A few questions for my Genetics paper (ten points to a good answerer)?

Question

I'm writing a paper on genetic modification. I need to get interviews from a few people to see how people feel. All the questions are opinion. If you decide to answer the questions please put your full name, I need a full name for proper MLA formatting.

Question 1: Do you support genetic modification of any organisms? Why or why not?

Question 2: Do you support the genetic modification of humans for the purpose of treating illnesses? Why or why not?

Question 3: Do you support the genetic modification of humans for the purpose of enhancement (ie. increasing intelligence, increasing muscle growth, giving people vision better than 20/20 etc. ?) Why or why not?

Question 4: If lifespan could be extended to 200, 300 or even 500 years, would you support it? Would you try to get it done for your child? Why or why not?

Thank you to anyone who answers.

Answer 1

Hi I'm Jill Fellbaum :) senior zoology major.



1) We already do it (agriculture). I support that in the sense that it produces better food (supposedly). The scientist in me would really love to play around with animal DNA and make new animals. But I also have a moral side, so I think that this power would be misused. A lot.



2) Yes, I do. Even if you take Darwinism into account, the "survival of the fittest", humans creating the ability to make a person with a low Fitness into a person with a high Fitness is an evolutionary trait. It would be wonderful for everyone to be healthy.



3) Not really a fan of enhancement. While I would love to not be able to wear glasses, I think the technology would just get over used. We'd have super soldiers. And everyone would be "beautiful". And you could choose what your children look like.. it'd be like shopping for a child. I don't like the idea of any of it. I think it would get out of hand way too fast. Have you seen the movie Gattica? Not cool. Not only that, maybe people would give themselves tails and wings and we'd make new species (which is actually cool.. maybe I support that haha).



4) Is it only lifespan thats being extended or quality of life also? Cause I don't want to live 400 years in an 80 year old body with alzheimers or being a veggie hooked up to machines. I want my 21 year old body for 400 years. I think this would be a problem because no one would die. And unless there was regulation on the birth rate, we'd get over populated way too fast. I wouldn't want to do it for my child because maybe living that long wouldn't be as fun as people think it is. Especially if not all of my child's friends and loved ones have the same enhancement.. then they'd have to watch everyone they love die.

Answer 2

Question 1:

Yes. I think that humans should use any technology available to improve our quality of life. Genetically modified food crops are the only solution I see available to prevent widespread starvation.



Question 2:

Assuming that it could be done safely, I do support genetically modifying humans to treat illness. I do not think it should be viewed any differently than any other illness. Genetic therapies represent the best chance for treating and curing many debilitating diseases.



Question 3:

I do support the enhancement of humans for any possible reason. I view it as a natural extension of evolution. We have developed the ability to think, and using that ability to improve ourselves is only a natural extension of natural selection (albeit accelerated). By not taking advantage of genetic enhancement, we as humans would be intentionally handicapping ourselves from an evolutionary perspective. I do, however, think that genetic enhancement of humans would lead to a greater disparity between the poor and wealthy, as only the wealthy would be able to do it, but that is a sociological problem and not something I am concerned with.



Question 4.

Yes. I would much rather have the ability to live for a longer period of time. I would definitely try and have it done for my child. I would not want to be responsible for taking what could possibly be 400 years of life away from my child. If they decide at a later date they do not want to live that long, well, it is much easier to end life early than it is to extend it.

Answer 3

a million. particular. increasing crop yields by utilising genetic engineering would desire to be the only thank you to keep away from mass starvation interior the destiny. to no longer point out that we are in a position to upload and improve diet and mineral concentrations in flowers to chop back malnutrition. Genetic engineering (by utilising selective breeding) is what we've been doing to flowers for hundreds of years. it is in basic terms a greater appropriate, quicker thank you to do it. 2. particular. it is in basic terms the subsequent step in scientific care. we want the thank you to handle genetic issues and gene therapy is the answer. 3. particular. despite if it is in all threat the main arguable of your questions, genetic advancements are inevitable and we'd besides get used to it. i do no longer unavoidably see a ethical clarification why we could continually no longer have interaction in those practices except it reasons some form of societal branch a la Gattaca. 4. particular, as long as I wasn't going to be alive yet restricted to a wheelchair for 3 hundred years. despite if I do admit that the strain on the economic gadget would prefer to be heavily studied before.