The newest X-Men film, "Dark Phoenix," explores the dark side of mutation. In the real world, just as in the X-Men universe, genetic mutations can have a big effect on our lives. This is Mach at the movies.
The question of whether a genetic mutation is good or bad is usually answered by nature. If it's good it survives and thrives and becomes a normal part of that species genetics if it's bad it dies out. Now with Humans we no longer have the survival of the fittest that nature used to provide, our social safety nets and medical care allow all mutations to survive and multiply, good or bad.
We have two very different kinds of mutation in the video. Naturally-occurring mutations, also called "random mutations", and man-made mutations, also called "gene-editing".
A random mutation may be just about anything: - So minor that it goes unnoticed. - Modestly beneficial, such as enhanced resistance to some germ, to be noticed only if there's an epidemic of that germ. - So consequent that it kills the carrier.
It is "random".
Over the long haul, for the species, it's beneficial, obviously. It's the mechanism that drives evolution: bad mutations die, good ones get passed on.
Gene-editing is something else again. The idea is to intentionally intervene in a particular zygote's genes to produce a desired effect. Designer babies! This is a very heady topic!
Who decides what is "desirable"? Which parents get to "improve" their offspring?
"New, improved human beings" are coming. This will happen. We should already be deep into a discussion of just how the species will be defined.
Nature "designed" us via evolution. Gene editing essentially "tweaks" that design. Kind of like customizing a car or selecting factory options when buying a car. Gene editing can be beneficial for a recipients health status. Of course, you could end up with a Khan Noonien Singh on your hands. So there is that, Lol.
There was no "design" involved in evolution. I'm sure you didn't mean anything, but that word, in the context of "evolution" may mean "intelligent design", that creationist stalking-horse.
Random mutations are random. Good ones are transmitted to the next generation; bad ones are not. Without human intervention, it's a very slow process. When humans intervene, as when breeding dogs or cattle, the process is greatly accelerated, showing results in years rather than millennia.
Gene editing is a very different game. The result is immediate. It is not random, but targeted. It's advertised as being health oriented, but we can be sure that very quickly we will have the ultra-rich "designing" their children.
There was no "design" involved in evolution. I'm sure you didn't mean anything, but that word, in the context of "evolution" may mean "intelligent design", that creationist stalking-horse.
Yes, i am aware of that. I used the term "design" loosely (and in quotes) plus I simply lacked a better term at the time. But if you know my posts on scientific matters, especially where evolution is concerned, you will know how much I intellectually object to ID or creationism.
Random mutations are random.
Obvious statement is obvious.
Good ones are transmitted to the next generation; bad ones are not. Without human intervention, it's a very slow process. When humans intervene, as when breeding dogs or cattle, the process is greatly accelerated, showing results in years rather than millennia.
And someday soon, we'll have out own mutants, a-la X-Men.
Gene editing is a very different game. The result is immediate. It is not random, but targeted.
Gene editing can be used to eliminate genetic abnormalities.
It's advertised as being health oriented,
There are the obvious aforementioned health benefits.
but we can be sure that very quickly we will have the ultra-rich "designing" their children.
What is this "government" that makes fundamental decisions about our society? Is it the clerks at the DMV? The air traffic controllers? The people who repair the roads?
My question is serious. Too many people see "the government" as some all-knowing, all-powerful monster, determining the details of their lives. That's nonsense. That's intellectual laziness.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Obviously, there is both good and bad to gene mutations. Do you think the benefits outweigh the risks?
Since all biological entities evolve on a daily basis....................................................................................
True, I could have gone from, "bedroom eyes" to, "bathroom eyes".... So I would not be in favor of the risks.
The question of whether a genetic mutation is good or bad is usually answered by nature. If it's good it survives and thrives and becomes a normal part of that species genetics if it's bad it dies out. Now with Humans we no longer have the survival of the fittest that nature used to provide, our social safety nets and medical care allow all mutations to survive and multiply, good or bad.
We have two very different kinds of mutation in the video. Naturally-occurring mutations, also called "random mutations", and man-made mutations, also called "gene-editing".
A random mutation may be just about anything:
- So minor that it goes unnoticed.
- Modestly beneficial, such as enhanced resistance to some germ, to be noticed only if there's an epidemic of that germ.
- So consequent that it kills the carrier.
It is "random".
Over the long haul, for the species, it's beneficial, obviously. It's the mechanism that drives evolution: bad mutations die, good ones get passed on.
Gene-editing is something else again. The idea is to intentionally intervene in a particular zygote's genes to produce a desired effect. Designer babies! This is a very heady topic!
Who decides what is "desirable"? Which parents get to "improve" their offspring?
"New, improved human beings" are coming. This will happen. We should already be deep into a discussion of just how the species will be defined.
Sam Walton's great-grandchildren?
Nature "designed" us via evolution. Gene editing essentially "tweaks" that design. Kind of like customizing a car or selecting factory options when buying a car. Gene editing can be beneficial for a recipients health status. Of course, you could end up with a Khan Noonien Singh on your hands. So there is that, Lol.
There was no "design" involved in evolution. I'm sure you didn't mean anything, but that word, in the context of "evolution" may mean "intelligent design", that creationist stalking-horse.
Random mutations are random. Good ones are transmitted to the next generation; bad ones are not. Without human intervention, it's a very slow process. When humans intervene, as when breeding dogs or cattle, the process is greatly accelerated, showing results in years rather than millennia.
Gene editing is a very different game. The result is immediate. It is not random, but targeted. It's advertised as being health oriented, but we can be sure that very quickly we will have the ultra-rich "designing" their children.
Are you referring to my post?
Reacting to it.
That's what I often do when Replying to the last Comment on the page: I use the "New Comment" box, rather than opening a "Reply" box.
Ok then.
Yes, i am aware of that. I used the term "design" loosely (and in quotes) plus I simply lacked a better term at the time. But if you know my posts on scientific matters, especially where evolution is concerned, you will know how much I intellectually object to ID or creationism.
Obvious statement is obvious.
And someday soon, we'll have out own mutants, a-la X-Men.
Gene editing can be used to eliminate genetic abnormalities.
There are the obvious aforementioned health benefits.
So?
Dystopia ahoy!
Perfect babies with very long life expectancy... but only for the ultra-rich.
If there's a dystopia, I would think it would be more government caused rather than due to life expectancy.
Speculation aside, what is considered "very long?"
What is this "government" that makes fundamental decisions about our society? Is it the clerks at the DMV? The air traffic controllers? The people who repair the roads?
My question is serious. Too many people see "the government" as some all-knowing, all-powerful monster, determining the details of their lives. That's nonsense. That's intellectual laziness.
Not "due to", but rather "embodied by".
We are already ruled by the ultra-rich, but at least they are people like us. Tomorrow, they will be immortal as well as omnipotent.
That's kinda dystopic, I think...