Genetically modified humans?

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?

I am firmly against any kind of wholesale tinkering with the human genome—and honestly, animals too. Nature has a funny way of hitting back when you mess with the settings, and don't even get me started on the massive social fallout regarding ethics and law.

As long as our meddling stays focused on mitigating the risk of
certain diseases, I can see the merit in it. But I have a nagging feeling those scientific breakthroughs will cross every ethical line we have in record time.

Think about it: if we start modifying embryos, we're basically designing "perfect" kids based on a specific blueprint. People would be picking eye color, height, IQ, gender—the whole works.
While kids in wealthy nations like the US would thrive and outpace every previous generation, children in impoverished parts of the world would still be struggling with basic, preventable illnesses. It creates a terrifying gap.

People are constantly chasing this impossible ideal of perfection, regardless of the cost, but nature beat us to the finish line a long time ago.

You can see it just by looking at wildlife; messing with genetic code should be left to the true expert, which is Mother Nature herself. There’s a reason why a golden retriever is a golden retriever and a human is a human.

Besides, nature always finds a way to settle the score.😢

Gattaca!

First off, let’s clear the air on one thing... what does it actually mean to distinguish between a genetically modified human and a "natural" one?

What even defines "natural"?

I mean, hasn't nature been genetically tweaking everything in its path since the beginning of time?

Think about it: what’s really the difference between a woman who holds out for a partner who has piercing blue eyes, a PhD in nuclear physics, and the physique of an Olympic athlete—hoping to pass those traits down to her kid—and scientists using gene selection to design that exact same child?

My biggest hang-up with this whole debate is the rights and interests of the unborn... because honestly, who is asking them if they actually want to be engineered this way?

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?

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.

stormylynx14 said:Exactly. That kid could easily ask their parents why they didn't just fix their genome if they actually had the technology on hand to do it.

In some sort of GATTACA-style society... that’s probably how things would play out...

But in today's world, where everyone talks a big game about progress but hasn't actually pulled the trigger yet? It would probably be the exact opposite...

I'm not sure if you caught the news about those researchers in Italy announcing they've successfully cloned a living being
but they stayed silent on where the original came from.

Pale Blue Eyes said:First off, let's clarify things... what's actually the difference between a genetically modified human and a "natural" one?

What does "natural" even mean?

Hasn't nature itself been genetically modifying everything around us this whole time?

Is there really a difference when, say, a woman chooses a partner specifically because he has blue eyes, a PhD in nuclear physics, and is an elite athlete—hoping for a blue-eyed, brilliant, healthy child... versus scientists selecting those exact genes to create that child?

My main concern here would be the rights and interests of that unborn child... who asks them how they want to be created?

It’s not just about the child's rights. It's the danger of a tiny handful of corrupt people seizing all the power... acting like "gods" who decide who even gets to live!

Massive ethical questions are surfacing from a very dark future.

Won't a fake version of the "government" reach for the "right" to issue licenses for life? And who gets permission to have a child at all? The world of the future looks like a massive totalitarian threat.

Those who lack morals today—what will they do tomorrow if they grab this kind of power... power over life itself!

😢

There’s always this massive question of how far we should actually go with modifications—like, where do we draw the line? Imagine if you could just tweak your kid's DNA to boost their immunity, intelligence, strength, or even how long they live... it's wild. At what point does "enhancing" someone stop making them human? And who gets to be the judge of those boundaries anyway? Especially once you hit the second or third generation of these genetically engineered folks. Would it be decided by "regular" people or the "superiors"? If we follow that logic, what we call "humanity" as we know it will basically vanish—we'd just be turning into something entirely new.
Those are the core issues for me because if genetic engineering is ever truly allowed, humanity might just engineer itself right out of existence.

You really ought to take a look at today's edition of Time Magazine. It’s absolutely preposterous; they’re actually labeling anyone who stands against human cloning as part of some organized mafia 😲

Donna Hernandez10 said:There is always this nagging question regarding how many modifications we should actually permit. Just imagine, purely hypothetically, if you could tweak a child's genetic makeup to boost their immunity, intelligence, physical strength, or even their lifespan. At what point does enhancing these traits cross a line where they cease to be human? And more importantly, who gets to sit in judgment and draw those boundaries? It becomes even more complicated when you consider the second or third generation of these genetically engineered individuals. Will the decision-making power rest with those we consider "normal," or will it fall to the so-called "superiors"? If we follow this logic to its conclusion, humanity—as we currently define it—will simply vanish, replaced by something entirely different.
In my view, these are the fundamental issues at play; if we ever greenlight genetic manipulation, we are essentially handing humanity the tools for its own extinction.

Let’s be realistic: every single scientific breakthrough in history has eventually been turned against us and used to destroy mankind, so I wouldn't hold my breath on this one being any different.

Elizabeth Miller8 said:Every single scientific breakthrough we've ever had eventually gets turned against us—used to destroy people—so don't even worry about this one.

And honestly? Even if everyone uses it for good, it’ll still probably lead to the end of humanity as we know it. But hey, maybe that's just evolution at work—who knows?

The idea of a genetically modified human being is, quite frankly, a perfectly logical—and perhaps even inevitable—next step in our evolutionary journey. Of course, genetic engineering, much like any massive scientific breakthrough in history, is going to trigger a mountain of ethical dilemmas and complications—there's no denying that—but if we manage to harness it correctly, the potential benefits are staggering. Just imagine a world where we've effectively eliminated disease or even slowed down the aging process... It's hard to wrap your head around. Ultimately, we can't (and honestly, we shouldn't) try to run away from the future!

Quote : Originally posted by Mars
Check out today's edition of The New York Times. They're calling anyone opposed to human cloning a total mafia 😲

It’s like the clock is ticking toward—well, moral midnight! 😲

And... pure chaos!

I.L said:
Good grief, what an absolute catastrophe!

Are you thinking of a total meltdown or perhaps a sunflower? 😁 Just kidding. 😉 🙂

Ego said:A discovery of this magnitude in our history is bound to trigger a massive wave of complications, yet if we manage to harness it with precision, the potential benefits could be truly transformative.

Now, that’s a solid point you made there... provided that we actually follow through on the "if used correctly" part. 😁 I mean, let's be realistic: humanity has a track record of mishandling things, much like how we handled the invention of gunpowder or the atomic bomb, along with all those other dangerous little toys we've cooked up over the centuries.

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.

Sure, the Japanese had plenty of examples of what happens when you mess with evolution after the atomic bomb
you know, two heads, tails, limbs sprouting from places they shouldn't...
🙂
And gunpowder played its part too, if you think about it
it turned hunting from this skilled, expert craft into a little hobby for politicians, drunks, and basically just any random guy who wants to feel important because he managed to take something down using a high-tech scope, a laser, and some kind of glorified handheld cannon
I don't even need to go into the military applications, because honestly, why bother?
It’s just so much easier to drop a bomb or launch a missile at a town or a village than it is for someone to actually step up and do the dirty work manually—honestly, it’s disgusting
🙂
And I feel like the first thing that popped into everyone's collective head when genetic engineering became a reality was the exact same concept: the perfect soldier
I’d love it if someone could actually prove me wrong on that one

... I just had the most brilliant idea.
Maybe a fleet of seven Angelina Jolie clones? One for every day of the week—and then the original could come out for the big stuff, like the Fourth of July or Thanksgiving. 😁