Aswad
Posts: 6908
Joined: 4/4/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: justinasamerk However who is it to determine what a "Desirable" trait is. Historically speaking every generation there is a social group out there that sets to erraticate a more "inferior" group, (and for those ignorant to believe..this is the age of *coughs* Terrorism) Terrorism isn't particularly relevant to the question at hand. But, yes, spot-on. Determining what is desireable is a big can of worms. Also, let us not forget that genetic diversity is the cure for the vulnerabilities of monoculture. If we eradicate a certain trait, we may find, later, that the same genes are associated with some vital survival mechanism. Turns out, for instance, that the people who survived the bubonic plague had a mutation that just happens to grant near-immunity to HIV. Retroactively altering the genetic material of a living being is a lot more complex than altering that of a single cell. quote:
It is scary to think that soon you can create and order your child based on certain characteristics as if they are a specialty item in a fast food restaurant. Manufacturing appearance is not viable. It depends on too many factors. We'd need to find a way to grow them in tanks instead, then, under controlled circumstances. And they'd need a special diet to get the exact height desired. Even then, I'm not sure you could order them to spec. I don't see anything intrinsically scary about the concept. The scary things are monoculture, social dysgenics and so forth. We don't have the understanding of our genome required to isolate genes specifically enough to make sure there isn't anything else attached to those genes, so the monoculture risk can't be avoided at this stage. Dysgenics is very scary, but only in the sense that it accelerates the existing trend. quote:
As for the gorean perspective, slaves were animals, and currently we do breed animals and genetically alter them for the desirability, whether its chickens for bigger breasts, or cows for their milk, even farming fish and other type of sea life. We do it now, just not in the name of humans. Eventually it probably will be the norm to farm humans to. Eventually, yes, provided humans still procreate and die at the time. Let's hope not. But the idea of genetically engineering a slave caste when we get to the point where we have the prerequisite understanding of the genetics involved is kind of interesting. I don't think any observer of human nature and history can believe that we won't do just that either way, so extending the discussion to involve the potential for genetically engineering personal slaves is only natural. As I pointed out earlier, if we modify the ovum and sperm prior to fertilization, any argument of a religious/spiritual nature is lost, as there is no opportunity for a soul, at least within the more familiar religions. As I also pointed out earlier, I don't have a problem with modifying the genes that will result in thought processes in just that way. If the slave is engineered in such a way as to desire slavery, and to find happiness/fullfilment of that role, the ethical problems are quite a lot simpified, possibly to the point where it can be defended. The implications for both Gorean lifestyles and BDSM lifestyles are interesting, to say the least, although I expect there would be a lot of resistance to it, at least initially.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way. We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|