Michael Ragland  wrote or quoted:
> Tim Tyler:

> Rebellion against slavery is also clear enough - it would represent
> bodies acting *against* the best interests of the genes that built them.
> 
> Michael Ragland:
> 
> I'm confused Tim. You talk about the inevitability of "designing"
> ourselves which I assume is partially through genetic engineering.
> Stonjek's posting of that abstract dealt with the possibility of disease
> avoidance through gene therapy. If genetic engineering interfered with
> the germline process as it most certainly would if genetic diseases were
> removed...would this be an example of the body acting *against the best
> interests of the genes which built them? Would this be acceptable? Would
> it be advatageous to our genome? 

For a rebellion I was thinking more of something like committing suicide - 
something that pretty effectively selects against all your genes.

You are asking is something that hinders some genes and benefits some
other ones constitute an act of rebellion?  I'd say no - or certainly
not such a clear cut example.

A rebellion is usually when most of the country gets involved.  If just a 
few individuals suffer, that might be murder or injustice - but it's 
hardly a rebellion.

> Are you really someone interested in "design" of the human species
> through genetic engineering [...]

I really am.

> [...] or are you just a speciest and eugenicist hiding under the cloak 
> of "design".

The dictionary has - speciesist:

``Human intolerance or discrimination on the basis of species, especially 
  as manifested by cruelty to or exploitation of animals.''

I *do* discriminate on the basis of species.  In particular, I eat
members of some species and socialise with others.  A failure to
discriminate between species is a sign of a confused mind, IMO.

The dictionary also has - eugenics:

``The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled 
  selective breeding.''

I can't claim to have put much effort into this area.

However I would love to see controlled selective modification of human 
beings, using genes imported from other organisms.

Mitochondria should be first up - IMO.  Bird mitochondria have been
proposed as possible candidates for importing - since they work
so much better than our own.

This isn't /exactly/ "selective breeding" - but I figure importing
genes from other organisms is the new sex - so it ought to qualify.

So - put me down as an armchair eugenisist.

I'm certainly more than happy to do some waving of the flag encouraging 
others to improve the human race.

It *is* important.  If we *don't* improve ourselves, we stand less
of a fighting chance against the machines and aliens and at the very
least we need to keep abreast with the machines, or destructive
conflicts will be in danger or arising.

> Your former postings on "race" give the former impression and your
> excitement of the human population increasing and total non-concern for
> non-human animals being effected provides the latter impression.

Some evidence for my supposed total non-concern for non-human animals?

If you think I am indifferent to the fates of non-human animals,
perhaps browse: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=seagull+resuce+mission
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/6/04 9:59:01 PM