Spoilers Discovery and the Novelverse - TV show discussion thread

[Christopher]

There are tonnes of cultural attitudes and laws arising from them in the present day which are based on outdated morals and/or events from centuries (if not millennia) ago. I find the idea of those (over)reactions continuing into the future to be extremely believable, and such a quirk in Federation law makes that society feel more plausible to me.

I just don't buy it for something as potentially powerful and beneficial as genetic engineering. I mean, look at how many other Trek species are superstrong or really long-lived or telepathic or have other superhuman powers. Would humans really be content to be so weak compared to everyone else? The argument that "superior power breeds superior ambition" falls apart when you look at all these powerful alien races that have not turned into Khan-like conquerors. So it's just not plausible to me that that Luddite attitude from the 20th-21st century would persist that long.

 

[Damian]

This is why DS9's idea that the Federation would outlaw genetic engineering is so stupid and contrary to Trek's general optimism about progress and innovation. It's grossly irresponsible to outlaw a technology altogether because of a few abuses or mistakes, because that's rejecting the good it can do along with the bad. In real life, new technologies don't get banned forever because of early misuse, they get improved and regulated so that society can benefit from the good and minimize the harm.

I actually did a presentation/report on this issue in my bioethics class in college. Is genetic engineering ethical? At the time there was generally considered 4 types. The first two basically correcting genetic abnormalities that cause things like cancer, illnesses, deformities, etc. The second two types having to do with what we would call genetic enhancements to increase intelligence, increase strength, enhance physical features, etc. Then it was broken down into 2 further types, one that only caused changes in that individual and the second (germ I believe it was called) would also affect any children that person had down the line.

I had argued the first class of genetic engineering was a good thing. Obviously correcting anomalies and abnormalities that lead to cancer, deformities, illnesses would be a good thing. I think even in the Federation that type of G.E. is allowable. Now how about corrective G.E. (I'll call it for arguments sake) that affects their decedents? You'd think that would be good, and maybe it would be a good thing, but there might be unintended consequences down the line that are harder to anticipate. Sometimes evolution corrects problems on its own and if we interfere with that does it cause greater problems. Does fixing an anomaly today lead to a greater anomaly down the line? That's more difficult to answer.

Now that leaves the enhancements type. That's the type I took issue with. First, not to get too preachy, but I am a Christian (Catholic to be exact) and believe that is too much like playing God. I believe in evolution, and I don't have a problem using genetic engineering to do something like cure cancer. But enhance humanity? That's a road I'm not sure we should cross. And I do believe there is some merit in the idea that superior ability could lead to problems. If one is superior to 'normal' people, one could potentially start to view normal as inferior, and treat them as such. And perhaps even 'arrogance'. And certainly at this point in our history we can't know without much further study. Even removing my religious objections I don't think we're ready to cross that bridge from a science or ethical standpoint. I did point out that science fiction has explored this issue to some extent, obviously for dramatic effect. But is what we see in "Brave New World" for instance so out of the realm of possibility? And yes, I did note "Space Seed" as another work of science fiction that explored this issue (of course ). Now citing science fiction works wasn't the crux of my argument. I was just citing examples of where things went off the rails with cosmetic genetic engineering.

Now as it was a paper I did cite advantages and disadvantages to each of the 4 types of genetic engineering (at least as they were known at the time around 1996). I recall noting some of the religious elements involved (if you are exploring an ethical issue it's important to consider all elements--and as I was discussing ethics and not the science of it I felt it was appropriate in that setting). And noting some of the science fiction stories I thought was appropriate because why not? Why not cite elements where fiction had explored it. While not comprehensive, and of course plot driven fiction can still be useful when considering things of an ethical nature.

And there was quite a lively debate about it in class I recall.

 

[Christopher]

I actually did a presentation/report on this issue in my bioethics class in college. Is genetic engineering ethical?

That's like asking "Is agriculture ethical?" or "Is electricity ethical?" A tool is not ethical or unethical. It's neutral. It's the specific uses of the tool that are ethical or unethical.

Now that leaves the enhancements type. That's the type I took issue with. First, not to get too preachy, but I am a Christian (Catholic to be exact) and believe that is too much like playing God.

I've never understood why "playing God" is presented as a negative by religious people. We're supposed to be God's children, right? Well, don't most parents want their children to follow in their footsteps? Isn't play what children do to practice and prepare for doing the real thing when they're old enough? And if we were created in the image of God, how can it be wrong for us to act like God? That's a logical contradiction.

We can't stay in the cradle forever. Eventually we have to grow up and take responsibility for our own lives. And it's not like God has come down and ordered us to clean our room. We're wrecking the planet and nobody's stopping us. We're already responsible for ourselves, so we'd better damn well stop acting like children and grow the hell up.

I believe in evolution, and I don't have a problem using genetic engineering to do something like cure cancer. But enhance humanity? That's a road I'm not sure we should cross.

We've been enhancing humanity ever since the invention of medicine, ever since eyeglasses and crutches, ever since levers and wheels and pulleys. Hell, ever since writing, since the ability to preserve and transmit ideas beyond one's lifetime or one's immediate acquaintances was a quantum leap forward in human power, perhaps the single most important one in history. Enhancing our ability is what we do. It's the potential that our naturally evolved brains and hands give us. We've been altering ourselves already for thousands of years -- our jaws are smaller because we don't need to chew uncooked food, we've partially evolved lactose tolerance because of herding animals, etc.

And I do believe there is some merit in the idea that superior ability could lead to problems. If one is superior to 'normal' people, one could potentially start to view normal as inferior, and treat them as such.

I don't believe that's how it will happen. Like I said, we've been inventing human enhancements for a long time, such as eyeglasses. We have laser surgery now that enhances eyesight beyond the natural average. We have replacement hip joints and such that are stronger and better than the originals. And they aren't reserved for some elite; they're available to everyone who needs them, at least in countries with sane health care systems. If anything, medical enhancements have been an equalizer, letting everyone improve their vision or their health or whatever to what only a few would've had without them. And I see no reason to doubt that future human enhancements will work the same way -- not as some single, all-at-once augmentation that's hoarded by the privileged, but a gradual emergence of new medical techniques one after the other that become normalized and accepted and universally available to anyone who wants them, just as past enhancements have been.

 

[Damian]

That's like asking "Is agriculture ethical?" or "Is electricity ethical?" A tool is not ethical or unethical. It's neutral. It's the specific uses of the tool that are ethical or unethical.

Yes, yes. That's what I meant, and that's what I was discussing.

I've never understood why "playing God" is presented as a negative by religious people. We're supposed to be God's children, right?

I'm just not so sure. What you're saying might have merit. But just because we 'can' do a thing does not automatically mean we 'should'. For instance, we can create bombs that can wipe out all life on the planet. But that doesn't mean we should. Now before you say that's not the same thing (I realize that) I'm just attempting to say that can and should are not necessarily the same thing. When do we cross the line?

We've been enhancing humanity ever since the invention of medicine, ever since eyeglasses and crutches,

Yes, but there's a world of difference between repairing and enhancing. Eyeglasses simple correct a deficiency. Crutches help someone walk who has an injury. Hip replacements replace a defective body part. They are all to correct something that is deficient, that impedes someone's ability to function in some fashion. Artificially increasing someone's strength or intelligence is not correcting a deficiency...it's enhancing something that is already 'normal' (for lack of a better word).

And normal evolution will do some of those things already. It's possible, likely even, as the centuries pass (assuming we don't immolate ourselves) that some of that will occur as a normal, natural progress.

Ought we to interfere with nature in that fashion? And there may be consequences that we can't anticipate. Stepping on mother nature's feet may create problems or prevent some natural process from occurring that may very well have been beneficial in the long run. Sometimes patience is a worthwhile cause.

I don't believe that's how it will happen.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that possibility. We can't know what the repercussions will be. Maybe it will be as you say, benign, and everything turns out ok. But I'm pretty cynical about humanity. I'm not as inclined to believe something like "Space Seed" can't happen. I do think something like that is a very real possibility. We prey on ourselves. We are insane as a species in some ways. I mean, we have a bomb, the neutron bomb, that can wipe out all human life and leave buildings and infrastructure intact. I mean, really. And we murder one another for trivialities. We assault one another simply because someone doesn't agree with us. I have no reason to believe genetic enhancements will create a brave new world at this point.

At the very least, I don't think we're ready for that kind of step. Scientifically of course we are just at the first steps of something like that. And I think if nothing else all the consequences have to be considered (at least those that we can reasonable consider). What good things may come of it. And with eyes open, what bad things could potentially come of it?

It's possible with careful, thoughtful consideration that we may decide genetic enhancements are not worth the risk. We may decide to let evolution do its thing and not to interfere.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm more interested in what happened to the perfect polygraph computer from "Wolf in the Fold"

The Perfect Polygraph is featured in season 2 of Disco.

 

[Christopher]

But just because we 'can' do a thing does not automatically mean we 'should'. For instance, we can create bombs that can wipe out all life on the planet. But that doesn't mean we should.

The technology that makes those bombs possible can also make clean energy and space travel possible. Power is neutral. Any power can be used positively or negatively. It's defining the question the wrong way to make it about the source of power overall. As long as you remember "Don't hurt people," that's all you need. (Wasn't that basically Jesus's whole message?)

Yes, but there's a world of difference between repairing and enhancing. Eyeglasses simple correct a deficiency. Crutches help someone walk who has an injury. Hip replacements replace a defective body part. They are all to correct something that is deficient, that impedes someone's ability to function in some fashion. Artificially increasing someone's strength or intelligence is not correcting a deficiency...it's enhancing something that is already 'normal' (for lack of a better word).

Again: we've been enhancing human ability with technology for thousands of years. We just take the past enhancements for granted and arbitrarily assume that they're okay while future ones are not. That's very solipsistic and short-sighted, to assume that the status quo of your own tiny slice of history is automatically the way things "should" be and that any further progress beyond it is evil. People have been making the same assumption for millennia, but they've always been wrong before.

And normal evolution will do some of those things already. It's possible, likely even, as the centuries pass (assuming we don't immolate ourselves) that some of that will occur as a normal, natural progress.

Ought we to interfere with nature in that fashion?

We're part of nature. We're animals that evolved in this biosphere. Our evolution produced brains and hands that let us create technology. Our behavior, including tool use and innovation, is our natural evolutionary response to survival in our environment. Evolution is adaptation, and technology is how we adapt ourselves. Other species evolve specializations like wings or horns or whatever; we evolved the specialization of invention. That's our most natural, human adaptation, as fundamental to us as wings are to an eagle.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that possibility. We can't know what the repercussions will be. Maybe it will be as you say, benign, and everything turns out ok. But I'm pretty cynical about humanity. I'm not as inclined to believe something like "Space Seed" can't happen. I do think something like that is a very real possibility. We prey on ourselves. We are insane as a species in some ways. I mean, we have a bomb, the neutron bomb, that can wipe out all human life and leave buildings and infrastructure intact. I mean, really. And we murder one another for trivialities. We assault one another simply because someone doesn't agree with us. I have no reason to believe genetic enhancements will create a brave new world at this point.

Of course there are risks of abuse, but that is why there are regulations and safeguards. It's stupid, cowardly, and irresponsible to ban a beneficial technology altogether just because you're afraid of the risks. That's dodging responsibility rather than taking it, and it does far more harm than good in the long run. We didn't outlaw cars or planes when they started crashing. We made them safer.

 

[Damian]

Again: we've been enhancing human ability with technology for thousands of years.

Yes, but genetic engineering goes beyond technological advances and replacing a worn out joint. Genes make us who we are. Does changing our genes change who we are? And will it really make us 'better'? Does having increased strength make us better? Even increased intelligence?

And this is a change that is likely irreversible. If you have a defective hip replacement it can be taken out. That's not so easy if you have a defective gene replacement. If we find what we did made things worse for humanity with genetic engineering we may not be able to undo the damage.

Of course there are risks of abuse, but that is why there are regulations and safeguards. It's stupid, cowardly, and irresponsible to ban a beneficial technology altogether just because you're afraid of the risks. That's dodging responsibility rather than taking it, and it does far more harm than good in the long run. We didn't outlaw cars or planes when they started crashing. We made them safer.

What I am saying is bad things can happen even if there is no abuse. We may do everything right and have altruistic intentions and we may end up creating Khan's anyway. Whether you support genetic enhancements or not I think it's something we have to be very careful with. If there was ever a time to take baby steps this would be the time.

Right now, I don't feel we are at a place that is prepared for genetic enhancements. We have neither the science OR the wisdom at this point for that kind of responsibility. Atomic science outpaced our wisdom and we ended up with nuclear bombs. Fossil fuels outpaced our wisdom and we end up with global warming (yes, even though I trend conservative I do believe in climate change).

Maybe if the future aligns with what we see in Star Trek and man learns from his mistakes, by the 23rd and 24th centuries we'll have the wisdom to handle genetic manipulation in a thoughtful and productive manner. Today....no way. It would be a tool for the rich to use to create 'custom built' children with greater intelligence and strength and further exacerbate the economic issues we see around the world today (yes as a conservative I believe in capitalism... but not crony capitalism or corporate welfare). Normal average people would not be able to afford it. Until we solve some of those issues we're not ready for genetic enhancements.

 

[Christopher]

Yes, but genetic engineering goes beyond technological advances and replacing a worn out joint.

It only goes beyond what you are used to. People throughout history have drawn an arbitrary dividing line between the advances of the past and the advances of the future. It's nothing more than fear of the new. The status quo that you find "natural" (because it's what you're used to) is the result of a thousand advances that were seen as unnatural when they were new.

Genes make us who we are. Does changing our genes change who we are?

Who we are is the result of the interaction of many genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors. Our genes change over our lives through mutation, and their expression can change as a result of diet, environment, and any number of other things.

Genetic therapy is already being used routinely to save lives. This is not some future hypothetical; it's already happening. The ethical questions have already been under debate for decades, and medical science has proceeded with that ethical awareness in place. Good is being done, lives are being saved, and people aren't going to give that up.

And will it really make us 'better'? Does having increased strength make us better? Even increased intelligence?

Again with the blanket generalizations. As I've already said, what matters is how you use that power.

Besides, look at the world around us today. Look who's sitting in the White House and 10 Downing Street. The greatest damage tends to be done by the stupid and the weak, by people so aware of their own inadequacy that they have to bully and victimize others to make themselves feel superior, or by people so shortsighted and incapable of learning that they refuse to acknowledge objective realities like climate change. So yes, I think making people smarter and stronger would probably do more good in the long run, as long as it were made universally available to any who wanted it.

And this is a change that is likely irreversible. If you have a defective hip replacement it can be taken out. That's not so easy if you have a defective gene replacement. If we find what we did made things worse for humanity with genetic engineering we may not be able to undo the damage.

Well, that doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't it be reversible? If genes can be edited, they can be re-edited.

Again, it's unrealistic to think of this as some single, all-at-once transformation like in stories. It's going to be a thousand different improvements developed incrementally at different times, and of course each one is going to be tested and verified safe before it's made available to the public. That's how medical progress works. It's not some mad scientist in a basement coming up with a super-serum and turning someone into a metahuman with a single injection.

What I am saying is bad things can happen even if there is no abuse.

Bad things happen when people drive cars or fly planes or travel into space. Bad things happen when people get operations or build skyscrapers or make friends. Sometimes people choke on their food and die. Sometimes people drown in the tub. Bad things can always happen no matter what you do. But we still do it. We just do it carefully and make it as safe as possible.

Fossil fuels outpaced our wisdom and we end up with global warming (yes, even though I trend conservative I do believe in climate change).

You mean you acknowledge climate change. It's not a matter of belief; it's tangibly happening around us.

Today....no way. It would be a tool for the rich to use to create 'custom built' children with greater intelligence and strength and further exacerbate the economic issues we see around the world today (yes as a conservative I believe in capitalism... but not crony capitalism or corporate welfare). Normal average people would not be able to afford it.

That's not a problem with genetic engineering, it's a problem with health care systems and economic systems. Put the blame where it belongs.

And again, this isn't one thing, it's a thousand incremental advances. This is a process that's already starting to happen, and will continue to happen so gradually that we'll barely even notice how society is changing. Fiction paints it as big sudden changes because that serves the narrative, but you can't expect reality to be as dramatic as fiction.

 

[Damian]

Genetic therapy is already being used routinely to save lives. This is not some future hypothetical; it's already happening. The ethical questions have already been under debate for decades, and medical science has proceeded with that ethical awareness in place. Good is being done, lives are being saved, and people aren't going to give that up.

Well, I already did say that I don't have an issue with the first type of genetic engineering, or gene therapy. The type to cure illnesses, cancer, deformities. I think it might get a bit dicier if you perpetuate it down the line only because it might have unintended consequences. But still, I think that kind of gene therapy is a good thing.

My concerns lie with the 'cosmetic' changes and enhancements. Look, you bring up good points. But I don't think you can separate all the various problems from gene enhancement therapy. I don't think we as a society (that is even worldwide, not even just American) are prepared for that step. Right now, the most immediate problem I see with it is it would become something the rich and well to do would use that would further separate themselves from the rest of society, maybe not intentionally. But it would happen. And I truly don't believe we've considered all the consequences to make sure, at least as much as possible, that we don't create Khan's...or a society like Brave New World. I don't think we should just blunder into it just because science may advance to that point.

We just do it carefully and make it as safe as possible.

That's exactly my point. I don't believe we are there yet.

You mean you acknowledge climate change. It's not a matter of belief; it's tangibly happening around us

All right, we're splitting hairs a bit aren't we . But fine, yes, it's happening. I have a science degree (biology), and I can't ignore science. I differ with liberals on the best way to handle it....but I'll leave that for another board .

I joke around sometimes because I have a minor in philosophy (hence my love of debates). So I always tell people I'm qualified to 'think about biology'. I loved bioethics. That was one of my favorite classes in college. That paper and presentation I did was one I actually enjoyed doing. Unfortunately there aren't a lot of jobs out there for bioethicists.

 

[Christopher]

My concerns lie with the 'cosmetic' changes and enhancements.

I don't see anything wrong with cosmetic changes. People have been using artificial means to alter their appearances since prehistory. It's an intrinsic part of human behavior and expression. Heck, personally I get kind of freaked out by body piercings, and I'd never dream of getting a tattoo, but I'm not going to say that my personal discomfort should be binding on anyone else's bodily autonomy, because that would make me a right bastard.

But I don't think you can separate all the various problems from gene enhancement therapy.

And I've said over and over and over again -- everything comes with problems, and we still do things. The existence of problems is a reason to address and solve those problems, not to avoid using the thing at all.

Right now, the most immediate problem I see with it is it would become something the rich and well to do would use that would further separate themselves from the rest of society, maybe not intentionally.

History says otherwise. The rich don't hoard eyeglasses or laser surgery or hip replacements or cancer treatments. There'd be a hell of a backlash if they tried. Medical care is seen as a universal right. And you claim there's a difference between "necessary" and "optional" enhancements, but will society in the future draw the line in the same place? We already have bionic limbs that are better than the originals, and laser eye surgeries that can enhance vision beyond the baseline. Why would people voluntarily settle for less when they can have those things? They would come to be seen as something everyone had a right to.

But it would happen. And I truly don't believe we've considered all the consequences to make sure, at least as much as possible, that we don't create Khan's...or a society like Brave New World.

Of course we've considered the consequences, and your own examples prove it. We've spent decades and decades exploring all the possible ethical questions of the issue in science fiction, and that's helped shape real-life thinking and debate.

But it's a mistake to think that dystopian fiction is saying "This will happen exactly as depicted." Rather, what's depicted is a cautionary tale for what not to do, and knowing that helps us avoid those pitfalls and do it the right way. And that means it tends to be simplified or exaggerated from how real life would work, in order to make the point clearer. You can't expect reality to happen the same way. Reality is less dramatic.

What Carey Wilber was warning against in "Space Seed" was not genetic engineering, but eugenics -- the racist philosophy of human hierarchy that underlaid Nazism. Khan and his people weren't evil because they were gene-modded, but because they were guided by a philosophy that justified domination and conquest. The Augment arc in Enterprise reinforced this -- Arik Soong determined that the Augments had been engineered specifically to be more aggressive, and that was the real problem. It wasn't that they were engineered, it was how.

I don't think we should just blunder into it just because science may advance to that point.

That's a pure straw man. Again -- scientists and ethicists have already been debating and contemplating these questions for a long time. Nobody is "blundering." Okay, I think I've heard about a guy in China who's been trying to rush into human cloning or engineering or something, but he's disapproved of by the rest of the medical community and hasn't had any notable success anyway. For the most part, the medical community would of course proceed carefully and weigh safety and ethics before approving anything for human use, because that's how these things are done.

That's exactly my point. I don't believe we are there yet.

I don't know why you're formulating the question as if it were about the present day. As I said, while we're already well on the way to using human modification and gene editing, the development of more pronounced enhancements will be a gradual process over decades or generations.

 

[Damian]

personally I get kind of freaked out by body piercings, and I'd never dream of getting a tattoo, but I'm not going to say that my personal discomfort should be binding on anyone else's bodily autonomy, because that would make me a right bastard.

That's much different, and it only has consequences to you personally. Do I have a right to decide what kind of genes my child has? Now yes, when my daughter is growing up I can set limits, but someday she will be free to go out on her own. But with gene enhancements I'm taking that freedom away from her. I can tell her not to get a piercing now since she's 14. But when she's 18 I can't do that anymore. I think there's a big difference there.

The existence of problems is a reason to address and solve those problems, not to avoid using the thing at all.

Yes, that's true. But it's my belief we have to solve those other problems before tackling gene enhancements. My contention is our society is not yet prepared for it. Even taking away my concerns re: what would Jesus do, I'm not saying we'll never be ready. But we aren't ready TODAY...IMO.

For the most part, the medical community would of course proceed carefully and weigh safety and ethics before approving anything for human use, because that's how these things are done

Well, I hope you're right. Because I am cynical about humanity. It's one reason I enjoy dystopian SF films like Rollerball or Soylent Green--(as an aside an interesting film if for no other reason they depicted a green house effect long before it came into common usage). Conversely I love Star Trek for it's positive outlook for the future. We're still human beings...we still screw up from time to time. But we've moved beyond the problems that plagued us. We'd be pretty lucky if Star Trek was somehow prophetic of our future, well except maybe the Borg...and the Dominion too I guess, but there are always some baddies out there. BUT, sadly, I believe we're headed more towards a world like Rollerball, Soylent Green or even Freejack (I know that movie gets some flack, but it's vision of the future may not be far off).

History says otherwise. The rich don't hoard eyeglasses or laser surgery or hip replacements or cancer treatments. There'd be a hell of a backlash if they tried. Medical care is seen as a universal right. And you claim there's a difference between "necessary" and "optional" enhancements, but will society in the future draw the line in the same place?

Today I do believe it would be something for the rich. It will be incredibly expensive to do so only they will be able to afford it, and I don't think 'enhancements' will be viewed as 'necessary', therefore not a 'universal right'. It'd be hard to argue that some average joe has a 'right' to increased motor strength, or what the hell, blonde hair. A rich person can afford to have that done by paying for it if they wished. But it'd be hard to argue that it's a right.

And like I said, I don't think it would happen purposefully. The rich will do it because they can afford to, like a rich person can book passage to the moon when someday we may send people there again. I can't afford that and no one's going to argue I have a right to a seat to the moon. Genetic enhancements will be viewed the same way (now again, differentiating between enhancements and gene therapy to correct a deformity say--that's an entirely different issue IMO).

 

[Christopher]

That's much different, and it only has consequences to you personally.

It's different to you. That's my point -- we don't have the right to impose our personal dividing lines on everyone else.

Do I have a right to decide what kind of genes my child has? Now yes, when my daughter is growing up I can set limits, but someday she will be free to go out on her own. But with gene enhancements I'm taking that freedom away from her.

That's a valid question, to be sure. But don't we already decide that by choosing who to marry or procreate with? And don't we already make a lot of decisions on behalf of our children? Do we ask their consent before we circumcise them, or before we decide to socialize them as a certain gender? As a rule, we generally don't expect infants to have freedom of choice, for obvious reasons. We entrust that responsibility to their parents. We assume that parents have the right to make the decisions that will shape their children's identity and future. The only times we restrict that right are when the parents' choices are irresponsible or dangerous. Once genetic enhancements have been proven safe, then, it seems it should be the parents' place to choose, as with everything else.

Yes, that's true. But it's my belief we have to solve those other problems before tackling gene enhancements.

Life's problems don't line up in a neat little row. When has humanity every completely "solved" anything? You don't get to wait until you finish one thing before you take on something else. If you try, you never get started.

Besides, ethical issues shouldn't be separated, because they inform each other. Learning to be more ethical or responsible in one area is practice for doing so in others.

My contention is our society is not yet prepared for it. Even taking away my concerns re: what would Jesus do, I'm not saying we'll never be ready. But we aren't ready TODAY...IMO.

As I already said, I don't see why you think that's relevant to a discussion of future innovation.

Today I do believe it would be something for the rich. It will be incredibly expensive to do so only they will be able to afford it, and I don't think 'enhancements' will be viewed as 'necessary', therefore not a 'universal right'. It'd be hard to argue that some average joe has a 'right' to increased motor strength, or what the hell, blonde hair. A rich person can afford to have that done by paying for it if they wished. But it'd be hard to argue that it's a right.

I still think you're making the mistake of assuming it'll be something that happens all at once. I've explained why I don't think that's valid. It will be various small steps one by one, each one gaining acceptance and coming to be taken for granted the way corrective lenses and braces and laser surgery and such are today.

There was a time when only certain people had 20/20 vision or better; now it's taken for granted that everyone is entitled to glasses or contacts to fix their vision. There was a time when only certain people were lucky enough to have good, straight teeth, and people without them were out of luck; now, it's seen as perfectly routine for people to get braces and dental care. Everyone is theoretically able to improve themselves to the optimum level. You don't see that as an enhancement because you take it for granted, but it is an enhancement over what used to be normal, because everyone can have what used to be the province of a lucky few. The technology has been an equalizer.

 

[Damian]

It's different to you. That's my point -- we don't have the right to impose our personal dividing lines on everyone else.




That's a valid question, to be sure. But don't we already decide that by choosing who to marry or procreate with? And don't we already make a lot of decisions on behalf of our children? Do we ask their consent before we circumcise them, or before we decide to socialize them as a certain gender? As a rule, we generally don't expect infants to have freedom of choice, for obvious reasons. We entrust that responsibility to their parents. We assume that parents have the right to make the decisions that will shape their children's identity and future. The only times we restrict that right are when the parents' choices are irresponsible or dangerous. Once genetic enhancements have been proven safe, then, it seems it should be the parents' place to choose, as with everything else.




Life's problems don't line up in a neat little row. When has humanity every completely "solved" anything? You don't get to wait until you finish one thing before you take on something else. If you try, you never get started.

Besides, ethical issues shouldn't be separated, because they inform each other. Learning to be more ethical or responsible in one area is practice for doing so in others.





As I already said, I don't see why you think that's relevant to a discussion of future innovation.




I still think you're making the mistake of assuming it'll be something that happens all at once. I've explained why I don't think that's valid. It will be various small steps one by one, each one gaining acceptance and coming to be taken for granted the way corrective lenses and braces and laser surgery and such are today.

There was a time when only certain people had 20/20 vision or better; now it's taken for granted that everyone is entitled to glasses or contacts to fix their vision. There was a time when only certain people were lucky enough to have good, straight teeth, and people without them were out of luck; now, it's seen as perfectly routine for people to get braces and dental care. Everyone is theoretically able to improve themselves to the optimum level. You don't see that as an enhancement because you take it for granted, but it is an enhancement over what used to be normal, because everyone can have what used to be the province of a lucky few. The technology has been an equalizer.

Well, maybe that's all true. I have deep reservations about gene enhancement. NOT gene therapy. I think that's a good thing. Using genes to fix genetic defects. I can't argue there's benefit to that and that should continue to be explored.

But gene enhancements? I actually do believe that's an entirely different animal. From a religious standpoint....are we encroaching too far into God's domain? Are there things best left to a higher power? I don't think God would object to our fixing obvious defects, or curing cancer. Some fundamentalists wait for some miracle cure by God, without realizing God gave us the ability to generate those miracles on our own. I find that a sad way to see God in a way. He uses us to help each other. But does God want us to use those tool to artificially enhance our abilities (or at least in ways other than natural reproduction)? I don't have those answers. But yes, it concerns me. I happen to believe God wants what's best for us...that God isn't some malicious entity waiting to strike us down, rather the reverse. Is gene enhancement really a good thing?

And yes, I have other concerns as well. We have a bad habit of making potentially good things bad. SF does provide a cautionary tale of how NOT to do genetic engineering. But are we smart enough to listen? That's a big concern of mine. Because once we start down that path, for better or worse we aren't going back. Yes, we may be on the path already....BUT we haven't gotten there yet (as far as genetically enhancing people). I want to make sure before we do get to that point where it becomes an actual possibility that we are ready.

 

[Damian]

What Carey Wilber was warning against in "Space Seed" was not genetic engineering, but eugenics -- the racist philosophy of human hierarchy that underlaid Nazism. Khan and his people weren't evil because they were gene-modded, but because they were guided by a philosophy that justified domination and conquest. The Augment arc in Enterprise reinforced this -- Arik Soong determined that the Augments had been engineered specifically to be more aggressive, and that was the real problem. It wasn't that they were engineered, it was how.

Yeah, and that adds a bit of a difference. Perhaps it would have been best if the Star Trek universe, and DS9 in "Our Man Bashir" had said what was banned was 'eugenics' as opposed to genetic engineering. In fact, that may have been what the intention was all along. That it was really 'eugenics' and maybe using genetic engineering for 'eugenics' purposes that were banned. As you noted in TNG we see genetic engineering is perfectly legal. The Denobulans practice it, and I would imagine still do. But maybe the writers of DS9 were incorrectly using the term genetic engineering when what they should have said was eugenics.

 

[Christopher]

Well, maybe that's all true. I have deep reservations about gene enhancement. NOT gene therapy. I think that's a good thing. Using genes to fix genetic defects. I can't argue there's benefit to that and that should continue to be explored.

But gene enhancements? I actually do believe that's an entirely different animal.

Again, the difference is one of what you're used to. You're judging based on your own life experience, but that's just a narrow slice of reality. You have to step outside yourself, look at how other people have seen things, in order to get real perspective on an issue.

As I've been trying to get across, many of the things that we take for granted as "normal" human abilities would have been seen as unnatural enhancements by people in past centuries. We enhance ourselves in countless ways, through our diet, through our clothes and tools, through our medical procedures. You don't see them as enhancements because you're used to them. Your own dividing line is shaped by your experience in this tiny sliver of history. People from the past would see you as unnaturally enhanced in various ways. I mean, heck, we're having this conversation without ever having met in person, through magic energies transmitted through the ether. Your ability to communicate has been enhanced massively beyond natural human earshot. You take that for granted; your forebears would've found it unnatural, shocking, and possibly wrong. These things are subjective, not absolute, which is why you have to step outside your own assumptions and defaults to gain perspective.

From a religious standpoint....are we encroaching too far into God's domain? Are there things best left to a higher power? I don't think God would object to our fixing obvious defects, or curing cancer. Some fundamentalists wait for some miracle cure by God, without realizing God gave us the ability to generate those miracles on our own. I find that a sad way to see God in a way. He uses us to help each other. But does God want us to use those tool to artificially enhance our abilities (or at least in ways other than natural reproduction)? I don't have those answers. But yes, it concerns me. I happen to believe God wants what's best for us...that God isn't some malicious entity waiting to strike us down, rather the reverse. Is gene enhancement really a good thing?

Like I said, if we're God's children, wouldn't God be proud of us for growing up and joining the family business? If we're in the image of a creator, how can we not be creators ourselves? (Although I'm with Will Decker -- we created God in our own image. We're a species of inventors and builders, so when trying to explain the universe, our solipsistic default is to assume it was built by something like ourselves.)

SF does provide a cautionary tale of how NOT to do genetic engineering. But are we smart enough to listen?

"We" are not a monolith. There are plenty of unethical and irresponsible people, and there are plenty of ethical and responsible people. Generally, the ethical and responsible people devise and enforce standards to keep the other people in check.

Yes, we may be on the path already....BUT we haven't gotten there yet (as far as genetically enhancing people). I want to make sure before we do get to that point where it becomes an actual possibility that we are ready.

You're still presuming a sharp dividing line. I say it's a continuum so gradual that the distinction is arbitrary.

Yeah, and that adds a bit of a difference. Perhaps it would have been best if the Star Trek universe, and DS9 in "Our Man Bashir" had said what was banned was 'eugenics' as opposed to genetic engineering. In fact, that may have been what the intention was all along. That it was really 'eugenics' and maybe using genetic engineering for 'eugenics' purposes that were banned.

What "Space Seed" said was that the supermen were "engineered through selective breeding." The concept of recombinant DNA didn't exist yet, so Wilber and Coon assumed the supermen were bred using the same techniques used for thousands of years to domesticate plants and animals. (Which is borderline plausible; in real life, the first eugenics programs began in the 1880s or so, so if one of them had survived and continued for the next century -- and if they'd bred using a multiethnic population rather than going down the blind alley of white supremacy like every real-life eugenics group -- then it's barely possible that they could've produced some significant improvements in 4-5 generations.)

But I don't think they intended to make a distinction between genetic enhancement and eugenics, because in their time, there hadn't been much research into human enhancement except by the discredited eugenics movements. But that is no longer the case. We've learned much more in the past half-century and don't need to be restricted by their assumptions.

As I said, I suspect the reason DS9 introduced the engineering-ban idea was to rationalize why the Trek future was still stuck in those 1960s-era attitudes and lacked the transhumanism that was becoming common in other science fiction. It wasn't a moral stand so much as a bit of bookkeeping, a handwave for an increasingly implausible element of the decades-old universe they were stuck with. Although the counterargument is that early TNG was more open to transhumanism, with Geordi and Picard both being part-bionic and with genetic engineering portrayed as legal in "Unnatural Selection." If TNG's early producers were willing to move the SF concepts of the universe forward in that way, it's odd that the later producers dragged them so far back.

 

[F. King Daniel]

From a religious standpoint....are we encroaching too far into God's domain? Are there things best left to a higher power? I don't think God would object to our fixing obvious defects, or curing cancer. Some fundamentalists wait for some miracle cure by God, without realizing God gave us the ability to generate those miracles on our own. I find that a sad way to see God in a way. He uses us to help each other. But does God want us to use those tool to artificially enhance our abilities (or at least in ways other than natural reproduction)? I don't have those answers. But yes, it concerns me. I happen to believe God wants what's best for us...that God isn't some malicious entity waiting to strike us down, rather the reverse. Is gene enhancement really a good thing?

Perhaps the people who don't believe in God can enhance themselves, and the God fearing choose not to?

 

[Damian]

As I've been trying to get across, many of the things that we take for granted as "normal" human abilities would have been seen as unnatural enhancements by people in past centuries. We enhance ourselves in countless ways, through our diet, through our clothes and tools, through our medical procedures

Yes, I get what you're saying. But the difference is none of that really affects our descendants. Our genes in many ways make us who we are. Glasses, a heart valve, a hip joint....they are just tools in a sense. Genes go much deeper then that. And I have reservations about changing those genes (beyond gene therapy to correct gene abnormalities). I have a real hard time equating something like a new hip, or a pair of glasses, with gene enhancements.

There are plenty of unethical and irresponsible people, and there are plenty of ethical and responsible people.

Sadly I feel humanity has more of the former then the latter. As I said I'm pretty cynical about humanity. We have been given free will and what have we done with it? We murder one another, attack one another for petty nonsense, we step on one another. I have no reason to believe genetic engineering won't be used in the same fashion.

As I said, I don't believe God wants to strike us down and punish us. But I can't help but feel He must be ashamed of how we have wasted our gifts on such petty nonsense.

You know, after 9/11, at least here in the United States, I really thought we had turned a corner. For all the terror of that day, it was wonderful to see our nation united. For a time, far too brief, we were one people. We realized just how mortal we were and how precious life really was. Everyone wanted to help each other, even something as simple as giving blood. Now, things are as bad as they've been since probably before the Civil War. After 9/11 we showed we were capable of great goodness and great love. Now we are full of hate. It's sad and has made me quite cynical these days.

Anyway, I guess I'm off topic (I guess we're really off topic since this is a Discovery novel thread)

As I said, I suspect the reason DS9 introduced the engineering-ban idea was to rationalize why the Trek future was still stuck in those 1960s-era attitudes and lacked the transhumanism that was becoming common in other science fiction. It wasn't a moral stand so much as a bit of bookkeeping, a handwave for an increasingly implausible element of the decades-old universe they were stuck with. Although the counterargument is that early TNG was more open to transhumanism, with Geordi and Picard both being part-bionic and with genetic engineering portrayed as legal in "Unnatural Selection." If TNG's early producers were willing to move the SF concepts of the universe forward in that way, it's odd that the later producers dragged them so far back.

Probably true. A lot of it was probably plot driven too. Create some peril for Dr Bashir and answer the obvious question if it was legal why would he hide it all his life. It's likely they probably had forgotten about "Unnatural Selection" also. That's certainly been known to happen in Star Trek. I guess as you noted earlier in the augment episodes of Enterprise perhaps that was added partially to reinforce the idea of a genetic enhancement ban. I suspect gene therapy is probably legal in the Federation to cure disease, cancer and correct deformities...my guess is the ban pertains to enhancements.

It's certainly possible the producers started to realize much as you noted, that it seems odd the Federation would ban that when they were open about so many other things. Perhaps they felt they needed a reinforcing story to at least try to answer why that is the case.

 

[Christopher]

Yes, I get what you're saying. But the difference is none of that really affects our descendants.

Of course it does. The innovations of our ancestors have affected us profoundly in countless ways. As I said, we've already evolved in response to past innovations like cooked food and herding. Our genetics have changed through the migration and intermixing of human populations. It's naive and egocentric to assume that the way you happen to be in this tiny sliver of history is the "natural default" of humanity. That's pure arrogance. Your life is the result of thousands of years of civilization and progress. A human from 10,000 years ago would find your existence utterly alien.

Our genes in many ways make us who we are.

It's outdated and oversimplistic to assume that genes are some magic, absolute destiny. As I said, we now know that genes are just one element in the mix, that their expression can be affected by many epigenetic and environmental factors. Our genes can change over our lifetimes. Many of us are chimeras with genes from two different individuals in different cells.

I have a real hard time equating something like a new hip, or a pair of glasses, with gene enhancements.

Again, that's because you are used to the former and not the latter. The technologies you think are perfectly fine would've been feared as unnatural by your ancestors. What we accept is a function of what we're used to. Heck, that same process happens in Star Trek all the time -- the newest series is always condemned by purist fans as utterly wrong and a perversion of true Trek, but then 10 or 20 years later it's accepted as part of the whole and it's the next new series that's getting condemned.

Sadly I feel humanity has more of the former then the latter. As I said I'm pretty cynical about humanity. We have been given free will and what have we done with it? We murder one another, attack one another for petty nonsense, we step on one another. I have no reason to believe genetic engineering won't be used in the same fashion.

I've warned you time and time again about blanket generalizations and you're not even trying to listen. People murder each other with cars, but we still use cars. People crash planes into buildings, but we still fly planes. Arsonists burn buildings, but we still use fire. The fact that some people will abuse a technology has never been a reason to abandon the technology altogether. How many times do I have to restate that?

 

[Damian]

Look, suffice it to say I have greater reservations about genetic engineering than some others. I can see it being used for 'eugenics' purposes in fact. And I'm not proposing we abandon it altogether. Only that we should tread very carefully. So we don't create the next "H-bomb." I've never said we should abandon it altogether though.

I've warned you time and time again about blanket generalizations and you're not even trying to listen

All right. I just see greater bad things among humanity than good. Yes, there are good people out there. People that want to do the right thing. But day after day all you see in the news is new ways we try to screw each other over.

 

[Christopher]

So I'd prefer, and hope, that those working on G.E. consider that. Scientists sometimes can get so excited about discoveries those sorts of things. Tread carefully. That's what I am asking for. Not abandonment.

And it's nonsensical to postulate that scientists and ethicists haven't already been considering these questions for literally decades. I don't know why you'd imagine they haven't. Medical ethics have been a thing for a very long time. Every new procedure is carefully tested and weighed and debated over for years before it's approved for human use. So I don't know where you're getting this fantasy of medical recklessness that needs to be kept in check. It's as bizarre to me as if you said "You know, they should really start putting seatbelts in cars" or "You know, there should be some permanent department for fighting fires." You're talking about a normal, routine safeguard as if it didn't already exist, and that's really weird.