The Next Great Step In Human Evolution

[Meldread]

After reading a thread here in the Science forum discussing the recent rise in certain disorders, and how it could be potentially explained by ongoing human evolution, I thought it would be interesting to create this thread.

A few questions that should be proposed:

1. Do you believe that the next great step in Human Evolution will be humanity deciding to genetically engineer our children?
2. If the answer to the above is yes, how do you feel about it? Are you for Human Genetic Modification or are you against? Why?
3. If you believe Human Genetic Modification shall eventually come to pass, what do you think will be the result?

My answers to the questions:

1. Yes. I believe I will see Human Genetic Modification (HGM) in my lifetime. I also believe that Humanity will be the first species to take evolution into its own hands.
2. I realize both the potential and the risk, and I am both excited and cautious. I am for it, because I think it has the great potential to do good. However, I also realize - like all science and technology - it can be both used for good and evil.
3. The end result is difficult to know because there are many potential paths that we could take. I believe HGM will be introduced to the general population in a benevolent way, and people will widely support it. It will be introduced as a way to eliminate genetic diseases and other illnesses. It will be introduced as a way to create more healthy humans. This will be supported by the public at large, despite ethical concerns, because everyone wants healthy babies. It will be supported by the state because it will reduce long term health care costs. However, it will not be long after this that the tinkering will expand from 'prevention' to 'enhancement'. This is where we enter on the slippery slope, and where my concerns arise.

I feel that some governments may attempt to regulate against such enhancement modifications, but like nuclear weapons those nations that choose not to abide by those regulations will find themselves with an advantage. Imagine, for example, the United States forbidding genetic enhancements that increase the power of the human brain. Meanwhile, China has refused to regulate such modifications, and has even created a state policy that all new children will undergo certain enhancement modifications - perhaps even going so far as to give forced abortions to non-"enhanced" children. This is merely an extension of their one child policy. China would experience a great deal of benefit economically and militarily as a result, thus putting all nations who stood against such modifications at a disadvantage.

A longer term concern is no agreement on how far such modifications should be allowed on a large scale, potentially creating separate species of human that cannot breed with one another. However, humanity in the past has lived along side other humanoid species that were very genetically similar to us... we may do so again, someday in the future.

Much of this depends on a number of factors, and it is difficult for me to clearly imagine the future... it could be better or worse than I imagine it to be.

What are your answers to the three questions?

[Oregone]

1. Id rather think it will be unpredictable, due to all the radiation

Who knows what humans will evolve into, if they still exist, after they finish blowing each other up. But you can't pick and choose when being bombarded with radiation. It may not be pretty

[lazarus]

2. I'm more a believer

in Vinge's Singularity, where we make a great leap forward merging with technology.

[Odin2005]

4. I agree.

we will become cyborgs, merging with our technology.

[Meldread]

5. I didn't have that in mind when I created the thread, but I agree.

I agree that we will (in my life time) make a giant leap forward as we merge with technology, ESPECIALLY if nanotechnology lives up to its potential. However, I still stand by my original assessment - we will genetically modify humans. At the very least we will eliminate virtually all genetic diseases.

I am in strong support of both technological and genetic enhancement. While both hold the potential to be used badly, both also hold the potential to be used for good as well.

It is an exciting time to be alive, and I hope to witness the next giant leap in human evolution.

[qazplm]

13. well if nanotech explodes though we wont have to

genetically engineer people.

If you can create microrobots that can repair damage, remove free radicals, remove excess fat cells, exercise muscles, clear arteries, etc then other than perhaps using stem cells for grow your own replacement body parts, you dont need much else to create a human who is more or less in perfect condition all of the time.

Other than particularly novel and virulent diseases that perhaps the nanobots can't handle, and obviously a major traumatic injury (nanobots can't re-attach your head to your body), death would be something that happened fairly infrequently.

Why would you need genetic engineering at that point? I mean I suppose you could get it in the sense of correcting genetic defects prior to birth, but that isn't really modifying humans on a grand scale, it's just removing deformities. I guess I don't think you will see folks with four legs, or artificially larger brains or gills, particularly when you can use nanotech to accomplish some of the same goals (put bots in the lungs that can draw oxygen from water and pass it to the lungs).

[pscot]

3. If we don't clean up our act

the next big step in human evolution may be etintion.

[caraher]

6. I think...

1. It will happen... somewhere
2-3. It will be largely a mistake. Why? Because we probably won't be smart enough to select for the right things. Because evolution does not work by design but by trial and error. If whole societies select for the characteristics they decide are desirable, they will be suppressing the diversity of their gene pools and limiting longer-term possibilities in exchange for short-term designer genes.

[Orrex]

7. Regarding deliberate, beneficial gene modification

It seems to me that it's largely a numbers game, and the number of "unmodified" people will hugely outnumber the "modded" ones. As such, unless the modifications give some fantastic advantage in terms of ability to pass on one's genes to a successor generation, the I don't see how such modifications can be anything more than a nearly invisible blip on the overall arc of human evolution.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that some spectacular natural event will cause a massive die-off of humanity, greatly thinning the herd and totally fucking with our current concept of "the fittest."

[Meldread]

8. I would generally agree with the first part of your assessment, sorta.

We are already actually moving into the area that I described above... it's called preimplantation genetic diagnosis (also known as embryo screening). Basically, in this procedure, an embryo is created in the lab from the parents sperm and egg, then when it begins to divide they take one of the cells (which has the new fetus DNA), and screen it for genetic disorders. They can also determine the gender of the child. Children that do not meet the couples gender desires or have genetic disorders are tossed out and another embryo is created. The process repeats until a satisfactory result is achieved, then the embryo is implanted either into a surrogate mother or the biological mother of the child.

There is no actual genetic modification in this process, but it is currently going on right now. I'm not sure how much it costs, but I'm pretty sure it costs a pretty penny.

My point? This is just the first step down a longer road. We do not have a strong enough understanding of how to modify human DNA and the implications of doing such a thing... but someday - perhaps in the next 25 to 30 years - we'll have a very good understanding of what slight modifications will do. Before that, we'll certainly be fiddling around with the epigenome.

However, I also have an even larger point to make in reference to your post. I think that once such things become common, they become more routine, more widespread, cheaper and more widely available. Therefore, while I agree that in the beginning any tinkering done will only be a drop in the bucket, in the more developed countries - such as the United States - or the more Totalitarian Nations - such as China - you could see something like this making a huge impact.

[AllenVanAllen]

9. Stephen Hawking thinks this will be the case.

I saw this Daily Galaxy article a few days ago


Stephen Hawking: "The Human Species Has Entered A New Stage of Evolution." The Daily Galaxy Top Story of 2009

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/01/stephen-hawking-the-human-species-has-entered-a-new-stage-of-evolution-the-daily-galaxy-top-story-of.html

[Fumesucker]

10. I would suggest looking at science fiction...

SF authors (and fen as well) have spent a great deal of time thinking of the results of human genetic modifications and many of them are really smart people.

Nancy Kress' "Sleepless" and Heinlein's "Howard Families" were both genetically modified humans who faced an amazing amount of prejudice and persecution, to the point that the Howard Families left the planet completely to escape.

Any genetically modified humans that are seen as superior to "normal" humans are likely to face possibly extreme bigotry and persecution, IMO. And what would be the point of genetically engineering humans if they were not superior in some way?

Van Vogt's "Slan", also genetically superior humans were persecuted for their differences as well.

Think of the prejudice that still exists toward even non-genetically engineered humans who are different from "regular" folks in essentially trivial ways, how much more venal the prejudice will be when narrow minded people can think of those they hate as being "made" that way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering_in_fiction

[Igel]

11. We already have.

We're hairless, dependent on clothing. We decided on that. It's not like we were walking around and suddenly realized we were all developing mostly bald bodies and needed to steal a zebra's skin to compensate.

We have long hair. That's a trait we selected for.

We've selected for larger breasts. They don't need to be that large for mere reproduction.

We're selecting for prettier women. More handsome men, not so much.

Selection for milk tolerance, tolerance to concentrated starches, various other things was far less conscious. But some we selected for consciously, sexual selection is not entirely blind in humans. And what did it give us?

Long-haired well-dressed busty super-models with minimal facial hair.

So, when we start genetically modifying humans in a more direct manner and on a large scale, just what do you think we'll do?

No, try again--and this time be honest.

[tinrobot]

12. We're already adapting to eating genetically modified Monsanto-feed

Those who don't have early organ failure will reproduce and find genetically modified corn and soy much more digestible.

[Ready4Change]

14. My responses.

1. Do you believe that the next great step in Human Evolution will be humanity deciding to genetically engineer our children?

No, if by 'great' you mean 'positive improvement.'

2. If the answer to the above is yes, how do you feel about it? Are you for Human Genetic Modification or are you against? Why?

Instead, I'll explain why I answered 'No'. I suspect modifying genes will result in unintended consequences, most of which will be detrimental for the subject modified. Thus, this will not be a 'great' step.

To me, the next great step will be the acceptance that, by being intelligent, we have in effect created a second tier of evolution. The evolution of knowledge and ideas, rather than meat. Evolving the material of which we are made is nearly irrelevant, compared to the leverage our ideas can obtain. Like arguing which breed of horse to use in a race at Daytona Motor Speedway, when everyone else is already roaring around at 200mph in NASCARS.

3. If you believe Human Genetic Modification shall eventually come to pass, what do you think will be the result?

It will come into use. It will followed by a generation of people suffering unintended consequences, as unanticipated side effects of our changes take effect, followed by massive lawsuits, public outcry, and legislation that strongly limits the process. That will result in research into how to eliminate only strongly debilitating birth defects, and that will be all that is allowed for a century or more, until we gain a deeper understanding.

That puts us 150-200 years in the future, and at that point, who knows? At that point I'd have to make estimates on a broad array of other topics, like energy, environment, political changes, religious influences, pop culture, yada. It just gets too chaotic at that point to really predict, imo.