NationStates Jolt Archive

opinions? I think it wrong, the process of choosing what genetic traits one wants in their offspring commodifies human life. In addition if it advances to the stage of altering an individuals personality, ie "I want an aggresive kid", or whatever it kinda goes against the concept of freewill. It will also widen the rich poor divide and extend it into genetic fitness.

Sounds like a horrible idea, unless it was used to end genetic disorders.

Depends on where they put the designer's logo.

I like the idea. Wouldn't it be nice if every generation of kids were born smart enough not to needlessly annoy me and productive enough to earn a lot of money to pay into social security for when I retire?

No, we have enough of that krazy stuff already.

I like the idea. Wouldn't it be nice if every generation of kids were born smart enough not to needlessly annoy me and productive enough to earn a lot of money to pay into social security for when I retire?But what if you need annoying?

Only if they can genetically engineer babies who like to throw crackers on the floor in restaurants to stop doing it.

But what if you need annoying?

Why would I ever need to be annoyed?

Depends on where they put the designer's logo.

... *suddenly has a horrible vision of a designer logo on someone's ass that must be display through transparent pants and that person has a very flabby ass*

Could be OK, if it was used for the right reasons, like combatting serious genetic disorders.

Still, it refers not to 'designing' a baby, but more like making loads of embryos, and just discarding the ones that don't have the characteristics you need, so it's not as unnatural as some would assume.

... *suddenly has a horrible vision of a designer logo on someone's ass that must be display through transparent pants and that person has a very flabby ass*

*has vision of designer logo on everyone's chest instead*
Much better.

opinions? I think it wrong, the process of choosing what genetic traits one wants in their offspring commodifies human life. In addition if it advances to the stage of altering an individuals personality, ie "I want an aggresive kid", or whatever it kinda goes against the concept of freewill. It will also widen the rich poor divide and extend it into genetic fitness.

But if traits like agression are genetically determined, it's not free-will in the first place... That has bad implications. o.O

I think it is awesome. I'm not even going to explain why, just think of the latest 'nike' baby. :D Perhaps if you were into something classier, you'd go for the Louis Vuitton new summer male baby :D If you were poor, maybe you'd have to settly for the cheap asian Knockoff of the LV design. :D

EUGENICS NOW!

But if traits like agression are genetically determined, it's not free-will in the first place... That has bad implications. o.O

Traits like agression are most likely determined in large part by genetics and no, it doesn't have bad implications. The idea that we are all as malleable as clay. The idea of a perfectly blank slate to be written on by others is truly disturbing and does have horrid implications.

Traits like agression are most likely determined in large part by genetics and no, it doesn't have bad implications.

Yes it does. If you commit agressive crimes, you could blame it on your genes, claiming that it was effectively beyone your control.

What would Our Ford say?

Why would I ever need to be annoyed?
We could make a poll. I'm sure the denizens of NS could find plenty of reasons.

What would Our Ford say?

Lol!
"You can have any colour baby you want, as long as it's black"

Traits like agression are most likely determined in large part by genetics and no, it doesn't have bad implications. The idea that we are all as malleable as clay. The idea of a perfectly blank slate to be written on by others is truly disturbing and does have horrid implications.

It does have terrible implications, but isn't a baby, designed or not, a blank slate ready for the writing anyway? All parents imprint their children with their behavioral traits, their values, their beliefs. Aggressive parents raise aggressive kids.

opinions? I think it wrong, the process of choosing what genetic traits one wants in their offspring commodifies human life. In addition if it advances to the stage of altering an individuals personality, ie "I want an aggresive kid", or whatever it kinda goes against the concept of freewill. It will also widen the rich poor divide and extend it into genetic fitness.
Humans already do this, and always have. Mates are frequently selected based on the traits that one wishes to have for one's offspring. Technology simply offers methods that allow this to be done with greater success and certainty.

Humans already do this, and always have. Mates are frequently selected based on the traits that one wishes to have for one's offspring. Technology simply offers methods that allow this to be done with greater success and certainty. And with a greater variety of mates. Take my relationship with my gorgeuos chinese fiancee, if we felt so inclined, we could make the baby aesthetically 100% chinese, or completely western-ish-esque. Hell, maybe I am carrying some recessive genes for red hair somewhere.

It does have terrible implications, but isn't a baby, designed or not, a blank slate ready for the writing anyway? All parents imprint their children with their behavioral traits, their values, their beliefs. Aggressive parents raise aggressive kids.

Nope. Not at all. Identical twins raised by different parents with different temperments will still show similar personalities. Part of your personality is genetic. Nobody is a blank slate. Parents, according to some researchers, also don't play as much of a part in socializing kids as was once assumed. Their peers in their age group play a larger role. Humans are neither a pure product of genetics, nor are they a completely blank slate.

Traits like agression are most likely determined in large part by genetics and no, it doesn't have bad implications. The idea that we are all as malleable as clay. The idea of a perfectly blank slate to be written on by others is truly disturbing and does have horrid implications.

Obviously its not a blank slate if so much is predetermined. If a mother can choose to kill her child before its born, why can't she choose what type of child she has?

Humans already do this, and always have. Mates are frequently selected based on the traits that one wishes to have for one's offspring. Technology simply offers methods that allow this to be done with greater success and certainty.

exactly, I think preserving that element of randomness is better than just totally crushing it.

Sounds like a horrible idea, unless it was used to end genetic disorders.

Personally I don't have anything against it. But....

Define genetic disorders? Short sight is commonly a genetic disorder...

exactly, I think preserving that element of randomness is better than just totally crushing it.

Why? Wouldn't it be better to plan ahead and create good, responsible, healthy citizens than letting nature take it's course and end up with a population shot through with sociopaths, invalids, and other defective people?

Nope. Not at all. Identical twins raised by different parents with different temperments will still show similar personalities. Part of your personality is genetic. Nobody is a blank slate. Parents, according to some researchers, also don't play as much of a part in socializing kids as was once assumed. Their peers in their age group play a larger role. Humans are neither a pure product of genetics, nor are they a completely blank slate.
This I agree with. I personally consider it to be 60/40 or even 70/30 in favour of genes. I grew up in 10 different towns, attending 11 different schools, living in 12 different neighbourhoods, across 5 different states and territories of Australia (army brat). The remarkable thing I noticed about the thousands of people that I have met is that they are all so unnervingly similar. Different faces and diferent names, but the same person. They have the same thought processes, and the same reactions, same behavioural patterns and tendancies. Sure, occasionally one or two people break this mould, but they are at least 1 in a hundred. I would arrive at a new school, and know everyone there within a day.

exactly, I think preserving that element of randomness is better than just totally crushing it.
Thats good, so do I. Yet, just because you and I think that the element of surprise is important, doesn't mean that everyone else does. Why should my preference dictate what others can and can't do with their own cells?

Personally I don't have anything against it. But....

Define genetic disorders? Short sight is commonly a genetic disorder...
I'm talking about the disorders that prevent someone from living a normal life.

You can lead a perfectly normal life with slightly bad vision. Glasses are not a hassle.

But, something like Kallman's Syndrome is.

I'm talking about the disorders that prevent someone from living a normal life.

You can lead a perfectly normal life with slightly bad vision. Glasses are not a hassle.

But, something like Kallman's Syndrome is.

Who draws the line?

Could be OK, if it was used for the right reasons, like combatting serious genetic disorders.

Still, it refers not to 'designing' a baby, but more like making loads of embryos, and just discarding the ones that don't have the characteristics you need, so it's not as unnatural as some would assume.

Sigs are supposed to be 8 lines, not 18. (Though yours is only 16)

I don't like the idea of rich people being able to make "perfect" kids, while the poor just have their normal kids. The class difference and seperation would just get more and more enhanced.

I don't like the idea of rich people being able to make "perfect" kids, while the poor just have their normal kids. The class difference and seperation would just get more and more enhanced.

I don’t like the idea of anyone being better than anyone else.
Therefore, all tall kids should have their legs surgically shortened, and all smart kids should get brain damage.

What is so morally repugnant about allowing a child to have the best start possible? Why is it considered morally superior to make everyone’s life crap just because someone else might not have it as good?

I think it is a parent’s obligation to ensure that their child has the best possible chance at life whether it comes from genetic selection or private schools. Do we force all children to eat the same nutritionally deficient diet simply because some starving child in Africa cannot afford fresh fruits and veggies?

Good nutrition has a massive impact on the development of a child, and not everyone can afford the most nutritionally sound foods, so it is a perfect comparison. Why do you think we should restrict wealthy families from feeding their children nutritionally sound meals because not everyone in the world can afford to do so?

I don’t like the idea of anyone being better than anyone else.
Therefore, all tall kids should have their legs surgically shortened, and all smart kids should get brain damage.

What is so morally repugnant about allowing a child to have the best start possible? Why is it considered morally superior to make everyone’s life crap just because someone else might not have it as good?

I think it is a parent’s obligation to ensure that their child has the best possible chance at life whether it comes from genetic selection or private schools. Do we force all children to eat the same nutritionally deficient diet simply because some starving child in Africa cannot afford fresh fruits and veggies?

Good nutrition has a massive impact on the development of a child, and not everyone can afford the most nutritionally sound foods, so it is a perfect comparison. Why do you think we should restrict wealthy families from feeding their children nutritionally sound meals because not everyone in the world can afford to do so?

Harrison Bergeron (http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html) anyone?

Has anyone here seen the film 'Gattaca'? It's one of my favorites. Basically, it's set in a society where every child is a designer child - it's the norm. One couple are determined to have a child the natural way, leaving their kid's life entirely down to chance - and he suffers as a result. He's almost a second-class citizen. He needs his vision correcting, he is physically weak compared to most other people, etc, etc.

Now, imagine if designer babies became not the norm, but widespread in today's society - most of those who aren't 'designed' will effectively be second-class. They will never be as good as the designed.

The only good thing that can come out of engineering babies in this way is to remove genetic defects - I think someone said it near the start of this debate. Kids born with serious defects are too much of a burden on their families and the rest of society.

Who draws the line?

Henry Ford. :)

LG beat me to it. :(

I'd support designer babies as long as someone -- like me -- could make the decisions as to what the designs would be. Getting rid of genetic diseases and illnesses would be good, and we should probably set aside a whole class of babies that we would enhance with hormones and stuff to make an army of supersoldiers.

Of course, this is a nimby argument, so the answer is, if I wasn't in charge, then no.

maybe we would need it some time because we basically eliminated natural selection, and because of that genetic diseases are getting more common.
but i don't think using it for anything other than medical purposes is a good idea.
and won't somebody please think of the children, because i'm not sure if i would like it to be genetically engineered. it would also put a lot of pressure on the engineered people, they were made to be perfect, what if they aren't? i don't think there will be a refund for failed 'products'.
and once you begin with this, who knows where this is going to end? first maybe a little improvement in intelligence or strenght, but in the end parents maybe won't settle for anything less than a super intelligent highly athletic kid that also has the looks of a model.

I'm not sure. Having designer kids be legal would be a huge blow to people in that generation whose parents couldn't afford it/considered it wrong. And it could also put the designer kids in a shitload of danger of religious fanatics.

Well I have type 1 Diabetes and Grand Mal Epilepsy so if there's a way that I can guarantee I'd not pass on either of these traits then I'd take it.

I'm not sure. Having designer kids be legal would be a huge blow to people in that generation whose parents couldn't afford it/considered it wrong. And it could also put the designer kids in a shitload of danger of religious fanatics.

Maybe we could make it mandatory that the genetic components of religiosity are removed from the next generation. That would be a very positive development.

It's a genial method of ensuring the evolution of the human species, and we shouldn't be squemish in allowing it.

I don't like the idea of rich people being able to make "perfect" kids, while the poor just have their normal kids. The class difference and seperation would just get more and more enhanced.

I'll jsut sit back and laugh at all the people who spend a ton of money to realize that genetics is only one part of the "perfection" equation. Disease, temperment, appearance aren't exclusively hard coded. When their preselected blond haired blue-eyed child grows up and decides to dye her hair black, and wear cat eye contact lenses, really what was that money spent for? To make the parents happy for a few years?

Seriously, if you aren't ready to have something totally unexpected smack you in the head from out in left field, you really aren't ready to have children.

(If you have a family history of a particular disease, then by all means, I have no problem with genetic screening at all, it's the designer concept that I find so laughable.)

It's a genial method of ensuring the evolution of the human species, and we shouldn't be squemish in allowing it.

Within limits, yes. None of us wants to be the designer baby engineered to be an emotionless super-soldier or an Epsilon, fit only for the dirty work no-one else wants to do. But it will be useful in removing the flaws the human race has, if we can pull it off.

What worries me is fashion trends.. Like generations don't look and act enough alike already without them being designed after a common ideal.
Just a matter of time before people get it into their head blue might be a great skin color, and it would match the furniture so nicely. And voila, a generation of smurfs.

Genetically modifying children before they are born is wrong. Its God's choice what each child is going to like. And selective abortion is wrong, every being should have a chance to live. After all, to experience and give love is the greatest human accomplishment.

All I know is that Gattaca was a great movie.

Has anyone here seen the film 'Gattaca'? It's one of my favorites. Basically, it's set in a society where every child is a designer child - it's the norm. One couple are determined to have a child the natural way, leaving their kid's life entirely down to chance - and he suffers as a result. He's almost a second-class citizen. He needs his vision correcting, he is physically weak compared to most other people, etc, etc.

Now, imagine if designer babies became not the norm, but widespread in today's society - most of those who aren't 'designed' will effectively be second-class. They will never be as good as the designed.

The only good thing that can come out of engineering babies in this way is to remove genetic defects - I think someone said it near the start of this debate. Kids born with serious defects are too much of a burden on their families and the rest of society. Yes Gattaca is one of my favourite movies of all time. I don't actually agree with the theme of the film, but I enjoy the thought provoking nature therein. Plus it was just a superb composition from a directors perspective. Jude Law's character was multidimensional, tragic in ways too. I love Jude Law for that film, and that one alone.

I don't like the idea of rich people being able to make "perfect" kids, while the poor just have their normal kids. The class difference and seperation would just get more and more enhanced.
I don't expect that is how it'd turn out. Any sane eugenics corporation would market their services to the middle-class majority. The poorest people would probably still miss out, but that is the government's concern. Rich people wouldn't be getting genetically superior children, so much as aesthetically exclusive ones. So, everyone who was lower middle-class and higher could afford to maximise their childrens genetic potential, but only the upper middle-class could afford the latest summer release Prada phenotype series. Actual 'rich' people shouldn't expect anything more, as they are too small of a market to cater exclusively for. They'd probably just have another level of exclusive baby design houses.

Genetically modifying children before they are born is wrong. Its God's choice what each child is going to like. And selective abortion is wrong, every being should have a chance to live. After all, to experience and give love is the greatest human accomplishment. But if we were to selectively abort 1000 embryo's prior to pregnancy, wouldn't the one we end up picking also be god's choice? Think about it.

It's unethical because it's the same as if a baby was born, and immediately killed because it wasn't healthy enough looking. That's exactally what these embryo selection programs are.

What would happen in such a society has been metioned in this post. Super (unnatural) people with strange traits that are closer to the ideal, and the children of people who can't afford or are morally opposed to the 'treatment'. So these are the hairy, ugly, short, tall, nearsighted, balding natural people. The 'true humans' if you will.

By their nature they will be inferior (although beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc.) so will naturally be treated as 'low' or second class human beings. This would be especially so if there were some way to increase intelligence potential through this eugenics program. Everyone would know the unaltered humans as second rate idiots no matter how many of them were smarter.
What kind of society would that be?

Also, any evolutionary biologist would know that homogenizing the species is probably very bad for the species as a whole since genetic diversity signifies community health.

It's unethical because it's the same as if a baby was born, and immediately killed because it wasn't healthy enough looking. That's exactally what these embryo selection programs are. That is as true as me batting off to pr0n so as to rid myself of unhealthy sperm is the same as clubbing a retarded baby on the head.

What would happen in such a society has been metioned in this post. Super (unnatural) people with strange traits that are closer to the ideal, and the children of people who can't afford or are morally opposed to the 'treatment'. So these are the hairy, ugly, short, tall, nearsighted, balding natural people. The 'true humans' if you will. I'd imagine most people would be able to afford the service, if the medical corporations were at all interested in money. The only people who would miss out would be the poorest of poor and those morally disinclined. I say good, outbreed the moralistic masses with superbabies while they bitch about social equlaity and their various supernatural patron's opinions on such activities.

By their nature they will be inferior (although beauty is in the eye of the beholder etc.) so will naturally be treated as 'low' or second class human beings. This would be especially so if there were some way to increase intelligence potential through this eugenics program. Everyone would know the unaltered humans as second rate idiots no matter how many of them were smarter.
What kind of society would that be? That'd be a society based in the cold, hard, unfair world we call reality.

Also, any evolutionary biologist would know that homogenizing the species is probably very bad for the species as a whole since genetic diversity signifies community health. Well it depends. If you are just messing with the babies phenotype, then its all sweet. However when it comes to correcting illnesses adn maximising physical/intellectual traits, then yes, I would imagine there would need to be some level of caution. If our understanding and prowess within genetic manipulation became such that we could selectively fix genetic diseases, and boost intelligence, without fucking every other trait dependant upon the relevant gene, then yes it would be fine. Until then, let us stick with designer babies, not performance babies.

That is as true as me batting off to pr0n so as to rid myself of unhealthy sperm is the same as clubbing a retarded baby on the head.


Unhealthy sperm?
Anyway, it is totally not. EMBRYO SELECTION is already of a fertilized embryo. So it's a human child as far as I'm concerned. People say it's not a person because it doesn't have a thinking capacity yet, but I say are stupid people less human because they have less of a thinking capacity that smarties? Certainly not.

Sperm is just a gamete, it's not even really a full human cell, nowhere close to a human being yet.

Unhealthy sperm?
Anyway, it is totally not. EMBRYO SELECTION is already of a fertilized embryo. So it's a human child as far as I'm concerned. People say it's not a person because it doesn't have a thinking capacity yet, but I say are stupid people less human because they have less of a thinking capacity that smarties? Certainly not.

Sperm is just a gamete, it's not even really a full human cell, nowhere close to a human being yet.

Ok, but you admit that it is only as far as your concerned. So, as far as I am concerned, a sperm is 1/2 of a human, and thus killing 2 of them is the same as shooting a newborn baby. You know, as far as I am concerned.

The point is, what you think is all good and well when it comes to you decisions. However, you should just mind your own business when it comes to people making theirs'. How would you like it if myself and a very vocal minority enforced my sperm law on you?

Ok, but you admit that it is only as far as your concerned. So, as far as I am concerned, a sperm is 1/2 of a human, and thus killing 2 of them is the same as shooting a newborn baby. You know, as far as I am concerned.

The point is, what you think is all good and well when it comes to you decisions. However, you should just mind your own business when it comes to people making theirs'. How would you like it if myself and a very vocal minority enforced my sperm law on you?

It's not that I feel "oh no people can't do that!". I have an obligation to protect the weak an innocent. People being killed who can't defend themselves are exactally that. I don't believe in forcing my beliefs on anybody unless it is to protect the rights of another. I believe human rights are very important, but the one right no one has is to violate someone else's basic rights.

I am going to post a REALLY long and utterly serious post which may shock some people. This is basically what I do for a living. I think I may be the only genticist on NS. (If anyone else is as well please speak up)

From MY perspective what we are able to do is a good thing. My title at the clinic where I work is Genetics Counselor. People ask me things like what a poster here wondered, "Will I pass on my inherited diseases to my child?"

I can't say 100% most of the time but I can tell them what their kids will be at risk for and I can tell you I am HAPPY to be able to tell them we have ways to insure that they baby they actually have is as healthy as possible.

As for randomness, I've never heard a parent say something like "90% chance of Parkinson's? Let's roll the dice! I want to be surprised." That may be an extreme example but why take chances on a baby's health?

As for super soldiers: If the government ever decides it wants or needs them then they won't be going to fertlity clinics or commercial genetics corporations. They will do their own research and development. They will also ignore any bans on the subject. The first we hear of it will be well after its accomplished.

As for the kids of the rich living better longer lives than the poor kids, well that happens already. Better nutrition, medical care, not just after the fact care but preventive care, and several other factors make the kids of the lower middle class and the poor less healthy on average and likely to live a shorter life. If anything genetic eradication of disease might help. Being able to scrounge up the fee for it one time is likelier than being able to afford all the doctors, dentists, and pharmacists needed if the kids inherits something nasty.

I used to be near sighted. Glasses were a pain, not to mention a fininacial drain so I was happy when laser eye correction was available. I was a bit worried and waited for a few years but I've had it done and I no longer had to buy glasses or fiddle with contacts. A net financial gain not counting how nicer it is not to have to remember them all the time or wake up to a fuzzy world. If I could offer parents the ability to have only kids with perfect I'd do it.

Lastly, I'd like to say that we are rapidly getting to the point of fixing things in situ rather than fertilizing lots of eggs and picking the best and that will be a good thing but I do not agree that we should let the current state of the art prevent anyone from trying to insure that any children they have are free of debilitating diseases. The more diseases we can eradicate from this generation the healthier all other generations become.

Well if you managed to read through all of that I thank you.
I thought I should add my take of things to this thread.

It's not that I feel "oh no people can't do that!". I have an obligation to protect the weak an innocent. People being killed who can't defend themselves are exactally that. I don't believe in forcing my beliefs on anybody unless it is to protect the rights of another. I believe human rights are very important, but the one right no one has is to violate someone else's basic rights.
Right, and I believe that I also have an obligation to protect innocent sperm, which are being massacred worldwide thanks to pron. It's not that I believe in forcing my beliefs upon others, but I feel it is important to protect the rights of the sperm (which Myself and a very vocal minority hold to be essentially 1/2 human).

Your beliefs are irrelevent/ridiculous to me. As such, they should not apply to me. What would be better would be for you to not engage in abortion yourself, as a personal stand against it, and convince other individuals not to do it. Using the state to force your ideas on others generates nothing but conflict.

*Thinks Dark Angel*

*Thinks Dark Angel*

Those trans-genics sure were cool

Genetics has nothing at all to do with the free will of the individual receiving those genes. It's decided upon at, well, the genetic level according to which genes are dominant and which are not. In that respect genetic modification of the embryo does not affect its rights.

The crux of the problem lies not in whether it is "Right" or "Wrong" to do so but whether humanity is capable of making the choices in its use that fit within the moral climate of the populace. In essence it is no different to the nurture aspect. A child that is brought up from birth to hate anyone of another race or religion is as reprehensible as modifying them at a genetic level to increase aggressive traits and make them more subservient (the super-soldier scenario). Or at least it is to me. The racist parents will obviously find nothing morally wrong with doing this.

The person that was worried that designer babies represents a blank slate to be molded towards an end should realise that we are that already. Nature is only half the debate. Nurture is just as powerful. What we regard as right and wrong is almost entirely dependant on our upbringing and social environment.

The idea of designer babies has both good and bad implications. As stated by many others in this thread it could be used to cure diseases such as Cystic Fibrosis, Multiple Sclerosis, tendency towards cancer. It could theoretically be used to alter many other traits from hair colour to personality which might be considered frivolous and irresponsible. What must be remembered though is that to do any of these things a full understanding of the human genome must happen first so the ability to do one thing cannot come without the other. Much like owning a gun. Do you use it to shoot the deer and feed your family? or to shoot the other hunter in the back whom you don't like?

In truth we decide on the traits that our children will have all the time, either purposefully or through neglect. The well brought up child will respect his or her elders, study hard in school and try to live the best life they can. The neglected child will learn that they can trust no-one, the abused one that violence is the best form of communitaction, or some children may be taught that their race/religion is the only one that has a right to exist and that all others should be stamped out.

Enough rambling.

In conclusion Mogtaria belives that the research should be done on the human genome but that humanity is not currently mature enough to use the resulting technology responsiby. However it also concedes that once this "Genie is out of the bottle" it cannot be put back. Push forward SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY.

I don't like the idea of rich people being able to make "perfect" kids, while the poor just have their normal kids. The class difference and seperation would just get more and more enhanced.

In many cases the rich have better access to partners who have better genes than the poor.

Good looking people have better access to partners with better genes than ugly people do.

Smart/Funny/Confident people have better access to partners with better genes than their respective opposites.


Are all these bad?

I guess we should randomly assign all people a partner to stamp down on these monsterous inequalities.

genetic enhancement?

great idea.
The removal of genetic defects, few can argue with.
What about maybe slightly increasing the IQ of the child or slightly improving the childs reflexes? Maybe even extending the maximum age of the child?
Personally I can't see anything wrong with it. Some people talk about the "enhanced" & the "normals" and how they will become second class citizens, etc...
Maybe, is that not already the case due to natural selection? some people are stronger, some are smarter, etc... These genetic advantages would filter down to the less advantages over time. It did for most "natural" genetic traits.

Those trans-genics sure were cool
OMG, what was the Corporation called?
That main bad guy was pure evil!

Scorpion and a Lion, right?

On a frivolous note perhaps we should give people fish gills so that we can all breath underwater :) It would certainly make people think more about what kinds of chemicals they shove down their drains :D

*snip*
In conclusion Mogtaria belives that the research should be done on the human genome but that humanity is not currently mature enough to use the resulting technology responsiby. However it also concedes that once this "Genie is out of the bottle" it cannot be put back. Push forward SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY.
Society only knows one way to learn lessons; by monumentally fucking up repeatedly. Every generation that fucks up, passes the wisdom gained from their mistake on to the next one or two, then the third repeats the fuck up (having lost touchg with the lesson of the first). If you want to wait until humanity 'is ready' you'll be waiting a long long time. We should just unleash this on the masses howsoever we please, and deal with the consequences. Better to get it over with quickly..

opinions? I think it wrong, the process of choosing what genetic traits one wants in their offspring commodifies human life. In addition if it advances to the stage of altering an individuals personality, ie "I want an aggresive kid", or whatever it kinda goes against the concept of freewill. It will also widen the rich poor divide and extend it into genetic fitness.

If it's healthy...After extensive tests....Sure....

exactly, I think preserving that element of randomness is better than just totally crushing it.
Then I'm sure you will be reproducing with somebody who was selected for you totally at random, right? You won't "crush" the element of randomness, will you?

In many cases the rich have better access to partners who have better genes than the poor.

Good looking people have better access to partners with better genes than ugly people do.

Smart/Funny/Confident people have better access to partners with better genes than their respective opposites.


Are all these bad?

I guess we should randomly assign all people a partner to stamp down on these monsterous inequalities.
Yeah, that's an argument that always bugged me.

I agree that it is troublesome that wealthy individuals may have access to medical care that poor people need but cannot afford. That sucks. It sucks that a child may be unable to get immunizations it needs simply because it was unlucky enough to be born to a poor family instead of a rich one. I think this is a serious problem that deserves very serious attention.

However, I don't see how we're going to help things by ruling that wealthy (or even just middle-class) people cannot seek medical care or medical advances simply because those options may not be available to all people. That's like saying that if we can't make sure everybody in the world gets a flu shot, then we shouldn't let ANYBODY get one.

Rich people already have an edge on getting good genes for their kids. They have more power, more status, more potential to attract mates, greater ability to travel to seek out mates, greater resources for wooing and for maintaining a family once they start one, and the luxury to be discriminating because they know they have many options that aren't available to everybody. Technology won't change that.

I am going to post a REALLY long and utterly serious post which may shock some people. This is basically what I do for a living. I think I may be the only genticist on NS. (If anyone else is as well please speak up)

From MY perspective what we are able to do is a good thing. My title at the clinic where I work is Genetics Counselor. People ask me things like what a poster here wondered, "Will I pass on my inherited diseases to my child?"

I can't say 100% most of the time but I can tell them what their kids will be at risk for and I can tell you I am HAPPY to be able to tell them we have ways to insure that they baby they actually have is as healthy as possible.

As for randomness, I've never heard a parent say something like "90% chance of Parkinson's? Let's roll the dice! I want to be surprised." That may be an extreme example but why take chances on a baby's health?

As for super soldiers: If the government ever decides it wants or needs them then they won't be going to fertlity clinics or commercial genetics corporations. They will do their own research and development. They will also ignore any bans on the subject. The first we hear of it will be well after its accomplished.

As for the kids of the rich living better longer lives than the poor kids, well that happens already. Better nutrition, medical care, not just after the fact care but preventive care, and several other factors make the kids of the lower middle class and the poor less healthy on average and likely to live a shorter life. If anything genetic eradication of disease might help. Being able to scrounge up the fee for it one time is likelier than being able to afford all the doctors, dentists, and pharmacists needed if the kids inherits something nasty.

I used to be near sighted. Glasses were a pain, not to mention a fininacial drain so I was happy when laser eye correction was available. I was a bit worried and waited for a few years but I've had it done and I no longer had to buy glasses or fiddle with contacts. A net financial gain not counting how nicer it is not to have to remember them all the time or wake up to a fuzzy world. If I could offer parents the ability to have only kids with perfect I'd do it.

Lastly, I'd like to say that we are rapidly getting to the point of fixing things in situ rather than fertilizing lots of eggs and picking the best and that will be a good thing but I do not agree that we should let the current state of the art prevent anyone from trying to insure that any children they have are free of debilitating diseases. The more diseases we can eradicate from this generation the healthier all other generations become.

Well if you managed to read through all of that I thank you.
I thought I should add my take of things to this thread.

*standing ovation*

"Designer babies" whoever coined this term obviously did not like the concept. You equate "designer" with gucci shoes and accesssories for rich bitches who like to shop. The point of the science gets lost if you insist on this term. This is going to be able to do a lot of good, think of all the disabled people out there, at a stroke we will be able to give them sight, sound, strong limbs, strong constitutions, we can make people healthy and thats got to be good!! Ditch the dystopic vision of the future and think of the benefits, and if it eventually leads to a human race where everyone is beautiful then being beautiful will be mundane guys (ever been to Norway) and then ugly people will be so rare they'll be treated like gods and thats got to be good too;)

"Designer babies" whoever coined this term obviously did not like the concept. You equate "designer" with gucci shoes and accesssories for rich bitches who like to shop. The point of the science gets lost if you insist on this term. This is going to be able to do a lot of good, think of all the disabled people out there, at a stroke we will be able to give them sight, sound, strong limbs, strong constitutions, we can make people healthy and thats got to be good!! Ditch the dystopic vision of the future and think of the benefits, and if it eventually leads to a human race where everyone is beautiful then being beautiful will be mundane guys (ever been to Norway) and then ugly people will be so rare they'll be treated like gods and thats got to be good too;)

Is that what you think of Norwegian guys, seriously? :D

Then I'm sure you will be reproducing with somebody who was selected for you totally at random, right? You won't "crush" the element of randomness, will you?
Bottle.. I don't know how to say this, but: I LOVE YOU!
:p

Bottle.. I don't know how to say this, but: I LOVE YOU!
:p
Heh, and all I had to do was point out some very obvious silliness! That's one of my favorite hobbies! :D

Heh, and all I had to do was point out some very obvious silliness! That's one of my favorite hobbies! :D
Really though. I am quite surprised that we are on the same page with this. Pleasantly surpirsed.

OMG, what was the Corporation called?
That main bad guy was pure evil!

Scorpion and a Lion, right?

Manticore's the name and it was a government agency, not a corporation.

Manticore's the name and it was a government agency, not a corporation.

That show was awesome. Sky needs to put it on again.

Sure was. It recently replayed the 2 seasons on the SciFi Channel in the states.

Then I'm sure you will be reproducing with somebody who was selected for you totally at random, right? You won't "crush" the element of randomness, will you?

Yay, Bottle! You said it better in one sentence then I did in many.

Yeah, that's an argument that always bugged me.

I agree that it is troublesome that wealthy individuals may have access to medical care that poor people need but cannot afford. That sucks. It sucks that a child may be unable to get immunizations it needs simply because it was unlucky enough to be born to a poor family instead of a rich one. I think this is a serious problem that deserves very serious attention.


Bottle mentions something here that brings up an interesting question. Would these genetic "refinments" be available to all in europe under the welfare systems. I would think so, but any opinions?
And if this was the case would the EU nations have an distinct advantage over the rest of the world?

Bottle mentions something here that brings up an interesting question. Would these genetic "refinments" be available to all in europe under the welfare systems. I would think so, but any opinions?
And if this was the case would the EU nations have an distinct advantage over the rest of the world?
Some such options would almost certainly be available, such as those which address serious medical problems and disorders, given the way that the current system seems to work. However, I would expect a lot of debate in certain areas.

For instance, clinical depression is a medical condition that is unquestionably very serious, and very potentially debilitating. But genetically addressing the tendency to clinical depression makes a lot of people uncomfortable because it is seen as disrupting "personality" or "free will."

Right, and I believe that I also have an obligation to protect innocent sperm, which are being massacred worldwide thanks to pron. It's not that I believe in forcing my beliefs upon others, but I feel it is important to protect the rights of the sperm (which Myself and a very vocal minority hold to be essentially 1/2 human).

Your beliefs are irrelevent/ridiculous to me. As such, they should not apply to me. What would be better would be for you to not engage in abortion yourself, as a personal stand against it, and convince other individuals not to do it. Using the state to force your ideas on others generates nothing but conflict.

What is the point of the state if not to protect the rights of others? If the state does not protect the rights of the people it is supposed to serve it has no purpose. So if we shouldn't force any ideas on anyone all governments should be immediately dissolved.
I believe that government is necessary to most people at this stage of society and should serve to protect the rights of individual people. If it fails to do that it has no purpose.

Some such options would almost certainly be available, such as those which address serious medical problems and disorders, given the way that the current system seems to work. However, I would expect a lot of debate in certain areas.

For instance, clinical depression is a medical condition that is unquestionably very serious, and very potentially debilitating. But genetically addressing the tendency to clinical depression makes a lot of people uncomfortable because it is seen as disrupting "personality" or "free will."

Whether to try to address mental disorders genetically is worth much debate.
I also worry that when...let's just say certain people...finally wake up to the fact that sexual orientation is at least 90% genetic they might try to get rid of it as if it were a disease. I'd be against that 100%

Whether to try to address mental disorders genetically is worth much debate.
I also worry that when...let's just say certain people...finally wake up to the fact that sexual orientation is at least 90% genetic they might try to get rid of it as if it were a disease. I'd be against that 100%

or advancements might reach the point where someoone could biologically change sex if they so wish. Born a man, change sex then give birth

or advancements might reach the point where someoone could biologically change sex if they so wish. Born a man, change sex then give birth

Nothing wrong with that. :)

What is the point of the state if not to protect the rights of others? If the state does not protect the rights of the people it is supposed to serve it has no purpose. So if we shouldn't force any ideas on anyone all governments should be immediately dissolved.
I believe that government is necessary to most people at this stage of society and should serve to protect the rights of individual people. If it fails to do that it has no purpose.
Let's not get carried away with the emotional language, here.

You believe that fetuses are a special class of human persons who have the right to live inside the bodies of other human persons and use the bodies of other human persons to sustain their existence. This is a right that no born human persons possess (at least not in my society), so issues of "protecting the rights" of fetuses are bullshit unless you are prepared to give fetuses rights which no born human beings possess and then strip those rights away at the moment of birth.

(It seems odd to me that a pre-birth human lifeform would be considered deserving of MORE rights than a post-birth human, but that's just me.)

Like most anti-choicers, you seem quick to forget that there happens to be a female individual involved in gestating a fetus. The government is, one presumes, obligated to consider her rights, isn't it? In my society, your "right" to be alive does not extend to you having the right to harvest my body against my wishes to sustain your life. So the government is not obligated to defend any such "right," for any of its citizens.

All of which is totally beside the point of this thread anyhow. Can we get back to the more interesting subject at hand, now?

or advancements might reach the point where someoone could biologically change sex if they so wish. Born a man, change sex then give birth
I am trying desperately to remember the name of a book I once read, in which humans have developed essentially unlimited cosmetic surgery technology. People basically get "new bodies" whenever they want, within a few hours, and it is normal for people to periodically switch gender (just as they might try out a new hair color or a new muscle build). The main character of the book begins as a male, but part way through the book becomes female. It's really cool stuff.

What is the point of the state if not to protect the rights of others? If the state does not protect the rights of the people it is supposed to serve it has no purpose. So if we shouldn't force any ideas on anyone all governments should be immediately dissolved.
I believe that government is necessary to most people at this stage of society and should serve to protect the rights of individual people. If it fails to do that it has no purpose.

I notice you're now talking politics not genetics. Also it seems like you only want to protect the rights you think we should have.

I am trying desperately to remember the name of a book I once read, in which humans have developed essentially unlimited cosmetic surgery technology. People basically get "new bodies" whenever they want, within a few hours, and it is normal for people to periodically switch gender (just as they might try out a new hair color or a new muscle build). The main character of the book begins as a male, but part way through the book becomes female. It's really cool stuff.

Was it "Sight of Proteus"? It had tech like that and even a bit better as series went on.

Was it "Sight of Proteus"? It had tech like that and even a bit better as series went on.
It might have been...I read it a long time ago, and I can't seem to remember enough to look up a title or author. I just remember it being pretty mind-blowing stuff, particularly for somebody who was just barely emerging from adolescence at the time. :P

Let's not get carried away with the emotional language, here.

You believe that fetuses are a special class of human persons who have the right to live inside the bodies of other human persons and use the bodies of other human persons to sustain their existence. This is a right that no born human persons possess (at least not in my society), so issues of "protecting the rights" of fetuses are bullshit unless you are prepared to give fetuses rights which no born human beings possess and then strip those rights away at the moment of birth.

(It seems odd to me that a pre-birth human lifeform would be considered deserving of MORE rights than a post-birth human, but that's just me.)

Like most anti-choicers, you seem quick to forget that there happens to be a female individual involved in gestating a fetus. The government is, one presumes, obligated to consider her rights, isn't it? In my society, your "right" to be alive does not extend to you having the right to harvest my body against my wishes to sustain your life. So the government is not obligated to defend any such "right," for any of its citizens.


Children are quite a drain on the parents, and if a parent doesn't feed a newborn infant because it's too much of a drain on the parent that parent is commiting negligence. We have to face the reality that children are not self-sufficient human beings. Most children would not be able to live on their own without their parents for quite a while after they are born so their rights don't instantly change. If you still consider this having more rights then being negligent towards infants is having more rights, if everyone is to have the same rights by this definition then it is complete hypocrasy to have laws protecting infants who inconvenience their parents but not protecting unborn children who cause invonvenience to the mother.

I liked the movie Gattica. I rooted for the random-flawed-genetically challenged character to do well in life and to 'get away' with his plan.

But I have to admit, the future genetic enhanced world of humans could theoretically have less problems then our random genetic world population does now.

Go find Gattica watch it, come back.



There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand bianary, and those that dont.

All babies should be "designed" insofar as to eliminate genetic disease.

Why design them???

What's wrong with picking one of the several thousand that die everyday?

I liked the movie Gattica. I rooted for the random-flawed-genetically challenged character to do well in life and to 'get away' with his plan.

But I have to admit, the future genetic enhanced world of humans could theoretically have less problems then our random genetic world population does now.

Fewer problems, or just different ones?

Why design them???

What's wrong with picking one of the several thousand that die everyday?
Odds are, human beings are going to continue to sexually reproduce. This thread is about whether or not humans who have already decided to sexually reproduce should use medical advances to "adjust" the genetics of the child they have already decided to conceive.

If you're going to ask, "Why design them? Why not adopt?" then you might as well just ask, "Why make a baby, when you could adopt one of the thousands that die every day?"

Why design them???

What's wrong with picking one of the several thousand that die everyday?

Who wants a dead baby? :P

For those that were wondering, Iain Banks' "Culture" novels are the ones where poeople have tinkered with their genome to the point where they can simply "bypass" drugs (like alchohol) so they only suffer the effects they want to and, as mentioned, change sex. In the novels the character enters a semi meditative state where they can examine their own genetic structure and make a "tweak" so they begin the process to change sex which then takes about a year to propogate through their body (lifespan has also been increased to several hundred years)

But if we were to selectively abort 1000 embryo's prior to pregnancy, wouldn't the one we end up picking also be god's choice? Think about it.

No, because there's this funny little thing called free will. You know, the ability to make choices ourselves without influence from a higher being. God won't influence our free will, and the Devil can't, so our decisions are completely ours.

some people are saying that designer babies would reflect the present situation where you already have a divide between rich and poor. I dont agree that wealth levels correlate necessarily to genetic fitness. In fact there are a lot of poor people equally as intelligent as middle class people. Its due to the culture theyre brought up in that keeps them within the lower classes. Moreover, people are poor I think moreso due to the failings of the system and the fact that certain skills are privileged over others which have nothing to do with genetic superiority/inferiority. Artists arent going to make as much money as wall street financiers (unless theyre uber successful which is rare). Are wall street financiers any better genetically? No, their skills are favoured, thats really all there is to it. Im all for eradicating defects if you can afford it, but the important things like intelligence, determing personalities etc are very dangerous to get into. Because even if people are born poor today they at least have the chance to work their way up. If we have a genetically determined society it will be almost feudalistic, economic divisions will be insurmountable. You wont be as intelligent or as capable as your genetically enhanced human brethern who will probably surpass most of us today. But hey maybe theyll be intelligent enough to devise a better economic system whereby everyone benefits and there wont be an underclass anymore. Unless that is they were engineered with asshole traits by their ancestors because that was the cultural mood at the time (imagine if they had this technology in the 80s). In any case if your going to improve the human race do it for everyone, it shouldnt be the preserve of some country club. And secondly abilities shouldnt be trifled with. If a kid is going to be great at music or maths or whatever people shouldnt be allowed to tamper with that just because they want a kid who will work in the family business.

No, because there's this funny little thing called free will. You know, the ability to make choices ourselves without influence from a higher being. God won't influence our free will, and the Devil can't, so our decisions are completely ours.
Wow, you've completely convinced me to support designer babies even more strongly than I had before!

Based on what happens in the world today, without human "free will" letting us choose our babies, your God routinely decides to have babies born with catastrophic incurable diseases and defects that will cause them to suffer horribly before dying in infancy. If human beings have the power to thwart God's will when it comes to procreation, then I say we do everything in our power to make sure that your God never gets his way again. :D

No, because there's this funny little thing called free will. You know, the ability to make choices ourselves without influence from a higher being. God won't influence our free will, and the Devil can't, so our decisions are completely ours.Ok, well then that means the normally selected embryo isn't gods choice either. If I were to impregnate my fiancee naturally with sperm today, you will get a different embryo than if I did it tomorrow, or if I masturbated first.

Either god chooses both embryos after 1000 abortions, and embryos naturally concieved, or god doesn't choose either. Pick one. Either way, God's choice logically doesn't play into the decision to have 100 abortions or not.

Let's not get carried away with the emotional language, here.

You believe that fetuses are a special class of human persons who have the right to live inside the bodies of other human persons and use the bodies of other human persons to sustain their existence. This is a right that no born human persons possess (at least not in my society), so issues of "protecting the rights" of fetuses are bullshit unless you are prepared to give fetuses rights which no born human beings possess and then strip those rights away at the moment of birth.

(It seems odd to me that a pre-birth human lifeform would be considered deserving of MORE rights than a post-birth human, but that's just me.)

Like most anti-choicers, you seem quick to forget that there happens to be a female individual involved in gestating a fetus. The government is, one presumes, obligated to consider her rights, isn't it? In my society, your "right" to be alive does not extend to you having the right to harvest my body against my wishes to sustain your life. So the government is not obligated to defend any such "right," for any of its citizens.

All of which is totally beside the point of this thread anyhow. Can we get back to the more interesting subject at hand, now?
:Cries in adoration: Thank you..just, .. thank you.

*snip* Actually, I agree. I have never thought of that, but yes, genetics doesn't truly come into success in todays society, why would it in tomorrow's? I mean, even in Gattaca, Ethan Hawke was able to become an astronaught by thwarting the system. He would have to thwart the system just as much to do so in today's society too. The point is, there are only a few select careers in which your genetic qualities will play a significant role. Most of them are very limited in number, and highly competitive.

You are just kidding yourself if you think you have to be genetically superior to become a lawyer/doctor/stockbroker/entrepenuer/banker/specialist/etc. It is not the core intelligence of these people that allow them to do their jobs, but rather their contacts and upbringing that allow them to apply whatever skills they have to this career.

Go find Gattica watch it, come back. It's GATTACA, name dafter the space corporation which paints much of the context of the film. More specifically, the reason why I brought it up, it is spelled entirely from the letters we use to abbrevieate the 4 proteins which form sequences to build DNA (i.e. G,A,T, and C).

There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand binary, and those that dont. Meh, while I am here.