Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

It sure is... just another example of how looks-obsessed our society has become.

_________________

Right. I don't agree with any need for plastic surgery for merely cosmetic purposes like getting bigger boobs or a smaller nose, and I do think people ought to feel more secure about that sort of thing in the first place. But who am I to rain on their parade?

- Kef

I don't know much about genetic engenering, but I think It will make us or break us. If we start to accept it for minor things it will just start to grow, like plastic surgey. We may be able to make the world a better place and make humans capabal of doing more things, but we also could turn ourselves into blood thirsty mutants. Time will tell.

_________________

Oh, it's just the first step towards creating life from lifeless chemicals.

Frankly, I think genetic engineering is a wonderful thing. However, when I say that, I do not take into account the dark end of the double-sided blade (Bioterrorism, genetic superiority, etc.). If we are able to modify a child who would otherwise end up being a C student who will suffer from heart disease into a brilliant person who is healthy, why shouldn't we? We continuously modify our bodies to become better through medicine, transplants, implants and various cosmetic procedures, so how could changing the randomly inherited genetic information be any different?

_________________
Evidence of the ol' glassies! Nothing up our sleeves, no magic little Alex! A job for two who are now of job age! The police!

Digging up this old thread to post a new story I heard about recently:

Weeding Out Them Gays

The potential applicability of this to humans REALLY irks me, simply because anyone who would want to impliment such a procedure is basically saying "We don't care what good attributes you might have as a person--your sexual orientation makes you so undesirable that we'd prefer it if you had never been born."

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I don't think the research is itself out of line. (Well, I don't know about the animal rights part of it, since I don't know what's involved, but I mean aside from that.) We breed organisms to be more productive all the time. I also don't think where homosexuality comes from is a question that is better off unanswered. We don't need an answer, but why turn it down if we have a chance at it?

I do dislike the implications of extending the same thing to humans. I actually don't have much issue with the idea of homosexuality being phased out -- I say this even though I am a strong advocate of rights for gay people, and I definitely have a "gay" side to my personality (although I am mostly straight... but that's aside the point). I don't think the world would be terribly worse off if that were to happen. What I take more issue with is the selfishness of parents. So many parents want their children to be just like them, or to be a certain way. I hate that. A child needs the guidance of a parent, but should still have a life of his or her own. It also doesn't help that many parents are stupid and/or ignorant. A bigot would want his kid to be a bigot too.

I guess you can say that I don't have an issue with phasing out homosexuality; what I have an issue with is why some people want to phase it out in the first place.

- Kef

I don't think it should be taken that way*. Like, say they wanted to get rid of dyslexia*, for example. They aren't trying to destroy everyone with a problem*, they're just trying to destroy the problem* itself.

*Important note: by this I am implying that I think homosexuality is specifically a harmful problem, that it is a disease like dyslexia, or that I agree with what they are trying to do. I just used it to show that this doesn't necessarily mean they're out to kill gays.

_________________

Actually, you might want to read the article again, and pay special attention to this header:

Don't you just love trumped-up news articles?

_________________

Yeah, and don't you just love the PETA?

Personally, I really don't have much of an opinion on this... There are definitely good things that could be done with it, but it is a double-edged sword. I think I'll wait until I have more information on it.

Oh, and on the article, I really don't know what the moral implications are. I mean, I have no problem with finding out where the different sexuality... ness... es or something come from, but homo- and bisexuality aren't actually BAD. There's no need to get RID of all those people or anything. They're not harming society...

_________________
So, so you think you can tell Heaven from Hell, blue skies from pain. Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? A smile from a veil? Do you think you can tell?

Counterpoint: I agree that homosexuality and bisexuality aren't bad. However, prejudice is, and if we eliminate homosexuality and bisexuality, we eliminate prejudice against those people.

Of course, if we did remove all traits that people could be prejudiced against, there would be no diversity left. A world without prejudice or a world without diversity... tough choice, huh?

- Kef

That's true. If you want to get rid of racism in the world, should you genetically modify everyone so they're the same color? Of course not.
However, homosexuality could be considered harmful to one's self if he or she wanted to have kids or something...

_________________

Well, if it's the only solution you've got... I don't know which choice I'd make, myself.



What's wrong with adoption?

This is pretty dangerous logic, though. It sounds like blaming victims for crime. Surely there's a better way.


Diversity is over-rated anyhow

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Oh, I'm not saying I like the idea, but I don't know what that "better way" is, short of somehow rewiring everybody's brain to eliminate prejudice at its source.

- Kef

I was pretty sure (read "REALLY HOPING") you weren't advocating it.

As for the idea of gay adoption (I may of put this somewhere else), but the only thing I see wrong with that is that the kid will be relentlessly teased for being the child with two mommies or two daddies. Of course, that is also logically similar to the "blame victims for crimes" thinking.

I don't know that eliminating homosexuality through genetic testing/alteration is morally acceptable.

There are probably things that should be fixed like this, but I'm not sure "gay" is one of them.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Good God - a ranty, propagandist blog that ISN'T a big pile of bullcrap! Whoa. (Well...... excluding the OMG PETA CONSPIRACEE bullcrap.)

But when in doubt, best to consult a more legitimate news source.



But this project is about discovering what determines sexual orientation, rather than finding a cure for it. Difference. As for whether it could lead to unscrupulous regimes using the research to "cure" homosexuality - yes, unfortunately, there's a possibility.

But if we were to stop all scientific research with any element of political risk, we could be denying the world important scientific break-throughs.

Has anyone here read Walker Percy's The Thanatos Syndrome? In it, some scientists find a "solution" to some of the problems they see in humanity and implement it. But in the process, their experiments lead to horrible atrocities. I do not believe that the fallen human condition can be cured by genetics or any other science.

_________________

Who does? If you want to fret over your fallen state, you go to church. If you want a cure for polio, you go to a scientist. Two entirely different realms.

Like Stu, I've always believed a lot of good can come of researching things like this and stem cells. It could really help people live longer, healthier lives.

I personally think how far it goes depends on the American people. But America has shown time and time again that we are a country that values good looks over a lot of things, so I'm a bit worried that it'll go from a great way to cure people to a way to "coustomize" your children.

_________________

Gattaca.

Also, I just thought about the common themes in Thanatos Syndrome, Serenity, and V For Vendetta. People who try to engineer perfect societies seem to excel instead at creating monsters.

_________________

That's a nice summation for a debate about literature/film, but not valid for the real world.

Um..... Toastpaint?

I'm all ok with genetic engineering. But there's a limit to everything, and things like genetic research can very well be used for bad things.

For a geeky example, in Star Trek, genetic engineering has been banned on Earth because of the Eugenic Wars, superior human beings (KHAANNN!!) taking over and crap like that.

But since we're not even close to anything like the Eugenic Wars, genetic research is all ok. Infact it could be very beneficial, perhaps even crucial, for the well-being of mankind and our entire planet, in the long run.

My two cents.

_________________
My music
My LJ

Yeah, that's just it, J-Man. There are too many people who watch too much sci-fi, or too many Nazi documentaries, and immediately scream "OMG END OF TEH WERLD!" at the very mention of genetic engineering.

All the best medical ethics organisations are watching GE like a hawk for the slightest hint of a breech of ethics - fact. Dunno about anyone else, but I know I have faith that they know what they're doing.