Manipulating Gene by Rhekyan Savitri

Biology

2025-02-14 06:49:09 UTC

Its using nature to it’s fullest however, not crossing a certain line

Group discussion

2025-02-14 06:53:28 UTC

My group, consisting of Rara, Jannah, and me (Mira) think that genetic manipulation is alright as long as it’s only used for plants, for example flowers and other plants. We think that manipulating human’s or animal’s genes are cruel, as they have souls and we can see the outcome of the manipulation ourselves. But, there’s an exception for experiments that are supervised by the governments or professional & scientists and the successful percentage is more than 90%.

group discussion anza, rafa, fabidans

2025-02-14 07:00:21 UTC

for us the manipulating genes is not distract the natures as long as the purpose of the manipulating genes is good for example like banana and watermelon, 1000 years ago we cant eat banana and watermelon now because manipulating genes we can eat watermelon and banana deliciously, and about manipulating genes for human and animal we think theres a bad effect and good effect for example chicken the good effect for chicken is they become more have more meat and more tastier meat but the bad effect is the old chicken genes will be destroyed and the old chicken genes will rarely be found

Manipulating genes ; Vee, Aqila, Alana

2025-02-14 07:04:05 UTC

We agree because genes that have been manipulated have chances to increase the quality of life for humans, if done for a good cause. As long as it is done for the good of the people and the world, and it is handled with a trusted profesionals and doesnt have experiments done to humans. And not only for human, we believe that manipulated genes could increase the quality life of all the living things, could create more variations of living things which could be better, and could make a better and more useful progress in life as long as the process is supervised by the person in charge (gonverment, etc), and doesn’t violate the code of ethics, and doesn’t hurt anyone.

Givanya, Nayla, Zoe

2025-02-14 07:05:24 UTC

We think cloning is acceptable, as long as it’s beneficial to us, and not disruptive to nature.

Points against “playing god” argument.

Will not replace nature, there will be regulations on gene modification and cloning
Cloning is the duplication of nature, not much will be different
Common fruits in everyday life (oranges, lemons, watermelons) are the products of GMO, they didn’t exist naturally.
Manipulating genes does not equal to creating/destroying living organisms.

Points agreed with “playing god” argument.

Gene modifying can remove too much, causing a lot of natural DNA to disappear or completely damaged
Cloning (specifically humans) will cause a legal dispute. Biometric security (faceID, fingerprints, etc.) Can easily be bypassed
Additionally, human clones may go against the law, causing confusion whether to punish the original person or the clone(s)
Additionally, what happens to when people have multiple clones (3 or more)?
Finally, argument about eugenics, which is possible. But we won’t go that far as to create perfect humans.

Nayla, baby traits.

2025-02-14 07:18:40 UTC

It will only increase inequality. I believe that each of human being has their own purpose and uniqueness, traits that define them from other humans. If we are able to choose what kind of baby that we want, then it will completely ruin the purpose of dna, genetics and initially removing the whole purpose of humanity.

Rara

2025-02-14 07:20:05 UTC

If parents could choose their children’s traits, it would likely increase inequality. The wealthy would have more access to genetic enhancements, giving their children advantages in intelligence, appearance, and health. This could create deeper class divides and discrimination against those who are not modified, leading to new social problems rather than a better society.

Nayla, evironment

2025-02-14 07:20:06 UTC

For examples: how one country's weather and temperature temper with the human genes in it. Like asian people that has thinner eyelids, which was used to survive in snow-filled land. Or for example, black people uses their melanin to survive from the sun.

Customizable babies aqila

2025-02-14 07:20:36 UTC

I disagree because theres beauty in everyone and that is something that is so important, in a society we need to meet different people from their personalities and maybe how they look. If babies are customizable it creates expectations for them to look a certain way and I think that the beauty of parenthood is loving your child for who they are and guide them along the way for them to bloom.

Would choosing baby traits create a better society or increase inequality? (Jannah)

2025-02-14 07:21:19 UTC

Choosing baby traits can have complex effects. On one hand, parents who can select positive traits might create better individuals. However, if only wealthy people can do this, it could increase inequality. So, while there is potential to create better individuals, the risk of increased inequality needs to be considered.

Customized baby ; Vee

2025-02-14 07:21:37 UTC

I disagree that it would make the environment better because if everyone is perfect, there will be more arguments, there is a possibility that the perfect person will wipe out the previous generation and humans will lose their own uniqueness and identity.

Choosing baby traits

2025-02-14 07:21:55 UTC

In my opinion its both, it could be better society and increase inequality.

For the better society its that the parents could modify the genetic of the baby and make them maybe beautiful or handsome and also make them perfect. For the inequality part its becuass that if your baby is perfect people could get jealous and take advantage of them or they coukd get discriminated by society because they're the only one who is perfect.

This my opinion

Rara

2025-02-14 07:22:33 UTC

An organism’s phenotype is shaped by both genes and the environment. For example, a person may have the gene for height, but poor nutrition may stunt their growth. Similarly, a Siamese cat has the gene for dark fur, but the gene is only active in cooler areas of the body, such as the ears and paws. This shows how the environment influences traits in addition to genetics.

2025-02-14 07:23:16 UTC

No I don't agree because the baby gain their skills more by it's surrounding it self not by the genes

Example: mugsy ball was shorter then the average NBA player and it seemed to be Impossible but he did it

Environmental

2025-02-14 07:23:37 UTC

Environment play a crucial role on shaping someone or some genes, for example like in indonesia, we have so many etnicity and they have different appereance and has its own characteristics

Environmental factor Aqila

2025-02-14 07:25:10 UTC

Environmental factors impact an organism's phenotype by affecting the expression of its genes. As a result, the same genotype can lead to different observable traits depending on factors like temperature, diet, light exposure, and social interactions. These influences can ultimately shape the organism's physical features, development, and behavior.

Better society or increase inequality? - alana

2025-02-14 07:31:14 UTC

Considering that we can already choose baby traits, it is safe to say that this will lead to an increase in inequality. Because, if people kept choosing similar traits (tall, high intelligence, etc.), there could be a reduce in genetic diversity and also deciding traits on our own, for example, promoting unhealthy beauty standards could form social biases (discrimination).

Zoe

2025-02-14 07:32:33 UTC

No, I think it will only increase inequality.

I think it’s against the child’s wishes. When the child grows up, and they don’t like how their parents customized them, they will hate themselves and their identity. Because it reminds them of their parents’ bad decisions.
related to the first point, bullying will happen more often. Due to how “unique” or “different” they look, kids will pick on them and bully them for not being the same as them. Uniqueness will not always be accepted, especially in a homogeneous community.
Genetically, there may be risks. Creating the “perfect” body features may do the opposite. I don’t know the side effects, but I think there are or will be.
Additionally, how much does it cost to modify a child? If expensive, then it will cause a huge difference between the upper and lower class. It will be like: having modified kids = rich parents. Causing a trend that will throw off the balance of each family’s financial situation.
It really is not a good idea to modify human beings, stick with the animals and plants. Add more regulations, as the ability to change humans is too powerful.

Environmental factors

2025-02-21 06:28:19 UTC

Environmental factors interact with genes by influencing which genes or organism phenotypes, essentially turning genes on or off meaning that the same gene can produce different phenotypes deending on the environmental conditions.

environmental factors-Givanya

2025-02-21 06:31:13 UTC

the environmental factors plays a role in shaping the organism phenotype. the organism that has been effected by their environment would have to adapt to that environment and would have to change their physical attribute, their genetics, their eating habits and their behavior to their new environment.

Would choosing baby traits create a better society or increase inequality?

2025-02-21 06:34:19 UTC

It depends, if choosing the baby’s traits is only to avoid deformity then yes it will create a better society. But if it is because the parents want the baby to have different or more “beautiful” traits then no, everyone is perfect in their own way. Moreover, I would want babies to have a glimpse of the parents’ traits, it is beautiful to have the traits that you have now, it is a combination of everyone that have fell in love before, and you can see it physically.

Environmental factors (Mira)

2025-02-21 09:18:25 UTC

Things like food, temperature, harmful substances, and stress can affect how genes work in a living thing. They can make certain genes more or less active, changing how much of a protein is made. This can influence the organism’s traits and growth, but it doesn’t change the DNA itself.

Malik

2025-02-21 10:57:23 UTC

Choosing traits and ‘personalising’ babies in theory could better society, however history taught us that there is a reason why we learn from pas mistakes. Looking at this theologically, religion teaches us using stories and parables to better and improve society from its ‘feudalistic’ nature, if using our knowledge today to create “the perfect baby” will only create a paradox that will never be solved. I think society must grow on its own to actually improve, even though there will still be people who are ignorant and not “perfect” but its the only way to “better society”

choosing baby traits

2025-02-21 23:27:57 UTC

choosing baby traits will just increased the equality and also instability on all factors. for example that most of people want their child to be a great business man, so if all parent want their child to be business man. there is a lot of job that get abandoned by people such farmer or anything else. and with choosing traits maybe it will create a generation that all get the same skill.

environment factor

2025-02-22 09:47:43 UTC

there many things that can shaping the organism fenotipe such as temperature on that place, climate change, and also region of where they live will also have an impact to the organism genes. it will have the impact to the animal will have fur or not and many other things