Genetic Engineering: Playing God

You know Voltron!?

Anyway, I think being human is kind of an abstract term, hard to define, yet easily understood

As for terminators, yeah their androids, actually their "organic mechanical entities" quoting Arnie in T2

Their kinda "evil" versions of Robin William's "bicentennial man"

 

yup, i know voltron, if you are refering to the 5 lions version, its my favorite childhood cartoon beside TMNT, Thundercats and Ghostbusters.

 

Yeah Lion team Voltron Rocks!!

I even got the die cast metal toy!!

How old are you really??

Anyway, back to the topic, if you could "selectively" add animal DNA to yours wouldn't that be kinda good? I mean yes we humans have got the brains, the skills & the know how to live on say for thousands more years but wouldn't it be good if we had wings so we can soar the skies? Or gills, so we can explore with no mechanical aids the oceans, afterall the deepest depths of the oceans are yet to be explored?

 

i'm 24 this years.......

anyway i agree, using cat dna and fuse with human dna to create a catgirl XD

 

whos We

 

You. Must. Watch. The. Ghost in the Shell. Film.

There has to be regulation. (And not by the American FDA?) There have to be limits set. I don't think genes should be patented. GloFish is one thing, but creating a sentient being purely for the purpose of becoming a sex slave -coughcalvin- is something else.

Things can go horribly wrong--there's always that chance. But consider how slim the probability of that happening is to say, saving millions of people?

 

I reckon genetic enhancement is a bigger issue at the moment. With the ability to become superhuman or posthuman, who knows what it might bring?

 

Superpostmen?



For those of you who oppose genetic engineering on Abrahamic religious grounds, do you know the story of Eve's creation? How she was made out of one of Adam's ribs? Doesn't that sound a bit like genetic engineering?

 

I don't care if there are genetically modified people. Unless they chose to kill or discriminate not genetically modified people like in Gattaca.

 

I've never understood the morality issue here. We're looking to improve our entire lifestyle through some alterations to our genetics yet people think it's playing in "God's territory". My question is what is so wrong with that? I don't recall the big man coming down and saying "lol don't do that" or anything along that line at any point.

I'm not a religious person, so maybe someone who is can enlighten me as to why they find it so morally wrong.

 

guys, a 2 year old thread does not need to be bumped...

and it's not wrong, as there is NOTHING stopping us from doing this, but our OWN moral concerns. how the fuck would we know what god thinks? how do we know that god disagrees? we don't.

 

As stated by other people, It can work both ways.

But think about it for a second: If God gave man enough knowledge to reach this point in science, why can't you do that?

 

It is man's ultimate goal and desire to BE God. This is the product of free thinking and our growing need of individuality; less dependency towards God. Religion, however dictates otherwise. It hinders free thinking because it destroys and contradicts the very foundations of religion especially when one starts questioning the existence of God, his own existence and the universe.

It therefore comes to no surprise that religion has given us the red flag that Genetic Engineering is synonymous to playing God (in fact, any forms of science is considered by religion to be playing God) since Genetic Engineering involves the sequencing of our genes (related to the proving of the Theory of Evolution) and artificial and selective gene manipulation (a so called crime against nature/evolution/morality) to name a few.

Speaking of morality, how does one define morality? If a person asks himself this very question, he/she would surely come to realise that this morality which people speak of has mostly been defined by the religion he/she faithfully and gullibly follows. I'm not saying religion is all wrong. It's just that religion is now becoming irrelevant in these modern world and has no place in the hearts and minds of all those who have come to accept free thinking as the next phase in the advancement and evolution of our species.

 

Condensed: in today's world we can't rely on religion for resolving every moral and ethical question. For once in human history people will actually have to think for themselves, haha.

 

• Generalising, presumptive and therefore faulty logic in regards to religion, anthropology, philosophy and sociology.
• Genetic engineering has nothing to do with "gene sequencing", whatever you're referring to by that. It directly concerns genetic manipulation.
• Religion may affect the spread of a given set of morals, but not the development of the morals. If a person studied normative ethics, he would surely come to realise that this morality which people speak of is defined by a vast range of differing factors and opinions on what is best for who.

Anyway, even without religious considerations, genetic engineering has a wide range of potential consequences that may be more harmful in the long-term than beneficial.

However slightly, the gene pool stagnates, leaving genetically modified humans more susceptible to a common biological danger (a new or mutated virus, for example). Survival of the fittest may therefore be superceded by survival of the richest, as only those wealthy enough to afford to eliminate new threats will be able to ensure their safety, and the cycle of stagnation continues.

Furthermore, a social rift may develop between regular, "inferior" humans and those able to afford "superior" genetically engineered children. This could result in genetic arrogance, a solidified, static ruling class or even a splitting of the species. All men will not be created equal, contravening basic human rights declaring the contrary.

We are therefore left with a discussion of ethics. Does one take the utilitarian approach that the best possible course of action will result in the greatest benefit for the most people? Or will one be hedonistic and merely seek self-gratification? Perhaps one will prioritise the action with the biggest benefit for the economy, or for knowledge, or for liberty. There is no right or wrong here, but merely a difference of opinion.

And thus another debate is rendered futile by the ubiquity of subjectivity.