Ok so there's 4 things i'm going to go over in this post.
1) Genetic attraction.
So this is something I've actually thought about for many years now. There might be scientific merit, there may be studies on it (i honestly haven't read it there are) but i'm going to state my opinion, and then flow into my next topic.
So why do I find blonde girls hotter than brown but my friend doesn't. Tall girls or short girls? Skinny or chubby? Freckles, pale, lips, eyes etc etc etc. If you actually ask a person why they like blondes over brunettes, they probably can't even tell you themselves why.
So what if it's caused by your genetics? So instinctually my body determines that a blonde girl has a certain gene that would would increase the chances of strengthening my offspring over someone who has brown hair, for example.
In this theory, genetic diversity plays a factor in this as well. Now this isn't meant to be bad or anything, so if I use any politically incorrect terminology it's not intended. I'm probably one of the least racist people you'll ever meet so I dont even know the correct things to say some time (or what's sometimes incorrect to say).
Usually I notice that women that have that incredibly attractive "exotic" look come from a mixing of cultures, known by some people as "half breeds". Now I dont have any good examples off the top of my head, but this usually falls into the realm of black/white, asian/white, black/asian, etc. Also keep in mind this isn't a stead fast rule, just an observation i've noticed (and had people agree with). The reason I think this is is because our instincts recognize this as a wide genetic variance, something that can help with strong genetic offspring.
Essentially... it's all about making babies.
*disclaimer* this isn't always going to be the case, but it's an interesting theory i think?
2) Genetic manipulation
Ma n Pa are about to have a brand new baby boy. But they wanted a girl. And *gasp* it's going to be a red head!! That's unacceptable (ps. i like red heads, hehehe). So they go to the doctor, and after a couple treatements while in the womb, their potential red-headed boy, is now going to be a much taller brown haired girl (with green eyes).
Now... just to get this out right now, I honestly dont know what to think of this. I'd like to say I dont think it's an issue, but at the same time, I dont know if it is. Like for stuff like you wanted your child to have a different hair color, mehh, whatever. But making your child a different sex, or more intelligent, or more outgoing... these are personallity traits that shouldn't be controlled by science (unless you're correcting for a genetic abnormality).
Now i'm not saying we should stop genetic manipulation of fetal development either. Advancement in this field is still an amazing idea. Imagine getting pregnant after trying to so long, being so happy about it, and then find out your child has Down Syndrome. Very sad day. Now imagine the same situation, and by simply giving you a retro-virus injection, they can correct the issue. Sad day turns back into happy day.
There are always "good and bad" about scientific advancements. The Nuclear bomb brought us nuclear power (good). Coal power brought us global warming (bad). Hair spray makes girls look pretty but causes holes in the ozone layer. Genetic manipulation is no different.
3) Stem cell research
Why... in the world... is this bad?
So there's an argument about this stating that stem cell research is morally wrong because it requires the destruction of a "living" fetus. And since that's the main issue, a lot of people just DONT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT ANYMORE.
Now, something that really has always bothered me about people and their argument of ethics is that they make their primary argument, and that's that, they dont want to hear anymore about it.
In the United states, there are clinics that specialize in Invitro Fertalization. This means you take a bunch of sperm, a bunches of eggs, mix them, watch them, and then you implant the ones that start successfully fertilize to the Uteral walls, and wait for babies. If I remember my numbers correctly, these clinics throw out as many as 300 eggs a day that are successfully fertilized. Of these 300 per day, at the stage they dispose of them in, they're almost entirely stem cells. So instead of using them for life saving research, they are throwing them away because it's illegal due to moral reasons... I'm sorry, but I dont see the issue here.
The main group of people opposed to stem cell research? Religious groups... Thanks Religion!!! You complain about the implications of stem cell research for life saving procedures while at the same time completely ignoring your constantly riddled past of mass murder and large scale population control, not to mention all the wars religion has started, and all the people that have been murdered in "His" name. (Budhists, you're exempt in this).
4) Genetic manipulation against Gods will.
So again i'm just going to start this one by mentioning something of myself so you understand my mindset. I'm not the most religious person in the world. I think i'm agnostic? Essentially I believe that there is, or may be, something that's all powerful. But I dont claim to be smart enough to know what it is, where it is, how it works, etc.
"If man were meant to fly he would have been born with wings"
Milton Wright.
So what did the Wright brothers do? Gave their dad the finger and proved him wrong. Now people the world over fly. Why do we fly? Because it's sooooooooooooo easy to do.
Religion, many of them, if not all, are against mans attempted to manipulate our own genetics. "Who are we to play god" and so on. The primary argument for this is that man shouldn't play God.
To all the religious people who believe this. I have a single question for you.
If God never intended us to manipulate our own genes, then why did he make it so incredibly easy to do so?
Like... it's not only easy, he practically gave us a map. He created the Universe in a way that he felt was the best, he created man in his image, so why didn't he make genetic manipulation impossible if we were never intended to play with it? How do you infact know that he didn't make it this simple intentionally, so that we can better ourselves.
Now I know a lot of religiuos people dont believe in evolution (seriously, how can you NOT believe in evolution? Pick up a book, research some evidence... wow...) but for all we know, maybe Gods intent is for us to use this to allow us to evolve to the next level.
After all, how esle are you going to figure out how to grow an army of genetically engineering super soldiers to held us fight of the upcoming alien invasion? Duhhh!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Enjoyed your blog Kris. I've been long time interested in genetics also, like I suppose many of us. The awesome movie GATTACA (spelt with base pair code) delves into some of the possible issues - genetic manipulation could result in different "classes" of humans.. there in described as the "valids" and the "in-valids".
ReplyDeleteJokingly - well we have different types of animals now-a-days bread for different purposes (hunting dogs, fighting dogs, herding dogs) imagine if this gets also done for humans. We could have humans that are even more docile than cows for extremely mundane work I suppose. We could have a race of "super humans". I guess this sounds a bit goose steppingly familiar too. And only various groups could afford "designer genes".
Arguably, money already has an effect on mate selection, so what's the difference?
An argument can be created to suggest that allopathic medicine, based on a presumption that prodding nature double-blindly, and then recording the lab observed outcomes, is the most accurate and humane method towards understanding "reality". This concept risks losing the forest for the trees as if someone were to say "I am going to find out what composes Frank D. To do so without bias I am going to record what happens when I introduce substrate x, condition y with restraints z. If I can control Frank D. under these circumstances I will know the reality behind Frank D. and his true nature." I beg to suggest that this might not be so - fully, completely. Arguably to know someone or something we might have to "commune" with it. That is to say, that there may be more to nature than a mechanistic view of it. And it may be asked regarding manipulation of the human genome (and other genomes too) "is it paradise lost, or paradise found?"
Now I don't want to get off on the wrong foot and paint myself as a person opposed to genetic research. The shadow sides must be looked at. This said I believe that possibly the future of medical advancement may very well lay within the boundaries of genetics. There are different "switches" that an individual has in their existing genome, as it is, that can provide different outcomes to how their physical body manifests itself for example.. a "cancer switch" is argued.. exists and it may be determined that we can "turn it off". This I think would be a wonderful thing for mankind to learn how to do. Where do we draw the lines? Who draws them? Who patrols them? Is the "line" here to be an "existing genome"?
We are opening Pandora's box (originally a jar) and let's pray some good comes out of it that more than compensates potential bad. Even if we leave morals out of this, as they are not easily agreed upon, we must strongly consider the potential pitfalls. Is Morlock vs Eloi a necessary evolutionary battle? Are we developed spiritually enough to be proper stewards of this technology? Who's got the steering wheel, who's got the breaks and who's got the accelerator and do we agree on the driver or are we passengers singing as light posts whip by? So many questions and all this takes cash flow and secrecy for the trademarks and to ensure ROI for investors. Should we open up a cold one and listen to Supertramps "illogical song"? Yes and I think we should consider to try to wrap our pea brains around this stuff if we care about our children and their grand children. Thanks for the canvass, your lead, and this blog Kris. God bless us, everyone!