NationStates Jolt Archive

With recent and expected advances in embryology, genetic engineering, and other related fields, many feel that the question of the extent to which we are willing (or ought to be permitted) to modify our offspring in the womb is an issue of ever-growing significance.

For simplicity's sake, let's divide the issue, at least initially, into three degrees of alteration and screening.

1) Identification and correction of defects, selection for simple characteristics such sex. We are already able to select for sex and a few other characteristics, and we are on the cusp of the ability to identify and deal with all manner of developmental ills, such as Down's Syndrome.

2) Slightly further off, but perhaps not so far as one might suppose, is the ability to improve upon the genetic lottery rather than just seeking a negation of negatives. Ability to ensure that the child will be healthy/intelligent/attractive/. Larger issues, both ethically and societally, begin to be raised at this level of intervention.

3) Finally, what about the ability to radically alter our offspring? What about changing their bone structure so that zero-g environments don't cause calcium loss, modifying their myoglobin to retain oxygen and changing their lung structure so that they can dive deep underwater for hours like cetaceans, or altering their digestive tracts so that they can digest cellulose or -- more outlandishly yet -- minerals?

Among the issues raised, just to get people started, are:
Are we permitted to "play god"?
Must a just government socialize or subsidize this process in order to make this opportunity available to all new humans (and transhumans) and avoid a Gattaca-like society of haves and have-nots?
Is our humanity valuable in and of itself? Do we [i]lose something by drifting from our genetic roots?
Is it truly a parent's right to make a decision like this on their child's behalf? If not, which modifications can we assume that our children would choose for themselves? WWRawlsDo folks, I know you'll love this one.

I recognize that this may be a touch ambitious, but I have faith in you, NS General. Have at thee!

I wouldn't. but that is not completely up to me.

I can see removing some genetic defects. but what will be the results in the long run. several generations from now, will there be problems? difficult to say really.

1) Yes, but not for something as trivial as sex. Removing that extra Chromosome 21 for Downs Syndrome? Absolutely yes. Blasted extra chromosome shouldn't be there anyway.

2) No.

3) No.

Easy.

Trivial matters, such as sex, eye colour, etc., I would not toy with. However, either using genetics or advanced cybernetics, I would definitely consider alterning my children to make them better at shoveling the driveway, mowing the lawn, and fetching beer.

But why ginetically engineer our children anyway, and always have done. Thats what guides us in our choice of partner. Your body goes "That person would make good ginetics, lets screw". How is it different if we do it in test tubes?

How is it different if we do it in test tubes?well, if the glass should break, the shards can slice you up in some very tender areas... :p

My kids would fall onto category 4. Retractable titanium claws, wings, nanotube bones, etc

I dub category 4, the internet kids.

no i would not.

i might avail myself of genetic testing to make sure that the fetus is OK and abort if it is not (but i probably wouldnt do that) but i wouldnt go through any genetic modification.

science isnt good enough to insure that improvements dont come with detriments.

There will come a point where such modifications will become routine or even necessary to have a chance at survival.
So maybe then.

I would only do genetic modification of my children if they would be born with a defect that affects their well-being and their ability to live a normal life. By defects, I mean those that cause Downs or anything that would require medical intervention. I don't care about physical features or gender. I wouldn't change the unborn child to be a super-being; I would only change that which would affect their health.

I'm not going to have children.

I personally feel that I owe it to any offspring I might have to ensure that they have the very best conditions that I can provide for them. I lean toward the opinion that this could even be considered a moral imperative.

I will absolutely check all of my children in utero for defects, and I intend to take advantage of any possibilities to improve their lot as well.

Radical alteration is a little more problematic for me. I don't feel like I've fully considered all of the implications yet, but I feel like a great deal of the decision would rely on the social context in which they would grow up. While I want them to be as advantaged as possible, I wouldn't want them to be overly stigmatized for it either.

science isnt good enough to insure that improvements dont come with detriments.

We certainly can't guarantee improvement without detriment yet, but I think it's unreasonably pessimistic to assume that it's not possible or even likely. Our understanding of how genotype affects phenotype improves daily.

no, i've no problem with GM foods (even chimera foods) but genetically modified humans is just too weird for me.

I guess I'd do 1 and stop there the last thing I want is my son making captain of the football team or have a higher NSG post count *shudders*

Genetically modifying humans just has too many potential risks to be feasable.
Just fixing errors in the coding (example one) is fine but there are a plethora of possibilites, many of which are quite dangerous, once we go further.

Imagine going to the doctor's to get a genetic inhancement if you want your potential child to be, let's say smart as possible. You can switch a few genes around, and presto! Your child will be able to unleash his or her maximum intellectual potential.

But what if you (the parents) do not have the necessary genes to unleash this potential? The next step (example three) is to add in the necessary genest to ensure this: after all, if you can alter the human genotype, adding in a few extra human genes shouldn't hurt.

Once you start with such reasoning, it's difficult if not impossible to stop; you have given people the opportunity to give their children greatness like they could never have done; how can you just stop in the middle? Imagine the public outcry. Yet should you continue with these additions, they will simply get more complex. Soon you could well have people who can dive for several hours, digest cellulose and minerals, and and all such manner of goodies.

The ethical problems arise, not from the "playing god" issue-save that for the religious-but from the ramifications that genetically engineerd super-humans can bring about. Imagine if in school, the smartest people in the class were genetically enhanced; the idea that you simply cannot compete because of genetic inferiority would be unfair. Of course if you try to compete, you may trigger a "genetics race" which could well lead to deadly and dangerous things that do not even remotely resemble humans.

Looking back in history, events like the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, slavery, et cetera are all quite similar in a few key aspects: they began with one set of people being dehumanized until people simply had no qualms in dealing with these sub-humans or animals; genetically altering humans could have a similar effect.

pfft..YEA, I'd make my kids like SUPERMAN or something...of course once they become teenagers shits gonna hit the fan...so maybe not

let's just use this technology to screen out diseases and such....until we find some Kryptonite

Children are the future...unless we stop them NOW!

YES absolutely

anything I can do to make my kids healthier, more intellegent, more attractive and physically competent I would do!

I found out the hard way that I am a carrier of Cystic Fibrosis.

If I had the ability to have saved my daughter, you are damn right I would have played God.....

1. Except for sex, yes.
2. No.
3. In order to adapt to new pressures - basically, if evolution would do it, I would too. For instance, if I were to move to Mars, I'd be willing to modify my kids' lungs so that they can breathe thinner air. If there is a nuclear holocaust, I'd give them radiation resistance. And if we are invaded by aliens, overrun by genetically-enhanced egomaniacs, or both, I would turn my kids into the bastard children of Claire Bennet and Sylar (minus the evil part for Sylar).
If you don't get that reference, then I pity you for not watching Heroes.

And The Black Forrest, I am sorry for your loss.

if I ever had another kid.....(which I don't plan to.....although I didn't plan to have the first two, so who knows...) I would like to be able to modify their genes so that they don't have the mutation that causes the auto-immune disorder that I and the girls have, also modify further to get rid of the mutation that causes a higher risk for the disease hubby has (which is worse than what we have, so I guess I am thankful that the girls got mine instead of his since it's an either/or type of thing)

No matter what anyone says now, they'll be buying designer babies when it becomes a reality. Well, save for certain religious types.

Imagine if in school, the smartest people in the class were genetically enhanced; the idea that you simply cannot compete because of genetic inferiority would be unfair.

It's already the case that the smartest kids in the class are naturally smart or that the best athletes are naturally athletic. How do you feel that modification toward the end of improving their chances to be born thus is qualitatively different?

Additionally, I question the idea that those with good genes/inborn talent/what you will are necessarily arrogant. Even should they consider themselves superior to less genetically fortunate persons (and I don't expect that this would inevitably be a common meme), why should this necessarily equate with dehumanization of others?

By way of example: I believe that many on NSG have been fortunate enough to be born with unusual intelligence. I think it is a significant stretch to assume that these people therefore feel that those less intelligent than they are some how of lesser worth.

I don't disagree that the potential for problems in the event of widespread genefixing is real, but I think you exaggerate its extent.

Beware the law of unintended consequences. Any good breeder knows you don't want too much similarity in the gene pool or you'll wind up with a herd that's susceptible to a single germ or virus. Genetic diversity is a plus, and if the situation with China's male population has taught us anything, it's that we can't expect large groups of people to make wise decisions about what's good in the long term for their offspring.

I wouldn't genetically modify any children of mine. At all. I'd just produce clones of myself. Eventually, we'll take over the world.

I would personally modify my children to remove genetic diseases and disorders that would impair their quality of life, although I would leave enhancement to be their decision since it is more of a personal issue than anything else, just like the decision to go to college, exercise, or anything else. I want enhancement to go along with their interests and desires as a human being; it would not be fair for me to make that decision for them. However, I could see some benefit to "general" enhancement, increasing the overall intelligence or physical abilities of all people rather than any custom-tailored program.

At present, I don't plan to have kids; if I can, I'd like to wait until I can fix my own genetic problems, as well as those of my wife and improve them from the start without necessarily having to do extensive engineering on them. From there, we can all pursue our own enhancement goals according to what we want. More radical enhancement probably won't be too much of an issue, since I plan to replace as much of my biological systems with artificial ones as possible before travelling off planet, and I imagine my kids would do the same or use genetically engineered replacement parts to achieve the same effect. I prefer artificial solutions to biological ones in these cases.

In regard to humanity and playing God, I don't think these are issues. We don't really think of our humanity as our bodies, we think of it as our minds, our memories, and our personalities; I would not consider a genetically engineered or even artificial person any less human than a conventional biological one. Our bodies already replace themselves many, many times over and I really see no difference between doing that and simply taking the process in to our own hands. If anything, that is more human since their is a conscious decision behind it.

And I think the only people playing God are the ones that want to ban things like this, since they think that they have the right to deny others access to improving themselves and the lives of their children. I also think it would be important to provide government assistance to the poor and less fortunate so that they do not suffer from the effects of an "enhancement gap"; the more people reaping the benefits of these innovations, the better. We are not going to stop, reverse, or otherwise derail progress in to human enhancement, so it is best to accept it and try to spread its gigantic and long-lasting benefits to as many people as possible.

no

Of course! I'd love having a super-intelligent, super-strong, super-fast son. He could make me rich!

Alternatively I'd create some kind of bird/man hybrid, and start a race of them.

1) Identification and correction of defects, selection for simple characteristics such sex. We are already able to select for sex and a few other characteristics, and we are on the cusp of the ability to identify and deal with all manner of developmental ills, such as Down's Syndrome.

I would be willing to screen for genetic defects and potential developmental illnesses, but that's it...though I do admit temptation to ensure the child will be a girl rather than a boy...I'd like a daughter.

It's already the case that the smartest kids in the class are naturally smart or that the best athletes are naturally athletic. How do you feel that modification toward the end of improving their chances to be born thus is qualitatively different?

Additionally, I question the idea that those with good genes/inborn talent/what you will are necessarily arrogant. Even should they consider themselves superior to less genetically fortunate persons (and I don't expect that this would inevitably be a common meme), why should this necessarily equate with dehumanization of others?

By way of example: I believe that many on NSG have been fortunate enough to be born with unusual intelligence. I think it is a significant stretch to assume that these people therefore feel that those less intelligent than they are some how of lesser worth.

I don't disagree that the potential for problems in the event of widespread genefixing is real, but I think you exaggerate its extent.

Genetics are not everything. While genetics do play a role in shaping the smartest or most athletic kids, those kids still need to work at it. What I'm talking about is if maybe 1/4 of the kids could waltz in, and all act the prodigy, not just be smarter than average.

Secondly, I didn't say that just because you have better genes means that you will be arrogant; it was that as you engineer superior people, this will cause divides and classifications that could well start another Holocaust or Rwandan Genocide.

I don't feel I exaggerated the threat that this could bring: division among humans and the feeling that someone is less of a human or a different kind of human has never lead to good things.

Secondly, I didn't say that just because you have better genes means that you will be arrogant; it was that as you engineer superior people, this will cause divides and classifications that could well start another Holocaust or Rwandan Genocide.

That's why it is essential that government close the gap in these kinds of technologies; we've already seen the effects that disparities in education and access to healthcare have on our society, and it could be far worse if the poor and lower classes also lacked access to enhancement technologies.

We will need to have government aid in these fields in order to make access to them more equitable and fair for all citizens. Anything less could raise the risk of the situation you describe, especially in less developed nations where tensions are already high between groups.

Beware the law of unintended consequences. Any good breeder knows you don't want too much similarity in the gene pool or you'll wind up with a herd that's susceptible to a single germ or virus. Genetic diversity is a plus, and if the situation with China's male population has taught us anything, it's that we can't expect large groups of people to make wise decisions about what's good in the long term for their offspring.

I agree that people cannot necessarily be counted upon to make the best decision for the long term. Were we to assume that such technology will nonetheless be available, however (and I think that it will, in time), what regulatory policies do you think would have to be set in place to ensure the well-being of the public? To what extent should the process be regulated by the government?

That's why it is essential that government close the gap in these kinds of technologies; we've already seen the effects that disparities in education and access to healthcare have on our society, and it could be far worse if the poor and lower classes also lacked access to enhancement technologies.

We will need to have government aid in these fields in order to make access to them more equitable and fair for all citizens.

So would you say that you favor subsidy or complete socialization of the process, Vetalia? Personally, I feel like subsidy might be sufficient to help most of those who want to take advantage of the technology, and would be largely in keeping with US policy precedent (ie tendency toward privitization, avoidance of outright socialization, and extensive subsidies). I could definitely see many, if not all, EU nations socializing the process entirely.

So would you say that you favor subsidy or complete socialization of the process, Vetalia? Personally, I feel like subsidy might be sufficient to help most of those who want to take advantage of the technology, and would be largely in keeping with US policy precedent (ie tendency toward privitization, avoidance of outright socialization, and extensive subsidies). I could definitely see many, if not all, EU nations socializing the process entirely.

I would prefer subsidy, personally. The problem with socialization is that bureaucracy gets in the way and slows progress in the field, and the benefits from it aren't significantly greater than if you let the private sector handle it and provided subsidies to the poor so that they could afford it.

However, we'd have to keep an eye on it to see if something stricter is necessary to prevent serious inequality.

I am Genetically modified... We all are we use Nation States.

THINK ABOUT IT!:D

I don't plan on having children.

But if I were to have a kid, I would definitely screen for various defects because it's good to have an idea of what you're up against. I'd also have the kid's astrological charts drawn at the same time, both western and Chinese (just to give you a sense of context).

But would I do anything about any defects? That is tougher. There are some conditions so terrible I wouldn't wish them on anyone, but on the whole, I think I would be more likely to abort in such cases rather than genetically modify. As for "designing" a person for looks, brains, whatever? Please, that shit is whack.

When it comes to sorting out the best genetic mixes, Nature has been doing it very effectively for hundreds of millions of years, and I think it's better if we leave it in her hands.

If all of the people belong to the same species after being modified I would be more comfertable with it.

If all of the people belong to the same species after being modified I would be more comfertable with it.

I feel just the opposite.

If safe, accurate genetic engineering of humans becomes available in my lifetime, I will use it to the utmost. My children will be the smartest, fastest and strongest I can make them without inflicting problems on them. I don't really give a damn about the small stuff - gender, sexual preference - but I'm going to give them every advantage I can in this world. Including attractiveness - social advantages are just as real as physical ones.

I consider this my duty, just as it would be my duty to give them the best education I can, and a safe, loving environment.

I am convinced that humanity, as we enter the posthuman phase, will splinter into thousands of sub-species based on cybernetic, bionetic and genetic alteration. I will give my kids the best possible chance of survival in that environment.

1) Identification and correction of defects, selection for simple characteristics such sex. We are already able to select for sex and a few other characteristics, and we are on the cusp of the ability to identify and deal with all manner of developmental ills, such as Down's Syndrome.

Assuming that it were medically and financially viable for me to do so, I would most likely choose modifications that would deal with diseases or serious defects.


2) Slightly further off, but perhaps not so far as one might suppose, is the ability to improve upon the genetic lottery rather than just seeking a negation of negatives. Ability to ensure that the child will be healthy/intelligent/attractive/. Larger issues, both ethically and societally, begin to be raised at this level of intervention.

I don't know if it will really be medically viable to make this type of modifications, since you can't identify a single gene responsible for "healthy" or "intelligent" or whatever.


3) Finally, what about the ability to radically alter our offspring? What about changing their bone structure so that zero-g environments don't cause calcium loss, modifying their myoglobin to retain oxygen and changing their lung structure so that they can dive deep underwater for hours like cetaceans, or altering their digestive tracts so that they can digest cellulose or -- more outlandishly yet -- minerals?

If I could have a rock-eating green-skinned three-horned tentacle baby, I would.


Among the issues raised, just to get people started, are:
Are we permitted to "play god"?

Fuck yes. We do all the time.


Must a just government socialize or subsidize this process in order to make this opportunity available to all new humans (and transhumans) and avoid a Gattaca-like society of haves and have-nots?

We already have that kind of society. Probably always will. All that changes will be the criteria by which the haves are separated from the have-nots.


Is our humanity valuable in and of itself? Do we [i]lose something by drifting from our genetic roots?

We will drift from our genetic roots regardless of what we do. Such is life on this planet. Whether or not our present state is valuable in and of itself doesn't make much difference to this fact.


Is it truly a parent's right to make a decision like this on their child's behalf?

Yes, under our current system of law.

Are we permitted to "play god"?

Sure. If we take the Christian approach, the Bible says that God left humans in charge of Earth. I see that as an open permission to do whatever we want with it. Furthermore, it's rather obvious that when the Bible says that humans were created in God's image, that means just the soul part, bodies being completely irrelevant and thus modifiable.

If you don't care about religion, there's nobody from whom you'd need permission anyway.

Must a just government socialize or subsidize this process in order to make this opportunity available to all new humans (and transhumans) and avoid a Gattaca-like society of haves and have-nots?

The government should definitely subsidize the weeding of defects and genetic diseases as a part of a normal health care program. Subsidizing mere improvement would be less necessary, if the person-to-be doesn't have negative traits that would hinder his chances of being a productive member of society or having a happy life. I see this issue very similar to plastic surgery; it's not necessary, not subsidized, but can improve a person's quality of life and career potential.

I personally think that Gattaca was unplausible (and rather crappy), because any rational person would understand that people can be talented even without genetic manipulation, and that genetic manipulation doesn't guarantee that the person is able to put that talent into good use. It's possible that the children of rich people would be more talented on average, but it all depends on the price of the treatment. I don't know how the operation would be performed, but I see no reason why it would have to cost millions.

Is our humanity valuable in and of itself? Do we lose something by drifting from our genetic roots?

I don't know about the value of humanity, but any genetic material that is lost, cannot be regained. That might have surprising and nasty evolutionary effects in the far future, and because of that, I wouldn't recommend going crazy with the modifications. We can never know how the future will turn out.

Is it truly a parent's right to make a decision like this on their child's behalf? If not, which modifications can we assume that our children would choose for themselves? WWRawlsDo folks, I know you'll love this one.

Not just a right, but a duty. At least when it comes to things that might be bad for the kid if left unchanged.

As for minor tweaks out of preference, such as eye or hair color, I don't see any harm in it. The child will form his identity much later, long after the changes have taken place, and therefore shouldn't have much of a sense of loss. Nothing will really have "changed" as such; the kid will just grow up differently. Even if he did feel some disappointment for his chosen traits, there's no telling how he would have grown up feeling about them had they been left unchanged.

In conclusion, any responsible parent would, given the opportunity, cure genetic diseases and disabilities. I wouldn't mind if someone did some less relevant customizing, and might even do some myself, but I wouldn't go as far as to add elements, that don't belong there, into human DNA.

With recent and expected advances in embryology, genetic engineering, and other related fields, many feel that the question of the extent to which we are willing (or ought to be permitted) to modify our offspring in the womb is an issue of ever-growing significance.

For simplicity's sake, let's divide the issue, at least initially, into three degrees of alteration and screening.

1) Identification and correction of defects, selection for simple characteristics such sex. We are already able to select for sex and a few other characteristics, and we are on the cusp of the ability to identify and deal with all manner of developmental ills, such as Down's Syndrome.

2) Slightly further off, but perhaps not so far as one might suppose, is the ability to improve upon the genetic lottery rather than just seeking a negation of negatives. Ability to ensure that the child will be healthy/intelligent/attractive/. Larger issues, both ethically and societally, begin to be raised at this level of intervention.

3) Finally, what about the ability to radically alter our offspring? What about changing their bone structure so that zero-g environments don't cause calcium loss, modifying their myoglobin to retain oxygen and changing their lung structure so that they can dive deep underwater for hours like cetaceans, or altering their digestive tracts so that they can digest cellulose or -- more outlandishly yet -- minerals?

Among the issues raised, just to get people started, are:
Are we permitted to "play god"?
Must a just government socialize or subsidize this process in order to make this opportunity available to all new humans (and transhumans) and avoid a Gattaca-like society of haves and have-nots?
Is our humanity valuable in and of itself? Do we [i]lose something by drifting from our genetic roots?
Is it truly a parent's right to make a decision like this on their child's behalf? If not, which modifications can we assume that our children would choose for themselves? WWRawlsDo folks, I know you'll love this one.

I recognize that this may be a touch ambitious, but I have faith in you, NS General. Have at thee!

Options 1 and 2, yes.

The first option has already taken place, to an extent, with gene therapy and screening programmes. Admittedly, the screening process at the moment usually just allows the parents to opt for abortion and in utero gene therapy isn't an option as far as I'm aware. You have to watch out with full chromosomal defects such as Down Syndrome, seeing as it can be caused by other factors than the simple 3 chromosome 21s e.g. through an erroneous combination of chromosomes 14 and 21. I'll be back later, first really interesting topic of debate on NS for ages :p

With recent and expected advances in embryology, genetic engineering, and other related fields, many feel that the question of the extent to which we are willing (or ought to be permitted) to modify our offspring in the womb is an issue of ever-growing significance.

For simplicity's sake, let's divide the issue, at least initially, into three degrees of alteration and screening.

1) Identification and correction of defects, selection for simple characteristics such sex. We are already able to select for sex and a few other characteristics, and we are on the cusp of the ability to identify and deal with all manner of developmental ills, such as Down's Syndrome.

2) Slightly further off, but perhaps not so far as one might suppose, is the ability to improve upon the genetic lottery rather than just seeking a negation of negatives. Ability to ensure that the child will be healthy/intelligent/attractive/. Larger issues, both ethically and societally, begin to be raised at this level of intervention.

3) Finally, what about the ability to radically alter our offspring? What about changing their bone structure so that zero-g environments don't cause calcium loss, modifying their myoglobin to retain oxygen and changing their lung structure so that they can dive deep underwater for hours like cetaceans, or altering their digestive tracts so that they can digest cellulose or -- more outlandishly yet -- minerals?

Among the issues raised, just to get people started, are:
Are we permitted to "play god"?
Must a just government socialize or subsidize this process in order to make this opportunity available to all new humans (and transhumans) and avoid a Gattaca-like society of haves and have-nots?
Is our humanity valuable in and of itself? Do we [i]lose something by drifting from our genetic roots?
Is it truly a parent's right to make a decision like this on their child's behalf? If not, which modifications can we assume that our children would choose for themselves? WWRawlsDo folks, I know you'll love this one.

I recognize that this may be a touch ambitious, but I have faith in you, NS General. Have at thee!

I'd genetically modify my child. Frankly, why would one not want a child as close to mental and physical perfection as is attainable?

In any case, why the opposition to "playing God"? Surely that we have the capacity to do so should be a source of pride, not consternation?

I would get rid of any genetic defects. I wouldn't be working on any "improvements", though. I might do it to myself, but I don't think that my children should be like my playthings.

I would definitely do level 1 modification, and I'd probably dabble a little in level 2. Past that, I'd start worrying about what the negative effects of my interference might be...people with modified lungs or digestive systems might be a little "off" in other ways, you know? I don't want to disadvantage my child either.

This is an issue I've spent a lot of time and thought on. You see, I have a mood disorder, and mood disorders have a strong genetic component. If I have children, it is fairly likely that one or more of them will have clinical depression or bipolar disorder. So I have asked myself many times if I would deliberately prevent them from having these disorders if I could, and the answer I keep coming back to is, quite simply, I don't know. Of course I would wish to spare them unnecessary suffering, but having a disorder such as my own isn't all suffering. Would I be willing to risk lowering my child's intelligence or deadening their emotions to spare them depressions? Again, I just don't know.

Beyond actual disorders, though, I absolutely would not genetically modify any child of mine. I know too much of genetics to think playing willy-nilly with DNA is a good idea, and I know I would be deeply hurt if my parents told me tomorrow, "Oh, by the way, you were naturally blonde, but we didn't want a blonde baby, so we had your hair color changed."

I'm actually quite pleased to see so few posters using Frankenstein and Icarus as examples of the dangers of "playing god." As an implicit atheist myself, I can't say the idea particularly bothers me, but I absolutely agree with China Phenomenon that modifications like these are quite justifiable even within Christian and other theist frameworks. The main issue I think that most people might have with improvement is that it implies that their creator god(s) created a product in need of improvement, and thus did not create "The best of all possible worlds." Additionally, I'm sure some Christians (I speculate on this count only because Christian theology is a particular interest of mine and not out of any desire to single them out) who see the "imperfections of the flesh" which would be largely ameliorated by procedures such as these as part of man's punishment for sin might see it as unforgivably arrogant to try and overcome the consequences of Original Sin.

To the posters who have made an appeal to nature, or that which is natural, I posit the following: that there is nothing intrinsically good or right about that which is natural, save that those things which are natural have undergone selection over the course of the millenia and are thus generally quite fit for their niches. Our lifestyles, collectively, have changed so drastically in such short periods of time, however, that we are no longer the most fit end product for our now extremely complex niche. What's more, since we have attained such a great degree of control over our environment, we are now in a very real sense "niche-makers" ourselves, and should we desire to do so, modifying (or creating outright) other creatures to better serve our ends and fit the niches we wish for them to fit would be equally justifiable. Mere seniority at our genetic tiller does not entitle nature to special consideration or reverence, but rather careful study, that we might circumvent her traditional langour in solving problems.

Ooh, I'm back for more :p

From the perspective of 'genetic defects', there's also the problem that it's quite rare for a defect to be lacking some positive side effect. A good example for this would be the co-dominant sickle cell anaemia gene HBB, where a level of malaria resistance is achieved in heterozygotes with only relatively slight complications.

On the second option - to be honest, beyond the single gene controlled phenotypes, such as eye colour and hair colour, the control mechanisms are often intricately controlled and incredibly complex to adjust. The levels of control surrounding cellular mechanisms are ridiculous, with new levels of intricacy being discovered all the time. It's quite possible we'll one day be able to control our genome but it's a loooong way off yet. As for the moral problem, I personally wouldn't change my children as they'd show me up and make me less useful, but that's just my opinion :p I suppose it's only really like adopting - I mean, the child wouldn't technically be your offspring but does it really matter? As for the kid's choices in this, I really don't know - I mean, we all hate parts of ourselves so what's the difference? Fate or someone elses opinion...

To the third option, I say this - not in our lifetime. You can't just graft bits of DNA together and hope to produce some sort of super-hybrid, it just doesn't work like that. The organism would have to be built from scratch pretty much and have each individual gene tailored to suit the binding and regulation of DNA, RNA and protein. Taking the mineral digestion idea. You'd first need some method of reducing the mineral to its digestible size - in other words, probably as a solution of all the components. Then there's absorption, preventing toxicity associated with the mineral, storage and, most importantly, metabolism. We're carbon based. There's no room for stuffing us full of other crap. That idea would never, ever fly, at least not as any organism currently inhabiting this planet. The idea of some sort of frankenstein's monster creations is ridiculous in the extreme, a mere media ploy to generate shock headlines. Sadly, the actual science is much more mundane (or exciting if you're me, I love a bit of genetic engineering, it's great fun).

For my own opinions, personal choice is the greatest factor in all of this. If I want to undergo gene therapy for some attainable purpose, I don't want someone else telling me I can't because it's playing God. That's not a rational argument and it's my fucking body.

1) Yes, absolutely.

2) Sure. Being unintelligent is a handicap, so I deem this largely equivalent to #1.

3) I won't stop anyone from doing this, but I'd be reluctant to modify the child so significantly that society might become less useful for him. What if no one makes tasty minerals?

Are we permitted to "play god"?
I see no reason why not. The natural/unnatural distinction is illusory.
Must a just government socialize or subsidize this process in order to make this opportunity available to all new humans (and transhumans) and avoid a Gattaca-like society of haves and have-nots?
No. This would serve as de facto encouragement. This would only work if you were willing to pay the value of the procedures to those who chose not to have them done, so as not to penaliste those who opted out.

All social programs should work like that.
Is our humanity valuable in and of itself? Do we lose something by drifting from our genetic roots?
No.
Is it truly a parent's right to make a decision like this on their child's behalf? If not, which modifications can we assume that our children would choose for themselves? WWRawlsDo folks, I know you'll love this one.
Parents already do. They select mates based on genetic characteristics and then choose to reproduce. The child has no say into these decisions, and genetic modification is equivalent.

The more I look at the arguments against it, the more I see influence from Science Fiction cliche. You cannot control the reactions of others, no matter how your child is born, and regardless, no one but parents have ever controlled a person's genes. So what's the problem? It's a little bit disconcerting seeing fiction influence reality this way. It would have come up eventually anyway, I guess, but we should be careful to seperate the imaginings and insecurities of an author from the world he presents as prophecy.

I don't think people should give frivolous things to their offspring that could present difficulties in day-to-day activities your kid might become interested in. At least nothing that's not reversable. That said, it's a heck of a lot more difficult to add something to your body later than to take it away.

A few examples:
Increased lung capacity, strength, endurance, reflexes, etc? Sure. The swim team or what-not might not like it, but again, that's their reaction. It could save their life, and there are bound to be sports leagues formed that allow genetically modified people.

Wings? No way, no matter how awesome. That'd require restructuring pretty much everything about the body, and is better handled by cybernetics, perhaps.

Removing the need to sleep ala Beggars in Spain? Dead on. This is the kind of elegant improvement that I think will be the most attractive to parents in the future.

What I do see as a problem is mapping these changes properly. The technology we have today cannot do this for the whole organism - while we can pretty effectively map a change to one characteristic, our genes are necessarily structured to rely and build upon each other, so for most things, we really don't know what large-scale tinkering will create. Because of this, it might be a long time before it's completely legal, but it's inevitable that the equipment will fall into the hands of less than ethical people who wish to experiment.

I think as this happens, we'll see a massive boom in genetics and biosimulations research to get over this hurdle. There will be horrors, as there have been for every age, but what scars we carry through it will be up to our ability (and willingness) to handle change.

Probably for things like Down Syndrome, but not for looks, sex, etc.

Yes!!! I want a crazy athlete.

1.) Yes

2.) Yes

3.) Perhaps

Easy, or what do you think?

Yes, there are several defects that ought be corrected, most seriously two that are potentially fatal.

Oh hey, I remember this thread. I don't mind grave-digging when it brings back interesting topics.

1) Identification and correction of defects, selection for simple characteristics such sex. We are already able to select for sex and a few other characteristics, and we are on the cusp of the ability to identify and deal with all manner of developmental ills, such as Down's Syndrome.

No doubt. This is one issue that would drastically increase the quality of the child's life giving them a good start. The only limitation I would like to see would be placed on gender since it should occur naturally to ensure that there is a balance.

Birth and genetic defects could become a thing of the past.

This would reduce the rate of abortion because the parents won't feel they are unable to cope because their child will need more attention than the parents can afford to give.

2) Slightly further off, but perhaps not so far as one might suppose, is the ability to improve upon the genetic lottery rather than just seeking a negation of negatives. Ability to ensure that the child will be healthy/intelligent/attractive/[insert characteristic here]. Larger issues, both ethically and societally, begin to be raised at this level of intervention.

Absolutely not. This is something that we shouldn't consider because then the delicate balance will be disrupted and the natural order will become corrupt. People cannot be perfect. Perfection takes away the need for people to work to achieve their goals. Life isn't perfect, so why should people be perfect?

We need faults. Where we have strength, it needs to be counterbalanced with a fault. If we don't have faults, we can't fail and if we don't fail, we don't learn from experience. Without the wisdom gained from that experience, we remain immature.

3) Finally, what about the ability to radically alter our offspring? What about changing their bone structure so that zero-g environments don't cause calcium loss, modifying their myoglobin to retain oxygen and changing their lung structure so that they can dive deep underwater for hours like cetaceans, or altering their digestive tracts so that they can digest cellulose or -- more outlandishly yet -- minerals?]

This would be forcing evolution, potentially disrupting the role of humans in the environment. We already have a great impact. We do not need to extend our reach.

It's not that you have a genetically perfect child that it will perform very well later.

If you make sure that your 'perfect' child never has access to active sporting, odds are low that (s)he will be world champion in something.

If you do not motivate your 'perfect' child, hit it all the time, have sex with it or whatever harm you can imagine then odds are low that (s)he will have a nice life later.

Genetic bricks are one thing, environment is another...

But hey, if it is possible to deliver super beings safely then I think we should do it.

Btw, is it not possible to modify the genes of living people as well?

"Would/Will You Genetically Modify Your Children?"

I can't decide: I have two answers for this question, pick one:

1) That depends on what they did to piss me off.

2) Can I try it on someone else's kids first?

yes. they will all have fur with beautiful multicolor markings, pointy ears, and long furry tails. oh, and four or six nipples.

well, maybe in my next life, on some other and more culturally as well as tecnologically advanced world.

not planing on causing any in this life. way past being young enough to keep up with them myself if i were to. not to mention there's no shortage of hoomans on THIS earth at this time.

i wouldn't mind a rejuvination that resaulted in similarly discribed genetic alteration to my own appearance though. plus another 70 years on top of the almost 60 i've already had, and with the age/health/aging clock set back to about 12!

=^^=
.../\...

yes. they will all have fur with beautiful multicolor markings, pointy ears, and long furry tails. oh, and four or six nipples.

well, maybe in my next life, on some other and more culturally as well as tecnologically advanced world.

not planing on causing any in this life. way past being young enough to keep up with them myself if i were to. not to mention there's no shortage of hoomans on THIS earth at this time.

i wouldn't mind a rejuvination that resaulted in similarly discribed genetic alteration to my own appearance though. plus another 70 years on top of the almost 60 i've already had, and with the age/health/aging clock set back to about 12!

=^^=
.../\...

Madonnas with three big boobies !!!

I'd engineer them to be crab people, and have my crab spawn take over the world!

Yes, to all of the above. We must. We should. We will.

Oh hey, I remember this thread. I don't mind grave-digging when it brings back interesting topics.

Huh, I must of missed it the first time around. Of course I didn't actually read page 1...

Why would I? I'm free of genetic disease, and apart from a streak of pride, I don't think I have any other major genetic downpoints. I seem to have won on the genetic lottery (appearance, intellect, no wisdom buds thereby sparing me an unneeded medical procedure, HIV-T-cell immunity, and others). Of course, if they figure out a way to modify one's genes to gain the ability to fly, bend titanium presses, and shoot infared beams from one's eyes, then maybe I could do that for the kids.

Removing genetic defects may be good for the individual, but that leaves an even smaller minority of physically and mentally disabled people, which just increases the already noticable stigma they have to put up with.

On the bright side, now we can fix the kids, we can all feel free to marry our cousins.

I have always wanted gills, so if there were a way to genetically engineer merchildren, that would certainly be nifty...

Presuming I have kids before that point in scientific development, though, I would have to go with not selecting for characteristics. The way it is right now, one fertilises a bunch of eggs and picks the best-looking ones with which to attempt a pregnancy. The other would-be embryos are discarded and it is not particularly certain that the one(s) selected will work. In my opinion (I am not saying people should have it forced onto them, but it is what I believe) that is too close to abortion to be acceptable. Once we get to the point of zapping a gal's eggs and a guy's sperm separately to do what we want, and thereby get the tailored tots along with the fun part of creating them, maybe I would reconsider my position.

Keep in mind, I was born with a small "defect" that more discerning parents might have chosen not to permit (Not a genetic one, mind you, just a developmental issue that is probably only a problem because I was born early). Unrelatedly, I also ended up developing type-I diabetes a bit later on. Just maybe someone looking at a readout of my DNA would have chosen another candidate. I am clearly biased, but even with the headaches I have caused my parents, I think that I am just as valuable a child as my siblings, who are diabetes-free. Selecting out features like that seems too much like eugenics to me. If my merbabies have diabetes or Down's syndrome, fine by me.

#1 should be mandatory.
#2 Why not.
#3 Here's an idea: Modify the child's digestive system to extract nutrients and minerals( by building ultracool chub receptors to bind with crud) from cheeseburgers and french fries. Having their lungs clean itself after being exposed to smoke & pollution...so on and so forth...

I usually am strictly against people having more than 2 children but in this case i'll make an exception and have like 23. Trail and error. Its like gene selection outside the test tube. Somehow a tub of popcorn comes to mind...

And for people concerned about losing humanity: WHO CARES. We're not going to be the same species regardless of what we do in a few thousand years.

I can't have kids, but if I could I'd think for the first I would in almost all cases. For the second and third I wouldn't since it seems frivolous compared to the first.

Madonnas with three big boobies !!!

Rene: Mr Leclerc, look at this. [shows painting to the forger]
Leclerc: oh, it's the fallen Madonna with the big boobies
Rene: yes, I need you to make another.
LeClerc:[confused] err... three big boobies?