Today is a new beggining (apparently)

[Flagg]

As I'm sure you have all heard, yesterday (26th June) has been recorded as the day that the human genome was completed. Mankind now holds a comprehensive map of all the genes that make up who we are. Statesmen around the globe have commented that this is the single most significant scientific breakthrough in our history. Apparently, the immediate effects of such knowledge include:

* Life expectancy to increase by 25 years
* A cure for most cancers by 2010

I don't know about the rest of you but I find this whole thing quite scary. I mean the effects on our basic health are great and everything but what about the potential downsides. Pharmaceutical companies are going to become incredibly wealthy (they may well overtake the IT industry in revenues) through the patenting of various gene therapies. Does this mean that the poor and the developping world will have to go without treatments that arguably they need the most?
Are we going to embark on a journey to create a super-race of human beings in which there is no place for the physically and mentally handicapped?
Will beauty be a thing of the past when all new babies are pre programmed to look "attractive' thus dispensing with all notion of difference?
Does God exist?

What do the rest of you think about this news. Does it excite you, scare you, make you wonder?

(Oh and just to make it sex-related. Do you think this new knowledge could enable us all to be fantastic sex machines?)

Just a thought

Flagg.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Hang on to your seat it is going to be one hell of a ride into the 21st century. I think that mostly the new tech stuff will be good but as always it will cater to the rich. A new race of genetically engineered humans probably but a very very small precentage of the population. You don't get rich and stay rich by dividing the pie.

Is the ability to cure mental and physicial problems bad?
We don't agree on what is beautiful now so I still see lots of room for choices.
Change is always scary but very necessary for growth.

 

[Sammyjo]

I must admit the whole thing intrigues me. I have been interested in and have followed the DNA concepts/developments ever since high school human anatomy class. We used to have discussions about what things would be like in the future, and how it would affect us if they did indeed map out DNA completely.

In a way, it is scary, for the exact reasons you mentioned. I hate the idea that individuality may fade with the new developments.

It excites me because cures for diseases such as cancer and AIDS may not be too far in the future...we may actually live to see these great wonders...who would have thought that?

As for the sex thing....I'm already a fantastic sex machine....just don't spread it around

 

[Fallen Angel]

Whoops almost missed this!

Of course God exists, we are his children.

 

[Gingersnap]

During a brief employement with a clinical investigational unit I wittnessed an event that haunts me... One team developing a new drug sorry no specifics felt the need for fetal testing. One of the leads on the team's wife suffered a spontaneous abortion. Gestational age being eighteen weeks the couple asked for and recieved the fetal remains.
It was the reason I left the company. Now mind you no record of that type of testing was found....Yet I have always wondered and been disturbed by the event. If the worse is true; who will be making the decisions about the ethics of this knowlege? I fear that insurance and drug companies will not use this for the good.. Look at the heart breaking side effects of resulin....Believe me when I say our collective good does not drive these companies.

As for the sexual part of this question; it's a lot like ice cream it comes in many flavors and there is always room for more. I don't need any help making choices.. I had some butterscotch that was excellent!!!!

[Edited by Gingersnap on 06-27-2000 at 04:40 AM]

 

[Weird Harold]

An entire subgenre of Science Fiction

A new race of genetically engineered humans probably but a very very small precentage of the population.

Nancy Kress has written a trilogy that begins with "Beggars in Spain" that deals with one vision of what genetic engineering might do to society.

There are numerous short stories and novels, written in the last ten years, that predict everything from doom and gloom, to wonderful happy ever after scenarios.

You can go back even further to the sixties and seventies if you want to find stories dealing with the effects transplants and cloning might have on society.

One of the most entertaining books about transplants, is "I Will Fear NO Evil" By Robert A Heinlein.

In real life, the medical profession is struggling to update their ethics guidelines to deal with cloning and gene therapy. Congress, and legislative bodies around the world are struggling with the same concepts. (Those that are smart enough to anticipate the problems, that is.) The debates in all forums are lagging far behind the rush of discoveries and developments.

One common theme, in science fiction stories that use gene tampering as a plot device, is that the thrid world countries will profit from a lack of legislation forbidding advanced medical procedures like cloning and gene tailoring.

S. Andrew Swann is another author who has considered the long term results of gene-modified animals in his "Moreau" stories, beginning with "Forests Of Night".

 

[RonG]

While I applaud that this effort (mostly computer slogging over the last couple of years)is finally complete, I tend to think its implications are being overstated.

* While it is true that some hope exists for genetic fixits for some diseases and maladies, we have plenty of diseases now that we have understood the gene problem and can't do anything about. The immediacy of applying bandaids to unfortunate cells is well off.

* The statistics of the thing is that we all die, hence each item that gets removed as a cause of death gets replaced by something else (fewer whooping coughs and flu deaths, means more cancer and heart deaths). Normally, this does result in improvement on the low end as fewer kids die, only to die later in old age so the average age improves. But people who lived to grand ages before had about the same quality of life as a lot of our senior citizens today.

* We do have incredible ability to shorten our life spans regardless of medical means. I know we want our scientists to blur the lines as "gods" but we tend to do dumb things like drugs, bad foods and shooting each other that will keep the status quo rolling for some time. More people>>less resources>>let's pick on the tribe next door for looking different. Avoid some of these things and you are likely to live a good long time now.

* Eugenics happens already - people tend to pair off with those of relatively equivalent "attractiveness" with attractiveness including ability to provide, intelligence, etc. I guess gene typing will allow us to know who got decent looking by plastic surgery but practical use is probably moot.

* Poor, undeveloped nations not benefitting from this? Doesn't happen with existing treatments so I can't imagine those pharmaceutical people not being as benevolent as ever. Actually, the point above about governments, tribes, wars and shooting people probably covers this anyway; they prevent more medical treatments being uniformly distributed than corporate greed ever could.

I hope that we can keep this thing out of the religious arena but I doubt it. When the corporate mouthpieces who present the findings say they feel like gods now that they have the essence of creation, they are just spoiling for a fight.

Regarding sex, I tend to find mystery and imagination the best aphrodisiacs. This project may improve the average equipment at the expense of motivation (kind of like how the microwave oven improved cuisine).

 

[SimplySouthern]

You mean I'm not already a fantastic sex machine??

Burst my bubble why don't ya!

 

[Dreamer1]

You mean I'm not already a fantastic sex machine??

Burst my bubble why don't ya!

SS, I don't know ya but I bet you are one finely tuned love machine sweetie!

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Sure it's scary, but equally scary was landing on the moon which the Muslims took as a sign of modern depravity because the moon to them is a venerated object. There was the Theory of Relativity and Einstein's Quantum physics which alterted our perception of what the Universe is, and put into serious question God's need in creation. Evolution, well -- I don't need to go THERE do I? Not to mention Gallileo finding moons around Jupiter, thereby proving for the first time that the all the Spheres of Heaven do not orbit about the earth, and only the earth, and put into serious doubt Man's special place in God's heart. Don't underestimate just how frightening and earth shattering each of these advances were, and we survived the moral questions and scientific and intellectual abuses, and moved on, and bettered our world. I'm all for shining a light on truth anywhere we can find it, but we should very much keep in mind Prometheus, Frankenstein and Seymore Krelborn -- the power to create is awesome, and deserves awesome respect.

 

[Endlessly]

Does God exist?

You know, I've known so many wonderful, intelligent, kind and caring aitheists who say they place all their faith in science. Yesterday I heard an interview with two of the scientists that made my entire day, I was grinning from ear to ear. The reporter asked them "Do you believe in God?" One of them answered yes, right away. The other paused for a moment before saying:

"I sure do now."

Look at it. The intricacies and the subtle differences in a gene that make me who I am instead of making me you. The fact that there's only about an 8% genetic difference between us and our closest primate relatives.. But look at the difference it makes. That kind of awe-inspiring attention to detail, that sort of amazing uniqueness.. Can you honestly attribute it to chance?

Let's say that you're the only human that has ever visited a desolate planet, one that has never seen life. And you find a pocketwatch. One could not believe that it was simply naturally occuring or the molecules assembled in the form of something so complicated by chance; you would think some higher intelligence had created it.

Look at a pocketwatch. Look at the human genome. I've never been so sure of God in my life.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

That's interesting, Endlessly, because I look at the human genome as further support that God does not exist. Funny how we all look for the conclusions we set out to find.

I've been an atheist for many years, for very good reasons that have nothing to do with being beaten by nuns or getting sick on holy water or pelted with eggs on Easter. I place my faith in the scientific process, but that's different than having FAITH, which is a blessing (if I may use that word) to anyone lucky enough to find it.

 

[Endlessly]

*nodding* I can completely understand that outlook, Dixon. I used to be aitheist myself (I used to be a lot of things *LOL*), and I'd venture to say most of my closest friends are as well. We've had a lot of theological discussions, and I'm proud to say I've learned as much if not more from them than I have from sunday school.

ANYway.

I find it interesting you bring up the theory of evolution; I don't believe in creatonist theories (at least not in the respect that the earth is only 5,000 years old and man just kinda popped into estance-- uh, no.), but I don't quite believe in evolution as it's been highly discredited lately by top scientists.

A friend of mine was a physics major and believed in the unflappable infallbility of science.. Until he found out that the law of gravity had been downgraded to a theory. To him, that was like telling a Christian there was proof Christ never rose from the dead.. He couldn't sleep for weeks and ended up becoming n English major.

I know you said you had faith in the scientific process, not in the science itself, but I included the above story because I like it and it amuses me.

BTW-- my theology professor was on ABC last night on the 'Reporter's search for Jesus' last night, Dr. Susan McNamer. Anyone see her?

Dixon.. you said the genome was further proof to you God doesn't exist. How so? (Not looking for an arguement, I'm just looking for more info to absorb. I completely respect your opinion-- and yes, faith in ANYthing is a blessing.)

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Evolution has not been discredited by top scientists. There is currently a debate about how certain processes work, not the Theory itself. The Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin and expanded upon by others is about as solid a Theory as you can possibly get, and there is no distention in the scientific community about its veracity.

The same goes for Gravity, which has always been a Theory (which I'll get to in a moment), but only "demoted" because it was recently (this century) understood that Gravity is not a "force" such as magnetism or electrical current, but rather an effect produced by bodies moving through space curved by larger bodies. In other words, the Earth does not so much go around the sun, as it is traveling in as straight a line as the sun's effect on the fabric of space-time allows. There is no "force" going on. That was the change in thought regarding Gravity. The fact that gravity was once called a "Law" comes from Newton and his Laws of Motion, and all those laws, which are still brilliantly in use today, and highly practical, fall apart on the quantum level. (So does much of mathematics, including Geometry). A "Law" in science does not imply an undisputed fact, it's just a term to help categorize thought about a process.

As for the word Theory, remember that everything in science is a theory, including things like "People Breathe Oxygen" and "The Sky is Blue". A theory is a solidly substantiated concept that is subject to intense experimentation. Both Gravity and Evolution have survived countless experiments, and are close to being postulates as possible. (But Science, as opposed to Religious Dogma or Geometry, which is at heart a philosophical science, does not have postulates or Dogma and allows for revision, which is why even the most obvious natural phenomenon is still, and always, called a "Theory", which assures that scientific facts are always open to scrutiny. This is the part of the process I most admire).

Don't confuse the word Theory with the word Hypothesis, which is an educated guess based on some empirical and some intuitive knowledge, and lead the way to initial experimentation which will, one day, possibly lead to the hallowed walls of "Theory".

As for why I see mapping the human Genome as further evidence of the non-existence of God, I should perhaps phrase that differently. I'm not looking for proof of the non-existence of God, because I don't think I'll ever find that. Rather, I see this accomplishment as further proof of the ascendancy of the mind of man, and evidence of a highly complex universe whose mechanisms can be understood only through science. I don't really want to go into my reasons for atheism here. Let's just say that when questioning existence in an age when we can send probes past the heliosphere, map the human genetic code for life, mine Mars for water, view 14 billion years into the past and comprehend cold fusion which powers the stars and creates the elements of life, I want a better answer than "God".

 

[Guest]

If you are taking a count put me in the "Believes in God" column. The more I learn about the complexities of life the harder it is for me to believe it happened by accident.

As for completing the human genome, my fear is that employers will do testing and people with certain genetic markers will not be hired. The Insurance companies will start screening covertly or openly to weed out potential risks.


[Edited by High Peaks on 06-27-2000 at 01:52 PM]

 

[RonG]

I tend to bounce back and forth on the God/No God argument. Concepts of right/wrong, good/bad seem to exist without a moral imperative from a divine being. The actual creation moment itself is probably forever unknowable and the beauty of Christianity/Islam/Judaism is that it keeps it unknowable as opposed to the early religions like the Greek Mythology which were easily disproved. So all we get are arguments over circumstantial facts without really getting close to the faith question.

The strongest argument lately for the No God side is Tootsie being ahead of Duck Soup on the AFI Top 100 list. The strongest pro-God argument is Buster Keaton's The General toasting all of the Chaplin movies.

 

[Laurel]

Excellent thread, Flagg!

RonG - amazing post at the top, agree with nearly everything you said.

WH - I love Heinlein.

Dixon - agree wholeheartedly on the evolution/science issue. I'm an athiest, and I still find the complex workings of the universe to be breath-taking. To those out there who believe that those without faith live dull, empty lives lacking awe and mystery, I'd like to say that the birth of a puppy, the process of pollination, or the whole big complex process of evolution are awe-inspiring in the extreme despite the lack of any supernatural or superstitious element.

A quick point... "Creation Scientists" are not scientists. The process of science involves observing a phenomenon, making a hypothesis based on that phenomenon, the testing and restesting and restesting. If even once you find your theory to not pan out, it's back to the drawing board. "Creation Science" starts out with a theory - the existence of God - then sets about to find data to prove it. Under this method, I could easily prove the existence of Santa. The presents are under the tree, right? They weren't there the night before. Of course, the tags on them are written in my parent's handwriting, but I can disregard that - as the Creation "Scientists" disregard fossil evidence of dinosaurs, saying they were "placed there by Satan to confuse us".

I'm not going to get into a theological debate because I believe that everyone has the right to their own spiritual views. Faith is a personal thing. Also, such debate rarely change minds, and often lead to arguments. However, faith is faith and science is science. They are separate issues, and will remain separate until such a time as they can be proven, via the TRUE scientific method, to be true.

As far as the Human Genome issue... A while back, I was listening to a talk radio station on which the guest was an activitist for Midget & Dwarf Rights. She was all fired up about scientists were trying to find "cures" for dwarfism and midgetism (is that a word? probably not). She thought this was "bigoted" - "Dwarfs and Midgets are worthy people, too!" Sure they are, but did they CHOOSE to be dwarfs? Did they CHOOSE to have trouble fitting into society, to have shorter lifespans and all sorts of health problems? Of course not... I don't think that gene manipulation will lead to a world of Barbie's and Ken's. Neither do I think that the world will be a worse place if we can eliminate - or at least minimize - genetic mutations in humans.

 

[ShynCarolina]

Genome Map a start

Was reading that IBM is building a system called "Blue Gene" to work on deciphering proteins. I was never good at biology but I think I remember reading that there were over 30,000 different proteins for humans(someone please correct that if it is wrong). The Blue Gene system once it is complete, is at first supposed to be able to decipher 1 protein a year. According to the IBM info, the system is:

500 times more powerful than the fastest computers in the world today (two computers that are part of the ASCI programme run by the U.S. Department of Energy and which were recently tested at about 2 teraflops - two trillion operations per second - each)
1,000 times more powerful than the Deep Blue machine that beat Garry Kasparov;
40 times faster than the sum power of the 40 fastest computers in the world today
2 million times more powerful than today's top desktop PCs.

I am both happy and scared by both this and the genome project. As several people have pointed out, you are definitely gonna have a situation of the rich getting richer and the drug companies becoming more and more powerful. Question then is whether that is a price worth paying for the elimination of disease, genetic defects, and such. As someone with a diabetes condition that I will have to deal with for the rest of my life, a cure would be a godsend (maybe not the right word with the theology discussion going on ) Question: Would a pharmecutical company with the power from this kind of "cure" be much different from a Microsoft which controls a majority of the world and its computers via its Operating System now??

As for the theology...I believe in God but not at the exclusion of science. I see science as a method of explaining the great and wonderfully complex things that God has given us.

High Peaks: Have you ever seen the movie Gattica with Uma Thurman and (I think) Ethan Hawke. Whole movie concerns an unperfect person and his quest to fool the system to get into a program that only accepts "perfect" people.

BTW: Great thread that brought a lot of thoughts to mind. Hope that I didn't ramble too much

 

[Deborah]

SC, like your "As for the theology ... I believe in God but not at the exclusion of science. I see science as a method of explaining the great and wonderfully complex things that god has given us."

So answer this for me, please, someone ...

HOW, WHEN, WHERE and WHY did civilization begin?

Since the beginning of civilization (whatever you said in response to the first question), has there been any provable evolutionary changes in man, or woman (and don't say we got bitchier).

 

[Siren]

 

[Laurel]

Cool Article!

From Wired:

The human genome may be mapped, but there's still a whodunnit to be solved. Where did all that DNA come from?

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,37216,00.html

 

[Rosebud]

I grew up Christian and even went two years to a Bible college...all i can say is that i do believe in a supreme being or force but whether it is God or not I can no longer say. I think it is great that they have finally tapped into this knowledge...I just wish they would have sooner and maybe my dad and sister would still be here with me instead of being yanked out of my life...

 

[Flagg]

Well, I'm very impressed with the wealth of responses so far and a lot of interesting things have been said. I'm quite surprised that there are so many "believers" out there. I guess its because this is an american site and faith seems to have a larger role to play in your lives than it does in ours over here in Europe.

Does God Exist?
I don't think anyone can claim to know the answer to that question which is why I'd describe myself as an agnostic. (The beauty of being an agnostic is that you can't possibly be wrong about anything!)
To me the mapping of the human genome suggests that God probably doesn't exist. We are now capable of creating a human life. If we can assume the role of "creators" then what distinguishes us from God?

In terms of quality of life, I doubt very much that all disease will be eradicated. I think the role of nature is probably more significant than that of a god. Sure we will finally win the war against cancer but other diseases will occur. And what people don't seem to realise is that death is crucial. To put it crudely the human race needs to be culled. There simply isn't enough room or resources for humans to all live till 105. Nature will find a way to keep an appropriate balance between life and death and thank God() it will!

Anyway, fascinating stuff. It really is exciting to live in an era that is moving forwards so quickly. I think we should all be grateful for being able to experience this.

Flagg

 

[Deborah]

Hey, nobody answered my question about civilization. Oh well, I guess if nobody does I'll just answer it myself. Later.

Here are some more questions:

1. If "the bible" is true, then God exists. T or F?

2. No English translation of "the bible" is entirely accurate (by accurate, I mean true to the original languages, Hebrew and Greek). T or F?

3. "The bible" is essentially a story of a man named Adam and his descendents over a period of about 6,000 years. T or F?

4. No man completely understands or can fully interpret "the bible." T or F?

5. Moses didn't have a laptop computer and Word 97. He likely, if in fact he did write parts of "the bible" did so on cuneiform tablets which were carried off somewhere by someone. T or F?

If anyone can say that there is not at least a reasonable possibility that the above statements can be answered "True" then please tell me WHY.

 

[Guest]

I've got a sore back and a touch of the flu - more analgesics please, nurse!

This is a really interesting strand, Flagg.

The new developments you're talking about are interesting but they do scare me. I think that what scientists know about life and the workings of the Universe are only the tip of the iceberg. I don't believe that, at this stage, human beings have the brain-power to fully understand the way the mechanics of the Universe work. I'm certain that existence is far more complicated than we can ever know. So, it worries me that a selected group of humans are playing with something so important when, at the end of the day, I don't think they can accurately predict the consequences. They tell us they know what they're doing but I think that this is a dangerous kind of arrogance. I think that minor successes make scientists impatient. The chemists who developed Thalidomide must have been over-joyed that they'd discovered a cure for morning sickness. I wonder how they felt when the first children began being born without arms.

I mean, I'm a total hypocrite - I'm glad that I have a greater life expectancy than people in the 18th century had. I'm glad that I can take antibiotics to fight off infection or have an operation that'll mend a damaged organ, or whatever. I just wonder if the whole genetic thing is going too far too soon. I'm glad for a lot of the changes in lifestyle that science has brought about. I just wish scientists would slow down the pace a little. Science can't continue accelerating forever.

Also - can we really be 100% certain that there aren't good reasons for limited lifespans, natural abnormalities or disease? Maybe these are far more important to evolution than we realise.

I don't really 100% trust religion, science or politics - I still haven't found any set of rules that I'd want to rigidly live my life by. There seem to be flaws in every argument.

I think that organised belief systems - whether they are religious, scientific or polital - are useful tools for helping us understand the World around us. They give us meaning in our lives. But I think that at the end of the day they are always flawed because they are created by humans. We have a natural inquisitiveness - we want to know all the answers - but at the end of the day we're still fairly dumb. We CAN'T know all the answers.

I don't believe in "God" but I have spiritual belief. I've got faith in the fact that the Universe makes sense and that my life has meaning. It doesn't bother me too much that I'll never fully understand how it all works. I don't really give much of a shit how the Universe was created or where we came from. People often spend so much of their lives trying to answer these questions that they aren't really living life. I kind of think it's better just to live life and accept the fact that you don't really know what it's all about. Animals are born, they eat and drink, they shit, they play, they fuck, they give birth, they nurture their offspring, they grow old and they die. I don't think they spend much time worrying about what it all means.

"You and me, baby, we ain't nothing but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel..."



(Hey, naughty night nurse - was I supposed to take my Ibuprofen every 3 hours or 4 hours?)