Daily Archives: February 23, 2016

+In Regards To Noncoding DNA+ My opponent states that noncoding DNA has the functions of "1. Regulation of gene expression during development 2. Enhancers for transcription of proximal genes 3. Silencers for suppression of transcription of proximal genes 4. Regulate translation of proteins" Would these also not be simplified? These introns have the "function" of marking DNA, but with an extremely bulky price. Markers for DNA could be extremely more simple just by taking out the large, unused middle section of these DNA strains. With this loss, cell division would be exponentially faster (because DNA replication uses a large portion of that time) and would allow for less errors to occur in transcoding (which could stem the cause of diseases, mental and physical).

+In Regards To Human Vices+ I guess this is also a debatable topic, but I would say that vices come from faulty mental processes, correct? These mental processes are controlled by the brain and the nerves that process information. I would say that faulty mental processes would stem from a bad interpretation of the result of the actions of the individual or from a cloudy interpretation of the facts in which the body is given a faulty signal. Addictions could become regulated as understanding of the genetic implications in the nervous system becomes evident. Since addictions are a result of dependence on that substance or the substantial release of dopamine in an action. You could effect the reasons the body produces dopamine and instead make such vices extremely unpleasant for the individual in question. (I understand that this is a bit far into the field of theoretics like a lot of my claims)

+In Regards To Social and Pragmatic Concerns+ In concern of genetic liability, I agree with my opponent. If the geneticists ruin a child's life, then I believe that that geneticist is liable. However, I have two points. One is that you assuming that the mistake would be permanent. It is a known fact that viruses can be used in genetic engineering, as they essentially carry and inject DNA into all of the cells in the body. With a bit of research (and a lot less than would be required to make eugenics a reality), we could manipulate the DNA the virus injects and the cells it targets. With differentiation, the cells that would harm the child would usually (except in case of severe genetic butchering) be in a specific targeted area. The fixing of the mistakes would be simple. Also, I am saying that by the time any human trials would be performed, the genetic manipulation process would be perfected to an intense degree (as perfection would be needed to dare risk the life of a human for enhancing purposes). In concern of discrimination, I believe my opponent misinterpreted what I said. I was saying that the extent of discrimination wouldn't be increased, and would probably decrease. As with ignorance, comes discrimination (possibly another debatable topic). Eugenetically-induced humans would be far from ignorant as their brain capacity would be increased and knowledge could probably even be implanted. In regards to the disruption of natural selection, Eugenetics would just speed up the evolutionary process. Think for a second about what sets humans apart. I would say it is self-evolution. We have the unique ability to use tools to our desires and ends. Eugenics would just be an extension of this gift to an even greater degree. And, you must consider that other species are adapting too. Soon, we will be superseded by another species, if we don't learn how to directly evolve ourselves and keep ahead of any evolutionary flow.

+In Regards to Population Growth+ In concern of overcrowding Earth, I must point towards the space program. By the time we have advanced science to the point of eugenics becoming a reality, do you not think we will have advanced to the point of terraforming Mars (which I must say is already an endeavor which we started planning). There is lots of space in the galaxy that is sustainable for human growth. Already sciences have pinpointed lots of exoplanets that have a possibility of sustaining life.

+In Regards to Interfering with Nature+ I have two points to make. The first is that survival of the fittest (nature's law) states, simply that the best survive. So, Eugenics would be the purest form of this law. We would literally be making ourselves the best that could ever possibly live, which is what human nature dictates us to try to do. The second is that the reason we take a backseat to nature is because we don't understand it very deeply. We don't understand most of the systems that occur in nature so we simply say "Don't mess with Nature." But once you realize and understand nature to a far degree, you can tame Nature. In the time Eugenics could be possible, it is also the time that ecology would be a very complete science and provide a deep understanding into Nature and our irrational fear of it.

+In Regards to Monetary Concern+ On the topic of monetary concern, I will simply allude to a television or a computer. When they first came out, they were inefficient and extremely pricey. As time went on (and not much time), more and more people got them in their homes. Now, if you ask a group of kids who have a tv or computer in their house, a lot more than a few will raise their hands. My opponent made a fantastic point about the taxing of eugenics as a public good, and I completely agree with him. However, if it became a consumer item, it would spread and become cheaper in order to increase the clientele, until the process is entirely common.

+In Regards to an Allusion to Crude, Immoral Eugenics+ The eugenics my opponent talks about that occured in Japan, Germany, and in the Buck v. Bell trial are extremely crude, deformed forms of what I am referring to. So much, in fact, that I believe that the process should take a different term. The crude eugenics he refers were the butchering and erasing of people with physical or mental hindrances or, more commonly, because of their race. My plan would kill no one, and holds infinite promise.

+In Conclusion+ In conclusion, I would like to state that this process holds so many promises. So many problems would be solved that the ones described here almost seem trivial. However, they are important problems. I believe Con is clouded in his views. he is scared of change and what it brings with it, but I say that not only is change healthy, but it is essential to life as we know it. This is not an atrocity. Eugenics would be perfected in the laboratory over many years. Animal trials will be done and human tissues will be tested. This process is not gruesome and shouldn't be thought of that way. Eugenics is the next step in the evolutionary chain. The question is, are you going to be part of the next generation of humans or are you going to become extinct?

In Round 2, PRO postulates that "DNA could be extremely more simple just by taking out the large, unused middle section of these DNA strains. With this loss, cell division would be exponentially faster (because DNA replication uses a large portion of that time) and would allow for less errors to occur in transcoding." Of course, that is all theoretical, just as it was theoretical that junk DNA was junk.

The science is in, and within the so-called junk DNA, transposons arrange and influence thousand of strands of DNA, as a kind of cut and paste function that NATURALLY occurs, and it's importance is immeasurable. I find PRO's theories on removing non-coding DNA dangerous, as he lacks both the credentials and the wherewithal to be making assertions like this. "Junk DNA" is not junk, and removing large segments of
DNA would obviously have deleterious effects. [1][2][3]

PRO proceeds to graciously answer my request for how he proposes to rid the world of human vice. Again, however, PRO does not offer anything beyond his own theoretical musings, with zero scientific justification to back them up, as he oversimplifies human vice and overstates the role of genes. What we refer to as "vice," and how it all happens, is a complex ballet between nature and nurture in tandem with one another.

Some of the most compelling studies to conclude that nurture is as important as nature comes from separated hereditary twin research. Twin studies have been made to determine whether hereditary is the leading factor, or if it's the environment. The results have shown that it's basically an even amount of influence on a person. Separated twins often share common interests in food, struggle or succeed in math, have natural athleticism, and have similarities in temperament, tempo, and ways of doing things. The effects of nurture, however, show their working habits, and thoughts; whereas one twin might be liberal, the other conservative. How they view and respond to the world, however, reflects more upon how they were raised. Consequently, this is what affects serial killers and other crimes of ill-repute more than nature. They had similarities due to heredity, but they often have marked differences because they grew up in two very different environments.

Life isn't as simple as DNA, lest humans are merely a sum of their parts. I doubt very seriously that if we were to take one of PRO's perfect humans who have allegedly been genetically rid of vice, and tortured them for the first 10 years of their life, that they would be well adjusted human beings. They'd be homicidal like anyone else. Our external experiences are equally as important as our genetic makeup. [4]

The next portion of the debate focuses on liability of researchers who genetically alter a zygote. I had previously asked if they would be held accountable for any mistakes made when, say, they attempted to make one of PRO's superhuman with deformities. PRO thinks that, however, we can simply go back and make changes like we're changing oil or changing out a tire. That is science fiction. You can't just sit somebody down in a chair and change their DNA, that would be absurd. The whole eugenic process must occur on the zygote level, that is, an inseminated ovum is extracted from a mother's womb and researchers study the genome and tweak it, a priori, not posteriori. Of course, even that is a gross oversimplification of the process, but PRO's insinuation that we can correct problems later is based on pure fantasy.

At most we can do is something known as "gene therapy," which on a very limited basis, inserts healthy genes in to diseased ones. Gene therapy has not yet been approved because it is in the clinical stages.

PRO further postulates, in regards to my point of rampant population growth, that In concern of overcrowding Earth, I must point towards the space program." And so we see PRO using another science fiction to cover the other. There are no definitive plans for humans to move to the moon, Mars, or anywhere else in the solar system. Just because NASA entertains the theoretical possibility does not mean that one can rely on that as an answer to a troubling concern. As far as I'm concerned, that's a non-answer to my legitimate question. I trust the reader will render the same judgment.

In regards to nature, he made the following comment: "But once you realize and understand nature to a far degree, you can tame Nature" PRO seems to think that humans can and should control nature, simply because humans are intelligent. Everything on planet earth seems to be at his disposal for manipulation. What about nature is there to "tame" anyhow? There is no right or wrong with nature, it just is. Humans, continually altering nature, are constantly endagnering the very nature we need to survive and share a symbiotic relationship with. Global warming and nuclear holcausts are just two examples of how anthropogenic efforts intended to help us, end up hurting ourselves and nature.

PRO then assures me that his version of eugenics is nothing like what occurred in Germany, Japan, or in America with Buck v. Bell. He states that those people were viewed as hindrances, which is why they wanted to eradicate them. But is this not what PRO wants too? Does he not desire a race of people without weakness? His first post in Round 1 makes it clear that he does in fact want a world free from the ills of society. Sure, PRO may not desire to kill the sick and the lame, but the slippery slope of eugenics is that it's thus far been the reality. He may not want that, but who's to say that his protege won't? Or the government?

We must remember that all of the atrocities I pointed were foisted on us under the pretense of benefiting society. At what cost? Genocide? Discrimination? The fact that the only recorded cases of eugenic programs focused on these makes it more than relevant to question the future of it. I don't think that is being overly-paranoid.

=== FINAL CONCLUSION ===

To be fair, I do understand the world that PRO wants. I certainly do not believe that he has any malicious intent, and as I stated earlier, I appreciate his enthusiasm and interest in science. His candor on the matter is much appreciated as well. Be that as it may, what troubles me is the lack of substance put forth to some of my legitimate concerns. I do not feel that PRO properly addressed my fiscal concerns, the bio-ethical concern, the over-population concern, the penchant to manipulate nature, or any other argument I set forth. PRO claims that I am scared of change, but this is simply not true.

All scientific efforts are in the interest of improvement, which I do not have a problem with, provided it is carefully dissected and we do not run in to it headlong with reckless abandonment. PRO simply wants humans to take the reigns as nature itself, making a grandiose claim that eugenics is the next evolutionary step. Evolution, in case any forgot, is an unguided process. The very act of manipulating nature to achieve selfish ends is the non-epitome of evolution. If that's not playing God, then I don't what is. To be so arrogant to think that one can usurp nature is playing the fool. It is a dangerous prospect that has already proved its self-destruction.

In closing, I want to again thank my opponent for such an interesting and provocative debate. I think he has a bright future at DDO, but nonetheless I think I have created a strong case of reasonable doubt. I trust the voter will see how I refuted his points.

For this reason, sensible voters votes CON! Resolution negated.

=== SOURCES ===

1. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 2. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 3. http://www.sciencedaily.com... 4. http://wilderdom.com...

See the original post here:
Debate Topic: Eugenics | Debate.org