Thoughts On Genetically Engineered Humans

[Web Rider]

Actually, I'm upset about it. Genetic discrimnation is the only discrimination that I know of that makes sense. If you got genes that make you predisposed to get a higher chance of getting Alzhimers, then you got genes that make you predisposed. That may very well be an important desicion in hiring, especially when you want to hire someone to work in a job for a long, long time, the fact that they are likely to get Alzihmers might be a material fact.

 

This isn't skin color where it doesn't matter what skin color you are...this is actual genes, and it is these genes that determine who you are.

A predisposition to something does not mean it will happen.

"Oh, you're predisposed to cancer, we can't hire you."

How is that relevant to me working inside at a desk all day?

In short, it's not. Genes do not determine who you are, genes determine WHAT you are. The nature vs nurture determined WHO you are.

 

Actually, if they are genetically superior, then it would be us purebreeds that will suffer discrimnation and hatred. But of course, the genetically superior would have a valid reason for their oppression of us.

They would also require greater numbers. A few enhanced people aren't going to be very successful at oppressing everyone else. Not to mention if they were "imporved", I should hope they aren't just as disposed to oppressing, hatred and discrimination as we are, that certainly wouldn't go very far to show they are "improved".

[SilentScope001]

A predisposition to something does not mean it will happen.

"Oh, you're predisposed to cancer, we can't hire you."

How is that relevant to me working inside at a desk all day?

 

Sure it does. Say you got cancer because you are predisposed to cancer thanks to genes.

 

Does that mean the company should pay for your health insurance and pay for the cancer, when you were already predisposed to such cancer to begin with?

 

It would cost the company a lot of money, especially because you knew you were a risk factor.

 

But I suppose hiring people based on if they get cancer or not might be considered, well, dumb. Alright then. But at least make sure that we don't treat all people with genetics the exact same way. They have viable differences. And if there is a gene for IQ, and if we discover it, then maybe discrimnation based on that might be okay (or at least, breed that gene out of the system!).

 

They would also require greater numbers. A few enhanced people aren't going to be very successful at oppressing everyone else.

 

Not really. Who's going to afford genetic enginnering? The Rich? Or at least the "cutting-edge" part of gene thearpy.

 

You're likely going to have a division between Gene-Rich and Gene-Poor, and the Gene-Rich, having great genes, and also being the childern of rich people, are going to very well start oppressing the purebreeds. If not for their talents, then at least due to the fact that the Gene-Rich are...well, rich.

 

If it is however "universal healthcare" then, we'd all likely enough be "uncleansed heretics" anyway, so no need to worry.

 

Not to mention if they were "imporved", I should hope they aren't just as disposed to oppressing, hatred and discrimination as we are, that certainly wouldn't go very far to show they are "improved".

 

You said it yourself. You only change WHAT you are, you don't change WHO you are.

[Web Rider]

Sure it does. Say you got cancer because you are predisposed to cancer thanks to genes.

Does that mean the company should pay for your health insurance and pay for the cancer, when you were already predisposed to such cancer to begin with?

It would cost the company a lot of money, especially because you knew you were a risk factor.

Compared to the profits my working for them is making? hell yes they should. Especially since their discrimination is based on a hypothetical and has no relevance to my performance on the job. Being white puts me at a higher disposition to cancer than blacks. Being black puts you at a higher disposition to sickle-cell anemia. And now we're back to square one.

 

But I suppose hiring people based on if they get cancer or not might be considered, well, dumb. Alright then. But at least make sure that we don't treat all people with genetics the exact same way. They have viable differences. And if there is a gene for IQ, and if we discover it, then maybe discrimnation based on that might be okay (or at least, breed that gene out of the system!).

But like cancer, what is in your genes for IQ is not necessarily what your IQ is. Yes, it would be a better point to discriminate from, but a high IQ isn't necessarily required(or wanted) for all jobs. You can't have obedient little workers who are also highly intelligent.

 

Not really. Who's going to afford genetic enginnering? The Rich? Or at least the "cutting-edge" part of gene thearpy.

addressed above, that's why you establish the healthcare for everyone first.

 

You're likely going to have a division between Gene-Rich and Gene-Poor, and the Gene-Rich, having great genes, and also being the childern of rich people, are going to very well start oppressing the purebreeds. If not for their talents, then at least due to the fact that the Gene-Rich are...well, rich.

addressed already.

 

If it is however "universal healthcare" then, we'd all likely enough be "uncleansed heretics" anyway, so no need to worry.

no matter what stance you take you will always get people who don't want to. That's the whole point of making it free and optional.

 

You said it yourself. You only change WHAT you are, you don't change WHO you are.

Nature vs Nurture. It's both. Yes, you can be more presidposed to certain things, and that does have a hand in determining the kind of person you are, but that's quite variable.

[Aeroldoth]

We also need to be careful of the 'designer baby' mentality - not just because of it's possible effect on the child as an individual, but think of what could happen if we started to follow 'fashions' in what children look like? Every generation would end up looking identical to one another. You would be able to tell a person's birthdate by their looks. Just think of the cultural stagnation...And that's just from looks. Imagine if we could alter brain chemistry, too...

 

Somebody already addressed this:

 

# _Number Twelve Looks Just Like You_ (vhs/ntsc)

 

* first aired: 1/24/64

* "Given the chance, what young girl wouldn't happily exchange a plain face for a lovely one? What girl could refuse the opportunity to be beautiful? For want of a better estimate, let's call it the year 2000. At any rate, imagine a time in the future when science has developed a means of giving everyone the face and body he dreams of. It may not happen tomorrow - but it happens now in the Twilight Zone."

 

Marilyn Cuberle doesn't want to submit to the Transformation, a supposedly voluntary operation that makes them identical to everyone else. Her family and friends try and convince her to go ahead with the Transformation. She tries to escape from a hospital, and ends up in a room with a doctor and nurse. She emerges from the hospital looking and thinking just like everyone else.

 

"Portrait of a young lady in love - with herself. Improbable? Perhaps. But in an age of plastic surgery, body building and an infinity of cosmetics, let us hesitate to say impossible. These and other strange blessings may be waiting in the future - which after all, is the Twilight Zone."

 

What better conformity than genetic?

 

Actually, I'm upset about it. Genetic discrimnation is the only discrimination that I know of that makes sense.

 

You don't like it? Really?! Have you seen Gattaca? Clinton's EO is one of the few gvt actions I think is truly wonderful, a win-win all 'round.

 

I remember when Clinton announced this, it received almost no attention in the press, and I sometimes wondered if I was the only one who had even noticed. Clones of the future will be very thankful for this. It's rare IMO for politicians to be proactive instead of reactive, let alone care about problems that aren't yet manifest.

 

If you got genes that make you predisposed to get a higher chance of getting Alzhimers, then you got genes that make you predisposed. That may very well be an important desicion in hiring, especially when you want to hire someone to work in a job for a long, long time, the fact that they are likely to get Alzihmers might be a material fact.

 

WHAT!?! We shouldn't hire somebody because, fifty years from now, they might be a less effective worker, maybe, possibly? Talk about a slippery slope! So we shouldn't hire women because they might get pregnant? We shouldn't hire the poor because they might become criminals? We shouldn't hire foreigners because they might go back to their homeland? We shouldn't hire drivers because they might get in a car accident? We shouldn't hire whites because they might become bigots?

 

Certain genetic and environmental factors may make a person more or less disposed for all sorts of things. However, we don't go around arresting people because they might commit a crime, maybe, possibly, fifty years from now. In a business sense, people should be valued for what they can bring to the job now. Money is paid for work done, plain and simple. If you won't, say, do evolutionary research on zebrafish, then you don't get paid. If, and when, a person can no longer do a job, then the contract is broken, not because of some nebulous possibility that may never come about.

 

http://pupant.imeem.com/video/wZcWORVc/adultswim_ponda_babas_bad_day_animation_video/

 

 

This isn't skin color where it doesn't matter what skin color you are...this is actual genes, and it is these genes that determine who you are.

 

50% Nature, 50% Nurture.

 

Actually, if they are genetically superior, then it would be us purebreeds that will suffer discrimnation and hatred. But of course, the genetically superior would have a valid reason for their oppression of us.

 

Discrimination and bigotry have nothing to do with superiority or worth. They occur with numbers and power. A oppresses B because A is larger, or is more powerful.

[SilentScope001]

Okay, just did some research, and genetic discrimnation in the workplace is still legal, but it is getting rid of soon. And to be perfectly honest, the law might be seen as useless.

 

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/24/87/89.html

 

An article about a bill in the House in 2007 that would ban this discrimantion.

 

The vast majority of employers don’t care about genetic information, Fishman says. So, they may not be up in arms about the bill that is zipping through Congress.

 

"Most of my clients are worried about getting good employees," Fishman says. "They’re not concerned about whether you have a trait for a disease that may or may not manifest during your employment."

 

And IBM has made genetic data offlimits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/business/10gene.html

I.B.M., the world's largest technology company by revenue, is promising not to use genetic information in hiring or in determining eligibility for its health care or benefits plans. Genetics policy specialists and privacy rights groups say that the I.B.M. pledge to its more than 300,000 employees worldwide appears to be the first such move by a major corporation.

***

addressed above, that's why you establish the healthcare for everyone first.

 

You don't go and say, "Alright, all we have to do is implement this Social Progam first, and then everything is fine."

 

You deal with the cards you dealt with. There is no universal health care in US. People don't want universal health care. Any policy will likely enough have lots of insurance as well. And even if there is universal health care, we shift the burden from companies to governments, so it will still be just as expensive. Can the government provide the 'same' level of genetic engineering that a millionare receive? I don't know...

 

From what I see, they'll be 'gene-rich', and 'gene-poor', and nothing you can do about it. And, I'm okay with it. The rich are constantly able to afford more stuff than the poor, and they will receive better health care, and will in the end, have better childern and become genetically superior. It'll be a part of America. And who knows? It may be a part of other societies too.

 

Certain genetic and environmental factors may make a person more or less disposed for all sorts of things. However, we don't go around arresting people because they might commit a crime, maybe, possibly, fifty years from now.

 

But being more disposed to something makes it reasonable that you keep an eye on that person rather than plugging your ears and pretending everything is normal.

 

To be fair, what I really want to have is that genetic discrimnation exist, but for insurance. If you are predisposed to cancer, you should get higher preimums due to cancer. Altough, if this fabled universal health care pops up in the US, then the government will still pay for your treatment anyway, but at least they know what is to be expected.

 

50% Nature, 50% Nurture.

 

But geneticis can control Nature. Behavoirists can control Nurture, but we should stick to the skillsets that we have. If genetic engineering can make humans 50% better, then that's a good thing. Want to make "nurture" better, then fund behavoir research.

 

But it seems we know more about science than we do about the human pysche, and we can use science right now, while studying the human pysche is far more complex. Better to use the tech we got.

 

Discrimination and bigotry have nothing to do with superiority or worth.

 

Sure it does. People think themselves as superior to other people because they are egoistic, they really want to feel themselves as awesome, and they love the gifts that they have gotten in life. The fact that those people can very well be superior however should however make you realize that this discrimnation does seem valid.

 

Remember, we are dealing with a 'sterotype' of ubermensches with high intellect, high beauty, and high strength (for the gene-rich, of course). If someone is smarter, prettier, and stronger than you are, you have to admit that they can make a good argument on why they are in fact superior to you.