It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

A New Eugenics?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 08:56 PM
a reply to: DexterRiley

Really good response but what about the black market?

posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 08:57 PM
a reply to: Kashai

Will GMO babies have the same rights as natural babies?

Will there be a societal bias for or against GMO babies?

Not sure I like this brave New World.
edit on 25-3-2016 by DBCowboy because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 09:01 PM

a reply to: DBCowboy

From here on in there may be Sea Monsters.

edit on 25-3-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit

posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 09:07 PM

originally posted by: Restricted
Green fluorescence? This is some sick s***.

Science has left ethics in the dust.

Edit: Who's going to pay the Social Security for all the 120-year-olds? This is a STUPID IDEA.

their going to raise the pay out date to when your 95 so we all get to look forward to working an extra 30 years

posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 09:13 PM
a reply to: starfoxxx

To what extent does this have to do with the topic?

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 07:17 AM
a reply to: Kashai

I have one response to that, history does follow science fiction

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 08:22 AM
a reply to: Kashai

I am aware of the historical significance of the wider issue at play, but I think it is worth pointing out the following.

First of all, removing certain gene traits which cause debilitating diseases, would be advantageous, not just for those at risk of carrying those genes and manifesting symptoms of the diseases associated with them, but also for wider society. In a nation like mine, which has a nationalised (sensible) healtcare system, as opposed to a bloody stupid one involving more corporations than a chamber of commerce yearly gala, the amount of money spent on caring for those with debilitating genetic disorders would be cut dramatically if those gene traits were eliminated from the geneline of the species.

This would have knock on effects throughout healthcare provision, more money being available to be allocated to other issues. Emergency response, cancer wards, heart and thoracic surgery, spinal damage, nerve damage, all of these areas, and many, many more, could be improved, and need to be. With genetic disorders of serious magnitude removed from the threat list, money could be allocated to those instead, which would be beneficial over time, and in the short term too!

Then you have to consider the fact that we should expect better of our fellow human beings these days, than to kill over what does and does not constitute humanity. IVF treatment is not natural, pre-eclampsia sufferers do not often naturally survive a birthing procedure, and gunshot victims would not, absent the application of science, find their wounds magically sealed and their blood loss stemmed. They would merely die.

My buddy has an implant in his spine which keeps dead nerves from sending erroneous pain signals to his brain, by sending interference patterns to break up the initial signal. We joke that he is now a cyborg, but he is as human as you or I, and so would any child who came about as a result of gene manipulation.

As I have said, the master race issue, gene manipulation to provide unnatural advantage is unacceptable, but any effort to reduce or eradicate genetic disorders, to give those who would have been born with them the same fighting chance as you and I have to enjoy our lives to the fullest...

Think about Hawking for a moment. He's a world renowned physicist, lives largely in the confines of his mind, still teaches as far as I am aware... But unlike you and I, he cannot climb a mountain to get as close as physically possible to the stars. He cannot just up and decide to go out at night, jump into his boots and set up his telescope any time he sees fit, going in mere moments from restful repose in bed, to leaping into action. He is limited by the fact that his body has betrayed him. Yes, he is still a marvellous mind, and yes, his thinking changed physics and the way we think about physics as a species.

But does he get everything he could get out of his human experience? Do you not think he misses being able to operate his own toilet, his grooming, be the master of his time, and have every part of the dignity which MUST be somewhat eroded by having to have someone else attend to his every need?

posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:05 PM

a reply to: TrueBrit

There is a saying that two wrongs do not make a right.

At issue is whether or not a Embryo is a person and as such no different that any other persons.

What if an Embryo that is destroyed has the same capacity genetically as that of Einstein when he was an Embryo?

I remember a similar discussion in relation to stem cells and while many countries began destroying the little ones.

Others began researching the possibility of using adult cells for the same purpose.

Many scientist laughed then at the idea of using adult cells. But today we are not at the point where this avenue can replace organs.

But it took less that 15 years to find that alternative.

edit on 26-3-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:21 PM

Embryo development: Some cells are more equal than others even at four-cell stage
Date: March 24, 2016
Source: University of Cambridge

Summary: Genetic 'signatures' of early stage embryos confirm that our development begins to take shape as early as the second day after conception, when we are a mere four cells in size, according to new research. Although they seem to be identical, the cells of the two day-old embryo are already beginning to display distinct differences.


edit on 27-3-2016 by Kashai because: Content edit

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in