We’ve already collected DNA samples from people around the world to map the genome, it’s how we even know what genes may cause disorders in the first place. This did not require us to create some genetically ‘pure’ hypothetical gene sequence for the ideal human. What you’re suggesting is still eugenics and still bad for all the same reasons.
There may be such a thing as an “average” human genome though I doubt such an amalgamation would be able to produce a viable or even desirable organism. There is absolutely no such thing as a “clean” human genome, and attempting to create one would be a damning demonstration of a deep misunderstanding of both evolution and biology in general.
Yes what I am explaining is eugenics probably, but I am just curious. I know many topics are taboo but I feel that they shouldn’t make certain topics of limits in all senses, for example here on Lemmy as two people converse ideas.
I won’t lie while writing my first comment I also saw many issues, like what happens if people go rogue and create people that cannot feel pain to be soldiers, or make that only certain people with certain genes might be able to make a viable baby or pay to recieve the crisper edit to unlock breeding. Or something stupid where there is not enough genetic diversity since the DNA is too close to each other leading to diseases to be even more infectious or transmittable. Look at crops where they are all basically the same and one disease can wipe them all out. Heck this might stop evolutionary progress because we do not realise now that this trait will be useful in the future.
The key thing about this project is that they aren’t trying to piece together some sort of ideal set of genes into a “flawless” set to present as a key to identify deviations from that set.
In contrast, the human pangenome reference contains nearly full genomic data from 47 people, representing different populations globally. This accounts for 94 human genomes, since each person carries two copies, one from each parent.
I’m unclear if they even exercised any discrimination in the selection of these individuals, or if they’re just a random sampling from their respective populations. The intent of the project seems to be pretty much a continuation of the original human genome project and an attempt to more completely document genes and their various expressions.
To be clear, I’m not ideologically opposed to genetic manipulation or even some degree of genetic engineering. I’m against establishing or enshrining a particular set of genes as any kind of baseline or default, that is where eugenics lies.
I agree, there should not be an enshrined or particular set of genes that are the default or marked as the perfect genes. I linked the article because I felt it was saying better than what I was trying to convey.
Fuck this reminds me of Gattaca, where your worth and standing in society is not determined by your skills, experience, drive or any character qualities and capabilities that shows your merit, but where everyone is judged basically by how pure their genes are.
But this topic is very intriguing to me since I see so many possibilities of helping advance humankind, but I am also starting to see the dark horror that this might unleash. Luckily I am not in genetics or any field near it, but I enjoyed dipping my toes and discussing some ideas with all of you. I feel like the real scientists and organisations involved in genome research and stuff have way better controls and understanding of the possible pitfalls or dangers and are doing work in these fields and I hope my current blind trust in these institutions won’t backfire or lead to a dystopian future
We’ve already collected DNA samples from people around the world to map the genome, it’s how we even know what genes may cause disorders in the first place. This did not require us to create some genetically ‘pure’ hypothetical gene sequence for the ideal human. What you’re suggesting is still eugenics and still bad for all the same reasons.
There may be such a thing as an “average” human genome though I doubt such an amalgamation would be able to produce a viable or even desirable organism. There is absolutely no such thing as a “clean” human genome, and attempting to create one would be a damning demonstration of a deep misunderstanding of both evolution and biology in general.
Yes what I am explaining is eugenics probably, but I am just curious. I know many topics are taboo but I feel that they shouldn’t make certain topics of limits in all senses, for example here on Lemmy as two people converse ideas.
I won’t lie while writing my first comment I also saw many issues, like what happens if people go rogue and create people that cannot feel pain to be soldiers, or make that only certain people with certain genes might be able to make a viable baby or pay to recieve the crisper edit to unlock breeding. Or something stupid where there is not enough genetic diversity since the DNA is too close to each other leading to diseases to be even more infectious or transmittable. Look at crops where they are all basically the same and one disease can wipe them all out. Heck this might stop evolutionary progress because we do not realise now that this trait will be useful in the future.
But I have also been doing some googling, even though I am not using them to justify anything, but these people are exploring the topic of a reference gnome https://scitechdaily.com/global-genomes-scientists-rewrite-the-story-of-human-genetics/
But thanks for sharing your thoughts, I appreciate opposing ideas to challenge any flaws that I might have been blind to.
The key thing about this project is that they aren’t trying to piece together some sort of ideal set of genes into a “flawless” set to present as a key to identify deviations from that set.
I’m unclear if they even exercised any discrimination in the selection of these individuals, or if they’re just a random sampling from their respective populations. The intent of the project seems to be pretty much a continuation of the original human genome project and an attempt to more completely document genes and their various expressions.
To be clear, I’m not ideologically opposed to genetic manipulation or even some degree of genetic engineering. I’m against establishing or enshrining a particular set of genes as any kind of baseline or default, that is where eugenics lies.
I agree, there should not be an enshrined or particular set of genes that are the default or marked as the perfect genes. I linked the article because I felt it was saying better than what I was trying to convey.
Fuck this reminds me of Gattaca, where your worth and standing in society is not determined by your skills, experience, drive or any character qualities and capabilities that shows your merit, but where everyone is judged basically by how pure their genes are.
But this topic is very intriguing to me since I see so many possibilities of helping advance humankind, but I am also starting to see the dark horror that this might unleash. Luckily I am not in genetics or any field near it, but I enjoyed dipping my toes and discussing some ideas with all of you. I feel like the real scientists and organisations involved in genome research and stuff have way better controls and understanding of the possible pitfalls or dangers and are doing work in these fields and I hope my current blind trust in these institutions won’t backfire or lead to a dystopian future