Having good genes is important, but so is personality. I know a lot of brilliant people who are lazy shits and won't achieve much because of that.

Communism isn't working, what the fuck are you even on about? It contradicts human nature, unless you want to engineer people without ambition.


There are no long-term cons to gm. The weak must die for the race to advance. Humanity as a whole is lot more important than the individual feelings of some individuals who are affected negatively by that advancement.

You know, history often divorces itself from the human impact of events.

Alexander the Great was super good for humanity. Connected the East and West. He also killed a whole lot of people. If you were alive back then, there's a good chance someone you know would be dead as a result of his actions. The Mongols were awesome, they overturned the old world and ushered it into the new. They also killed 40-70m people, 10% of the world's population at the time.

The human impact of things like this may be ignored from history, but it's a very real, and very important effect that is certainly a con. "The weak must die for the race to advance." Couldn't help but be reminded of this;



I honestly didn't know what you were trying to say.


No. I'm saying that we don't know what impact it'll have, so it's stupid to assert anything as absolute as 'there's no cons'.

Generally I am opposed to the idea of genetic engineering because it already has many many negative effects on people and the environment as it is.
Maybe that will change as the technology advances but I am sceptical.

Some of social negative effects that come to mind are:
• Only certain groups of people are able to afford certain treatments, thus creating classes of people who are financially and biologically superior
• Once technologies become more affordable some companies could start selectively recruiting people with certain traits for certain jobs. That would mean that parents have to pre-determine the fate of their children in many instances by choosing which traits they want to give their children that a company might be interested in.

Some environmental problems:
• Same principle as genetically modified plants: They are made immune against certain pesticides, pesticides get applied, many plants and animals die, pests become resistant, new and stronger pesticides have to be made yada yada.
I don't think it would be beyond reasoning that the same engineering could ultimately be applied to cheap labour forces, thus creating the same vicious circle.

Once very advance, the technology could have another negative effect. Genetic engineering could potentially remove many genes from the genepool, thus making our species more susceptible for changes of the environment.

Of course there are many potential positive effects as well, such as extending lifespans, solving world hunger etc etc. The effects that are visible right now are downright negative and they give the science a very bad reputation. That's because in the free market companies don't win because they necessarily solve a problem but the feeling that they do solve a problem.

Well, how about everything I've been arguing (social instability from new divisions) and Proto's "Gene pool based elitisism"?

I bet you could find dozens of sci-fi books/stories that delve into possible dystopic scenarios.

Like I said before, we don't know the impact this will have on society - we're all speculating. It's ridiculous to suggest that out of all the known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns, there will be no negative effects from gm.

You asked for terrible outcomes of such a scenario. In sci-fi, there's plenty. In real life, this sort of thing isn't even its infancy, it's pre-natal. I can't point to a real example of a dystopic future just the same way that you can't point to a future where it's just perfect and wonderful with no negative effect affecting anyone at all.

I'll say what I said before again (which in turn I said before); "Like I said before, we don't know the impact this will have on society - we're all speculating. It's ridiculous to suggest that out of all the known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns, there will be no negative effects from gm."


I'll get away from your hysteric tomfoolery and address your point head on (you should give it a try). You need to understand what we're saying. We're not talking about just introducing a new product, we're talking about introducing a new division into society. It would literally divide society - is it really so hard to figure out that divisions in society damages social stability?

Srsly man, brush up on your sociology.

ImmortalPig: You are somewhat poorly educated on the subject as you don't seem to comprehend the technical sides of the problem. I suggest you educate yourself on the subject before making technical claims in the future.
It made me laugh, but it's not very productive.

Also please learn to make coherent statements. Your one line posts are getting annoying.
A quote needs to be sweet like a bikini, not longer than your own response. I am going to start deleting your posts if you keep doing that.

You could all read Huxley's Brave New World if you are into the topic of genetically engineered slaves.

To be honest, gene modified babies have to be made the same way assisted contraception is being done, which limits the spread of this practice. For it to become widespread, you'd have to make the regular way of making babies obsolete, which I'm quite sure is impossible.

It's NOT a thing you can do to already developed humans, unless you'd like to rewrite the dna of the bazillion cells that make up a human body.

'In all of these events', 'one more similar event'? Tell me how the division of society into genetically modified and non-genetically modified people is comparable to any other event?

You're still stuck in the headspace of "oh, it's just a new product". It's not. It creates entirely new divisions in society.


You're right. Your speculation is based on you thinking that you're magically cognizant of all the unknown-unknowns to this topic.


I didn't avoid your question at all. Your question was predicated on the ignorance of gm's nature. You asked when had a product created classism. I told you that gm is much more than a product, it's an entirely new division.

It's a bigger issue than just can/can't afford... which I'll address to your next quote as well.


No, I've decided it's special compared to the mundane products you mentioned. As we've established, it's not just a new product, it's a new division in society - gm and non-gm people. It's not just can/can't afford (though it would likely be an element). Price won't be the only thing that determines whether people choose (assuming they're in a situation where they can choose, which is another set of problems) to pursue gm.

This doesn't just contribute to the can/can't afford division in society, it adds the entirely new genetically modified human/non-genetically modified human division. We have NO IDEA what sort of discrimination, or hatred, or conflict that might result from the creation of this new division. There'll be a majority and minority, and if the minority feels threatened, then you can be sure that the most vocal/extremist/crazy of them will disrupt society (to put it nicely).

To sum up, it's not just a product and it's not just adding to a current division in society - it's creating a new one.


You haven't heard of it? You really must brush up on your history, too. Capite censi - Rome's landless poor. Their numbers swelled considerably after the Punic wars, when the aristocrats started dispossessing them of their land for farming. It's because of this that Rome had to change it's army recruitment policy (to allow landless folk in, since there was barely anyone who owned land (a former requirement for service)), and it's because of this change in recruitment policy that people like Sulla and Caesar were able to bring about the death of the republic.

Yes, you are poorly educated as you seem to believe that changing a living organism's genome so it becomes immune against pesticides is possible. Seeing as you link to a source of gene therapy, I would like to inform you that so far gene therapy has been incredibly unsuccessful. It has little to do with the topic at hand anyway. Gene manipulation is about creating organisms as you want them, not changing existing individuals.

Making a person immune to a pesticide would require changing many genes, not just a single one. The idea behind gene therapy is mostly “fixing” one gene that codes one single protein. The diseases that have been pinpointed to being caused by one single corrupted gene

I see you put some more effort to improve the quality of your posts at least a little so I won't delete this post. Look at how other users do it, they don't seem to find it difficult to use forums without raping their posts with terrible formatting. Ele and protonitron are good examples.
Maybe you will improve a little more in the near future.

edit: As for the reason why I don't post a proper response, I am not too interested in discussing with you. I am just moderating stuff because that's what I do.

Changing and correcting existing genes is not creating new genes that produce new proteins. It is not the topic at hand. It is not possible to make a living complex multi-cell organism produce entirely new enzymes that would destroy certain harmful substances. It would be possible to inject those enzymes, though that would be a lifelong therapy (that's how diabetes gets treated, for instance). Such treatments are very expensive and cannot be done on the scale you proposed (such as giving the treatment to everyone for certain effects such as immunity against harmful substances).
Referring to a gene that codes a protein incorrectly as corrupted is not incorrect? It is a disadvantage and bad mutation, if you want to put it that way. The terminology is understood so it is not necessary to nitpick it.
Genetherapy has been incredibly unsuccessful, as I said.
Most textbooks on the subject are going to say exactly that. Of course there are hopes that gene therapy will become a good thing in the future, just not on the scale you proposed.
Here is a source, if you desire one. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/conte...apy/gtsuccess/

This thread is not about gene therapy anyway. It is about gmo. They are entirely different. It is not possible to enhance a complex multi-cell organism with new genes.
It is not possible to add new genes to a genome because it requires heavy manipulation that literally involves cutting existing genes and adding new ones, to put it simply.
That is done with individual cells. After the procedure they have to undergo a process of selection which kills off cells where genes have been added incorrectly. It is not possible to add genes to organisms with a 100% success rate. That is because the process involves a lot of chance. There are many possible outcomes which are not desirable. That is why after that procedure a procedure of selection has to take place.
Here is a simple graphic that explains it in laymen terms:
http://www.littletree.com.au/images/dna3.jpg
There are gmo cows and sheep that produce certain human proteins for medical purposes, such as insulin. There the gametes are manipulated, not the whole living organism. Note that the graphic I provided is about e. coli, which are bacteria. Their cells are by far not as complex as those of cows.


I have upcoming exams about that exact subject. If you desire so I can give you some keywords you can look up in order to educate yourself.
What you provided so far does not convince me you know anything about the subject.