• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Khan Noonien Singh is on his way!

More realistically, "Yay, fewer birth defects!"

*Avoids linking a few pictures of the kinds of things we're trying to avoid here, as some people may be having lunch.*
 
I guess folks believed the same thing about IVF/test tube babies, something created to help the infertile, turned into a 'Gimme a baby and gimme it now!' industry. With the way human nature is, guess this will get abused as well. Why have diversity in humanity when you can have everyone eventually looking like the poster child for the Aryan race?
(OK major exaggeration, but......)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I remember the nonsense of people actually debating whether or not test tube babies would have souls or be inhuman psychopaths.

It's part of why I don't have a problem with GMOs either.
 
It's one thing to employ genetic tinkering to get rid of birth defects or other serious malfunctions. It's much another to use it for creating "designer babies". THAT would truly lead to a Gattaca-like society.

To put it another way: Designer babies would still have souls; but the society that gave rise to them would not.
 
Khan's group was a result of "selective breeding" not genetic thinkering; at least in the original series.
 
Dogs, cows, horses...they've shaped `em all. You'd think this would be easy right?

So far every time the humans have tried 'special breeding' on themselves it's not gone well.

Please stop, you're embarrassing yourselves.
 
Most people when talking about dog (and human) breeding for "superior" traits are actually talking about inbreeding, which is really the opposite of adding new factors and generally leads to more defects rather than fewer. Mutts are hardier than purebreds.

I'm actually a bit more interested in certain technologies that might let you edit yourself post-birth, like retroviruses to fight certain kinds of cancer.

Maybe there needs to be a legal definition of what constitutes a "defect" to be repaired in-vitro, and what would be considered "elective" editing to only be performed on consenting adults. (And wow wouldn't THAT set off a massive ragewar between the people who want to be "fixed" and the "I'm fine the way I am!" people. You think accusations of "ableist" get thrown around NOW, just wait!)

I can just imagine what the extreme body-modding types would get up to.
Or the furries.

I'd like my myopia, astigmatism and deuteranomaly cured...
...but then I might also like to be able to see a bit outside the "visible light" spectrum. And have irises like a cat...
 
Widespread elective genetic alteration assumes that it would be accessible and affordable to the public.

Kor
 
Anubis.jpg
 
Before we get too far ahead of ourselves, it's one bioethics think tank with no legal authority, in one country, suggesting that a narrow set of highly regulated beneficial or corrective DNA modifications in babies would not be unethical in principle (as long as it didn't exacerbate existing societal inequalities), with no concurrent or proposed legislation to that effect, and still being met with substantial criticism regardless.

It's coming eventually, but we're still a little ways off legally speaking, at least in most Western nations. China would have fewer restrictions, however.

Mr. Laser Beam said:
Which, of course, it never will be. Stuff like this is NEVER cheap.
Click to expand...
Crispr-Cas9 is relatively inexpensive compared to other methods (and that "relatively" fluctuates heavily depending on what you're trying to modify), though as the article mentions, it's also got a lot of flaws that we're discovering which may make it more of a hindrance than a help.

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

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
The trouble from my pov (that of an biologist) is that politicians know too little about the chances, risks and overall possibilities of scientific developments in general and genetic engineering in particular. They might in all innocence permit something that would inevitably prove apocalyptic in the wrong hands (or sometimes even in the right ones). Just think of how they always claimed Roundup, E 605 or DDT were completely harmless. Or how the nuclear bomb tests were "absolutely no danger to the soldiers and civilians in the area".
Imagine what Hitler would have done with genetic engineering. Or more currently: think what Trump would do or Putin or Kim.
Better safe than sorry.
 
feek61 said:
Khan's group was a result of "selective breeding" not genetic thinkering; at least in the original series.
Click to expand...

That is a form of genetic tinkering. Like grafting different plants' leaves to combine traits. That's genetic engineering too, just without a microscope and tweezers, unless the male involved was-- *cough*

So anyway :devil:, "Aryan" can be any number of things to any number of people. The only thing agreed upon is that nobody will agree because only their version is the superior one. Why can't everybody agree to use "Aryan" as its original pre-19th century definition? Because, like the swaztika's alleged original meaning, the co-opting and redefinition of it has clung tighter in peoples' minds.
 
Last edited:
Cutie McWhiskers said:
... Because, like the swaztika's alleged original meaning, the co-opting and redefinition of it has clung tighter in peoples' minds.
Click to expand...

Western tourists in Asian countries are sometimes shocked to see swastikas on temples (and all over maps to indicate temple locations), only being familiar with the symbol's use in modern history in the Western hemisphere. And some feel the need to make presumptuous comments like "Don't they know what this symbol means??"

Kor
 
rhubarbodendron said:
The trouble from my pov (that of an biologist) is that politicians know too little about the chances, risks and overall possibilities of scientific developments in general and genetic engineering in particular. They might in all innocence permit something that would inevitably prove apocalyptic in the wrong hands (or sometimes even in the right ones). Just think of how they always claimed Roundup, E 605 or DDT were completely harmless. Or how the nuclear bomb tests were "absolutely no danger to the soldiers and civilians in the area".
Imagine what Hitler would have done with genetic engineering. Or more currently: think what Trump would do or Putin or Kim.
Better safe than sorry.
Click to expand...
"What's wrong with Roundup?" he asked, charging the Debunk-o-tron.
 
Cutie McWhiskers said:
So anyway :devil:, "Aryan" can be any number of things to any number of people. The only thing agreed upon is that nobody will agree because only their version is the superior one. Why can't everybody agree to use "Aryan" as its original pre-19th century definition? Because, like the swaztika's alleged original meaning, the co-opting and redefinition of it has clung tighter in peoples' minds.
Click to expand...
Because we're not living in the pre-19th century and you're not posting from either Northern India or Iran, and a whole host of fucked up things have been done in the pursuit of so-called Aryan purity (which is what context it was being used in above, yet you still objected to it) in the intervening time, so it's kind of hard and wrong to whitewash (see what I did there?) that history.

You really need to back off from all the weird reactions to the mention of white people and Aryans for a...ever. This is the third time you've been triggered now in a couple weeks. It doesn't paint a nice picture.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top