Manipulation of the Human Body

[RuralEngineer]

I know there are some people who feel very strongly about GMO's, but since the manipulation of the human body is a more personal and individual issue, I thought I'd like to get some opinions on this topic.

Genetic Engineering

I believe that the natural forces that have driven our evolution for the past several million years have been defeated.  We no longer have to adapt physically to our environment, our technology allows any human to survive in any habitat indefinitely.  We no longer scrub defective genes from our species, such as diabetes or poor vision.  Our technology allows all by the most gravely ill to live long enough to procreate.  I personally have upwards of 600/20 vision.  I would be worse than useless in any age that didn't have corrective lenses.  My cousin was born with Type 1 diabetes and was given 6 months to live.  He's approaching 30.  He has chosen to not have children for fear of passing his condition on (his father was also diabetic).  While science says we do continue to evolve, I'm not sure if I like the direction that our modern challenges are pushing us. 

We are starting to develop technology that will allow us to take control of our evolution as a species, should we choose to.  We could be the first species ever to have conscious and voluntary control of its evolutionary development.  For example, while we've long associated great athletes with having "good genes" it turns out that the number of genes necessary to produce a superior physical specimen may be quite small.  Scientists have shown that they can make mice 30% stronger and maintain that musculature into old age by giving an additional dose of a single gene. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.11/muscle.html
The virus delivery system used is apparently close to being approved by the FDA, even if supercharging our muscles for life is not.

It's potentially within our grasp to make ourselves strong, taller, smarter, healthier, and potentially much longer lived through genetic manipulation. 

Cybernetic Enhancement

Another technology that is getting very close is sensory replacement.  The likely first application is to allow the blind to see by wiring a camera directly to the brain. http://news.discovery.com/tech/brain-ch ... 20405.html
While this technology at first will likely only be used to help those who are severely impaired or who are missing a sense entirely, the future applications are obvious.  With sufficient miniaturization, it's conceivable that the ability to have night vision, thermal, and optical zoom all in an artificial eye will become a reality.  At that point, does the temptation to replace our natural senses with artificial ones that are measurably better become too great?  We're already at the point where a fully functioning artificial limb is possible, we only need to miniaturize a power source to make it lightweight and mobile.  If someone manages to develop a process for extracting sugars from the blood and turning them into electricity, then we're really off to the races.  Eventually I expect the gains in strength and durability of artificial limbs to make them attractive to the healthy as well as the disabled.


So, there are two future possibilities for the manipulation of the human body that are just over the horizon.  I fully expect to see both a reality in my lifetime unless they are banned.  I for one, believe that humanity needs to take the reigns on its evolutionary development.  I believe that we can augment ourselves to create a better human organism.  I also think that "voluntary" would quickly become "compulsory" if for no other reason than one of the great evolutionary drivers...competition.  I believe there was a movie made about this, although I've never had the chance to watch it.  But I have no trouble imagining that in a future where some individuals are granted increased physical and mental abilities, as well as a healthier life, there would be massive strife unless such things were available to all.  However, as a Libertarian the idea that others might object to individual improvement giving them an advantage is not a particularly meaningful argument to me.

I'm curious to get other opinions on this subject as its one that is seldom talked about despite so many developments happening right now.

[Benko]

  I believe that we can augment ourselves to create a better human organism.

Best analogy I can think of is from the book Jurassic park.  They find dinosaur DNA (in amber) and "grow" dinosaurs from the DNA.  The create a park for them and are sure they have thought of everything.  You can guess what happens. 

I have no doubt people will try it. 

[RuralEngineer]

Best analogy I can think of is from the book Jurassic park.  They find dinosaur DNA (in amber) and "grow" dinosaurs from the DNA.  The create a park for them and are sure they have thought of everything.  You can guess what happens. 

I have no doubt people will try it.

One could make that argument about any and every new technology.  We certainly didn't see acid rain in our future when we started industrializing.

Rather than avoiding new technology or progress because it might bring unfortunate consequences, I think a better lesson is that we have to be eternally vigilant and watch for the unintended consequences that always result from a new technology.  They aren't always significant or detrimental, but every new technology has unintended consequences.

As a mechanical engineer, I recognize that our bodies are a pretty impressive design.  Bone is incredibly strong and the human body is often very resilient.  However, there is definite room for improvement.  An obvious one is our joints.  It turns out that the human knee and hip isn't really designed to function at a high level for 40 years.  Until recently, that wasn't an issue because humans seldom lived that long and certainly didn't try and maintain a very active lifestyle for that period of time.  Now we have boomers that are starting on their second artificial hip.  If we can find a way to provide more durable hip and knee joints from birth to death, I think that's a worthwhile endeavor.

[Benko]

You want better (revolutionarily better) artificial joints.  I'd rather fix the ones we have whether that be from TCM kidney (chinese herb) tonics, or cartilage transplants, etc.  Do'nt know if you read the Tao Te Ching (Lao Tsu) thread (spiriutality) but he talks about working with the way of what is natural (forget the exact words).  YOu think someone can do better than nature.

"If we can find a way to provide more durable hip and knee joints from birth to death, I think that's a worthwhile endeavor. "
A lot of knee problems can be prevented/fixed by proper physical therapy/strengthening the muscles to protect the joint.

"Rather than avoiding new technology or progress because it might bring unfortunate consequences, I think a better lesson is that we have to be eternally vigilant and watch for the unintended consequences that always result from a new technology."

The new technology is part of a human being, and you want to be allowed to practice on people till you get it right?  Not to fix people with problems, but to create some new perfect whatever?

I think we (many of us humans) have great Hubris and like to fuck around with things we don't fully understand (but think we do).  It is one thing to do that to fix a problem, and quite another to do so to outdo "mother nature".

[RuralEngineer]

Is your objection to "unnatural" body modification solely to genetic engineering or do you disapprove of mechanical changes as well. Do you consider Lasic eye surgery objectionable as well?

I'm not asking anyone to be a guinea pig for me. Any type of genetic modification would be perfected on animals before human volunteers were allowed. At least I hope that would be the case. I'm going to assume an ethical development process since I can't argue against potential malfeasance by future researchers. It's also not relevant to our hypothetical discussion.

[Benko]

1stly perhaps I misunderstood and am objecting to something you didn't say/imply.  if you are talking about altering a  body to fix a problem that body has that is one thing.  Altering bodies to make them better than normal/typical is another and the ethics/risk benefit are totally different.

Is your objection to "unnatural" body modification solely to genetic engineering

No idea, but the risks when tinkering with that are probably exponentially greater than with other approaches.

or do you disapprove of mechanical changes as well.

MUCH less risky.  Again depends on exactly what you are talking about.

Do you consider Lasic eye surgery objectionable as well?

No.  that is fixing a problem. 

I'm not asking anyone to be a guinea pig for me. Any type of genetic modification would be perfected on animals before human volunteers were allowed.

Are you aware that one cannot accurately tell how human bodies react to drugs from animal studies?  This would be No better and probably worse.

[RuralEngineer]

All good arguments. I'm actually a proponent of both fixing problems and improving function, so you were correct in your objection. However the technology required to fix a genetic disease like Type 1 diabetes or sickle cell anemia is likely to be the same as slowing aging or increasing strength. Drawing the line at fixing genetic defects but not giving ourselves other enhancements is going to be challenging.

My view is that there are two issues. Is fixing or improving ourselves artificially a positive action (multiple answers depending on degree)? And are the risk adjusted rewards worth it?  My opinion is yes to both questions.

I am aware that animal testing is usually a poor substitute for human trials. Regardless, I'm more risk tolerant in this case than most people. Especially when you consider that it's going to be impossible to stop from happening somewhere.

[Storm]

Personally, I'd be all for genetic manipulation both to change defective genes that cause diseases and to improve the human body.  If a doctor told you you could be 30% stronger your entire life with no side effects, who wouldn't want that?  The health benefits of having more muscle would be incredible, although you'd have to eat more calories your entire life to maintain it.

[MachineGhost]

You want better (revolutionarily better) artificial joints.  I'd rather fix the ones we have whether that be from TCM kidney (chinese herb) tonics, or cartilage transplants, etc.  Do'nt know if you read the Tao Te Ching (Lao Tsu) thread (spiriutality) but he talks about working with the way of what is natural (forget the exact words).  YOu think someone can do better than nature.

Aside from the usual Western suspects, what would you recommended for regenerating/repairing the joint cartilage?

[MachineGhost]

Personally, I'd be all for genetic manipulation both to change defective genes that cause diseases and to improve the human body.  If a doctor told you you could be 30% stronger your entire life with no side effects, who wouldn't want that?  The health benefits of having more muscle would be incredible, although you'd have to eat more calories your entire life to maintain it.

And more calories would reduce your lifespan.  There's no free lunch.

[Storm]

Personally, I'd be all for genetic manipulation both to change defective genes that cause diseases and to improve the human body.  If a doctor told you you could be 30% stronger your entire life with no side effects, who wouldn't want that?  The health benefits of having more muscle would be incredible, although you'd have to eat more calories your entire life to maintain it.

And more calories would reduce your lifespan.  There's no free lunch.

I thought there were some flaws in the study that showed mice eating restricted caloric diets lived longer.  All things being equal, however, you're right.  There is no free lunch.

[RuralEngineer]

More muscle might not be the name of the game. Maintaining our muscle long term without exercise sounds great. We know of many animals that can go months without exercise and suffer no loss of muscle mass. I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat.

The starvation life extension experiments were related to the activation of an "emergency preservation" gene. I expect we'll figure out how to turn it on without diet manipulation.

[Benko]

the technology required to fix a genetic disease like Type 1 diabetes or sickle cell anemia is likely to be the same as slowing aging or increasing strength.

The technology to change genes might be the same but fixing a "genetic disease"** requires one kind of understanding of the genome and improving the genome (without fucking other things up) requires much more sophisticated understanding. Based on human nature e.g. of course there is global warming, no one intelligent disagrees, the obvious will happen.

**Best I recall Type I diabetes in when someone who has a genetic predisposition has an event, I believe a viral infection, and then the body attacks the pancreas (autoimmune).  So if only a small or unknown percentage of people with the pre-dispositoin actually get that disease, what does that do to the risk/benefit ration of interventions.

Putting things in perspective: God/the universe/random mutation created sickle cell disease as a way to protect against malaria.  Of course that had detrimental side effects.  But you think you can fix things without causing any problems.

[Benko]

We know of many animals that can go months without exercise and suffer no loss of muscle mass. I'd sign up for that in a heartbeat.

Now that is more working with what "nature" has already created (well and has a proven track record) albeit in a different species.  A priori, that is more likely possibly work and have adverse effects which can be anticipated/worked around.

[MachineGhost]

I thought there were some flaws in the study that showed mice eating restricted caloric diets lived longer.  All things being equal, however, you're right.  There is no free lunch.

There was because the diet of one group was a sugar bomb and the other was not.  But that doesn't ameliorate the fact that more calories ingested produce more mitochondrial free radical caused destruction, shortening lifespan.  In other words, sugar is deadly.

[MachineGhost]

The starvation life extension experiments were related to the activation of an "emergency preservation" gene. I expect we'll figure out how to turn it on without diet manipulation.

You're a little behind the times.  There's at least three bioagents that replicate almost all of the genetic expressions of calorie restriction: resveratrol, pterostilbene and fisetin.

However, I think the pendulum is shifting back to mitochondrial free radicals, i.e. the free radical theory of aging.

[Greg]

This is an interesting thread and goes into some of the stuff that I was researching during grad school. I was looking at more of orthotics and prosthetics and using them to assist the human. The stuff they are working on now in prosthetics are amazing of looking at tapping into existing bunches of nerves to control past the stump portion of an arm or a leg to control a robotic leg/arm. I don't see this really as monkeying with nature.

I do wonder though for the people that have normal limbs that voluntarily cut off limbs to "improve themselves". There was a great episode of Batman Beyond called "April Moon" that had a doctor against his will adding robotic pieces to teenagers so they could rob, etc. This seems like it'd go into the ethical realm of medically unnecessary modifications.

http://dcanimated.wikia.com/wiki/April_Moon

[RuralEngineer]

But is it really unethical to have surgery if the result is improved function?  If we could replace our circulatory system with one that prevented plaque buildup and had an artificial heart that could outlast the the rest of your body, would people really be expected to wait until they had an event and risked death? Or would people be more likely to have the surgery proactively.  If that is acceptable, what is different about limb replacement.

Who decides what is ethical if the patient is willing and not under duress?

[doodle]

How about some modification relating to genes that served us well on the plains of the African savanna but are destructive in a modern technologically advanced society....I'm thinking genes that cause anger, greed, jealousy....tackle some of these and maybe we have a chance of not destroying ourselves.

[RuralEngineer]

How about some modification relating to genes that served us well on the plains of the African savanna but are destructive in a modern technologically advanced society....I'm thinking genes that cause anger, greed, jealousy....tackle some of these and maybe we have a chance of not destroying ourselves.

Why am I not surprised that you're the one to suggest this.

[Benko]

Rural,

You are asking people to be, well pre-alpha testers with their bodies and don't (best I can tell) get that fact.

[RuralEngineer]

I'm not asking anybody to do anything. This isn't a compulsory change I'm proposing, but voluntary. If someone believes their body is sacred and they refuse to modify it, I respect that. I'm just curious as to whether there is a logical reason behind the rejection of improved function through genetic engineering or cybernetics, or whether the reaction is simply a fear if new technology.

Also, you mention "alpha tester."  Would your view be different if the technology were well established and safe?

[Benko]

I'm just curious as to whether there is a logical reason behind the rejection of improved function through genetic engineering or cybernetics, or whether the reaction is simply a fear if new technology.

That question is only valid once the process is perfected since you've left out a whopping other 3rd possibility--fear of being alpha tester.  prosthetics, etc yes.  Genetic engineering perfected?  come back in 50-100 years.

Do you have any medical training, or  understanding of the complexicity of the system i.e. the human body/genetics that you are talking about modifying?

[doodle]

How about some modification relating to genes that served us well on the plains of the African savanna but are destructive in a modern technologically advanced society....I'm thinking genes that cause anger, greed, jealousy....tackle some of these and maybe we have a chance of not destroying ourselves.

Why am I not surprised that you're the one to suggest this.

Our monkey brains have not evolved to deal with issues of the modern world. I would argue that this is a more dire problem than maintaining a six pack without doing situps. Take the way that humans highly discount the future for the present. This might be practical when surviving in the jungle but in civilizations it leads to outcomes like Easter Island.

I think this sounds scary today, but in the future it will be seen as completely normal.