Designer Humans

[Lancewen]

We are on the threshold of being able to design specialized humans to do jobs that current humans find very hazardous or to expensive to sustain. To name a few, long term work in space, we need humans that are evolved or changed to live and work in low G and have bodies that are resistant to radiation damage. Also, we need humans that can live and work in the oceans on a permanent basses.

 

Obviously finding people willing to have genetically modified children will be a challenge, however with the proper guarantees and financial inducements, I'm sure volunteers would come forward, and once these modified humans reached a self sustaining population and settled into their new roles the previous financial inducements could be phased out.

 

I know there are big ethics questions here, however humans brag about how adaptable they are. We have brains that can figure out how to do it and the potential benefit to society is very high, so why not?

 

[fahrquad]

Other than eliminating genetic defects that cause disease, I am vehemently opposed to alteration or manipulation of the human genome. Such action is unethical and should be illegal. Altering the genome to tailor make the human form amounts to creating a slave race destined from day one to fit a particular task.

[Lancewen]

Other than eliminating genetic defects that cause disease, I am vehemently opposed to alteration or manipulation of the human genome. Such action is unethical and should be illegal. Altering the genome to tailor make the human form amounts to creating a slave race destined from day one to fit a particular task.

 

I was beginning to think no one was ever going to reply. You use the term 'slave race', I disagree with that, but I would say any altered humans would have to have lifetime guarantees. You site reasons of eliminating genetic defects as being the only legitimate reasons for altering humans. But what about for species survival? Would you consider that a valid reason? My presumption is that if humans can't live on other worlds we will go extinct sooner or later. But we may not find any worlds we can move to and live on without making changes. It may even be necessary to make changes just to live in space long enough to get to another livable world.

 

Given that there will be a great deal of opposition to any such idea, no matter how bad our situation becomes, I believe we will go extinct rather than allow change.

[Mister Agenda]

How close to this possibility are we? In the movie Twins, Arnold's character was just a matter of combining genes from multiple parents. To my knowledge, we haven't even done that yet. Engineering low-G traits seems far off to me in comparision to the development of other technology to make us better able to survive in orbit.

 

I think the slave race objection is a valid one. However, I'm not sure we should limit changes to disease resistance. Making offspring smarter or stronger or tougher or with keener senses doesn't limit them to particular jobs.

[Lancewen]

How close to this possibility are we? In the movie Twins, Arnold's character was just a matter of combining genes from multiple parents. To my knowledge, we haven't even done that yet. Engineering low-G traits seems far off to me in comparison to the development of other technology to make us better able to survive in orbit.

 

I think the slave race objection is a valid one. However, I'm not sure we should limit changes to disease resistance. Making offspring smarter or stronger or tougher or with keener senses doesn't limit them to particular jobs.

 

I think the slave race objection could be mitigated before they started a genetic project. Also, some changes such as living naturally in the ocean would make it very tough to enslave any such population. But in the short term I agree with your statement "Making offspring smarter or stronger or tougher or with keener senses doesn't limit them to particular jobs." (I really like smarter and healthier) even if nothing else was ever done with genetics.

 

But originally I was thinking the best way to insure the human race doesn't go extinct is to start populating various off-world sites, with priority being given to finding other planets that we can survive on. How many other planets might be close but not quite right? For example, what if the world evolved without a magnetic field around it? Not good for current earth humans. But a little genetic manipulation solves the problem. They would have their own world and I can't see them acting as slaves for any other world.

Edited February 22, 2012 by arKane

[Lancewen]

 

I just read the following article and it seemed to apply to what I just said about adapting humans to live in the ocean. A very large water world where gravity and a magnetic field probably don't matter much to any ocean dwelling life. Even the 400 degree plus temperature probably works okay at the right depth.

 

Scientists find an alien world 'like no planet we know of'

 

Hubble team detects a watery super-Earth enshrouded by thick atmosphere

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46467275/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.T0SF07SD_4s

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eclogite]

I would favour immense caution on this for two reasons:

1) The ethical quagmire noted by others.

2) The comparative ignorance we presently have as to the impact of specific gene changes. It would be too easy for their to be unforseen consequences. One day, we might well have such in depth understanding, but it is distant.

 

Also, you refer continuously to stopping the human race from going extinct. With gene changes of the magnitude you appear to be envisaging the new humans would not be homo sapiens.

[Lancewen]

I would favour immense caution on this for two reasons:

1) The ethical quagmire noted by others.

2) The comparative ignorance we presently have as to the impact of specific gene changes. It would be too easy for their to be unforseen consequences. One day, we might well have such in depth understanding, but it is distant.

 

Also, you refer continuously to stopping the human race from going extinct. With gene changes of the magnitude you appear to be envisaging the new humans would not be homo sapiens.

 

Unforeseen consequences. That's a risk we as humans take all the time. If we weren't willing to take the risk we wouldn't be where we are today. About the extinction thing. If we remain a one world species we will go extinct. It's as simple as that. Of course I can only guess at when that might be, but we are using resources at an alarming rate. I can foresee a time in the not to distant future when we for whatever reason (natural or man made) we won't have enough resources to support the current levels of population. When that happens the distraction to scientific advancement will be huge, and we might not ever be able to recover from it. By that I mean to become a multi-world species.

 

Homo sapiens, the only thing special about homo sapiens is the intelligence and a chance to become a muli-world species. Anyway, not all humans need to be modified, just those that would choose a new life for themselves and their children. I wouldn't be for anything that would force anyone against their informed will.

[Eclogite]

Unforeseen consequences. That's a risk we as humans take all the time. If we weren't willing to take the risk we wouldn't be where we are today.

And there are billions of individuals and thousands of cultures that are no more because they failed to properly weigh up risk and reward. There will be a time when we may be able to properly assessit in terms of your proposals, but that time is - my view - some generations away.

 

You have missed my point about homo-sapiens. Lets say we carry out your plan, make a dozen genetic modifications and go out to inhabit a dozen different environments. (Or make ti a thousand, or a million. I don;t mind.) None of these modified entities are any longer homo sapiens, therefore there existence has absolutely nothing to do with the long term survival of homo sapiens. I am simply suggesting that it is not survival of homo sapiens you are arguing for, but for the survival of homo sapiens and their lineal descendants. That's quite a different gene pool.

[Lancewen]

And there are billions of individuals and thousands of cultures that are no more because they failed to properly weigh up risk and reward. There will be a time when we may be able to properly assessit in terms of your proposals, but that time is - my view - some generations away.

 

Sometimes that's true and sometimes nature just had other plans.

 

You have missed my point about homo-sapiens. Lets say we carry out your plan, make a dozen genetic modifications and go out to inhabit a dozen different environments. (Or make ti a thousand, or a million. I don;t mind.) None of these modified entities are any longer homo sapiens, therefore there existence has absolutely nothing to do with the long term survival of homo sapiens. I am simply suggesting that it is not survival of homo sapiens you are arguing for, but for the survival of homo sapiens and their lineal descendants. That's quite a different gene pool.

 

Just because we haven't found a new planet where homo sapiens can live on yet, doesn't mean we won't. The same can be said about getting from point A to B when we are talking 50+ light years away from us. In the meantime we should be taking better care of our planet, anything that will buy us more time. Also, if we find worlds that aren't suitable for homo sapiens to live on but will support volunteer modified humans, why not?

 

It's beginning to look like water worlds might be a lot more common in the galaxy than earth like worlds with a large stabling moon and a magnetic field to protect us. But a water world doesn't need those things to support life. The water shields from radiation and at the right depth yearly seasons won't be missed and if there was no land, tides sure won't matter, will they. I have no idea what kind of life that might be, but I'm willing to bet we could test that with willing volunteers. Anyway, I would like to see both homo sapiens and modified humans working together to populate the galaxy with intelligent life.

[maddog]

How close to this possibility are we? In the movie Twins, Arnold's character was just a matter of combining genes from multiple parents. To my knowledge, we haven't even done that yet. Engineering low-G traits seems far off to me in comparision to the development of other technology to make us better able to survive in orbit.

The how is maybe a bit far off. Yet I do not mean by that centuries. I mean a few decades. Biochemistry

knowledge is increasing at a non-linear rate. Such that by 2040 or so, we may have some modest ability

to accentuate what is already there - as in better hearing, extended range wavelengths for vision, faster

response times. Currently this is less than 30 years away. Couple this with intelligent machines and/or

man/machine hybrids and a "Bladerunner" future may not be far off.

 

I think the slave race objection is a valid one. However, I'm not sure we should limit changes to disease resistance. Making offspring smarter or stronger or tougher or with keener senses doesn't limit them to particular jobs.

Of course a "slave race" per se is objectionable. The validity is more like objecting to making handguns

as the "evil" when more it is how it is used. So if governments were to use the power of genetics to

modify the human genome for the purpose of forcing these new people to do things against their "will";

then this would definitely be Objectionable. I think what Arkane is implying in our future that some

economic incentive to undergo such modifications. This is still willing. Now I do see a possible

story here -- what happens to future generations (say 10+) in this modified environment. What is their

say in choosing to be modified. If the choices become more limited then there is the rub and the

label of "enslavement" has merit. If instead in this future society each generation is free to choose

what environment they desire to be a part in, then this would become a part rights of being "human".

 

maddog

[Lancewen]

The how is maybe a bit far off. Yet I do not mean by that centuries. I mean a few decades. Biochemistry

knowledge is increasing at a non-linear rate. Such that by 2040 or so, we may have some modest ability

to accentuate what is already there - as in better hearing, extended range wavelengths for vision, faster

response times. Currently this is less than 30 years away. Couple this with intelligent machines and/or

man/machine hybrids and a "Bladerunner" future may not be far off.

 

 

Of course a "slave race" per se is objectionable. The validity is more like objecting to making handguns

as the "evil" when more it is how it is used. So if governments were to use the power of genetics to

modify the human genome for the purpose of forcing these new people to do things against their "will";

then this would definitely be Objectionable. I think what Arkane is implying in our future that some

economic incentive to undergo such modifications. This is still willing. Now I do see a possible

story here -- what happens to future generations (say 10+) in this modified environment. What is their

say in choosing to be modified. If the choices become more limited then there is the rub and the

label of "enslavement" has merit. If instead in this future society each generation is free to choose

what environment they desire to be a part in, then this would become a part rights of being "human".

 

maddog

 

I would think part of the incentive for anyone to want to have modified children would be some solid guarantees about what happens to future generations. In some of my earlier examples such as being modified to live on a water world it seems obvious that the modified humans would be in control of their own world. But if those same modifications were made for humans to live in earths oceans, where you have hundreds of nations and not all of them in agreement on this issue. You have a whole different set of problems to consider.

 

I have a question, It's been said that modified humans would no longer be homo sapiens, and I would have to agree they wouldn't. But they would still be human wouldn't they? Therefore they would still qualify for any guaranteed human rights would they not?

[CraigD]

Fun thread! :thumbs_up

 

We needn’t confine the discussion of gene engineering H. Sapiens to physically better suited to an habitat to habitats of extrasolar planets, as there are many much more easily accessible environments on or near Earth.

 

Imagining a future in which we completely understand how genes produce complete and various parts of bodies, and how to engineer them to realize nearly any body plan that’s physically possible (for example, no 20 meter tall spiders, as no biological exoskeleton faithfully following a spider body plan could withstand the force of gravity – that is spindly bugs don’t scale up well) I can imagine making a body like a dolphin, augmented with the arms and hands of an ape, to make an animal with the aquatic life capability of a T. truncatus, and the practical technological capability of a H. sapiens, and that this would be a functionally practical and a just plain damn fun animal to be, and thus a “high seller” in a future market for neomorphic human bodies. The satirists at Weekly World news have even photoshopped something kinda like I’m picturing in my mind’s eye in their fake news story DOLPHIN WITH ARMS – PREPARES FOR BATTLE:

 

Thinking deeply on the extropian subject of human neomorphs can be aided by a wealth of science fiction. The term neomorph in this context (it has a real biological meaning, too, that’s much less fun, and used mostly to classify fruit fly mutations) was popularized by Greg Bear in his wonderful 1985 novel Eon, in which its many human characters range from present day humans to folk who look like ordinary humans but are improved in various invisible ways, to such extreme alterations as perfectly spherical bodies with ad-hoc sense organs and protrusions. Another standout is Greg Egan’s superb 1997 novel Diaspora, in which we’re given a vision of Earth in 2975 in which “mainstream humanity” consists of completely non-biological, computer-based entities, while a minority of “fleshers” continue to populate Earth, some as a “static” species purposefully continuing H. sapiens natural evolution, and thus nearly identical to us 2012 H. sapiens or our 11 the century ancestors, others as “exuberant” species engineered for myriad capabilities, including living in the sea.

 

You can’t get too far in such deep thinking without confronting the question of whether these imagined many neomorphs are, in an ultimate sense, still human. A strong argument can be made that it is our unsuitability for our habitat that made and continues to make us human. Lacking adequate fur to keep us warm, prehistoric H. sapiens and other, now extinct hominids, made clothing. Lacking sufficiently strong and fast bodies to hunt large prey, and teeth and claws suitable for eating them, they made weapons, tools, learned to use fire, etc, ushering in the historic era. Had our ancestors been better physically suited to their habitats, it’s reasonable to imagine they would have continued a life un-technological. Other smart, social mammal species better physically suited to their habitats, such as dolphins, appear to have done just that.

 

In Diaspora, Egan includes among the human “exuberant” species a subculture called “the dream apes”, in which H. Sapiens are gene altered to remove the capacity to speak and various related brain fuctions, producing humans with “a primal innocence and greater rapport with nature”. In his diverse 30th century human culture, dream apes are considered fully human, but to our present-day one, would they be?

 

Though, until that last paragraph, I’ve purposefully avoided it to this point, extropian neomorphism is closely related, and in terms of speculated genetic engineering, nearly indistinguishable from, changing not just bodies, but brains and minds.

 

In her 1993 novel Beggars in Spain, Nancy Kress imagines a year 2008 in which genetic research has produced a practically applicable therapy to make people who don’t need to sleep. Wealthy customers who think this will give their otherwise normal children advantages in education and business chose it. As these children enter adulthood, a social split between them and normal human “sleepers” begins to occur, leading after much strife to a rigidly stratified society with non-genemodded humans as a lower class, compounded by the unexpected side effect that the “sleepless” also appear, after puberty, to age many times slower than normal.

 

Beggars in Spain is a near future, cautionary, yet optimistic, tale, about the possible dramatic consequences of even small artificial genetic H. sapiens enhancements. Brin and Egan, I think, examine what it means to be human, and whether changing our bodies and brains, even replacing them completely, can make us other-than-human. My take is that it wouldn’t, as long as we are, in whatever form we are in, sufficiently challenged by whatever world we find around us, but it’s a deep question.

[Lancewen]

CraigD

 

Nice post, I like how you tied in with the SciFi novels, all of which make you think. I'm sure any real genetic modifications good or bad would be very controversial and a source of friction and violence in society. But when something can be done and there are people that want to do it. It will be hard to stop. I believe humans should live everywhere in the universe that they can, even if they need some modifications to do it.

[7DSUSYstrings]

We are on the threshold of being able to design specialized humans to do jobs that current humans find very hazardous or to expensive to sustain. To name a few, long term work in space, we need humans that are evolved or changed to live and work in low G and have bodies that are resistant to radiation damage. Also, we need humans that can live and work in the oceans on a permanent basses.

 

Obviously finding people willing to have genetically modified children will be a challenge, however with the proper guarantees and financial inducements, I'm sure volunteers would come forward, and once these modified humans reached a self sustaining population and settled into their new roles the previous financial inducements could be phased out.

 

I know there are big ethics questions here, however humans brag about how adaptable they are. We have brains that can figure out how to do it and the potential benefit to society is very high, so why not?

 

 

Are you thinking in terms of say growing someone a tentacle or a 3rd arm and comparing this to freedom of speech? :D

 

I'm not 100 percent certain what you want to discuss. Is this a discussion of the technology or the ethics?

[Lancewen]

Are you thinking in terms of say growing someone a tentacle or a 3rd arm and comparing this to freedom of speech? :D

 

I'm not 100 percent certain what you want to discuss. Is this a discussion of the technology or the ethics?

 

As our technology advances we are going to have ethics questions about what we are doing or can do. Genetically speaking there's a lot we can do to improve the human species. But there's also a dark side that could be exploited from that technology. Getting rid of genetic disease is all and good, but that level of knowledge could also be used to modify the human form to serve specialized needs. I'm not really talking about a 3rd arm or tentacle, but it might be nice to have a few amphibian humans on a world that's 3 fourths water or if we want humans to live in space, being resistant to radiation and adapted to low or zero G would be nice.

[7DSUSYstrings]

I believe I see your point. Where do we have the right to judge what is wrong or right to create, versus what would be the impact on society are we to decline an artificial, benevolent evolution for the sake of a possibly errant social mandate.