The violent gene: Extracting it out of our DNA for the benefit of peace

[TheNoNamedOne]

More and more genes for specific functions and characteristices of the human body are being discovered since the Human Genome Mapping Project has been completed.

In the future it is conceivable that genes controlling specific behaviours could be found and extracted. Through animal husbandry we already know how to breed dogs with a more docile nature e.g. labradore retriever. Think how much more character/personality could be modified once gene manipulation is aimed at those traits which we could modify to change our nature.

If we could find the gene predisposing humans to violence, do you think that should be extracted? Imagine a world without no more violent crime or war. There would be no need for the huge expenditures of police forces or armies or industries or taxes supporting those. Some may say such a world would be boring, but many who live in crime ridden inner city neighborhoods would like a little more peace of mind that would come with boredom i.e. not worrying if their children are being victimized by gangs or police brutality or getting involved in violence.

Perhaps that violent gene is our free will gene. Take that away and we would forfeit a part of free will. But, would the world and our civilizations be better for that? Would you support extracting the violent gene from the human race if and when it becomes possible?

[themadscientist]

bad idea all the way around. Humans should not be messing around with thier genetic makeup. We screw up everything we touch and sooner or later the government would like to get involved iwhat people should be like. Besides we have already bred out the violent gene, the are called EMO kids.

[P_chan]

Why get rid of it? How else are we gonna fight off the aliens once the invade? We couldn't if we're all a bunch of pussies with a sandy vagina.

[TheNoNamedOne]

bad idea all the way around. Humans should not be messing around with thier genetic makeup.

Gene manipulation has great promise for curing many diseases. Blacks as a race seem to be more predisposed to psychle cell anemia (sp?). Are you saying if we could isolate that gene and turn off that genetic trait we should not? Parkinsen's disease is another that could stand to benefit from gene manipulation.

If diseases ravage people causing them misery and suffering and they are on the table for targeting with gene manipulation, and at the same time violence causes misery and suffering, why should one suffering be targeted via gene manipulation and the other one not so?

To be consistent in targeting suffering, I don't see how violence should be permitted to stay but those other diseases be attacked and fought with gene therapy.

[themadscientist]

Gene manipulation has great promise for curing many diseases. Blacks as a race seem to be more predisposed to psychle cell anemia (sp?). Are you saying if we could isolate that gene and turn off that genetic trait we should not? Parkinsen's disease is another that could stand to benefit from gene manipulation.

If diseases ravage people causing them misery and suffering and they are on the table for targeting with gene manipulation, and at the same time violence causes misery and suffering, why should one suffering be targeted via gene manipulation and the other one not so?

To be consistent in targeting suffering, I don't see how violence should be permitted to stay but those other diseases be attacked and fought with gene therapy.
Once the precedent is set you open up the door for manipulation for less than noble reasons. Humans have shown throughout history to be a clever species and not always for the good. I don't believe the gene for violence is a bad thing. it's all or nothing, it has to be nothing.

[Fonze]

Violence is a gene? I thought it was an emotion or your enviroment.

[Fonze]

psychle cell anemia (.

Sickel cell you mean or G6PD for medical talk.

[themadscientist]

Violence is a gene? I thought it was an emotion or your enviroment.
I thought Gene was the bassist for kiss?:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

Once the precedent is set you open up the door for manipulation for less than noble reasons. Humans have shown throughout history to be a clever species and not always for the good.

That is a reason based on fear and the logical falacy of appeal to tradition i.e. in this case; just because we have failed in the past in our attempts at manipulating our natures, we are doomed to always do so.

I don't see how the motivation to stop violence is anything less than noble. Isn't it a noble thing to stop violence before it occurs if you can do so? I think it is.

I don't believe the gene for violence is a bad thing. it's all or nothing, it has to be nothing.

At what price for the future? Do you think the world has seen the last of Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots etc...? Do you think no future human monster will ever eclipse those three in their brutality and misery caused to millions more than they did? But a future with more of those to come are a fair price to pay for keeping violence in our race?

What purpose does same species violence fulfill in a world with civilizations based on the rule of law? Why keep it if all it entails is something akin to a flip of a switch and if after research and studies we learn that there are no other ill side affects?

[DougP]

I don't see how the motivation to stop violence is anything less than noble. Isn't it a noble thing to stop violence before it occurs if you can do so? I think it is.

Isn't that the whole basis for the war on terror and the over throwing of Saddam ? Something you've been quite against if I remember correctly. Just like a war intended to prevent further violence from a certain group of extremists, manipulating genes will have its own casualties. Also what would be the point of controlling violent outbursts and tendencies through a seemingly tedious process of gene manipulation when we have drugs that can do the same thing( calm people down) Kind of reminds me of the movie Equilibrium :)

[TheNoNamedOne]

Isn't that the whole basis for the war on terror and the over throwing of Saddam ? Something you've been quite against if I remember correctly. Just like a war intended to prevent further violence from a certain group of extremists, manipulating genes will have its own casualties.

If that gene were extracted out of the human gene pool, then there would be no need for a war on terror because terroristic violent crimes would not exist.

Also what would be the point of controlling violent outbursts and tendencies through a seemingly tedious process of gene manipulation when we have drugs that can do the same thing( calm people down) Kind of reminds me of the movie Equilibrium :)

The point would ultimately in the long run be one of convenience and it would be a permanent fix to the problem of violence. If the gene were taken out of the gene pool so that offspring did not reproduce it then that gene, the violent one would no longer exist. Sure, it would be tedious in the beginning, but after the innitial work there would be no more need to keep doing it over and over.

Drugs on the otherhand are not permanent -- they wear off eventually.

[DougP]

I see your point on the "in the long run/ permanent" factor. I agree, why only temporarily fix the problem? What I'm not really sure of is if this gene is just directly linked to violence and violence alone. I wonder if removing this gene would have an affect on a humans capability to protect itself or its family. Would it nullify the whole fight or flight response that we and many other animals share.

Is changing our genetic code and altering evolution the right thing to do? I really don't know either way. I would say this though. Like what has been mentioned before, just because we have the ability to do something doesn't necessarily make it right. Even if the out come is a favorable one and very beneficial. Take animal research for example. I'd imagine that there would need to be further experimentation done in order to really perfect gene manipulation in humans. Not necessarily animal research but research on humans. Which could cause suffering. The end result could also prove to be profitable for many and would thus mean we our exploiting our fellow humans in the process of furthering such a program.

[themadscientist]

The drive to geneticly predispose people to any trait is a terrible idea. I mean scary terrible. My logic is not a falacy, it is based upon history, history man keeps repeating over and over again. Fear? you are damned right I am scared! People for the most part are some evil bastards and whenever people talk about some new "discovery" we begin the countdown to it's use for something less than noble. You faith in a species that has not appreciably demonstrated pcychological advancement at the same rate as their technological one is a falacy. It's scary the way people can dismiss centuries of proven performance based upon some touchy feely group hug kumbahya "hope" that man has changed. It hasn't. We are the same basic model since we walked out of a cave and clubed the neanderthal for his brontosaurus leg. now you want to start dicking with our genetic code? That would be like "bring your kids to work" day at the nuclear power plant and letting little Timmy mess with the controls.
I don't think we have seen the last of evil men. That doesn't scare me. Some of humanities greatest moments have been when people pulled together to overthrow evil men. It's a part of life and we grow and realize what is important in those moments of struggle. Evil should not be geneticaly removed from people, that is a scarier idea. Today it's evil, tomorrow it's "antisocial behavior", then free will altogether. I will take a dozen Hitlers over one well-meaning but unfortunately stunningly naive scientist who opens Pandora's box. The hinge on that box only goes one way.:dead: