Started by stormylynx14 · · 👁 7 views · 42 replies
Elizabeth Miller8 said:Has it ever crossed anyone's mind that those perfect beings might just decide to wipe out us imperfect types? Kind of like how we've wiped out certain species on this planet. I guess they wouldn't really have much use for someone with our kind of flaws.😢 😉
Matthew Doyle73 said:Sure, because if I don't get a little adrenaline rush every now and then, I might just stop getting out of bed. 😛
Quote : Originally posted by Bilbo @ Baggins
If you strip away every single gene tied to aggression and swap them out for traits like peacefulness, tolerance, and empathy, you won't have any problems left.
swiftcobra15 said:If you just crank up their obedience genes, you basically end up with the perfect class of servants.
Nicole James said:If you boost intelligence genes, wipe out aging, disease, and violence—you've basically created God.
Nicole James said:If you boost their intelligence genes, wipe out aging, eliminate disease, and get rid of violence, you've basically engineered Bob.
Krschanin said:I’m incredibly skeptical about genetic engineering. Sure, maybe it delivers some quick wins somewhere, but long-term? It’s a disaster waiting to happen.
Secundo says:
We aren't fully there yet, but we’ll be arriving soon.
Gene therapy for certain diseases is already becoming a reality. Despite a few setbacks along the way, we can expect massive breakthroughs in genome modification moving forward. In my view, this kind of genetic modification—when used strictly for therapeutic purposes—is indisputable.
The dilemma starts right at the moment of fetal genome modification. We’re talking about cases where a predisposition for certain pathological conditions is already clear, even if no actual disease has manifested yet—and honestly, maybe it never will. Should we even be conducting genetic testing on a fetus? And if we do, should we actually go through with modifying their genome based on those results?
This question becomes incredibly explosive when you consider that certain predispositions can be diagnosed but never actually treated. What are the actual rights of parents versus their obligations to society? Does an unborn person have a right to be born? Or perhaps they have a right *not* to be born if their existence would be defined by extreme hardship? I recall a legal precedent in France where a child with severe disabilities was awarded damages from a hospital because they failed to diagnose the condition prenatally—back when an abortion would have still been an option.
From an economic standpoint, we have to ask: who picks up the tab for this? Every parent wants to give their kid the best possible head start in life. It’s perfectly logical that couples would pay to wipe out a genetic predisposition for diabetes, MS, or cancer before a child is even born. But here’s the catch: if left to the market, this tech becomes an exclusive luxury for the wealthy. We’d be looking at a massive biological divide between the haves and the have-nots. Should we just ban these methods entirely to prevent a permanent genetic gap? Or should the government step in and foot the bill for these diagnostics and therapies to ensure a level playing field for everyone?
__________________________________________________ __
That all sounds great on paper, but let's get real: there are massive issues here. Even standard gene therapy hasn't lived up to the hype. It has failed to meet expectations for scientists, doctors, and especially patients—particularly those battling cancer who were counting on this being a miracle cure. Something is clearly broken.
When it comes to germline therapy—specifically modifying the genome of embryos and fetuses—the entire situation changes. It’s a completely different ballgame.
I’d ask you a few questions first. Once I see your answers, then I'll decide if we actually need to dive deeper. I need to know if you even grasp what you're talking about.
There isn't a single successful instance of genome modification on record—not even in animal experiments. It’s a non-starter. This medical technology needs massive refinement, and that’s going to take a long time. Even if it does advance, it will be developed within the social frameworks of the USA, England, or other European nations. I don't see how we could possibly implement the same thing here in America. That goes beyond just the technical side; I'm talking about the legal standards too.
Look, this technology hasn't even worked in animal trials yet. It’s a failure. Eventually, they’re going to force its application on human embryos, and we have to face reality: every single procedure will carry the risk of severe anomalies, stillbirths, or forced abortions. How exactly are we supposed to mitigate those risks? There is no answer.
The costs for this technology are astronomical. We aren't just talking about high; we're talking about prohibitive. This means only wealthy couples will ever have access to this kind of therapy. It creates a massive divide. Furthermore, if social services were to step in, they'd be forced to sink massive amounts of taxpayer money into this single procedure. That’s money being diverted away from other critical areas that desperately need funding. It's a zero-sum game.
How do we fix this mess? How can anyone claim they're acting fairly or socially responsible when the math just doesn't add up? The government can't foot the bill for everything! Use taxes!
Medical science isn't exactly a mystery to us. It’s hard to believe that genome modification would be used strictly for curing severe hereditary diseases. That’s naive. We should fully expect widespread abuse. People will inevitably use this to hand-pick "superior" traits—selecting for higher intelligence, better looks, or even more submissive personalities. It’s going to happen.
How would you stop the abuse?
5) Furthermore, this kind of germline therapy goes against nature itself. You’re artificially altering an individual's genome and passing those changes down to their descendants. What happens over several generations? It's anyone's guess. Instead of wiping out a single disease, we might just trigger a massive wave of other genetic predispositions. Nobody knows for sure because we have zero experience with this!
6) And then there's the final protest: the moral and ethical implications. How on earth do you prevent every possible form of abuse?
Regarding the therapy itself—if the technology becomes perfected and we reach a solid moral, ethical, and social consensus where this is used strictly and exclusively for treating specific diseases, then I wouldn't have anything against it myself.
But who gets to decide which diseases qualify for treatment?
Looking at recent news regarding human cloning, it's becoming crystal clear: there will always be psychopaths out there willing to make a pact with the Devil just to get ahead. This isn't some irrational phobia; it is a legitimate fear of the types of people involved here.
It would open the floodgates to all kinds of manipulation and organized crime.
And that absolutely must be stopped! But who actually has the power to do that?
Regards
Agamemnon said:6) And that last protest was purely about ethics and morals! How do you even stop every kind of abuse?
Lady in red says:>
I think that should be the very first protest!
__________________________________________________ _
I believe your take is spot on.
I'm with you on this one! 🙂
