Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8

Author Topic: Gene-Engineering  (Read 8985 times)

Lord_lemonpie

  • Bay Watcher
  • disco-froggin' since 2013
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2015, 11:41:14 am »

Ptw. I'm really interested in my stuff, and I'm planning to study biotechnology someday.
Logged

Baffler

  • Bay Watcher
  • Caveat Lector.
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #31 on: March 21, 2015, 11:42:51 am »

It is true that a small subset of genetic diseases do confer some advantage along with them (like the textbook example of sickle cell anemia) but they are just that: a small subset. Genetic diversity isn't enough of an end in itself to justify ignoring actionable solutions to most genetic disorders, and modern medical ethics don't allow for the natural solution you seem to be advocating.

Take Lynch Syndrome, the name for what is essentially inherited colorectal cancer caused by mutation of MLH1 or MSH2, both apparently involved in DNA mismatch repair. The average diagnostic age is 45, so most people don't even know they have it until they've already got a family and kids, at least one of whom has probably inherited Lynch Syndrome. It doesn't always result in cancer either, making it less likely to be detected.

Or polycystic kidney disease, if you'd prefer a more common example, which has comparable epidemiology: passed down genetically but doesn't manifest until later in life. It leads to kidney failure at ~age 40-50 if left untreated, requiring a transplant. It has two (possibly three) genetic causes, the vast majority of which are autosomal dominant mutations in genes related to calcium homeostasis.

Most people whose parents are diagnosed with a genetic disease get tested themselves eventually, and making germ line modification to correct the issue available to them could reduce the number of patients in the future by a great deal, even if not all of them opt for the treatment. It's even more effective than the "natural solution" at reducing diseases in the cases above (and many others) because by the time someone realizes they have the disease (if they ever do) they've already passed it on.

Edit: Well I typed this up in response to your first post. Now that about half of my post is irrelevant, I guess I'll just go get lunch.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 11:45:23 am by Baffler »
Logged
Quote from: Helgoland
Even if you found a suitable opening, I doubt it would prove all too satisfying. And it might leave some nasty wounds, depending on the moral high ground's geology.
Location subject to periodic change.
Baffler likes silver, walnut trees, the color green, tanzanite, and dogs for their loyalty. When possible he prefers to consume beef, iced tea, and cornbread. He absolutely detests ticks.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #32 on: March 21, 2015, 11:54:08 am »

There are others as well--

Say the genetics for hemochromatosis. (My dad is homozygous for this disorder, and sequesters iron.) This disorder is genetic, and causes the body to absorb and retain iron at rates that are pathological in modern society.  It would have proven advantageous in the past, when sources of dietary iron were hard to get. Banking on there being a marvelous, technologically capable future for humans as a 100% certainty, you would opt to have the genes for this disorder removed, since it confers no advantage to technologically advanced man.  However, technology is fragile; Keeping these genes around in the cupboard, by simply ignoring them, provides a level of fault tolerance to the totality of the human genome.

Again, today's deleterious mutation, such as your colorectal cancer causing sequences you cited, may become beneficial later. It is impossible to predict how factors in the environment will change with time.
Logged

4maskwolf

  • Bay Watcher
  • 4mask always angle, do figure theirs!
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #33 on: March 21, 2015, 12:03:22 pm »

All of the debating...

From one point of view I can agree with you, wierd, but my personal ethics prevent me from fully agreeing.  The problem I see is that you are willingly allowing humans to suffer and die in the name of a possible future, which is an incredibly slippery slope in and of itself, and promoting the idea that we should let this happen without doing anything to help these people.

I think the whole issue is far too complicated for me to make any real decision on my views, but I'll be interested to see what other people have to say.

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #34 on: March 21, 2015, 12:16:44 pm »

I would just like to point out that my intention with the debate was merely to point out that the option exists, that I personally support it, and why.

Not to try to convince others to follow after me, nor to browbeat or anything. (I can debate pretty passionately, and that can cause frayed tensions of that type.)

I don't require that anyone agree; Having others understand an uncomfortable PoV is all that I want(ed).  You don't have to agree with me 4MaskWolf. I want you to make up your own mind, but I want you to make that choice armed with as much information as is possible, and have firm reasons for your choice(es).
Logged

scrdest

  • Bay Watcher
  • Girlcat?/o_ o
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #35 on: March 21, 2015, 12:32:24 pm »

There are others as well--

Say the genetics for hemochromatosis. (My dad is homozygous for this disorder, and sequesters iron.) This disorder is genetic, and causes the body to absorb and retain iron at rates that are pathological in modern society.  It would have proven advantageous in the past, when sources of dietary iron were hard to get. Banking on there being a marvelous, technologically capable future for humans as a 100% certainty, you would opt to have the genes for this disorder removed, since it confers no advantage to technologically advanced man.  However, technology is fragile; Keeping these genes around in the cupboard, by simply ignoring them, provides a level of fault tolerance to the totality of the human genome.

Again, today's deleterious mutation, such as your colorectal cancer causing sequences you cited, may become beneficial later. It is impossible to predict how factors in the environment will change with time.
That's in the realm of the hypothetical - it MAY be a benefit in the future, but it sure isn't now. And even if it somehow proves advantageous eventually, you still have a crucial system - MMR system - damaged significantly.

I would also like to point out that your argument could have been presented a hundred, thousand or ten thousand years ago - almost every single tool, sensu lato, has the exact same effect on natural selection and the same dependencies form, whether it means Urist McCaveman stops using fists to bash a tiger's skull in, Lord Sicklington takes antihelmintics instead of allowing his immune system fight it off or someone undergoes gene therapy to unfuck his physiology.
Logged
We are doomed. It's just that whatever is going to kill us all just happens to be, from a scientific standpoint, pretty frickin' awesome.

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral; Prophet of Pestilence
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #36 on: March 21, 2015, 01:37:48 pm »

I think the internal tailbone we have is needed for comfortable sitting.
Broke my mother's tailbone when I was born, can confirm sitting is uncomfortable.
You are only going to increase the prevalence of that future generation to REQUIRE those advanced medicines, while the environment around them has no such requirements.

In short, you are going to architect a future where massive dieoffs happen when production of XYZ medication for ABC disorder does not ship on schedule.
Spoiler: tl;dr (click to show/hide)
Summing up, your nightmare is already here wierd. Human population is already tremendously large, and it's supported by things that might well fail: government could collapse, markets could collapse, war, suffering, disease, anything. But clearly it works well enough, otherwise they wouldn't be there. The rest is up to the species' abilities: that means the fallible mind. That is why I support the guy with disorders that need medicine, but not the designer baby: saving someone is doing exactly what evolution has rewarded us for doing, messing with babies is something else entirely. But hey, it'll be alright: even in the scenario where it goes forward, evolution will cut people down, while the poor and middle class will still have all they need. We breed animals and plants, and we see that giving them all specific traits is indeed dangerous and unstable. Don't believe me? Try this: if there was some type of human that would really be fitter in every way then what we have now (as opposed to just seeming like it would be better: "A gene shown to increase intelligence? Let's shove it in"), why don't we have it now? And hell, even assuming that world still happens, regression to the mean and breeding between the classes would keep it in line. There are many, many ethical concerns to designer babies, but a nightmare scenario shouldn't be one of them.
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now

Angle

  • Bay Watcher
  • 39 Indigo Spear Questions the Poor
    • View Profile
    • Agora Forum Demo!
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #37 on: March 21, 2015, 03:07:54 pm »

Yeah, I'm in favor. Again, I think we need to develop our morals more, especially as a society, but by the time this really becomes available I think we should be able to handle it.
Logged

Agora: open-source platform to facilitate complicated discussions between large numbers of people. Now with test site!

The Temple of the Elements: Quirky Dungeon Crawler

~Neri

  • Bay Watcher
  • Now back to our regularly scheduled bark.
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #38 on: March 21, 2015, 03:41:37 pm »

I'm getting a tail.
If you're talking about a prehensile, Saiyan-like tail then sure. Same here. If you're talking about something as useless like a dog or cat tail then I have no choice but to consider you as inferior to me. Honestly, the downsides in that case would outweigh the singular bonus (balance) it gives. A few downsides that come to mind include discomfort while sitting, new clothes being required (not really that terrible, actually), and extra hygiene requirements.

-snipsnop-
Prehensile and fluffy is what I want. So technically a combination between a saiyan like tail and a fox tail.
Logged

scrdest

  • Bay Watcher
  • Girlcat?/o_ o
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #39 on: March 21, 2015, 04:01:40 pm »

I'm getting a tail.
If you're talking about a prehensile, Saiyan-like tail then sure. Same here. If you're talking about something as useless like a dog or cat tail then I have no choice but to consider you as inferior to me. Honestly, the downsides in that case would outweigh the singular bonus (balance) it gives. A few downsides that come to mind include discomfort while sitting, new clothes being required (not really that terrible, actually), and extra hygiene requirements.

-snipsnop-
Prehensile and fluffy is what I want. So technically a combination between a saiyan like tail and a fox tail.

Over the course of the discussion, we kinda missed the important issue here.

It's viable to activate the gene, but all genes do is produce protein. Said protein then interact with stuff and each other, and only that leads to the development of the, well, body in general, and all that is, by design, prenatal. Maaaaaaaybe you'd have a shot with stem cells + gene mod, but that's one hell of a maybe. Realistically, you could do a germ line genetic modification and have your child have a tail, but that carries a risk of a major psycho-sociological disorder known to the specialists as 'never talking to you again, ever'.
Logged
We are doomed. It's just that whatever is going to kill us all just happens to be, from a scientific standpoint, pretty frickin' awesome.

i2amroy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cats, ruling the world one dwarf at a time
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #40 on: March 21, 2015, 04:12:02 pm »

Really if you wanted something on the limb scale the best idea would probably be to use your own stem cells to grow it, then attach it and perform only minor surgery/gene stuff to allow for adequate attachment procedures. The end result would effectively be an implant that you would never be in danger of rejecting.

On the other hand if you wanted to do something smaller like say, the ability to see in the dark, we already totally have the technology that would be needed to grant your eyes the ability to do that (though it might take several months of repeated treatment before your the cells in your eyes have been replaced enough for it to start kicking in as well as your brain learning to process the extra information that your eyes would now be providing). We've already done similar things in curing red/green colorblindness in adult monkeys.
Logged
Quote from: PTTG
It would be brutally difficult and probably won't work. In other words, it's absolutely dwarven!
Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead - A fun zombie survival rougelike that I'm dev-ing for.

DJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #41 on: March 21, 2015, 04:22:42 pm »

I think you people are underestimating just how important it is to be able to sit for prolonged periods.
Logged
Urist, President has immigrated to your fortress!
Urist, President mandates the Dwarven Bill of Rights.

Cue magma.
Ah, the Magma Carta...

~Neri

  • Bay Watcher
  • Now back to our regularly scheduled bark.
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #42 on: March 21, 2015, 04:25:05 pm »

Grafting would be better then gene modding in the case of a tail.

I think you people are underestimating just how important it is to be able to sit for prolonged periods.
I tend to sit on my knees, so I don't think it would be a problem.
Logged

DJ

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #43 on: March 21, 2015, 04:28:00 pm »

You'red seriously claiming that you could sit on your knees for 5-6 hours and be able to get up and walk? For me it's like 15 minutes and I can't feel my lower legs.

Also:
Quote from: Wikipedia
The anterior side of the coccyx serves for the attachment of a group of muscles important for many functions of the pelvic floor (i.e., defecation, continence, etc.)
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 04:33:54 pm by DJ »
Logged
Urist, President has immigrated to your fortress!
Urist, President mandates the Dwarven Bill of Rights.

Cue magma.
Ah, the Magma Carta...

wierd

  • Bay Watcher
  • I like to eat small children.
    • View Profile
Re: Gene-Engineering
« Reply #44 on: March 21, 2015, 04:33:18 pm »

Funny you should mention antihelmintics...

Turns out that humans HAVE INDEED co-evolved with GI parasites, like Helminths, and that such organisms CAN and DO confer health benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminthic_therapy

They have been found to be surprisingly therapeutic for profound cases of asthma, ulcerative colitis, and crohne's disease.


The basic theme of your argument argues for the removal of these organisms. Mine advocates tolerance of them, citing things like this.

I am quite confident that the more we learn about the inner workings of the human body, especially in regard to epigenetic factors (like bowel flora), the more it will be shown that the notion of trying to outdo nature is folly.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8