• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Ought we genetically modify ourselves?

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
In some cases, yes, abuse, strict regulation on aesthetic traits or qualities not directly related to dangerous medical conditions which gene therapy can aide with, to prevent the slow and generationally shifting sexual selection process from being sped up a thousand fold and possibly being unable to stop damages before they become widespread, and to prevent a tool of oppressing minorities without socially desirable characteristics through gene tampering.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
In some cases, yes, abuse, strict regulation on aesthetic traits or qualities not directly related to dangerous medical conditions which gene therapy can aide with, to prevent the slow and generationally shifting sexual selection process from being sped up a thousand fold and possibly being unable to stop damages before they become widespread, and to prevent a tool of oppressing minorities without socially desirable characteristics through gene tampering.
Are there ways to limit such without limiting the science? Why the regulation on "aesthetic" traits? And what are "aesthetic" traits? Does this presuppose discrimination? Is bodyweight or body symmetry "aesthetic?"
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
For purely medical reasons, yes we should. I think the possibilities are greater than the risks. Instead of fleeing our planet, why not just adapt?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Eliminating sensitivities, for instance to soy or other products. This kind of thing. (I'm not saying this is feasable now, but in future I believe it will be).
Increasing IQ, reducing obesity, Increasing body symmetry, Increasing muscle mass? All of these could have as much or more medical benefit than allowing a person to eat soy. So, i am curious if there is a bright line rule or even some metric by which we can gauge medical reasons. As of this point there are some instances where phenotype seems to offer no medical reasoning, but "medical reasons" could be quite broad.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Increasing IQ, reducing obesity, Increasing body symmetry, Increasing muscle mass? All of these could have as much or more medical benefit than allowing a person to eat soy. So, i am curious if there is a bright line rule or even some metric by which we can gauge medical reasons. As of this point there are some instances where phenotype seems to offer no medical reasoning, but "medical reasons" could be quite broad.
I would be in favour of those things you mentioned. I would suggest creating a planner or committee of sciencemen, philosophers and psychologists to gauge these things. Medicine is already fraught with moral dilemmas and I don't think this would be as new as we think.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
I would be in favour of those things you mentioned. I would suggest creating a planner or committee of sciencemen, philosophers and psychologists to gauge these things. Medicine is already fraught with moral dilemmas and I don't think this would be as new as we think.
And people should accept the opinions of this committee without question? Should there be oversight? If so, what type? What about unequal access to this science as @ADigitalArtist mentioned?
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
And people should accept the opinions of this committee without question? Should there be oversight? If so, what type? What about unequal access to this science as @ADigitalArtist mentioned?
What unequal access? This would be available on an NHS like system.

And yes, we accept the opinions of the medical and psychological community every day. We don't even realise it. People pop pills, take meds, have risky surgeries and so forth all the time. I would order it thus:

Government Ministry for Genetic Modification
|
Medical Planner/Committee
|
University &c. medics, doctormen &c.

|
Hospital Staff

So it would go through at least four channels before being adopted.
 

Axe Elf

Prophet
I could genetically modify my penis to be 12 inches long, so I wouldn't have to keep folding it in half.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Chinese scientist says he’s created the world’s first genetically edited babies

Are there moral problems with this? Should there be limitations? If so what are the problems, how should we limit this science and why?
I can see several potential problems and also several reasons to do it.

It can be cruel, negligent and has the potential to destroy society.

It could also make people happier, tougher, more able to live in more places.

I am in favor of the following improvements:
1. Genetic improvements which remove our dependency upon vitamins, curing vitamin deficiencies.
2. Genetic improvements which are trial based, individual and minimal, which do not impede a person's ability to integrate into society.
3. Simulation of genetic improvements using computers.
4. Genetic removal of serious deformative and terminal illness such as those which cause blindness, deafness, deformed limbs etc.

I am not in favor of:
1. Contagious viruses that spread improvements through populations
2. Major improvements such as radically increased brain function or radically improved eyesight
3. Improvements which have not been simulated by computer

My thinking is that any improvements should wait until the genetic effects can be simulated in computers. Before human trials they should be reversible through retroviruses, and the treatment should be available before the improvements are created. This way there can be human trials without permanent damage. Computer simulation is possible and therefore should be a requirement.
 
Last edited:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Chinese scientist says he’s created the world’s first genetically edited babies

Are there moral problems with this? Should there be limitations? If so what are the problems, how should we limit this science and why?
Genetic editing isn't inherently wrong, but as always the overwhelming criteria for allowing or hindering its progress will be how people feel about it. For some, it speaks directly to their security of self or self-image.

As far as limitations go, one pronounced one reared its head recently: cost. Capitalism getting in the way of progress.
The million-dollar drug
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Top