Originally Posted by Owl Mirror

LOL noooooooooo just like to know who I'm talking with

Originally Posted by Steve

....
Unless we know what "perfect DNA" is, we shouldn't even consider doing it. If we did, without the benefit of knowing when we'd reached that point of "perfect DNA", we'd never stop trying to improve upon it....

Originally Posted by Steve

....The problem is that, once perfection is attained, anything done beyond that is only a detriment...

Originally Posted by Owl Mirror

Mapping own DNA changes scientist's life



~@~

While reading the above article, it struck me that one day some scientist or group of scientists will be able to dissect, manipulate, splice a DNA sequence altering it's natural makeup and eliminating the inherent flaws.

Would this be a wise course of action in furthering the evolution of Mankind?

Imagine if actual human-beings were produced that had perfect genetics free of flaws which cause disease and the limitations of longevity.
Now overpopulation would be a concern if humans were to live healthy productive lives without genetically inheritable diseases. Perhaps the only avenue for humanity persuing this quest would be in space exploration?
Then again, would these people be a true representation of Man to whomever they may encounter ?



Consider the above question: Should Man persue this course if proven achievable?

The way mankind has been taught to view life and death are quite possibly about to be rewritten.



There is one more ethical~moral question Man should ponder before going off on this path.

Religion


If the first generations of a new genetically altered human beings have an advantage over natural human-beings, history would enivitably be written in these generations favor.
Would one Religious belief eventually dominate the planet?
Which one should they emulate ?

Would a genetically superior human race retain the diversity that we share today ?

Lists of Famous Adherents of Various Religious Groups
lists of prominent people (actors, politicians, authors, U.S. presidents, artists, musicians, Supreme Court justices, film directors, etc.) classified by religious affiliation.

Originally Posted by Steve

So, does anyone care to define "perfect DNA", or are the usual suspects just going to use this as (and this was evidenced in a previous post) a platform for arguing that we shouldn't try to introduce democracy to the Middle East?

Unless we know what "perfect DNA" is, we shouldn't even consider doing it. If we did, without the benefit of knowing when we'd reached that point of "perfect DNA", we'd never stop trying to improve upon it.

The problem is that, once perfection is attained, anything done beyond that is only a detriment...

Originally Posted by Owl Mirror

Steve, you've spent your entire time in this thread seeking an explaination from me as to "perfect DNA" and this whole time you have over looked one tiny but significant word.

Should Human's strive for DNA perfection ?

strive : to devote serious effort or energy

Oh, here's another good word we can use; endeavor

Perhaps now we can move along to the actual topic of the thread and dismiss with the semantical strawman arguments?

Originally Posted by Owl Mirror

I find it absolutely amazing that two pages have been devoted to the 'improper' use of the term PERFECT
rather than the more simplistic achievement of Improvement.

Originally Posted by Owl Mirror

I find it absolutely amazing that two pages have been devoted to the 'improper' use of the term PERFECT
rather than the more simplistic achievement of Improvement.

Originally Posted by Steve

Here's the definition of "perfect":

1 a : being entirely without fault or defect : FLAWLESS <a perfect diamond> b : satisfying all requirements

If you don't know what the ideal is, and you have no idea what requirements will render something "perfect", then you'll never know when you get there.

If you want to debate whether or not the "achievement of improvement" should be pursued, we can do that, but that's not what's being discussed.

"Perfection" is an absolute ideal. Unless you know the criteria of that ideal, you'll never know when you get there...

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Improvement and perfection conjure up much different images, regarding human genetics. One brings to mind images of eliminating genetic disorders, while the other brings to mind images of Hitler and Eugenics.

Originally Posted by Otter

Knowing one's DNA sequence hardly gives knowledge of all of one's predispositions. We just don't know what all of that sequence *does*. For example, Ventr says he has no family history of Alzheimers, but found on gene taht is linked to it...and now he's taking an experimental treatment for a disease he might be suceptable to? This sounds a bit crazy to me. He ought to know that most traits are the result of multiple gene interactions, and these are far from worked out. Maybe he has other genes that are protective, and this is why there is no family history; only now he may screw up his liver with the statins.
At any rate, these discoveries will be used for somatic genetic therapy to treat genetic diseases, but germ line alteration is forbidden, and with good reason I think. If you want to know how we do when we have leave to alter a species even just using selective breeding look at dogs; what a mess! We've got psychotic breeds, breeds that can't give birth without a c-section, breeds that can barely breathe...no, we've got no buisness fooling with human inheritance.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Improvement and perfection conjure up much different images, regarding human genetics. One brings to mind images of eliminating genetic disorders, while the other brings to mind images of Hitler and Eugenics.