A few decades ago it was the stuff of science fiction. Now it begins to approach reality.

John Harris, professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester School of Law and a member of the British Human Genetics Commission argues the case for enhancing the human species in his 2007 book, "Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People."

For a hostile discussion on the book see:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article2622232.ece

Quote:

>>If it is right to save life, Harris says, it is right to postpone death ad infinitum by stemming the flow of diseases that carry us to the grave. We should engineer ourselves to be free of such curses as cancer and dementia, instead of believing that they are acceptable inevitabilities of human life. And we should make any such technology available as soon as we can, EVEN IF IT MEANS THE HUMAN RACE INITIALLY SPLITTING INTO THE STRONG, CLEVER, BEAUTIFUL, IMMORTAL HAVES AND THE DUMBER, DISEASE-RIDDEN HAVE-NOTS.>>

(Emphasis added)

Michael J. Sandel, professor of government at Harvard University and erstwhile member of the president's Council on Bioethics argues the contra case in "The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering"

See:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/SANPRO.html

My guess is that we will indeed try and enhance the human species as John Harris suggests. Given the option of having enhanced children, the wealthy will take it regardless of expense.

Sandel may make a good ethical argument but he will be ignored.

The human race will split into "the strong, clever, beautiful, immortal haves and the dumber, disease-ridden have-nots." Eventually the "haves" and "have nots" may diverge into two distinct species.

It will have to happen because we are saving babies that would otherwise have died.Survival of the fittest does not strengthen our gene pool as in the past.Just a generation ago people had many children and many miscarriages.Today we save one at all costs.Genetic engineering will be our only way out or our species will eventually become geneticly dysfunctional.

Parents or the State playing god with our genes raises a legal nightmare.

no eventually about it, slm, within the lifetime of young people, babies will be born with such capabilities that they will supplant homo sap.

and a good thing. current leadership (actually mastership, they don't lead, save to disaster) can not save us from inherited overpopulation.

but the prospect of undirected culling (you know, four horsemen) might ruin the technology needed to produce homo superior.

young people are going to have an interesting life. perhaps not long, but definitely interesting.

Stevenlmeyer – “The human race will split into "the strong, clever, beautiful, immortal haves and the dumber, disease-ridden have-nots." Eventually the "haves" and "have nots" may diverge into two distinct species.”

This wont happen because eventually the technology will become so cheap everybody will be able to afford it. Sure like everything it will be only the rich who can afford it but after probably a maximum of ten years almost everyone will be able to afford it.

I think we will see humans slowly genetically engineered and have things added to the body to make it work better. There will be an uproar at first but because it will happen so slowly people will hardly notice! In a way we have already started with such things as pace makers and hip replacements.

We are just at the beginning of the bio tech age!

Steven, you truly are the Michael Crichton of OLO :)

It’s been tried before .

Natural selection is the only process that can successfully improve a species .

The trick is allowing natural selection to operate .

MORAL RELATIVITY...... "MIUAUG".......

How many times have I said it..... harped on it... raved, ranted, mumbled, blubbered, blabbed, whined, bemoaned, predicted.....

No Anchor.. = tossed about in a stormy sea of opinion...

...and you wonder why I keep on about mankind needing to be reconciled with its Creator?

Apart from the Almighty and his revealed morality, there is no REASON "not" to do this, along with a grab bag of many more tantalizing ideas.

This works fine, UNTIL... like the shows about a computer which 'suggests' changes to itself to 'improve' its performance, the scientists are thrilled.. then finally, the greatest improvement is to cull the scientists who created it, and it now has the power to achieve it.

Steven, all of us would do well to listen to the voice which came to your biological (?) ancestors in the wilderness of Sinai....

"Hear oh Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord".....etc

The future is now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/17dna.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=6810aba681c951e4&ex=1195534800

Would Amy Harmon, the author of the linked NY Times article, have aborted a foetus that showed too many negative genetic characteristics?

How about posters here?

Would any of you abort a foetus that looked as if it might grow up a bit stupid or ugly?

I am not sure that people would be brighter in “this brave new world”.
Indeed there could well be a dramatic drop in creativity required in all fields, not only art, but also science. Many creative types have higher than normal levels of shizotpy and other psychiatric disorders.

Schizophrenia, as does schizotypy (common within families of schizophrenics) has possibly genetic causes (which twin studies indicate), then removing this gene could ultimately result in dumbing down society.

One hypothesis suggests that schizotypy is a result of genes that enable a trait of creativity.

http://www.psy.vanderbilt.edu/faculty/sohee/Publications/Folley_Park_NIROT.pdf

http://www.unm.edu/~marni1/stats/schizotypy_creativity.pdf

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/jrp.pdf

http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/nettle%20and%20clegg%20proceedings%20b.pdf

Perhaps schizophrenia is too much of a good thing ...

I don’t really know how one could gentically engineer for brilliant minds.

Imagine what the world would have lost if Stephen Hawking’s ALS had been detected in utero, and he had been aborted.

Also, the environment is often a necessay precipitant for conditions to develop, such as the defensive sickle-cell allele. One sickle-cell allele, protects you from malaria; two, and you get sickle cell anemia.

If climate change does occur rapidly, tiny bobbed noses are not going to be very suitable; people will need larger and wider noses to cool the air.

It seems that genetic engineering, by removing certain genes, may in fact, cause an unravelling of protection and adaptability that has evolved over time. Lewontin, I think, argued this point.

As for “beauty”, it changes from one era to another. It is tied to natural selection and need to procreate. It is also subjective. As a young woman, I wasn’t attracted to muscley men - I felt that all was missing was the fur. I am sure other females felt the same. A man’s intellect was the component which “turned me on”.

It would seem that gentic engineering could in fact create a common, and ultimately boring society, subject to other different forms of disfunction or disease. Certainly not one I would care to live in ... and for so long ..

hear hear Jamo ...
They certainly did try that one in WW2. People never learn, wonder how Monsanto would react to that un-challenge since they are losing the GM battle. Maybe we could sell them our seeds as well since they already own 91 % of worldwide seeds.I forgot.. we cannot sell ours because our DNA is owned by some other company.

Sorry guys 'n'galls. The time is not ripe as yet.We need a few more years of sucking fluoridated/chlorinated tapwater to get into the dumbing-down mode.

DANIELLE, JAMMO & EFTFNC

My guess is that what we'll have initially is an extension of what happens now.

Today foetuses that are afflicted with genomes likely to cause congenital diseases – Down's syndrome, Huntington's and Tay Sachs among them - are routinely aborted. As our testing capability improves we'll do more tests. Within a decade or so we may be able to determine whether a foetus is likely to grow up a bit dim, or be sexually unattractive or has an elevated probability of being homosexual. The parents will then be able to decide whether to abort the foetus and try again.

Later I can envisage couples fertilising a series of ova in vitro and then choosing to implant only the best ones.

At the moment of course the failure rate with implanted ova fertilised through IVF is high; but I have no doubt the technology will improve.

If you ask me to put a date on this I'd guess at about 2020. By the time my grandchildren get to childbearing age they'll be wrestling with these decisions.

DANIELLE,

Standards of sexual attractiveness are actually not as variable as you seem to imagine. Evolution seems to have programmed men and women to prefer coupling with healthy mates. Sexual attractiveness seems to reflect, albeit imperfectly, a potential mate's fitness.

So beauty is in the eye of the brain programmed by evolution.

CJ MORGAN,

If I am only one quarter as successful as Michael Crichton I shall not complain.

Steven,

Your comment brings to mind what a couple of neuroscientists wrote on another site:

They would choose wives with small feet - that way, they stand closer to the sink.

Steven ,

Lets spread our Love and wealth around.

Being selfish isn't all that much fun .

If we are going to use genetics, breed most from the unselfish people - who may or may not be terribly brainy and who may not be the fastest or the most attractive.

I heard on the ABC a couple of days ago that 37 million people in the US were not getting enough to eat . They are headed "South"!

Is that genetics at work or is it John Howard's mate's System of Government ??

How do you breed a good system of Government that can reverse or cure the above obviously flawed condition ?

As I've said many times in the past,"If he body be the vehicle for the soul,ie "our aspirations";wouldn't you want to come back to a better vehicle?

Suffering only improves our human condition to the point of motivation to improve it,suffering for suffering's sake,is meanlingless.This is where religion has failed us.

KARTIYA JIM

I am making a forecast. Not advocating a course of action.

It seems to me that, one way or another, we are headed in the direction designer babies.

The wealthy will have access to whatever technology develops first. They are the ones who will set the pace. My guess is they will use it to have children better able to compete in the world.

They will not settle for children that are not too bright, not very physically attractive, but are "nice."

Consider the amount of money wealthy parents spend on school fees at the "best" schools. But even going to the best school does not GUARANTEE success in life.

Now for the cost of little more than, say, three years school fees' they will have access to a technology which considerably boosts rich kid's chances of success in the game of life.

What do you think wealthy parents will do?

ARJAY

I don't think wealthy parents will accept your line of argument.

Steven ,

I do think it would be good to eliminate some of the terrible diseases in the world - with some genetic engineering if necessary .

However as the number of "poor" increase, will we see the beautifull rich retire to the security of their high walled city compounds, there to inbreed themselves into trouble .

No doubt they will try to introduce new genes from the pool of poor as they see themselves deteriorate but in the end it will be the "nice" rich negotiators talking to those outside the compound gates ,not necessarily the most beautifull, that will have to bale them out .

But I will concede there is a fair bit of DNA etc being cheaply collected at present by companies from all races that could be used to advantage the wealthy.

I’m with Harris 100%...

Few people nowadays really believe natural selection charts the optimum course.
Every time you seek medical help, choose fruits/meats/flowers you are voting for enhanced evolution - though apparently some haven’t cottoned on to it .

I agree with EasyTimes- it started slowly but through increments’ will become the norm.

I disagree with Danielle - what it will lead to will be anything but boring.

In nature, desirable traits are often mingled with undesirable traits.
And it takes a lot of natural crossing to separate the two.
Now, you can’t treat humans like domestic animals & dictate who they breed with -but genetic engineering provides a way.

What if, schizophrenics purported “creativity” was able to separated from the other, or a savants numerical ability was able to be separated from the other -and if such characteristics could become common human traits.

And consider, if humans had chlorophyll as skin pigment rather than melanin -science-fiction now, yes -but science-possible, in the future .We could extract a lot of our energy needs direct from sunlight; no need to farm, methane emitting cattle; and no need to clear forests for farms ; no more skins cancers - all solved, in one fell swoop!

And what If, the twin phallus that some breeds of tortoises have , & use alternatively, could cross the species barrier & be employed simultaneously …no, on second thoughts I wont go down that route …

Seriously though, I welcome enhanced evolution & I predict there will come a time when the body will be considered nothing much more than a vessel, which we’ll swap & change at will, and consciousness, whether born of a human body or of AI technology, will have equal status

With such a philosophy of aborting foetuses that are suspect of genetic deformities,would we want to abort the likes of Stephen Hawking?

The brave new world of genetic engineering make well take from us the ability to be empathic and thus human.There are always two sides to a coin.We need balance of both logical and emotional intelligence.Pure genetic genius may not necessarily make us happy.The black dog snaps constantly at the heals of our talented geniuses.My advice is to tread carefully.

KARTIYA JIM

I think your concerns about a small gene pool are misplaced.

I am not talking about a small group of super-rich people. In Australian terms the sort of technology I'm talking about would be within reach of, say, parents who can afford to send their kids to the more expensive private schools. That group tend to marry among themselves anyway.

Perhaps I should have used the phrase "well to do" rather than the word "wealthy."

The price of technology always declines. After a decade or so I would guess the top 10% of Australian households by income would be able to afford it. That's a fairly big gene pool.

ARJAY

It is possible that Stephen Hawking would have been aborted.

Nonetheless I think most parents would go with the odds. Most people who suffer from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis are not scientific geniuses. Most sufferers in fact lead fairly miserable lives.

Even knowing that Stephen Hawking, David Niven and Charles Mingus among others were ALS sufferers, I think most parents would abort a foetus that was going to get this dreadful illness.

I also don't think genetic engineering takes from us the ability to empathise; an ability which in any case seems to have an evolutionary basis. In other words, the ability to empathise seems to be hard wired into us.

However Arjay, you raise an interesting point. Some people are unable to empathise. This MAY be a genetic defect.

Should we abort foetuses likely to grow into adults that CANNOT emphathise?

For the neurological basis of empathy see:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10108.html

Steven,

Not only humans empathise, apparently mice do to.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125595.400.html

Empathy could be a necessary requirement for survival - warning others of danger.

Not all wealthy people, albeit good at what they do (e.g importing cheap crockery) would raise a blip on the high IQ scale. Thus, the question whether one can genetically engineer for high IQ's; let alone success in life?

High IQ needs to be defined. Some academics, considered brilliant in their field, are not very competent in ways that the "ordinary person in the street" would be.

There are people who are brilliant but definitely eccentric (and none would wish them to be any other way).

Harold Gardener questions not only the reliabiability of current IQ tests, but also what they can tell. He states a case for multiple types of intellligence.

Genetic engineering could hopefully eradicate certain diseases; however, the environment also contributes to disease. Some people smoke all their lives and never suffer the effects; others, passive smokers, experience life-threatening illnesses which are attributed, quite correctly, to smokers.

Tay Sachs resulted from the development of immunity to TB. Again, this terrible disorder comes from “too much of a good thing”.

Standards of sexual attraction:

Often these are cultural mores, such as flat chests among Japanese women - not now, of course, as Western ideas, especially from the US have intruded. Frenchmen used to hold the ideal beauty was a woman with breasts (one) that could fit into a champagne glass. Not exactly Marilyn Monroe. Different peoples, different ideals.

With plastic surgery increasinlgy common; indeed, people having multiple procedures, beauty is becoming more subjective - “ I want X’s nose”

Will the well-to-do set the criteria for beauty?

Certainly, the healthiness of the other is a major factor.

Don’t pheromones play some part?

“ ... more expensive private schools ... tend to marry among themselves ...”

They also tend to go by the “old school tie” in selecting business partners, etc. Here, high IQ often has little to do with success.

It would, indeed, be excellent if dementia could be eradicated, especially with aging populations

Steven ,
You say that 10% "of the top households" would use the technology .

What if the other 90% of the population had bad teeth,crook backs and lived 20 years less?

Wouldn't they be entitled to be a bit peeved if billions of genetic research dollars derived off their labour went into making the rich more perfect to the detriment of the rest?

I really believe that medical and genetic advances should be for the greater good . This would keep the bulk of the population much happier and with hope for the future.

Democracy is not founded on selfishness.

After all, isn't the greater good a better result?

KARTIYA JIM,

As I think my posts make clear, I am making a FORECAST of the way things will develop.

I think the technology will develop and the well-to-do will make use of it. In the end that could create a sort of genetic elite.

But I am NOT advocating. Merely forecasting.

Perhaps my forecasts will prove correct.

Perhaps not.

Time will tell.

Steven ,Fair enough .

My forecast is that before a particular section of society gets too far advanced or healthier than the rest that in a democracy there is always a bit of levelling out and this is good .

As they say, "no good having all your eggs in the one basket".
Pardon the pun .

Steven

I don't think genetic engineering to this extent would result in a genetic elite. The criteria set for such results would be necessarily subjective.

I don't think nature is that forgiving.