Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by T A A on May 23, 2011 at 3:08am

The problem with a lot of pharmaceutical/medical infrastructure is that we're treating many many diseases under different names, which are in fact simply human ageing. Without religious pro-lifers and without post menopausal life expectancies, most "diseases" would simply not be an issue. When we talk of extending life, really we're talking about extending disease and maintenance costs. There is presently a lot of work being done, philosophically, in outside the breast cancer movement. In the early days, 50 years ago, breast cancers were grossly surgically removed including muscle and other underlying tissues. The beginnings of modern medicine! Today, the surgical removal of breast cancers has seen many improvements. But there are more and more people coming to the conclusion that the present style of research will never find a cure for cancer and all our research is delivering in maintenance.

 

Proving, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that cancer (given our underlying genetic variation) is environmentally induced may never be proven because the number of interacting factors involved are so complex that no simple yes/no answer will ever be possible. Meanwhile, we Industry interests continue to pollute our lives with impunity with known cancer causing chemicals.

 

It is an instance when rational debate cannot win. It is a political issue of weighing risks. I remember back in the days when dry-cleaning business and cigarettes "didn't cause cancer", yet today, beyond pure numbers, we have taken the political decisions to extricate these products from our lives. But the road ahead is long and combative, for industry does not give up profits easily.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Loop Johnny on May 17, 2011 at 7:46am

It is hard to do so without taking away the freedom of each individual. All this traits should be naturally selected instead of being artificially selected ( by the human hand ).

 

Also, I think in the future there will be no need for this practice since we will be engineering our own genes.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Schroeder Alice Veidt on May 17, 2011 at 1:33pm

After growing up in an inbred society to a seriously inbred mother and carrying inbreeding traits myself, I could not possibly disagree with you more. It is by sheer, sheer luck I ended up with most of my father's traits, rather than my poor sister. One look at my mother's side of the family and you'd shudder. We're talking the riverside family from "Deliverance" here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Orpharion Oroborus Bestheneme on May 22, 2011 at 11:14am

But is engineering our own genes not just a step further than choosing the ones we want (from a given set of options)? It is, after all, only increasing the size of the set.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on May 23, 2011 at 12:59am

If by "naturally selected" you mean NATURALLY, not medically, I totally agree. "inbred stupids" would not be able to survive without government support, in a "natural" world, they would not live to the age of procreation :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Ward on May 17, 2011 at 8:27am

Reminds me of the "designer babies" story. While I can surely understand the desire to weed out such imperfections resulting from genetic disease, I think it would be foolish to assume that a desire for profit would not eventually work it's way into the mix resulting in one's ability to (given the finances) design their baby to specific detail. The designer babies aspect may not seem realistic today but neither was in vitro fertilization once upon a time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 17, 2011 at 8:37am

Do you think protocols could be set to limit the potential for profit in that market?  If we determined at a national level exactly which genes we would allow to be selected out, and specifically prohibited selecting for, then do you think a safe 'system' could be put in place?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Ward on May 17, 2011 at 8:40am

Possibly Heather but you know as well as I that such choices are based solely on what is acceptable at the time. I can't say that it certainly would go beyond the scope of simply improving the potential health of individuals to something more selective but history suggests it probably would if there is money to be made. I would hope I'm wrong.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 17, 2011 at 9:00am

It certainly is a hell of a Pandora's box.  Personally I think we'll more than likely open it before we are prepared to deal with the results properly.  I happen to think it's a natural and logical step for us to take, but yeah, I agree, we likely won't be able to keep it logically managed.  Leads me to thinking of the movie Gataca.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Ward on May 17, 2011 at 9:05am

The thirst for knowledge will force this step either way I presume. The future should prove interesting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on May 17, 2011 at 9:15am

Do you think anyone would be offended if we called the process 'Intelligent Design'?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Ward on May 17, 2011 at 9:16am

Bazzing, someone call Leno we have a winner.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 20
• Next ›
• Page