Atheists should support genetic engineering of humans

[alal...@gmail.com]

Man is not holy, or a creation of God. He is just an imperfect product of billions of years of evolution.

Over the last few years, significant advances have been made in genetic engineering. Scientists have experimented with genetic engineering successfully on animals.

Now it’s time to experiment on humans. Man can correct nature’s mistakes, by replacing genes that cause health problems. If we were the creation of a perfect God, why would we have genetic defects?

The first step is to correct genetic defects of individuals.
The second step is to improve human attributes of individuals using known human genes.
The third step is to improve individual humans with foreign genes.

Man can become the master of his genetic destiny.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“Imagination is more important than knowledge”
- Albert Einstein

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Wednesday, 26 September 2018 12:57:32 UTC+1, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> Man is not holy, or a creation of God. He is just an imperfect product of billions of years of evolution.
>
> Over the last few years, significant advances have been made in genetic engineering. Scientists have experimented with genetic engineering successfully on animals.
>
> Now it’s time to experiment on humans. Man can correct nature’s mistakes, by replacing genes that cause health problems. If we were the creation of a perfect God, why would we have genetic defects?
>
> The first step is to correct genetic defects of individuals.
> The second step is to improve human attributes of individuals using known human genes.
> The third step is to improve individual humans with foreign genes.
>
> Man can become the master of his genetic destiny.
>

The problem is: Which man?

[Christopher A. Lee]

So, who decides what needs to be "corrected"? And how?

Would Steven Hawking have been the same person, ie a genius and one of
the world's leading physicists if his condition had been had been
corrected before he had been born?

If atheism were found to be genetic, would theist parents "correct"
their children before they were born?

And what about homosexuality? Would Tchaikovsky, Elton John or Freddy
Mercury have been brillian musicians if that had been "corrected"?

[alal...@gmail.com]

A man and a woman, who want to have a baby decide what genetic engineering is necessary for their future child.

According to Wikipedia, on the latest genetic editing technique:

“CRISPR/Cas technology has been proposed as a treatment for multiple human diseases, especially those with a genetic cause.[199] Its ability to modify specific DNA sequences makes it a tool with potential to fix disease-causing mutations. Early research in animal models suggest that therapies based on CRISPR technology have potential to treat a wide range of diseases,[200] including cancer,[201][202] beta-thalassemia,[203] sickle cell disease,[204] hemophilia,[205] cystic fibrosis,[206] Duchenne’s muscular dystrophy,[207] Huntington’s,[208][209] and heart disease.[210]”

Adults can make their own decisions, if they want any treatment.

Of course there will be government regulations in each country as to which genetic modification is allowed.

Much resistance to genetic engineering comes from religious people, who say that we should not play God.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“Man can be the master of his own destiny.”

[Davej]

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 6:57:32 AM UTC-5, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]

> Now it’s time to experiment on humans.
>

You don't experiment on humans until the results on animals are well
established.

> Much resistance to genetic engineering comes from religious
> people, who say that we should not play God.

And for this reason most of the progress with gene techniques will be
made in non-religious countries.

[default]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 04:57:28 -0700 (PDT), alal...@gmail.com wrote:

>Man is not holy, or a creation of God. He is just an imperfect product of billions of years of evolution.
>
>Over the last few years, significant advances have been made in genetic engineering. Scientists have experimented with genetic engineering successfully on animals.
>
>Now it’s time to experiment on humans. Man can correct nature’s mistakes, by replacing genes that cause health problems. If we were the creation of a perfect God, why would we have genetic defects?
>
>The first step is to correct genetic defects of individuals.
>The second step is to improve human attributes of individuals using known human genes.
>The third step is to improve individual humans with foreign genes.
>
>Man can become the master of his genetic destiny.
>

I think humans will, and don't see how atheists have anything to do
with it other than most scientists on the cutting edge are atheists.

I worry that we may outsmart ourselves. Human traits that may seem
useless or detrimental may be important in a different environment.
One size fits all, seldom fits all.

[Malcolm McMahon]

Here's the thing. Most parameters of human design seem to be compromises. For example it looks like some of the ageing mechanisms are a defence against cancer.

"Improve" a parameter and you're likely to find out the hard way why evolution has set it to the current value, and you may not find out for decades.

_Before_ its really OK to mess around with the genome of the embryo, except in correcting factors when are unambiguously deleterious, we need to be confident that we can fix our mistakes later in life.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Wednesday, 26 September 2018 17:01:32 UTC+1, alal...@gmail.com wrote:

Whenever I see "Man", "Mankind" or worse "The People" referred to as a moral agent then I worry.

[alal...@gmail.com]

We shouldn’t just accept the body and life nature has given us, but should try to improve it.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“We all agree that your theory is crazy, but what divides us is the question: is your theory crazy enough to be true?”

[Malcolm McMahon]

And we do. The problem is with "we" and "improve".

Now, if you did this gene editing stuff on an adult, at the adult's choice that's fine and dandy. I look forward to a time when someone who goes through their whole life the same gender is considered ultra-conservative.

But what we're talking about is, at best, parents imposing these choices on their children, and at worst government making these decisions.

[alal...@gmail.com]

I agree that individuals should be free to decide what kind of medical treatment (including genetic editing) they want. This is a human right.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“Give me freedom,
Or give me death”

[Alex W.]

On 27/09/2018 19:33, Malcolm McMahon wrote:

>
> Here's the thing. Most parameters of human design seem to be
> compromises. For example it looks like some of the ageing mechanisms
> are a defence against cancer.

Which would be ironic, given that much cancer is a disease of old age...

>
> "Improve" a parameter and you're likely to find out the hard way why
> evolution has set it to the current value, and you may not find out
> for decades.
>
> _Before_ its really OK to mess around with the genome of the embryo,
> except in correcting factors when are unambiguously deleterious, we
> need to be confident that we can fix our mistakes later in life.
>

What would be your views on interfering with the genes to improve or
introduce positive traits? To breed a better athlete, for instance.

Or purely cosmetic changes, which I suspect would be far from unpopular
in our image-obsessed age. E.g. why condemn your daughter to spending
tens of thousands in her lifetime on hair colouring when you can "fix"
her to be naturally blonde?

[Alex W.]

But it is not just the individual who is affected, is it? People have
children and pass on their genes.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Friday, 28 September 2018 06:25:21 UTC+1, Alex W. wrote:
> On 27/09/2018 19:33, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
> >
> > Here's the thing. Most parameters of human design seem to be
> > compromises. For example it looks like some of the ageing mechanisms
> > are a defence against cancer.
>
> Which would be ironic, given that much cancer is a disease of old age...
>
>
> >
> > "Improve" a parameter and you're likely to find out the hard way why
> > evolution has set it to the current value, and you may not find out
> > for decades.
> >
> > _Before_ its really OK to mess around with the genome of the embryo,
> > except in correcting factors when are unambiguously deleterious, we
> > need to be confident that we can fix our mistakes later in life.
> >
>
> What would be your views on interfering with the genes to improve or
> introduce positive traits? To breed a better athlete, for instance.
>

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Suppose the child finds him/herself excluded from professional sport because of "genetic doping". Suppose genetic doping itself turns out to have dangerous side effects as with chemical doping?

Suppose a gene which seems to enhance "intelligence" (however you care to define it) has a negative effect on, say, empathy?

And, because these factors take decades to emerge, parents will be doing this decades before the long-term effects are known.

[alal...@gmail.com]

Genetic editing can be divided into two categories. I forget the technical terms. One type is done to cells that do not pass on to descendants. The other type passes on.

Given that so many health problems are caused by genetic defects, we should work on curing genetic defects as a first step. We should not listen to those religious folks who do not want science to be used to cure genetic defects.

It would be inhuman to let children be born with severe genetic defects, once we have mastered the technology of editing the defective genes. Adults also can benefit from genetic editing.

As we master the technology and learn more about the genome, we can consider more advanced treatment. We are not slaves of nature and evolution.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“The right to medical treatment of your choice
is a human right.”

[Don Martin]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 15:25:14 +1000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

If it becomes possible to eliminate the genes for Huntington's chorea
and other inherited horrors, I would be all in favor of their
proceeding. So far as the other possibilities are concerned, it would
not surprise me to see the super rich turning out extremely athletic
or beautiful kids in future. The very rich get what they want,
whether it is legal or not. I remember being revolted by William F.
Buckley's trial of marijuana some decades ago: to avoid breaking the
law, he took his yacht out beyond the three-mile limit before lighting
up. Those of us with more moderate incomes need to be very good
swimmers.

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.

[Robert Carnegie]

Stephen Hawking was already a smart young scientist
when he got sick.

I'm fairly sure that Mozart was heterosexual, but
you make the point that there might have been no Liberace.
Or rather, just George Liberace the violinist. Unless -
<https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/5998078> says
twice married, no kids. Hmm.

[hleopold]

On Sep 29, 2018, Robert Carnegie wrote
(in article<786307b9-ae66-4cd4...@googlegroups.com>):

Definitely the wrong Liberace. Think candelabra, very fancy outfits, pianos.

--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness (remove gene to email)

“We don't just borrow words; on occasion English has pursued other
languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for
new vocabulary."-James D. Nicoll

[Rick Johnson]

Alex W. wrote:

> E.g. why condemn your daughter to spending tens of
> thousands in her lifetime on hair colouring when you can
> "fix" her to be naturally blonde?

When blonde is the norm, all girls will dream of being
natural brunettes, or natural gingers.

Us highly social talking apes only desire those traits which
we cannot have. If we _can_ have it... "meh".

[Rick Johnson]

alal...@gmail.com wrote:

> We shouldn’t just accept the body and life nature has given
> us, but should try to improve it.

Indeed, we should.

Sure, we will make mistakes along the way -- and possibly
suffer some horrible evolutionary consequences as a result
\_(ツ)_/¯ -- but i personally don't believe that biology is
our future. And if we ever want to escape this tyrannical
death-camp otherwise known as "Earth", well then, we must
evolve ourselves _beyond_ the prison of biology. Because,
the true reality of our imprisonment is _not_ Earth, no, it
is our _biology_. *THAT*, is our weakness.

Biology is an over-complicated system which is both ripe for
early failure and totally unsuitable for living in, oh... i
dunno... about 99.9999999999999999999999999999(to the
infinite-ith *FUCKING* 9!) percent, of the:

*KNOWN*

*FUCKING*

*UNIVERSE*

[Alex W.]

I would put that sort of thing down to social pressure. Rock Hudson
married to scotch career-ending rumours of his homosexuality. Ditto
Little Richard, Anthony Perkins, Elton John.

[Robert Carnegie]

I was referring to George Liberace: maybe he was the
straight one but didn't want children, or didn't get 'em.
Wladziu Liberace was, as it has been put, well gay.

The Liberaces were Roman Catholic, but George at 41
married evidently a woman who was divorced, which
I think Catholics rarely do - the remarrying anyway.

But that may be not George's first wife as "Find a Grave"
indicates, since the other spouse in their records
<https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/80516143/eudora-vivian-liberace>
is described as his sixth. That seems excessive on his
part and negligent on the biographer's.

I seem to have got a long way from the question,
about which I have no idea, of whether great musicians
have to be gay. And whether that, in itself, justifies
denying them a cure.

[Rick Johnson]

Robert Carnegie wrote:
> Alex W. wrote:

[...]

> > I would put that sort of thing down to social pressure.
> > Rock Hudson married to scotch career-ending rumours of his
> > homosexuality. Ditto Little Richard, Anthony Perkins,
> > Elton John.
>
> I was referring to George Liberace: maybe he was the
> straight one but didn't want children, or didn't get 'em.

I'm usually not the type to be hyper sensitive about these
things, but i do feel is an unfortunate nature of our
society that men who do not have children are assumed to be
homosexual. And though it may be difficult for the herd
animal to understand this, there are many legitimate reasons
why a man would not become a father. For instance, some men may:

1. be biologically incompatible with their partner

I know that most herd animals care little if they are
biologically compatible with their partner. But there are
(believe it or not) some men (and women!) who actually
consider these biological issues *BEFORE* the pregnancy
occurs.

2. be biologically incapable of having children

That's right folks... not every man is packing millions of
little Michael Phelps down there.

3. perfer their freedom, and thus, do not wish to burden
themselves with the onerous of fatherhood

Fatherhood is huge responsibility. Again, i know most folks
are too busy fogging the car windows in hasty late night
romp in the back seat of a car to care about little things
like the future, or the awesome responsibility of
parenthood... but, some men and women actually think about
these things before hand (*GASP*) Shocking, i know!

4. may be disgusted with the state of society, and thus, do
not want to bring a new life into such a dysfunctional
system.

Our societies are becoming more tyrannical by the day. Who
would, in their right mind, want to subject a child to that
continued erosion of liberty?

5. and finally, some men are _actually_ responsible with
their reproductive fluid. Yep! Another shock! I know!

OMG!

We're learning so much about men today!

>
> [...]

>
> I seem to have got a long way from the question, about
> which I have no idea, of whether great musicians have to be
> gay. And whether that, in itself, justifies denying them a
> cure.

I think claiming that you have to be gay to be a great
musician, a great artist, or a great dancer (to name only a
few misconceptions about "talent") is a dangerous notion.

If there is any correlation between these "talents" and
homosexuality, i would venture to say that the correlation
has more to do with the liberating nature of homosexuality
(meaning, homosexuals are living their lives in the manner
that most pleases them, regardless of what society thinks
about them). And it is this "feeling of liberation" _itself_
(not homosexuality), that gives rise to advanced forms of
creativity.

Liberty is the mother of creativity. While tyranny is the
mentally disturbed serial killer who destroys creativity in
a depraved, bloody-thirsty tirade of sexual sadism.

https://youtu.be/AlveI7aVJas?t=42

But, homosexuality is not the only lifestyle which can
induce a feeling of liberation in the subject. No. Even a
general rejection of society (and the herd conformity it
demands) can induce the same levels of liberation in
heterosexuals.

So yeah, i believe there is a correlation here, but
homosexuality is merely one (very conspicuous) facade of
this relationship. You must dig deeper to find the
inconspicuous.

[Don Martin]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 11:54:36 +1000, "Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

With Elton John, would he not have been subject to gaol time in his
youth?

[Christopher A. Lee]

I knew him in his youth - we went to the same school and played
pick-up soccer in the schoolyard. He was a year older than me, and
already a brilliant musician.

Nobody knew, let alone suspected.

[duke]

On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 04:57:28 -0700 (PDT), alal...@gmail.com wrote:

>Man is not holy, or a creation of God. He is just an imperfect product of billions of years of evolution.

Thanks be to God. How dare you profess there is no God.

>Over the last few years, significant advances have been made in genetic engineering. Scientists have experimented with genetic engineering successfully on animals.
>Now it’s time to experiment on humans. Man can correct nature’s mistakes, by replacing genes that cause health problems. If we were the creation of a perfect God, why would we have genetic defects?

Because God created and the let man evolve into a superior creature.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of the NT Word of God is not to inform as it did in
the OT,but instead to form us in the very image of Jesus Christ.
*****

[Malcolm McMahon]

alal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 10:58:25 AM UTC+5:30, Alex W. wrote:
>> On 28/09/2018 02:48, alal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 7:35:53 PM UTC+5:30, Malcolm
>> > McMahon wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>>
>> >>> We shouldn’t just accept the body and life nature has given us,
>> >>> but should try to improve it.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> And we do. The problem is with "we" and "improve".
>> >>
>> >> Now, if you did this gene editing stuff on an adult, at the adult's
>> >> choice that's fine and dandy. I look forward to a time when someone
>> >> who goes through their whole life the same gender is considered
>> >> ultra-conservative.
>> >>
>> >> But what we're talking about is, at best, parents imposing these
>> >> choices on their children, and at worst government making these
>> >> decisions.
>> >
>> > I agree that individuals should be free to decide what kind of
>> > medical treatment (including genetic editing) they want. This is a
>> > human right.
>>
>> But it is not just the individual who is affected, is it? People have
>> children and pass on their genes.
>
>Genetic editing can be divided into two categories. I forget the technical
>terms. One type is done to cells that do not pass on to descendants. The
>other type passes on.

I think they are called "germ line" and "sommatic"

>
>Given that so many health problems are caused by genetic defects, we should
>work on curing genetic defects as a first step. We should not listen to those
>religious folks who do not want science to be used to cure genetic defects.
>
>It would be inhuman to let children be born with severe genetic defects, once
>we have mastered the technology of editing the defective genes. Adults also
>can benefit from genetic editing.
>

All very well for lethal genes like CF or Huntingtons. But what about, for
example, homosexuality, or high-functioning autism or sociopathy? It could all
get very "brave new world".

[alal...@gmail.com]

Initially, the government in consultation with experts and the public, can decide what kind of genetic editing is permitted. Then it will be up to the adults to decide if they need somatic gene editing, or if their future direct descendants need germline genetic editing.

There are some hard questions. Should parents be allowed refuse genetic editing, for children with severe genetic defects (like Huntington’s). What constitutes a severe genetic defect?

Eventually, I believe that most countries will allow genetic editing for severe genetic defects. Some countries may take the next step and allow genetic enhancements.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“God was created in the image of man”

[Alex W.]

Government is fairly irrelevant at this point. The genie is well and
truly out of the bottle and free to roam the world.

If the US bans or restricts gene editing, people will go to India. If
India bans or restricts it, people will go to Japan or Europe to have it
done. If those countries ban or restrict such therapies, someone
somewhere will offer such services. It is too lucrative and too tempting.