CreateDebate


Debate Info

33
28
Good Bad
Debate Score:61
Arguments:41
Total Votes:82
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Good (23)
 
 Bad (18)

Debate Creator

Bolt(22) pic



Genetic Modification for humans?

Humans with animal characteristics? D:

Good

Side Score: 33
VS.

Bad

Side Score: 28
2 points

I think genetic modification for humans would be a good idea. There are many things that animals have been the inspiration for over the years, why that can't be the same for human genetics, I don't know.

I think controlled genetic modification would be a good idea. For example, disease neutralizing genes from other animals and immunity to common problems can help us in the long run.

Sure, we are changing our natural evolution, but changing it for the better? That's the real question.

6 years ago | Side: Good
3 points

I agree with genetic disease prevention, but we don't need to take the genes from animals. We can substitute healthier gene combinations or those which negate/minimize potential problems.

Of course, the problem becomes, who decides what is a "bad" genetic trait? Some may think that obesity, for example, is harmful to health while others say it is a survival trait.

6 years ago | Side: Good
Demosthenes(2) Disputed
3 points

This is exactly the problem- what qualifies as "bad"? For example, most people would that if a baby will be born without the use of an arm, and that should the genes be corrected he would be okay, that this would be a good use of genetic modification. The gray area comes when we ponder if we should correct something that does not have specific consequences. For example, if one has a predisposition to alcoholism, should this be solved? What if there was only a 50% chance? Or a 10% chance? Would it be worth changing the genes? If one had an unknown risk of cancer, should this be modified?

These claims raise the problem that a governing association must be developed to approve such actions. Who would this consist of? Doctors might be biased, they might want money from the operations. Would everyone in the world trust one government? How would multiple governments work together?

One must also address the issues this brings to the world. Would not the most rich countries be favored greatly? This would lead to a disadvantage to poorer countries, whose people would be looked upon as a member of a new social class.

Overall, genetic modification leads to problems in the world around us, and should not be pursued in the near future.

6 years ago | Side: Bad

Ah, no worries mate. I'll sacrifice myself and become the person that decides what's bad (;

5 years ago | Side: Good
2 points

True, I mean we've been looking to animals to make innovations as far as industrial design and architecture so why not redesign our genetics?

For now, I've heard of "designer babies" where the parents will pay to have the codons for the eye and hair color to be a certain way.

But I'm sure once we've developed this more we can modifiy ourselves past the human body's natural bounds. Eventually, what started as a practical and lifesaving practice will be applied for purely cosmetic and odd body alterations- horns, wings, extra limbs, its all possible through our DNA.

We'll definetly have to look at breeding in a different way. It may get to a point where we have to do all that in the lab, since the gentetic variation may become too great from person to person.

6 years ago | Side: Good
2 points

Genetic modification involves the insertion or deletion of genes. When genes are inserted, they usually come from a different species, which is a form of horizontal gene transfer. In nature this can occur when exogenous DNA penetrates the cell membrane for any reason. To do this artificially may require attaching the genes to a virus or just physically inserting the extra DNA into the nucleus of the intended host with a very small syringe, or with very small particles fired from a gene gun

Supporting Evidence: 642-971 (www.real-testking.com)
4 years ago | Side: Good
Zerunagerous(42) Disputed
1 point

I really don't know anything about you, so I can't really relate to you well. But imagine this, you and your spouse (if you don't have a spouse, then imagine you do. If you are too young, imagine that you are older) are about to have a child. This is YOUR CHILD. This child will inherit genes from the both of you. These are YOUR GENES, and the genes of YOUR TRUE LOVE.

Do you want to say, "Oh, but I want my child to look like that man over there. I don't like how I look, and, sorry honey, you aren't too pretty either." Haven't you heard of parents thinking their children are beautiful no matter how ugly they are? It's this little thing called love, perhaps you've heard of it. You'd have to be a rotten parent to want a designer baby.

Here's the other side. (Again, I don't know how old you are, so just imagine.) You are a child. You have a bond to your parents, because, no matter how rotten they are, they are YOUR PARENTS. That is why it hurts when they yell at you. Someone with no love for their parents would not feel this hurt (Don't say your parents have never yelled at you. Even the most wonderful parents in the world get upset at least once. If your an orphan, please try to imagine.) as they would have no more bond to them than to a creepy dude with wings and horns. As a child, you probably want your parents to accept you, whether they do or not, or if they ever will (or ever won't). One day, you find out that they screwed with your genes when you were a baby.

Are you happy? These are YOUR GENES they're screwing with. I mean, you never gave your consent, it was all your parents. And guess what, it wasn;t a big executive decision to save your life. Nope, it was a stupid thing of, "Look, honey. My hair is dark. And your hair is dark too. And our eyes are the same. Our child isn't going to have blond hair and blue eyes! This is the worst tragedy I've ever seen. We have to fix it, before our child suffers through life with his/her natural appearance. It's just so terrible!" How does this make you feel? Your parents thought you were so ugly that they had to insert some random guy's genes (a guy they have probably never met, who may have unnoticed problems with his genes) into your body before they even saw you. You're ugliness was just that terrible. And now your stuck being called a dumb blond for the rest of your life, even if you have the highest GPA in your class (trust me, I know.) Are you going to say, "Oh, you're the best parents in the world! You couldn't accept me for me, so you made me so much better to fit your imaginary social standards! I love you SO MUCH!"

So, there's why designer babies are wrong. There is no reason why they will ever be right. As for your horns and wings and extra limbs, I have a feeling that they won't catch on. You are imagining a world where everyone does it. Well, there's a first time for everything.

So, you get a letter. Some scientific place has gotten the means to do this, and they happened to read your post (and somehow got your address). They say, "Hey, we got this research complete! It's really great! We can make a mouse look and act like a cat and we can make fish fly and it's just incredible! We want to start improving humanity, but we need a human to start with. We read your post and think you might be interested! So, just say what you want and we'll edit your body to give it to you!" You may think, hey, this is really neat. But think some more. Do you want to be the only human being in the universe with an extra limb? People would think you were some really freaky mutant. Wings, yeah, they're neat. Ever read Maximum Ride by James Patterson? Tells you exactly why not, with the story of six kids who were genetically modified to have wings. Whenever you feel like having people scream and run, or want to run follow-up experiments, or stick you in a zoo, you should consider adding freaky things to your body!

Oh, and another note on wings. You can't just adds wings and expect to fly. You'd need to change your whole biological makeup to be a lighter person, with hollow bones and suchlike. Even then it might not actually work.

Also, think of what could go wrong. James Patterson also talks about that. For example, in his story, when a mouse it crossed with a cat, they got a being that couldn't eat meat OR grain, and starved to death. This is one of endless possibilities of what could go wrong. With every new advance in science come a new advance in problems. With parts from other species of animals, we might become vulnerable to their diseases. It'd be like the Europeans coming to America and spreading disease to Native Americans, wiping whole tribes out. (Yeah, I know, they also fought a bit, but imagine what racist people might do to humans who become part of a whole new species? I can see it now, NON_HUMANS SHOULD DIE!!!!!! Six exclamation points. A sign of insanity, according to Terry Pratchett.)

Also, is it even possible to cause such mutations on mature beings? If it is, I imagine it'd be painful. Most likely, they would mutate infants in the womb. Again, infants who do not give their consent and would have more reason to hate their parents than having different pigmentation. Born with extra limbs? Horns? Tails? Nah, they won't be made fun of in school.

Hang on, aren't mutations on the scale of extra or not enough limbs things that genetic modification is used to CORRECT? Then why the heck to you want to CAUSE it?! Sorry, if I offend you, but you were being a total idiot when you wrote your thingy. Please think about things before you say/write/do them.

3 years ago | Side: Bad
TheDrummer(13) Disputed
1 point

What you fail to see is the way of acquiring genes to make better genes. Take, for example, Bovine Somatotropin or BST, it is the hormone in dairy cows that makes them produce milk. If you want your cows to produce more milk you ask a scientist to make it so your cow will produce more BST. The scientist takes the BST hormone out of the cow, Splices it to E. Coli bacteria, lets the bacteria ferment, purifies it and lets it multiply, then he re-injects it back into the cow. The cow will then make more BST and more milk. You see? The hormone came from the same cow it was going back into. So if you were going to need something for a human, you would need to get the gene that you were going to improve FROM A HUMAN.

5 years ago | Side: Bad
1 point

Since the human mind has eclipsed natural selection, the best way for us to evolve will be through our own genetic modifications. I say go for it... I want a tail that I can use as a chair, like a kangaroo.

6 years ago | Side: Good
1 point

GMOs have widespread applications. They are used in biological and medical research, production of pharmaceutical drugs, experimental medicine (e.g. gene therapy), and agriculture (e.g. golden rice). The term "genetically modified organism" does not always imply, but can include, targeted insertions of genes from one species into another. For example, a gene from a jellyfish, encoding a fluorescent protein called GFP, can be physically linked and thus co-expressed with mammalian genes to identify the location of the protein encoded by the GFP-tagged gene in the mammalian cell. Such methods are useful tools for biologists in many areas of research, including those who study the mechanisms of human and other diseases or fundamental biological processes in eukaryotic or prokaryotic cells.

Supporting Evidence: 646-230 (www.real-testking.com)
4 years ago | Side: Good
Zerunagerous(42) Disputed
1 point

Please see my response to cribarrera. It's too long to re-write.

3 years ago | Side: Bad
1 point

genetic modification would be a massive step in human evolution and would help us to rule out such sicknesses as cancer, aids and many more. It may also be used in military.

5 years ago | Side: Good
1 point

I WANNA BE CAPTAIN AMERICA AND NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO TELL ME I CAN'T! (;

5 years ago | Side: Captain America is my Hero
1 point

nah but if u congergate the aluminum practician u make a unbalanced feotus

5 years ago | Side: Good
1 point

personally i believe that you should sellotape dead babies to a cats face

5 years ago | Side: Good
1 point

saying genetic modification is ad is like showering with your parents

5 years ago | Side: Good
1 point

yesterday i ran over a large flock of prostitutes with a lawn mower ....LAWLZZZ... :] ;]

5 years ago | Side: Good
1 point

genetic modification is good for the soul. jesus says do it

5 years ago | Side: Good
Zerunagerous(42) Disputed
1 point

Excuse me? Jesus never said anything about doing modification, and how, exactly, is it good for the soul?

I'm not even going to justify your previous posts with a response. Taking this page as a joke is one thing, but don't you DARE insult my religion.

3 years ago | Side: Bad
ricedaragh(2525) Disputed
2 points

don't you DARE insult my religion.

You're going to love it around here.

3 years ago | Side: Good

Being able to genetically modify ourselves will be the solution to so many problems, including (potentially) death.

6 years ago | Side: Good
Bolt(22) Disputed
0 points

Yes, that's why the use of genetic modification has to be controlled to so many levels to make sure it isn't abused. If we set proper studying behind it and set boundaries I'm sure we can provide good results. Sure there'll be bad results but I can't think of one thing in the world that doesn't have a down-side.

Edit: Argh, lag made me click oppose instead of favor.

6 years ago | Side: Bad
Demosthenes(2) Disputed
0 points

We have no proof at the moment that genetic modification will solve simple issues, let alone save us from death. Please cite sources when making claims such as this.

6 years ago | Side: Good
0 points

We know that many diseases and predispositions have a genetic link. Diabetes, Parkinson, Cancer, etc. come to mind. These could potentially be prevented or the number of cases substantially decreased.

There are also genetic links to weight and your general physical features. One could, in theory, birth a child guaranteed to have a good metabolism for example.

It could potentially keep us from aging and dieing if indeed senescence is genetic (which is the prevailing view in the science community).

We also have began manipulating proteins directly and it is conceivable that one day we can understand the language of DNA and with that make us much smarter and superior in every other respect.

Understanding genetics and stem cells could also lead in the short term to producing safer and healthier produce, and even a more efficient means at producing meat and milk products.

Supporting Evidence: Antagonistic pleiotropy (en.wikipedia.org)
6 years ago | Side: Good
3 points

genetic modification for people who think it is good for them why don't you just go pump your body full of the chemicals that are put into the food to make it last longer and then see whatr happens to you. this is way slowly we are killing are selves sure it is suggested that it's increase the nutritonal value, then why is it that they are bigger look nicer but aren't as good as they usto be for example, apples - you need to eat 4 apples to = 1 apple 25 years ago this is not possible due the sugars within apples.

please inform me from this example how gentic modification is good for you

5 years ago | Side: Bad
1 point

A genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.

Supporting Evidence: 642-746 (www.real-testking.com)
4 years ago | Side: Bad
2 points

Genes are the one place where the human hand should not reach. Trust me on this.

What Im worried about generations of humans becoming outdated as newer, genetically superior humans models come out. Its sort of like your old IPod going out of fashion.

6 years ago | Side: Bad
gorges Disputed
0 points

people die you fat horse go suck a willy. you are wrong in every way

5 years ago | Side: Good
1 point

These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, a subset of GMOs, are organisms which have inserted DNA that originated in a different species.

Supporting Evidence: 642-873 (www.real-testking.com)
4 years ago | Side: Good
2 points

It's not such an argument of good vs. bad, we should look at safety. As of yet, almost all genetic modifications to mammals and non-plant life forms has resulted in negative side-effects. I agree it may be OK for plants and some animals but not humans.

6 years ago | Side: Bad
1 point

Oh I agree on that. Safety is a huge issue, I expect failure and death.

But if we're willing to pay this price, then we'll take the precautions we have and move forward, in the long run we'll have something to show for it.

6 years ago | Side: Good
2 points

What is working doesn't need to be tampered with.

This whole argument sounds like brownie with dog poop in it. It might look delectable, but there's some shit in it.

5 years ago | Side: Bad
1 point

What about deformations? If we change ourselves willingly, what about our children? If they come out deformed, what would we do with them? What would we do with the people who are deformed by the change? It seems simple enough in theory, if the person that changes is unhappy and there's no sure way to solve the problem, ask them if they'd be happier dead... ha, and then just off them, or use them as experiments. Use them to reverse the change. If it's a failure, kill them.

Still though, what about the children? Would we be altering them too? Is it really our choice to have them altered before birth? I could see certain things, like a safe and stable way to alter the body to fight deceases and things like that, because we already do that after birth without their consent, but we know it's for the best...

I think robotics would be a better solution, for now at least. If you want a better body, do it with mechanical things, and not genetic alterations.

6 years ago | Side: Bad
1 point

People should realize that genetic modification is a never ending topic of right or wrong when it comes to Human life form where neither of them seems to be quite right. This is because using Genetic Modification for beneficial of human resources eg. animals,crops etc didn't matter as such but when we try to apply the same principals to human life forms,, well no one likes to risk it, even for the better and our lives are certainly not something you want to toy around with.

I'm not saying Genetic Modification is bad, but this is not always the gaining prospect when solutions create another problems.

Yes, Genetic Modification can improve human life form against the environmental changes eg. immunization to all the diseases? than we live happily ever after in our long healthy lives? i don't think so, because our immune to these so call diseases can create a virus such as the 'super bug' that cannot be treated with anything. So i want to stay NEUTRAL. i know i have so little acknowledge of such big issue but hey, this is my point of view. i really hope all our says count as something for the better future.

5 years ago | Side: Bad

Okay, here's a thing (it doesn't start out with humans, but bear with me, it gets there.) There's this weed that has evolved thanks to us humans and our weeding them out of gardens (I know about it because one of my sisters is a florist) to copy some of the genetic information of the plants around it, making it look like these plants in many ways. Some of these have infested my strawberry plants. They look like strawberry plants, they grow berries that appear, at first glance, to be strawberries. But they are definitely not strawberry plants, and they are killing the normal strawberry plants. In order not to eat them, I have observed them for differences and have noticed that the fake berries are ever so slightly more spherical. I have no idea if they are edible, and I do not feel like testing them.

So, these weeds exist. Now, look at this, scientists have genetically engineered a type of corn that is resistant to weed-killer, so that weeds may be killed easily without killing crops. This makes farmers happy because they do not have to go through and pull out weeds.

What if the two plants I have described meet each other? Would we have a harmless weed that looks like corn but will be killed off? Will we have a weed-killer resistant weed that does not look like corn? Will we have weed-killer resistant weeds that look like corn? If the latter is true, then will these weeds be harvested as corn, and what will be the effects of this? Corn is the most commonly used crop in America, if you include all corn-based products. What will be the effect of fake corn mixed into this? Will people die? Or is it enough like corn that it won't make a difference? Is corn that is engineered to resist weed-killer going to be resistant to other things? How about stomach acid? Have we gotten rid of genes that ought not be gotten rid of?

And now we get to humans. Corn is a life-form very different from the human life-form, but what if something similar comes to be? Say, humans resistant to a certain poison. Will we have removed something we shouldn't have removed? What will be the side-effects (you may have noticed, all cures have side-effects)? And, will this have any effect on parasites, like mosquitoes? Will this be good or bad? We use types of poison to kill cancer. What if we get poison-resistant cancer? To look only at the advantages of genetic modification is like taking a medicine without reading instructions or warnings.

There's that anti-depressant that spends, like, one second telling the advantage at the beginning, then 3/4 of the commercial listing possible negative side-effects, most of the remaining 1/4 saying "This is thought to work by _________" and the last second repeating the first second. Genetic modification is like that. It says, "Oh, we can do this wonderful thing, but there's a couple thousand possible ways it could go wrong. It works like this, see? So simple, no problems. We think. But look at the wonderful result we hope will happen!"

3 years ago | Side: Bad
1 point

I wouldn't advise it for a few reasons:

1) Deformities

Genes are a very precise thing to work in, and we have not perfected everything that we know about them yet in terms of experimenting on them.

Therefore it would unwise to intentionally genetically mutate someone. It may be by accident, but you could cause deformities, five heads, even kill them - and since when was that ever a good thing?

Don't genetically modify people because you may make them deformed.

2) You would wind people up

A lot of religious people do not agree with genetic modification because it can allegedly damage the soul. The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, for example, is against this - and to intentionally genetically modify someone would be seen as going against nature.

This would mean that there would be riots, rebellions, and all sorts of dark things going on in the name of God - and this surely wouldn't result in something bad.

Don't do it because you will really annoy people.

3) People who have been genetically modified could make us obsolete.

As well as meaning that these people would be more like machines than real humans, their characteristics, when designed, could mean that we become obsolete as a race and are no longer the dominant species.

For example, if I designed someone to have an extreme capacity in the mathematical side of their brain, all unmodified people all their calculations would become obsolete; that would really be annoying. If we are to remain the dominant species then creating genetically modified people would be a rubbish thing to do.

4) Impurities

Some people may argue that weeding out impurities is a good thing because then we will not carry any excess rubbish - however that is not the case at all.

We do not know everything that there is to know about the human body and we surely will not for a while to come. So removing what we see as impurities could be something that is vital for survival. Therefore meaning a repeat of point one.

Do not remove impurity because the chances are that you will cause someone to suffer a lot.

Conclusion

These four points:

- You could make people deformed

- You would annoy religious people

- We may become obsolete

- Research leading to removing impurities could kill people

Mean that to genetically modify people will not be a good thing.

1 year ago | Side: Bad
0 points

i always wondered is genetic modification the same as changing the qualities of a human lol someone pls answer me

5 years ago | Side: Bad

Um.....that depends what you mean by "qualities." If you mean physical characteristics, then yeah, you may have noticed by reading the previous arguments. If you mean something like morals or dreams or...something....then.....that's tricky. I'm not sure. Genetic modification involves swapping genes. Genes determine one's characteristics, physical and otherwise, but I'm not sure if genetic modification has been advanced to the otherwise bits. If I'm on the complete wrong track here, please tell me. Your question was rather vague.

3 years ago | Side: Bad


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.