Its cool until the last few words.
"Forced evolution of humanity"
That just sounds fucked up. It makes me think of the nazi blond & blue superiority complex.

(Reply) (Thread)

that's my phrase.

but seriously, think of the implications of this and decide whether you like it or fear it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Very cool for the child in question; however, also exceptionally scary as to where it might lead after this...

(Reply) (Thread)

See, I don't know. I don't know if it is actual evolution, because will this spawn replicate with her original, flawed, should-be-removed-from-the-pool genes, or with her new working ones? Especially with females, where eggs are produced and stored for life. I don't think it's actually a good idea, because if her spawn need gene therapy, and then theirs...it's not evolving at all.

(Reply) (Thread)

a damn good point.
modern technology already allows for the dilution of the gene pool by coddling the weak! we need to let the weak die and only the strong survive!

Ok, so I'm exagerating, but where do you draw the line between making life better and draging the species down the tubes? I know I'm not qualified to draw that line.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I draw the line by saying 'make robots, not babies.' Except I don't use the b-word, it's full of loaded connotations. That's why I say 'spawn'. We, as a human race, are no better than salmon.

*not necessarily individually on a salmon-human one to one ratio.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I like you. :-)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

way to sidestep the issue.
=P

Oh, and tommy likes you. *giggles*

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I do not like YOU, however.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

oh hush stinky

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You're right; no one individual is qualified to draw that line. It's something we need to look at as an intelligent species, though: how do you avoid reproducing and multiplying harmful code without devolving into genetic fascism?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm torn. The science geek in me says "NEAT!" and the rest of me goes "ohh, Fuck."
It was kind of the same reaction as when I saw a news article that they had finished the Human Genome Project, and there was this guy handing over a 12-CD binder with the entirety of the human genome on it. "Cool!......Oh, shit."

(Reply) (Thread)

I am all for this. Gene therapy is the most viable way we've got to treat genetic diseases and I say go for it. I think nuclear bombs are far more dangerous than gene therapy because for some strange reason politicians are more frightened of human cloning than weaponry. They'll use weaponry regularly but it'll be extremely difficult to convince anyone allow genetic manipulation other than for medical purposes.

To answer the egg/progeny question: far as I know women's/girl's eggs are present at birth, all the eggs she's ever going to have, you don't make new ones, so if this girl survives and has children of her own they will not carry her "new" genes. I don't know how that works for male gametes though. My undertanding is men produce sperm all their lives so that could get tricky. Might not be bad though since it would avoid passing on the gene for the disease.

(Reply) (Thread)

that's my take on it from a scientific point of view, I'm just not looking forward to all the issues it's going to create.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm not either, but think of it this way: any worthwhile advancement, scientific, social, or any other kind, (and boy is our pathetic excuse for a species need it) is always rife with controversy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)