Genetically modified people - the atheist view

smacl

Fourier wrote: »

To summarise:

Factors influenced by genetics, like intelligence, might be unsafe to manipulate genetically because knowing the full effects in all environments will remain computationally intractable.

Looking at other sources would suggest though that we don't even know which genes to manipulate as we don't as yet understand the role of genetics in intelligence. From US National Laboratory of Medicine;

Other studies have examined variations across the entire genomes of many people (an approach called genome-wide association studies or GWAS) to determine whether any specific areas of the genome are associated with IQ. These studies have not conclusively identified any genes that underlie differences in intelligence. It is likely that a large number of genes are involved, each of which makes only a small contribution to a person’s intelligence

The computational issue is moot if we don't even know with any degree of confidence which genes are involved.

Sofiztikated

the_syco wrote: »

Unless chamaelyoid skin gives you the pigmentation that protects you from the suns rays, I'd view it as being useless. It's less about colour, and more about giving you added protection from the suns rays.

Scientists are looking into changing the pigmentation of the skin, but have found it's tougher to do with humans than with animals.


I may have misread. How far separated do two people have to be to not cause increasing DNA mutations to happen? "Keeping it in the family" leads to all sorts of weird things, as seen in the European royals who married each other only. With a rapidly increasing population, would there not be a greater chance that we are fcuking what may be a very distant cousin, and therefore cause bad DNA mutations?

The more people, the less chance you are riding family. Iceland has a tiny population, and there's an app to tell you how related you are.

More people, a wider variety of partners are available.

Fourier

smacl wrote: »

Looking at other sources would suggest though that we don't even know which genes to manipulate as we don't as yet understand the role of genetics in intelligence.

The computational issue is moot if we don't even know with any degree of confidence which genes are involved.

How does that make the point moot? Was your original objection that the point was moot?

I don't understand how the current inability to identify intelligence causing genes renders an in principle argument about genetic manipulation moot.

magicbastarder

the_syco wrote: »

I may have misread. How far separated do two people have to be to not cause increasing DNA mutations to happen? "Keeping it in the family" leads to all sorts of weird things, as seen in the European royals who married each other only. With a rapidly increasing population, would there not be a greater chance that we are fcuking what may be a very distant cousin, and therefore cause bad DNA mutations?

the opposite.
especially with international migration.
as mentioned above, the worst case scenario for interbreeding is a small island population with no inward migration. the bigger the pool of potential partners, the less chance there is you'll have a kid with someone who shares recessive genes.

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

Although naturally you'll find small pockets of martyrs who value the suffering and the struggle and will decry the use of gene therapies as cultural genocide.

Yeah like the eejits in the abortion debate who claimed

"BBUT IN BRITAIN 90%* OF DOWNS SYNDROME BAYBEES ARE ABORTED!!1!1"

So fcuking what! It's up to every woman/couple whether to go for screening and what to do if they get a diagnosis. The cribbers and moaners aren't the ones who will have to raise a DS child, or consider the effect on the rest of their family, etc etc


* made up figure, terms and conditions apply, and nobody ever aborted a baby...

Sofiztikated wrote: »

The more people, the less chance you are riding family. Iceland has a tiny population, and there's an app to tell you how related you are.

Whereas in Ireland until not that long ago, we had huge numbers of adoptions, mostly shrouded in secrecy. It's pretty certain there are some people unwittingly riding a relative!

seamus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yeah like the eejits in the abortion debate who claimed...

There's a small but vocal minority in the deaf community who believe that cochlear implants should be banned for children.

Their argument is that when the implant is used at an early age (which is the clinical recommendation), then the child can be educated normally and will never learn how to sign. If you wait until adulthood or adolescence, then sign language will be their first language and the implant merely an augmentation; like learning a second language.

Their claim is that the current practice is cultural genocide, annihilating and isolating deaf communities by reducing the number of people in them and the number of people who know sign language - remember that a deaf child isn't just one signing person, the entire family and extended family will also become signers.

Which is not an unreasonable fear, but it's not a good enough reason to force children to remain deaf through childhood. It's no more reasonable than making it illegal to speak anything but Irish to children until the age of 16 when they can then choose to speak English if they want.

smacl

Fourier wrote: »

How does that make the point moot? Was your original objection that the point was moot?

I don't understand how the current inability to identify intelligence causing genes renders an in principle argument about genetic manipulation moot.

My bad, your initial argument is entirely reasonable in terms of predicting the consequences of genetic manipulation. The problem I have is picking intelligence as an example, where the problem is clearly intractable until such time as we can determine which genes affect which traits related to which aspects of intelligence. IQ is a dangerous and often divisive metric in this regard as comparable scores on an IQ test are not indicative of comparable intelligence.

Fourier

smacl wrote: »

My bad, your initial argument is entirely reasonable in terms of predicting the consequences of genetic manipulation. The problem I have is picking intelligence as an example, where the problem is clearly intractable until such time as we can determine which genes affect which traits related to which aspects of intelligence. IQ is a dangerous and often divisive metric in this regard as comparable scores on an IQ test are not indicative of comparable intelligence.

Agreed. I think the problem was I just plucked it out of thin air as something one might alter, with the point being how unknowable alteration's consequences are. However intelligence itself is a bad example of this given its contentious nature. I'll stick to being general in future, i.e just "altering genes". Thanks for the discussion.

recedite

the_syco wrote: »

Unless chamaelyoid skin gives you the pigmentation that protects you from the suns rays, I'd view it as being useless. It's less about colour, and more about giving you added protection from the suns rays.

Scientists are looking into changing the pigmentation of the skin, but have found it's tougher to do with humans than with animals.

Humans are animals.

And anyway, its not all about functionality. Look around at peoples hair, and you'll see its very little to do with that. It used to be that everyone in Japan had black or grey hair, but no more. There's all sorts of colours now.


But purely in terms of functionality, any pigment would block UV light, but the only one we have available in our skin is melanin. A reflective silvery colour might actually be better at UV protection.
I think I'd choose a nice metallic blue/green skin. That DNA should be easily available from mackerel DNA. It would be even better if I could change it at will to another colour, maybe metallic red for Halloween.
I read somewhere that there are butterfly genes in the human genome, but they are not "switched on" so they are part of our "junk DNA"



Some surprising results have been found by switching on-off the Optix gene in butterflies. Insects that normally only occur in boring human type colour schemes (brown melanin shades) can then become colourful, and vice versa.

The butterfly’s usual browns and yellows disappeared, replaced by scales of a blazing iridescent blue. “That knocked our socks off,” Dr. Reed said.

More on wings here.

Hotblack Desiato

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria

Nice pic :eek:

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyria

Nice pic :eek:

Interesting. That must be equivalent to about factor 50 sunscreen? Not sure where you can buy colloidal silver though. That Stan Jones seems to be a very sensible chap.


In the meantime, I'm looking out for colour changing gin. I think it might be better for my overall health. Hopefully if I drink enough of the stuff, it will seep into my DNA.