What is Digg?Sponsored by The Union
Used up your Liver? Try our latest model from $756,000 view!
theunioncares.com - The Union provides the best organs, finest service and most attractive payment plans in today's market.
38 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29By whom? semi-fanatic religious politicians?
What really regulates this are lawsuits if they cause pain to someone. - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Genes on my shopping list:
• a couple new photoreceptors in the retina for extended wavelength vision
• extra pair of arms
• tougher material covering base of feet, knees and elbows
• retractable claws (as long as they don't interfere with dexterity too much) - omgitscolin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I'd be satisfied with:
- Better eyesight (everyone in my family needs glasses or contacts)
- Stronger joints (I have typical tall-guy knee problems, as does my dad)
- Resistance to cancer, flu, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, etc. - crashnburn275, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Evolution will eventually select for humans that are more attractive, intelligent, and genetically resistant to disease (assuming these qualities confer a selective advantage). This type of genetic engineering essential only speeds up this natural process.
Besides, humans have been 'playing God' essentially since the advent of agriculture and domesticated animals. - gaijin, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@crashnburn275
I have to disagree. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that ***** sap is any more attractive, disease resistant or intelligent than our predecessors. We are certainly more advanced technologically and, arguably, socially but I don't think we are fundamentally or genetically any different.
There is the school of thought that believes that human evolution through NATURAL selection stopped when we advanced to the point that we began to take care of the injured, the sick and those weaker than ourselves. That leaves us with ENFORCED selection (a slippery slope, indeed) or advancing the species through technological manipulations, which needs to be looked at long and hard before we take that first step.
I'm not a doom-sayer or 21st century Luddite. I just think it's very hard to know where those first few baby steps will eventually lead. - crashnburn275, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@Gaj: You haven't seen evidence that evolution has occured in humans? There are MANY examples, but here's a quick one of the top of my head:
Europeans coexisted with diseases such as influenza and smallpox for generations, and over time those most resistant to those diseases reproduced the most successfully. When the Europeans came to the Americas, they brought their diseases with them. Native Americans had not come in contact with European diseases before, and they had not kept pace in evolving resistances to these diseases because there was no selection pressure favoring these qualities. That is why these diseases decimated Native American populations while Europeans were not nearly as vulnerable. - vietvet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Certainly there are safety issues, and there will continue to be regulation.
The problems that might arise have been explored repeatedly in science fiction. My favorite: the assertion that intelligence is fairly easy, but stability very hard.
The connection to digg should be obvious;) - gaijin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@djlosch
"and remember that evolution happens over thousands of years, not your lifetime. you have to compare us with certain other pre-species of homosapien, and we are clearly, 100%, without a doubt, rediculously more intelligent, and we are getting taller."
Obviously I'm not so stupid to think the evolutionary change occurs in a single lifetime. And I specifically referred to ***** sap not any proto-human or "pre-species". This from a paper entitled "The Human Brain as a Preadaptive Factor in the Development in Culture" by Leo Estel:
"Differences between prehistoric skeletal remains of ***** sapiens and the
skeleton of modern ***** sapiens do not exhibit biological differences that would
show an evolutionary change as regards intelligence. The cultural elaborations
of early ***** sapiens indicate a cultural capacity equal to that of modern man."
I think you may be confusing "knowledge" with "intelligence". If Einstein had never attended school or even learned to read, would he be any less intelligent? I think not.
"...the europeans would travel around the world bringing their dormant diseases that they had long developed immunities..."
A "developed immunity" is not an evolutionary change. Antibodies developed from contact with a disease (or via vaccination) or passed from the mother's system to the child's is not something that occurs at the genetic level. When smallpox first made the rounds in Europe it was just as devastating in many populations there as it was later to the Native Americans. Within a generation the surviving natives were very nearly as resistant to smallpox as their European "guests". Was this an evolutionary change that occurred in a lifetime's span?
As far as being taller, every study that I've seen has shown a direct correlation between height and nutrition. In fact, in the late 17th century and early 18th century average European height actually declined! Digs in Israel have uncovered skeletal remains dated to 100,000 to 90,000 years ago that measure 172cm in height. This individual is not remarkable in the context of other remains found at the same and nearby sites. You wouldn't even notice him in a crowd of Americans who currently average around 176cm. - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3what happened to the article where the guy said 90% of the world's population needs to be killed off?
there are plenty of people who should not have their lives extended... walmart shoppers really come to mind. - WiseWeasel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Trolling for idiots was too much fun? Or were you actually serious? I thought that was pretty funny, taken as satire...
- sakuraz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Dudes.....
I'd rather last longer than two minutes for once in bed. - jim9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2A cure or treatment for Cystic Fibrosis would be nice.
- krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -1/+3@lazzareth
i know exactly what you are talking about. - jokerthief, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Is that really something we want to see happening?"
Yeah, that would be awesome. Why wouldn't you want to have the ability to improve your genetic code? Especially since now it's becoming increasingly clear that nature wins out in the old "nature vs nurture" debate.
We are sitting on the edge of the next epoch in evolution and this is a very good, not bad, thing. - ZippidyDoo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8This is the worst wii article yet.
- kd1s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Regulation has never worked. Look at cloning. Ban it in the U.S. and some private lab goes and does it anyway.
It's a brave new world that we're moving towards. I for one welcome it. For example - where are those little nanobots that we'll insert into our body to effect repairs? I could use them right now for this blasted inner ear infection.
And if we breed superhumans in the process, so be it. It's evolution, except that it is now within our realm to speed it up considerably. - TheBigJ149, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Has anyone seen GATTACA??
- defectDS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Anyone here have a Pectus Excavatum? It sucks being your own cereal bowl!
(If you havn't tried it, go ahead!) - gaijin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@patientXero
What you say would be correct if humans were like herd animals in which ONLY the most successful pass on their genes. To put it bluntly, how many poor, ugly couples have you seen with about a half dozen kids in tow?
Studies have shown consistently that people with more education and higher incomes tend to have FEWER children (usually just one or two) than their lesser educated, lower income counterparts.
Face it, because of our societal notions that we protect the less fortunate, natural selection is exerting, at best, only a minuscule influence on the human species. Unlike a herd of wild horses or a pride of lions, very nearly EVERY human who survives into adulthood is procreating. - jonesin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So? We'd be designing people to be smarter, and with that increased intelligence would come the capacity to actually get us off the planet and start colonizing space.
- waltwalt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There definitely is a sizable portion of the world that should not be propagating the species. Hopefully, a small intelligent portion of the population will continue to evolve itself technologically and survive through the religious witch burnings of our day to leave the planet and the Luddites to themselves.
- kendals, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1We're yet to actually ADD new information in this 'evolution' process for say, humans, mentioned in above comments, but hey! Let's all pretend ;)
- bernielomax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hehe, I feel the control over such technology shouldn't be controlled. It should be free for all. : D
(But inside I hope it doesn't turn out to be a bioshock) - bernielomax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The scientific link shows only shows there is a relation between health and perceived health. a healthy individual might give off healthy offspring; but healthy looking people might carry faulty genes. Just another indirect correlation. :)
I find this interesting. How do they manufacture these? Computer chip eh... - amoirae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This explains why we haven't seen the Bush twins in ages. They fixed the genetic defects in the twins and they ceased to exist!
- patientXero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ gaijin
There is a demonstrated scientific link between the physical characteristics that are generally considered attractive and the perception of health and fitness for producing healthy offspring.
Additionally, status in a community (often represented by wealth or power) also signifies a greater ability to produce successful and health offspring who will be well cared for.
The result is that rich, powerful, healthy, good-looking people have a huge advantage when it comes to successfully passing genes along to the next generation.
In hundreds or thousands of years THOSE genes will critically outnumber the genes from less successful, less healthy, and less attractive people, thereby making those future humans prettier, healthier and smarter than present day humans. - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2just trolling man ;)
Couldn't resist - saudama, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2And soon, it won't be much of a necessity as it is a genetic plastic surgery to completely transform a person's physical body as they desire. Is that really something we want to see happening?
- lagrange, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Finally, a way to commit genocide against fat people without actually getting your hands greasy.
- crashnburn275, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Personally, I want to glow in the dark.
http://images.google.com/images?q=gfp%20mouse&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi - krinthekuz, on 09/16/2008, -3/+2@gaijin
no more attractive or resistant to disease? the massacres that the europeans didnt have to raise a sword for back during the exploration era are a perfect example. the europeans would travel around the world bringing their dormant diseases that they had long developed immunities, and the natives to these distant lands were significantly slaughtered without the europeans even having to lift a weapon (i'm not saying that the euros didnt; they definitely slaughtered many with swords, but the majority was destroyed by famine)
and remember that evolution happens over thousands of years, not your lifetime. you have to compare us with certain other pre-species of homosapien, and we are clearly, 100%, without a doubt, rediculously more intelligent, and we are getting taller.
no evidence of change is just wrong. remember, that this door swings both ways. 200 years ago, there was no such thing as hayfever, but over the last few years, with all the developments in cleaning technologies, children are often born into overly clean environments, thus not developing basic immunities to irritants like dust and many pollens.
on the macro-scale of evolution we are getting taller and more intelligent. on the microscale, our immunities are becoming polarized -- more resistant to diseases, but less resistant to the common cold. - polyGone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Gods work is infallible. You scientists think you're so smart. You can't prove that god didn't make you that way for a reason. It's all part of god's logical plan. If you really understood the bible, you'd know it is correct and true. You can't even disprove his existance. Our lord and savior probably had genetic defects and that's how god wanted it. Someday you'll see. Hope it's nice and toasty where you're going.
Hehehee....that was too much fun.......back to reality....... - mattwilliamson, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Everyone would be living a lot longer . . . the world is congested with people already
- flawlessjess, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2how about larger breasts- the fakeness for all women
- digitalrift, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0*insert comment about genome soldiers* "what was that noise?" /metal_gear_solid
- rdotson, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3@crashnburn275
The Bible says something like "God made man in his own image", so if this is taken quite literally (ie; down to the atomic level), we are in fact all exact copies of the "God" who supposedly created us. I think if there ever was a carpenter named Jesus, he was trying to tell us that we are each and every one (all humans) "Gods" compared to all other creatures on earth, and that we should all cooperate with each other for our own common benefit. The church has misinterpreted "His" message all along, but then if we all considered ourselves "Gods" we wouldn't need the church for much would we? ;-) - rdotson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1@@crashnburn275
P.S.
My point is that we needn't "play" at being God(s), because we ARE! LOL! ;-) - adamfalkofske, on 10/12/2007, -18/+4Playing God scares me. I'm not a religious man at all, but if this type of science must be regulated.
