starship earth

Originally posted by sonhouse
Neil Degrasse Tyson said in an interview, "there is only a very small percentage of genes that separate us from apes. What I worry about is suppose we come across someone whose small change in genes puts them as far ahead of us as we are of apes''.

I guess he is saying it might not be a huge jump in genes to make us superhuman, and of course we can't know what gene mods, if any, would do that.

Neil Tyson is great, but he is oversimplifying to make a point. Technically he's right, but that small percentage separation is spread out over 3 billion base pairs of DNA, so the difference equates to millions of distinct gene alterations. Even if you compare your DNA to your Homo sapiens neighbor, you might find thousands of differences in the protein-coding sequences.

Aaaaand, he's only talking about the protein-coding DNA, which represents a small part of total DNA. No one has a clue what most of the 98% of our genome that doesn't code for protein actually does. It's becoming increasing clear that it's very important, but accurate prediction of what's important, what it does, and why, is problematic. They're playing blind chess on a billion square chess board.

Within the realm of high-penetrant disease mutations, there is promise and progress. But in my opinion eugenics through genetic manipulation is far too futuristic to be realistic.

One could imagine a massive "chess engine-like" supercomputer, which could synthesize the gene variants in a large population, correlate them with health and intelligence outcomes, and generate an ideal human genome. This is done on a much smaller scale now, looking at gene variants that predispose for heart disease and such. But even if this were possible (which it's not) it would still require an unfeasible level of genetic manipulation.

Originally posted by apathist
I said we could. Future. As powerful as your brain is, imagination is not your strong suit. I wish I had your understanding of reality, so I could offer some corrections. I'd expect the same treatment in return.

Technically, yes, at some very far future date we may be able to stop all mutations. One way to do it would be to clone, but another possible way would be to recreate the genome from scratch from a computer template. But even so, it is highly unlikely that we will ever develop technology that can completely stop mutations during growth - and even more unlikely that we would even try as the vast majority of mutations are harmless.
It is even more unlikely that we would ever want to start every human being from the same template. Much more likely is that we would actually be trying to improve humans rather than keep them the same.
My post was not a lack of imagination as you imagine, but rather a practical understanding of reality.

Originally posted by wildgrass
One could imagine a massive "chess engine-like" supercomputer, which could synthesize the gene variants in a large population, correlate them with health and intelligence outcomes, and generate an ideal human genome. This is done on a much smaller scale now, looking at gene variants that predispose for heart disease and such. But even if this were possible (which it's not) it would still require an unfeasible level of genetic manipulation.

It is almost certainly possible already to search for genes that correlate with certain desirable characteristics including health and intelligence. The danger of putting multiple such genes together is that they may not work as planned. Two genes that individually result in greater intelligence may when put together result in mental problems or even some totally unrelated unforeseen issue.

But, given that our current system of randomly matching up genes via sex is really no better and almost certainly worse then purposefully choosing the best genes, it does seem that once the technology is available we should try it. Interestingly though humans have a strong aversion to messing with the genome and are remarkably comfortable with horrible outcomes as long as it can be labelled 'natural'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Interestingly though humans have a strong aversion to messing with the genome and are remarkably comfortable with horrible outcomes as long as it can be labelled 'natural'.

They should be constantly reminded via examples that there is nothing necessarily 'good' about 'natural' nor nothing necessarily 'bad' about 'unnatural';
rabies is totally natural;
a designer drug that is a chemical that isn't found in nature and is made in a chemical factory and which cures someone from rabies would be totally unnatural;
a huge gang of Hyenas ruthlessly chasing down over hundreds of miles a baby dear slowly exhausting it over many hours until it can run no longer and then finally tearing its throat out is totally natural;
In fact, every part of all the horrific cruelty of nature is totally natural.
Horrific genetic diseases are totally natural; their prevention or cure via GM would be totally unnatural.
So here are examples of 'natural' being 'bad' and 'unnatural' being 'good' thus disproving their irrational assumption by showing whether something is natural or unnatural has nothing to do with whether it is bad or good and vice versa.

Originally posted by humy
a huge gang of Hyenas ruthlessly chasing down over hundreds of miles a baby dear slowly exhausting it over many hours until it can run no longer and then finally tearing its throat out is totally natural;

My favourite counter to anyone arguing against cruelty to animals is to suggest euthanizing all predators. Then sit back and watch all the excuses for not doing so and how when it happens in nature it isn't cruel.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My favourite counter to anyone arguing against cruelty to animals is to suggest euthanizing all predators. Then sit back and watch all the excuses for not doing so and how when it happens in nature it isn't cruel.

Nature is harsh, but how are you here not advocating that microwaving kittens is okay?

Originally posted by humy
... there is nothing necessarily 'good' about 'natural' nor nothing necessarily 'bad' about 'unnatural'; ...

That's true enough, if 'unnatural' means 'man-made'. But people are natural too, aren't they?

Originally posted by apathist
That's true enough, if 'unnatural' means 'man-made'. But people are natural too, aren't they?

exactly.

Originally posted by apathist
Nature is harsh, but how are you here not advocating that microwaving kittens is okay?

microwaving kittens is cruel. There must be far less cruel ways to kill a kitten; not that I would.

Originally posted by apathist
Nature is harsh, but how are you here not advocating that microwaving kittens is okay?

I am advocating that either microwaving kittens is OK (and it wouldn't surprise me if the Chinese do it), or, we should do something about the carnage in nature.

I realise we feel a natural aversion to certain things (I note that you feel more strongly about kittens than adult cats), but there is a difference between aversion and morals. Is microwaving baby snakes more acceptable? What about microwaving chicken eggs? What about microwaving slices of lamb?

Originally posted by humy
microwaving kittens is cruel.

Is allowing a hawk to torture a kitten cruel?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is allowing a hawk to torture a kitten cruel?

yes. Yet another example of natural thing that is cruel.

Originally posted by twhitehead
My favourite counter to anyone arguing against cruelty to animals is to suggest euthanizing all predators. Then sit back and watch all the excuses for not doing so and how when it happens in nature it isn't cruel.

Just a thought;
putting aside the issue of the immense practical difficulty of doing so, you could argue that euthanizing all wild animals (including herbivores ) is 'morally right' because only by doing so can you guarantee no wild animal would have a slow stressful death from predictors or disease or old age etc.
Why can't one make that argument?
Alter all, in the wild, typically something like ~99% of individual animals will eventually die from some kind of cruel brutal death and which would put you in jail for animal cruelty if you personally and deliberately directly inflicted that same kind of cruelty on an animal yourself.
Not sure how one could counter that argument (other than just asserting it is impractical, which isn't the same thing at all as asserting it is immoral ). Has anyone got any suggestions on how?

Originally posted by humy
Just a thought;
putting aside the issue of the immense practical difficulty of doing so, you could argue that euthanizing all wild animals (including herbivores ) is 'morally right' because only by doing so can you guarantee no wild animal would have a slow stressful death from predictors or disease or old age etc.
Why can't one make that argument?
Alter al ...[text shortened]... isn't the same thing at all as asserting it is immoral ). Has anyone got any suggestions on how?

Along the same lines, should we forcible sterilise all Ethiopians?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am advocating that either microwaving kittens is OK ... or, we should do something about the carnage in nature....

I did not expect that reply. You drop me down a rabbit hole here.

Let's get clear. Which do you advocate?

Me, no one will predate nor microwave life in my field of influence. I am afraid I'm in a stupid place. For example, we can hunt for food, but we won't use pellet guns to kill feral cats. We won't hunt for trophies but we can kill the coyotes who want our chickens. I'm conflicted. Answer my question please.