The Ethics of Genetically Engineering Children - Arthur Caplan

[TchrisO123]

god doesnt make this available are u gay? this is the worst thing pple have done in history, its horribly wrong to change a babies destiny before they are born

[NnintendoGamer4911]

If there was a god then why would he make this technology available? You religious people not wanting this can fuck off.

[InvestigateWTC7]

If the technology had existed around the time of his conception, would it have been ethical to genetically engineer a smaller set of moobs for this guy?

Research the term "Bioethics" as it relates to eugenics. Eugenicists had to change their name due to some bad public relations issues early last century ;)

[bbphnix]

those two death people are utter douche-bags and the gov should just take their kids away; it's no different that if they had a normal child and they punctured her ears or something like that to render her deaf

mutherfucking morons

[UberAntisocialist]

"Ethics" and "genetic engineering" do NOT belong in the same sentence.

[bbphnix]

@UberAntisocialist oh really? why not? you think genetic engineering shouldn't be applied on humans at all?

the advantages brought on by this technology are incredible; the entire array of philosophical arguments of the type "playing god", "it's gonna increase social difference rather than diminish" and others are meaningless!!! philosophy becomes meaningless when you have such a potential goldmine; sure, there're debates to be had around this subject, but

[bbphnix]

@UberAntisocialist dismissing the application of this technology on humans completely is out of the question

[ariadarabi]

I think we should be able to change a child's intellectual properties but not the child's appearance.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

what a stupid couple i hope they dont let that happen ever agian

f-ing idiots

[killerxela]

That's not micky mouse, that's just TITDIRT!

[Bristow42]

They have done it already, three genes sets of into one egg in 2001. For test tube babies, for older woman. So it is here already frankinstein babies.

[chocolatedonut31]

Here's a question. Is it possible to alter an already born human at, lets say 20 years of age? Hypothetically, could we give a human a gene that would make them grow a new limb, such as a tail, after they where already born?

[chocolatedonut31]

@HewManatee lol although my example was ridiculous, my question was serious. Is it a yes or a no?

[chacoal]

@chocolatedonut31 to answer your question can you give a 20 yr old a new limb? YES the medical tech is availible. its not yet legal and still being tested

[ariadarabi]

@chocolatedonut31 Yes. However, if your limbs were chopped off and you wanted to grow a new one, the DNA code is already there, your DNA already says you have limbs even though they've been severed; in our lifetime it won't be possible to regrow those limbs.

I don't see a way. Not 100% sure though so don't trust me =P

[bbphnix]

@chocolatedonut31 yeah, with gene therapy

[STEPHENWRAYSFORD33]

People have no problem with improving their child's traits and abilites through music lessons, etc. But people have a sort of irrational reaction to any forms of genetic engineering.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 true

[ErosTheDemonSlaye]

Im a student in gene engineering and bio technology and i agree with him in almost everithing but i have to say that i dont aprove using gene engineering on unborn babies.For the simple reason that they have zero opinion on the whole situation all i know is that i will use my education to genetically engeenir fully grown humans 18 years and older it will be dificult but not impossible.

[FutureHyperion]

@ErosTheDemonSlaye Why does the fetuses opinion matter? Would you rather let this kid to have a down syndrome and then ask him, when his 18, how does he like it? Besides, they have zero opinion if they get the disorder and they have zero opinon if they take the gene therapy. This has nothing to do with choice so why not help the child?

[ErosTheDemonSlaye]

@FutureHyperion yea , i should have been more clear. Im not against using genetic engineering for genetic disease, but like Arthur Caplan said the sex or the way the child will look is not a disease. Its the cosmetic aspect that im against and that it should wait until the shild is 18.

[FutureHyperion]

@ErosTheDemonSlaye I haven't really thought of that aspect so much. But what's so wrong with "cosmetic apect"? I mean if my parents were really, really ugly and they deliberately decided not modify me genetically to look bearable I might be quite upset. I know it's quite vain but is it that big deal? I really don't yet have opinon about this and I'd like to hear some rational argument against this cosmetic modification.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

stupid people

sigh me up for this make my kids better im all for it

[bradooster5]

Bioshock.

Nuff said.

[Jack243]

i hope that in the future we will all be perfect

we can all chose who and what we want to be

[goodluckpeace44]

AMEN to this!!

WE WANT PERFECTION.

WHAT DIOT WANT A DISABLED CHILD?

EVERY CHILD MUST SERVE A PURPOSE

[goodluckpeace44]

If I wanted a child I would not want a woman, if this works, I am making the most genious ever. If we can make a genticaly perfect child why not?

[Dineine70]

Frikin garbage sonny, go ride a dinosaur

[brownshadow13]

fuck god he dont exist dumbass grow up its like believing in santa claus idiots

[ldglance]

now just to let you know that there is plunty of evidence for christ... that comes outside the bible and i do not have the time to list it all out for you but maybe you could think and look it up... or someone could help you with that. it should be in the history section of most libraries... and dude Wikipedia does not count.

as for your second comment be nice in debates it shows character.. and you may look to see if your brainwashed

but honestly research and do not believe everything your told

[zoltan656]

there is no evidence of christ out said the bible dumb ass.

[herrhals]

there may be Jesus, maybe not. but honestly, who the fuck cares? If people want to believe in fairy tales, let them, no burden on me.

The only problem I have with any religion is when it is imposed on me that I must agree with the garbage spoonfed to the idiots.

[herrhals]

To illustrate: Most of George Bush's most compelling arguments against abortion, stem cell research, non-secularism, etc came from his religion. So, when someone doesn't believe in the brainwashing of religion, then the arguments can not be very compelling can they?

People should believe whatever they want, but keep it to themselves, because honestly, no one gives a shit.

[bbcrobinhoodrox]

Right On!!!!!

[ldglance]

even more i know it is long but just follow me.

i do not know if you believe but one common view is that everything came out of the big bang. (not saying you do believe this) but that in it self is not logical as we know the Conservation of mass that to cause a big bang that their had to be matter already. that or something had to create the matter (which some say would be God).

next. just to point out evolution is still a theory. just to let you know not a law. .....

[zoltan656]

evolution is not just a theory theory in science have different meaning then in everyday speech.

have you hear about theory of gravity.

[N4TH4N88]

have you heard of the theory of grammar?

[zoltan656]

English is not my native language.

[ldglance]

first thing i have to say is that just because christian believe that God became flesh does as in john 1 does not mean they believe that he is a humanoid. as you put it. more correctly they believe that as God he took on the form of a human to come to earth to give them a human representation of God. but not the fullness of God him self.

now lets talk science seeing it is my most favorite. you say that everything comes from mother earth. ok where did mother earth come from? ...

[ldglance]

ok PrettyWithPythons: just to let you know when in a debate it shows that you are not strong in your argument when you avoid a question. you never did give evidence that God does not exist.

but then again you can't... though then again there is no evidence that darkerayn can give you that you would believe anyways. which shows close mindedness

third. in a logical debate there is no need to call names it just makes you look stupid. and no one will listen to you.

more to come keep reading

[markocska94]

I may want to be genetically modified, but it sounds awfully scary.

[PrettyWithPythons]

I know that I am going to have my children genetically engineered(GE) and thats a fact and I have been thinking it over since I first heard about it. I don't believe in god and think that anyone who does and uses it as an excuse to not GE future generations because you are "playing god" stupid fucks. I want three boys and I intend to do what I can to make sure that they are perfect. So to me GE them is a no brainer. YAY SCIENCE!

[DarkeRayn]

Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean He doesn't exist

[PrettyWithPythons]

lol just because you believe doesn't mean shit either

[DarkeRayn]

very true. so what is your evidence that he does not exist?

[PrettyWithPythons]

Whats your evidence that he does? You do know I hope that Christmas AND easter are both Pagan holidays. and were taken by the catholics when they tried to convert everyone ( AKA slaughtering all the pagans) The god that you worship is actually the SUN. It brings light and life to us. but for some reason christians think that god is a humanoid being hahaha what a load of shit.

[DarkeRayn]

well first of all, you haven't provided any evidence of your own that he doesn't exist, but I will let that rest and give you some evidence that I think should at least be considered. first, i should probably let you know that catholics did not slaughter all the pagans and i assume you are speaking of the inquisitions, i do not believe that the people who killed in the name of God actually knew the God they were killing in the name of.

[PrettyWithPythons]

All your doing is flapping your lips. Honestly. YOU nor anyone can prove that he exsists. the bible is a fairytale meant to be able to control people's natural impulses for the "good" of mankind. Its a brainwashing tool. Lol you think god made the universe.. yeah you sound more and more like a brainwashed groupie to me. LOL all the things you listed above its called SCIENCE. ... I want proof you dimwit. not from a piece of toast or a stupid book. its called coincidence.

[DarkeRayn]

i went over the character limit in my last comment ol.

Christians do have a bit different theology that catholics. also, Christians do not believe in a humanoid being, that would be the ancient greeks aka Zeus. and now for my evidence. 1. the complexity of life and universe. 2. the existence of God provides a first cause of life. 3. the uniformity of the laws of nature. 4. DNA. 5. that God pursues us and seeks and desires for us to know him. 6. the fact that Jesus Christ is a real person.

[PrettyWithPythons]

Mother earth is who "created" us. rather we evolved from creatures that came from her womb the sea. lol Jesus was not a real person. Prove it. Oh wow you have a book. And if your a christian and actually read the bible you would know that it said that humans are made in his image therefore he would have to be humanoid. The laws of nature are just that. NATURE. Mother earth is a living being. you need to do some research dude.

[zoltan656]

jesus is not a real person he is just copy of god Horus.

[DarkeRayn]

huh? please explain....who is Horus? how do you know that Jesus was not a real person and how do you know he is a copy of this Horus guy?? and actually there is outside evidence that Jesus was a real person that lived.

[zoltan656]

just search jesus horus on youtube

[connor646]

there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the new testament.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@connor646 indeed

[simplybornhuman]

Genetic engineering to the point where we could choose non-human traits should be strictly illegal, however I am for pro-selection. If we could rather select the genes we want, that would be all we need. GE is about 100 years from now. and although a few techniques may be made available in the next few decades, the use of it as we imagine is far off. Before then we would have already found a cure for aging, and a way to live forever with all our desires.

[seeaeytch]

genetic engineering to the point where we can make people who have christ-like powers may be 3 years away. if you keep up w/ the various bits and pieces of the stories behind the presence of aliens, you'd know that there's an alien race called the grays that base their entire battle plan around the first year of their presence becoming 100% confirmed. by spoiling a civilization w/ no idea of what wisdom, truth, and love are, they are absolutely doomed to work for conquest.

[simplybornhuman]

I have said that we should remain human. Personally, I am only pro-selection, only for the selection and replacement of genes, say IVF, from other sperm/egg, from the same parent.

This is already in play somewhat.

But placing genes which, say grow scales or give people superhuman abilities should be strictly illegal.

[zoltan656]

it is a bunch of NEW AGE bullshit .

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@zoltan656 fuck you

[seeaeytch]

genetic engineering on humans is a clear violation of the laws of nature. it's selfish to try and fix something that not only isn't broken, but isn't broken for a very good reason. the minutest details of compatibility traits in how people choose their spouses is very delicate, and w/ alteration you risk losing that. the last thing we want is for humanity to become consumeristic drones cloned from a hive like the greys.

[simplybornhuman]

It is certainly a violation of human progress, above all the pinnacle of being naive to ignore it. But it is also a very dangerous technology, but then again all are.

So long as we remain 100% human, and don't add any traits that don't yet exist. Only selecting the best genes, based on what are the most successful traits in society today. IE. less chance of disease, Higher IQ, better metabolism, better vision, whiter teeth, perkier breasts, larger penis...

Not fiddling with personality genes

[seeaeytch]

messing w/ the iq could have effects on personality. the rest of the changes are too shallow to be worth risking something so difficult to fully understand. an egg and sperm start w/ such a small amount of generic dna that cascades into so many changes that it's much too dangerous to have it be unnatural.

[simplybornhuman]

ever so slight. the tests won't really determine a person's personality, bt rather intelligence

IQ tests, would only be one factor of many, such as child income above parents, or even the number of PhD's held. we don't need to strictly assume everything on IQ tests(which BTW are somewhat reliable), some fluidity and changeability would also be present. we are not only looking for well children but for good parents too, something which is determined by consciousness rather than solely genetics.

[simplybornhuman]

Intelligence would not be the only concern, physical attraction, being free of harmful genetic predispositions would also be on the table to consider and factor.

[seeaeytch]

to fully explain why any kind of genetic engineering is wrong, you have to understand how a civilization evolves into evil or good. there's ways for personal individuality to become evil, technological advances to be evil, and governments to become evil. synthetic individuality is just a parasitic tumor turning an efficient society into one built off the crack-like addiction that is laboratories and over-convoluted control of nature.

[simplybornhuman]

People said the very exact same thing about Nuclear technology, computers, electricity and countless technologies, which we today can't imagine life without.

Yes there may be bad, as with all technology, but also as with all technology, in time we sort the bad out, and it improves everyone's lives forever.

[seeaeytch]

concerning the technologies we've supposedly "sorted out", there's really not enough progress w/ any of them to have any definitive paths being set into stone. for example, with computers, if the technology from The Matrix existed, that would be evil b/c it would be extremely easy to manipulate people. as an overall rule, if it can be weaponized it will turn that society into warriors that live off of others' pain. look up bob lazar to see how nuclear technology is meant to be developed for evil

[glennmcgee]

He is outstanding.  This is excellent.

[iconoclast1990]

I want a child with 4 arms and no mouth so he could do my fucking housework.

[joshTheGoods]

lol. I'm not sure how a child with more arms and less capacity to nourish them (through standard means ie: eating) would be more capable of doing your homework. If you're in kindergarten and your curriculum is based on finger painting I could be wrong :).

[iconoclast1990]

I said housework.

And I would force feed the sum' bitch with a hose.

[joshTheGoods]

lol. you're right I misread you :). What's that shit made out of duck parts that's a result from them force feeding those sum'bitches corn? That's what I thought of when I read your reply. lol

[mattghtpa]

I understand what you're saying, redundancy and efficient DNA encoding can account for the difference. I guess my thoughts are more fringe. Human evolutionary tree appears different than other species, more linear. The extremely sudden rise of human kind in just over 100,000yrs and then the peculiarities being discovered in our DNA are disconcerting, but very fascinating.

[mattghtpa]

Another question might be is how many forms of intelligence are there at the level of our technology.

[soccom8341576]

ok, assuming that this thing is unstoppable, it would still have negative effects. It would lead to many people being good at one thing. There would be less chance for nature to create unique individuals. At its most extreme, it could result in the human race drifting apart, those with mods and those who don't. It could have severe implications on freedom of choice.

And that's something a free society cannot exist with.

The thing is, humans aren't so deterministic.

[Szkeptik]

I don't understand why people are so afraid of the future of medicine. We have dozens of vaccines that small children get to make them resistant to diseases. Genetically modifying them to be resistant to even more diseases and live healthier and longer lives is the next logical step.

This perception that genetics is somehow permanently over our head is annoyingly resilient, but untrue. We know exactly what we are doing. We can understand it, we can use it for the betterment of all.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

this is wrong and man has no right to choose how he wants to engineer his offspring. its a dangerous game, and it WILL spawn the next generation of domestic terrorists because it is highly unethical, humans do not have the capactiy to operate on a genetic level without damaging our environment and our own gene stock. We are nascent in our understanding of the building blocks of life. We cannot go there now.

[eirefrance]

As the technology becomes available, there will be people who will seek just this kind of genetic engineering, no matter how loudly you or anyone else shouts how wrong it is. Having bioethicists provide guidance and insight ensures at least some direction once that engineering happens.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

true its better to have bioethicicsts than not, not but they don't know much better than we do, the result is the same. ethicists now don't stop abuses in other fields they simply expose them. With bio engineering exposing a problem we have never had to deal with before is of little solace if the mistake is grave enough. Mankind is simply not ready.

[joshTheGoods]

What gives you the right to tell another man or woman what they can or cannot do? You may think you're position is justified by God, but that puts you lockstep with the people that want to hinder stem-cell research. Explain again how these advances will inspire terrorism? You claim we are nascent in our understanding of the technology ... how do you propose we learn more? By NOT working on it? My mother has 4 sons, and she wanted one daughter. Is she evil for using technology to get her girl?

[loganswiss]

stem cell research doesn't need to involve embryos. One of our universities won accolades for creating a process wherein a bodies own stem cells can be programmed like embryonic ones, eliminating the controversy. as for learning, it should happen but it should also be controlled because humanity can't hanlde its responsibility now, what makes you think it can handle more ?

[joshTheGoods]

I'm interested in your argument that humanity cannot handle its responsibilities now. By what metric?

I believe that our vary persistence can be used as evidence against your claim of irresponsibility. I measure a species' success based on whether it continues to survive, and how survivable it is going forward. I think it would be irresponsible NOT to push for every advancement we can as it most probably will adversely affect future survivability.

[adolthitler]

We will never be ready unless we go there, so we have to go.

We owe it to ourselves to build our future, just as we build buildings, rocketships, and microwaves.

[lumpfish99]

we go blindly and contently into engineering a 2 tier society where the underclass will be viewed as a different species and not be given the same rights as the super humans. they then destroy or enslave the underclass by eugenics or the type of monetary slavery that exists today. Are you brave enough to enter the New World Order....????

[joshTheGoods]

As if society doesn't have tiers already? People are inherently unique, and there is nothing wrong with that. How is this any different than a wealthy parent sending their children to more prestigious schools etc? We have the freedom to choose these sorts of things afforded by what has been earned. One might argue that a trust-fund parent shouldn't have the opportunity to perpetuate their advantage through GE. I ask, why the double standard? Shall be become a communist state?

[lumpfish99]

Its very, very different...yes we have tiers, but have you heard of social mobility?? a poor person can use will power and a good idea and become rich...with genetic engineering there is no mobility....you are born with a normal memory or iq, while those with money are born with a much better memory and a far greater iq....There will be no "freedom to choose" if you are born with a deficiency, which is what genetics will provide, deficiency for the poor and advantage for the rich....

[joshTheGoods]

Again, I ask how is this advantage any different than the advantages the wealthy already enjoy? Wealthy parents provide their kids with better food, education, etc. If you are going to rail against this science because it's more accessible to the rich, why do you not act consistently against all advantages of the wealthy. You stated correctly that there is upward mobility in the US, how does genetic enhancement block said socioeconomic mobility? Was Einstein genetically modified? cont.

[joshTheGoods]

Intelligence occurs on a scale, and genetic modification of some will not destroy that scale. There will still be poor people born with great big gobs of smarts, and there will be genetically engineered intellectual beasts that ignore their abilities and enjoy opulence. A poor family can dedicate their lives to coming up with the funds to modify their children like poor families do to send their kids to college now. I myself am the result of that sort of dedication.

[lumpfish99]

This type of engineering will create an entirely new species of human, with super physical prowess and heightened intelligence....this is not a question of feeding your kids organic food instead of tv dinners. I suggest you read an article on the BBC called "Human species may split in two" 17th October 2006...then add genetics into the mix...!!!

[joshTheGoods]

In order for these people to be considered another species, they would have to be incapable of reproducing with "regular" people. I'm not sure this would be advantageous as their genetic pool would be damningly shallow. If your article claims a split on humanity WITHOUT considering genetic manipulation, then you are supporting my point. There are major differences between those of us with access to nutrition and those of us without already. Just look at sub saharan africa. Fight that, not this.

[badger5079]

With genetic engineering, we can seek to create elite human beings and society as a whole should improve. Less addiction, obesity, stupidity, random violence...more invention, intelligence and artistic and scientific endeavour.

We won't get that by expanding the population in areas of the world that can't cope with their current populations.

[badger5079]

The average Sub Saharan African IQ is in the 70's range. This may be partly environmental and partly genetic but we won't improve the world forever by bailing out the helpless. We may do it by increasing the abilities of our elite. If you want to be a more successful hunter you sharpen the tip of the spear and practise your aim...you don't carry a dozen extra bendy spears in case you miss your target first time around.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@badger5079 i agree

[badger5079]

If we tried to spend all our money on helping the poor and the weak to maintain their weak genes in the gene pool, we would never have landed a man on the moon.

Like the philosopher Jesus said; the poor will always be with us.

[joshTheGoods]

first, I think that studies on IQ by region are inherently flawed. second, I don't know if one can really draw a distinction between "weak genes" and "strong genes." Your position borders on racism. I think any gene that is active and doesn't utterly destroy the faculties of a life form are good genes. Genetic diversity, after all, is a good thing. By this reasoning I'd defend any genetic combination that leads to a lower score on an arbitrary test. Those very genes might lead to better things.

[badger5079]

IQ studies by region are only flawed if they don't fit your theory. I expect that if a Subsaharan African had the benefit of good nutrition and education and an advanced society he or she would have much higher IQs. There is a genetic and an environmental but even the genetic component of IQ is arguably the result of environmental influences on a person's ancestors.

I think I am being racist because I am generalising about Subsaharan Africans.

[badger5079]

I should clarify that I understand that any individual Subsaharan African is capable of having a high IQ but the environmental and possibly genetic factors seem to count against it as we see from the IQ tests.

If you have a choice between your child having the gene for Diabetes or having a normal gene at this locus, which option would you choose? I would choose the stronger gene (which in this case, is the normal gene)

[joshTheGoods]

My argument regarding IQ transcends this topic altogether. I believe it's culturally biased no matter what; furthermore, I argue that to attempt to quantize the many many factors of intelligence down to one number is academically dishonest. There is a reason that the scientific community at large rejects the use of IQ testing as anything less than astrology. There are apparent correlations between what sign one is born under and personality, but to relate that correlation to anything else fails.

[badger5079]

The IQ test may be culturally biased but this is not enough to explain a 30 point gap in IQs between an average Subsaharan African and an average European.

[joshTheGoods]

Interesting point. I beg you ... rethink your position from a logical perspective. You must show a link between lack of nutrition (not just lack of money) and lower IQ scores before you can make this claim. The whole point I'm making is that you'd have a hell of a time proving that because there are so many factors involved that are inseparable. This renders the entire test, and any conclusions based on the test semi-arbitrary. We simply cannot rely on your figure as proof of anything.

[badger5079]

I believe that you are trying to infer that I think black Africans are intrinsically inferior. I am merely saying that whether the cause is mainly environmental, social or genetic - the average African IQ is lower than the average IQ of the world.

The motivation for my argument is that we are wasting time trying to make everyone equal. Interventionism in impoverished countries generally is done for selfish reasons and causes a boom-and-bust cycle in the population with disastrous results.

[terencelaoshi]

Well said. Political correctness is at the root of much academic dishonesty.

[adolthitler]

Who can tell what is the gap from culture? Maybe the gap should be 90 points and they are smarter than you or I.

[badger5079]

Maybe the sun is really a ball of ice.

[adolthitler]

Are you denying that the gap caused by culture cannot be measured?

[badger5079]

You are the one who is seeking to excuse the gap. You reject the possibility that Subsaharan Africans are less intelligent, on average...you immediately jump to find an excuse.

[adolthitler]

No I just point out you don't know what the gap should be. So you cannot make a claim that they are stupid or smart. Unless you are stupid and can't see you can't measure. IQ does not state what the genetic potential is in those people, or in you. Thats the only thing to decide passing on genes. If you want to prove you are smarter than them, go live with them as a sub saharan.

[badger5079]

I am not advocating seek out hidden genetic potential in Subsaharan Africans who have average IQs in the 70's to 80's. I think we should try to seek out the hidden genetic potential in the people who have the highest IQs such as the East Asians.

I don't want to prove that I am smarter than Subsaharan Africans - IQ test already do that...and because I am relatively smart (or so I think) I obviously will not want to downgrade to a Subsaharan African lifestyle.

[adolthitler]

But you claim to be smarter based on a culturally biased test. IQ tests are not proof of intelligence outside the culture that devised it. If a sub saharan gave you a test on hunting techniques, or foraging techniques or subsistance farming techniques, you would be a dud. You prove nothing with your IQ test, except you are on the lower scale for a white man. Or you would understand that the results are not comparable.

Are apples smarter than oranges? Or oranges smarter than apples?

[badger5079]

"IQ tests are not proof of intelligence outside the culture that devised it."

That's like saying that fitness tests are not proof of fitness in Kenyan marathon runners because they grew up in a different environment than me. It doesn't matter. A Kenyan marathon runner is still much better able to run a marathon than men for genetic and environmental and cultural reasons. I don't care what reasons or excuses I have for not being as good at marathon running but I accept the evidence...same for IQ.

[badger5079]

You said that the IQ test is biased "no matter what". Isn't that academically dishonest?

[joshTheGoods]

Nope, it's a matter of FACT. Look at what IQ is attempting to measure. It's measuring the expression of a conglomeration of traits. When an ethereal and arbitrary set of traits are indirectly expressed bias necessarily follows. If I try and measure 'creativity' by looking at peoples' drawings my methodology is intrinsically biased by the person interpreting the drawings as well as by the means by which the test subject draws. Think on this for a while before you respond.

[badger5079]

I am merely stating that Subsaharan Africans would not seem to be as intelligent as people from other societies based upon IQ tests. The average Subsaharan IQ is in the 70's - 80's. I am not concerned with coming up with excuses for this apparent gap. You are. I am not concerned with tweasing out whether the nutrients available to the average Subsaharan African's gene pool are low for economic or political reasons. You are.

[Steadno]

The first three are genetic diseases which effect mostly Caucasians.

[Plutonwolf]

Hell folks, opt for the fur covered pincer armed welder model with swappable sexual orientation and gender. Why not upgrade to a model with treads and submersible options along with sonar capabilities?

This is one hell of a slippery slope and by the Gods we will find it irresistible.  Then we, as we rapidly die off as a species, will moan eloquently about how we could have never forsaw what happened.

Yeah.

Right.

[joshTheGoods]

You claim this is a slippery slope ... but if the bottom of that slope is a better future for people around the world then I say let me in on that slippy slide.

[Plutonwolf]

Genetic manipulation would start off wonderfully, diseases would be cured, frailties would be overcome and all sorts of positive outcomes would be achieved. Then comes the militarization of this science (it would most likely have started immediately) Smarter, faster, stronger, colder, meaner, tougher, less and less human. Then these post humans would decide we are superfluous. This is one of the hurdles that we must pass that includes nuclear weapons, bio weapons, A I, nano weapons *cont*

[Plutonwolf]

*Pt 2* space based kinetic weaponry and several other issues I now skip before we can say we will survive as a species.

Just like atomic power, this genie starts out with great promise and wonderful potential, but the basic nature of group mentallity will of course turn it perverse. I hope we will handle this power better, but somehow, by the way we have behaved recently, I strongly doubt it.

I so hope I have mis-read things this time, but I usually don't. Wish me bad luck, we all need it.

[joshTheGoods]

Can you not see how fear of progress has been a constant in scientific discovery from day 1? You are making the same argument as the church did against Galileo. Atomic progress is a great example of this. We faced, and continue to face the dire consequences of losing control, but thus far our will to survive as a species has overcome. We must not let fear rule our decision making processes. We have an unlimited capacity to solve problems as history has proven time and again. We can handle this.

[Plutonwolf]

You will never find a greater fan of science than me. I am all for the funding of all things that increase our understanding and mastery of our world. I am just trying to raise awareness of the very dark side of this area of research. With awareness comes caution and that is what I want, caution. I have a sis with MS, a neph with Aspergers, a strong family history of skin cancer. This research will benefit me in a very personal manner. But I still want people to be aware of its dark side.

[joshTheGoods]

My most sincere apology for misunderstanding your position. I agree that we must act with due diligence when pushing forward scientifically or otherwise. I'm so used to people rejecting advancement out of fear that I leaped to an unfounded conclusion. Again, my apologies.

[Plutonwolf]

LOL, I could have been a bit clearer to, I looked back over my comments and they did have a very luddite tone to them at times so I too appologize. Hell, I kinda came across like those lug wrenches who say the LHC will make black holes that will eat the galaxy (I'm not kidding, the entire galaxy!)

I just want EVERYONE to be aware of what we are getting into here, it isn't all rainbows and happy smiles, there is a very dark potential in this.

[mattghtpa]

I've watched a few fringe YouTube videos that lead you to believe that humans by far have the most genetic problems and disease than most other mammals. It even appears our DNA seems more cluttered with junk and some disease occurrences really make no sense with regard to genetic inheritance, rather as a problem deeply imbedded within all human DNA.

[Plutonwolf]

We are a very young species still in a state of evolutionary flux. Plus, we have very recently (10,000 years ago) shifted our dietary focus and incorporated foodstuffs we wern't evolved to digest properly. Our mentallity adds to this problem, we community support members that otherwise would never survive to reproduce or maybe have limited reproductive success. All of these issues add up to a real genetic challenge. I reccomend you read the short story, The Marching Morons, by C M Kornbluth.

[mattghtpa]

I have to admit the gene difference between human and other primates is very interesting. Gene fusion has got to be a radical mutation. The fact that chimpanzees have more genetic information than humans, but still far less than some extremely primitive life, really blows my mind. After I heard it days later something in me just didn't want to believe it. If I'm having a hard time with it I'm sure some intelligent design pundits head would explode.

[joshTheGoods]

They just ignore the data or rationalize it away. One of the hallmarks of fundamentalism is a remarkable ability to back pedal and rationalize. ID itself is an example of this. They'll gladly enjoy the fruits of said research while denying its validity. I found it amusing until recently; now I find it depressing. I wish I could enjoy such ignorant bliss and arrogant confidence in the positions I hold :(. Maybe they'll find a way to engineer that up for me :).

[mattghtpa]

More like a disconnect from reality. Yeh they seem to forget that cornucopia of medicines and technology they all enjoy is a direct result. But thats good science, not that evil evolutionary biology and cosmology. Sam Harris has a humorous, but sobering option. Ignorance, when thinking is too hard.

[Plutonwolf]

It must be that our genetics operate under a higher order algorithm to achieve a greater result with fewer genetic base instructions.

[mattghtpa]

I'm curious where along the evolutionary trail the splice took place and effect it had on our brain size and or intelligence. Was our brain already evolving higher function or as a result of the splice?

[Plutonwolf]

Now that one I wouldn'tt dare touch, I am not a trained geneticist and that is a question that a doctorate thesis could be based on LOL. I think we were always on an upward slope of intelligence because of selective breeding based on IQ, kind of like plumage displays, the brighter the better (pun intended)

[joshTheGoods]

This may just be an oversimplification for the sake of making a point, but one must come to terms with the vast amounts of time that typically engender a change like the one you're referring to. In short, there were many many "splices" leading to increasing brain size. Take a look at the transitional fossils we have leading to mammals and then humans and not the time between them. It is rare to see a large change with one mutation that doesn't prohibit propagation of said new gene.

[mattghtpa]

Ok, just so I understand better, I'm referring to the splice located on chromosome #2 that identifies the discrepancy between humans and all other closely related primates. My point is that it appears counter intuitive to information in a genome compared to intelligence. It just seems really odd and something doesnt make sense to me, but then again I am not trained in genetics I just enjoy reading what I can in the sciences.

[joshTheGoods]

"Splice" is not a fair characterization. As you originally stated, it was a fusion of two primate chromosomes that created our 2nd chromosome. A fusion does not imply a loss of information, though it doesn't really matter. I think where the confusion arises is from ignorance of the fact that most genetic material in humans can be consider "junk genes" About 97% of genes are inactive and unused. Lower order life forms may have more genes, and a higher percentage of junk. Our genome is cleaner.

[joshTheGoods]

One way to justify this from an evolutionary standpoint is that if a piece of random junk code becomes activated, it almost always results in a defect. This can be seen as devolution; a decrease in survivability. Thus, a cleaner more junk free genome is more likely to survive. IE we start with a whole lot of random stuff, and slowly weed out the less desirable code as we progress. In this way, our genome decreases in size, but not in function. Again, it's a matter of proportion of junk code.

[mattghtpa]

Maybe I'm getting information from bad sources, but others disagree and point to the unusual fusion, less gene structure, less genetic information, 10 to 20 thousand less DNA than chimpanzee.

[badger5079]

"Lower order life forms may have more genes, and a higher percentage of junk. Our genome is cleaner."

More highly evolved organisms have more genetic junk as they have progressed from their more primitive ancestors.

[joshTheGoods]

I don't follow. Can you be more clear? It seems that you are stating that evolution leads to more genetic junk code. Am I misinterpreting? It seems that the evidence is to the contrary.

[joshTheGoods]

Though to your specific question regarding higher order functions. I think that higher order functions evolved long before our brain size increased to where we are today (note: bigger != better in all cases). One can look at the visual system for evidence of this. The low order pathway connects directly to our motor systems allowing us to do things based on sight before we think about them. Primates share the multipathway system we enjoy.

[prognost]

That's why we have to set up legal standards now that will disallow any genetic manipulation that removes capacity like Mr. Caplan said in the video. It would be illegal to make a human that is less compassionate as you describe.

[Plutonwolf]

I'm not trying to be insulting or smart ass, but did you just hear yourself? Illegal? In which country? And even if all countries signed a treaty (I doubt this greatly) Does any treaty ever go unbroken? It's like I said earlier, genetic modification of the human genome is one of many hurdles we will have to clear to survive as a species, not just nukes.

[chainzdown2dadik]

you people in your idealism. this societies lack of insight and arrogance will be its undoing.

[joshTheGoods]

arrogance hasn't been the undoing of religion yet ... no reason to think it will undo anything if it can't touch a fairy tale.

[grawk1]

Wait a Second, "We don't lock up the Amish"?

we're not talking about locking up Neoluddites that force these horrible things on their children, we'd simply be saying that we won't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for their bullshit.

[spesalvifactisumus]

You are making your own spin on this. He is talking about people who purposely want to debilitate their children. Just leaving nature" means you are not going to select gender- for instance. Now selecting gender is quite easy but

[simplybornhuman]

With absolute certainty that I will choose this for my future children.

It's sick that people want debilitate their children by just leaving nature. We take control of nature, we are human beings.

Why not, if you can stop a life time of suffering, swoped for an attractive, model, intelligent, porn-star body type person who will always contribute to all and have an easy life