manipulation) is perpetrated by a part of this universe, us, that can be construed as no less "natural" as anything else encompassed herein. So from my perspective, this new evolution is indeed just a new paradigm-shift that we can feel morally and naturally justified in exploring. We are a part of the universe, as is intellect, and intellect is progressive, so lets show some intellect and progress already!

Part III - Class Warfare
This is just a side topic that deals with one possible consequence of genetic research. Its not unreasonable to assume that genetic enhancement is going to be available to those who can willingly afford it before it does to those who cannot. Most all other elective technologies have been this way. But, what if its initially only the rich that begin enhancing themselves and breeding super offspring? This only widens the gap between social classes, on a biological level. Resulting in two literally different species of human beings. Historically homo sapien sub species have not co-existed well... Out of Neandertol, homo sapien, and homo sapien-sapien... its was only the latter most that succeed in species domination... and the rest as they say, are only history... hypothetically.

To some my opinions up...
Current social value system: bad.
Genetic Engineering: shhh, its natural, just go with it.
Eventual class division: the rich people buy super powers.
I should probably be slapped for posting a reply of this length and probable redundancy.

[Steve_TPF]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

On this I must partly disagree. Genetic engineering is indeed only one of the tools needed to achieve the result, but I disagree on the quality of life. The latter, as Western society understands it, is directly counter-productive to the creation of a superhuman race.

I said basic quality of life, not luxury items. Being comfortable doesn't necessarily rule out physical advancement either. But creating a super-race isn't the topic. Genetic engineering is. As headcase has pointed out there are many examples of genetic engineering in common use today, with beneficial results. Most of these do not involve modifying humans.

Originally Posted by CyberWar"

But tell me, why should WE spend OUR resources and use OUR achievements to feed, dress and cure the lazy parasites in Africa and Asia? We give, and they expect more, and if we stop giving, we become the "evil", "wasteful" and "avaricious" Westerners. They had 40 000 years to strive for their own betterment just like our ancestors did, but they chose not to. Why should we share the fruits of our development with them now?

Believe it or not, most of the problems in Africa aren't caused by being lazy. They are caused by corrupt and violent leaders/warlords. Zimbabwe had a decent economy until Robert Mugabe took over.

As for why help them: why not if we have the means. Yes there are people in need in western countries but the problem isn't lack of money, it's the spending priorities. The bush administration has spent upwards of $500 billion on the Iraq war. That money could have fixed a number of problems in the US.

BTW, what contribution have you made to the betterment of your country? Why should you be entitled to the benefits of research you didn't do, or fund?

Originally Posted by CyberWar"

Millions die in the West every year from cancer.

And many of those cancers are caused by lifestyle. Strange that you blame africans for their own plight, but not fat, lazy, cigarette-smoking westerners.

Originally Posted by CyberWar

And yes, genetic engineering is a solution to many of the Western problems I mentioned above. The first and foremost thing we need to change is the mindset, technological means will follow.

Changing the mindset will accomplish a lot more than genetic engineering at this stage. It's also essential to a better society. Having Star Trek technology won't make our lives any better if we choose to be stupid, brutal or lazy.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

And genetic manipulation is the first time that a species has had the ability to influence its own biological evolution. Another paradigm-shift? We can no longer (or simply refuse to) depend on the environment to give us anything better than what we have in our heads now, well, we're not really letting it. So, to keep the evolutionary ball rolling we might have to either invent our evolutionary successor, a vaster intellect than our own, with technology, or biologically evolve ourselves with genetic manipulation... or both I guess. Figuratively you could say we've rejected god's (natural process's) plan for evolution and erected our own in its place...

Agreed. We no longer need natural selection to improve the species: we can do it ourselves. If we choose to.

Originally Posted by sacrednines

This is just a side topic that deals with one possible consequence of genetic research. Its not unreasonable to assume that genetic enhancement is going to be available to those who can willingly afford it before it does to those who cannot. Most all other elective technologies have been this way. But, what if its initially only the rich that begin enhancing themselves and breeding super offspring? This only widens the gap between social classes, on a biological level. Resulting in two literally different species of human beings. Historically homo sapien sub species have not co-existed well... Out of Neandertol, homo sapien, and homo sapien-sapien... its was only the latter most that succeed in species domination... and the rest as they say, are only history... hypothetically.

Yes, it will be the rich who get the first benefit. They always do. That alone is not a reason to abandon genetic engineering. Besides, as headcase showed, many people on lower incomes lead better lives thanks to genetically modified crops, drug production etc.

I read in today's paper about an english couple who used embryo selection to avoid having a baby with a gene that gives a high chance of developing breast cancer (it was present on the father's side of the family). Though not "genetic engineering" it does show the practical aspect of such technology.

In the long term, yes, a division between modified and stock humans could quite likely occur. It doesn't have to be a problem though. There are many people in the world who are healthier/stronger or just plain richer than me. It doesn't affect my life at all. If you are worried about the modified humans taking over, you might want to consider that wealthy people already have more influence on world affairs than you do, so it probably wouldn't change much.

[CyberWar]

True indeed, we greatly waste our resources at our homes as well. Same thing is true about the lazy Westerners. Which is exactly why the change of mindset is required.

Things that I myself do for betterment of my country is the betterment of myself physically and mentally - a feeble-bodied and unintelligent citizen is no more use to a society than a pearl is to a pig.

The solution to the rich problem, I think, will be the general change of the mindset itself. As I stated before, technological augmentations of the body alone will not make one superior, which is what the rich most likely fail to realize.

An interesting thought - maybe some emerging technology will open a path to true communism which sociology failed to do (for example, a human hive-mind).

[Steve_TPF]

Damned if I'm signing up for that one.

[sacrednines]

Originally Posted by CyberWar

An interesting thought - maybe some emerging technology will open a path to true communism which sociology failed to do (for example, a human hive-mind).

It is inconceivable that human beings could be socialized into the radically different repertories of other groups such as fishes, rodents, birds or insects. Human beings might self-consciously imitate the such arrangements, but it would be a fiction played out on a stage, would run counter to deep emotional responses and have no chance of persisting through as much as a single generation. To adopt with serious intent, even in broad outline, the social system of a non-primate species would be insanity in the literal sense. Personalities would quickly dissolve, relationships disintegrate, and reproduction cease... despite such advantages of a "hive" social structure. To do this would not just challenge what it is to be human, as our evolutionary predecessors have done, it would convert humanity completely. As we stand on the horizon of such deliberate evolution, we have to ask ourselves -- How human do we wish to remain?

[CyberWar]

Well said.

I personally would not mind forgoing much of my humanity in exchange of nearly-infinite lifespan and abilities beyond the wildest dreams that technological advances can offer. But I would prefer retaining my human looks unless technology could offer something WAY better.

[headcase]

We're getting fairly abstract here. I was more interested in a dabate of modern morals, rather than futuristic philosophy. Feel free to start another thread on hive-minds and such, but it's not genetics.