Evolution... Genetic Modification... a moral dilemma?

[Meldread]

Alright, Evolution works through a process of natural selection and natural selection works on the basis of our personal environment.

Possible moral dilemma: Could medical science be negatively impacting Human Evolution? Think about it for a moment. If we are constantly curing ourselves of ailments or preventing (naturally occurring) things from killing us... then aren't we in some large way impacting the evolution of the Human species, and perhaps to its detriment?

As medical science has advanced we've grown to live longer and longer lives. Infant morality rates have gone down drastically. We regard this as a good thing, but in the long run aren't we really just allowing "the weakest" among us to continue to breed and therefore weaken the entire species?

Bleh, I know how that sounds - and hence the moral dilemma.

This line of reasoning also, I think, opens another door which leads to another moral dilemma: genetic modification. If we are already impacting our evolution as Humans, and perhaps to our detriment, it would seem only logical that we would take the next step by erasing the "negatives" of our genes by embracing some form of genetic modification.

Take a look at AIDS for example, medication that we use to help "cope" with AIDS is starting to lose its effectiveness as AIDS evolves to become stronger and more resistant. Penicillin is also losing its effectiveness. How long before even the most mundane virus becomes deadly to us and the medication we can create becomes completely ineffective? Granted, we won't have to worry about this in our life times...

It seems that the only logical step is to genetically modify ourselves to make ourselves immune to cancer, AIDS, and other such things - taking preventive steps rather than steps to cope with the problem.

I think this is something that the Human race will ultimately have to face, and I think it will happen in the same way Nuclear weapons came out: One country will begin doing it first, and to avoid that country from getting the upper hand other countries will begin doing it as well. Pretty soon, every country has their own "breed" of Human, which of course would only serve to further divide the world.

It seems to me that the only way this can be approached is if the entire world came together, sat down and said: Okay, we know Genetic Modification is a possibility, and we know some countries are going to eventually do it, so let's sit down and agree on what is acceptable and what is not and come to a common understanding.

What are the thoughts on these two issues?

[Canuckistanian]

1. I predict it will lead to a social revolt

There'll probably be a backlash and conflicts between the "stocks" and the "modifieds".

One thing's for sure. We're not about to die out as a species any time soon.

[Meldread]

3. I could see that happening.

I don't see us dying out anytime soon. At least not unless it is as a result from something totally catastrophic such as a gigantic asteroid or complete nuclear war - something that will engulf the entire planet.

I think, if anything, we're going to start living even longer on average. This will put a strain on economies that support older people, the rising cost of health care, social security - Genetic Modification is an easy way to fix that problem.

Do you think we could potentially become immortal? (As in no longer dying from old age or diseases.)

If that is so, what would happen to the world that we know? Over population is a certainty. How do we feed everyone? Would we just modify ourselves so that we can photosynthesis like plants, therefore not need food? What about Human intelligence? With super intelligent Humans what will come of science and our world - they would give us break throughs that we can't even possibly imagine.

I can certainly see this playing out like this: China decides to institute a program for genetic modification of people. The world is repulsed and tries to discourage China. However, China does it anyway and suddenly they are making all these scientific breakthroughs and aren't sharing them. The United States, after it heard China was doing it - decided to do it in secret. So did some other countries. Eventually, it becomes known and becomes a common practice and becomes accepted. However, now there are several different "human breeds".

I believe Genetic Modification is not only inevitable, but may some day eventually become necessary for the reasons I pointed out in my original post. (In regard to how we are tinkering with our evolutionary process.)

[Mythsaje]

2. I've thought about this

and, frankly, I think the human race is about to take over its own 'evolution,' as it were. The modifications will probably begin in order to make it possible for humans to live in hostile environments--including an increasingly hostile Earth, but I think there's a distinct possiblity that we'll see human/animal hybrid experimentation within the next twenty-five or so years. Canada already passed a law banning such experimentation, and I found that in itself rather chilling. You know as well as I do that banning it will do nothing to prevent other nations from doing what they want to do regardless. We can't even trust our own government not to involve itself in black op research...I seriously doubt that other nations feel any more secure than we do ourselves.

A few years back I read something that suggested that our biggest threat in the future might be the bio-geneticists and their tinkering, since there will definitely be a few for whom there are no ethical or moral boundaries.

Combine genetic engineering with nano-technology and the possibilities boggle the mind. We stand on the brink of some astounding technological leaps and will have to deal with the ethical and moral considerations as they become more apparent to more people. Some of us have been following this whole line of questioning for quite a few years, considering such things as human cloning and recombinant DNA experimentation long before the ideas became part of the overall debate.

[Meldread]

4. Problems within problems.

I agree, and I believe that the Human race as a whole should embrace the idea that we can make ourselves more... effective. (This is what you call: "Intelligent Design".) However, my fear is that in doing this we may eventually end up with more breeds of Humans than breeds of dogs. There are some people out there who would find that idea appealing - those who seek a "pure" race and it brings us back to racism.

This is why I proposed that if such a thing were to happen (and it will happen) that we need the world to come together and say "okay here are the lines that we will not cross". Then treat anyone who attempts to cross those lines very harshly - the same way we deal with countries trying to develop Nuclear weapons.

The question is, of course, what happens if they do it anyway? What is the "moral" thing to do? After all they just created a Human-like creature! It's not like it's a wild animal, we can't just kill it. Would sterilization of it be ethical?

It's frightening to think about what we will face, and yes I do believe we will begin to see the beginnings of this debate within the next 25 years or so.

Also, by the way, to my knowledge the Olympics have also banned anyone who has been "modified" from participating.

...and that line of thought brings up another can of worms... "breeding" specific Humans for sporting events. That should be illegal.

[Mythsaje]

5. I don't think there's any way to stop selective breeding of humans...

it's already happening to some extent...athletes and sports stars marrying one another and producing children who are better than their parents were. I'd be willing to bet that Russia was doing research in this direction back before the fall of the Soviets.

Athletes are also now getting their vision enhanced through laser surgery. This is deliberate surgical modification...does it automatically disqualify them for the Olympics?

We should be debating this all NOW, not waiting twenty five years...because we don't have twenty five years. We may have ten. Maybe.

But it wouldn't surprise me if the chinese weren't doing a little lab tinkering right now. And they're not the only ones. The North Koreans as well. They are, after all, among the leaders in stem cell research...

[Meldread]

6. Agreed.

That's one of the reasons I brought it up, as I feel it will become the big "hot button" issue in the future - the near future.

I am interested in getting the thoughts and opinions of people here.

[Mythsaje]

8. I wonder how many people have thought of it, frankly...

I grew up reading sci-fi, and now I write it. I'm USED to thinking about this stuff...but most people don't really grasp the implications of some of the things we're discovering RIGHT NOW. Our technology base is expanding so quickly that it's nearly impossible for the average person to keep up...the technology of tomorrow is almost beyond our imagination--what, with quantum computing right around the corner, not to mention all the bio stuff we've been discussing. Modification of humans isn't a "what if" anymore...it's a "when."

And as I once said to a protege of mine...where it goes depends most on who's standing on the peak at the moment it hits critical mass. There's a movement/philosophy/whatever called "transhumanism" and, though they appear at first glance to be just another way-out bunch of wackos, they're foretelling something that I think is inevitable, a quantum shift in our concept of humanity, something that the greater portion of the population hasn't even considered yet.

Cybernetics, genetically enhanced humans, animal/human hybrids, super-drugs, nano-viruses, quantum computers the size of a thumbnail implanted within the human brain...

Oh, I've thought about it. And some of it scares the hell out of me. I used to joke that the parents today only have to worry about their kids with piercings and tattoos--imagine what it'll be like when you have to tell your kid, "No, you CAN'T have a wireless connection device implanted in your skull, I don't CARE what your friends are doing."

[Meldread]

9. Agreed.

It really irritates me to no end that Humans, as a whole, seem to wait until the last minute to worry about anything. Humanity can see a problem from a mile away, but will choose to ignore it until it is either too late, right before it happens, or right after it happens. It never ceases to amaze me and it just boggles my mind.

...and I should probably point out that those quantum computers implanted in brains... well... I think parents would actually embrace that and it will be marketed as a way to "deal with your out of control teenager". We're already popping kids with pills they don't need, I mean really how many kids REALLY have ADD? How many people REALLY suffer from depression? (There is a big difference from feeling sad and lethargic, to actually being depressed.)

It's the logical next step. I think orphaned children will be the first to get it as a way to "keep track" of them. I think ultimately society will embrace the idea, and it will become an everyday part of life just like cell phones.

…the question is, of course, how will it be used and will it be used for good or for evil?

[DemExpat]

13. I think that psychologically humans may not be able to adapt

to such a changing world as ours is fast enough to survive.
Perhaps the rising number of mental health illnesses and problems is a sign of this inability to adapt. I can't imagine pills being able to help this in the long run.

Increasing behavioral problems of children in schools signalled in most developed countries is a possible sign of this.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17494600%255E28737,00.html


DemEx

[Meldread]

7. Cross reference poll:

I posted a poll in the General Discussion Forum roughly based around this same issue, in hopes of getting a wider range of thoughts and opinions.

[Jim__]

10. Could medical science be negatively impacting Human Evolution?

Interesting question.

I think it could be. But, I also think that it's unlikely that it is. Medical science, by allowing "weaker" humans to reproduce is increasing the diversity of the gene pool, and, I believe, it is therefore, more likely to be positively impacting our chances of survival.

I think there are 3 things that kill off species. One, the species is not very well adapted to it's current environment and so it is a short-lived species. Second, a new competitor species enters the environment and out-competes the species. Third the environment changes; and the species is not well-adapted to handle this change. The difficulty, of course, is that, generally speaking, we can't anticipate the change. So, we don't know what we need to be "like" in order to deal with the future.

The thing that gives us the greatest chance of survival is our ability to deal with change. Medical technology, and technology in general, increase our ability to deal with change. Genetic diversity also increases our ability to deal with change. I see medical technology as most likely a plus in our overall chance for survival.

[Johonny]

14. I agree

Keeping a large variance in the gene pool could be advantages. It's also important to remember humans chage there environment to make it more livable. Thus envirnmental pressure is very low.

[greyl]

17. I disagree with something here.

"It's also important to remember humans chage there environment to make it more livable. Thus envirnmental pressure is very low."

I think it's rather more important to remember that there are existing (iow : successful) human cultures that don't change their environment "to make it more livable" any more than ants, beavers, or bowerbirds do.

Humanity has survived for 3 million years by living within and adapting to an everchanging environment.

[Johonny]

21. well

That's sort of true. But beavers, ants and many birds have change their body plan to adapt to one specific life style. Humans on the other hand use tools to adapt there environment to fit there current body plan. Thus humans can live in log cabins like a beaver, earthen huts like an ant.. etc. Humans don't need huge front teeth to chop down a tree like a beaver they use an axe, they use a shovel to dig and so on. The last large environmental stress on humans was probably the invention of language. Since language allow Lamarcian evolution in humans it is unlikely that humans will need large scale physical adaption to over come an envirnmental stress. This doesn't mean that mutation will not continue to build up in the human population with time. There are of course other stress in nature such as reproductive attraction...

[greyl]

22. Can you tell me what "body plan" is please? nt

[DrGonzoLives]

11. Evolution is predicated on adaptation

not upon "survival," strictly. Those species that can best adapt are those who survive. Humans doing genetic modifications are adapting. On and on it goes.

[DemExpat]

12. My view is that medical science will possibly help humans adapt

to a fast changing environment - a fast changing environment itself brought on by technological and scientific advancements (urbanism, pollution, possible resource shortages, crowdedness, etc. - to focus on the negatives of increased population and increased consumption), but the danger here IMO is if global disaster strikes (humans will never have Mother Earth totally tamed, I believe) and this elaborate technological system breaks down, will humans then, in the new "improved" form, be able to survive on a biological/evolutionary level that was necessary/ beneficial in a world in the past without all of the science and technology?

I personally feel we are all like sheep, without much time, care, and thought for implications, running after science and technology for the edge of the cliff...:-).......and often wonder who is the most vulnerable - the native in the Rain Forest or modern "developed" man?

DemEx

[greyl]

16. "the native in the Rain Forest and modern "developed" man"

As you know, neither has a biological advantage over the other, so what do you mean by "most vulnerable"? Vulnerable to what? They are both viable and vulnerable in different ways and degrees.

"(humans will never have Mother Earth totally tamed, I believe)"

Do you think humans should try to tame Mother Earth?

In a "dropped in the wilderness somewhere" situation, it should be obvious that a high school graduate from the USA has virtually zero survival value when compared with any 10 year old Puinave. However, as I think you are coyly pointing out, our Mother Culture has a history of being damn fatally arrogant. ;)

[DemExpat]

18. Vulnerable in the sense of modern man thinking they are

going to irradicate vulnerability....:D.

I am in favor of using science and technology wisely with careful thought for implications of increasing change on our whole systems. There doesn't seen to be the precious time for this as changes are developing so quickly!

Economic/technological systems IMO could break down,(from war, political collapse, natural disaters, etc.) and we in our developed societies without food supplies would be most helpless. I found it interesting in a BBC documentary over the tsunami last year how primitive islanders - who the area authorities expected to be washed away from their little island - were all fine - they had sensed it coming and knew exactly what to do. I personally would feel more comfortable trusting this kind of knowledge than any modern tsunami alert that might falter. But that's just me....prospects of Smart Homes don't appeal to me either.

Science and technology is adding much uncertainty to the world, IMO, along with all of the positives that have made our lives so pleasant, safe and comfortable - it simply seems to me that it is all going far too fast without any stewardship from people thinking of ethical questions and possible issues for future sustainability and instability - of all kinds. (of the earth....of people biologically and psycholgically)

I tend to see the modern world as moving towards a more precarious position,(of biological sustainability) while some feel that science and technology will always offer good solutions.


DemEx

[greyl]

15. It's no more a dilemma than selective breeding

which our culture has been practicing for a long time. But we don't practice that on human life, so it's a-ok don't give it a second thought, right? ;)

"Could medical science be negatively impacting Human Evolution?

Evolution doesn't follow a pre-existing design plan, so I don't see where or how medical science could possibly impact it negatively. Unless perhaps it reduced diversity in the human gene pool, but even then humans will remain subject to evolution though they may think they are "breaking the laws" of evolution.

Your hypotheticals look like examples of an increase in gene-pool diversity to me, and if there is any direction that life is headed, it's toward ever-increasing diversity.


"If we are constantly curing ourselves of ailments or preventing (naturally occurdring) things from killing us... then aren't we in some large way impacting the evolution of the Human species, and perhaps to its detriment?"

That's on an individual level within a culture, but not at all on Humanity at large.
The most dangerous thing our civilization wields against other peoples and lifeforms is the compound idea that the world was made for humans, and our culture represents the pinnacle of human evolution, and that we are entitled to consume everything lesser than us.

[DemExpat]

19. 100% agree here, greyl.

The most dangerous thing our civilization wields against other peoples and lifeforms is the compound idea that the world was made for humans, and our culture represents the pinnacle of human evolution, and that we are entitled to consume everything lesser than us.

And since our civilization/societies with their philosophy of domination are stewarding this incredible change built on innovative (inherently positive) technology and science....this is not a comforting thought to me.

DemEx

[Meldread]

20. I agree.

"The most dangerous thing our civilization wields against other peoples and lifeforms is the compound idea that the world was made for humans, and our culture represents the pinnacle of human evolution, and that we are entitled to consume everything lesser than us."

Truer words could not have been spoken. It is ironic that the very thing that has lead us to become the dominate species on this planet, science and technology, may be the very thing that destroys us. From simple spearheads made of rock and bone to nuclear weapons, it seems that with each passing advancement paves the way to advancements even greater than the previous. We stand on the cusp of having the ability to modify who and what we are, to take our own evolution into our own hands - where will that lead us?

That is what this thread is about. Where are we going to go with this? Will it lead us into ruin and death, or will it lead us to prosperity and an enrichment of life? Most Humans want the latter and not the former, but the former always seems more probable - what road must we take to choose life over death?