Ironically, Cauldyth's views are equally subject to abuse.  One day we'll need a global government that "set's lifespans" just as in China now they set birth limits.

After that we'll get to "merit values" and start ranking people for social value--letting them have more time while others have less.

Look at human history--who would you possibly trust with that power?

As to the "we're designed to die"--that statement only works as a cold assessment.  It has no value or benefit at all when said to someone who's child is dying of cancer or multiple sclerosis or to a child who will lose their parents.

Humanity and personal life always have to be valued higher than "practicality" or you will lose humanity in the process--guaranteed.

Oh, my comments weren't meant to address the issue of what we should actively do going forward.  I am fundamentally opposed to anything like China's One Child Policy, let alone any sort of Logan's Run scenario of mandated death!  I hope that goes without saying...

Similarly, yes, human ingenuity may very well eventually allow us to be effectively immortal without dire consequences.  My comments were merely meant to address whether or not death is a biological error, or whether it's something nature selected for because it's been important to the success of species.  It's the latter.

Edit: Nature's also selected many of us to be lactose intolerant, because consumption of milk by adult mammals is generally unheard of, but I'm still happy to use modern technology (i.e. medicine) to work around that annoying design feature.

True, for a species trying to get an evolutionary edge in its a handy feature, but for our species biological death is rapidly approaching "unwanted bug" status, which is what my initial post was trying to say.

I'm doing what I can...but I'm only one man!  Decisions decisions. Come on the rest of you old farts!

LOL (at the above).  

I didn't think you wre advocating longevity councils Caudyth.  No worries.

This is why we need space development.  We could live long lives if we had a frontier for people to settle.

"A new life awaits you in the offworld colonies!"

Hehe--I was already thinking about that.  Scary thing is, the "voluntary suicide" centers in Soylent Green are scarily plausible today as "humane" options for people.

When we reach for social solutions that approach human life and freedom as a problem, we always end up in a very bad place.  People have to come first.

It surely is an important step along the way, and you did a great job explaining it. I love philosophical sci-fi books/movies like Soylent Green, Total Recall (book), 1984, etc. but most of the time they seem a little too far fetched and I don't feel like it could actually happen. In this case though, I felt GATTACA painted a very realistic depiction of what society could evolve into (well, besides the art deco style, fedoras and big bands) as medical technology advances. Sure, there's tons of room for misuse but when you say that DNA technology is intended to prevent disease and the suffering it creates, where do we draw the line?

Obviously we want to find cures for deadly diseases like cancer, leukemia, HIV, etc. What if we could reverse developmental disorders like autism or down syndrome? What about debilitating diseases that aren't immediately life threatening but still cause undue suffering like ulcerative colitis? Celiac disease? Diabetes? Blindness? Overactive Thyroid? Depression? 

Do we only use this power to treat things that are defined as diseases? Lots of things that are treated today weren't even heard of 50 years ago (especially in the mental health field). What if 50 years down the line having less than perfect 20/20 vision is classified as an inherited genetic disease? People already get laser surgery to correct their vision, is it that big of a leap to correct it through DNA?

In an example from the movie, people are chosen for the space program because of superior physical traits. The protagonist has a high likelihood of heart disease and his estimated lifespan is 30 years. If we could use DNA technology to prevent that, should we? Do we never use this technology to "pick" traits, even if they prevent disease? Should we instead just fix them after a person has the condition?

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I just think that there's a lot of good questions regarding ethics, technology and the role it plays as we go forward into the future, and would love to explore this topic with you guys (especially after reading some of the other topics about quantum mechanics, space travel, etc. that appear in this forum). Admittedly I have no background in any sort of biological science, so feel free to point out things that are very implausible. 

You can actually rephrase it in a much more immediate way.  The cures you mention are likely quite a way off, but there's something looming much more immediately.  If we pinpoint which genes are responsible for everything from cancer to near-sightedness, it then becomes possible for couples to custom build their offspring, and never need cures for those problems in the first place.

But should we?  If you think having humans consciously designing organisms (in this case other humans) is fine, you need only look at certain dog breeds to see how that can go drastically wrong.

*note to self : Add T-bone, beer, Souvlaki, and several other flavor switches.

For those repulsed by the thought of "Soylent Green", it should be pointed out that since matter/energy are neither created nor destroyed, we do the equivalent of eating that (and everything else) every day... as will our descendents.

Also, evolution need not be 'helped' by humans... and our bizarre and quaint ideas of what is 'best'. There's really an innate spontaneous mutation rate which will frustrate those 'goals' anyway. 

What we consider 'ideal'/'best' might well not be so under other environmental pressures.

As for cancer and obvious crippling and horrendous diseases, every effort must be made to alleviate and reverse/eliminate factors causing them. Myopia (except in the case of retinal detachment) is not in the class of diseases I'm referring to.

But... I love my goldendoodle!

I get that, it seems like the consensus is that ordering children like you're at a McDonald's drive-thru window is wrong. It has that super creepy vibe just like the Stepford Wives... but I don't see humanity jumping right to that point without the intermediate gray area that I'm most interested in.

In this case it seems like the act of choice is the part that people get hung up on. However, today we already choose so many things regarding our mates and offspring that are deemed socially acceptable. Vaccines anyone? We vaccinate our children and ourselves to prevent future disease and suffering. What if new DNA technology allowed us to use a 'Vacci-gene™' (any time traveling DNA sequencing corporations please give me royalties if you use this name) that flipped the correct DNA switches so that kids previously at risk for all those diseases listed before, from autism to near-sightnedness, are free and clear? You're not "designing" a child then, you're just making sure that they're never at risk for any future suffering caused by their DNA. The side-effect being that we end up with a population that has "healthier" genes (although probably less diverse, which is a problem in itself) and the need for pharmaceuticals and other medical treatments decrease (and then those big pharmaceutical and health insurance companies would probably get into the DNA treatment business, charge through the roof so only the 1% can afford those healthy genes leading to a class of genetic elite and then everyone else... but that's a whole different ball of wax).

This is where I think we're heading... because I believe that individual parents will choose protecting their progeny against disease over letting "nature take its course". After all, we've been doing it for hundreds of years already.

Sure, I guess I'm just pessimistic that humans will be able to resist the urge to use such technological capabilities on much more frivolous or bizarre stuff.

"I want my child to have dimples!"

"I want my child to have freakishly long arms so he can be an Olympic swimmer and make me rich!"

This type of thing, along with prosthetics, will change what people are.  While things will start off as medically necessary I am sure that they'll become electives soon enough.  It won't be long before people will want a heart that will never fail or limbs that are stronger than the ones they were born with.

That's fine, since they're making that decision for themselves.  It's their choice, and it's not at a genetic level so it doesn't affect any children they may subsequently have.  What worries me more is people making those choices for their not-yet-existent children, at a genetic level.

But... but... ZubaZ of Clan Stardock: "There can be only one!"

I'm horribly nearsighted, so I can't wait until the day when I can get cybernetic eyes with 20/20 or better vision and low-light and thermographic viewing modes.

That worries me as well... we already have parents that live vicariously through their kids, pushing them into all sorts of different activities at a very early age, and kids don't know any better to do something else than what their parents tell them. I imagine the situation would only get worse if parents had the elective option for a "David Beckham" DNA package or something.

@SpardaSon

Amen!

I'm hoping they do more colors than white and shades of red, and definitely with less obtrusive technical information, hopefully controlled by mental impulse.  My ability to see with those eyes you're showcasing would be worse than it is now.

An alternative would be some cultured bioware with 20/20 and low-light vision, but hopefully Essence loss from cybernetics won't be an issue for me or anyone else in the future.

It's coming.... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-30/bionic-eye-major-development/4231204 

Don't worry too much about 'horribly nearsighted' wait till your eye 'problem' leads you to be listed as a genetic study case in the Medical Journals....;p

Wow, you guys are running away with this. It's  like trying to predict what a Tornado will do and why it does it. We know the conditions that lead up to it, but that's about it.  As long as the environmental factors are left out, knowing what the switches do means nothing, because the environment plays a big role in their expression.

Not to spoil the fun, but the huge overpopulation is already here, but it is mitigated and masked by our energy-intensive society. In terms of consumed energy, life of every individual is extremely expensive. Around 2005, a significant point has been reached - the most energy-rich resource, the conventional, light sweet crude production has peaked, and now is on the decline. That means steady and accelerating decline of the net energy available going against still steadily rising population and rising demand in the far eastern regions (Chinese industrialization, cars, and rise of middle class). 

These two factors will result in a crash sooner or later that will inevitably result in massive die-off of majority of the total population - and we are talking decades. 

So the problem of achieving immortality is purely artificial - on the contrary, I presume that the average lifespan will shorten rapidly due to toxicity of the environment, harsher climate and violent events that will inevitably accompany such changes. Cancer rates are skyrocketing, and fewer and fewer people can afford adequate treatments which are very expensive. The overuse of antibiotics leads and will lead to emergence to resistant strain of bacteria that will become the new Black Plague epidemics. 

Our lifestyle, our expensive research, our false sense of omnipotence, all that depends on the flickering flame of the burning oil reserves... reserves that are more and more scarce with each day.