There are some obvious advantages to it. However, how long before it's used by people in the wrong hands to, say, wipe out homosexuality? I'm sure that's in our genetics. Or perhaps to eliminate mental disorders? That sounds good, but some of the best creative minds in our history were half insane.

Humanity, as we sit currently, cannot handle that technology. As we are, it would never be used properly, if there even is a proper on a subject matter like this.

Aine Silveria wrote:

There are some obvious advantages to it. However, how long before it's used by people in the wrong hands to, say, wipe out homosexuality? I'm sure that's in our genetics. Or perhaps to eliminate mental disorders? That sounds good, but some of the best creative minds in our history were half insane.

Humanity, as we sit currently, cannot handle that technology. As we are, it would never be used properly, if there even is a proper on a subject matter like this.

Agreed.  The people who would fund and create such technology would be the powerful (because they would be the ones with the means), who would of course use it to remain in power, not truly help society.

Not that I would take issue with all humans being genetically engineered to say, resist many diseases and majorly disabling disorders and have cat ears.

Also, Overlord are you just a troll?  Because seriously, you sound like a troll.  Granted, this could just be a cultural barrier or a lack of experience on my part.  Just some of things you say, out of nowhere, make me curious.

Last edited by OnlyInThisLight (08-14-2011 08:41:55 PM)

I think she's saying that because you tend to bring up controversial subjects in a way that would not encourage a dialogue in most forums.

Lucky for us, we're pretty hard to troll, anyway.

against.

True, monoculture is terrible, I definitely acknowledge that.

I have a feeling that human genetic engineering may happen eventually, whether or not it is actually in the best interest of humanity.

Corns are an example of the product of genetic engineering. Most of us have only eaten the sweet, yellow version, but according to my ex-boss, who came from Peru, there are at least 50 kinds of corns that exist in her country.

We're already actually living in a pretty artificial world where we are being selective of plants and livestocks that we either believe are beneficial, or because these are probably the only species we are aware of. And, species that are probably actually also important to the maintenance of the natural world in which we are not aware of, are probably fading away. Of course, it's not entirely correct to say that they existed to maintain the natural world. It'd be more accurate to say that they existed because the conditions favored their survival, but pretty good chance that in the long run, their existence, in turn, must have influenced the environment as well.

That said, many scientists have also argued that genetically engineered babies may not be in the best interest of humanity, actually. Monoculture is more than the color of your skin/hair/eye, or your intelligence. There is also your immunity against new forms of virus, which are known to mutate pretty frequently. HIV is an example of that. Humans do not mutate or change their DNA as often as bacteria or virus do, which is already in itself a disadvantage when developing defense against these genetically capricious beings. Sure, we can develop treatment and cure and vaccination, but it's not perfect.

Did you know that a minority population in the world, which inherited a mutation in the receptor CCR5 of their T-cells (aka. CCR5 delta 32), actually proves to be good defense against HIV and plague? There are things we should let nature take course anyway, otherwise, we would have never known what other interesting things are out there.

Besides, I doubt people will ever fully understand human genome. Human Genome Project was mapped out based on one person, but more babies are being born naturally as we speak, it'll probably take forever before scientist can figure out how many different variations are there for just one gene among 60 billion people.

There's still gap in our understanding of yeast genes.

PS: Please note, pretty good chance I said something wrong in some of these things because my brain isn't exactly being coherent with my personal understanding of genetics as I have liked while typing these down. Always, go online and research on the latest research papers for more information. scholar.google.com is a great way to start.

Last edited by Hiraku (08-16-2011 08:32:31 AM)

lol, actually, I'm not in med school... yet... so, there's still a lot that I don't know about HIV.

But, I have to agree with you. HIV can and will continually mutate and evolve such that it will overcome the resistance we put up against some day. At this point, any treatment or vaccination developed is directed against either the actual nucleotides of the HIV genes, or the subsequent proteins that interact with it.

There's a possibility that genetic engineering may never be able to truly eradicate the source of the disease, or set up the perfect defense against it, for that matter.

Actually, many of the treatments against HIV had some pretty deterimental side effects in themselves. What they are I don't remember off the top of my head except one of them will actually substantially increase your body fat. When you're attempting to screw with the gene of your targeted virus, you have a pretty good chance with screwing with your own DNA machinery even if the virus didn't bypass that firewall somehow.

At this point, it's more like, yeah, we know we might end up shooting ourselves in the foot, but... it would seem to be our best gamble, like introducing the CCR5-delta mutation into patients, hoping that it might be the way. But, there's no such thing as a magic bullet. Things also get complicated not just in terms of virus, but also the fact that individuals are not equally receptive of the same treatments.

Mutation isn't just something you're born with, but can also be something accumulated over time. Our genes are constantly under "assault" due to environmental factors. We may be exposed to the sunlight differently, to the computer, to the food. A lot of things need to be taken into consideration, so monocultural population may not actually happen. Some genes choose to jump around and stuff. Some genes, for some bizarre reason that may or may not involve mutation, activate or inactivate themselves. The "Barr Body" of the sex chromosome is an example, where out of the two X-chromosomes, one must "close up". It is likely that one chromosome carries a gene that the other doesn't, so there's another variation happening that I... kinda doubted human technology can ever tamper.

Just a thought.

PS: Another forumite might be able to provide more concrete insight than I do regarding basic biology. Wondering if Trench Kamen will be dropping by...?

Last edited by Hiraku (08-16-2011 12:29:47 PM)

This is a thought that I've had for a long time that I have been hitherto unable to articulate: the industrial state views intelligence in the same way it views factory labor. Thanks, Ohtori!

Last edited by Overlord Morgus (08-21-2011 11:19:04 PM)

Lightice wrote:

Functional cure for HIV

Do you mean this? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/ … 9146.shtml

I just went and check it out. That's great that they actually did it. I always wondered if it was possible to completely replace white blood cell system of an individual with one that would overcome HIV.

I think from this point on, they just need to be able to manufacture white blood cell transplant with the right kind of receptors, and they'll be set with a cure. I would like to think there's no side effect, though, since a population of Europeans who carried this variation of a receptor for their white blood cells had survived generations since they survived the plague.

Linking this back to the talk about genetic engineering. You're right, once we start using genetic engineering for the purpose of "control", we MAY be doing more harm than good. This is part of the reason why I felt that it would be good to leave certain things to nature because if we ever start controlling the population with genes that are considered the "norm", we would have probably thought then that this "1% of caucasian population" that carried this varied white blood cell receptor is considered "mutant", and try to eliminate these anomaly instead of getting the opportunity to find a functional cure for HIV.

But who knows, though? Maybe given time, people WOULD have found out about this unique white blood cell without nature's intervention of random mutation anyway. :|a