Genetics doomsday

[Martian Martian]

On the train this morning, pondering the weightier issues as usual, I rested upon the thorny topic of genetics - where's it all going?

(If I was writing for Viz, I would preface this with 'By the year 2000...')

No matter how terrifying a prospect, science will master the process of genetic modification, and parts of society (the stupid, rich, greedy part) will welcome and embrace this advance. They'll start having children created with all sorts of stupid modifications - 'I want him to sing like Billy Joel and tapdance like Lena Zavaroni.' 'I want her skin to be made of Goretex. Y'know? Breathable.' etc etc.

This brave new world will not be without casualties. The children will be weak and prone to disease and will die prematurely, but as the science evolves, the process will become cheaper and more reliable. Soon (by the year 2036), no one in the developed world will be denied the right to gen mod their offspring.

Naturally, everyone will want their kids to sing like Joel and dance like Zavaroni, and so the spectrum of genetic variety will narrow. Market forces will dictate what genetic templates will be on offer to the public. By the year 2048, there will only be four genetic templates available for each sex, and one of them will be Robert Winston.

Can you suggest the other three? (All templates would be available in a variety of colours and finishes).

[smoker]

the koreans have just cloned the first embryos haven't they?

[Mr Flunchy]

3 templates for a genetically happy world.

Mothers, you can either give birth to:

Yoda

Chewbacca

Jabba the Hutt

If the world isn't some crazy space adventure by the year 2050, then something's wrong. Very wrong.

[Jet Set Willy]

3 templates for a genetically happy world.

Mothers, you can either give birth to:

Yoda

Chewbacca

Jabba the Hutt

They're reintroducing thalidomide?!?

[Mister Six]

This is obviously the best thread ever.

I'd like my daughter to have the wit of Groucho Marx. And the moustache.

The other templates will be he-slut/she-slut and Tom Baker.

[butnut]

And the moustache.

But where?

[Mister Six]

All over.

[Rats]

You can say goodbye to art. It's personal defects that make people so interesting. Nobodies going to want to give birth to, for example a depressive if they have the choice. I'm dead against sickly perfection and I reckon fannying on with creation is just asking for trouble. Hitler was a bad man, yes he was. The shit is though, no matter what the moral majority decide, if something can be done, it will always be done in the end. There'll always be some tooler in a lab in his shed desperate to get his name in the history books. I don't like where this stuff is going either but we can't do anything bar sit back and enjoy the horror show.

[Rats]

Oh I see, you have to do an amusing thingy.
The good thing will be sex holiday resorts full of women with the looks of marilyn monroe and the brains of jelly fish and you can run about with a big cock shaped mallet for the right price.

[Concerned But Powerless]

What pisses me off about all this is in a few years time if this does go ahead you'll be to tell the rich people from the not so rich just by looking at them.  We'll all be ugly with hairy fingers and average IQs and they'll be super-athletic, beautiful and good conversationists.  They will probably give us names like normys or fuckos.

I heard it would be quite good for getting rid of any genetic diseases before the child is born, which is great but I bet people will start slipping the doctor a tenner and say "While your curing that spine disease can you give it some blue eyes and a nice chin? Cheers."

And of course, if this kind of thing really does happen then there will be no more ginger people.

[pretty dead boy]

They're reintroducing thalidomide?!?

i hate replying to things late, but it's just quite a coincedence, look at this

[Jet Set Willy]

They're reintroducing thalidomide?!?

i hate replying to things late, but it's just quite a coincedence, look at this

i wouldn't really call it a coincidence, having read the radio tikmes at least 5 times today...

[Bogey]

I reckon fannying on with creation is just asking for trouble.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Or would you prefer a better argument than that?

Two points then: Firstly, fannying with "creation" is what we've been doing since some trog decided it was a bit chilly in his cave. The "playing God" argument drives me up the wall and I really don't understand it.
Secondly, you seem to be falling prey to the "slippery slope" fallacy, that is to say that just because it seems as if one thing could lead to another and before we know it, etc., this neccessarily means that it will.
If we're not in pursuit of knowledge what the hell else are we supposed to be doing? There is nothing that we're not supposed to know.

Having said all that, yes, of course the idea that the rich will be able to make "good" babies and the plebs will remain ugly and stupid is a pretty horrible one, but that doesn't mean that it's inevitable, and it certainly doesn't mean that research should be halted just because that might happen. Hrmm.

As for a cock-shaped mallet... are you running around hitting them over the head for being sexy and stupid? I don't understand.

[Rats]

Firstly, fannying with "creation" is what we've been doing since some trog decided it was a bit chilly in his cave. The "playing God" argument drives me up the wall and I really don't understand it.

I'm talking about arsing about with genes, not discovering that fire gives off warmth.
You breed a donkey with a horse and it's sterile, what does that tell you? You're not supposed to do it. It's natures way of saying "none of that thankyou"

Secondly, you seem to be falling prey to the "slippery slope" fallacy, that is to say that just because it seems as if one thing could lead to another and before we know it, etc., this neccessarily means that it will.

Yes, maybe, but it's what makes talking about it fun.

If we're not in pursuit of knowledge what the hell else are we supposed to be doing? There is nothing that we're not supposed to know.

Geez, I don't know. Is that the meaning of life then? To work everything out? I don't like the sound of that. What about all the other animals, do they not have a part in this? To be honest, I think we're too clever for our own good now.

As for a cock-shaped mallet... are you running around hitting them over the head for being sexy and stupid? I don't understand.

Yes, I am paying to run around massacring beutifull stupid women with a phalic hammer. Even a caveman would understand that. You see, we're too sophisticated nowadays. Back when we were hairy you wouldn't have even considered the moral implications of that, you'd just be out hammering fannies with the rest of us.

[Bogey]

Fair do's, let's fuck the philosophy and all go and watch Belgiums most popular television programme.

Honestly.

It is taking some massive strength of will not to argue back.

Maybe I need a good old spot of bimbo-bashing.

I'm right though.

[Rats]

No, I want to hear what you have to say. I think you're right about me assuming the worst.

[Dr. Gizmonic]

The world needs more Sean Connery, if God won't provide we will naturally turn to science to provide us with a more bearded, scottish world.

[Smackhead Kangaroo]

Bah even if the rich foldk DO start having super foxy babies (paedo!) they won't do it all simultaneously. By then there'll have been integration and certianly inter breeding so slowly we'll all be beautiful. that said I don't look forward to sitting my great grandchildren down, handing them their werthers only to find them repulsed by my appearance.
Back in MY day people had warts and scars on their faces. They had terible lisps and you'd like it or die a spinster. baaaaaah

[Bogey]

You breed a donkey with a horse and it's sterile, what does that tell you? You're not supposed to do it. It's natures way of saying "none of that thankyou"

Well, I think you'll find that historically the mule has proved a pretty useful, albeit stubborn beast.
But that's beside the point.
The issue here is what we are and we aren't "supposed" to do.
While it would be fallacious of me to say that just because we can do something, we should; of course, moral and ethical factors must be taken into account. But to decree a whole area of scientific inquiry "out of bounds" is illogical in principle.
Also, nature doesn't tell us things. It doesn't give us hints and warnings.

If we're not in pursuit of knowledge what the hell else are we supposed to be doing? There is nothing that we're not supposed to know.

Geez, I don't know. Is that the meaning of life then? To work everything out? I don't like the sound of that. What about all the other animals, do they not have a part in this? To be honest, I think we're too clever for our own good now.

Ignorace may be bliss, but unless everything and everyone you come in contact with does nothing to challenge your worldview, then ignorance can be pretty irritating, and liable to make you look stupid all the time.
We are curious by nature, we like to find out how things work, do we not? Surely that's what constitues the nature of finding things interesting. We do it because we can, and it's a damn good thing.

"The meaning of life" is a silly, childish and misleading idea, if you ask me.
In a religious context (ie. illogical nonsense), it is to "serve God" presumably. Outside of religion it could be loosely (and innacurately) described as the drive to reproduce, so you could say the "meaning" of life is to sustain itself. A better word would perhaps be "purpose".
But meanings and purpose are human ideas, they do not exist outside of our consciousness, and indeed why look for a meaning of "life" specifically? Why not a meaning of the universe as a whole?
Which ever way you look at  it, it's a self-defeating exercise.

[elderford]

The meaning of the world, lies outside the world.

It's a very big picture and I don't believe anyone of us even begin to comprehend the Universe as it "really" is.

That said, it is rather lovely that the human mind strives to do so.

[Bogey]

Well said. It's what makes life worthwhile.

Imagine if all there was to read were books rabbiting on about how wondrous, magical and unknowable everything was.
It'd be rubbish.

The truth is ace.

[Martian Martian]

I didn't really want to get serious on this. I can't cope with serious on a Friday afternoon. However, I foresee a time when parents face a terrible choice; leave fertility to mother nature, or go for the many fertility plans on offer. The former is free, but your kid will be below average in every respect - more or less doomed to struggle as a second class citizen.

The latter will be quite pricey, but with handy payment plans, it needn't break the bank. Your child will be guaranteed good health, long life, intelligence, physical prowess, and any combination of aesthetically pleasing physical characteristics (two cocks anyone?)

And eight years later, when Tiny Tim looks up at you with pleading eyes and says 'Daddy, why am I so small? And sickly?'  - what will you tell him? That you were trying to shave a few pounds from the monthly housekeeping budget?

Science will find a way, and commerce will follow.

Fuck, I'm away to kill myself. This is so depressing.

[Bogey]

I know it wasn't meant to be serious. Sorry about that, but I couldn't think of anything funny to say.

[Martian Martian]

As my Dad (the late Tommy Cooper) used to say, 'If you can't say anything funny...'

Bless 'im.

[Rats]

You seem to be contradicting yourself

If we're not in pursuit of knowledge what the hell else are we supposed to be doing?

I implied that there was no meaning to life and then you agreed with me yet you seem to be saying that the meaning of life is the pursuit of knowledge.

I'm going to have to be quick here so excuse the rambling.
I didn't say the whole messing with genes shit was out of bounds, I just said it scares me. The thing that scares me is that. Right, this is a basic example, some of the best poetry was written by people with extreme depression, that nightingale bollocks for example. Depression is seen as an illness. If parents had the choice to have a healthy child or a child who could eventually succumb to extreme depression and so on, you get the idea. Kiss goodbye to all art except dire straits. Right off for dinner

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

Depression is seen as an illness. If parents had the choice to have a healthy child or a child who could eventually succumb to extreme depression and so on, you get the idea. Kiss goodbye to all art except dire straits. Right off for dinner

Having had depression, frankly if you can avoid it with genetic tinkering at the cost of some art, then fuck it, it's a price worth paying.

Personally, I don't think anything is 'out of bounds' with genetic mods, and embrace it. The whole 'playing god' thing cuts no ice with me as an atheist. Saying 'it's against nature' is bollocks, because nature isn't some entity that thinks and writes rules, it's a process and a system and cannot care for it any more than your PC will care whther you have Linux or WIndows on it.

I want my children to be beautiful, intelligent, strong and with magic tough skin and bones and would happily 'mod' them.

[sproggy]

Imagine a world without manic depressives, what a bland place to be.

There is a line that we are now crossing with regards to preventative disease, fair enough humans discover medicine and surgery, this is a natural response to curing people who are physically dying.

And to a certain extent, yes, this will effect evolution of the human race, but in a controlled way.

To 'adjust' the characteristics of an unborn child in my opinion is crossing the line, and will result in the premature extinction of the human race (not such a bad thing I hear some people cry)

Playing the pre-emptive card with regards to genetic manipulation at the foetal stage, is far too dangerous.  It's akin to scientists generating a black hole on earth, the risks are far to great to comprehend.

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

Imagine a world without manic depressives, what a bland place to be.

I take it you've never suffered from severe depression then? Being depressed is not a vital precursor to artistic creativity. A lot of artists have been bonkers, true, but more haven't. It's the sterotype of the tears of the clown.

There is a line that we are now crossing with regards to preventative disease, fair enough humans discover medicine and surgery, this is a natural response to curing people who are physically dying.

And to a certain extent, yes, this will effect evolution of the human race, but in a controlled way.

To 'adjust' the characteristics of an unborn child in my opinion is crossing the line, and will result in the premature extinction of the human race (not such a bad thing I hear some people cry)

Playing the pre-emptive card with regards to genetic manipulation at the foetal stage, is far too dangerous.  It's akin to scientists generating a black hole on earth, the risks are far to great to comprehend.

That's just fearmongering. It's not like the whole world will suddenly be altered - it will happen in stages, some aberrations will appear, it's inevitable. But the diverse spread of humanity will ensure that parts of the population will stay unaltered and will either survive mistakes or be superceded.

One of mankind's greatest achievements is to have escaped many of the limitations of the external environment (think about food supply, heating, housing, transport etc.). It's only logical that the next step is to defeat the limitations of the internal environment. This has already been partly acheived through mediceine and is now moving on to genetics.

I think most people fear it because it's a bit beyond their understanding. It's like most issues where people respond with "It's against nature/god/it's just 'not right'" - they don't understand it and subsequently fear it, and start reacting on base instincts as opposed to rational thought.

[sproggy]

I take it you've never suffered from severe depression then? Being depressed is not a vital precursor to artistic creativity. A lot of artists have been bonkers, true, but more haven't. It's the sterotype of the tears of the clown.

Yes I am a confirmed manic depressive, and despite the obvious detrimental effects on a persons health, there is no disputing the creative thrust this desease leaves in it's wake (so to speak)

That's just fearmongering. It's not like the whole world will suddenly be altered - it will happen in stages, some aberrations will appear, it's inevitable. But the diverse spread of humanity will ensure that parts of the population will stay unaltered and will either survive mistakes or be superceded.

One of mankind's greatest achievements is to have escaped many of the limitations of the external environment (think about food supply, heating, housing, transport etc.). It's only logical that the next step is to defeat the limitations of the internal environment. This has already been partly acheived through mediceine and is now moving on to genetics.

I think most people fear it because it's a bit beyond their understanding. It's like most issues where people respond with "It's against nature/god/it's just 'not right'" - they don't understand it and subsequently fear it, and start reacting on base instincts as opposed to rational thought.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against natural progression.  Nature's way is to see what's going wrong and provide positive feedback into the system.

The problem with pre-emptive genetic manipulation is that we (humans) are attempting to predict negative evolutionary feedback.  In my experience as a scientist & engineer is that this can only result in a failed experiment.

[Incredible Monkey Doctor]

Yes I am a confirmed manic depressive, and despite the obvious detrimental effects on a persons health, there is no disputing the creative thrust this desease leaves in it's wake (so to speak)

Hmm. Same camp, different tents. What's a Roman to do? On balance, most  depressives are just very unhappy people for no better reason than a chemical imbalance. I think we can live without it. Art can and will come from other drives.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against natural progression.  Nature's way is to see what's going wrong and provide positive feedback into the system.

The problem with pre-emptive genetic manipulation is that we (humans) are attempting to predict negative evolutionary feedback.  In my experience as a scientist & engineer is that this can only result in a failed experiment.

I couldn't disagree more. It will result in many failed experiments, but that's the nature of experiment. Science is the highest form of the educated guess at times. However it does get it right in the long run.

Your argument about Nature's way is pseudo-hippy gibberish however. Nature doesn't make any assessment or provide 'positive feedback'. There is no "nature's way". There is a system, and within that system biological entities either suceed or fail on the merits of their capability to survive (by sustaining their existance and reproducing) within the current state of that system. Romanticising nature is no better than believeing in God.