the sexual orientation of fruit flies

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
A_Wanderer said:
Oh please, the needless Nazi comparisons add nothing to the conversation, this has nothing to do with creating a master race to rule over the rest.
'Cuse the hell outta me for having an opinion about people who advocate 'genetic engineering', but that is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. And why is it so bad to have this brought up? Any discussion of genetic engineering should eventually touch on this subject.

That's what they used to think; that they were just trying to give their children the best advantage.


A_Wanderer said:

No, I do not think that people are going to stop having sex...
Good, a little bit of realism anyway.
 
Last edited:
That's what they used to think; that they were just trying to give their children the best advantage.
They were trying to exterminate everybody who didn't fit a mould, that is not giving your children an advantage, thats genocide.
 
A_Wanderer said:
It is (generally) wrong to have a system that prevents certain people from reproducing.


I'm not inclined to agree with that statement.

It begs a lot of questions along the lines of "What is right?", "What is wrong?", etc, etc.

At this point in history, it happens to be unpopular to argue for social darwinism, granted, but it is not necessarily the case that ideas of social darwinism are fundamentally wrong. I would argue that it is conceivable to envisage scenarios whereby social darwinism could become a necessity.
 
If I said outright that it was wrong to prevent certain people from reproducing then I would be advocating things like incest; the child born from which has a higher risk of genetic disorders.

Social Darwinism; which applies natural selection as the reason for poverty and class is wrong. Can you show me a rich gene and a poor gene?
 
Go back before that, to the beginning of the eugenics movement, and you will find that people, at first, were just trying to find the most optimum mate for themselves, and produce the most advantaged children.

Out of this grew the idea of a superman, a master race, those who breeding were more fit and perfect and deserving.

And out of the say practices grew the idea that some people were unfit, undesirable.

In this country, one out growth of eugenics was the 'legal' sterilization of the mentally and emotionally defective, as well as, in Canada, the occasional incedent of Native American women being the unwilling subjects of tubal ligation.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Social Darwinism; which applies natural selection as the reason for poverty and class is wrong. Can you show me a rich gene and a poor gene?

As I mentioned earlier on, we already have an economic system whereby dynastic wealth protects its rights and its wealth, and will do practically anything to protect its wealth and economic advantages.

In reality, social darwinism already is a reality and has been for centuries, and accordingly I see absolutely nothing immoral or wrong in arguing for different types of social darwinism, other than those based purely on economic power.
 
And those were violations of the right of the individual, it says a lot more about the political ideologies of the eugenics movement than the principle of altering the genetics of an individual to reduce risks of disease and possibly improve ability.

Not to mention how utterly crude and unscientific the "theories" of that movement was; it is nothing compared to the understanding that we have today or the technology that could be used in say fifty years.
 
A_Wanderer said:
And those were violations of the right of the individual, it says a lot more about the political ideologies of the eugenics movement than the principle of altering the genetics of an individual to reduce risks of disease and possibly improve ability.

Not to mention how utterly crude and unscientific the "theories" of that movement was; it is nothing compared to the understanding that we have today or the technology that could be used in say fifty years.

And what we know today will be less than nothing as compared to what we will know in fifty years. As crude as the theories of that era were, so will be those of this era in the future. And those of the future era will be in a time beyond that.

Are we supposed to start experimenting on our unborn children based on the information we have now just because it is more information than we used to have?

You ... and your children ... first.
 
No, the technology is not at a stage where we could say improve the visible spectrum of the eye by 5%. That is speculation, the degree to which alteration could be made is speculation.

No you are not supposed to just go nuts and experiment on your children right now; because you really cant, or in the future just because you can.

If the technology reaches a stage where it is safe and widespread and the ethical dillemas are layed out and worked through, a strict code over what can and cannot be done. When that has occured, then parents should be able to give their unborn children the opportunity. If they choose to and probably if they can afford too.

Our understanding of genetics and molecular biology have advanced significantly since the 19th Century. Today unlike then we actually have an understanding of what is going on inside the cells and that provides a framework for investigation, not just guesses and pseudoscience that lacked rigorous method and theory.
 
So, of course, it will be only rich people who get to play god.

As opposed to the poor, undesirable masses....

Gotcha....

:rolleyes:

here's a quote for you:
"The rich stay healthy,
And the sick stay poor."
 
I think that that is the probable scenario, the technology is available to the wealthy because they are the only ones that can afford it. I am not saying that it is the right thing or that it isn't unfair, it's just the way that it is and probably will be.

Of course I could just say that this will benefit everybody overnight and will create an egalitarian unified humanity, but that would be be naive.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Oh please, the needless Nazi comparisons add nothing to the conversation, this has nothing to do with creating a master race to rule over the rest. That is like me saying that if you advocate a national healthcare service then you will want to recreate the killing fields because that line of thinking leads to communism.

No, I do not think that people are going to stop having sex, but I think that some when they choose to have kids would be willing to give their child every possible advantage.

Generally I agree. The question is not whether we should make this gene programming technique available, but when it will become reality. Even though I think it is wrong, Science and curiosity have often weakened ethics.

If I ever get children, they have all the possibilities to become what they want to be - gay or straight, small or tall, thin or fat, smoker or not. It´s their life, so it´s their decision. People who are pro-life also should, theoretically, be against changing the genes.

I would also think it´s too dangerous to manipulate the brain of my child. Parents who want to "program" their child are bad parents in my opinion, because they have no respect for their children´s independency and freedom. Every boy has the right to be gay, so to say.
 
echo0001 said:
Go back before that, to the beginning of the eugenics movement, and you will find that people, at first, were just trying to find the most optimum mate for themselves, and produce the most advantaged children.

Out of this grew the idea of a superman, a master race, those who breeding were more fit and perfect and deserving.

And out of the say practices grew the idea that some people were unfit, undesirable.

In this country, one out growth of eugenics was the 'legal' sterilization of the mentally and emotionally defective, as well as, in Canada, the occasional incedent of Native American women being the unwilling subjects of tubal ligation.

I agree with you 100 %. Genetic engineering would eventually lead to Aryanism of some sort.
 
Re: Re: Re: the sexual orientation of fruit flies

Headache in a Suitcase said:


boom tish
Sorry - our University union nights were MUCH worse! :(

financeguy said:
Fruit flies are instruments of the devil and promote an anti-Biblical agenda. They must not be allowed near our youth. :wink:

ROFLMFAO!!!

I'm not used to this place yet. I'm sure I'll soon be tearing my hair out, debating in a civilised manner, and then throwing my toys out of the pram with the best of you. JOKING... *runs away*

*Returns*
Right. So Let's get to it...

Religion itself may be the strong retrograde force but by potential a religious fundamentalist can be just as intelligent as you or I.

This may well be going backwards, and I do understand that it is not the main point at all, but as it has been brought up, I'd like to know... 'intelligence', in what sense, and by which definition? IQ? Behaviourism? How are you measuring this? Bias affects people's beliefs, of course, and therefore their actions, but does this necessarily reflect their raw intelligence?

Not an enormous point, but I'm curious as to how we judge someone to be more or less intelligent than ourselves. So I'd appreciate it if someone would clarify the context for me before I enter the ring. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
When I think about genetic engineering, I think less about Nazism or eugenics. Rather, I think about the film, "Gattica," where, instead of blatantly trying to eliminate undesirable people, those who weren't genetic engineered suffered from prejudice in the workplace. That is, those who were genetically engineered were smarter and stronger, and, as such, made naturally born humans inferior and undesirable from an economic standpoint. I think that's more of a reasonable fear of genetically-engineering humans than Nazi-style eugenics.

Melon
 
I think that it could be a utopia, although mutation can randomly give rise to adventageous traits.

Oh and it is Gattaga, it uses the base pairs in DNA.

Guanine

Adenine

Cytosine

Thymine
 
Last edited:
In modern society, evolution is dead amongst human beings. Evolution only happens in isolation--that is, "inbreeding"--and human society has generally developed a huge aversion to incestuous relationships.

In animals, though, it's certainly observable. There's the Galapagos Islands, for one, which was Darwin's original inspiration. Less remembered is the Isle of Man, which, while it is wedged between Ireland and Great Britain, it was virtually isolated until the 20th century. Cats there had evolved out of their tails.

Melon
 
Sally Cinnamon Bun, good points. We all know rather intelligent people who, for all intents and purposes, are frankly fucking stupid.

:wink:
 
melon said:
In modern society, evolution is dead amongst human beings. Evolution only happens in isolation--that is, "inbreeding"--and human society has generally developed a huge aversion to incestuous relationships.

In animals, though, it's certainly observable. There's the Galapagos Islands, for one, which was Darwin's original inspiration. Less remembered is the Isle of Man, which, while it is wedged between Ireland and Great Britain, it was virtually isolated until the 20th century. Cats there had evolved out of their tails.

Melon
We only have a few thousand years of modern human society and homo sapiens have only existed for a few hundred thousand years, we do not percieve geological time, we are unable to see broader change in our short lifetimes.

Humans will evolve either through natural process or our own intervention.
 
A_Wanderer said:
We only have a few thousand years of modern human society and homo sapiens have only existed for a few hundred thousand years, we do not percieve geological time, we are unable to see broader change in our short lifetimes.

Humans will evolve either through natural process or our own intervention.

I think our own intervention is more likely, since we are no longer isolated and inbreeding is far less common.

I do conceive of a day in the future, where we'll be as adept in manipulating DNA as we are in programming computer software. Rather than implanting animal DNA into human DNA or vice versa, I think it's conceivable that we could write completely new DNA strands to change us into something completely different.

Melon
 
Remember that it is not only inbreeding that leads to change, sexual reproduction by itself produces a lot of variation, and mutation and the environmental factors on it's frequency do as well.
 
melon said:
When I think about genetic engineering, I think less about Nazism or eugenics. Rather, I think about the film, "Gattica,"
So in essence you're worried that with genetic engineering, we'll breed a race of Ethan Hawkes?
Best argument against it I've ever heard.
 
Hewson said:
So in essence you're worried that with genetic engineering, we'll breed a race of Ethan Hawkes?
Best argument against it I've ever heard.

Ethan Hawke played the natural born, unaltered human. ;)

Melon
 
Back
Top Bottom