Gene therapy or adaption...

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2007 1:24 AM GMT
    I have read alot of articles lately in muscle mags about the future of bodybuilding. They are predicting that steroids will eventually become a thing of the past for body enhancement and bodybuilders and others will look to gene therapy or adaption to improve their physique, physical fitness and etc...What do you think? I think all of us on here are looking for new or improved ways to build a better physique and to communicate with others like us...but would you risk changing your genes for it? How much is to much?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2007 3:28 AM GMT
    There was a paper remarkable paper published a few weeks ago, in which some group identified a single gene that when inserted "gives mice the equivalent strength and endurance of Lance Armstrong." Side effects not yet known. But barring unexpected problems, hell yeah. Who wouldn't want it?

    However, with the current state of the art, you can only give such genes to the next generation. Gene therapy for grown organisms doesn't yet work. Or rather, it works with a few inconvenient side effects, like leukemia.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2007 5:40 AM GMT
    This was discussed extensively in two different steroid threads.

    You imply risk. Gene manipulation will change the face of evolutionary advancement and disease every bit as much as antibiotics. I'm not so sure there will be substantial risk. In many ways, I'd think there would be less risk than today's technologies (fewer side effects, allergies, and so on).

    Ultimately, gene manipulation will cure any number of diseases, and, as I've said before, technology, in and of itself, is typically not either bad, nor good, but, just is.

    Gene manipulation, can, and will, allow us to re-invent the species, as we now do with animal breeding programs.

    Ultimately, the question really isn't about risks, because, if you think about it clearly, they'll likely b e lower than current technology, just as medical technology has advanced in the past, but, rather, the question will probably end up being, who gets to decide?

    If a fat person can be fat (arguably and enormously risky behavior), folks can have elective surgery, you can get botox, then, shouldn't something of lower risk be allowed?

    We've known for a long time now that androgens, and their health benefits, far exceed their risks, and the risks of being overweight, and inactive, or smoking, or even taking pain relievers, but, yet, we'd put folks in jail just for injecting something (testosterone) which is perfectly natural and endegeneous to their bodies.

    The issue becomes who gets to be in charge?

    Science will advance, with, or without, the approval of law.

    We arguably have some huge double standards: women with broken faces, fake tits, estrogen, implants, liposuction, and yet, testosterone is taboo. Go figure.

    I suspect gene manipulation will also become a playground for the "haves" rather than main-stream. Time will tell.

    Myostatin inhibitors are on their way! Google on myostatin and on "Superbaby" to read more about it.

    Certainly being fat, and eating fried foods, are much riskier behavior than even most drugs we take, but, weren't not yet putting those folks in jail.

    To answer your question: there's not enough information to answer the question in a qualified fashion. I don't yet know the "risks".

    I've seen androgens add years and quality to the lives of many folks over the years, and I think most folks would say the risks are highly overstated (and most studies continue to say that, and in fact are echoing the positive effects of their use).

    Because 35% of all folks are weak-minded, it often hard to tell how things will go.

    Because the risks are unknown, your question is not answerable.

    Myostatin inhibs will cut both ways: for folks with horrible disease (a problem with myostatin) they'll be cured; for a bodybuilder, it'll mean about 70% more muscle.

    I disagree with how folks try to attach a moral distinction to chemical manipulation of appearance, but, surgery is ol.k.? Or botox? Or implants? Go figure.

    Would I do mysotatin inhibs, if I felt the risk was acceptable? Yes. Couldn't be much worse than being around smokers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2007 6:23 AM GMT
    the question is: is this ethical though? Myostatin inhibitors could potentially increase muscle mass, but this would be something only the rich could afford. So what do we do for the rest of society? Especially for people in competitive jobs where performance determines employability. I say, treat diseases like muscular dystrophy, and let weight training be the way to "get big."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2007 8:31 AM GMT
    Well, my point was who is in charge of ethics?

    Fat rich people?
    Poor black folk?
    Right wing white folk?
    Liberal West Coasters?

    Why would it be unethical to use it for appearance?

    Isn't breaking up a perfectly good face in plastic surgery unethical?

    What I stick in my ass, should be my business, right?

    My Mom says gay folk are sinners. It's immoral, she says. We were just talking about it tonight. Should we throw you in jail for playing bottom?

    Isn't it "unethical" to destroy a perfectly good body with food or tobacco?

    Did you know that "shortness" is now classified as a "disease" for insurance purposes? So, I can take GH for being short, but, not to live longer, or stay leaner, or be more muscular. Pretty weird thinking.

    If I'm racing a bike, can't I use the best bike (technology), or the best skate (if I'm playing hockey)? How does it become unethical if I would change my body in some way? Technology is everywhere in performance. Why do you think so many cops and fireman juice? Wouldn't your rather have a strong fit fireman to rescue you? In that case, wouldn't the myostatin inhib be the perfect thing for the fireman? His job is saving lives. We'd want him at top performance, right?

    Your view is to short-sighted.

    If my life depends on it, or my job, wouldn't I want the best possible candidate?

    If the non-treated fireman let me die, because he was to weak, whose ethics apply then? You wanted a weaker fireman. Ah.... it's much more complicated than just illness.

    I'd argue that there's nothing unethical about having a big, strong, healthy, fit, fireman to rescue me. That has EVERYTHING to do with performance, and I certainly would not want to die over it. You'd argue for him to remain weak, needlessly, when he could have saved my life, had he just been stronger? Would it be "ethical" for me to die, because the fireman wasn't allowed to be all he could be?

    You didn't engage in critical thinking.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 03, 2007 9:03 AM GMT
    chucky, I purposefully avoid posting after you, mainly because I think you are off your rocker and maybe a little emotionally disturbed (mainly because you have such a keen eye for determining what everyone else's emotional problems are). But alas, to defend my logos, I must.

    You created a false dilemma (if you don't have myostatin inhibitors you will always be weak). That is not the case. So that need not be addressed.

    Also, you did not address the problem that remains: myostatin inhibitors will be there for the rich, thereby excluding people for many jobs simply because they do not have the funds to get treatment. That is a major issue for me, and I think it is obvious. (This issue is a huge ethical dilemma in the pharmaceutical world right now about all kinds of treatments). Things like this continue to polarize America socially and economically.

    Technology provided by the job is different from technology you provide for yourself to get the job.

    And don't start bringing up sexual practices and what other people eat. if you cannot see how that does not relate, I don't want to waste my time.

    And ethics are determined by people in society who can understand and rationalize what is happening. The develop in a society as a whole. They promote goodness and fairness. They are not set in stone. They are debated.

    It is laughable that I considered economic impacts as well as social implications, yet I did not "critically think" and was "short-sighted." You are the one who dropped the discourse to anal sex.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2007 2:25 AM GMT
    Yep, and you'd let people die, despite a way to make them, faster, stronger. Whatever the job, or the sport, performance is everything. You can't sell you get fired, and so on. Enhancing physical performance should not be excluded because you might find it intimidating.

    How many people would need to die needlessly, before you would allow for the bigger, stronger, faster, hybrid, fireman?

    What could be more unnatural than antibiotics, yet would not most people be better with them and without them?

    Some religious nuts would say penicillin is meddling with God, the same way you would with myostatin. Penicillin allows folks with weak immune systems to live, among other things. Making the strong stronger seems perfectly logical, especially in a performance setting.

    I personally would not want to die because of the weaker fireman.

    The bar on performance is constantly changing. Academics, physical, and so on. Using science to advance that is not bad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2007 2:50 AM GMT
    I don't want to wade into the major point being argued here right now, but I have to take issue with:

    "What could be more unnatural than antibiotics, yet would not most people be better with them and without them?"

    Answer: many, many things. The vast majority of antibiotics in use were first purified from fungi (though, in some cases, plants or bacteria) from the environment. Penicillin, for instance, is produced by a fungus naturally. While we are getting better at combinatorial chemistry and synthetic biology, most of our antibiotics are still ultimately found in nature, discovered to be effective, and therefore brought into mass production. At the core, they are indeed natural compounds. There are only a very small number of antibiotics which are truly artificial. Triclosan is the major one I can think of off the top of my head.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 04, 2007 8:44 AM GMT
    Might I add that whole "how many people have to die because i don't want stronger firemen" is a quintessential strawman fallacy.

    I find nothing intimidating about people performing better than me at things. I gave up that a long time ago.

    I feel nothing I said has been sufficiently rebutted.