Chinese scientist He Jiankui defends 'world's first gene-edited babies'

Homesteading & Country Living Forum

Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

tmttactical

Awesome Friend
Neighbor
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
4,511
Location
Arizona
There are a number of items of concern, I have posted about, and many if not most will happen or are already happening. This is one topic I had hoped would never come back up. I am not naive enough to not believe that sooner or later some country would try to do gene editing on humans. I had hoped it would be after my lifetime but that is not to be. This is just the first step to the superior human. First it will be for the "GOOD OF MANKIND" but we all know it will never stop there. It will evolve into Super Sapient vs. homo-sapient

A Chinese scientist who claims to have created the world's first genetically edited babies has defended his work.

Speaking at a genome summit in Hong Kong, He Jiankui, an associate professor at a Shenzhen university, said he was "proud" of his work.

He said "another potential pregnancy" of a gene-edited embryo was in its early stages.

His claims, which have caused widespread outrage, have yet to be independently verified.

Prof He's university - the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen - said it was unaware of the research project and would launch an investigation.

It was first announced earlier this week that Prof He had altered the DNA of embryos - twin girls - to prevent them from contracting HIV.

His claims were widely criticised by other scientists, who called the idea monstrous. Such work is banned in most countries.

'Normal and healthy'
On Wednesday Prof He spoke to an audience for the first time about his work since the uproar.

He revealed that the twin girls - known as "Lulu" and "Nana" - were "born normal and healthy", adding that there were plans to monitor the twins over the next 18 years.

He explained that eight couples - comprised of HIV-positive fathers and HIV-negative mothers - had signed up voluntarily for the experiment; one couple later dropped out.

He added that he had initially funded the experiment by himself.

Prof He also said that the study had been submitted to a scientific journal for review, though he did not name the journal.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-46368731
 
just wait until the Chinese military get its hands on this...now they have something, Stalin tried to develope "super soldiers" but had not
the tech for it..

well,to be honest...any military would love this...

That is th part that bothers me. Yes they may actually find some good medical cures but the end result will be disaster for humanity as we know it. You can't put the genie back into the bottle. As you pointed out, and AND ALL the military's will want super soldiers. Many worry about Artificial Intelligence, they will be nothing compared to enhanced humans.
 
I’m actually ok with this kind of research. I think the potential for good is too great to be ignored. What parent wouldn’t want to give their child immunity from disease or a stronger healthier body? There is the dark side of how many experiments are going to go wrong during the learning curve though.
 
When you "edit" DNA you aren't affecting just one thing. It affects everything. You have no way of knowing what the ramifications are unless you experiment. And your subjects will have to be observed for their entire life because some genetic problems only manifest later in life. The Chinese have no problems using people as guinea pigs.

images
 
Being the parent of a special child, I can't image him not being the most unconditional loving person he has always been. Though I'm terrified for him after I die.

On the other hand, since It is hereditary, (It had never shown in our family before) I would Love for them to be able to fix the faulty chromosome in the parents. Not the child.
 
The Wrath of Khan!!!

Playing devil's advocate. Gene therapy / editing and they are able to cure / prevent all the the major diseases, Now what happens to the worlds population and resources? As you continue to reduce natural selection, you open the door to many more issues. China is the last country I want to see doing gene editing. Their lack of respect of life, alone, is enough to scare any reasonable person.
 
well I can see reasons to be concerned ,,,,,,,,,but we can not do anything about it ,so to me getting all wound up over this is pretty much pointless,,,China will do what it wants and to hell with the rest of the world

images
 
I have issues about this that are different from the ones that were brought up.

Diversity is fundementally good (despite what some people believe here).

As an example, consider the potato.

It's a crop that originated with the Native Americans, and they had several hundred varieties. The English took only the best variety, which produced well, it was able to grow in poor soil, it was great.

Unfortunately, everyone grew this one variety, and a windbourne fungal disease struck the United Kingdom and wiped out entire crops, bringing famine and driving the Irish to America.

In America, such a disease wouldn't have even been noticed, as there were many kinds of potatoes.

Sometimes, one disease can help protect from another.

Sickle cell protects against malaria, for example. Dwarfs who have Laron Syndrome (another hereditary disease) seem to be highly resistant against both cancer and diabetes.

Men with certian forms of color blindness can see through camoflague, and make better hunters (as well as better snipers).

Also, people like Einstein, Isaac Newton, Al Gore, Isaac Asimov, Carl Sagan, Socrates, Darryl Hannah, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln were all believed to be moderately autistic.

If we eliminate autism, do we eliminate an important category of genius?

And so on.

This is why gene editing bothers me. I think we'll end up screwing ourselves down the road in one way or another.
 
When you "edit" DNA you aren't affecting just one thing. It affects everything. You have no way of knowing what the ramifications are unless you experiment. And your subjects will have to be observed for their entire life because some genetic problems only manifest later in life. The Chinese have no problems using people as guinea pigs.

images
Agreed, there will be mistakes. I still feel the end result is worth it. Right now there are only people that know they have a high risk of passing something to their child. I read at least one of the couples were HIV infected, so to them it was worth the risk. Not sure if it will be to that child down the road though.... the Dr Moreau thing was the first to pop in my mind as well. With any new thing there will always be risk but I believe the possible rewards are greater.
 
Brent,

Your last statement is exactly the problem with rose-colored-glasses liberal thoughts. They only look at the best case scenarios. The only way their 'solutions' work is with the bottomless wallets of gov't.

Yes, this might help a small percentage of babies. The hypocrisy there is outrageous given that libs are fine with killing 1/3rd of all babies, but I'll set that aside.

These genetic mutations can also have negative consequences. Let's say a virus mutates in an unexpected way after crossing these new 'genetics', producing a world-wide plague. What happens when a wacko doctor makes a half-human half-monkey hybrid to help PETA & USHS give animal 'rights'.

Liberals never look at any possibilities other than what they want to see. And they think the more they repeat their mantra, the more likely it will happen. "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." Anyone remember the state-run websites that crashed over and over and never worked for getting people signed up for Obamacare? How many people have been robbed/raped/killed by DACA 'children'?

Can anyone tell me of the last major liberal program that didn't end with disasters? Seriously, anyone?
 
Brent,

Your last statement is exactly the problem with rose-colored-glasses liberal thoughts. They only look at the best case scenarios. The only way their 'solutions' work is with the bottomless wallets of gov't.

Yes, this might help a small percentage of babies. The hypocrisy there is outrageous given that libs are fine with killing 1/3rd of all babies, but I'll set that aside.

These genetic mutations can also have negative consequences. Let's say a virus mutates in an unexpected way after crossing these new 'genetics', producing a world-wide plague. What happens when a wacko doctor makes a half-human half-monkey hybrid to help PETA & USHS give animal 'rights'.

Liberals never look at any possibilities other than what they want to see. And they think the more they repeat their mantra, the more likely it will happen. "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." Anyone remember the state-run websites that crashed over and over and never worked for getting people signed up for Obamacare? How many people have been robbed/raped/killed by DACA 'children'?

Can anyone tell me of the last major liberal program that didn't end with disasters? Seriously, anyone?

Once the can has been open it really doesn't close back up, a good example of this was the National Recovery Administration (NRA) that Roosevelt put in place later being found unconstitutional and declared by the justices as benevolent dictatorship but yet it is in full swing today ;)

Be worry of the sealed can full of worms!
 
The world has a problem feeding people now, now that we take the natural selection out of the equation do we now modify the gene let say not to last longer than 65 years, where does it end? I see a great danger with this!
This is an interesting point that hadn't occured to me.

It may seem outlandish, but the Internet was outlandish 30 years ago.
 
This is an interesting point that hadn't occured to me.

It may seem outlandish, but the Internet was outlandish 30 years ago.

We even had movies about the man made selection process, Soylent green, Logan’s run, In Time etc....

Can anyone guarantee that Geneticists won’t go here? Of course not, the Pandora’s box is already open and control is already lost, we already have rogue scientist such as the one in the OP. **** like this makes me ever more least trusting of the medical field, ending human diseases at what expense? The future of a free society? This goes along the old saying ‘beware of what you wish for’ because everything has consequences!
 
The world has a problem feeding people now, now that we take the natural selection out of the equation do we now modify the gene let say not to last longer than 65 years, where does it end? I see a great danger with this!

I have to disagree with the first part & agree completely with the second.

I don't think the world has trouble feeding people. There is plenty of food. And much of it is given free as charity. The world has a problem with dictators & communism/socialism.

For the second part, I've said repeatedly that people need ways to chose natural selection. Do something stupid, and die quickly. I'm not being mean. But you don't need barriers to stop people from falling off the Grand Canyon ledge. Bikers shouldn't be required to wear helmets. Make foolish choices, get deadly consequences.
 
I have to disagree with the first part & agree completely with the second.

I don't think the world has trouble feeding people. There is plenty of food. And much of it is given free as charity. The world has a problem with dictators & communism/socialism.

For the second part, I've said repeatedly that people need ways to chose natural selection. Do something stupid, and die quickly. I'm not being mean. But you don't need barriers to stop people from falling off the Grand Canyon ledge. Bikers shouldn't be required to wear helmets. Make foolish choices, get deadly consequences.

I didn’t say the problem was due to lack of food ;) the world has a problem with control of the food, the end results are the same
 
Last edited:
Human nature being what it is, I cannot trust to a good outcome. When scientist learned to split the atom, what was the first thing they built with this knowledge, a super bomb. Major innovation is funded by two groups ---- the government and corporations. Does anybody believe these two groups have humanities best interests at heart? Nope, didn't think so. The scientist might want to prevent diseases but the government is going to want super soldiers. The corporations are going to build in eternal life, that has to be renewed every ten years or so. The equality of life will just get even worse. Think about that my liberal friends. If you think pharmaceuticals are greedy and do price gouging, what do you think will happen when they can offer extended life, or offer almost eternal youth or any number of health benefits? Now if you can live 500 years, what kind of fortune could you amass? How about living 1000 years? The rich and powerful will just get richer and more powerful. Only old age or medical conditions have stopped many tyrants, think about Stalin living for a few hundred years. How about Gingberg sitting on the Supreme Court for a few hundred years? Take off the rose colored glasses and look at both sides. Those with the gold (or force of arms) make the rules. Let's not help them become eternal.
 
There's actually a so-so film that deals with perhaps the most likely outcome of the widespread use of this....

That traditionally bred children will become undesirable, perhaps even illegal, and that any opportunities would be based on the elitism of your genetic outcome.

The movie is called "Gattaca".

The film presents a biopunk vision of a future society driven by eugenics where potential children are conceived through genetic selection to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents.[3] The film centers on Vincent Freeman, played by Hawke, who was conceived outside the eugenics program and struggles to overcome genetic discrimination to realize his dream of traveling into space.

The film draws on concerns over reproductive technologies which facilitate eugenics, and the possible consequences of such technological developments for society. It also explores the idea of destiny and the ways in which it can and does govern lives. Characters in Gattaca continually battle both with society and with themselves to find their place in the world and who they are destined to be according to their genes.

 
Brent,

Your last statement is exactly the problem with rose-colored-glasses liberal thoughts. They only look at the best case scenarios. The only way their 'solutions' work is with the bottomless wallets of gov't.

Yes, this might help a small percentage of babies. The hypocrisy there is outrageous given that libs are fine with killing 1/3rd of all babies, but I'll set that aside.

These genetic mutations can also have negative consequences. Let's say a virus mutates in an unexpected way after crossing these new 'genetics', producing a world-wide plague. What happens when a wacko doctor makes a half-human half-monkey hybrid to help PETA & USHS give animal 'rights'.

Liberals never look at any possibilities other than what they want to see. And they think the more they repeat their mantra, the more likely it will happen. "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." Anyone remember the state-run websites that crashed over and over and never worked for getting people signed up for Obamacare? How many people have been robbed/raped/killed by DACA 'children'?

Can anyone tell me of the last major liberal program that didn't end with disasters? Seriously, anyone?
You know, for a person that professes to be a Christian, I never hear anything positive or compassionate from you. Sure some social programs are crap, and probably all have too much waste. Let’s face it, all government programs have too much waste and inefficiency. Take something like food stamps. Do you really believe we should just stop it? Yes, we would save huge amounts of money, but at at cost? Could you live with watching children starving because their parents are non functional? The whole point of being a Christian is to be Christ like. Do you really think Christ would turn away the poor coldly, or cut programs that had good intent originally to help others? We are a rich country, shouldn’t we be concerned with the welfare of other human beings? I’m not being naive and singing Kum by yah or anything here as I realize we can’t save everyone on the planet, but having some compassion is something Jesus taught. I just don’t think hatred and indifference towards others is a good example of how to be Christ like.
 
There is no doubt that this research has great potential for both good and bad. Human nature tends to be greedy, and that tends to dictate where most of the research would lean towards. I still say though that if I had a chance to cure a disease that my child has, of course I am going to try. Most of science can be used for either good or bad. I guess I always try to be optimistic about the good potential.
 
@Brent S

If Christians want to supply folks with free food, more power to them. They do not and should not be able to reach into my wallet and force me to feed them. That is the difference, you want to force your belief on others through force of arms (taxes) . I choose to allow each person to follow their personal dictates. That is why the government should get out of the charity business. Let the government focus on governing and let the charities focus on hand outs. That way everybody gets to follow their own beliefs. There is also the saying "Give a man a fish an you feed him for a day (welfare -- food stamps, etc.) but teach him (apprentice programs, trade schools, etc) to fish and you feed him for a life time. These folks that demand there be no remote connection to religions in government, are the same hypocrites that say the government needs to be more charitable. Separation of Church and state == Government governs and Church handles charity. Or even private organizations (concerned citizens) charities but NOT TAX MANDATED charity. As for Human rights, that is a myth made up by society. If you are lucky enough to be born (not aborted) that is were your real rights ended. Everything is either mandated by a force of arms or by sheer luck. Freedom is not a right, it is purchased by force of arms. Every thing that people claim is a human right is simply a concept that is enabled by force of arms. That is why governments always try to disarm their population so they can't easily fight back. Force of arms always determines what is a human rights, what is legal and what is not and who rules and who does not. N

I am not advocating for anarchy, that is just another form of governance requiring force of arms usage. All I am saying, is the government should get out of the charity business and allow those that really believe in it, to run it, not some bureaucrats.
 
I don't see this as either a lib or conservative thing. Eugenics is GOING to happen. That's really a given. How we DEAL with it, is another matter, and its one our children will have to face. I sincerely hope we DON'T go the Gattaca route, but I really don't see how we'll avoid it much. Thankfully I'll likely be long dead so I won't have to see it.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top