Should humans let evolution take its course or should we take it into our own hands?

Question

I watched this really interesting programme the other day about things we would be able to do in the future but there seems to be a debate whether we should gnetically enhance people for example or let evolution occur naturally. Its a bit random but was just wondering peoples views on the subject

Answer 1

Evolution has no "natural" course. We should do whatever we decide is morally/ethically right and acceptable.

As for genetic engineering of humans, I can't see many good arguments against the possibility of eliminating genetically based diseases. As for things like hair-colour, height, and IQ, that's more open to debate.

Answer 2

DNA is the result of a natural process, not chance. A whole bunch of micro evolution adds up to macro evolution. Of course natural selection doesn't produce variations. You could turn a cookbook into an astronomy book by changing the letters.

Answer 3

Biologically and in the natural world we should let evolution take it's course.

As far as cosmetic or life saving technology we should explore it to a certain degree. I don't think we should Clone an entire person, but to clone an organ for instance wouldn't be a bad thing!

Answer 4

humans evolution hands

Answer 5

it would be nice to let evolution take its course but remember that since the beginning of the homosapiens we are constantly changing this world anyway. i cant really see where humans will let it take its course, its in our nature to change things unfortunately.

Answer 6

I do not like eugenics, and think evolution should run its course... naturally.

Answer 7

Too late, been there done that got fire to prove it.

Evolution is a tactic of survival. Humans invested a lot of their survival strategy into the evolutionary tactic of intelligence. When we did that we arose above evolution. According to evolution an animal or plant evolves to adapt to the environment. When it gets harder to find the seeds a finch needs to eat one species developed a longer beak to give it this ability. This happened within only a few generations on the island of Galapagos.

Humans use their intelligence to adapt the environment to suit them. We first stared using fire to heat our caves, then we used animal skins to keep us warm. Then we started to build buildings to keep out the cold and that eventually became the homes and skyscrapers you see today.

The question then becomes one of “Should we artificially adapt our genes.” Nature isn’t going to do it, which explains why the only evolutionary changes made to man have been a good deal less hair, and some increase in height (which can be explained by an improved diet).

The answer is yes, no and maybe. If you were given the chance to be able to insert a gene in your child to prevent him from coming down with a life threatening genetic disorder you wouldn’t hesitate (except maybe at the cost). This technology is still in its infancy, but it is being explored and fully supported.

Is it legal to change your genetic code so the child has blonde hair and blue eyes with fair skin (the dream of all Nazis everywhere), so far the answer is yes, but it is generally frowned upon. The technology to do it isn’t quite there yet, but when it does get to that point it will not be popular. Already we can do amazing things with genes. We can even grow a human ear, suitable for transplantation, on the back of a mouse. We can put phosphorous genes into almost any animal we want to make them glow in the dark, this is done to prove the method works rather than because we want glowing lab mice.

What about the more difficult questions like vision improvement or the elimination of wisdom teeth? As our society improves its technology more and more people are forced to resort to glasses to survive. Not just to read, but to drive. We are routinely outliving our designed lifespan, living on to our 60s and even 80s. Once Menopause sets in evolution is done with the creature, it can no longer pass on its genes so it no longer is relevant. We have created glasses and contact lenses to help us read, why can’t we take the next step and use surgery; like laser surgery? We have done that so the next logical step is create genetic adaptations so that more of the population has better vision longer. We could start a simple breeding program and legally prevent young people who need glasses from reproducing, but that would be very unpopular. Instead we could eliminate the genes for bad vision from the human genome.

Then there are wisdom teeth. When humans were cavemen it was common to lose a tooth or two in their life. So we adapted that later in life we would grow an extra molar to replace those lost teeth. This adaptation served us well for thousands of years and kept our adults chewing. But with the invention of modern dentistry Wisdom teeth are almost always removed. Could it be possible to edit the creation of wisdom teeth out of our genes? We have also found that some people are more genetically susceptible to cavities, can we not correct that problem as well. What about cancer, can we reduce cancer rates by reprogramming our genes?

We can edit out wisdom teeth, we haven’t found the gene responsible for creating wisdom teeth yet, but it is only a matter of time. However, we can’t cure cancer by changing the genetic code. First there are many causes of cancer and one cause is random and harmful mutation. We can’t change that very well. In the case of cervical cancer it is possible to create a vaccine that can kill off some of the virus that cause cervical cancer, but viruses adapt and overcome problems. If you tried to change the genes to not allow cervical cancer then the virus would only adapt, the same is true for the bacteria that creates plaque. It is possible to have a genetic predisposition to existing plaque bacteria, but if most people had one against it then the plaque would only adapt to overcome that problem. In this case we end up locked in the antibiotic war that created a strain of staff infection that is immune to penicillin; Mercis. Remember that the world around us is still evolving and changing to try and adapt to the changes we make in it.

Cockroaches and rats are successful because they adapted to the presence of cities and towns, in fact they thrive because of it. The same can’t be said for lions, tiger and bears (oh my); all three of them have found their ranges reduced and their habits threatened. The bear has adapted by going after human garbage and now bears in towns have become a major problem. Tigers are becoming rarer and rarer and if the Artic Icecap melts it is feared the polar bear could be extinct.

Genetic modifications is a science that we are just beginning to develop, and it is a sticky area of the law. Human cloning has been outlawed by the international community, but the laws haven’t kept up with the science. Most areas of genetic tampering haven’t been addressed yet. We need to look at each genetic adaptation or change on a case by case basis. It would be nice to no longer need wisdom teeth, but I don’t think it would be a good idea to create a super Aryan race of blond hair, blue eyed, fair skinned Nazis. It would be a good idea to remove genetic conditions like Tasacs disease, but not to just make sure your baby has the looks of Brad Pitt (what happens next do all little girls then have to look like Jennifer Anniston or Angela Jole?).

Answer 8

We are already tinkering evolution. What do you think we are doing when we heal the sick and the disabled? or help the blind see?