A genetically engineered third gender?

[paulgutierrez]

The idea actually isn't too far away from reality.

6 years ago scientists created a human embryo that was both male and female using cells from both sexes. It wasn't allowed to develop beyond 6 days. The purpose of the experiment was to use the technique to treat genetic diseases at the embryo stage. Not a bad idea but I can think of a better use.

Just imagine if scientists modified humanity so that shemales could be born that way, and I'm not talking about hermaphrodites whose dicks or vaginas don't work. I mean shemales with full-functioning parts and reproductive capabilities. No longer would tranny chasers catch flak for liking someone that used to be a dude.

Seriously though, would you consider it a positive development for humanity/society? Or an abomination? Why? What if they created some tranny island or something? That would be awesome.

[El Nino]

It's already happening...

[chefmike]

It's already happening...

[hippifried]

Who decides who'll be born how? It's always an abomination if it isn't natural or voluntary. If someone's arbitrary preferences are used to determine someone else's nature, how is that any different than rape?

[q1a2z3]

The idea actually isn't too far away from reality.

6 years ago scientists created a human embryo that was both male and female using cells from both sexes. It wasn't allowed to develop beyond 6 days. The purpose of the experiment was to use the technique to treat genetic diseases at the embryo stage. Not a bad idea but I can think of a better use.

Just imagine if scientists modified humanity so that shemales could be born that way, and I'm not talking about hermaphrodites whose dicks or vaginas don't work. I mean shemales with full-functioning parts and reproductive capabilities. No longer would tranny chasers catch flak for liking someone that used to be a dude.

Seriously though, would you consider it a positive development for humanity/society? Or an abomination? Why? What if they created some tranny island or something? That would be awesome.


Could they get a job in the circus? - LOL

[paulgutierrez]

Who decides who'll be born how? It's always an abomination if it isn't natural or voluntary. If someone's arbitrary preferences are used to determine someone else's nature, how is that any different than rape?What if this new class of human is better off than other humans?

I wouldn't call it rape if she has an advantage over the rest of mankind.

[hippifried]

Who decides who'll be born how? It's always an abomination if it isn't natural or voluntary. If someone's arbitrary preferences are used to determine someone else's nature, how is that any different than rape?What if this new class of human is better off than other humans?

I wouldn't call it rape if she has an advantage over the rest of mankind.Better off according to whom? You're talking about playing God with other people's lives, without permission. Sounding more & more like Josef Mengele. This is eugenics.

[q1a2z3]

The idea actually isn't too far away from reality.

6 years ago scientists created a human embryo that was both male and female using cells from both sexes. It wasn't allowed to develop beyond 6 days. The purpose of the experiment was to use the technique to treat genetic diseases at the embryo stage. Not a bad idea but I can think of a better use.

Just imagine if scientists modified humanity so that shemales could be born that way, and I'm not talking about hermaphrodites whose dicks or vaginas don't work. I mean shemales with full-functioning parts and reproductive capabilities. No longer would tranny chasers catch flak for liking someone that used to be a dude.

Seriously though, would you consider it a positive development for humanity/society? Or an abomination? Why? What if they created some tranny island or something? That would be awesome.

Well keep in mind these poor souls will not come out of the factory as adults. They will have to grow up and their childhood will most likely be hell on earth. I can't imagine a mom and dad wanting to raise a person and tell them they are in the world to satisfy some future person's fetish life.

Did anyone see the movie "6th Day" with Arnold? Remember the biological toy doll? Think of any group in society who would be lusting after one that is anatomically correct? (barf)

The world contains many sick people and I'm sure sick business people to help them out of their money.

[paulgutierrez]

Who decides who'll be born how? It's always an abomination if it isn't natural or voluntary. If someone's arbitrary preferences are used to determine someone else's nature, how is that any different than rape?What if this new class of human is better off than other humans?

I wouldn't call it rape if she has an advantage over the rest of mankind.Better off according to whom? You're talking about playing God with other people's lives, without permission. Sounding more & more like Josef Mengele. This is eugenics.I'd take eugenics over plastic surgery anyday. At least being born without problems is better than wasting your life constantly trying to fix the surface, when the DNA or hormones remain unaltered.

Just take god out of your argument. Who cares. Even humanity today is what humans have made it through sexual selection. The pursuit of scientific knowledge shouldn't be bound by moral convictions. A fully functional shemale that could inseminate and give birth would be highly valuable for the survival of the human species and would be at the top of the food chain. Just watch the movie Gattica. Genetically altered humans CAN and will be accepted by society, and lauded.


Well keep in mind these poor souls will not come out of the factory as adults. They will have to grow up and their childhood will most likely be hell on earth. I can't imagine a mom and dad wanting to raise a person and tell them they are in the world to satisfy some future person's fetish life.

Did anyone see the movie "6th Day" with Arnold? Remember the biological toy doll? Think of any group in society who would be lusting after one that is anatomically correct? (barf)

The world contains many sick people and I'm sure sick business people to help them out of their money.
Why are you even here, since that's pretty much what porn and escort agencies do anyway? Don't tell me you're here looking for an actual long term relationship with a transgender. Dream on buddy. What I'm proposing is a step toward making something like that more normal and widespread without having to deal with nutcases. Instead you'd have natural shemales who were born that way without the usual psychological issues, insecurities or manly voice. Best of all you could marry them and have kids with them.

In any case, it'd be pretty unrealistic to suggest that they'd immediately be integrated into the mainstream population. Ideally they'd be in a controlled environment until they established a sizeable population. After that there would be plenty of options. They could be integrated into other countries and hopefully displace and replace lame ass regular females. Shemales could then even have their own country where you would have to integrate into their society.

Or if you want to go dark, I'm not going to lie, what you have in mind would probably happen in a laissez-faire economy... which would be awesome. Can't go wrong with a tranny theme park.

[q1a2z3]

Who decides who'll be born how? It's always an abomination if it isn't natural or voluntary. If someone's arbitrary preferences are used to determine someone else's nature, how is that any different than rape?What if this new class of human is better off than other humans?

I wouldn't call it rape if she has an advantage over the rest of mankind.Better off according to whom? You're talking about playing God with other people's lives, without permission. Sounding more & more like Josef Mengele. This is eugenics.I'd take eugenics over plastic surgery anyday. At least being born without problems is better than wasting your life constantly trying to fix the surface, when the DNA or hormones remain unaltered.

Just take god out of your argument. Who cares. Even humanity today is what humans have made it through sexual selection. The pursuit of scientific knowledge shouldn't be bound by moral convictions. A fully functional shemale that could inseminate and give birth would be highly valuable for the survival of the human species and would be at the top of the food chain. Just watch the movie Gattica. Genetically altered humans CAN and will be accepted by society, and lauded.


Well keep in mind these poor souls will not come out of the factory as adults. They will have to grow up and their childhood will most likely be hell on earth. I can't imagine a mom and dad wanting to raise a person and tell them they are in the world to satisfy some future person's fetish life.

Did anyone see the movie "6th Day" with Arnold? Remember the biological toy doll? Think of any group in society who would be lusting after one that is anatomically correct? (barf)

The world contains many sick people and I'm sure sick business people to help them out of their money.
Why are you even here, since that's pretty much what porn and escort agencies do anyway? Don't tell me you're here looking for an actual long term relationship with a transgender. Dream on buddy. What I'm proposing is a step toward making something like that more normal and widespread without having to deal with nutcases. Instead you'd have natural shemales who were born that way without the usual psychological issues, insecurities or manly voice. Best of all you could marry them and have kids with them.

In any case, it'd be pretty unrealistic to suggest that they'd immediately be integrated into the mainstream population. Ideally they'd be in a controlled environment until they established a sizeable population. After that there would be plenty of options. They could be integrated into other countries and hopefully displace and replace lame ass regular females. Shemales could then even have their own country where you would have to integrate into their society.

Or if you want to go dark, I'm not going to lie, what you have in mind would probably happen in a laissez-faire economy... which would be awesome. Can't go wrong with a tranny theme park.

Liberals are so funny, but they are also sick!!!

[hippifried]

Well Dr Mengele, my argument isn't with or about any kind of supernatural deity. It's with you, & the totality of that argument is that the genetic makeup of any other human being is not your decision to make. Very very few people have any desire to change their physical makeup at all, & most are happy with their genetic sexuality. There are natural anomalies, & there are some who feel compelled to correct them for themselves, but that's their decision. It doesn't matter what you'll take, because you can't predict what someone else will want before they're born.

Everything we do is bound by moral convictions. Even, & maybe especially, the pursuit of knowledge. Blatant violation of the Universal Code of Human Interaction (aka the ethic of reciprosity or the golden rule) can't be justified by saying "I was just checking it out to see what might happen.". If your pursuit of knowlege violates the moral Code, you have to find another way. To do otherwise is arrogant laziness. Dr Knox taught anatomy to a lot of medical students, & some of them might have had something to do with the advancement of medicine in the ensuing years, but that doesn't justify his hiring Burke & Hare to supply him with cadavers by any means possible. The students would have learned whether Knox had fresh meat to chop up or not. Expedience & curiosity are no excuse for immorality. Morals & ethics are what separate us from animals. The pursuit of knowlege is useless if it doesn't seek to promote &/or improve our humanity.

The natural selective process for human reproduction is no threat to our survival as a species. It's a natural barrier to the problems caused by close interbreeding, & strengthens the species more than any kind of selective breeding ever has or could.

What you're advocating is tinkering with the lives of others, without permission, just because the means to do so might make itself available. You don't get to do that because everybody else has the same rights as you. Violation of the Code invites retaliation.

This might make for a good graphic novel or something. If you think you have talent, draw it up. Just remember that reality isn't science fiction & people aren't cartoons. (Well... q1a2z3 might be an exception.)

[paulgutierrez]

Well, when the technology becomes available, there's a number of ways it could go down. For instance, a person could have his or her DNA altered at the adult stage. A normal man or woman could voluntarily undergo gene therapy to become a genetically modified shemale and then plant the "seeds" that will change humanity forever. By the time people realize what's happening it'll already be too late to stop it.

America may have laws against such pursuits, but Ukraine does not, Hungary does not, Austria does not, etc. Most all Western European countries allow therapeutic cloning and embryonic stem cell research. In fact only 30 countries have banned human cloning. This may have you believe that there's some line drawn, when in fact advances therapeutic/animal cloning and embryonic stem cell research will reach a point that makes it not hard to cross over, if it hasn't already. What's to stop zealous scentists from conducting their experiments off the grid? In fact rogue scientists are already doing it.

It's going to happen. It's best just to become desensitized to the idea of it now.

[hippifried]

You can alter yourself any way you like, for whatever reasons you might have, & call it theraputic if you like. But what's being proposed here is genetically altering someone sexually before they're born, just to satisfy someone else's interests. There's nothing theraputic about that, & it's involuntary. That's an abuse.

Lack of codified law doesn't negate ethical lines, & complacency invites abuse. Desensitizing to the abuse just stalls the inevitable backlash & makes it more intense. Why promote that kind of crazy?

[paulgutierrez]

You can alter yourself any way you like, for whatever reasons you might have, & call it theraputic if you like. But what's being proposed here is genetically altering someone sexually before they're born, just to satisfy someone else's interests. There's nothing theraputic about that, & it's involuntary. That's an abuse.

Lack of codified law doesn't negate ethical lines, & complacency invites abuse. Desensitizing to the abuse just stalls the inevitable backlash & makes it more intense. Why promote that kind of crazy?

Why not? The world would be a much better place if all regular females were rendered obsolete (not that they aren't already) by shemales. :razz:

But seriously, it's something that's bound to happen. If not the extreme scenario I'm suggesting (hoping for) then there's going to be a sub-culture of people will undergo this procedure when the tech becomes available anyway.

The lines will continue to be blurred. Genetically modified humans for whatever reason, will exist in the near future and you're just going to have to live with it.

Gregory Stock, a world reknowned biophysicist and author of Redesigning Humans, is an advocate of human engineering. He says evolution will soon be guided by human choice. It is the same as sexual selection only faster and more precise. It's going to start small, beginning with voluntary genetic screening, then voluntary designer babies, and then it's going to go from there.

It's not crazy. Some people just aren't bound by petty outdated morals. If you think we're the only two people in the world who want this to happen then you are in for a rude awakening.

[hippifried]

Careful what you wish for. If anybody's going to end up obsolete, it probably won't be the half of the species that's actually able to reproduce.

[Rogers]

Who decides who'll be born how? It's always an abomination if it isn't natural or voluntary. If someone's arbitrary preferences are used to determine someone else's nature, how is that any different than rape?What if this new class of human is better off than other humans?

I wouldn't call it rape if she has an advantage over the rest of mankind.Better off according to whom? You're talking about playing God with other people's lives, without permission. Sounding more & more like Josef Mengele. This is eugenics.I'd take eugenics over plastic surgery anyday. At least being born without problems is better than wasting your life constantly trying to fix the surface, when the DNA or hormones remain unaltered.

Just take god out of your argument. Who cares. Even humanity today is what humans have made it through sexual selection. The pursuit of scientific knowledge shouldn't be bound by moral convictions. A fully functional shemale that could inseminate and give birth would be highly valuable for the survival of the human species and would be at the top of the food chain. Just watch the movie Gattica. Genetically altered humans CAN and will be accepted by society, and lauded.


Well keep in mind these poor souls will not come out of the factory as adults. They will have to grow up and their childhood will most likely be hell on earth. I can't imagine a mom and dad wanting to raise a person and tell them they are in the world to satisfy some future person's fetish life.

Did anyone see the movie "6th Day" with Arnold? Remember the biological toy doll? Think of any group in society who would be lusting after one that is anatomically correct? (barf)

The world contains many sick people and I'm sure sick business people to help them out of their money.
Why are you even here, since that's pretty much what porn and escort agencies do anyway? Don't tell me you're here looking for an actual long term relationship with a transgender. Dream on buddy. What I'm proposing is a step toward making something like that more normal and widespread without having to deal with nutcases. Instead you'd have natural shemales who were born that way without the usual psychological issues, insecurities or manly voice. Best of all you could marry them and have kids with them.

In any case, it'd be pretty unrealistic to suggest that they'd immediately be integrated into the mainstream population. Ideally they'd be in a controlled environment until they established a sizeable population. After that there would be plenty of options. They could be integrated into other countries and hopefully displace and replace lame ass regular females. Shemales could then even have their own country where you would have to integrate into their society.

Or if you want to go dark, I'm not going to lie, what you have in mind would probably happen in a laissez-faire economy... which would be awesome. Can't go wrong with a tranny theme park.

Liberals are so funny, but they are also sick!!!

I'm pretty sure he's actually one of your lot, queer1, or a libertarian. I often find it difficult to tell the difference sometimes. That would explain why he seems to have no qualms in creating humans to satisfy his desires. :thumbsdown

[paulgutierrez]

I'm pretty sure he's actually one of your lot, queer1, or a libertarian. I often find it difficult to tell the difference sometimes. That would explain why he seems to have no qualms in creating humans to satisfy his desires. :thumbsdown

No I'm not. He's a little jesus boy bound by pointless religious morale. You can't tell the difference because you are stupid. You've no concept of politics or economics. You see, I'm all for social freedoms and the normalization of shemales and sexual freedom, but I am a much greater advocate of economic freedom and freedom of research. I believe in a community where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great not be constrained by the small. I believe in a laiseez-faire state where humans are not inhibited by oppressive political, economic, and religious authority. Socially, I am far left, but economically, I am far right.

Yes, I am an anarcho-libertarian.

[paulgutierrez]

Careful what you wish for. If anybody's going to end up obsolete, it probably won't be the half of the species that's actually able to reproduce.You weren't reading.

Natural shemales could be designed to bear children. You should see the advances scientists have made with lab rats. And with cloning, there wouldn't really be a need for natural reproduction anyway.

But what's it matter to you, when the partners seek currently can't bear children?

The picture below would be awesome.

[hippifried]

Oh I'm listening, but as a man, I really don't want to open this can of worms. It's getting closer & closer to the point where women don't need us or our penises at all. If they decide they still want it, it's a lot easier to make a protuberance on a female than to add reproductive organs to a male. They're already set up for reproduction.

Women have an ax to grind too. They've been jacked around ever since they let us in on the secret of paternity. When people start choosing the sex of their offspring, the likelyhood is that females will start to dominate the world again. We'll just be drones.

[Rogers]

I'm pretty sure he's actually one of your lot, queer1, or a libertarian. I often find it difficult to tell the difference sometimes. That would explain why he seems to have no qualms in creating humans to satisfy his desires. :thumbsdown

You can't tell the difference because you are stupid.

Says the guy with absolutely no grasp of medical ethics. :wink:


You've no concept of politics or economics.

And you do? :lol:


Yes, I am an anarcho-libertarian.



I believe in a community where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great not be constrained by the small. I believe in a laiseez-faire state where humans are not inhibited by oppressive political, economic, and religious authority.

Sounds like Mengele to me.


Socially, I am far left, but economically, I am far right.

I.E. An extremist and amoral nutjob. Go back to your island, Dr. Morreau.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5-u486LjyU

[paulgutierrez]

Says the guy with absolutely no grasp of medical ethics. :wink:
Ethics are relative and cannot be equated to intelligence.




You've no concept of politics or economics.

And you do? :lol: .
Much more than you if you can't tell the difference from a libertarian and a pseudo-christian whose fake religious ideals sets limits on research and capitalism ("evil businessmen").


Sounds like Mengele to me.
I draw the line at torturing live human subjects out of sheer sociopathic pleasure. You have no idea who you're comparing me to.


I.E. An extremist and amoral nutjob. Go back to your island, Dr. Morreau.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5-u486LjyU
Thanks for the compliment. I only wish. But apples and oranges buddy.

[paulgutierrez]

Oh I'm listening, but as a man, I really don't want to open this can of worms. It's getting closer & closer to the point where women don't need us or our penises at all. If they decide they still want it, it's a lot easier to make a protuberance on a female than to add reproductive organs to a male. They're already set up for reproduction.
Well they would pretty much be accepting inferiority by attaching protuberances to females. They themselves would create the new gender war. But if there's one thing women hate it's getting periods. That's just one disadvantage. It's always been survival of the fittest, and I'm sure even they know they're not better off, just bitter about it. Even they can't deny the harsh realities of life when most of their population already subscribes to the notion of looking for partner that's strong and can protect them.



Women have an ax to grind too. They've been jacked around ever since they let us in on the secret of paternity.
Sex is instinctive, and by design males are physically stronger. In antiquities the first men wouldn't even bother courting them. You know what happened. Early women didn't let us in on patriarchy. It just happened.



When people start choosing the sex of their offspring, the likelyhood is that females will start to dominate the world again. We'll just be drones.

Doubt it. They've never dominated the world. In the event the tables are turned men will simply organize and retake everything. But it will never get to that point. Females will never dominate, even with their numbers. What do you think of the stereotype that females are naturally competitive with one other to the point of irrationality? Not quite sure if there's any truth to it, but I did hear about something interesting that occurs with lobsters. This may sound weird, but you don't have to put a lid on the pot when you cook female lobsters. When you cook a pot of male lobsters, they realize they're in this pot of boiling water, and use their bodies to make these ladders to help each other escape. So, you have to put a lid on the pot to keep them inside. But with female lobsters, you don't have to put a lid on the pot, because once they realize they're in a pot of boiling water, they all just start grabbing each other, holding each other down. They're like, ''lf l'm going to die, everyone's going to die.'' None of them wants to let any of the other ones get out of the pot.

In any case, reality is that most parents favor a son over a daughter as a firstborn anyway. There's already been studies and polls on this. As abortive screening techniques get more sophisticated and normalized, you'll see a rise in sons and a decrease in daughters. MY goal however is to replace females with shemales, and that makes it all the easier.

By the way, there's this graphic novel called Y-The Last Man. You should check it out. It's a pretty interesting look into a world without men.

[hippifried]

Prior to the discovery of paternity (not patriarchy), women were literally worshiped.

[paulgutierrez]

Prior to the discovery of paternity (not patriarchy), women were literally worshiped.
Yeah I meant paternity, freudian slip. But only in some cultures, and The Davinci Code :roll:

Even in Celtic tribes and Egyptian civilization where women were worshipped for their fertility, they were still seen as weak and unfit to rule or lead. In Celtic society, men would eventually realize how weak women were in battle and prescribed them roles as distractors instead. Hatshepsut was treated horribly post-humous in Ancient Egypt. Her statues were desecrated simply because she was a woman.

In Ancient Greece, women weren't even allowed to be citizens and were treated as property, same in Ancient Rome and Persia. Ancient middle easterners would often practice infanticide by burying their daughters in sand if they didn't get a son. Ancient Germanic tribes and Vikings went around raping every woman they came in contact with, so I don't know what you're talking about. Of course I'm not condoning it but it's a biological inevitability that's pretty much consistent in nature. Men as hunters, warriors, etc; women as gatherers, nurturers, etc. The weaker will be dominated, intellectual equality notwithstanding.

[Rogers]

Says the guy with absolutely no grasp of medical ethics. :wink:
Ethics are relative and cannot be equated to intelligence.

Wrong again. Medical ethics is a scholarly discipline and therefore CAN be equated to intelligence.


Much more than you if you can't tell the difference from a libertarian and a pseudo-christian whose fake religious ideals sets limits on research and capitalism ("evil businessmen").

No, I can tell the difference, it's just that I've never really understood why things like a person's sexuality have anything to do with politics. Politics should only ever be about economics in my opinion, and that places both libertarians and conservatives squarely in the same camp.



Sounds like Mengele to me.I draw the line at torturing live human subjects out of sheer sociopathic pleasure. You have no idea who you're comparing me to.

I'm sure you've convinced yourself that's the case, but yes I do know who I'm comparing you to. There was sound purpose in many of the experiments Mengele carried out. For example, his work on sterilization, and the effects of extreme heat, cold, and altitude on the human body. In fact, all of them had purpose in the eyes of Nazi ideology, and you pretty much seem like an idealogue to me. Didn't you mention wanting to not be hindered by morality? :wink: The problem was that he used humans as test subjects... and that'll be that "little thing" called medical ethics again which both you and Mengele have clearly never grasped.



I.E. An extremist and amoral nutjob. Go back to your island, Dr. Morreau.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5-u486LjyU
Thanks for the compliment. I only wish. But apples and oranges buddy.

Morreau's creations ended up killing him, and for good reason. You might also want to try reading Brave New World and even Frankenstein if you haven't already.

[paulgutierrez]

Says the guy with absolutely no grasp of medical ethics. :wink:
Ethics are relative and cannot be equated to intelligence.

Wrong again. Medical ethics is a scholarly discipline and therefore CAN be equated to intelligence.
Utter bullshit. Conforming to a point of view which LIMITS the knowledge one can obtain does not make you more intelligent.



No, I can tell the difference, it's just that I've never really understood why things like a person's sexuality have anything to do with politics. Politics should only ever be about economics in my opinion, and that places both libertarians and conservatives squarely in the same camp.
Then you're way out of the loop. Social issues like gay rights and abortion have drawn the line between democrats and republicans for years. I take it you've never even heard of the Bill of Rights much less know what laws are. Politics is more than just economics.



I'm sure you've convinced yourself that's the case, but yes I do know who I'm comparing you to. There was sound purpose in many of the experiments Mengele carried out. For example, his work on sterilization, and the effects of extreme heat, cold, and altitude on the human body. In fact, all of them had purpose in the eyes of Nazi ideology, and you pretty much seem like an idealogue to me. Didn't you mention wanting to not be hindered by morality? :wink: The problem was that he used humans as test subjects... and that'll be that "little thing" called medical ethics again which both you and Mengele have clearly never grasped.
Cool, I guess im a nazi now. When in doubt just call the guy you're arguing with a nazi, even if his goals are to fill the world with shemales. Did you know both Sweden and Canada conducted government mandated sterilization? Sweden's program only recently ended in the late 80's. Hardly Mengele-esque.

Mengele put jews in an oxygenless vacuum and never sedated his patients. He had fun killing and torturing his victims. What does any of that have to do with what I'm suggesting? Many of his goals have now been realized anyway. Eyecolor plastic surgery: check. Designer babies: check. All of which were accomplished without resorting to his brutality.


Morreau's creations ended up killing him, and for good reason. You might also want to try reading Brave New World and even Frankenstein if you haven't already.
Like I said, apples and oranges. Even though splicing human and animal DNA once again has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting, Moreau's creations turned on him because he allowed his failures to live a mildly restrictive life instead of simply terminating them. Instead of having them develop in controlled environments they were given too much room to roam and too much interaction and time to realize envy. He stupidly created a class war. If I had his mind and resources I would have done it right. Just consider that the original story was written decades ago before the levels of advances in technology that exist now.

As for Brave New World that's what's called a hypothetical technocracy. It's when government has production at maximum capacity, somehow having unlimited energy and resources and is able to take care of its citizens and give them everything they want. This virtually impossible utopia is where the economic spectrum is way way left. With 'Brave New World's' culture of "everyone belongs to everyone else", the elimination of competition, where every member of society receives the same food, housing, and soma, it's a socialist's wet dream. Even if I wanted this, we're a long way away from ever achieving such a society. Sure our American schools have taught us to abhor the idea of a "Brave New World" and we're supposed to just accept it through social engineering, but if you really think about it... it would be utopian, a paradise that most people dream of.

[paulgutierrez]

double post

[Rogers]

Says the guy with absolutely no grasp of medical ethics. :wink:
Ethics are relative and cannot be equated to intelligence.

Wrong again. Medical ethics is a scholarly discipline and therefore CAN be equated to intelligence.
Utter bullshit. Conforming to a point of view which LIMITS the knowledge one can obtain does not make you more intelligent.

You might want to check what both of us have said again. I never said anything about the study of medical ethics making anyone "more" intelligent. You're tripping over your own words, Paul.


Then you're way out of the loop. Social issues like gay rights and abortion have drawn the line between democrats and republicans for years. I take it you've never even heard of the Bill of Rights much less know what laws are. Politics is more than just economics.

Nope, I'm not way out of the loop, only out of the loopiness. Where I live now things like gay rights and abortion were settled quite sometime ago. I hate to disappoint you, but neither democracy nor politics are U.S. inventions.


Cool, I guess im a nazi now. When in doubt just call the guy you're arguing with a nazi, even if his goals are to fill the world with shemales. Did you know both Sweden and Canada conducted government mandated sterilization? Sweden's program only recently ended in the late 80's. Hardly Mengele-esque.

Wrong again. I never called you a Nazi. I called you an idealogue and someone who lacked a grasp of medical ethics. And yes I did know about Sweden and Canada. But who said that fascistic ideas died with the Third-Reich?
http://www.independentliving.org/docs5/Sterilization.html


Moreau's creations turned on him because he allowed his failures to live a mildly restrictive life instead of simply terminating them. Instead of having them develop in controlled environments they were given too much room to roam and too much interaction and time to realize envy. He stupidly created a class war. If I had his mind and resources I would have done it right. Just consider that the original story was written decades ago before the levels of advances in technology that exist now.

Moreau's creations killed him because they found out he wasn't the God he had actually tried to be. Again, it's a simple case of medical ethics and not mucking around with thinking, intelligent organisms.


As for Brave New World that's what's called a hypothetical technocracy. It's when government has production at maximum capacity, somehow having unlimited energy and resources and is able to take care of its citizens and give them everything they want. This virtually impossible utopia is where the economic spectrum is way way left. With 'Brave New World's' culture of "everyone belongs to everyone else", the elimination of competition, where every member of society receives the same food, housing, and soma, it's a socialist's wet dream. Even if I wanted this, we're a long way away from ever achieving such a society. Sure our American schools have taught us to abhor the idea of a "Brave New World" and we're supposed to just accept it through social engineering, but if you really think about it... it would be utopian, a paradise that most people dream of.

Brave New World is a great book, one of my all time favorites actually. It poses great questions about what mankind could acheive, but also the major pitfalls that could happen if we ever attempted them. For example, creating some people to be literally nothing more than slaves??? Some fucking utopia that would be. John "Savage" commits suicide in the end. Creating "shemales" as you call them to suit some guys sexual desires is simply wrong, because as I've tried to point out to you they would be every bit as much thinking, intelligent beings as the rest of us... unless you purposefully dull their minds. They'd be treated as sex-objects amongst other things, and medical ethics isn't just about biology, but psychology and psychiatry too. No one can explain things to you more basically than that.

[paulgutierrez]

Moreau's creations killed him because they found out he wasn't the God he had actually tried to be.
You only mention extreme negative examples. What about Gattaca where genetically modified humans are not only accepted but extolled? There was a slight negative context as the protagonist was not genetically modified and was highly flawed, but he was just one guy. In the bigger picture you could see how it was good for humanity. The human gene pool was teeming with high IQ's and ubermensches and was weeding out low IQ's and the weak.


Again, it's a simple case of medical ethics and not mucking around with thinking, intelligent organisms.
It could start out as voluntary where consenting adults have themselves altered post-birth who then give birth to "different" offspring. I'm not actually proposing it should be gone about the Dr. Moreau way.


Brave New World is a great book, one of my all time favorites actually. It poses great questions about what mankind could acheive, but also the major pitfalls that could happen if we ever attempted them. For example, creating some people to be literally nothing more than slaves??? Some fucking utopia that would be. John "Savage" commits suicide in the end. Creating "shemales" as you call them to suit some guys sexual desires is simply wrong, because as I've tried to point out to you they would be every bit as much thinking, intelligent beings as the rest of us... unless you purposefully dull their minds. They'd be treated as sex-objects amongst other things, and medical ethics isn't just about biology, but psychology and psychiatry too. No one can explain things to you more basically than that.
They weren't actually slaves. They did have respective classes where people would be born to do certain things but there was perfect social equality among all classes and citizens; there was an immense amount of freedom (sexual and otherwise) and they could do and have whatever they wanted. It really didn't matter what their occupations were, or what roles they were bred into. To each according to his or her need. It was a society where that actually worked.

John Savage's suicide is a result of culture clash. He was basically an ethnocentrist to the extreme and couldn't respect other peoples' way of life. He'd probably have killed himself in Denmark, San Francisco or Amsterdam too.

There's a broad range of possibilities that could come from populating the world with natural shemales. Sex dolls would be an incidental side effect of course but one small facet in the pursuit of forever changing the face of humanity. You can't create an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

I don't see why this is such a big deal. It's the same as a guy saying we need more hot chicks in this world, or a girl saying we need more hot guys. Plus, there's already such things as hermaphrodites so it's not actually toying with nature that much. It's just that the ones in this world are all deformed miserable existences like Caster Semenya and the hijras of India who make up a sizeable community. They all hate themselves and want to die. Wouldn't it be nice if being a natural shemale was something to be proud of?

[Rogers]

They weren't actually slaves. They did have respective classes where people would be born to do certain things but there was perfect social equality among all classes and citizens; there was an immense amount of freedom (sexual and otherwise) and they could do and have whatever they wanted. It really didn't matter what their occupations were, or what roles they were bred into. To each according to his or her need. It was a society where that actually worked.

John Savage's suicide is a result of culture clash. He was basically an ethnocentrist to the extreme and couldn't respect other peoples' way of life. He'd probably have killed himself in Denmark, San Francisco or Amsterdam too.

Now we're getting to the crux of the point, I think. John the Savage was caught between two worlds he didn't fit into because of an accident beyond his control before he was even born. He certainly saw some of them as slaves, and so do I. It's you who are proposing big changes to the way humans are, not me OR John.


There's a broad range of possibilities that could come from populating the world with natural shemales. Sex dolls would be an incidental side effect of course but one small facet in the pursuit of forever changing the face of humanity. You can't create an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

I don't see why this is such a big deal. It's the same as a guy saying we need more hot chicks in this world, or a girl saying we need more hot guys. Plus, there's already such things as hermaphrodites so it's not actually toying with nature that much. It's just that the ones in this world are all deformed miserable existences like Caster Semenya and the hijras of India who make up a sizeable community. They all hate themselves and want to die. Wouldn't it be nice if being a natural shemale was something to be proud of?

Sex dolls, LOL!!! Interesting idea, but you're thinking with your dick again... and so was I for a few seconds there. :lol: It's not about you, it's about the "shemales" you wish to create. What you're suggesting would work ethically with artifical intelligence, but even then it would have consequences.

Don't Date Robots!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu0TXl15PgU

Wouldn't it be much better and simpler if in the future we were able to fix the fault in the brain that makes transsexuals think they are born in the wrong body? But that's really a question TS' have to answer, not me.

[trish]

I’m already pretty pissed off at my non-existent creator for mucking things up for me. If there were a human being who was deliberately responsible for my predicament, heaven help him.

[hippifried]

There you go. Testimony in the first person. It was a bit hard for me to explain, not having the predicament & all.

Can I get a witness?! :)

[Justawannabe]

Not that I am advocating making a sci-fi style hermaphrodite, but once he does have a point in one way. At some point we will have the technology to determine the majority if not all of a babies traits, if we don't use it, relying on natural selection and all it's failures, won't we be just as ethically responsible for letting natural transsexuals exist?

Nazis and Moreau aside, both evil not so much for what they wanted to know as for the insensitivity to suffering and death of their subjects, would it be evil to start an entirely isolated colony that knew only a mixed sex existence.

You will someday see something similar in other traits designed to adapt folks to local situations as we move off earth.

I could easily see it as economical to have ALL the humans sent to a new world able to reproduce rather than having to protect half the colony. No wasted shipping of minimally reproductive males, no social isolation of individual genders in the new society tying up creative thought, etc.

Just saying that our view that he is creating a type of living sexual toy, or mentally tortured individual, is all only true within our current societal framework. I could make the same argument that allowing for female reproduction in a male dominated society is just as unethical. She is subject to being viewed as property, as a sex object and almost certain to be suffer from injustice.

Just saying before we go all 'natural' is ethical, we would have to really examine if natural produces the best results.

[trish]

Just like hundreds of thousands of other species, humans have always had a hand in the direction of evolution. Look at sexual selection, for example. Certainly the exaggerated displays of secondary sexual characteristics (larger breasts than any other primate, hour-glass figures, luxuriant manes etc.) are the result of selection pressures which find their source, as least in part, in human aesthetic and sexual preferences. Wars have probably selected against the gullible, the foolhardy and favored the wily and cautious. The point is simply that the behaviors in which humans choose to engage help shape the future generations of humans. Today we can determine whether a fetus would be born with Down syndrome and decide on that basis whether to abort or not. These are all examples of applying a certain kind of selection pressure, rather than actively designing the code for a human being. I do not doubt that our engineering will become more deliberate as our skills increase.

So is there a line we shouldn’t cross (invoking the moral or ethical sense of “shouldn’t”)? I don’t know? But I do know that people will inevitably be born or created with defects; defects that diminish or incapacitate their recipients physically, mentally, psychologically or socially. I also know that people will blame their engineers (and rightly so) for all their perceived imperfections, whether they’re due to deliberate design, negligent design, or just plain ignorance. Not all engineers will be able to avoid forever the wrath of their creations. The only way God escapes the existential justice sought by those born almost defenseless into a cold, intolerant universe of senseless pain, persistent worry, disease, war and death is by not existing. It would seem the “natural is ethical” philosophy has one thing going for it, namely there’s no one to blame. If there has to be evil in the cosmos, wouldn’t be nice at least if no one were to blame?

However, I don’t think this argument is definitive. If one could’ve eliminated some suffering through genetic engineering, is it blameworthy to have chosen not to?

Some questions just don’t have answers because the concepts involved (in this case “morality” and “ethics”) are social constructions that have yet to evolve to the point where they decide the issue. The issue remains, in principle, indeterminate until that point in history arrives. I only ask that civilizations that genetically engineer their future generations also endorse and adopt legislation that allows for the prosecution of genetic engineers by disenchanted “customers.”

[hippifried]

Not that I am advocating making a sci-fi style hermaphrodite, but once he does have a point in one way. At some point we will have the technology to determine the majority if not all of a babies traits, if we don't use it, relying on natural selection and all it's failures, won't we be just as ethically responsible for letting natural transsexuals exist?.Not really. It's still not your decision to make.


Nazis and Moreau aside, both evil not so much for what they wanted to know as for the insensitivity to suffering and death of their subjects, would it be evil to start an entirely isolated colony that knew only a mixed sex existence.Not evil, but not ethical either. You're still denying choices. & if you can get colonists there, it can't be totally isolated. There's no reason to colonize if it never gets any other visitors.


You will someday see something similar in other traits designed to adapt folks to local situations as we move off earth.

I could easily see it as economical to have ALL the humans sent to a new world able to reproduce rather than having to protect half the colony. No wasted shipping of minimally reproductive males, no social isolation of individual genders in the new society tying up creative thought, etc.Not really. Why bother shipping males at all when you can just transport the seed. Under natural conditions, half the offspring will end up male anyway, but you have to figure that up to date technology would accompany the colonists. They could work out any ratio they want. It'd be a brave new world. As long as we're doing sci-fi scenarios, most of the colonists couold travel as frozen embryos. You'd only need a handful of adults to set everything up & start raising the rest.


Just saying that our view that he is creating a type of living sexual toy, or mentally tortured individual, is all only true within our current societal framework. I could make the same argument that allowing for female reproduction in a male dominated society is just as unethical. She is subject to being viewed as property, as a sex object and almost certain to be suffer from injustice.

Just saying before we go all 'natural' is ethical, we would have to really examine if natural produces the best results.It's ALL about the living sexual toy. There's no other reason to do it. Social constructs change with every generation. We tend to project our own ethos & culture on on other cultures past & future, but there's no reason to think it's even remotely true. Do we even know our own nature? The more we try to figure it out, the more we get bogged down in opinions & memes. "Best" is a subjective word. Nature produces natural results. Ethics only come into play when we start trying to change things.

[techi]

Altering the genetics of fetus's or babies seems like an abomination to me.

Beyond the nazi fantasy of an island of genetically engineered shemale sex slaves located off the coast of Thailand, there's more down to earth societal problems.

Look at China with it's 1 child policy and it's cultural preference for male children. If Chinese could choose the sex of thier 1 child(male/shemale/female) you'd get something close to an all male generation then POOF no more Chinese.

If we were just talking about consenting adults genetically altering thier own bodies that wouldn't be a fascist abomination but it's still not clear that it wouldn't cause chaos and dysfunction in the social fabric.

Just imagine the chaos it could cause in the world of pro athletes if everyone could alter thier strength and reflexes via genetic changes. Being a fantastic home run hitter would be about as special as being a garbage man. And at that point how do you decide who gets stuck being the garbage man?

Or what if the changes were limited to appearance? Wouldn't that actually rob us of part of our individuality? People are compeditive, wouldn't we all end up choosing from a small selection of near optimal looks? Woman already don't like when someone else is wearing the exact same clothes as them. Can you imagine the rage at seeing that someone else showed up to the party wearing the exact same face?

Something tells me we just shouldn't try to engineer the gene pool in too many ways that go beyond natural breeding.

Besides, adversity in life can turn out to be a blessing. Would eliminating all "defects" make peoples lives any richer? Is it justification enough to warrent mucking around with our genetic code?
Can we say with certainty that Stevie Wonders would have had a better life if his eyesight was restored?
FDR was said to have become a bettter man through his cripling fight with polio and that it helped form him into the man he was when he became president. Would he have been the man that he was if he had avoided becoming a cripple? Would his life have been richer?

So no, I don't think everything we might classify as a "defect" would be reason enough to muck around with the gene pool. The only justification that I can think of would be to cure illness's that rob people of thier natural born ability to think. Curing something like alzheimer's thru some type of genetic manipulation sure... that i'd consider supporting.

Oh and, heaven forbid that any bastards like Bush&Cheney ever gained control over a medical system capable of genetically manipulate our offspring. Beavis and Butthead would become very popular child names.

[Justawannabe]

Trish -
Good point about creations turning on the engineer if possible. Response off the cuff would be why don't we turn on our parents more? They know the risks inherent in the family line, but they still pass on bad teeth and cancer risks, should those children turn on their parents?

Hippie -
You are saying that I am denying choices, but by natural processes no individual chooses his sex, so what is being denied?

You say it is not my choice to make, saying random chance somehow relieves us of the ethical responsibility of allowing suffering to continue. I do not buy the argument, if I have the means to alleviate suffering in an individual who cannot speak for themselves, should I not do it?

I agree, you could send embryos, but the issue remains, why send two sexes rather than one dual purpose one? How many adults would you need to get protect/nurture the children through the first twenty years and would the number make it economically more viable to send one sex? The point of the sci-fi scenario is to ask why the current set of sexes makes more ethical sense than a new set that has more advantages given the restrictions.

And no offense, but its NOT all about the living sexual toy. There is a scenario right above that covered one possible other reason. How about the gender less society to remove significant amounts of societal tension? You say its not our choice to make but the reality is we make a tremendous amount of choices for children even now. Inoculations, schooling, religious training...

If the technology were to proceed far enough that the child could change their gender upon adulthood would that in any way change how you see it? This would in effect be the high tech version of a lifestyle already being pushed by some folks, ie raising their children in a completely gender neutral form.

techi
It's certainly portrayed in sci-fi and religion as abomination now, I'm just not sure that the fears aen't throwing some of the baby out with the bathwater.

Take your China example - they could just as easily wipe themselves out with a no children policy but they don't. It would take generations of Chinese doing what your fearing to actually bring about a loss of the Chinese to the human gene pool. I think a year or two of no female births would see a change in policy and cultural priority, don't you?

Your athletic example actually shows the un-ethical side of not making it available. Your saying that the guy with the genetically big biceps deserves his exalted position and the guy without deserves to be a garbage man. A lack of natural gifts is effectively a curse or disease we could cure, but would choose not to for fear of offending nature/god/a genetically powerful elite?

The example of woman and appearance is even worse.

You point out that adversity can produce great things, but we don't subject ourselves to starvation, exposure or crippling injury in an effort to produce the rare greats. We create food banks, health care systems and shelters to preserve every individual. We produce bicycle helmets and chlorinate the public pools. You remind me of Mr Glass in the movie Invincible. Should we create disaster so that hero's will emerge and benefit a greater number of people?

The nightmare scenario you point out about Bush and Cheney could/will happen regardless of whether we use these abilities for the general public or not. The technology will be there. What you are talking about would be about health care becoming a single military like entity, usable by powerful individuals. That is a nightmare that has nothing to with this specific topic, but about the consequences of centralized authority. Medicine can already do plenty of horrible things, let's not forget the era of enforced sterilization of congenital idiots here in the US.

Trish hit it closest for me... we elevate the random to godlike status in a desperate effort to avoid responsibility for our fate. We want someone to blame but we fear what it would mean if we had someone. We ARE self directed at this point in our evolution. The issue is not to run in fear from that, but to have discussions about what that actually means for us. Is nature made it that way good enough? If it is, why do we fix twisted legs in children and put braces on teeth. Why do we allow plastic surgery that make us more attractive and likely to breed, if natural selection alone should be allowed access to our gene pool?

[paulgutierrez]

However, I don’t think this argument is definitive. If one could’ve eliminated some suffering through genetic engineering, is it blameworthy to have chosen not to?
You can't really blame chance. You can be mad at your parents for not making you perfect when they could have but it's not like you can hold them accountable for having you more "traditionally". I guess you're arguing against the idea of it and how it could alter social conventions. Looking at the bigger picture it would get to the point where eliminating certain congenital defects will just be mandatory.


I only ask that civilizations that genetically engineer their future generations also endorse and adopt legislation that allows for the prosecution of genetic engineers by disenchanted “customers.”
Couldn't happen because of potential opportunists who may feign disenchantment. The only makers who could possibly be held accountable are the parents, but that wouldn't be realistic either because their choice in how the child was born is the same as choosing to have the child in the first place. And think about gays adopting children, etc.

There would only be legislation to prohibit certain types of traits for the sake of "preserving" humanity (which would gradually become more lenient), like maybe a height ceiling or floor, restricting certain animalistic or alien traits, restricting retardation and other things considered unnatural like hermaphrodites AT FIRST. You know how the slippery slope goes. Adults who voluntarily alter themselves (cosmetic or otherwise) to become shemales, may get married, and may want children in their image. There's never unanimous opposition to an idea, especially one as harmless is this.

There's always someone to blame for your existence. God, parents, nature, yourself. Being born a female in a male's body isn't much different from a black person who hates being black. Throwing some scientist into the mix isn't going to impact anything. Of course with the level of technology, reconstructive procedures would have to be as equally advanced, so if you don't like yourself you could probably change yourself, and in the future with gene therapy it'll have even better effects and results than today's SRS which is already pretty damn good. Science is always the sure savior. God and nature definitely are not, and cannot be relied upon.

[Justawannabe]

Not sure I'd go so far as to call science a sure savior, but it is the only one we can control. God, if he exists, acts as he will. Nature and random chance are also something we can only bend and that bending might be a good definition for goal of science.

[Rogers]

Being born a female in a male's body isn't much different from a black person who hates being black.

It is much different. Transsexuality, even just plain sissiness, may well just be down to the effects of chemicals on the developing fetus. The womb is a chemically hostile environment for every male. I remember reading once that the development of a male fetus is faster than a females (perhaps to get the male through it's most vulnerable period quicker???). This may explain why more males are transgendered and also more likely to die before birth or soon after. Also, male homosexuals are more likely to have several older brothers perhaps due autoimmunity.

Enzyme Activity and Propitious Fetal Growth
http://www.love-shy.com/Gilmartin/Chapter02/EnzymeActivity.html

Fraternal birth order and sexual orientation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraternal_birth_order_and_sexual_orientation

[techi]

techi
It's certainly portrayed in sci-fi and religion as abomination now, I'm just not sure that the fears aen't throwing some of the baby out with the bathwater.

Take your China example - they could just as easily wipe themselves out with a no children policy but they don't. It would take generations of Chinese doing what your fearing to actually bring about a loss of the Chinese to the human gene pool. I think a year or two of no female births would see a change in policy and cultural priority, don't you?


If left up to the choice of the parents? It seems far from certain.

I don't think people always take a long-term rational view when perceived near term gains are on the table. Sometimes people just ride a dysfunctional system until the wheels fall off the bus. There are plenty of examples of this in our current economic crisis.

While I agree that there'd be an eventual response, it's not clear that it would occur before a tremendous amount of damage had been done. Keep in mind that the real problems aren't felt until many years in the future.

If the government was calling the shots instead of the parents then that's another matter entirely. In that situation I wouldn't see this scenario at all.

[techi]

Your athletic example actually shows the un-ethical side of not making it available. Your saying that the guy with the genetically big biceps deserves his exalted position and the guy without deserves to be a garbage man. A lack of natural gifts is effectively a curse or disease we could cure, but would choose not to for fear of offending nature/god/a genetically powerful elite?


Exactly who is lacking natural gifts? Anyone with a genetic trait that is deemed to produce a sub-par economic and/or social results?

And what is that judgement based on? Societal norms?

Who would you have make this decision? Society?

[Justawannabe]

Your original example was that it would be bad for society to allow custom designing babies because we would not know who to reward for natural gifts using specific examples of sports figures and garbage men.

We already make decisions as a society on what traits we want to encourage. We encourage them through money and media attention, which often translates to ready access to sexual partners. That is balanced slightly by access to birth control and worries over monetary blackmail, but we still give them tremendous access.

You talk about who deserves to be the garbage man vs the sports hero. Again, we already make that decision, but we do it in the most unfair way possible to the baby. A parent is allowed to select any genetic mix they want that is available as a pre packaged person, especially if you go through a sperm bank. We only outlaw incest, because of the damage it does to the kids.

What would be allowed or not would be restricted by society, much like now. The difference is that many of the decisions could be informed ones rather than emotional ones. Not saying the restrictions would be, only that they could be. We have all been too programed by bad movies about genetic engineering producing superhuman evil, creepy alien eyed children and non-human abominations to really understand the science now.

[techi]

Heh, well, I'm not so worried about creating superhuman evil. I'd be far more concerned that what you promote leads to everyone being pretty much the same in every way. A lack of diversity... A bland form of evil.

I just don't think you can fix societal problems with genetic engineering. You seem to think that's possible.

Will genetic engineering make our politicians honest? Haha, I doubt it.

Will our CEO's become less greedy? Not a chance.

Will you end racism with genetic engineering? In our society you couldn't genetically engineer that without having all babies born either white or blind. Solutions which are unacceptable for obvious reasons.

Are you going to end economic injustices with genetic engineering? Seems rather unlikely in the presence of racism. But putting racism aside, your solution of engineering everyone to be homerun hitters is an abomination. It robs us of part of our individuality. That baseball players are highly rewarded economically is an entirely different matter... a societal problem that we attempt to balance with a system of taxation and subsidies.

Are you going to cure uglyness with genetic engineering? If everyone looks beautiful then that aspect of our individuality becomes meaningless. In a relative sense you'd be destroying beauty at the same time.

Societal problems are solved by becoming more civilized, not by engineering away our diversity. It's part of what the reforms of New Deal and Great Society were about.

As for the fact that society already encourages certain features and abilities, sure this is true. But that doesn't make society right and it's judgements are currently unenforceable. People of all sizes, shapes, complexions, abilities and economic backgrounds end up having kids pretty much regardless of what society is squalking about.

Life is about making the most of the hand of cards you are dealt. I'm not opposed to leveraging science to make the most out of our lives. But genetic engineering as you describe it smacks of an envy driven redeal or loaded deck. It's just not a very interesting card game when everyone is holding the same hand.

[Rogers]

We have all been too programed by bad movies about genetic engineering producing superhuman evil, creepy alien eyed children and non-human abominations to really understand the science now.

Not really. Just watched Gattaca again. It's a beautiful, intelligent film which has never scared me. It points out that if our species reached the state where everyone is pigeon-holed at a genetic level then people will no longer strive to "swim that extra bit further". They just won't be rewarded for it for one thing. Like it or not, you'd almost certainly end up with fixed elite and servant classes just as in Brave New World. Society can't function solely with Einsteins', as we're always going to need garbage men until artificial technology makes massive advances. I don't know about you, but I personally find the idea of people being created to pretty much solely serve others highly distasteful at best, and I'd rather take my chances with fate than a "human god".

Also, there is something fundamentally human about our desire and drive to try and overcome the adversities that life throws at us. Take Stephen Hawking for example, he would never have accomplished what he has in his field had he not been trapped in a body which has forced him to turn in on his mind. He's admitted that himself. By doing the things both you and Paul are suggesting we risk destroying core aspects of our humanity, nevermind evolution itself.

"You will not grow if you sit in a beautiful flower garden."
- Elisabeth Kübler-Ross

Phenotype = Genotype + ENVIRONMENT.

[paulgutierrez]

Heh, well, I'm not so worried about creating superhuman evil. I'd be far more concerned that what you promote leads to everyone being pretty much the same in every way. A lack of diversity... A bland form of evil.

I just don't think you can fix societal problems with genetic engineering. You seem to think that's possible.

Will genetic engineering make our politicians honest? Haha, I doubt it.

Will our CEO's become less greedy? Not a chance.

Will you end racism with genetic engineering? In our society you couldn't genetically engineer that without having all babies born either white or blind. Solutions which are unacceptable for obvious reasons.

Are you going to end economic injustices with genetic engineering? Seems rather unlikely in the presence of racism. But putting racism aside, your solution of engineering everyone to be homerun hitters is an abomination. It robs us of part of our individuality. That baseball players are highly rewarded economically is an entirely different matter... a societal problem that we attempt to balance with a system of taxation and subsidies.

Are you going to cure uglyness with genetic engineering? If everyone looks beautiful then that aspect of our individuality becomes meaningless. In a relative sense you'd be destroying beauty at the same time.

Societal problems are solved by becoming more civilized, not by engineering away our diversity. It's part of what the reforms of New Deal and Great Society were about.

As for the fact that society already encourages certain features and abilities, sure this is true. But that doesn't make society right and it's judgements are currently unenforceable. People of all sizes, shapes, complexions, abilities and economic backgrounds end up having kids pretty much regardless of what society is squalking about.

Life is about making the most of the hand of cards you are dealt. I'm not opposed to leveraging science to make the most out of our lives. But genetic engineering as you describe it smacks of an envy driven redeal or loaded deck. It's just not a very interesting card game when everyone is holding the same hand.
The advantages of social cohesion are apparent in the military and private schools, but moreso in history and civilization. And nobody is proposing everyone be a carbon copy of one another.




We have all been too programed by bad movies about genetic engineering producing superhuman evil, creepy alien eyed children and non-human abominations to really understand the science now.

Not really. Just watched Gattaca again. It's a beautiful, intelligent film which has never scared me. It points out that if our species reached the state where everyone is pigeon-holed at a genetic level then people will no longer strive to "swim that extra bit further". They just won't be rewarded for it for one thing. Like it or not, you'd almost certainly end up with fixed elite and servant classes just as in Brave New World. Society can't function solely with Einsteins', as we're always going to need garbage men until artificial technology makes massive advances. I don't know about you, but I personally find the idea of people being created to pretty much solely serve others highly distasteful at best, and I'd rather take my chances with fate than a "human god".

Also, there is something fundamentally human about our desire and drive to try and overcome the adversities that life throws at us. Take Stephen Hawking for example, he would never have accomplished what he has in his field had he not been trapped in a body which has forced him to turn in on his mind. He's admitted that himself. By doing the things both you and Paul are suggesting we risk destroying core aspects of our humanity, nevermind evolution itself.

"You will not grow if you sit in a beautiful flower garden."
- Elisabeth Kübler-Ross

Phenotype = Genotype + ENVIRONMENT.
It'll just raise the bar. A spike in evolution. Fallacy of composition need not apply, critical mass unlikely, humanity will just keep climbing the ladder, such that their dumbest will seem like geniuses compared to the average person of today. It's the same pattern if you compared the people of today to the people of the past.

What Hawking claims may be true but he is still one person. A team of similarly brilliant minds can accomplish much more than one person, and could attain the massive advances in technology you speak of. While I do believe in the human spirit, the human spirit will always come secondary to genetics. A handicapped person with a brilliant mind is still a brilliant person. To say that a debilitating condition is a good thing is a bit far reaching, especially considering all other cripples and geniuses. Steven Hawkings is a rarity. Correlation does not equal causation.

And are you actually saying that a functioning society NEEDS 'have-nots' coexisting underneath the 'haves' to survive? Maybe you should rethink your ideology. I also didn't know you people were such firm believers of the American Dream.

[hippifried]

A spike in evolution? That's a stretch.

Is it evolution if it's artificially engineered?

Will the designed engineering have to continue?

What will become of the tinkering if left on its own?

What bugs will be in the newly designed system? Nobody can foretell all contingencies.

What if we just end up with mules?

How many failed experiments are acceptable? We are talking about human beings here.

Why not just create asexual females that could morph male genetalia when necessary, like frogs? Those few drones would only need to produce sperm, & only a few times. The rest of the population would be free of the encumberance of exterior genetalia.

I think you're looking at this all wrong. Such tinkering would most likely end up being used to get rid of males altogether. Don't assume that current social mores will still be here in a few generations.

[techi]

It's just not a very interesting card game when everyone is holding the same hand.
The advantages of social cohesion are apparent in the military and private schools, but moreso in history and civilization. And nobody is proposing everyone be a carbon copy of one another.

I see, not exactly the same, everyone just gets the same hair and eye color or something.


And are you actually saying that a functioning society NEEDS 'have-nots' coexisting underneath the 'haves' to survive?

I don't think anyone is saying that. I think there is acknowledgement of flaws in our society. I just reject your determination that the flaws are the people that you label as "have-nots". You may try to deflect that by saying it's society's determination and that you're merely embracing the wisdom of society. I'd respond that it's a flaw in society's determinations and by embracing that flaw you have become part of it. Society simply has more learning to do.

Rather than eliminating differences, I think society would be far better off being forced to continue to improve it's perspective regarding those that are different than them. On the whole, exposure to things that are different is a positive learning process.

As for scientific advance, it's far from clear that genetics is the primary driving factor in scientific advance. I think far larger factors are in the health, organization, independance and accessibility of our academic institutions. A good present day example of dysfunction can be found in economics where the flawed ideas of the Chicago School have come to dominate to such a degree that other schools of thought have been drowned out. Its just hard to get idea's that go against the Chicago School published. Engineered super brains can come up with all the discoveries they want and it will do no good when said discoveries are not acknowledged.

Also, a diverse gene pool is preferable in the face of new diseases. Virus's mutate in unexpected ways, you cannot engineer protections against all possible mutations with thier yet to be determined lines of attack. Narrow the gene pool and you may find that you've eliminated your frontline defenses. Or do you somehow find it more ethical that all of mankind perish rather than allow the possibility that some would be lucky enough to have genetic resistance to the mutated virus?

Sorry, I just don't buy the pro genetic engineering camps arguements. In the words of James Traficant: "Beam me up Scotty!!!"

[Rogers]

It'll just raise the bar. A spike in evolution. Fallacy of composition need not apply, critical mass unlikely, humanity will just keep climbing the ladder, such that their dumbest will seem like geniuses compared to the average person of today. It's the same pattern if you compared the people of today to the people of the past.

You're talking about a revolution, not evolution. And I don't see too many people flocking to your banner.


What Hawking claims may be true but he is still one person. A team of similarly brilliant minds can accomplish much more than one person, and could attain the massive advances in technology you speak of. While I do believe in the human spirit, the human spirit will always come secondary to genetics. A handicapped person with a brilliant mind is still a brilliant person. To say that a debilitating condition is a good thing is a bit far reaching, especially considering all other cripples and geniuses. Steven Hawkings is a rarity. Correlation does not equal causation.

And what about the likes of Michelangelo (depression), Van Gogh (bipolar disorder with epilepsy), Charles Dickens (O.C.D.), Samuel Johnson (depression with Tourette's), and Lincoln and Churchill (both depression)? The list goes on and on. The creativity of genius is often associated with "madness", and all of these illnesses would be eliminated in your Brave New World. As I've already tried to illustrate to you by using the example of Stephen Hawking, you'd be messing around with core aspects of humanity. Have you actually read B.N.W.? All you have in it is programed DRONES. Even the smart ones are drones too. Parents would be trying to outcompete each other to produce even better drones.


And are you actually saying that a functioning society NEEDS 'have-nots' coexisting underneath the 'haves' to survive? Maybe you should rethink your ideology. I also didn't know you people were such firm believers of the American Dream.

I'm not saying anything of the kind. I am not an ideologue. Since we've been talking about films, I'll throw a quote from another one at you: "I believe God is a sadist, but probably doesn't even know it". I never made this reality, and I'm extremely cautious about false "gods" trying to remake it. I find it highly strange that you want to lift mankind to a lofty perch with as yet undeveloped, untried, and untested genetics, but are so laissez-faire in terms of economics. It seems schizoid at best. No one has any real clue where your ideas would take us...

[beandip]

I'll order up a few.

[hippifried]

Alright, grab the chips.
Beandip's buying a round for the house. :D

[paulgutierrez]

It'll just raise the bar. A spike in evolution. Fallacy of composition need not apply, critical mass unlikely, humanity will just keep climbing the ladder, such that their dumbest will seem like geniuses compared to the average person of today. It's the same pattern if you compared the people of today to the people of the past.

You're talking about a revolution, not evolution. And I don't see too many people flocking to your banner.


What Hawking claims may be true but he is still one person. A team of similarly brilliant minds can accomplish much more than one person, and could attain the massive advances in technology you speak of. While I do believe in the human spirit, the human spirit will always come secondary to genetics. A handicapped person with a brilliant mind is still a brilliant person. To say that a debilitating condition is a good thing is a bit far reaching, especially considering all other cripples and geniuses. Steven Hawkings is a rarity. Correlation does not equal causation.

And what about the likes of Michelangelo (depression), Van Gogh (bipolar disorder with epilepsy), Charles Dickens (O.C.D.), Samuel Johnson (depression with Tourette's), and Lincoln and Churchill (both depression)? The list goes on and on. The creativity of genius is often associated with "madness", and all of these illnesses would be eliminated in your Brave New World. As I've already tried to illustrate to you by using the example of Stephen Hawking, you'd be messing around with core aspects of humanity. Have you actually read B.N.W.? All you have in it is programed DRONES. Even the smart ones are drones too. Parents would be trying to outcompete each other to produce even better drones.


And are you actually saying that a functioning society NEEDS 'have-nots' coexisting underneath the 'haves' to survive? Maybe you should rethink your ideology. I also didn't know you people were such firm believers of the American Dream.

I'm not saying anything of the kind. I am not an ideologue. Since we've been talking about films, I'll throw a quote from another one at you: "I believe God is a sadist, but probably doesn't even know it". I never made this reality, and I'm extremely cautious about false "gods" trying to remake it. I find it highly strange that you want to lift mankind to a lofty perch with as yet undeveloped, untried, and untested genetics, but are so laissez-faire in terms of economics. It seems schizoid at best. No one has any real clue where your ideas would take us...
Christ your arguments are pathetic. You're actually suggesting that Tourette's syndrome or epilepsy is a good thing, as if every genius on this earth has had some sort of crazy impairment which somehow unlocked their full potential, when I would say it would cause the complete opposite. Handicaps tend to stunt potentials and prevent people from achieving their dreams. I could just as easily say that if those people didn't have handicaps they'd be able to experience more, satisfy their curiosities and have a much more fulfilling life. They'd have nothing holding them back, save for the usual obstacles to achieving goals, and that is just common sense.

In any case, Justawannabe and I have already hit every nail in the head. All that's left are you idiot hacks repeating the same defeated arguments.

[Rogers]

Christ your arguments are pathetic. You're actually suggesting that Tourette's syndrome or epilepsy is a good thing, as if every genius on this earth has had some sort of crazy impairment which somehow unlocked their full potential, when I would say it would cause the complete opposite. Handicaps tend to stunt potentials and prevent people from achieving their dreams. I could just as easily say that if those people didn't have handicaps they'd be able to experience more, satisfy their curiosities and have a much more fulfilling life. They'd have nothing holding them back, save for the usual obstacles to achieving goals, and that is just common sense.

In any case, Justawannabe and I have already hit every nail in the head. All that's left are you idiot hacks repeating the same defeated arguments.

O rly? :lol: A nice but FAILED attempt at trying to put words into my mouth. I never said anything about illness being a "good thing".

Tourette's is an anxiety disorder and is linked to O.C.D.. Both are most likely caused by autoimmunity triggered by infection + the "right" genes. It's not surprising that Samuel Johnson had the drive to do the first dictionary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson#Health

John Baird was ill most of his life:
http://www.bairdtelevision.com/

Alan Turing ("founder of computer science") was isolated throughout his life because of his homosexuality, and eventually commited suicide. I wouldn't be surprised if he had autism too.
Thousands call for Turing apology
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226509.stm
How homosexuality is 'inherited'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm

I've already mentioned Stephen Hawking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Illness

Charles Darwin's illness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_illness

Einstein and Newton 'had autism'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2988647.stm

And I've not even touched on the very long list of writers and artists who were ill most of their lives. Drones will only ever see the world one way no matter how intelligent they are. But I guess Dr. Mengele-let's-exterminate-all-untermenshen-types will never get it. :wink:

Illness: the pathway to creative genius?
Disease, rather than being a barrier to greatness, may be its wellspring
"New research in fields as diverse as music, art, science and literature suggests that we’re wrong to think that great men and women achieve despite disease. Their illness in many cases is a path, rather than an obstacle, to genius. Einstein, Warhol, Newton, Cézanne, Goya, Michelangelo, Turner and Berlioz are among many whose achievements are now thought to have been influenced by disease. Conditions such as depression, autism, myopia, anxiety, chronic pain, gout, stroke and dementia heavily influenced their paths to creativity."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article782810.ece

[paulgutierrez]

Christ your arguments are pathetic. You're actually suggesting that Tourette's syndrome or epilepsy is a good thing, as if every genius on this earth has had some sort of crazy impairment which somehow unlocked their full potential, when I would say it would cause the complete opposite. Handicaps tend to stunt potentials and prevent people from achieving their dreams. I could just as easily say that if those people didn't have handicaps they'd be able to experience more, satisfy their curiosities and have a much more fulfilling life. They'd have nothing holding them back, save for the usual obstacles to achieving goals, and that is just common sense.

In any case, Justawannabe and I have already hit every nail in the head. All that's left are you idiot hacks repeating the same defeated arguments.

O rly? :lol: A nice but FAILED attempt at trying to put words into my mouth. I never said anything about illness being a "good thing".

Tourette's is an anxiety disorder and is linked to O.C.D.. Both are most likely caused by autoimmunity triggered by infection + the "right" genes. It's not surprising that Samuel Johnson had the drive to do the first dictionary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson#Health

John Baird was ill most of his life:
http://www.bairdtelevision.com/

Alan Turing ("founder of computer science") was isolated throughout his life because of his homosexuality, and eventually commited suicide. I wouldn't be surprised if he had autism too.
Thousands call for Turing apology
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226509.stm
How homosexuality is 'inherited'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3735668.stm

I've already mentioned Stephen Hawking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Illness

Charles Darwin's illness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_illness

Einstein and Newton 'had autism'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2988647.stm

And I've not even touched on the very long list of writers and artists who were ill most of their lives. Drones will only ever see the world one way no matter how intelligent they are. But I guess Dr. Mengele-let's-exterminate-all-untermenshen-types will never get it. :wink:

Illness: the pathway to creative genius?
Disease, rather than being a barrier to greatness, may be its wellspring
"New research in fields as diverse as music, art, science and literature suggests that we’re wrong to think that great men and women achieve despite disease. Their illness in many cases is a path, rather than an obstacle, to genius. Einstein, Warhol, Newton, Cézanne, Goya, Michelangelo, Turner and Berlioz are among many whose achievements are now thought to have been influenced by disease. Conditions such as depression, autism, myopia, anxiety, chronic pain, gout, stroke and dementia heavily influenced their paths to creativity."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article782810.ece


You cannot deny that genetically correcting say cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, or LEARNING DISORDERS would be advantageous to the offspring. Because I dont see how living with such ailments would be of benefit to anyone. You're bringing up special isolated cases rather than looking at the bigger picture. You and the author of the article have a bad case of post hoc reasoning. That and some emotional sensibility. The article may appeal to the naive and give hope but correlation doesnt equal causation. This is why they seperate the special olympics from the regular olympics.

[chefmike]

Who decides who'll be born how? It's always an abomination if it isn't natural or voluntary. If someone's arbitrary preferences are used to determine someone else's nature, how is that any different than rape?What if this new class of human is better off than other humans?

I wouldn't call it rape if she has an advantage over the rest of mankind.Better off according to whom? You're talking about playing God with other people's lives, without permission. Sounding more & more like Josef Mengele. This is eugenics.

No surprise there....




corporations run america the people don't
Jews run america. The media, hollywood, our porn, the corporations, the banks, the government. Hell even Ben Bernanke is jewish.

Not saying it as a bad thing of course. Jews make awesome doctors, and lawyers. And I totally support Israel. But when they make up less than 1% of the population while being totaly overrepresented in everything, I think its safe to say that they do run everything in America and pinning it just on the corporations would be understating things a bit.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=50998

[paulgutierrez]

Who decides who'll be born how? It's always an abomination if it isn't natural or voluntary. If someone's arbitrary preferences are used to determine someone else's nature, how is that any different than rape?What if this new class of human is better off than other humans?

I wouldn't call it rape if she has an advantage over the rest of mankind.Better off according to whom? You're talking about playing God with other people's lives, without permission. Sounding more & more like Josef Mengele. This is eugenics.

No surprise there....




corporations run america the people don't
Jews run america. The media, hollywood, our porn, the corporations, the banks, the government. Hell even Ben Bernanke is jewish.

Not saying it as a bad thing of course. Jews make awesome doctors, and lawyers. And I totally support Israel. But when they make up less than 1% of the population while being totaly overrepresented in everything, I think its safe to say that they do run everything in America and pinning it just on the corporations would be understating things a bit.

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=50998

lol... bein called a nazi never gets old.

[chefmike]

I never called you a nazi, slick...but if the jackboot fits...

[paulgutierrez]

I never called you a nazi, slick...but if the jackboot fits...
Got somethin against my Doc Martens?

But seriously you're jumping to conclusions and making the wrong connections just because i stated a fact with evidence to back it up.

[GullyFoyle]

Christ your arguments are pathetic. You're actually suggesting that Tourette's syndrome or epilepsy is a good thing, as if every genius on this earth has had some sort of crazy impairment which somehow unlocked their full potential, when I would say it would cause the complete opposite. Handicaps tend to stunt potentials and prevent people from achieving their dreams. I could just as easily say that if those people didn't have handicaps they'd be able to experience more, satisfy their curiosities and have a much more fulfilling life. They'd have nothing holding them back, save for the usual obstacles to achieving goals, and that is just common sense.

Actually, you're a textbook example of a perfectly healthy idiot. There's no chance in hell that you'll ever do anything to advance the progress of humanity.

[Rogers]

You cannot deny that genetically correcting say cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, or LEARNING DISORDERS would be advantageous to the offspring.

Autism (a LEARNING DISORDER) is an illness with a genetic component. Wave bye-bye to new Einsteins', Newtons', and Turings' then.


Because I dont see how living with such ailments would be of benefit to anyone. You're bringing up special isolated cases rather than looking at the bigger picture. You and the author of the article have a bad case of post hoc reasoning. That and some emotional sensibility. The article may appeal to the naive and give hope but correlation doesnt equal causation. This is why they seperate the special olympics from the regular olympics.

"Interestingly enough, it seems that Darwin's maladies actually may have contributed a lot to what many believe was a long and fruitful creative process in science. George Pickering, in his book Creative Malady (1974), wrote that isolated from social life and obligations of a "normal" scientist, such as administrative and teaching work, Darwin had ample time and material comforts for researching, thinking, and writing extensively, which he did. Despite the long periods of unproductivity caused by ill health, Darwin produced much research. Darwin often complained that his malady robbed him of half a lifetime, but even so, many believe that his scientific contributions can be compared favorably to those of such figures as Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

Darwin himself wrote about this, in his autobiographical "Recollections of the Development of my Mind and Character" (1876) [1]:

Lastly, I have had ample leisure from not having to earn my own bread. Even ill-health, though it has annihilated several years of my life, has saved me from the distractions of society and amusement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_illness#Contribution_to_Darwin.27 s_work

That last line could have easily been said by Stephen Hawking too. I agree with you that trying to weed out certain illnesses is a good idea, but you have been suggesting much, much more on this thread. And the longer you drag it out the more of an ass-hat you look. To say it's been amusing watching you morph the debate away from your initial twisted idea about creating "shemales" to satiate your desire for a sex-doll is an understatement. :lol:

[paulgutierrez]

Christ your arguments are pathetic. You're actually suggesting that Tourette's syndrome or epilepsy is a good thing, as if every genius on this earth has had some sort of crazy impairment which somehow unlocked their full potential, when I would say it would cause the complete opposite. Handicaps tend to stunt potentials and prevent people from achieving their dreams. I could just as easily say that if those people didn't have handicaps they'd be able to experience more, satisfy their curiosities and have a much more fulfilling life. They'd have nothing holding them back, save for the usual obstacles to achieving goals, and that is just common sense.

Actually, you're a textbook example of a perfectly healthy idiot. There's no chance in hell that you'll ever do anything to advance the progress of humanity.
Whereas you are just retarded and stupid. People like you don't stagnate society, you turn back progress.






You cannot deny that genetically correcting say cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, or LEARNING DISORDERS would be advantageous to the offspring.

Autism (a LEARNING DISORDER) is an illness with a genetic component. Wave bye-bye to new Einsteins', Newtons', and Turings' then.


Because I dont see how living with such ailments would be of benefit to anyone. You're bringing up special isolated cases rather than looking at the bigger picture. You and the author of the article have a bad case of post hoc reasoning. That and some emotional sensibility. The article may appeal to the naive and give hope but correlation doesnt equal causation. This is why they seperate the special olympics from the regular olympics.

"Interestingly enough, it seems that Darwin's maladies actually may have contributed a lot to what many believe was a long and fruitful creative process in science. George Pickering, in his book Creative Malady (1974), wrote that isolated from social life and obligations of a "normal" scientist, such as administrative and teaching work, Darwin had ample time and material comforts for researching, thinking, and writing extensively, which he did. Despite the long periods of unproductivity caused by ill health, Darwin produced much research. Darwin often complained that his malady robbed him of half a lifetime, but even so, many believe that his scientific contributions can be compared favorably to those of such figures as Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein.

Darwin himself wrote about this, in his autobiographical "Recollections of the Development of my Mind and Character" (1876) [1]:

Lastly, I have had ample leisure from not having to earn my own bread. Even ill-health, though it has annihilated several years of my life, has saved me from the distractions of society and amusement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_illness#Contribution_to_Darwin.27 s_work

That last line could have easily been said by Stephen Hawking too. I agree with you that trying to weed out certain illnesses is a good idea, but you have been suggesting much, much more on this thread. And the longer you drag it out the more of an ass-hat you look. To say it's been amusing watching you morph the debate away from your initial twisted idea about creating "shemales" to satiate your desire for a sex-doll is an understatement. :lol:

Not really. You and whats his face sugested that "tampering with" (fixing*) nature is an abomination no matter what end. Your all out condemnations against genetic engineering is what morphed the thread into what it is now.

And it is you who must be clutching at straws equating autism to tourettes or epilepsy which are clearly lose-lose conditions. Autism is what many savant like individuals have. We're talking rain man like qualities, people who have extraordinary brains that can recognize minor details and compute things at amazing speeds, but also have the side effect of not being good with communication, social skills, etc. It really doesnt surprise me that Alan Turing, a mathematician and master of logic who gave us the Turing Test, had autism.

By bringing up autism youve only introduced a self defeating argument. What if with genetic engineering you can isolate the benefits and remove the disadvantages? Why should someone be limited to just a single or related specialized field when they could be Renaissance Men?




your initial twisted idea about creating "shemales" to satiate your desire for a sex-doll is an understatement. :lol:
Except that it wasnt my initial idea. Its much too tame. Altering the face of humanity and redesigning the gender status quo is what I hope genetic engineering will accomplish.

[Rogers]

Not really. You and whats his face sugested that "tampering with" (fixing*) nature is an abomination no matter what end. Your all out condemnations against genetic engineering is what morphed the thread into what it is now.

Please quote me on that. :lol: I said that we should be very careful about what we're doing. Pandora's box, remember? :wink: Curing the likes of cystic fibrosis is more than fine with me.


And it is you who must be clutching at straws equating autism to tourettes or epilepsy which are clearly lose-lose conditions. Autism is what many savant like individuals have. We're talking rain man like qualities, people who have extraordinary brains that can recognize minor details and compute things at amazing speeds, but also have the side effect of not being good with communication, social skills, etc. It really doesnt surprise me that Alan Turing, a mathematician and master of logic who gave us the Turing Test, had autism.

By bringing up autism youve only introduced a self defeating argument. What if with genetic engineering you can isolate the benefits and remove the disadvantages? Why should someone be limited to just a single or related specialized field when they could be Renaissance Men?

I mentioned epilepsy because it was PART of Van Gogh's health problem. To my knowledge it isn't something that's genetic, nor likely will it have contributed to his artistic mind. And I mentioned Van Gogh because of his bipolar disorder. As for autism it seems to be tied to the immune system JUST LIKE Tourette's. :wink: We're also miles off understanding the problem, nevermind fixing it. It's genetic component may be controlled by many genes which may well control other functions. Again we're back to the story of Pandora's box. Wanna tell us your qualifications in biological or medical science then? Reading pop science books don't count fraid. :lol:



your initial twisted idea about creating "shemales" to satiate your desire for a sex-doll is an understatement. :lol:
Except that it wasnt my initial idea. Its much too tame. Altering the face of humanity and redesigning the gender status quo is what I hope genetic engineering will accomplish.

Sorry, but that's what the title of this thread says. LMAO!!! :screwy And who actually wants all of this altering except for extremists like you? Transsexuals are still discriminated against. Just more ass-hat BS. :roll:

From your OP:

What if they created some tranny island or something? That would be awesome.

[paulgutierrez]

Please quote me on that. :lol: I said that we should be very careful about what we're doing. Pandora's box, remember? :wink:

You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.




I mentioned epilepsy because it was PART of Van Gogh's health problem. To my knowledge it isn't something that's genetic, nor likely will it have contributed to his artistic mind. And I mentioned Van Gogh because of his bipolar disorder. As for autism it seems to be tied to the immune system JUST LIKE Tourette's. :wink:

They are all largely genetic in origin.






your initial twisted idea about creating "shemales" to satiate your desire for a sex-doll is an understatement. :lol:
Except that it wasnt my initial idea. Its much too tame. Altering the face of humanity and redesigning the gender status quo is what I hope genetic engineering will accomplish.

Sorry, but that's what the title of this thread says. LMAO!!! :screwy And who actually wants all of this altering except for extremists like you? Transsexuals are still discriminated against. Just more ass-hat BS. :roll:

From your OP:

What if they created some tranny island or something? That would be awesome.

More like a preview and attention getter than anything. Obviously I want to go much further than that.

[Rogers]

Please quote me on that. :lol: I said that we should be very careful about what we're doing. Pandora's box, remember? :wink:

You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.




I mentioned epilepsy because it was PART of Van Gogh's health problem. To my knowledge it isn't something that's genetic, nor likely will it have contributed to his artistic mind. And I mentioned Van Gogh because of his bipolar disorder. As for autism it seems to be tied to the immune system JUST LIKE Tourette's. :wink:

They are all largely genetic in origin.






your initial twisted idea about creating "shemales" to satiate your desire for a sex-doll is an understatement. :lol:
Except that it wasnt my initial idea. Its much too tame. Altering the face of humanity and redesigning the gender status quo is what I hope genetic engineering will accomplish.

Sorry, but that's what the title of this thread says. LMAO!!! :screwy And who actually wants all of this altering except for extremists like you? Transsexuals are still discriminated against. Just more ass-hat BS. :roll:

From your OP:

What if they created some tranny island or something? That would be awesome.

More like a preview and attention getter than anything. Obviously I want to go much further than that.

Wow, that the best you've got? :lol: I asked about your qualifications because I've been trying to get across the fundamental basic of life to you for sometime now. Darwin, Hawking, Baird, etc., etc.. You still don't get it. Paris Hilton is a reverse example. She pretty much has it all, but is pretty worthless. You've deleted my request completely from your reply, so now I know for sure that you're full of shit.

You are not your genes, and your genes are not you.

Understand? Heard of phenotype by any chance?

genotype + environment → phenotype
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype

This was the whole point of the film you tried to use to back your argument with; Gattaca.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWNRvRecE1Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-lHSI_UufE&feature=related

LOLOLOL!!!

Also, the more you try and eliminate a gene for the human gene pool the more influential it becomes. This is where eugenics falls flat on it's face. You have to remove the gene from the whole global population, otherwise it only takes one "evil jew" to pollute the whole of mankind. :wink: Leaving aside the fact that we still don't know exactly what most of our genes do, by trying to remove any gene we'd be further reducing mankind's already limited genetic diversity. And who knows what genes will save us if and when the next "Black Death" comes.

You're trying to play God, and you don't even understand basic biology. Just LOLOLOL!!!

[paulgutierrez]

You are not your genes, and your genes are not you.

Understand? Heard of phenotype by any chance?

genotype + environment → phenotype
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype


Genotype generally affects phenotype, and obviously plays a much greater role when it comes to natural physique and natural physical capabilities, and twin studies have proven mental capabilities as well.

Environment isnt going to make just anyone to grow as tall as Shaq. And Da Vinci, Mozart, Imhotep, etc were all born prodigies whose minds would be gifted in any environment.

Like it or not, nature trumps nurture.



This was the whole point of the film you tried to use to back your argument with; Gattaca.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWNRvRecE1Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-lHSI_UufE&feature=related

Yet the inferior protagonist had to work 10 times as hard as everyone else. Its a sentimental touchy feely movie I'm sure, but when reading into it logic dictates that those designer humans had raised the bar in human achievement and development. Everything in their society was idyllic and organized. The positives outweighed the negatives by far. The movie's 'point' is an isolated case, and exceptions dont disprove the rule. Seriously I feel like im repeating myself here.




Also, the more you try and eliminate a gene for the human gene pool the more influential it becomes. This is where eugenics falls flat on it's face. You have to remove the gene from the whole global population, otherwise it only takes one "evil jew" to pollute the whole of mankind. :wink:

You're trying to play God, and you don't even understand basic biology. Just LOLOLOL!!!
And you need to learn your history. Since when did people survive the black plague due to genetics? I'm sure there were rare mutations that made a few resistent like the isolated case of that monk, but the vast majority of the people that survived didnt survive due to genes but a stronger immune system.

In any case, its called gene expression. Its already theorized that you will be able to just turn off or remove the gene in designer babies and stop it dead in its tracks, and wont be able to pass on to future generations. Eventually you can weed out genes by breeding them vis a vis actively removing them from the gene pool making it doubly effective. If you have a genotype that is homozygous dominant that mates with one that is heterozygous dominant, the offspring will express the dominant allele. Genetic drift can cause genes to disappear completely. Genetic engineering would make this a piece of cake.




Leaving aside the fact that we still don't know exactly what most of our genes do, by trying to remove any gene we'd be further reducing mankind's already limited genetic diversity. And who knows what genes will save us if and when the next "Black Death" comes.


Ideally there would be a pool of genes, or an entire bank of them containing dna templates from a number of registered individuals. If someone has a mutation that makes them resistant to a certain disease you might as well put that gene into everyone. If not then woopy doo, it's not like we're all genetically resistent to swine flu right now by allowing nature to run its course.

You're talking more out your ass than applying any sort of knowledge.

[Rogers]

Genotype generally affects phenotype, and obviously plays a much greater role when it comes to natural physique and natural physical capabilities, and twin studies have proven mental capabilities as well.

Environment isnt going to make just anyone to grow as tall as Shaq. And Da Vinci, Mozart, Imhotep, etc were all born prodigies whose minds would be gifted in any environment.

Like it or not, nature trumps nurture.

Nope, gentoype + ENIVRONMENT "generally affects phenotype". You're on a forum based around transsexuals FFS. LMAO and SMDH. Are you for real? I'm seriously pondering what genotype + environment created you. Smacked around the head too much when you were a kid just like Hitler and Stalin perhaps? Nature vs. nurture is still hotly debated. Of course, it's not if you're a confirmed eugenicist. But yes, if you want to breed loads of superhumans/soldiers (i.e. drones) just like the Nazi's did, then genetics is very important. But you should know that the greatest invention so far to breed taller height in humans has been the simple bicycle. :shock: Yet still you want to start deleting genes.


Yet the inferior protagonist had to work 10 times as hard as everyone else. Its a sentimental touchy feely movie I'm sure, but when reading into it logic dictates that those designer humans had raised the bar in human achievement and development. Everything in their society was idyllic and organized. The positives outweighed the negatives by far. The movie's 'point' is an isolated case, and exceptions dont disprove the rule. Seriously I feel like im repeating myself here.

You're repeating yourself because you only see the nature vs. nurture debate completely one-sided. But that is to be expected from a self-declared extremist.

Nature v nurture? Please don't ask
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5986239.ece


And you need to learn your history. Since when did people survive the black plague due to genetics? I'm sure there were rare mutations that made a few resistent like the isolated case of that monk, but the vast majority of the people that survived didnt survive due to genes but a stronger immune system.

Oh, my knowledge of history is just fine. How's yours? Genetic diversity increases the strength of immune systems. In-breed organisms are constantly poorly because they lack genetic diversity. Really, this is just basic biology.

Just one example of many:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691491/

"Anyway, as you can see, while genetics were probably involved, there isn't yet a solid answer as to what genes were involved."
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=10


In any case, its called gene expression. Its already theorized that you will be able to just turn off or remove the gene in designer babies and stop it dead in its tracks, and wont be able to pass on to future generations. Eventually you can weed out genes by breeding them vis a vis actively removing them from the gene pool making it doubly effective. If you have a genotype that is homozygous dominant that mates with one that is heterozygous dominant, the offspring will express the dominant allele. Genetic drift can cause genes to disappear completely. Genetic engineering would make this a piece of cake.

You got it right for once. :lol:


Ideally there would be a pool of genes, or an entire bank of them containing dna templates from a number of registered individuals. If someone has a mutation that makes them resistant to a certain disease you might as well put that gene into everyone. If not then woopy doo, it's not like we're all genetically resistent to swine flu right now by allowing nature to run its course.

You're talking more out your ass than applying any sort of knowledge.

"Registered individuals"? And you wonder why people are thinking of you as some kind of Nazi? Don't be so keen to rely on databases. You're taking a massive gamble betting against any species or civilization going extinct. And the greatest weapon a species has against extinction is genetic diversity. Again, this is just basic biology. Only pee-wits and people with mad God complexes start messing around with complex systems they don't understand.

"These results show the sterility of the old nature-nurture debate. Nature works through nurture, and nurture through nature, to shape our personalities, aptitudes, health and behaviour. The question should not be which is the dominant influence, but how they fit together."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5986239.ece

[paulgutierrez]

You're repeating yourself because you only see the nature vs. nurture debate completely one-sided. But that is to be expected from a self-declared extremist.

You're not supposed to dwell on exceptions to the rule.



Nature v nurture? Please don't ask
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article5986239.ece


The article admits that IQ is more similar in identical twins than fraternal pairs. It doesn't dispute that fact. it just goes into a completely different tangent afterwards, talking about irrelevant characteristics like the genes for criminality and riskiness. It does nothing to de emphasize the fact that IQ is inherited. After a long cliche history lecture, a couple small paragraphs of actual scientific research is all the author could muster. Great article bro.



"Anyway, as you can see, while genetics were probably involved, there isn't yet a solid answer as to what genes were involved."
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=10


And that's the rare mutation I mentioned. "Is there a genetic reason some people survived the plague during the middle ages?"

CCR5-delta 32 is a rare mutation only present in those of europeans descent, and no one else. it arose from a small isolated village. all that proves is even inbred populations can have adaptive mutations. But it is not the cause for all that survived the plague.

You're obviously not going to render diseases like aids obsolete through genetic diversity. The aids resistant mutation is so rare that it'd just get bred out. At least with genetic engineering you could make sure the gene stays alive, and even manufacture it in everyone

Besides, its pretty much antibiotics and vaccines that are helping us fight diseases today. Its not genetic diversity, nor humans collectively hardening themselves to diseases through generations of life and death like in the old days.



"Registered individuals"? And you wonder why people are thinking of you as some kind of Nazi? Don't be so keen to rely on databases. You're taking a massive gamble betting against any species or civilization going extinct. And the greatest weapon a species has against extinction is genetic diversity. Again, this is just basic biology. Only pee-wits and people with mad God complexes start messing around with complex systems they don't understand.


The Nazis didnt even get close with their whole lebensborn program. it was the swedes that had the most successful euguenics program in the world through sterilization of undesirables all the way to the 80s. Yet nobody thinks badly of sweden. Sweden's eugenics experiment was a success.



But you should know that the greatest invention so far to breed taller height in humans has been the simple bicycle. Shocked Yet still you want to start deleting genes.

Right. And how many generations has it been and how much progress has been made? People who grow to Shaq's height are obviously that tall because of their genes not because of fucking bicycles.

[Rogers]

This is my last post on this. Trying to discuss anything with an extremist is a complete waste of time is just one of the many things I've learned from this board. Plus, my time here is effectively over. I only looked in on Monday because I was curious to see if something in the news had been posted. This board is also bugged. :?


You're not supposed to dwell on exceptions to the rule.

What rule? The rule that goes: genotype + ENVIRONMENT = phenotype?

There are very few rules/laws in biology because of it's complexity due to it's interaction with physics and chemistry. That is why there are many "exceptions to the rule" in biology. Transsexuals are just one example. :wink: In science, exceptions to the rule are usually a good sign that your hypothesis is flawed or incomplete in some way. You seem to think that it's all very simple when it is most definitely not.


The article admits that IQ is more similar in identical twins than fraternal pairs. It doesn't dispute that fact. it just goes into a completely different tangent afterwards, talking about irrelevant characteristics like the genes for criminality and riskiness. It does nothing to de emphasize the fact that IQ is inherited. After a long cliche history lecture, a couple small paragraphs of actual scientific research is all the author could muster. Great article bro.

And where are your articles, "bro"? That article which included "actual scientific research" more than accurately summed up in the quote I posted from it the current state of the nature vs. nurture debate in science.


And that's the rare mutation I mentioned. "Is there a genetic reason some people survived the plague during the middle ages?"

CCR5-delta 32 is a rare mutation only present in those of europeans descent, and no one else. it arose from a small isolated village. all that proves is even inbred populations can have adaptive mutations. But it is not the cause for all that survived the plague.

You're obviously not going to render diseases like aids obsolete through genetic diversity. The aids resistant mutation is so rare that it'd just get bred out. At least with genetic engineering you could make sure the gene stays alive, and even manufacture it in everyone

Besides, its pretty much antibiotics and vaccines that are helping us fight diseases today. Its not genetic diversity, nor humans collectively hardening themselves to diseases through generations of life and death like in the old days.

You've missed the point AGAIN. CCR5 has nothing to do with the Black Death. We DON'T KNOW the gene(s) that conferred immunity to it. We still don't know what most of our genes really do. And you want to embark on a mass genetic engineering program? Understand? Your "ideas" are a very long way away from being implemented using sound scientific principles and practice, nevermind medical ethics.
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/99/8/497

And the best tools to fight disease today in order of importance are clean drinking water, a balanced healthy diet, regular excercise, and safe sex. That'll be that little thing called ENVIRONMENT again. LOL

""You can put a patient on antibiotics, and it may seem that the infection has disappeared. But in a few months, it reappears, and it is usually in an antibiotic-resistant form," Levchenko says."
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/535363/
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050302

Futher proof that life is indeed far more complex than we think it to be. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely kidding themselves. Bacteria survive antibiotics because they alter their ENVIRONMENT. LOLOLOL


The Nazis didnt even get close with their whole lebensborn program. it was the swedes that had the most successful euguenics program in the world through sterilization of undesirables all the way to the 80s. Yet nobody thinks badly of sweden. Sweden's eugenics experiment was a success.

There you go again. Speak for yourself about Sweden. MOST PEOPLE don't think badly about Sweden because they don't know it's history. At least the French fought the Nazi's. You're the one who needs a history lesson.

Murky truth of how a neutral Sweden covered up its collaboration with Nazis
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/murky-truth-of-how-a-neutral-sweden-covered-up-its-collaboration-with-nazis-727261.html

Co-Opting Nazi Germany: Neutrality in Europe During World War II
"The Swedish economy was, for a number of years, almost fully integrated into the Nazis' New Order; the country supplied Germany with high-grade iron ore (30 percent of that used by the German armaments industry), as well as ball bearings, foodstuffs, wood, and many other raw materials. In matters of finance, the Swedes cooperated with Germany by providing credit, which allowed the delivery of vast quantities of military equipment to the Wehrmacht. Moreover, after the war, the Swedish central bank, the Riksbank, "examined gold it had received from the Nazis in payment for exports and returned about 13 tons that presumably had been stolen [from] Belgium and the Netherlands."24"
http://www.adl.org/Braun/dim_14_1_neutrality_europe.asp

It is therefore not surprising that the Swedes were as keen on eugenics as the Nazi's were. Whether you judge their policies on the matter a success depends on your viewpoint, and you've admitted that your one is extreme.

"They included women released from prison, the mentally ill, people with learning difficulties, the poor, epileptics, alcoholics and women of "mixed racial quality"."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/international/290661.stm

FUCK THE SWEDES! :wink:


Right. And how many generations has it been and how much progress has been made? People who grow to Shaq's height are obviously that tall because of their genes not because of fucking bicycles.

Completely missed the point AGAIN. The bicycle thing has nothing to do with exercise, you numb-skull. Shaq and many Africans are tall because Africans' have much greater genetic diversity than other races. It's because humans evovled in Africa. Again, this is just basic biology.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/10/05/rspb.2009.1473.short?rss=1&ssource=mfc

[Rogers]

A few more interesting articles on nature vs. nurture for ya paul. :wink:

Authoritarian Personality -- Extremism
"Authoritarian personalities often develop from an upbringing of rigid discipline and conditional affection."
http://www.roadtopeace.org/research.php?itemid=366

"Contrary to received opinion prevalent as recently as 15 years ago, the human brain at birth is not fully developed. The abilities a person's brain develops depend on experiences in the first three years of life."
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06_politic.html

[trish]

A small rock which just happens to be wedged under a large boulder might prevent the boulder from rolling downhill. It functions to hold the boulder in place. So is the rock/boulder system broken when the rock is washed away and the boulder goes tumbling downhill? Now wait. Prior to washing away, gravity was tugging on the boulder. The boulder’s natural course would’ve been to roll downhill had it not been obstructed by the rock. At that point was the boulder/hillside system broken; i.e. jammed by a rock? The moral of the story here is that function is in the mind of the beholder and consequently so is the notion of being broken.

I don’t wish disease or mental illness on anyone, but there are too many people out there who think transgender people and homosexuals (for just a couple of examples) are somehow mentally broken simply because they don’t function in society like straights. Who’s broken and who isn’t is a matter of perspective, a notion that’s relative to perceived function. Sometimes people need help. Sometimes they need to be left alone. Sometimes an interruption of one function serves another. I’d hate to try to second guess all of these complicated interactions by attempting to genetically engineer future humanity.

[hippifried]

It's our differences that make us interesting. What a dull world it would be if we were all the same.

Now what can I do to fix you, Trish? A splint? A pill? A little genetic engineering? Oil can?...

[trish]

A little cortisone might be nice for my tennis elbow.

[hippifried]

Try a 2" wide support band around the forearm, just below the elbow. You can find them in any good sporting goods or drug store. Carefull of trying to mask the pain by artificial means. You need to protect the damage from reaction by your own surrounding muscles while it heals or it won't heal right. That's what causes most of the pain. Cortizone won't do that. It'll help the process to a degree, but you need to actually control the muscles more than anything to keep it from getting worse & spreading more damage to the wrist & hand. If it gets too bad, you may need to immobilize the elbow for a few weeks, & that means immobilizing the wrist & hand too.

Invoice is in the mail. Cash, check, money order, or favors only please. :D

[BrendaQG]

Havent read all of this. I have to register how wrong it was to suggest that TG's ought to be created (by man) that way. Created basically to provide a better fetish experience for admirer's. :-/

[trish]

Thanks hippiefried, that really works. To show my gratitude here are some really sexy legs.

[hippifried]

Well hubbs hubba...
But what the hell's up with those shoes?