http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2003-12-04-frankenfish_x.htm
Is this bio-engineering good or bad? Sometimes I think it’s good, creating plants that withstand certain diseases and pests. But other times I’m not so sure, when it comes to “inventing” new animals. This always reminds me of that old TV commercial that ended by saying - “It’s not nice to fool mother nature”.
Hasn’t mankind been ‘inventing’ new animals for thousands of years? The new bioengineering thing simply speeds up the process. Look around at the animal species today…hell, just look at all the dog breeds. The glowy fish thing is just an extension of what we’ve ALREADY been doing for thousands of years, IMO.
-XT
That is true, but now we are crossing salamanders with kangaroos.
Salamadoos?
We’ve been crossbreeding plant species for thousands of years. All those nice flowers you like…most were breed to be that way. Plants we eat as well. You can cross breed between plant species by grafting…and we’ve been doing it for a LONG ass time. Again, I see nothing inherantly wrong with it.
And no, Bryan, its a kangander. 
-XT
And that’s different from crossing horses and donkeys? Bioengineering is not in and of itself either good or bad. It can be used for both. Bioengineer a deadly virus to be used for terror attacks = bad. Bioengineer a virus to attack cancerous cells = good. You have to look at each instance on it’s own merits.
Then why not designer children? You and your spouse go to a baby engineer, you evaluate your positive and negative qualities, then you fill out a form and check the characteristics you want for your child.
Eh, why not? It could be fun! Especially if you’re not doing it.
The biggest problem I see with bioengineering in general is any unforeseen repercussions, like a fly that ravages crops or a plant that spreads like wildfire. It’s kind of like the first A-bomb test: it could have theoretically destroyed the Earth, but the calculations didn’t show it would happen - but imagine if it had!
Of course, there’s also bioengineered weapons to worry about.
Otherwise… I don’t much care.
So testing medicine on animals is the same as testing medicine on humans?
Well, you already choose a spouse at least partially because you think his or her DNA will produce “good” offspring. You do this whether you are conscious of it or not. If producing designer children can be done safely, what would be wrong with it? You seem to be starting with the assumption that it would be wrong. Why?
I was just wondering, if people think it’s fine to mess with animal and plant species, would they think twice about messing with humans? It seems like most people say it’s fine to “play dice” with every other living thing in the world, but when it comes to MY species, it’s hands off. Just seems a bit arrogant on our part.
I guess I am just a bit skeptical about our “knowledge” of genetic engineering. It seems to me we “kind of” know how it works, and before we totally understand exactly what the consequences are, we are forging ahead willy-nilly.
Sounds like a perfectly good idea to me. Takes a lot of unneeded uncertainity out process, could eliminate genetic disease, and who wouldn’t want child that was guarenteed to be healthy, smart, sociable, and attractive. Those who did geneer their kids would be able to out complete those who left it to random chance in most cases.
But do we really “know” how it works? What if we think A+B=C, but in reality A+B=X where X is undesirable? I think you will find in history that many extremely talented and gifted individuals came from normal, average parents.
That is why I said in most cases; naturally the science would improve over time. It might take a while to find out what separates a bright child from a true genius. Or a very physically fit person from an Olympic level athlete. Still, if you could be absolutely sure your kid would have no serious health defects, a 130 IQ, and be able to run a 5 minute mile, that would be very tempting to parents.
I agree, very tempting. I think the problem would be, what do we do with the rejects that failed?
Historically any genetic changes we have made could only happen gradually by mating species that were very similar to begin with.
Now we appear to have the opportunity to combine plant dna with animal. Its a giant leap and nobody can see far enough to see where we will land.
Same thing you do with anyone else who has serious genetic defects.
Of course, LOTS of research will have to be done first, before human genetic engineering becomes ethical and practical. We will have to get a better understanding of exactly how all the changes work, but that is one of the reasons to continue with animal engineering, as “practise”, in addition to the direct benifits of these animals.
Arrogant? Whatever that means. Most moral systems are based on a sort of human exceptionalism. Not that I think genetic engineering of children is necessarily wrong, but it’s certainly a different question with stricter standards than whether genetic engineering of animals is wrong.
That fact that we can currently make a fish glowy doesn’t mean we can currently genetically alter humans in the ways that DreadCthulhu is talking about. I think we someday WILL be able too (as well as increase the life expectancy/quality of life in old age, etc), but that day is decades if not centuries out. THere is a ton of things they still need to learn and discover before we are at that point. Right NOW…we are at the glowy fish point.
-XT