[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 47 KB, 388x271, camel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1490040 No.1490040 [Reply] [Original]

What would be your moralic limits when it comes to genetic engineering? Anything that you would consider unethical?

What we have so far:
- Genetically enhanced plants like corn or potatoes.
- Selected embryos for parents with genetic diseases.
- Healing certain diseases using stem cells.

What we could get:
- Preselection of worthy and worthless life based on genetic code.
- Replacement of limbs by clone limbs where the clone is bred, raised and killed for this purpose.
- Continuous replacements of organs to live as long as possible.
- Actively induced genetic engineering to enhance life forms.
- Genetically enhanced superrace to replace humans.


What is your limit? What would you say makes sense and what would you consider unethically?

Pic kinda related. Well, not really...

>> No.1490056

>moralic

Stopped reading right their.

>> No.1490058

OP here bumping and making a start.
I'm not quite sure, but I think everything is fine where we not actively take influence in the genetic code.

For the clones, it might make sense, if we were able to only bred the limbs or organs. But if they are concious beings we should not take their limbs and organs as replacements for ours.

>> No.1490070
File: 31 KB, 400x345, 1279206975461.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1490070

>>1490058
i really dont understand where people get the notion that you have to breed a whole organism to get a limb
i mean we can just grow the limb
and i hate how people are stupid enought to think that just because a clone is a CLONE it has no rights
its like a twin...

also sage for op bumping his thread when it was on the first page

>> No.1490073

>>1490056
It's there and you should think about it. Maybe some day you have to make a quick decision, then it will be helpful if you have thought through it.
I just want to hear some input to align my view on this. Maybe there are some things I don't consider right now.

>> No.1490079

food: I don't so much have a limit as I do have a fear. I am not against genetically modified foods, so long as we are able to maintain genetic diversity. A lack of genetic diversity is currently biting us in the ass in some crops, and genetically modified foods represent a significant threat on that front. Genetically modified foods could be wildly successful, especially pesticide-resistant crops, but it isn't like natural selection will stop working. I believe it will be very important to maintain natural crops, if only so that we have a backup in case of a disaster (which will happen eventually).

people: if they don't have brains, or more specifically higher brain functions, I am not concerned at all.

>> No.1490094

>>1490040
As soon as we start growing living beings just to carve up for ogans and limbs that's where I draw the line.

We can grow organs and shit in culture anyway so why grow an entire human which will have tiny organs and limbs for years and years and years? It's less efficient.

>> No.1490135

>worthy and worthless
Who is to say what is and isn't worthy of life? If we use genetics to make everyone into our image of an ideal human, we would destroy our diversity, thus making humankind less likely to survive in the long run. If it is used only to rid ourselves of genetic disease, then I see no problem. As for the clone aspect, why wouldn't we be able to breed clones without brains? That way we'd have backup organs and limbs without the moral issues associated with harvesting a potentially sentient being.

>> No.1490163

>>1490135
Why not make it more efficient, and just fucking grow the organs?

You can grow a body to the point it is suitable for harvesting, waiting 18 years for the organs to fully develop

or

Grow a liver hanging from a wall in a nutrient rich bath and have it take a few months max.

I know what I would choose, the second one because it's more profitable and cheaper to do.

>> No.1490185

Before we start growing replacement organs, let's start growing meat for delicious burgers.

>> No.1490193

>>1490163
I think the allure of a full clone is that whatever bit of you malfunctions, that particular bit will be available without you knowing in advance which one it is. But I agree that your method is the superior one for a single organ. Perhaps having doctors determine which bits inside you are the most likely to fail and grow those? All the while always having a spare limb or two, for more physical injuries.

>> No.1490205

I would engineer a clone of myself but with bigger muscles and a smaller penis. Cause right now i'm one big dicked lanky motherfucker.

>> No.1490210

>>1490193
No what they would do is effectively "factory farming" of organs.

Literally just have millions of nutrient baths growing organs suited for all tissue types and blood types with a sort of "specialist order" section for organs that are rarely transplanted.

For example kidneys n livers would be factory farmed while stuff like human hearts and the like would be a more specialist order, fuck even lungs if someone has bad lung cancer.

>> No.1490220

Isn't there a distinct possibility of technology advancing to the point where artificial organs/limbs are superior to their biological versions before we perfect the organ growing technology? Just saying...

>> No.1490227

>>1490220
It would be nice but I doubt it.

>> No.1490238

The problem with genetic engineering is that cost it will not be evenly spread across the population. I would imagine that companies offering genetic selection for embryo's would offer a tier service causing the best genetic information to be only in the upper class. That kind of class genetic separation would literally destroy the very fabric of society.

All other forms of genetic engineering I'm fine with but a lot of things in our society need to change before we allow embryo's to be genetically modified.

>> No.1490240

>>1490070
I want to suck your dick for that post..

>> No.1490262

>>1490238
Smart folk could achieve home splicing fairly easily.

In the future at least when folk can buy retroviruses and have a computer programme that you tell it what sort of properties you want and it accordingly adjusts the genetic code to suit it.

>> No.1490266

>>1490238
What about postnatal genetic modification? More difficult sure, but we could potentially "hijack" a virus and infect on a massive scale while weakening the immune system. That way people could "earn" their modifications, and it would be their own choice rather than the choice of their parents...

>> No.1490286

>>1490238
LOL

The "elite" had a genetic modification program already. It was called the "aristocracy" and it resulted in their failure, not everyone else's. Let the rich make all their kids blonde. They'll kill themselves off, no worries.

>> No.1490292

>>1490266
This kind of technology is fucking crazy. If it were weaponized---and let's face it, all technology is weaponized---we'd have a real bitch of a world war on our hands.

>> No.1490297

>>1490286
The comparing the incest of past European royalty to modern genetic engineering isn't very valid.

>> No.1490311

>>1490292
Horrible bio-weapons of mass destruction already exists. But just like nukes no one is very keen to use them, since if it was discovered they'd lose a lot of public support.

>> No.1490321

>>1490311
That's just because no one's been able to avoid retaliation. *Yet.*

>> No.1490323

>>1490297
I wasn't aware validity was a quantitative measurement. Did you perhaps mean "sound"?

>> No.1490325
File: 32 KB, 448x286, 129150871607205570sdf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1490325

>>1490240

>> No.1490341

>>1490321
The US enjoyed a period of nuclear bomb monopoly until the Soviet union built their own. During that time, no one would have been able to retaliate had the US chosen to nuke every potential future enemy out of existance. Yet they didn't.

>> No.1490367

>>1490341
Very interesting interpretation of my use of "retaliation" there.

>> No.1490396

>>1490040
Stop watching gattaca.

Science isnt done by soulless grey haired madmen in stormy backdropped Romanian castles - its generally done by intelligent and caring individuals for the benefit of mankind.

Raising an entire human being clone just to harvest an organ is a retarded idea, not just for the moral implications, but because it is FAR more complex than simply growing a limb or organ from scratch (which is technology we are on the cusp of now).

Protip: We have been genetically engineering lifeforms for thousands of years to enhance traits we consider beneficial - its called artificial selection. Take a look at dairy cows compared to native cattle, modern dog species compared to wolves, teosinte to modern maize.

>> No.1490402

>>1490396
> its generally done by intelligent and caring individuals for the benefit of mankind.
In your fucking dreams! It's done to gain advantage over other people.

>> No.1490415

>>1490402
CLEARLY sir, you havent watched spiderman 2.

>> No.1490419

>>1490396

>> Implying genetic engineering where we are physically altering the dna is anything like artifical selection

>> No.1490428

>>1490396
> Raising an entire human being clone just to harvest an organ is a retarded idea, not just for the moral implications, but because it is FAR more complex than simply growing a limb or organ from scratch (which is technology we are on the cusp of now).
If there were just one person in the world, I'd agree with you. But in fact there are hundreds of thousands of people that need all kinds of different organs. Growing one person to harvest all the organs may, in practice, be more efficient. But really this is an empirical question.

>> No.1490430

>>1490402
Scientists are neither monsters or saints. They're curious about how stuff works, and wants a paycheck for finding out.

>> No.1490455

>>1490419
>Implying there is actually much difference between the two to begin with.

Organisms to date have been altered phenotypically FAR more than anything genetic engineering has produced.

Granted, his point was about some gattaca based super future where GE is used to breed some new form of super human. I was simply raising the point we have already been doing it for a long time, why is doing it in a quicker or more efficient manner so scary to people?

We dont have eugenics or artificial selection programs for breeding human beings, why would we suddenly start using GE to breed that way.

>> No.1490464

>>1490428

No. No it really wouldn't. For one thing the time you would need would be exponentially greated, along with the energy you need. Let's not forget that you would be raising a person just so they can die and you can steal teh organs. It just isn't feasible.

>> No.1490469

>>1490464
Sorry but you really don't know this <span class="math">a~priori[/spoiler].

>> No.1490489

>>1490469

hurrrr nobody cna know anything before they do it.

>> No.1490516

>>1490464
Raising? Just keep them in the cloning vat and modify them to grow into adulthood in a month.

>> No.1490523

>>1490516

You talk about that like that's evne possible. That's completely in sci fi realms.

>> No.1490531

>>1490489
Did I say that? No, I didn't.

>> No.1490536

>>1490040
Are you seriously suggesting that his suggestion of the idea not being feasible, is unreasonable?

As for your suggestion of the clone being chopped up and each part having a use, what about tissue compatibility, what about the massive time requirements, where does this clone live, eat, sleep. What happens if it catches an infection and dies, what if one organ is needed (the heart) but the rest is not required at the moment...the rest of the organs go off.

And so on, he is right - it is technology vastly easier, cheaper, more practical and more ethical to culture individual organs, limbs, etc. to suit demand.

Sure it doesnt have the delicious secret ingredient of being despotically evil, but we will manage.

>> No.1490547

>>1490536
It's amazing that for *your* magic technology, organs just appear overnight, but for *my* magic technology, it takes years and years.

Yeah, I know, you ain't gotta explain shit.

>> No.1490573

You grow the clone simultaneously with the human. In other words, take their genetic material when they're born and start then. Keep the clone braindead from the very beginning while encouraging parallel growth through regular visits to the doctor.

>> No.1490602

>>1490547
Im saying for your technology, growing a clone from scratch, we are talking about the time from an initial embryo, to the time where organs are of a suitable size / maturity to be harvested. Thats at least 10 years surely? So im talking about harvesting a ten year old child, cant really imagine how you could get any less time than that...

A tissue culture of a small organ could be done in a couple of months. A larger organ e.g. a limb has not been done yet, but its hard to imagine it being more than a year or two.

I guess you could argue we would be using growth hormones to massively speed up the growth process - but that argument is redundant, because it can be applied to both technologies.

Whatever you can produce with a clone, tissue culture could produce it faster.

By the way, I am enjoying this discussion.

>> No.1490609

>>1490547
Growing an entire body would be inefficient.

Not the same guy but think of it this way.

There are certain parts of the body you don't need.

Brain, spine, nerves, lymphatic system etc.

It makes more sense from a profit point of view, and in a public moral/ethic point of view to just grow bits and pieces in vats.

Saves money, saves your company from being fire bombed by pissed off theists.

>> No.1490625

>>1490602
> Thats at least 10 years surely?
The point is, anon, we don't know, because the technology doesn't exist. When is an organ viable for use as a transplant? Dunno! How fast could we grow those organs? Dunno!

> A larger organ e.g. a limb has not been done yet, but its hard to imagine it being more than a year or two.
More "Dunno!" Which is why I said, originally, that this is an empirical question.

> It makes more sense from a profit point of view... to just grow bits and pieces in vats.
You don't know this as neither technology exists. Period.

>> No.1490631

>>1490609

Yeah not to menton the moral implications of growing a brain dead human.

Don't fool yourself, it's not only theists who would say it was wrong.

>> No.1490637

>>1490625
>>1490625
>>1490625

>> When is an organ viable for use as a transplant? Dunno!

Depends on the age of the organ recipient.

>> No.1490646

>>1490631
>Don't fool yourself, it's not only theists who would say it was wrong.
Why? They're not any more or less human than a plant.

>> No.1490651

>>1490646

Not everyone is as indifferent as you good sir.

>> No.1490650

>>1490637
I mean in this world where these technologies exist to magically make people/organs in vats.

>> No.1490647

>>1490631
Growing a brain dead human would be impossible, it at least needs the brain stem to regulate it's own functions.

It would be terribly inefficient to grow one and have to scoop shit out of its ass daily.

Christ that would be a horrible job.

>> No.1490655

>>1490647
> farming does not exist
Sure are some derpy motherfuckers in this thread.

>> No.1490657

>>1490637
>Depends on the age of the organ recipient.
Really? You mean an old-fart can't handle a "kid"-ney? *Ba-bump-tish*

>> No.1490664

>>1490650

It doesn't matter. The point is the age of the organ up to full growth needs to be approximately the same as the recipients. After that it doesn't matter.

And you keep saying dunno, but that's not true. We are on the edge of being able to do all this in reality.

i went to a lecture on this where the guy was suggesting that there would be no tissue rejection even with foreign DNA. It was rather interesting.

>> No.1490674

>>1490664
> And you keep saying dunno, but that's not true.
> We are on the edge of being able to do all this in reality.
"On the edge of being able to do it" means, quite exactly, that we don't know.

What the fuck?

>> No.1490678

>>1490674

Haha. No it doesn't. It means we have knowledge on it.

Fuck you are worse than the theory (just a geuss) guys.

>> No.1490679

I just had a revelation. Imagine they start growing braindead clones for harvesting initially. Now look at how big an industry "sex dolls" is. See where I'm going with this?

>> No.1490683

>>1490678
Typical science fag. "I've almost proved it in a specialized apparatus in a lab, so making widespread organ replacement vats is trivial after that. Also, such widespread application will be more efficient than any alternative (which also doesn't exist yet)."

Time to start saging, sorry OP.

>> No.1490686

>>1490679

Braindead humans for sex with? Fuck that.

Holograms that we can interact with first please.

>> No.1490693

>>1490683

>> Implying anyone mentioned any of this, and that technology will somehow make this impossible.

Seriously, it's just a matter of time.

>> No.1490699

>>1490679
Oh fuck that.

No I'm sorry you can grow clones and shit I don't care but I will actively go out and stop that shit, that's just fucked up.

>> No.1490703

>>1490683
>>implying saging does anything apart from not bumping the thread

>Typical science fag
That is a very atypical science fag. Most scientists doesn't give two shits about what their discoveries might do in the future. They're super sceptics who won't buy shit without tons of positive studies.

>> No.1490715

>>1490699
You don't know what the clone vat operators are doing when you're not around.

>> No.1490711 [DELETED] 

>>1490703
It's a typical science fag to throw around words like "efficiency" without actually having any empirical basis for that very qualitative word.

>> No.1490719

>>1490703
It's a typical science fag to throw around words like "efficiency" without actually having any empirical basis for that very quantitative word.

>> No.1490722

Went for a shave, now ive lost track of who is who and what I was arguing for / against.

Obviously everything is just massive conjecture, but thats the point - get people thinking about what would be involved, where the current science is at.

E.g. some relevant and recent work would be lung tissue cultures - lung tissue grown over an existing collagen / blood vessel scaffold. Still in infant stages, but thats the future right there.

>> No.1490725
File: 485 KB, 193x135, the fuck did I just rerad.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1490725

>>1490715

>> No.1490736

>>1490719
well it stands to reason that growing an entire tree when you just want an apple is less efficient than just growing a single apple. and if you have the technology to do that, then why not?

>> No.1490738

>>1490719

The point is growing an entire body will CLEARLY take more energy than a single organ.

Fuck, are you really this stupid?

>> No.1490760

>>1490736
>>1490738

What they said.

Why mine ore, refine it, manufacture steel plate just to build a nice ship when you can buy one?

>> No.1490769

Only thing that is concerning to me is that it is going to be expensive, which means that here pretty soon rich people are going to walk in to a clinic and say "I want a son, and I want him taller, stronger, better looking and smarter than everyone else", then they will send the resulting children to ivy league schools and there will just be no possible way for normal people to compete with that. Being rich is already a huge advantage, if the rich start designing their babbys its basically IRL cheat codes.

>> No.1490771

Well genetically superior is kind of a subjective term
What might be considered bad nowadays might be an advantage in the future.
For instance someone who's short might be able to survive in case there is a food shortage because he/she would need less energy in order to survive.

>> No.1490780

>>1490769
Over time the poor and rich separate into separate species, yeah it's an old thought.

But it's fine, have a look at the royal families of the world, basically causes massive inter breeding and a massive genetic bottle neck.

>> No.1490783

>>1490769

Don't worry we are a fairly long way away form being able to edit DNA to such a high degree. It's very very basic and hit and miss at the moment, and that's with rats and tomatoes and shit.