NationStates Jolt Archive

In the near future, it may become possible to alter the DNA of a fetus before it is born. It can be used for many different purposes -- curing genetically inherited diseases like Down syndrome, for example. It can also be used to change the sex or hair color of a baby. How far do you think scientists should be able to go with this new technology (poll coming)?

Glorious science shall realise der Führer's dreams.

I think curing genetic disorders is fine, and if it becomes safe and reliable enough giving every child genes that improve physical fitness and disease resistence along with a genetic predisposition to higher intelligence would be acceptable, but we're very far from that assuming we ever get to the point where we can do it.

Mengele would be proud, as to add on to The Half-Hidden's statement.

Most everyone would agree designing the "perfect" person is disgusting and wrong. There is no perfect type of person.

i think this is already in use.. for some time..

we're very far from that assuming we ever get to the point where we can do it.

We're not that far away from it. We can already change the sex of a child, although that is admittedly a more simple case. Some genetic disease can be eliminated within 15 years at the current rate of research.

Meh, let'em do what they want....watch out when you get kids like Smunkee's, that'll be smarter than you before puberty...

Most everyone would agree designing the "perfect" person is disgusting and wrong. There is no perfect type of person.

What if you could artificially make somebody more intelligent. Would that be considered "wrong"?

One of the best things about the world is that different people are good at different things. Intelligence is great, but so are a million other strenghts children can have. Everyone has to learn to deal with her flaws and milk her abilities. That's how people become interesting people with complex personalities. Curing painful genetic disorders is one thing, but messing around with human nature is dangerous and pointless.

We're not that far away from it. We can already change the sex of a child, although that is admittedly a more simple case. Some genetic disease can be eliminated within 15 years at the current rate of research.
Yeah, well which genes are responsible for adding lean muscle at the expense of fat? Which genes are responsible for intelligence? We have pieces of the puzzle, but not the whole picture yet.

Mengele would be proud, as to add on to The Half-Hidden's statement.

Most everyone would agree designing the "perfect" person is disgusting and wrong. There is no perfect type of person.

Then how could it be disgusting and wrong if it isn't even possible?

One of the best things about the world is that different people are good at different things. Intelligence is great, but so are a million other strenghts children can have. Everyone has to learn to deal with her flaws and milk her abilities. That's how people become interesting people with complex personalities. Curing painful genetic disorders is one thing, but messing around with human nature is dangerous and pointless.

Who says "human nature" is in the genes, eh?

messing around with human nature is dangerous and pointless.

Assuming we can make everybody smarter, a better athlete, etc., how would that be dangerous or pointless? We could have people making 3s from half-court while super-smart scientists cure AIDS, find a good solution to the world's energy crisis, and other things.

What if you could artificially make somebody more intelligent. Would that be considered "wrong"?
Technically, no, but its the idea that someone can't be accepted, they have to be like this, or something.

curing genetic disorders? yes.

Increasing intelligence if the child is going to be born retarded is also allowable. But retardation would have to be defined. I can see such procedures leading to all kinds of social imbalances. Unless intelligence=enlightenment wherein the intelligent generation seek to rectify the dumbass actions of the preceeding generation- "ooh what do you think martha, shall we give it blonde hair and blue eyes like everyone else, it is the fashion you know" etc, although I think the link between the two is weak

Who says "human nature" is in the genes, eh?

The original poster, as well as several of the respondants, suggests that intelligence and physical strength, among other things, are directly related to genes. Those things do contribute towards the nature of individual human beings. The rest of our personality is based upon life experiences. These experiences, though seemingly unrelated to genes, would be modified greatly in accordance with modifications in our intelligence and physical abilities.

To eleiminate diaseses, but nothign more

Why do you think that giving a child blue eyes is wrong? It neither harms nor helps the child -- it is simply the whim of the parent. Why should a parent not be allowed to have the kind of child that they want, regardless of the genes they have?

Assuming we can make everybody smarter, a better athlete, etc., how would that be dangerous or pointless? We could have people making 3s from half-court while super-smart scientists cure AIDS, find a good solution to the world's energy crisis, and other things.

I already explained how it would be dangerous and pointless. We need people who are good at different things to strike a balance in the world. Too many geniuses and athletes, and the world would fall apart. That bus driver who can turn corners like nobody's business is equally important to the school's top mathelete. Besides, people need to face challenges to build their personalities. Why am I strong? It's not because I'm a straight-A student with a flair for poetry. It's because I'm a social outsider who's struggled all her life to understand people and verbal communication. My flaws are something tangible and realistic to ground and humble me and give my talents more worth. I shudder to imagine the dull and pretentious behaviour of the so-called "designer babies" who would know only an easy life and would expect the world to lie in the palms of their hands.

Option 2. If they can cure a baby that otherwise would be born with, let's say the Down syndrom, it would be immoral to not intervere.

Why do you think that giving a child blue eyes is wrong? It neither harms nor helps the child -- it is simply the whim of the parent. Why should a parent not be allowed to have the kind of child that they want, regardless of the genes they have?
It's likely to lead to a male-female imbalance.

Leads to personalities and appearance being defined by popular trends, which could cause something similar to racial divisiveness.

Option 2. If they can cure a baby that otherwise would be born with, let's say the Down syndrom, it would be immoral to not intervere.
I agree. Anything more than curing diseases is way too open to corruption and misuse.

Glorious science shall realise der Führer's dreams.

Indeed. I really don't like the idea, but sadly, it will happen anyway. If you ask me, enhancing intelligence is too predictable, though. Why not go for increased sexual prowess?

I already explained how it would be dangerous and pointless. We need people who are good at different things to strike a balance in the world. Too many geniuses and athletes, and the world would fall apart. That bus driver who can turn corners like nobody's business is equally important to the school's top mathelete. Besides, people need to face challenges to build their personalities. Why am I strong? It's not because I'm a straight-A student with a flair for poetry. It's because I'm a social outsider who's struggled all her life to understand people and verbal communication. My flaws are something tangible and realistic to ground and humble me and give my talents more worth. I shudder to imagine the dull and pretentious behaviour of the so-called "designer babies" who would know only an easy life and would expect the world to lie in the palms of their hands.

ZOMG A GIRL ON TEH WEB!

*cough* yeah....anyways, it's like plastic surgery, not everyone can aford it, not everyone wants it, and rarely are they satisfied.

Too many geniuses and athletes, and the world would fall apart.
It's likely to lead to a male-female imbalance.

If this procedure is possible, it will probably be very expensive. Only the rich could benefit from it, so there would be no widespread imbalances. Only very few people would be able to benefit from it.

If this procedure is possible, it will probably be very expensive. Only the rich could benefit from it, so there would be no widespread imbalances. Only very few people would be able to benefit from it.
At the beginning. History shows us that most technology that is only affordable to the rich becomes more affordable as time goes on.

In the near future, it may become possible to alter the DNA of a fetus before it is born. It can be used for many different purposes -- curing genetically inherited diseases like Down syndrome, for example. It can also be used to change the sex or hair color of a baby. How far do you think scientists should be able to go with this new technology (poll coming)?

Only as medicine (saving a life/improving health) not as cosmetics (making them better/more intellegent/stronger etc)

ZOMG A GIRL ON TEH WEB!

*cough* yeah....anyways, it's like plastic surgery, not everyone can aford it, not everyone wants it, and rarely are they satisfied.

I hate plastic surgery (except in cases of facial reconstruction after injury, etc). Thanks to Pamela Anderson, guys won't even give me and my rather loose B-cup the time of day. Plastic surgery is also the reason why I blame other people for my insecurities.

I hate plastic surgery (except in cases of facial reconstruction after injury, etc). Thanks to Pamela Anderson, guys won't even give me and my rather loose B-cup the time of day. Plastic surgery is also the reason why I blame other people for my insecurities.

Who is "guys" exactly?

At the beginning. History shows us that most technology that is only affordable to the rich becomes more affordable as time goes on.

Nonetheless, there will still be a bell curve of variation in certain features, like intelligence. It's not going to lead to nobody driving a bus because everybody is too smart. It's basically just speeding up natural evolution. Thousands of years ago, people probably thought if they got any smarter, society would collapse. It didn't. Society will find a way to accustom itself to the new generation. Perhaps buses will be unnecessary because we can have ultra-fast robotically controlled transportation. Perhaps driving a bus will become a very high-paying job. Who knows?

Only as medicine (saving a life/improving health) not as cosmetics (making them better/more intellegent/stronger etc)
Why not cosmetic? I'm sure burn victims and those who have lost limbs would greatly appreciate it.

Who is "guys" exactly?

Every adolescent male I've ever met.

Why not cosmetic? I'm sure burn victims and those who have lost limbs would greatly appreciate it.

I believe that falls under his definition of medicine, but I'm not sure.

Every adolescent male I've ever met.

You've obviously not met enough :P Didn't we have a poll here on breast sizes people prefered? And jeez, you're on the internet. We're happy if you're female.

I don't have a problem at all curing genetic disorders, and the only issue I have with making people more intelligent/whatever is that we'd have to make sure that the unenhanced people still retained all their rights. Downgrading people on purpose, however, that'd be a different issue. Other than that, sure! Sounds great.

This happens to be a grey area for me.

I think that genetic modifactions shouldn't be made to change the sex of the child, as to avoid a male-female imbalance.

Hair color and eye color are fine with me. Skin color is, too. If white parents want to have a dark-skinned kid, so be it. Conversely, if black parents want to have a lighter-skinned kid, so be it. If certain parents are anime fans, so be it (plenty of you will know what I mean by this).

As for improvements to the internal organs, muscles, and bones... I'm all for the advancement of the species. Not every parent will want hulking, juggernaut children, you know. A lot of parents want athletes, yet the kind of genetic modifications they want will depend on what kind of athlete they want. Also, a lot of parents want "rocket scientists". I think it'd be pretty well-balanced.

If the technology is available, who's anyone to deny me the right to have the kind of kid(s) I want? Make any "that's unholy" arguments you wish, but we already have medicines that treat illnesses, so put that in your pipe and smoke it.