There are 41 comments.

1. Coolidge
   Flicker

   Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

   Flicker (View Comment):

   Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

   Flicker (View Comment):
   The “seed” is often mentioned to in the Bible and it refers to the Word of God, which is at its origin God Himself, and is alive and active and grows and produces fruit. This seed or of God is spiritual and when planted in us, if we allow it, changes us, and gives us new life and new character. This life and character will not be fully formed or fully evident in us while in this earthly existence, but it is spiritual in nature and as such is preeminent in what it is to be fully and rightly human.

   Doesn’t fully human mean someone who has attained enough social status to spread his genes? Isn’t rightly human who is righteous a human that rejects his nature?

   No, you’re thinking of the earthly realm. I am referring here to the spiritual realm which is higher and of greater consequence. By “right” I mean in accord with God’s purpose and expectations. “Fully” means lacking nothing. As I used fully and rightly human it means human to the degree that fulfills one’s mandate to glorify God and live in communion with Him; to embody God’s fullest expectations of you, His creation, as He created you ultimately to be.

   Never met a guy like that.

   That’s right. As I said, “This life and character will not be fully formed or fully evident in us while in this earthly existence…”

2. Member
   Stina

   Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

   Stina (View Comment):

   Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

   Flicker (View Comment):
   The “seed” is often mentioned to in the Bible and it refers to the Word of God, which is at its origin God Himself, and is alive and active and grows and produces fruit. This seed or of God is spiritual and when planted in us, if we allow it, changes us, and gives us new life and new character. This life and character will not be fully formed or fully evident in us while in this earthly existence, but it is spiritual in nature and as such is preeminent in what it is to be fully and rightly human.

   Doesn’t fully human mean someone who has attained enough social status to spread his genes? Isn’t rightly human who is righteous a human that rejects his nature?

   So they aren’t human until puberty?

   In terms of evolution, they don’t count until puberty unless they can protect the genes of their kin.

   In terms of evolution they count in so much as we protect them long enough to get to that point.

3. Member
   Saint Augustine

   Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

   Flicker (View Comment):

   Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

   Flicker (View Comment):
   The “seed” is often mentioned to in the Bible and it refers to the Word of God, which is at its origin God Himself, and is alive and active and grows and produces fruit. This seed or of God is spiritual and when planted in us, if we allow it, changes us, and gives us new life and new character. This life and character will not be fully formed or fully evident in us while in this earthly existence, but it is spiritual in nature and as such is preeminent in what it is to be fully and rightly human.

   Doesn’t fully human mean someone who has attained enough social status to spread his genes? Isn’t rightly human who is righteous a human that rejects his nature?

   No, you’re thinking of the earthly realm. I am referring here to the spiritual realm which is higher and of greater consequence. By “right” I mean in accord with God’s purpose and expectations. “Fully” means lacking nothing. As I used fully and rightly human it means human to the degree that fulfills one’s mandate to glorify God and live in communion with Him; to embody God’s fullest expectations of you, His creation, as He created you ultimately to be.

   Never met a guy like that.

   You can. His name starts with J in English.

4. Member
   Z in MT

   OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

   Randy Webster (View Comment):

   The eugenicists thought the same way.

   Eugenics generally means selectively breeding people like cattle. Bad things happen to the unlucky person who is unfit.

   Genetic Engineering can be done to people without killing people. The genes are altered so the birth defect does not occur.

   They may have the same end goal, but one uses terrible means.

    

   Flicker (View Comment):

   Z in MT (View Comment):

   And in news from the future: viral encephalitis in 2103 wipes out a fourth of humanity when a gene added to make children have on average 20 more IQ points, makes the population particularly susceptible to a new mutation.

   Engineering is really good at optimizing along any variable or set of varables one requires. The problem is that reality has more variables than can be accounted. This is a big reason why we self-driving cars are still not here.

   And iirc mRNA makes proteins strands that self-fold into protein catalysts. These catalysts have numerous active sites. And they are stimulated to be produced based on another system to create the right mRNA due to a timely need for a particular catalyst. If you create a new mRNA and insert it, or for that matter change the genome to create that new mRNA, how do we know that the new mRNA won’t create a protein that has more than one active site and the other new active sites won’t have profoundly negative effects?

   Trial and error?

   For the virus case, I see no reason random chance is inherently better than design.

   Any human gene therapy trial is going to tested thoroughly in animals and cell culture before being put in use. It’s similar to developing a medication. The rule is DNA acts as the master record, then the cell makes mRNA (m is for messenger) from the DNA. mRNA is edited a bit then sent to a ribosome to be synthesized into proteins. Most proteins have several active sites for proper regulation of their activity.

   Randomness is better at occupying all of phase space than design, which tends to optimize in a few dimensions. My argument is that genetic engineering will make the human race more susceptible to viruses because there will be less variation. I argue against the omniscient ness of scientists. People are prone to hubris including scientists and engineers.

5. Member
   Stina

   Z in MT (View Comment):
   Randomness is better at occupying all of phase space than design, which tends to optimize in a few dimensions. My argument is that genetic engineering will make the human race more susceptible to viruses because there will be less variation. I argue against the omniscient ness of scientists. People are prone to hubris including scientists and engineers.

   We definitely tend to group up in our consumer choices. Why should genetic decision making be any different?

   One major benefit of life-long, monogamous marriage is it forces variation naturally by forcing mating with different people. One man isn’t producing 100 kids with 20 different women under such circumstances.

   This is one of a couple reasons I have mild issues with genetic donations via sperm and egg.

6. Member
   Henry Castaigne

   Z in MT (View Comment):
   Randomness is better at occupying all of phase space than design, which tends to optimize in a few dimensions. My argument is that genetic engineering will make the human race more susceptible to viruses because there will be less variation. I argue against the omniscient ness of scientists. People are prone to hubris including scientists and engineers.

   We are obviously going to have to up our virology game and worry about genetic variability. We don’t want the potato famine to hit humanity. You do understand that I am advocating for a gradual improvement in the human race with alot of debate before this or that upgrade.

7. Member
   Henry Castaigne

   Stina (View Comment):

   Z in MT (View Comment):
   Randomness is better at occupying all of phase space than design, which tends to optimize in a few dimensions. My argument is that genetic engineering will make the human race more susceptible to viruses because there will be less variation. I argue against the omniscient ness of scientists. People are prone to hubris including scientists and engineers.

   We definitely tend to group up in our consumer choices. Why should genetic decision making be any different?

   One major benefit of life-long, monogamous marriage is it forces variation naturally by forcing mating with different people. One man isn’t producing 100 kids with 20 different women under such circumstances.

   This is one of a couple reasons I have mild issues with genetic donations via sperm and egg.

   The Emperors did. 

8. Coolidge
   Flicker

   Z in MT (View Comment):

   OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

   Randy Webster (View Comment):

   The eugenicists thought the same way.

   Eugenics generally means selectively breeding people like cattle. Bad things happen to the unlucky person who is unfit.

   Genetic Engineering can be done to people without killing people. The genes are altered so the birth defect does not occur.

   They may have the same end goal, but one uses terrible means.

   Flicker (View Comment):

   Z in MT (View Comment):

   And in news from the future: viral encephalitis in 2103 wipes out a fourth of humanity when a gene added to make children have on average 20 more IQ points, makes the population particularly susceptible to a new mutation.

   Engineering is really good at optimizing along any variable or set of varables one requires. The problem is that reality has more variables than can be accounted. This is a big reason why we self-driving cars are still not here.

   And iirc mRNA makes proteins strands that self-fold into protein catalysts. These catalysts have numerous active sites. And they are stimulated to be produced based on another system to create the right mRNA due to a timely need for a particular catalyst. If you create a new mRNA and insert it, or for that matter change the genome to create that new mRNA, how do we know that the new mRNA won’t create a protein that has more than one active site and the other new active sites won’t have profoundly negative effects?

   Trial and error?

   For the virus case, I see no reason random chance is inherently better than design.

   Any human gene therapy trial is going to tested thoroughly in animals and cell culture before being put in use. It’s similar to developing a medication. The rule is DNA acts as the master record, then the cell makes mRNA (m is for messenger) from the DNA. mRNA is edited a bit then sent to a ribosome to be synthesized into proteins. Most proteins have several active sites for proper regulation of their activity.

   Randomness is better at occupying all of phase space than design, which tends to optimize in a few dimensions. My argument is that genetic engineering will make the human race more susceptible to viruses because there will be less variation. I argue against the omniscient ness of scientists. People are prone to hubris including scientists and engineers.

   I agree, but say it differently. The complexity of the genetically moderated processes is so great that tampering with one can’t can destroy the whole.

   [After the first like, I realized that I typed the wrong word. The complexity is so great that tampering with it could destroy the whole.]

9. Member
   Henry Castaigne

   Flicker (View Comment):

   Z in MT (View Comment):

   OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

   Randy Webster (View Comment):

   The eugenicists thought the same way.

   Eugenics generally means selectively breeding people like cattle. Bad things happen to the unlucky person who is unfit.

   Genetic Engineering can be done to people without killing people. The genes are altered so the birth defect does not occur.

   They may have the same end goal, but one uses terrible means.

    

   Flicker (View Comment):

   Z in MT (View Comment):

   And in news from the future: viral encephalitis in 2103 wipes out a fourth of humanity when a gene added to make children have on average 20 more IQ points, makes the population particularly susceptible to a new mutation.

   Engineering is really good at optimizing along any variable or set of varables one requires. The problem is that reality has more variables than can be accounted. This is a big reason why we self-driving cars are still not here.

   And iirc mRNA makes proteins strands that self-fold into protein catalysts. These catalysts have numerous active sites. And they are stimulated to be produced based on another system to create the right mRNA due to a timely need for a particular catalyst. If you create a new mRNA and insert it, or for that matter change the genome to create that new mRNA, how do we know that the new mRNA won’t create a protein that has more than one active site and the other new active sites won’t have profoundly negative effects?

   Trial and error?

   For the virus case, I see no reason random chance is inherently better than design.

   Any human gene therapy trial is going to tested thoroughly in animals and cell culture before being put in use. It’s similar to developing a medication. The rule is DNA acts as the master record, then the cell makes mRNA (m is for messenger) from the DNA. mRNA is edited a bit then sent to a ribosome to be synthesized into proteins. Most proteins have several active sites for proper regulation of their activity.

   Randomness is better at occupying all of phase space than design, which tends to optimize in a few dimensions. My argument is that genetic engineering will make the human race more susceptible to viruses because there will be less variation. I argue against the omniscient ness of scientists. People are prone to hubris including scientists and engineers.

   I agree, but say it differently. The complexity of the genetically moderated processes is so great that tampering with one can’t destroy the whole.

   Usually not. But it’s entirely possible that some beneficial genes would make us more susceptible to this or that disease without us being aware of that susceptibility. I view genetic engineering like I do most technology. It’s a good thing but it creates lots of unforeseen problems. With genetics I understand an even more cautious approach but I still want to move forward. 

10. Member
    Stina

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Z in MT (View Comment):
    Randomness is better at occupying all of phase space than design, which tends to optimize in a few dimensions. My argument is that genetic engineering will make the human race more susceptible to viruses because there will be less variation. I argue against the omniscient ness of scientists. People are prone to hubris including scientists and engineers.

    We definitely tend to group up in our consumer choices. Why should genetic decision making be any different?

    One major benefit of life-long, monogamous marriage is it forces variation naturally by forcing mating with different people. One man isn’t producing 100 kids with 20 different women under such circumstances.

    This is one of a couple reasons I have mild issues with genetic donations via sperm and egg.

    The Emperors did.

    Yeah. And it resulted in a ruling class that was plagued by wasting illnesses.

11. Member
    Henry Castaigne

    Stina (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    Z in MT (View Comment):
    Randomness is better at occupying all of phase space than design, which tends to optimize in a few dimensions. My argument is that genetic engineering will make the human race more susceptible to viruses because there will be less variation. I argue against the omniscient ness of scientists. People are prone to hubris including scientists and engineers.

    We definitely tend to group up in our consumer choices. Why should genetic decision making be any different?

    One major benefit of life-long, monogamous marriage is it forces variation naturally by forcing mating with different people. One man isn’t producing 100 kids with 20 different women under such circumstances.

    This is one of a couple reasons I have mild issues with genetic donations via sperm and egg.

    The Emperors did.

    Yeah. And it resulted in a ruling class that was plagued by wasting illnesses.

    Incest is bad.