the ethics of GMO "bioluminescence animals" and humans?

[auroraglacialis]

Just saw this talk:
Paul Root Wolpe: It's time to question bio-engineering | Video on TED.com
and it was fascinating and scary at the same time.

You will see fish and mammals that glow in the dark, cats, mice and even monkeys. From the latter the step to humans is not far.

But you will also see pigs that are bred to produce chemicals, animals that have been ripped of their free will and turned into computer controlled robots and brains taken out of animals to drive robots.

The underlying technology is basically the same - bioengineering. The unansered but raised question of this talk is, what are the etical implications of using this kind of technology.

[josie20]

Bio-engineer away, I say.

[Isard]

That was the most amazing thing I've seen in years. I ****ing love science. ^___^

[Fosus]

Huh. >_>

[Banefull]

While I think genetic engineering could be very beneficial and has useful potential, there are some caveats as I think there are certain ethical limits. For example: any genetic modification should not cause undue pain to an animal. For example, if you genetically modify a broiler chicken to be so large that it can hardly breathe, then that is crossing the line.

[Nìmwey]

I don't know what to think. But bioluminescent plants would be sweet... and maybe, keep going with this for an unknown number of decades, and we have real Avatars.

[auroraglacialis]

I think it illustrates the problem all technologies have. the nice sides are tempting - we could have bioluminescent plants and animals and a multitude of body shapes and even "real life Avatars" and Ikran eventually. But with the same technology people may create super soldiers, animals that fight wars or just create another thing that depends on how much money you have. Got a million dollars and you can be stronger and healtheier and smarter. Dont got it - stay dumb. Watch GATTACA to see that kind of future.

And also any engineered future or engineered world means that some part of the natural future or the natural world will be replaced. If that is good or not so good depends on the personal views of each - the transhumanists here will say that it is a good thing - forget old fashioned humans and some other species in favour for creating new life. Conservationists will not like it because they look at things that work out fine together, form a delicate balance and do not see it as a good thing to upset that balance. But the fact is that a world in which this technology exists and grows exponentially will be a very different world from now and some things will get replaced - will we miss them?

Ethics is so incredibly important in this case but I see it sadly neglected. so this talk really is important in showing that there is a need for an ethic!

[Isard]

So you don't want us all to be stronger healthier and smarter?



Nice.




Real nice.

[Fighter-of-Wars]

Originally Posted by Isard

So you don't want us all to be stronger healthier and smarter?

Anyone can be stronger healthier and smarter, they just have to work at it. Doing it artificially with unknown bounds isn't very smart, it could greater divide humanity.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Fighter-of-Wars

Anyone can be stronger healthier and smarter, they just have to work at it. Doing it artificially with unknown bounds isn't very smart, it could greater divide humanity.

You can to a degree, after that point it needs to be artificially induced. I'd love that.

[Fighter-of-Wars]

Originally Posted by Isard

You can to a degree.

And that is not good enough?

How far will some people alter themselves or their offspring before we loose who we really are? Isn't that dangerous? I can understand engineering out genes that cause many diseases but doing so to add strength, intellect, or non human features such as glowing in the dark or six fingers or a tail isn't right.

It would be cool yes, but there should be discipline when doing such things to ourselves.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Fighter-of-Wars

And that is not good enough?

How far will some people alter themselves or their offspring before we loose who we really are? Isn't that dangerous? I can understand engineering out genes that cause many diseases but doing so to add strength, intellect, or non human features such as glowing in the dark or six fingers or a tail isn't right.

It would be cool yes, but there should be discipline when doing such things to ourselves.

You're never lost if you keep going forward.

[Marvellous Chester]

I'm strongly opposed to this (with the exception of bioluminescent plants :p) It is not our place to play with Nature in such a way. We cannot know the consequences of our actions and by the time they become clear the human that made the change could be long dead. Evolution will decide how strong we (and every other animal) are meant to be and I'm happy with that.

[josie20]

Originally Posted by Fighter-of-Wars

How far will some people alter themselves or their offspring before we loose who we really are?

What's so great about who we really are that you want to keep it?

I can understand engineering out genes that cause many diseases but doing so to add strength, intellect, or non human features such as glowing in the dark or six fingers or a tail isn't right.

Why isn't that right?

[Tsyal Makto]

Real nice strawmans, Isard.

Anyway, GM is fine, to a limit. If people want to modify themselves, that's fine, but under no circumnstances should the natural world be modified, or modifications allowed to seep into the environment. (I'm totally against GMO food or animals).