Posts by stormylynx14

I assume you're referring to illicit substances. However, the true scale of the issue only becomes apparent when you factor in legal ones: alcohol and tobacco.

You should probably be more specific about what you mean, given the spectrum from mild to severe. We can easily agree that heroin or crack is among the absolute worst out there. But where do marijuana, ecstasy, or cocaine fall in your estimation?

hiddenviper9 said:Fascinating.
The opening post of this thread claims:

( "From secondhand smoke" )

one out of every six non-smokers dies!

here is the link

So, as a non-smoker, there is a high probability my friends, acquaintances, or even total strangers will kill me.

Later on—the discussion shifts to cigarette smells in nostrils, or residue on shoes and socks.

Irrelevant.

Smoking isn't up for debate. You can't argue against individual cases; you can only look at the statistics. Since I have no way of knowing if I’m currently inducing a tumor, I refuse to take any risks. I avoid smoke whenever possible. No smoking in my house. My office is a smoke-free zone, and I defend it. In the beginning, I had to ask people not to walk in with cigarettes; now, a single look is enough to make the point.

And the smell issue? That is just an added bonus.

darkbison81 said:No. If you have all the genetic markers for a tumor but never trigger them, nothing happens. Or if you try to induce it "into a vacuum"—meaning you don't have the underlying predisposition (and I'm not just talking about biomarkers, but spontaneous somatic mutations and everything else)—then nothing happens either...

The point is that having a predisposition is far too easy. That makes inducing 😉 incredibly dangerous and pointless.

Isn't a predisposition just a collection of various indicators? Therefore, isn't it simply a matter of dosage before you hit cancer? That would be how you explain why some non-smokers get cancer, while some smokers get it sooner or later, and others never at all.

cosmicridge5, try to look on the bright side of this sting: every time ...
... you discharge that negative energy 😉
... there’s a spark jump between you and the dear man

I practice self-censorship in the interest of politeness.

The animation was impressive. The sound design was flawless. If only I were a few decades younger, perhaps the plot would have resonated more... My takeaway: I wasted two hours in front of the TV. Though, digging through my old DVD collection eventually paid off—that Scrat bit actually had me laughing.

I’m all for it. I even made it explicit in my will: "If I ever pass away, feel free to harvest all my organs." 😉

Most people struggle to face their own mortality, which is a prerequisite for signing an organ donor card. Others likely harbor the suspicion that doctors might hasten their end just to get to the goods. Then there are those who want to leave this world exactly as they entered it: whole and intact. Regardless, none of that changes the grim reality that far too many people die waiting for a transplant.

Exactly. Right now, the technology isn't ready for prime time. We need to iron out the issues you mentioned through animal testing before we even consider humans. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be debating the ethics of genetic modification today.

Aganor said:Everything mentioned above sounds great in theory, but reality is messy. Even standard gene therapy hasn't lived up to the hype—not for the scientists, not for the doctors, and certainly not for the patients, particularly cancer patients who were promised miracles. It isn't working out quite as planned.[/B]

We are barely scratching the surface. We know the basics, and mapping individual gene functions can drag on forever, but the roadmap is there.

Aganor said:However, when we talk about germline therapy or modifying the genome of embryos and fetuses, the landscape changes entirely.
So, let me ask you a few questions. Once you answer, we can see if you actually grasp what you're talking about.
[/B]

Exactly. Fetal modification is controversial, which is precisely why I want to discuss it.
Regarding point 1: This is a broad debate. How this applies to the American public and its long-term consequences deserves serious scrutiny.
Regarding point 2: Using this on human embryos is only an option once we've mastered the mechanisms in other species. Risks exist regardless; we simply apply the same ethical standards used in all human research. This isn't a new dilemma, nor has it ever been a reason to halt progress.
Regarding point 3: Certain therapies should be covered by health insurance (if we find modifications for diabetes, cancer, etc.), especially since the resulting illnesses are matters of social welfare. Investing early in life saves massive amounts of money down the road. Other tweaks, like eye color or intelligence, shouldn't be subsidized by the public.
Regarding point 4: Genetic inequality already exists. A parent's desire to give their child the best possible start is legitimate. It’s nothing new; kids from wealthy families in cities like New York or Los Angeles already have a head start without any genetic help. Let's not descend into anecdotal arguments about some millionaire's kid struggling with addiction.
Regarding point 5: What happens during recombination when different genetic info meets at conception? Mutations—benign or otherwise? Only the method changes; the outcome remains the same. There is a risk of introducing new defects, but that shouldn't be a reason to ban genetic modification entirely. The potential benefits are too significant.
Regarding point 6: People ask how to prevent abuse. Yet, we didn't ban blunt force trauma. Ethics usually dictate how we use a tool, rather than banning the tool itself.

I don't see the motivation. What exactly is gained by sacrificing self-respect? It’s something that tests us occasionally anyway; there's no need to go out of our way to surrender it.

Rebecca Miller2 said:Spot on. That was exactly what I was getting at...🙂 👍

Just remember that when the pride parades roll through town next time.😁

Uranus said:This one’s decent... provided it’s used correctly. 😁 Sure. It'll be used just as responsibly as gunpowder, the atomic bomb, and other similar toys.

People abused clubs during the Stone Age. We can't dodge responsibility for technology just by ignoring genetic engineering.
Besides, gunpowder and the atomic bomb didn't wipe us out; they actually drove human progress forward. A little optimism regarding our achievements wouldn't hurt.

It isn't about rights. It’s not even about respect. The elderly or those with disabilities don't have an inherent claim to it. It's about basic humanity. It costs you nothing to stand up, yet it's a massive gesture for them.

Around age 6, I had some Pseudo Krupp (was it an allergy?). It passed without any treatment besides spending time in the mountains (if only I could escape to the Rockies today).

A few years ago, long after puberty, I dealt with a runny nose and itchy eyes during a specific window—late March to early April. No clue why. My "treatment" was just paper tissues and homeopathic eye drops.

Is it actually possible to develop asthma starting from what seems like a harmless allergy?

Pale Blue Eyes said:My perspective centers on the rights and interests of this unborn child. Who exactly is asking them how they should be conceived?

Precisely. One might as well ask the parents why they failed to fix the genome if they had the opportunity in the first place.

Jango Fett said:Gattaca!

The core theme of that film is the discrimination against those without genetic modification. Discrimination isn't an inevitable byproduct of capability. Our DNA already varies wildly from person to person without serving as grounds for prejudice. In fact, if genetic engineering becomes widely accessible, it could actually level the playing field.

I'll add an economic angle: the healthcare system is buckling under its own weight, and things will only get worse without radical reform. Here in the USA, we’re already seeing services rationed; some people simply won't get care, potentially leading to premature deaths. Wouldn't it be practical to reduce the percentage of the population prone to chronic illness against that backdrop?

We aren't quite there yet, but we will be soon.

Gene therapy for certain diseases is already in its infancy. Despite some setbacks, further breakthroughs in genome editing are inevitable. In terms of pure therapy, this type of genetic modification seems indisputable.

The dilemma arises with fetal genome modification—specifically when a predisposition for certain pathological conditions is identified before any symptoms actually manifest, or perhaps before they ever do. Should fetal genetic testing even be performed? And if it is, should we modify their genome based on those results?

The issue becomes explosive when you consider that certain predispositions can be diagnosed but not treated. What rights do parents have against society? Does an unborn child have a right to their own birth? Or perhaps a right *not* to be born, if their existence would be significantly more difficult? I recall a court ruling in France where a child with severe disabilities was awarded damages from a hospital that failed to diagnose the condition prenatally, during the window when an abortion would have been an option.

From an economic standpoint, the question is who picks up the tab. Driven by the desire to give their children the best possible start in life, it’s easy to imagine many couples paying to genetically eliminate a predisposition for diabetes, MS, or cancer. On the flip side, this technology might initially be available only to the wealthy. To prevent a genetic divide, should these methods be banned entirely? Or should the government cover the costs of certain diagnostic and therapeutic methods to ensure a level playing field for everyone?