Genetic manipulation

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sean Henderson on March 26, 2008 at 11:02pm

it sounds ominous to have some intelligent entity deciding our evolution but what I'm mostly referring to in the short-term is the need to use computer modelling and calculation power to understand how our genes work with all their complex interactions.

Human mind just doesn't have enough calculation power to observe the genome (even through symbolic representations) and see how best to make changes. (aside from the obviously identified known bad genes that cause disease due to understood mechanisms)

as genetic engineering of that sort is far off, in the meantime we should explore not only disciplines like meditation to make us more ethical and compassionate but also interventions like direct electrical manipulation of the brain and neurofeedback with the latest real-time imaging technologies

waiting around for the singularity or hoping to live long enough for problems to take care of themselves makes no sense to me - we need to change public policy to allow for the necessary biotech interventions while preserving rights;

http://www.abolitionist-society.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1451

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Techno on March 26, 2008 at 11:41pm

I agree that we shouldn't wait around for the singularity to happen, we should actively create it, with an initial emphasis, like you said, on computational power that includes sophisticated modeling. and to me that implies advanced intelligence to gather in the data worldwide, process it, model it, experiment, and suggest remedies for the entire species and planet.

The new synthetic intelligences could intially act as consultants, making recommendations, and not as totalitarian dictators, for example, or bring certain transhumans up to comparable levels.

I totally agree with eliminating genetically inherited diseases and disabilities through genetic engineering.

However, environmental and social impact should inform potential genetic enhancements.

Suppose, with genetic engineering, you could endow your next child with an enhanced digestive system, let's say a small extra stomach in the digestive loop that would make your child 10 times more efficient in digesting the likely foods of its generation. There is no visible difference in appearance between your transhuman child and a normal human. Your child can eat less food because it digests more efficiently, and also eliminates less waste. These effects are great for the environment: less food required and less sanitation and water demands.

The questions arise: should this type of genetic enhancement be favored over others, (taller, smarter, braver, more muscular,etc), and what percentage of the population should receive the enhancement?

Should research funding emphasize this kind of enhancment over others, ones that will be immediately beneficial to the species and planet as a whole, versus one that may be more emotionally driven and environmentally destructive, for example, your child grows into a giant with a matching appetitie, or lives to be a 1000 years old?

It's hard to make these kind of decisions without a proper worldview that encompasses all of the biological, social, and environmental affects.

I think that we should hustle to develop the increased intelligence first, it should be the top priority, and then let it tackle all of the research and consult for the species. Money should be pouring into seeding such intelligences from many different sources, and it should have the public's attention.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sean Henderson on March 27, 2008 at 3:00pm

infinite complexity and competing values

how do we resolve the competing values? - the initial instinct that I've observed is to promote liberty - but clearly we can't all just do whatever we want.

So how do we determine which actions to take? Currently military power and money are the deciding factors as well as entrenched memes.

IMO, research should be focused on lifelong individual happiness for human beings foremost - as this is what all humans want and therefore a universally valid ultimate directive.

(the catch is that trying to improve lump sum happiness leads to societal decisions that go against the universally valid directive by trumping individual rights)

These intelligences we create will ultimately be tools for Darwinian designed humans - so IMO we can't put off making societal and genetic changes in the meantime.

And we can't assume that things will improve in the future and/or that we ever will be able to develope these intelligences without destroying each other first.

IMO, world government will be needed to eliminate nationalistic competition before we can seriously think about open society and an holistic ethical intelligence.

Darwinians will inevitably use superior tools for dominance - it's what they are designed to do.

IMO, genetic engineering should focus on making us live longer, healthier, happier lives but also make us more self-sufficient and ethical

Permalink Reply by Stephen on September 12, 2007 at 12:29am

This is why genetic manipulation is fairly far off. We still don't have enough information to go messing around with our own DNA yet.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sean Henderson on September 12, 2007 at 7:13pm

We already have genetic manipulation - gene therapy is already in use, as is screening.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Stephen on September 13, 2007 at 11:12pm

That's not exactly the type of manipulation i'm looking forward to...I'm talking about physically altering DNA.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sean Henderson on September 14, 2007 at 5:39am

I don't understand how this is different from gene therapy.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sean Henderson on September 12, 2007 at 6:59pm

Besides the already large body of known bad genes (those that always cause genetic disease)

we will determine unreasonable predisposition for disease on an ongoing basis - there are already many accepted examples (universal consensus) about combinations that lead to genetic diseases which consist of alleles that are not inherently dangerous in themselves.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sean Henderson on September 12, 2007 at 7:10pm

What is one good reason not to implement mandatory genetic screening for all known bad genes?

http://www.abolitionist-society.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=959

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Stephen on September 13, 2007 at 11:21pm

The only reasons against this are ethical and the fear the average person has since he/she knows so little on the subject except for the bullshit in the movies.

and why do movies always portray cloning and genetic manipulation as evil???

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sean Henderson on September 14, 2007 at 5:40am

yeah i agree completely - could you elaborate on the ethical concerns you see?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Stephen on September 14, 2007 at 11:09pm

Well, many people who want to outlaw it say that we should not be allowed to alter our genes since God created our genes....

This is their argument, which i find extremely weak.

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8