Human genetic enhancement.

[Japher]

I'd eliminate A and B cups!

I'd second that motion

[Oerdin]

I was listening to NPR and they had someone from the Bra maker's union or something get on and say American women have bigger breasts today then ever before (or atleast they're buying bigger cup sizes). I'm sure most of it was due to women being fatter then ever before but the spokeswoman was saying that in some states 1/3 of women between 18-35 have had a brest enlargement or implant procedure done.

[Skanky Burns]

Fake is not attractive.

[Oerdin]

You obviously haven't seen what I've seen.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


Fake is not attractive.

fake works just fine. yah ok extremely perky natural is prolly ideal. but its not like I'd take saggy ass ones over fake or something.

[mrmitchell]

I see this as the beginning of the designer children fad. It will most likely become another way which the wealthy can show how much better they are then the poor only they really will be genetically better.

That's why I said that there should be the ban on children getting it.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Azazel
Yeah, well, it depends on what you look at the story of Gattaca: I've never said that people should be treated according to their genetic lineage.

Think of the human effort such an endeavour would save, esp. if it would be available for everyone!

You´re right,
it all depend on what you make out of this.
If you use it for Discrimination of imperfect children, who didn´t have genetic Enhancements or if both, the Imperfect and the genetic enhanced live together in Harmony.


I fear for one thing, if Humanity tries to attain genetic Perfection,
i.e. that it could become a genetic Bottleneck.
Genetically enhancing people also means, that the people would become more similar in their Genetics.
And I don´t know, if this couldn´t be a very bad thing. After all Sex appeared on the world to make the Organisms more genetic dissimilar, because this was a good weapon against Virii and Bacteriae which caused illnesses.
If you now increase the genetic similarity it could mean, that you probably increase the impact which new diseases could have on the human Population.

You have examples in the nature, where genetically enhanced (enhancement towards greater productivity), but also genetically very similar crop is also very vulnerable against various Plant Diseases and the occurrence of some Forms of Diseases, which wouldn´t hurt genetically not enhanced crop could lead to a whole field of enhanced crop to get infected and die.

There are also Examples of Gene Defects, which are usefiul in a certain environment. Especially the Sickel Cell anemia. If a children is a homocygote carrier of the Gene for Sickle cell Anemia it might die. But, if it is a heterocygote Carrier of the Anemia, it is immune to Malaria, which greatly enhances its chance of survival in many parts of Africa.
So, if you would cut the Genes for Sickle Cell anemia out, because you think, they are just Defects (without knowing, that they make children immune against Malaria) they might be worse off than children which weren´t genetically enhanced by cuting these genes off.

It isn´t just the Sickle Cell Anemia, where we know that it might be useful, but there are a lot of Diseases around and many diseases, like flu for example, constantly mutate so they could avoid all new cures we develope and could better penetrate our Immune System.
So, after all we don´t know if some Mutations in the human Genome from which we now think they are Defects, might not one day save the life of its Carriers, because they are the factors which keep the carriers from getting infected.

So I´d think we should be very conservative in genetically enhancing our children. Maybe genetically illnesses, especially those which threaten the life of its carriers should be removed (despite the thingsI said about the sickle cell anemia).
But everything other than that should be very carefully approached.
You don´t know if for example removing a Gene, which results in females with smaller breasts doesn´t make them very vulnerable against the large Epidemia of fatally headaches, which first occurs in 2025, infects all female who don´t possess the gene for smaller Breast (i.e. either homocygote [which de facto possess small Breasts] or heterocygote [which possess Breasts which are opf normal size]) and which invariably leads to death because of headaches within weeks. Oh and the Illness is transmitted just like Flu and has a Incubation time of Months, where the Carriers could infect otherpersons, but don´t show symptomes of the illness.
So if you had removed the Genes for small Breasts, nearly all of those wonderful women with large Breasts could die a painful dead within short time, if a cure isn´t found within a short time.


So I would be very careful with the things I enhance

[Sandman]

Is there a shortage of boys or girls then?

sandman, just out of interest, how would infant sex selection improve europe's birthrate, i was always our problem is people not having enough kids, not too many boys/girls?

It would make family balancing much easier. A couple which already has two boys may want a girl, but they can't guarantee it. Most couples start off wanting three or more children, but often give up because it's so tough.

[Inverse Icarus]

i actually profess this as one of the "end of humanity" doomsday scenarios, where "designer babies" become widespread, and a small set of genes is deemed "perfection".

ignoring the gattica suitation entirely, you end up with a lack of genetic diversity. when a major plague or environmental change sweeps through swiftly, plop goes civilization.

for those that doubt, and know a little about genetics, i have an interesting fact: polydactyly (six fingers and six toes) is a dominant trait in the human species, and is represented even as a hybrid (ie, no carriers). that means, if a pure-bred polydactyly (PP) male mates with a normal (pp) woman, the children will definately become of becomming polydactyly (Pp, Pp, Pp, Pp). If a hybrid male (Pp) mates with a normal female (pp), the children have a 1/2 chance of becomming polydactyly (Pp, pp, pp, Pp).

this trend suggests that there should be many more six fingered individuals, that the majority of society should have six fingers/toes, but they do not.

the scientific community has since put out a thesis, that states that the polydactyly gene must have been very close in proximity to some other gene (or, indeed the same gene) that was essential to human survival during one time or another (a string of cold seasons, plagues), and many of the polydactyly people died off as a result.

now, thats all debatable, but it does make sense. imagine if our race as a whole ELECTED to thin our gene pool to shallow waters? that has mass suicide written all over it.

although, as a species, we probably wouldn't thin ourselves out too much. i mean, indians would still want indian babies, etc, etc. but what if the gene for something we do not want, say, myopia, was not only responsible for eye problems, but for some resistance to some disease, we would die off en masse.

i'm all for genetic manipulation, expiriments, and even genetic purity, but i wouldn't want a whole race of near carbon copies.

[Proteus_MST]

Obviously we´ve got the same Opinion about it, Uber Krux

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...52#post2261352

[Neutrino]

Agreed, Uber Krux.

One problem right now is that most of the DNA is classified as 'junk DNA' - DNA that does not code for any gene/protein product. However, experiments have shown that a sizable portion of junk DNA is actually involved in regulation of gene expression. I'm currently working in a medical research center, and the professor I'm working with has discovered many regulatory chunks of 'junk DNA' in rats that are related to cancer and apoptosis.

Also given the size of the eukaryotic genome, all possible epistatic effects are extremely difficult to determine (factorial/exponential increase w/ genome size, I think).

[Sarxis]

Heck yes!! I'm all up for genetic tailoring.

But not only are we so assbackwards technology-wise (we should have colonized Mars centuries ago), but our culture is so sterile that they'd never allow it.

By 'sterile' I mean boring, unimaginative, and disadventurous.

[mrmitchell]

If you now increase the genetic similarity it could mean, that you probably increase the impact which new diseases could have on the human Population.

I'd not thought about that. A very good point indeed.

Come to think of it, full-blown genetic enhancement, no. I'm thinking we could mutate bugs or something to do our bidding. Or maybe fix bacteria to give us vitamin C or something...that's far better than manipulating OURSELVES

[Ted Striker]

I want to make sure my kids have penile reduction genetically programmed into them so they don't have to go through what I have my whole life.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Azazel
So, would you like it?

Let's say that it is possible, via genetics, to make all humans good looking, desease-free, intelligent, and not sociopathic.


would you go for it? I certainly would.

Same here.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Azazel

"Perfect", when taken in terms of the human form, is entirely subjective. What is more perfect, a blue eye, or a green one?

20/20 vision is considered "perfect" though there are people who can see better than that. When everyone has 20/20 vision, will it still be considered perfect?

What IQ is perfect? What lifting capacity, what running speed?

When everyone is "there", natural human competitiveness and need for hiearchy will lead them to focus more closely on what was once perfect, and create a new standard.

[Dis]

this could be a problem.

because all men would opt for 12 inch penises.

But if everyone had 12 inch penises, then one guy would then go for an 18 inch penis.

This could spiral downward into 48 inch penises that drag on the ground.

no work would get done? genetic enhancements poses too many problems.