Genetically Modified Salvation: Three "Evil" Questions

Hello ATS, I have a few questions for you if you're willing to speculate and donate some of your time to answering them. Here we go...

1. Is “evil” subjective to the creator/giver?

Example: Have I committed an evil act if I use deception to prevent harm from occurring?

2. Is “evil” NOT subjective to the receiver?

Example: Those harmed by evil will most definitely call it so.

3. Is "evil" necessary to understand what a "good" act is?

Example: Would I know if I'm being good if there is no comparable alternative?

I was reading something that got me thinking…

As we constantly reflect on how our actions are perceived by others, it can be difficult to realize if we did the “right” thing or even if there is such a thing. Did our positive intentions produce negative results? Was my act considered evil to some, while others saw it as good? Who is more correct?

This led me to wonder, if it was possible to genetically remove “evil” from the human mind, would that be comparable to what most Christians refer to as Salvation?

Would this remove the “e-brake” on human evolution or is being “good” only necessary to avoid the consequences of “bad” behavior? How do you think society would operate if the human brain was modified to only facilitate “good” intentions? Would it backfire on us somehow?

1. No
2. No
3. No


The flaw in your actual question lies in the fact that someone would have to make the decision on what is the best option.

Evolution is not a decision. It is a process.

a reply to: eisegesis

All ideal state of mind are subjective, but i wouldnt say its a good idea, cause we have cultural norms and a system that wil punish those who doesnt fit in..

originally posted by: Phage
1. No
2. No
3. No


The flaw in your actual question lies in the fact that someone would have to make the decision on what is the best option.

Evolution is not a decision. It is a process.

That is one way of looking at it unless a connection is made linking bad behavior to physical processes in the body.

Are you saying that humans are excluded from having a hand in their own evolutionary progress? Are we slaves to a "process" or at some point does our knowledge present an opportunity for us to "evolve?" I'm thinking once we discover how to manipulate gravity, life as we know it will change.

a reply to: eisegesis

I think he is saying;" Evolution and Ideals are not in the same realm " One exist in the real world one exist in your mind

a reply to: eisegesis
No. We are indeed able to influence our development as a species and have been doing so for hundreds of thousands of years.

Influence is not, however, control. Influence often, if not always, has unforeseen effects. Those effects are part and parcel to the process.

We have the potential to increase our lifespans. We have done so without genetic manipulation and may be able to to do so, more so, by means of it. Is that evolution? We are, already, among an elite group of long lived mammals.

What genetic improvements would make us "better?" Better suited to reproduce in our environment? Which is what evolution is.

originally posted by: eisegesis
Hello ATS, I have a few questions for you if you're willing to speculate and donate some of your time to answering them. Here we go...

1. Is “evil” subjective to the creator/giver?

My take on the nature of good and evil is simply an aspect of our evolution. I see existence as an experience of god's imagination. The shadow self as Carl Jung coined it, is simply teacher we all must face and integrate.

2. Is “evil” NOT subjective to the receiver?

I believe it to be an experience necessary upon our continued evolution. Karma plays a role here and given that we live an infinite amount of lives and do not retain memory of those life, experiencing what we have created can be a painful experience.

3. Is "evil" necessary to understand what a "good" act is?

At this level of our growth, evil is apparently necessary.

I was reading something that got me thinking…

As we constantly reflect on how our actions are perceived by others, it can be difficult to realize if we did the “right” thing or even if there is such a thing. Did our positive intentions produce negative results? Was my act considered evil to some, while others saw it as good? Who is more correct?

This led me to wonder, if it was possible to genetically remove “evil” from the human mind, would that be comparable to what most Christians refer to as Salvation?

Would this remove the “e-brake” on human evolution or is being “good” only necessary to avoid the consequences of “bad” behavior? How do you think society would operate if the human brain was modified to only facilitate “good” intentions? Would it backfire on us somehow?

Ultimately all of our experiences are guiding us along the evolution of our consciousness. We have swung far down into the nature of the collective evil of the human mind. This is apparent given our disconnection from our spiritual nature. Ignorance of a staggering level is in place when man considers himself to be separate from nature, leading to the erroneous destruction of man's environment.

1. Is “evil” subjective to the creator/giver?

Evil and Good are actually objective, although perception is subjective.

2. Is “evil” NOT subjective to the receiver?

Giver, receiver, passerby, judge and all. Anyone can be offended by anything but good and evil still stand.

3. Is "evil" necessary to understand what a "good" act is?

Yes: to the blind, there is no red or blue. Before one wants sex (childhood) abstinence means nothing.
In a perfect world the concept of good just means "obvious".

This led me to wonder, if it was possible to genetically remove “evil” from the human mind

That's not how genes work.

How do you think society would operate if the human brain was modified to only facilitate “good” intentions? Would it backfire on us somehow?

Everyone already has "good" intentions according to them, though time may change their perspective.
Those who call their intentions evil see "evil" as "good".

A community of people with good intentions is heaven, the brain modification exists and it's called choosing to do what is right consistently.
This change only comes from within, no matter how much education, chemistry, surgery and voodoo electronics are used.

The backfire comes from those who make a different choice.

The problem here is that evolution favors survival given certain environmental factors. The organization best adapted to the environment survives; the least adapted organism does not. The black moth on a white tree dies just as easily as a white moth on a dark tree. "Evil" is not a gene you can turn on and off. And the Universe is indifferent, assuming "it" even "knows," which is a big leap.

Lots of things have changed life as we know it: air travel, steam engines, the printing press, fire. Gravity is no different.

originally posted by: Phage
1. No
2. No
3. No


The flaw in your actual question lies in the fact that someone would have to make the decision on what is the best option.

Evolution is not a decision. It is a process.

I find that simplistic answers like this are an example of the hubris of the mind of man. We have barely begun understanding this humble planet. When looking to the infinite universe I find it laughable to believe that we understand evolution in any way shape or form enough to make such declarations.

a reply to: elementalgrove

I find simplistic questions ridiculous.

"Is genetic modification evil?"

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: elementalgrove

I find simplistic questions ridiculous.

"Is genetic modification evil?"

I do think that removing evil from a genetic stand point is not necessary and would be contraindicated for our issues. This is because I believe it be fundamentally important for our individual as well as collective evolution. It is our work that needs to be done.

I do like contemplating the questions posed in the OP, if we can be convinced that there is no point to evil and it is simply the nature of man, we find ourselves in quite the hellish existence, with no hope of our own salvation!

a reply to: Phage

We have the potential to increase our lifespans. We have done so without genetic manipulation and may be able to to do so, more so, by means of it. Is that evolution?

Yes, I would have to say that it is. Would you consider us colonizing another planet by replicating our earthly requirements for survival a form of evolution or because we have not modified ourselves directly it is not? I would imagine that technology drives evolution, necessity is the mother of invention and the human mind invents the idea. I could also speculate that we are being influenced to evolve at a specific pace by those with the knowledge to do so. Knowledge is power, but lack of the same can be the greatest resistive force in the universe.

a reply to: eisegesis

Would you consider us colonizing another planet by replicating our earthly requirements for survival a form of evolution or because we have not modified ourselves directly it is not?

It is not. That would be called terraforming, quite the opposite of evolution.

I could also speculate that we are being influenced to evolve at a specific pace by those with the knowledge to do so.

Yeah, well. That and a buck will buy you a beer on lady's night.

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: Phage

We have the potential to increase our lifespans. We have done so without genetic manipulation and may be able to to do so, more so, by means of it. Is that evolution?

Yes, I would have to say that it is.

Not directly, no. The issue is that modern medicine increases lifespans and SURVIVAL RATES of those who would otherwise die without medical intervention giving them more of a change to pass on those genes. This does affect evolution, but not for the better in terms of strengthening the species. In essence, it passes on defects.

Would you consider us colonizing another planet by replicating our earthly requirements for survival a form of evolution or because we have not modified ourselves directly it is not?

No. That's called "moving somewhere else."

I would imagine that technology drives evolution, necessity is the mother of invention and the human mind invents the idea.

Technology does if it changes the environment enough to affect survival. The rest of that is just aphorism.

I could also speculate that we are being influenced to evolve at a specific pace by those with the knowledge to do so. Knowledge is power, but lack of the same can be the greatest resistive force in the universe.

I simply do not see how that means anything relevant to the issue.

1. No, evil is evil. Deception needn't be considered "evil" in itself. Deception is evil if you use evil means to deceive.

2..... Um, I dunno... This isn't really my type of thread, sorry for chiming in. Lol

a reply to: eisegesis

To answer all 3 of your questions, I think "evil" is always subject only to the perception of the receiver or witness of an action.

Most people think they are doing the right thing, no matter what they are doing.. sometimes, people skirt "morality" to do what they think is best in the long run, or for someone else, is that evil? Hardly.. in their mind, its still a good thing, even if they know they have deceived someone or taken something that wasn't theirs.

Now, if a person is intentionally doing something they consider "evil" to cause harm, there is likely also an ulterior motive, from which they will benefit, so even though they know they are doing something "evil" the end result is something "good" for them. Have they no other motives and are simply causing dread for the sake of it, then again, it is for their enjoyment, and brings them "good", albeit in a negative way.

In that way, the receiver will always dictate what is "evil" or "good" because no one is in anyone else's head.

If we eliminated "evil" it would only be the perception of evil that would be lost, in my opinion, because people would still think they were doing "good" no matter what it was.. without the perception of "evil" available to humanity, we would be subject to the whims of tyranny and exploitation even more than we are now, because we would all just trot along, not knowing the difference between whats "good" for us and whats "bad" for us - a matter highly subject to interpretation.

Is an artificial intelligence, programmed to save the world, "evil" if it determines humans are the worlds problem and eliminates them all? To us, likely so.

originally posted by: kalulu
a reply to: eisegesis

All ideal state of mind are subjective, but i wouldnt say its a good idea, cause we have cultural norms and a system that wil punish those who doesnt fit in..

Our "culture" is slowly "evolving" into a memory. I'd imagine in the future, what is good/evil will be more clearly defined if we are to move past what some might find subjective and not worth suppressing. Some people's mental states prohibit them from feeling the impact of their evil ways as they train themselves to justify their actions. I'm not inciting the notion of thought control, but a lot of us have the potential to be better versions of ourselves at will. We just choose not to. Where does that line of thinking stem from?

a reply to: eisegesis

I'm not inciting the notion of thought control, but a lot of us have the potential to be better versions of ourselves at will. We just choose not to.

Not a lot of us. Every one of us can be "better" than we are. Except, of course, Donald Trump. He's perfection. Just ask him.

Or are you saying that we can "evolve" by power of will?