Genetics and Cloning

[GSLeloo]

So another one from Bio-Ethics...

We're a book called Oryx and Crake by Atwood. In the book we are shown this post-apocolyptic world where we basically destroyed ourselves by doing all of this genetic stuff. We created animals called pigoons which were pigs that had six kidneys in them that we could use for transplants. We created stuff called Noo Skin so you could replace any old skin you had and always looked young. We made designer breeds such as wolvogs and rakunks that took over the natural species.

In the end (We still haven't discovered how everything ended) but we're left with a species of humans that have no creative spirit, they are all perfect looking but they all look the same, they are engineered to always smell good and release a scent at night to keep away the insects. But there's no variation, they're just photocopies and can't think for themselves.

Then we watched a video, a real documentary, discussing genetics. It was about six years old but it was still real. It was talking about cloning super cows to produce more milk, removing the protein from pigs so our body wouldn't reject their organs, and how we've been splicing animals DNA with some human genes.

I have always supported going forward in science, I'm all for attempting to clone and further researching DNA. But I'm just wondering, when is it enough? When is it we're going to go over the line and destroy our own species? What do you think? Is genetic engineering and cloning a mistake or the next step we have to make?

[Bobmuhthol]

Nothing is advanced enough to even ask this question.

As of yet, about the most advanced engineering available to citizens is choosing their baby's gender. We could theoretically diminish variation in humans and create nothing but perfect clones, but...

that would go entirely against nature and more people would be against it than for it. It wouldn't happen. Suggested scenarios like this one seem to have a common trait: they all make humans sound like idiots who don't know what they're doing.

[xtc]

Suggested scenarios like this one seem to have a common trait: they all make humans sound like idiots who don't know what they're doing.


Looking at the state of the world I would say that was entirely possible.

[Czeska]

Touche.

[Latrinsorm]

When is it we're going to go over the line and destroy our own species?The way you phrase this makes it sound like you think that'd be a bad thing. Why do you think that?

As for the cloning apocalypse scenario, we'd have to get everyone to agree on which traits were pretty first. We couldn't even do that with the people who have posted in this thread so far (ask Bob about Asians sometime), let alone the other 7 billion people in the world. Further, it doesn't really stand to reason that clones wouldn't be able to think for themselves. Recall identical twins you've met. Were they distinct people?
Is genetic engineering and cloning a mistake or the next step we have to make?Cloning is a mistake. Genetic engineering (along with nanotechnology) looks like the way we're finally going to kill a Horseman. The ethical issue is deciding if genetic engineering is good because it (almost certainly) provides good ends or if genetic engineering will only be good if the path we take to it is good and more importantly deciding what "good" is in the first place. Is curing disease good? Why or why not?

[GSLeloo]

That's the thing, I've always been completely for the advancement of science but... watching the video and them discussing how they were going to infuse cow DNA with the human DNA to make insulin so that in the milk it would also have insulin... I mean a lot of it disgusted me.

I guess for me it was more the animal aspect of it. People get up in arms about cloning a human but they don't care what they do to the animals. I don't think an animals DNA should be messed with and foreign DNA should be inserted.

I'm also unsure if I believe in trying to eliminate all diseases anymore. When I see people dying and in pain I want to heal them and help them. But if we remove all forms of population control then what is going to stop our species from just growing until the Earth can no longer sustain us. All natural lifeforms are meant to have some form of population control.

My problem is I just can't decide which is worse.. a population with no cap or people dying.

[Jonty]

what is going to stop our species from just growing until the Earth can no longer sustain us.

We're already doing this.

[Latrinsorm]

All natural lifeforms are meant to have some form of population control.
People get up in arms about cloning a human but they don't care what they do to the animals.The point of an ethics course should be to question statements like these. Should an animal (for instance a cow) be afforded equal dignity and rights as a human? Should humans be afforded dignity and rights? Should humans have a form of population control? As Jonty noted, human reproduction is already outstripping the resources that can sustain us. What should we do about that? Should the governments of the world restrict human reproduction for the benefit of all?

You're making a lot of "is" statements, which is fine for anthropology or history, but in an ethics class you should be making "ought" statements (and preferably having some kind of reasoning for them).

[Artha]

what is going to stop our species from just growing until the Earth can no longer sustain us.
Math. Eventually the number of people dieing per day is equal to the number of people being born. IIRC the point is somewhere around 14 billion, butt hat number could be off.