NationStates Jolt Archive

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html

Do you approve? Should health insurance and/or NHS pay for this? Or should the rich be the only ones who can afford to nearly guarantee traits for their children?

Meh, I'd only use this to pull pranks. Like change skin color of the baby, so a black baby is born to a white family, an Asian baby is born to a Middle Eastern family, and just let the fun ensue.

I voted "just for the rich", I don't think that a government should pay for people's fertility treatments, and since they probably already throw out tons of embryos, I don't think it makes a moral difference.

While eugenics has negative connotations because of its associations with Nazism, it would in reality benefit humanity. With proper regulations and restrictions so that this kind of genetic manipulation is only used to end inheritable diseases, or birth defects. If we could erase the bad gene that causes these mutations, we could reduce the stress on the healthcare system. It should be reserved for instances where there is legitimate concern for health.

I object to the use of the procedure to have a "designer" baby. As long as the child would be born without defects that would impact on the enjoyment of their life, there should be no reason to have a genetically modified baby.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html

Do you approve? Should health insurance and/or NHS pay for this? Or should the rich be the only ones who can afford to nearly guarantee traits for their children?
Well, if the Social Democrats have their way, no one will ever be rich. My answer would be only members of the political class should have the freedom to choose their child's traits. The rest of us aren't smart enough for that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123439771603075099.html

Do you approve? Should health insurance and/or NHS pay for this? Or should the rich be the only ones who can afford to nearly guarantee traits for their children?

hmmm.... I said it once, I'll say it again...

Gattaca anyone?

http://www.thedrum.co.uk/uploads/directory/portfolio/port_292_187.jpg

Baby by Gucci.

The new accessory/perfume/foodstuff by Gucci.

What flavours do they come in?

http://www.thedrum.co.uk/uploads/directory/portfolio/port_292_187.jpg

Baby by Gucci.

The new accessory/perfume/foodstuff by Gucci.

thank you for the following image...

"Oh, sister, that baby doesn't go with that dress"
"really? how about this baby... or maybe this one?"

How about making your kid look like this?

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/americannovel/timeline/images/rand_pic.jpg

How about making your kid look like this?

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/americannovel/timeline/images/rand_pic.jpg

Objective Rand... for Baby.

I think genetic manipulation should only be used to ensure all children can roll their tongue.

It's like a straw you can take with you anywhere and who wouldn't want that?

thank you for the following image...

"Oh, sister, that baby doesn't go with that dress"
"really? how about this baby... or maybe this one?"

"Does this baby make me look fat?"

"Does this baby make me look fat?"

"uh... er.... um..." *Gnaws off limb to escape*

Perhaps there should be another voting option: Yes, but highly regulated.

I'm more interested in modifying the already-born.

hmmm.... I said it once, I'll say it again...

Gattaca anyone?

And what's wrong with the Gattaca universe? Pretty much a utopia except for those few who foolishly choose to give birth to impaired children. Near-utopia is so fantastically better than our current shithole, what's your problem with it exactly?

Liberal eugenics is the only thing that will save our humanity in the face of our dislocation from natural selection.

And what's wrong with the Gattaca universe? Pretty much a utopia except for those few who foolishly choose to give birth to impaired children. Near-utopia is so fantastically better than our current shithole, what's your problem with it exactly?

It's not fair to those born already who are ugly, stupid, and untalented.

It's not fair to those born already who are ugly, stupid, and untalented.

It's not meant to be fair. Natural selection is not fair, why should artificial selection be fair?

Humans are so narrow-minded and foolish when it comes to seeing the bigger picture. This is not an issue about you, it is an issue about the continuing strength of the human species. Emotion, fairness, you - all of these things have fuck-all to do with it.

And what's wrong with the Gattaca universe? Pretty much a utopia except for those few who foolishly choose to give birth to impaired children. Near-utopia is so fantastically better than our current shithole, what's your problem with it exactly?

Liberal eugenics is the only thing that will save our humanity in the face of our dislocation from natural selection.

You miss the point, it's unfair not tp those few who foolishly choose to have unaltered children, it's unfair to their children who had no say in the matter.

You miss the point, it's unfair not tp those few who foolishly choose to have unaltered children, it's unfair to their children who had no say in the matter.

No, I'm not missing the point. It would be unfair. You are missing MY point. My point is, this does not matter. Evolution is not fair.

If natural selection was "fair" we would not exist. Evolution would not take place.

Why should artifical selection be any different? Erase the weak, strengthen the strong. This is reality.

I don't have a problem with this practice, nor do I think there need to be any rules on whether insurance should or should not carry coverage for this. If insurance companies want to offer this, they should, and if they don't want to, they shouldn't have to.

No, I'm not missing the point. It would be unfair. You are missing MY point. My point is, this does not matter. Evolution is not fair.

If natural selection was "fair" we would not exist. Evolution would not take place.

Why should artifical selection be any different? Erase the weak, strengthen the strong. This is reality.

How?

How?

As the old generation of pre-designed humans die out, we strengthen humanity.

As the old generation of pre-designed humans die out, we strengthen humanity.

I get that.

I was talking about specifics, what do you get rid of and what do you keep? Do you get rid of all genetically based diseases for example?

Just so I can get a precise sequence of gender. *nod* Secret Binary message.

I get that.

I was talking about specifics, what do you get rid of and what do you keep? Do you get rid of all genetically based diseases for example?

Are you going to throw some historical figure at me with a genetic disease, and then claim "look, if eugenics existed then we wouldn't have had x!"

If so, don't bother. What happened in the past has absolutely no bearing on the future. The point is that future humans won't ever have genetic diseases, and the fact is that eliminating embyros with identifiable genetic abnormalities won't affect the accomplishments of those in the past.

Are you going to throw some historical figure at me with a genetic disease, and then claim "look, if eugenics existed then we wouldn't have had x!"

If so, don't bother. What happened in the past has absolutely no bearing on the future. The point is that future humans won't ever have genetic diseases, and the fact is that eliminating embyros with identifiable genetic abnormalities won't affect the accomplishments of those in the past.

I considered it but it would have been too easy a point to score.

I was heading more toward the point of who would make the decisions as to what is "strong" and what isn't?

And I think the assertation that "What happened in the past has absolutely no bearing on the future." shows how naive you are.

In terms of accomplishments related to genetics, yeah, the past has no bearing on the future. Eliminating genetic disease has absolutely no effect on future accomplishments, by future people. If you can't see this, then you are the one who is naive.

Who decides what is "strong?" The parents, of course. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics

Are you going to throw some historical figure at me with a genetic disease, and then claim "look, if eugenics existed then we wouldn't have had x!"

If so, don't bother. What happened in the past has absolutely no bearing on the future. The point is that future humans won't ever have genetic diseases, and the fact is that eliminating embyros with identifiable genetic abnormalities won't affect the accomplishments of those in the past.

Assume a perfect technology that we use to excise genetic disease without it having any other unforeseen circumstances.

Assume a perfect methodology, where such power is not used and abused for ideological gain.

Both of those are big assumptions - but let's run with them.

What happens when the first new type of genetic disease turns up that ISN'T identifiable by our methods?

It could even be that a current condition that we would remove as unfavourable - turns out to be the factor that was holding this new disease in check.

In terms of accomplishments related to genetics, yeah, the past has no bearing on the future. Eliminating genetic disease has absolutely no effect on future accomplishments, by future people. If you can't see this, then you are the one who is naive.


That's a mouthful you said, there.

Why aren't people dying in swathes from smallpox?


Who decides what is "strong?" The parents, of course. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics

And what if the parents 'decide' that a child with no arms is 'strong'?

Well, if the Social Democrats have their way, no one will ever be rich. My answer would be only members of the political class should have the freedom to choose their child's traits. The rest of us aren't smart enough for that.

I don't know who this 'us' is that you identify with, but I am glad you've decided to 'out' yourselves to the rest of us.

In terms of accomplishments related to genetics, yeah, the past has no bearing on the future. Eliminating genetic disease has absolutely no effect on future accomplishments, by future people. If you can't see this, then you are the one who is naive.

Who decides what is "strong?" The parents, of course. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_eugenics

We live in a world where every government, even our much loved liberal democracies, are authoritarian to some degree. What makes you think they wouldn't abuse this new found power to manipulate the genetic code of humanity for their own gain?

History has taught us that those in power will use some pretty unpleasant method to remain in power. This is why I think you are naive think that history isn't important as it pertains to genetic manipulation.

Assume a perfect technology that we use to excise genetic disease without it having any other unforeseen circumstances.

Assume a perfect methodology, where such power is not used and abused for ideological gain.

Both of those are big assumptions - but let's run with them.

What happens when the first new type of genetic disease turns up that ISN'T identifiable by our methods?

It could even be that a current condition that we would remove as unfavourable - turns out to be the factor that was holding this new disease in check.

Do you really think technology is stagnant? We will identify all diseases eventually. We should not alter too far until we understand more. But it is inevitable, eventually.

That's a mouthful you said, there.

Why aren't people dying in swathes from smallpox?

And what if the parents 'decide' that a child with no arms is 'strong'?

You're building a horrible strawman here, and deliberately misinterpreting my words. I am saying that the accomplishments of those in the past are completely unrelated to their genetic health. Completely. Furthermore, their genetic health has no bearing on the accomplishments of those in the future. Saying "we wouldn't have had <x genius> if we practised eugenics in the past!" is completely irrelevant as we'll still have plenty of people to pick up the slack of those unborn, discarded, genetically impaired humans in the future.

Do you really think there would be people who'd attempt that? Do you really think there'd be no regulation at all? Lovely strawman. Lovely.

Do you really think technology is stagnant? We will identify all diseases eventually.


Identifying all diseases isn't the same as curing them. And we have plenty of diseases right now, that we can't cure... and we're still identifying them.

The idea that it's cut and dried is ridiculous. That you can ever think you know ALL the possible problems out there, or that you can come close to curing all the ones you do know about? A bad joke. Even with genetic manipulation.


We should not alter too far until we understand more. But it is inevitable, eventually.


Not at all. Inevitable only if - for some reason - you believe that things are static and nothing ever changes.

The kind of passion you're spilling on your keyboard over eugenics, is the same kind of passion people were spitting for antibiotics as the saviours of humanity. And all that has happened is that the natural processes have started outflanking us, and disease now survives our miracle cures.


You're building a horrible strawman here,


I'm not sure you actually know what a strawman is.


Furthermore, their genetic health has no bearing on the accomplishments of those in the future. Saying "we wouldn't have had <x genius> if we practised eugenics in the past!" is completely irrelevant


I didn't say that.


Do you really think there would be people who'd attempt that? Do you really think there'd be no regulation at all? Lovely strawman. Lovely.

Just recently, a family let their diabetic child die because they believed prayer was the only right way to treat disease.

There is no reckoning with the limits of human contrariness.

Who would impose the regulation in your 'liberal eugenics' utopia?

I would have serious serious reservations about messing with the genetic code of a human being. Even with a superb understanding of the genome, it's impossible to predict what would actually make the human race "stronger" in the long run. Sickle-Cell Anemia, for example, shortens life expectancy, but also makes the carrier more resistant to malaria. I might allow individuals to do this on their own, but never force insurance companies to cover genetic manipulation or sponsor it by the government.

No, for a number of reasons.

First, the risk of side effects with new medical technology. This can be overcome with more research and careful regulation, eventually.

Second, the concern of idiotic parents trying to craft children to fit an artificial social ideal. This could take the form of racial "perfection," eliminating certain types of personalities from the gene pool because they are socially awkward or frowned on, trying to make sure your child "fits in" by lowering their IQ, or something as frivolously retarded as someone desiding they wanted a pink baby with purple stripes.

Third, and perhaps even more seriously, their is the long-term implications in terms of a caste society. These procedures would likely be expensive, and often only available to the rich. Thus, you would have a situation where you could make a scientific argument that the upper class were genetically superior. This could lead to various kinds of discrimination, and a permanent caste society with little social mobillity.

Maybe this technology could be acceptable one day, with a lot more research and if it was both available to everyone, and strictly regulated (such as limiting it to modifications with tangible physical/health benefits). Even then, though, human society is such that it would probably be way too open to abuse. Large scale engineering of the next generation sounds like a damn good tool for social oppression, right up their with mind control and nanorobotic spies in every citizen's house. So I think that at the very most, this technology should be limited to stuff like preventing diseases.

Sickle-Cell Anemia, for example, shortens life expectancy, but also makes the carrier more resistant to malaria

Obviously heterozygote-ness is the way to go. *is HbSC*

Who decides what is "strong?" The parents, of course.

Parents are hardly the best sources of what is strong. Especially when you have them naming their kids in leet speak, or even this one odd situation some time back when a pair of deaf parents wanted their not-deaf child to be deafened so he could be just like them.

... With proper regulations and restrictions so that this kind of genetic manipulation is only used to end inheritable diseases, or birth defects. If we could erase the bad gene that causes these mutations, we could reduce the stress on the healthcare system. It should be reserved for instances where there is legitimate concern for health.

I object to the use of the procedure to have a "designer" baby. As long as the child would be born without defects that would impact on the enjoyment of their life, there should be no reason to have a genetically modified baby.

Hmm... I mostly agree with you, but I wonder how soon would homosexuality, and the like, become labled as a birth defect? Then there is the case of mutations sometime being benefitcial. However, I really doubt this advancement will lead to an evolutionary stalemate. I guess I'm more worried over the types of parents who use this technology more than the technology it's self.

Hmm... I mostly agree with you, but I wonder how soon would homosexuality, and the like, become labled as a birth defect? Then there is the case of mutations sometime being benefitcial. However, I really doubt this advancement will lead to an evolutionary stalemate. I guess I'm more worried over the types of parents who use this technology more than the technology it's self.

That's why one would need to have strict rules that define what is and isn't acceptable. You do make a good point about homosexuality (as an example) that I can't dispute. This only proves why regulations are important. However, I was under the impression that sexuality could be impacted by exposure to certain hormones during foetal development...? Or am I imagining that I read about that?

Hey, If it actually works and is available, I fully intend to make sure that everything Humanly Possible is done to ensure that my kid doesnt have any inheritable problems...

*nods*

It's probably a good idea to filter shit like me out of the human genome.

No, I'm not missing the point. It would be unfair. You are missing MY point. My point is, this does not matter. Evolution is not fair.

If natural selection was "fair" we would not exist. Evolution would not take place.

Why should artifical selection be any different? Erase the weak, strengthen the strong. This is reality.

Let's start by making the large assumption that you're right about this. So what?

In that case, fuck Nature. Nature gave us the Panda Bear, an endangered species that can't be bothered to reproduce. I think we can do a bit better than that.

Just because Nature does it, doesn't mean it's right. Appeal to Nature, isn't it?

i = the square root of -1, motherfuckers. :P

Geniasis does have a point: nature sometimes really fucks up bad. Did you know that if you took a polar bear to the tropics, it'd be an apex predator? That's concerning.

Let's start by making the large assumption that you're right about this. So what?

In that case, fuck Nature. Nature gave us the Panda Bear, an endangered species that can't be bothered to reproduce. I think we can do a bit better than that.

Just because Nature does it, doesn't mean it's right. Appeal to Nature, isn't it?

i = the square root of -1, motherfuckers. :P

If it's not reproducing, it's being naturally selected for extinction. It's our artifical intervention that's keeping them alive, presumably.

Nature works, even in your own example.

Did you know that if you took a polar bear to the tropics, it'd be an apex predator? That's concerning.

Possible way to save Polar Bears maybe?

If it's not reproducing, it's being naturally selected for extinction. It's our artifical intervention that's keeping them alive, presumably.

Nature works, even in your own example.

Works, doesnt mean its right...the Holocaust worked, and was a highly efficient way of killing people...Was it Right? I think not...

If I want to keep my child from inheriting a Disease, then I should have the right to do so, If not for me, then for the kid...

If it's not reproducing, it's being naturally selected for extinction. It's our artifical intervention that's keeping them alive, presumably.

Nature works, even in your own example.

Ideally, if nature worked perfectly it wouldn't produce something quite so "defective". Furthermore, whether it works or not is irrelevant to its morality.

Works, doesnt mean its right...the Holocaust worked, and was a highly efficient way of killing people...Was it Right? I think not...

If I want to keep my child from inheriting a Disease, then I should have the right to do so, If not for me, then for the kid...

Huh? I'm pro-eugenics, I think you've misinterpreted my point. I'm advocating artificial selection inspired by natural selection.

Ideally, if nature worked perfectly it wouldn't produce something quite so "defective". Furthermore, whether it works or not is irrelevant to its morality.

You clearly don't understand how natural selection takes place, then. This is nature working exactly right. The "defective" animals don't breed and don't pass on their genes, the "strong" do. Humans have bypassed this natural barrier. We need an artificial one.

I'd argue that morality is irrelevant, not artificial selection.

Possible way to save Polar Bears maybe?

Except it would kind of decimate every other species in the area.

Huh? I'm pro-eugenics, I think you've misinterpreted my point. I'm advocating artificial selection inspired by natural selection.

Um...What? How can you have Artificial Natural Selection?

Tis that not be an Oxymoron?

Except it would kind of decimate every other species in the area.

lol, yeah, I was joking...But, it would be entertaining to watch, no? lol

Um...What? How can you have Artificial Natural Selection?

Tis that not be an Oxymoron?

I didn't say artificial natural selection. I said artificial selection - eugenics. I prefer this term because of the negative connotations "eugenics" has acquired because of the Nazis.

You clearly don't understand how natural selection takes place, then. This is nature working exactly right. The "defective" animals don't breed and don't pass on their genes, the "strong" do. Humans have bypassed this natural barrier. We need an artificial one.

No. No we don't.

I'd argue that morality is irrelevant, not artificial selection.

Well, since I'm not Bluth, I'm not going to tell you that you're objectively wrong. Even though I really do believe that you're wrong.

imagine the possibilities enhanced intelligence and strength. All full grown adult males over 6'5" tall all women under 5'0" a great society indeed.

I didn't say artificial natural selection. I said artificial selection - eugenics. I prefer this term because of the negative connotations "eugenics" has acquired because of the Nazis.

Well, I would say as long as the Parents are making the decision and not the Government we shouldnt run into this problem...

I mean, KKK members could ensure white babies, but they would do this on their own anyway, Eugenics are not...


I look at the potential to eliminate or at least greatly reduce the presence of inheritable diseases in future generations...

No. No we don't.



Well, since I'm not Bluth, I'm not going to tell you that you're objectively wrong. Even though I really do believe that you're wrong.

Yeah, I know. I don't find arguments in favour of objective morality convincing. Subjective morality is irrelevant. The universe doesn't care about what we petty, stupid, weak, irrelevant humans label "right" and "wrong." Besides invented concepts, they simply do not exist.

Artifical selection is neccessary because with the advent of modern medicine, modern diets and relatively modern stable societies, there are no longer any pressures to provoke natural selection within the human population. We will eventually breed ourselves into a horrible, horrible hole.

Genetically impaired people should not exist to the extent they do now if natural selection still applied to us.

Yeah, I know. I don't find arguments in favour of objective morality convincing. Subjective morality is irrelevant. The universe doesn't care about what we petty, stupid, weak, irrelevant humans label "right" and "wrong." Besides invented concepts, they simply do not exist

This deserves the question: "If the universe doesn't care about what we think, why should we care about it?"

The answer is that we should not. Morality is a good thing for society. To exist primarily on the laws of nature would be hellish.

Artifical selection is neccessary because with the advent of modern medicine, modern diets and relatively modern stable societies, there are no longer any pressures to provoke natural selection within the human population. We will eventually breed ourselves into a horrible, horrible hole.

Can you back that up?

Genetically impaired people should not exist to the extent it does now, if natural selection still applied to us.

Of course I would argue that it's a good thing that we have managed to overcome natural selection as a barrier. Whether you realize it or not, you are arguing for an inherent moral superiority in natural selection.

Of course I would argue that it's a good thing that we have managed to overcome natural selection as a barrier. Whether you realize it or not, you are arguing for an inherent moral superiority in natural selection.

No, I'm arguing for us to take the place of nature, which is inherently amoral. You place moral judgements upon it because that is how you've been raised to think. There is no objective/subjective morality in anything we do, including what I advocate.

When people start calling everything amoral, its a sure sign that they are immoral and don't want to admit it.

Human nature being what it is, people would genetically engineer our species into eventual extinction.

When people start calling everything amoral, its a sure sign that they are immoral and don't want to admit it.

Human nature being what it is, people would genetically engineer our species into eventual extinction.

I'm not immoral. I'm amoral. I'm only immoral by your crude, human definitions, which would not exist if you didn't.

The universe doesn't care about what we petty, stupid, weak, irrelevant humans label "right" and "wrong." Besides invented concepts, they simply do not exist.
Well, since it's us against the universe, why stop at trying to "fix" future generations? We might as well stop those genes now. No need to get crazy like the Nazi's though, we could just sterilize those whose genes we don't think are all that useful. Been done before? Oh well.

The problem with labeling certain traits as "inferior" is that society then treats people with those traits as inferior.

Are there horrible diseases that could likely be eliminated? I'm sure there are. But would we stop there? I doubt it. Regulations get ignored, or are non-existent in some other country and eventually, when we think we are a little more clever than we actually are, we create a brand new genetic disorder because some gene did a little more than we thought it did. Would we help people? I'm sure we would. I'm equally certain that eventually we would make a mistake. Except that now the fault lies not with chance or luck, but with another human being. Oops, our bad, we screwed up your whole life, but it's okay, it's for the good of the species after all.

Well, since it's us against the universe, why stop at trying to "fix" future generations? We might as well stop those genes now. No need to get crazy like the Nazi's though, we could just sterilize those whose genes we don't think are all that useful. Been done before? Oh well.

The problem with labeling certain traits as "inferior" is that society then treats people with those traits as inferior.

Are there horrible diseases that could likely be eliminated? I'm sure there are. But would we stop there? I doubt it. Regulations get ignored, or are non-existent in some other country and eventually, when we think we are a little more clever than we actually are, we create a brand new genetic disorder because some gene did a little more than we thought it did. Would we help people? I'm sure we would. I'm equally certain that eventually we would make a mistake. Except that now the fault lies not with chance or luck, but with another human being. Oops, our bad, we screwed up your whole life, but it's okay, it's for the good of the species after all.

There is no sterilization in the form of eugenics I advocate.

The problem with labeling certain traits as "inferior" is that society then treats people with those traits as inferior.


And...How pray tell, is not having eugenics going to stop this?

People are going to consider other people Inferior...Is it right? no, but its going to happen, you cannot stop it...

So, Why not use what medical technology has to offer to stop inheritable diseases that are actually Harmful to people....If I can stop my kid from having a high risk for Diabetes, or Heart Disease, or keep him/her from having Mental Disabilities, why should you or anyone else deny me that right?

And...How pray tell, is not having eugenics going to stop this?

People are going to consider other people Inferior...Is it right? no, but its going to happen, you cannot stop it...

So, Why not use what medical technology has to offer to stop inheritable diseases that are actually Harmful to people....If I can stop my kid from having a high risk for Diabetes, or Heart Disease, or keep him/her from having Mental Disabilities, why should you or anyone else deny me that right?

I don't think preventing "artificial selection" or eugenics will stop the problem, but considering the movement's history I have difficulty believing it would make things in this department any better.

As I said before, I am certain that many genetic diseases could be reduced, but I don't believe regulations could be effective in preventing people from going beyond that. Eventually someone would decide that not only should they lower the risk of their child getting some disease, but that their child would be much better off if they were smarter, or more attractive, or more outgoing. And something goes wrong. What right did that parent have to make those sorts of decisions? My concern isn't only with the immediate effects of allowing this sort of procedure. (Although, as I mentioned with Sickle Cell Anemia, just because something appears to be a negative trait on the surface does not mean that it is in all situations and that we should eliminate it.) My concern is that in something as complicated and important as the genetic code of a human being at some point we will decide that we know more than we really do and when we err, it will be with a human life.

It's not fair to those born already who are ugly, stupid, and untalented.
Oh come on, don't be naive.

People, en masse, won't have their children' IQ increased. It produces geeks, and it's impossible to do at this stage (and the next couple decades) anyway, it's way, way too complex.
Blonde hair and blue eyes might become slightly more common, but not universal. Everyone will of course order their child "a bit above average" height, but that will just continue the irrational trend of accelerated growth.

The only things that are going to really increase, massively and universally, are penis length and boob size.


---

On the other hand, part of the reason we're delaying having children (could do it a couple years ago financially) is exactly this: waiting until the technology becomes publicly available to implement at least the basic genome corrections. After all, you can only be born once. I'm not after cosmetic traits, rather more along the lines of genetically eliminating or reducing the risk of certain diseases and conditions.

I wouldn't want to look my child in the eyes, knowing I could prevent some problem he has, but didn't because I was too impatient to wait a couple years.

No way in hell.

No way in hell.

Luddite.

Luddite.

Is that supposed to be an insult?

Also, one word flames are nice...:rolleyes:

You know what I love most about it?


The test won't work on other ethnicities such as Asians or Africans

Not for the lesser races!

As long as the result (http://www.automarines.com/images/space-wolf.jpg) is what I aimed for, I'm fine with it.

But honestly, I should be the only one commanding a legion of super humans. *nods*