Genetic engineering could be used to provide unbelievable advantages to children. You could put genes in that provide a total protection against cancer, total protection against heart disease, increased longevity. We already know that these genes could be put into children. We know that it can be done, it has already been done in animals and yet there is this barrier that exists within our consciousness as human kind to broaching the line into genetic modification. This barrier exists because we have this notion that the genome, which defines us is somehow interlinked with the human soul and it would be completely immoral to infringe upon the human soul and people think therefore it must be infringe upon the human genome. The problem with this way of thinking is that the human genome causes horrible diseases in so many people. And so many people die of heart disease and lung disease and other kinds of diseases. This technology could let parents give protective genes to their children. What’s wrong with that? Well, the problem is the soul, I think that’s what people are afraid of...
... the problem is that generation after generation after generation of genetic enhancements makes evolution go at a much more rapid pace then it went in the past. It has taken seven million years to go from a chimp-like ancestor to human beings today. And we’re looking at a series of differences that occurred by natural selection that could be compressed into perhaps a few hundred years or perhaps a few thousand years that are going to make the difference between the genetically and socially enriched class so different from the genetically and socially natural and deprived class. And as the differences get larger and larger and larger between these two classes of people there will be much less interest for children from these classes to come together and marry. And eventually even if they want to come together, the genetic differences will be so great that they won’t be able to have children with each other. That’s the way that species are formed, that even when the animals mate with each other, there will be no offspring. And once that happens, there is a permanent rift in the human population. There’s a permanent rift that is akin to having different species of human descendence in the world. So what took 7 million years in the past could take a few hundred years or a thousand years in the future. And the problem with this is a very serious problem. It’s that people of one human species won’t feel any kinship to people of the other human species and won’t feel a need perhaps to treat them with the dignity and respect that people give to every human being today as a part of their ethic.
When I react to what Lee Silver's said, I ultimately agree. It seems that with every invention in this "modern age", we start with something that we think is going to be great for humanity. After time goes on, it ends up being used for something else. For example, internet was invented for military, and plastic surgery was only meant for people who got in extreme accidents and for example lost their nose and needed a new one. I feel like what he says about genetics, how we are going to use it for something that it wasn't invented for, will eventually lead into the two separate generations. I fear that it will happen too soon. I can see us easily separating into a group that can be genetically modified and those who can't. However, I don't think it will ever lead to the way of us not being able to get married. Somehow, I believe that humans will realize when it has gone too far. I also think that we are so bread into equality that we will somehow find a way to make it possible for everyone to get genetically modified, even if they can't go to the extreme that richer ones will (maybe the poorer people are only able to stop diseases and the richer ones can do that and change the way their baby will look). Although I agree that eventually everyone will start doing this, I see what my philosophy class discussed Taylor's idea that in this technological and genetic society it will be difficult to "go against the grain" and choose to not genetically modify your baby. Therefore, I think everyone will eventually do this. I am shocked and sad about what Lee Silver says, but I understand that as a scientist he has the power to forsee the future of what he is discovering.
ReplyDeleteGood point Caryle - we are not really in control of what we invent and there are often unexpected uses.
DeleteImagining a world where two types of species live but look similar are only different through genetic material is horrifying. It will cause much more damage than good, creating tension between them and in perhaps extreme cases war. Humans for millions of decades have been fighting to be equal with each other and now this type of "cure" could possibly ruin today's relations. I think no one would want to promote another conflict between races because of a theory that says can go good. In my opinion it will do more harm than good. I think this genetic research should discontinue. Maybe kept active only to remove bone or muscle related handicap disease.
ReplyDeleteBut can you kill the human desire for knowledge?
DeleteLee Silver raises some brilliant point on the topic but I could not help but feel uneasy and anxious with every point he raised. The way he describes how genetically modifying our kids in the future will descend in to chaos makes me percieve the option as having addictive traits, and similat to other addictive habits that some of us deal with on a daily basis; they can get out of control. Ultimately I believe that it is this that could lead to the split of our species; those of us who can control our desire to genetically enhance our offspring, and those severely lacking control. What is most worrying about this video is the uncertainty of being able to pinpoint the period in the future when this will occur and become of major concern; the very fact that this video has been made now suggests that this ultimatum is all too swiftly arriving and the next half-dozen generations to come are the key to preventing this disaster. Another point he raises that alarms me, is how he sees the problem occuring in the present; scientists are all acting with good intentions to conteract horrific diseases and disorders,a noble cause, however the cumulative effect of all of this research will lead to the damage of the 'human' genome. This is difficult to comprehend; how can the accumulation of many good/helpful developments lead to such a catastrophe?
ReplyDeleteGood point - unexpected consequences of a noble action. Interesting point about addiction. What sort of addictions do students have to cope with every day?
DeleteLee Silver discusses an interesting point in the evolution of human kind in bringing up the question of whether or not it is morally correct to genetically modify ones children. From a scientific perspective I think that this is a great leap forward in genetic engineering and technology but I do not agree with its moral implications. Though I can see the benefit of being able to genetically modify an unborn child in order to rid them of potential disease and such, I do not think that it is ethically acceptable and would not do this to my own children if I had the choice. I think that taking evolution into our own hands is a very "risky business" because evolution is something that has always occurred naturally and should therefore be left to take the path that it was originally meant to take. In addition I think that there are moral infringements and do not agree with the fact that only the rich would be able to benefit their children in this way. The fact the human population may be split into two species just because we are hungry for more power, success and bettering ourselves at a higher speed, does not seem like a valid reason to polarize the human specie.
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe that genetic engineering is an attempt to speed up evolution but for the wrong reasons. I feel like the only benefit of genetically modifying children would only benefit in the short term for that childs life. In the long term people would loose personality and any characteristic faults that may define them, thereby creating a sort of "superhuman". It is our faults that define us and in removing these faults all identity of the human population would be lost.
You'll have a chance to ask a real geneticist about this on Friday.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTaking from what Lee Silver said, I have no way of knowing exactly how true his statements concerning the separation of the human species into two separate ones is (as discussed in class, this is his educated guess, not hard facts). However, seeing as I have no way of knowing, I will simply assume that what he is saying would ultimately happen. In this case, I do agree with him to some extent. We see clearly how our species has decided to treat others that are not a part of it. While we do have people in campaigns working against the mistreatment of animals, etc, etc.. it is still obvious how we don't always take into consideration these other species' feelings... so in the case that our species splits in two, what would really stop us from doing the same to that "lower" species? The reason I only agree with Silver to a certain extent is because of communication. While we have no way to communicate to cows and chickens, for example (as silly as that may sound), we WOULD have a way to communicate between these two separated "human" and "super-human" species; LANGUAGE. And this, is what I think MIGHT stop the "higher" species from treating the "lower" humans the same way we treat animal farms now-a-days (unlike what Silver suggests).
ReplyDeleteHowever, going back to the idea of "our biggest obstacle when it comes to applying this technology to human newborns, is our concern of changing the human soul"... I do not agree. I do agree that that may be our greatest concern (on average), but I personally do not feel this should stop us from preventing our children from living short lives because of terrible diseases like cancer. I find that preventing these things would an incredible break-through in our society and a HUGE step forward in modern science. On the other hand, one thing that does concern me is how far we would go. We live in a world of excess, where we all expect and consume FAR more than we should. Not only that, but we are also a society extremely fixated on physical appearances... so what would stop us from eventually starting to modify our physical features as well? While this is fairly harmless, it is useless and a waste of money... all in all COMPLETELY unnecessary. With these modifications, I would not agree.
Lee Silver raised some very interesting and important points about genetic modification. I found it especially interesting how he said that there will be a clear distinction between modified and “normal” people, even going as far as the two types not being able to reproduce with each other. I personally think that it is important to further investigate the abilities and possibilities that we have to genetically modify today. I also think that it is important to draw a line, there has to be the possibility to help those who are honestly suffering and desperately need help in the form of genetic modification. However, no one should be allowed to genetically modify a child just because parents have a strict idea of what the kid should be like. If you let parent pick and choose just about every aspect of their child’s genetic makeup then there could eventually be a new species of genetically modified beings which would then, generation by generation, distance itself from other humans.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we should use genetic modification in order to rid humans and animals of genetic diseases and other possibly life threatening or hindering sicknesses. However, it is important to preserve the genetic inheritance of parental traits that do absolutely no harm to their children. That way we, as a whole species, can get healthier and eliminate deadly diseases without damaging the passing on of most genes that would determine the looks and abilities of children.
Right, but who gets to choose where to draw the line?
DeleteLee Silver's point about the evolution of humans is fascinating and thought-provoking. But his comment on the ethics of genetically modifying children puzzled me. Why is it unethical to improve a human child? Does he mean that we are not asking the child if he wants to be genetically superior from others, or is he referring the point raised in class, money (unethical to allow the rich people to genetically improve themselves while the poor still have to face cancer, AIDS, and such)?
ReplyDeleteAnother question was raised by his comment, "We know that it can be done, it has already been done in animals". What he is saying is that genetic modification has been tested on animals and now he wants to test it on humans. Before any mother would allow someone to jam a needle in her fetus, she would probably want more testing to be done on animals for a 100% chance of success. What is his ethical standpoint on that?
Genetic engineering and modification is a great and speedy way for humans to evolve, which may become crucial in the next few years (rather than thousands of years) due to global warming, but aren't we running away from the problem? We can essentially inflict any damage we want on animals, plant, the entire planet and get away with it by modifying ourselves. Again, where is his ethical standpoint on that?
People's genetic weakness, or "flaws" make them who they are, and if everyone was good at everything, life would be boring, meaningless. People would be so generic. Unless, of course, we only use genetic modification to cure diseases, but I highly doubt some people would want to stop there.
Let's tough out the problem through nat
Can a future with two SEPERATE human species resulting from genetic modification even exist? Personally, I find the prediction of Professor Lee Silver to be quite disturbing. Today, there is inequality in reference to race, color, gender or socioeconomic status. The inequality stemming from genetic engineering, however, will arise from the human blueprint itself: our DNA. According to Lee Silver, the human genome is intertwined with the human soul and thus, any modification of the genome would "infringe upon the human soul." I fully agree with this notion. Each genome is specific to each person and is the basis of our soul. In my opinion, the genome and thus, the soul are projected through both our appearances and personalities. It is acceptable to modify genes in order to protect the body from heart disease and cancer; however, when it comes to tweaking years of natural evolution to the extent of looking "pretty," genetic modification crosses the line. If we were to surpass this "barrier within our consciousness”, the scenario of two separate human species would be inevitable. Yet I believe that this barrier is too strong to be broken in the near future. This barrier to me will be broken when mankind begins to utilize genetic modification to look “pretty.” Genetic engineering should only go as far as acting as a preventative measure against diseases not for changing eye or hair color. If the right precautions are taken and if this “barrier” stays strong, this scenario will not happen. However, at the rate humanity is progressing, ethics is beginning to lose its significance. We should never infringe upon the human soul as it is an artificial interruption in nature. Having two separate species would become a living nightmare, because as one would constantly develop and improve at a rate unknown to man, the “inferior” human species would continue to deteriorate. The “inferiors” would be the same humans we are today while the “superiors” would be a morphed version of nature. Would we utilize the “inferiors” as slaves or simply consider them as useless creatures, a shadow of past errors. If this scenario were to play out as Silver predicts, then the “inferiors” would become the minority in a majority of “superiors.” Superiority would become the norm, leading to the exclusion of the inferiors. As scary as this scenario is, the chances of it happening are very large. My hope is that humans’ instinct to preserve their soul, their natural self, will overpower the need to simply look “pretty.”
ReplyDeleteOkay, but in what way would human intervention in evoilution be "artificial". Aren't humans simply part of nature?
DeleteWith more and more inventions nowadays I completely agree that we are evolving as a species more rapidly than ever and that it is hard for many to keep up. Nevertheless these newest inventions are onlz available to the rich whereas the poor have little or no access to these enhancements. This further increases the gap between rich and poor and having absolute no communication between the two classes. Now already one does have the option of aborting a child if you know that it will be severely handicapped or if it is unwanted because it is the child of a rapist etc. In LEDC’s this isn’t even an option and more or less unimaginable that we as highly developed countries have the luxury of enjoying. Therefor even though it actually might seem highly unlikely that there would be a way to select certain genetic traits this might indeed be a possibility. The professor seemed to suggest that the debatable issue is if scientists should be working on such diseases, but I think that you never know what humanity and society will do with what is invented. I think the reason that this is a good idea is to prevent disabilities. We also watched during TOK class a scene from a film that was supposed to show some time in the future where a blood is taken from the fetus and then tested and they were able to see if the child would be smart or not or which deseases it would have further on. Personally I think that within the next 50 to 100 years there will be an option to find out if your child will have autism or colorblindness or be blind or have any physical deformities. Honestly, I can understand a mother who would abort the fetus because she knows that this baby, child, adult will never be able to talk, or never actually love his/her mother and eventhough this might be possible I still think that in the end the people who don’t have enough money for genetic screening will be able to have a child just as bright as someone who did have there child genetically modified. Also, what makes someone who they are is not really how they look like but their attitude towards things, their personality and the people they meet and the expierences they learn from. Things like this will never be measurable.
ReplyDeleteI guess the thing is abortion or human inventions does not impact directly on evolution, but genetic modifcation could, and that has never happened before.
DeleteProfessor Silver has raised an interesting moral dilemma that will most likely become increasingly pertinent in the near future. There are already more and more ways to test unborn children for genetic diseases and it is surely only a matter of time before genetic modification becomes available for humans. However, his arguments raised a couple of questions for me.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it has been stated that evolution is natural and that therefore genetically engineering humans is going against natural evolution. However, human technology has influenced the way that our species has evolved for as long as we have existed. Higher standards of living, thanks to technology, have over generations changed our genetic make-up. Genetic modification is just another technology whose aim is to improve the standard of living of human beings. Therefore, couldn’t it be argued that this is just another step in our natural evolution?
Secondly, I understand what Professor Silver says about people perceiving the human genome to be equivalent to the human soul. The soul is a mysterious concept whose meaning has all sorts of religious and mystical connotations. This is probably why so many people feel it would be “immoral to infringe on the human soul”. The human genome refers to nature, but what about nurture? Some scientists argue that human personality is shaped almost just as much by the environment (nurture) as by DNA (nature). So even if we were to modify the human genome, wouldn’t the environment still have its individual impact on each person, thereby shaping each person’s character and personality? If this were the case, it stands to reason that even if we all had the same DNA we would all still be unique because of our upbringing, environment and experiences.
Finally, I think that Professor Silver is definitely right about the discrimination that would ensue as a result of mass genetic modification. Yet, there may also be a problem before the two species are split. People who have the means to genetically modify their children and don’t for ethical reasons might be shunned by their community for consciously choosing to not enhance their children. This is because they would be consciously allowing their children to be susceptible to disease, thereby burdening the entire community. This sort of discrimination would be just as bad and happen much sooner than the long-term discrimination that Professor Silver is predicting. So is it right for scientists to allow people to be put in that sort of position?
The question is already being asked now. There is a new test which pregnant women can take in which they send in blood to find out whether their child has Down’s syndrome. It is much cheaper and safer than amniocentesis and it is meant to be available to everyone. Apparently, the test can also check for a number of other genetic diseases; however, these are not being released to the public yet because scientists are worried about the social implications of such knowledge. They are scared that if people know that a mother is aware that her child has major health problems, which would burden the rest of society, and knowingly has the child anyway, that she might be stigmatized by her community. So if this is already a problem now with genetic screening, which is generally seen as within the moral line, how can you make it so that discrimination isn’t a problem? Do you ban all types of genetic testing? That would seem unreasonable. It begs the question, is discrimination inevitable? No matter what we do, is there always going to be discrimination against someone? That is a very saddening thought. Yet, it is something we have to consider, because it might determine where we place the moral line when it comes to new technologies.
Great comment. I don't know if I agree that "Genetic modification is just another technology". This is a much more direct intervention in human evolution that any impact that higher standards of living has ever had. (Have standards of living impacted on us genetically?? I'm not sure).
DeleteI find it difficult to respond to Silver's comments, because I can neither speak for one side or the other. Although the prospect of being able to end suffering from disease for our children, or our children's children is unbelievably tempting, we should not give into forced naivety and think that if we start genetically modifying individuals that it will stop at preventing a few diseases.
ReplyDeleteIn his interview, Professor Silver states that there is a considerable risk of a new species evolving out of what may seem to be an innocent dabble with genetic modification at first. Although this may be an apocalyptic view on things, I for one have no reason to believe that this could not happen. Humans have always shown the tendency to abuse whatever they can get their hands on until it's too late. Fossil fuels and our dangerous Global Warming situation are a testament to that. And so given this prediction, now officially validated by a 17 year old boy, the logical answer would be to stop heading down the road of genetic modification immediately. But realistically, that is not very likely. If scientists are truly on track to make the leap from genetically modifying animals, to genetically modifying slightly smarter animals with thumbs, then we can cry heresy all we want, someone will begin pioneering this technique, because the consequences will not be felt by this generation or the next, and as such it will be almost impossible to put a stop to the gears that have already been put in motion.
One thing I would like to point out is the almost universal reaction to the creation of a new ‘human’ species. When faced with the prospect of another species evolving, most cringe and denounce the thought. The question I want to ask is the following: would a new species be a bad thing? Of course, in our 21st century fashion we can immediately close up when asked this question and refuse to give it any more thought, because it involves discrimination, the taboo word of the 2000's. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone discrimination, yet I am interested in the opportunity cost we face. If we allow genetic modification to establish itself, we will most likely face discrimination between the newly evolved humans and the non-modified humans. However, given their susceptibility to disease and impending lack of care, the latter species will most likely die out eventually, allowing the new species to establish itself throughout the globe. According Professor Silver, technology effectively pushes FFW on the process of evolution, so this process would probably take a few hundred years, maybe more, maybe less. However, after that period of time, the new humans would live disease free. Do we really want to trade the possibility to end disease with a period of discrimination for disease and hardship for thousands of years until the human race finally goes extinct?
At this point, most readers will probably make a mental note to go have a strong word with Simon in the corridor, but I think the problem we face as international students and citizens in the Western hemisphere is that we forget that discrimination will exist regardless of whether we have a new species or not. The problem that most people have with this situation is that many seem to believe that by dividing the species we are inventing discrimination. There are enough people world over that do not feel kinship to people of black skin color or white skin color or what have you, and so another divide would be nothing new. Of course, given that inequality would be backed up by scientific data, it is likely that discrimination will most likely not only be more intense but also condoned by society. But as I asked before, is it really worth getting in the way of such ground-breaking progress and the possibility of ending disease?
The last point I would like to touch on was the idea that there is a ‘moral line’ that we can draw for genetic modification. Sadly, when it comes to something as beneficial and exciting like genetic modification, and something that will almost certainly involve money, there will be no moral line. Of course, a select few may stand for their beliefs and refuse to dictate every aspect of their child’s life, yet there will be enough people who want to give their children the best life they possibly can, and will invest as much into this as possible. Genetic modification will become much like college education in terms of being an investment in a child’s future. Those who can afford modification will not only be keen on undergoing the procedure, but will most likely also be expected to by society. On the flip side, there will be the corporations who will be fully aware of the creation of a new species on behalf of parents wishing to dictate every aspect of their child’s life, but the money will probably be too good to pass on (this reminds me of oil drilling companies). Thus, if we do decide to walk down this path, there is a very minimal chance that we will be able to control the extent it is used to.
DeleteAll in all, I come back to my initial statement; I can’t speak for one side or the other. Unlike most, I am not frightened by the prospect of a new human species, yet at the same time don’t know if I’d be entirely comfortable with letting certain humans be subjected to centuries of discrimination, which seems almost inevitable (sadly, communication will not help to keep ‘inferior’ humans from being treated poorly, as evidenced by our recent stint in slavery). However, the beauty of the future is that it holds the inconceivable. We can sit around making dozens of hypotheses regarding this matter, but at the end of the day we can’t tell the future, and have no idea how this issue will be handled in said future. I will however say with relative certainty that this technology will become an issue no matter what our stance on it may be, and so we should better be prepared.
You have made an excellent point. There is nothing romantic about disease, so if we can jettison all genetic diseases, why shouldn't we?
DeleteI agree to what Lee Silver is saying. In the movie he said that we have this technology since quite a while now, so what precisely is stopping us from using it? Looking at history, any discoveries which came to this large level such as Einstein theory of relativity of the recent discovery of the god particle depicts that humans are keen on discovery and becoming famous for their findings. The fact that this is one of the few territories in which it plays a moral and ethical role in the presentation of the work is why researchers may feel uncomfortable when depicting these findings.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion it not also scares me but actually kind of disgusts me, when talking about the idea that humans may be so far genetically modified that nature can not see them as suitable reproductive organisms. It basically sets aside the entire theory of evolution and natural selection and what the world turns around for. No doubt would we start seeing racist issues, such as as we do today. The 'normal' 'unmodified' humans will be living off of social welfare and the 'modified' humans will be the upper class. Hospitals will start closing because there would be no need for medical attention to the big of the world and questionably becoming a physician may not be as grand of a job as its seen as today.
Our society works today as it always has, we may all be different should it come to race, gender or orientation but essentially we're all just skin, muscle and bones - if we though remove the random gene structure we have today, we will have humans and Apex humans who then go even higher on the developed organism chain.
But we already discriminate against other species, e.g. we eat them. And that is all we would be doing, isn't it?
DeleteI feel that Lee Silver's words have much merit as far as his arguments go; considering the advancements we are already making within medicine, and the advancements that have been made in such a short amount of time, using genetic modification seems as if it could be a very dangerous discovery in the terms of the survival and evolution of the human race. Though it is difficult to see the effects of our advancements in the world of medicine, as it has not been long enough for this to be observed directly, it is still apparent what this is doing to our lives. We live much longer, and people who, in the terms of evolution, should not live still live - this is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that the world's population is expanding rapidly, and the effects of this are clear - the world is becoming more and more polluted and our resources are running out. Already the advancements we are making within technology and medicine are proving to not only have positive effects, but also negative ones, which as Lee Silver explains in the movie, genetic modification can and will have.
ReplyDeleteI agree fully on what he is saying, and feel that genetic modification is incredibly dangerous as there is no way for us to predict the outcome of what our experimenting might be. In addition, to begin using genetic modification as a way of enhancing and evolving humans is changing evolution, something that could be argued is fundamentally wrong. There are very many factors to consider as far as genetic modification goes, and I feel that Lee Silver raises several very important questions about the topic. Personally, I hadn't really considered much what the ill effects of genetic modification might be, such as the human race being split into two new races rather than one, and I found Silver's thoughts very intriguing yet still somewhat terrifying, simply because what if this were to actually occur? Either way, I fully support his opinions, as they consider both the good and bad of genetic modification.
But what can we doi about it? Should we police science and its areas opf research? And who should decide?
ReplyDeleteMoritz has emailed me this comment:
ReplyDeleteI think that genetic engineering on human beings is a very controversial issue and its legitimacy highly debatable. What Lee Silver is saying about how our human race could in the near future already split up into two different races is somewhat frightening. According to him, the human race would divide into those who are willing and able to afford genetic engineering on their children and those who aren't. Therefor a different kind of human race would evolve, which would be superior to the 'normal humans'. Lee Silver says in this interview that we have either already reached the point where genetic engineering on humans is possible, or will reach that point in the next few year. I think that as soon the technology is available, people will start using it as they see only the good in it and wont look at the consequences of their action for the society as a whole. For them it will only be important that their children wont be born with any kind of genetic disease or defect. But in reality, we haven't even figured out yet, if there are any side-effects or long term consequences of genetic engineering. If we look at genetically modified plants for example, we can see that they are extremely resistant to certain kinds of diseases, but as soon as viruses or other diseases start changing and evolving (and they do that all the time), there is the possibility that a certain kind of virus evolves that the plants arent resistant too with the consequence of them all dying within weeks. How can we be so sure that there aren't any negative side-effects to genetic engineering on humans? We simply can't without trying it out. But is it ethically correct to make it possible that parents can decide how their children will look like or whether they have any kind of diseases or not? I don't think so. To me it is completely human and natural for us to have some kind of faults. The perfect human being does not exist and I dont think that should change. On the other hand, since we live in a free market economy and not in a communist or totalitarian state, is will be very difficult for governments to forbid or restrict genetic engineering. So I think that even if its a new invention that could help our society in some ways, that genetic engineering on humans should not be allowed, considering the ethical implications and the unknown side-effects. But at the same time, I don't see any way to stop people from using it once it will be available because it is also natural for us humans to be curious and therefor people will try it out, no matter what consequences there will be.