Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Aydin
Baron
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Would you "design" your baby? Posted: 14-Mar-2007 at 22:58 |
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 03:04 |
I won't.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 07:54 |
Never and I am deeply morally opposed to it occuring.
I believe that if it were allowed, it would simply be commandeered by
the wealthy to produce offspring with yet another set of unfair
advantages in life over those less privileged. It promotes elitism
quite literally at the level of every fibre of the human form, and it
is reprehensible because of that.
|
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended
Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 10:29 |
It's impossible anyway, no matter what the article says. Too many genes interlinking etc etc.
We all 'design' our baby in one way, its called physical attraction to the opposite sex, mening that the offspring you would have with this person will be genetically stronger and will have the best chance of surviving and passing your genes onto the next generation.
|
|
Ovidius
Baron
Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 10:42 |
indeed, I'd never mess with nature in that way. You genetically modify your child and it grows up and gets athritis at 12 or something. I'd rather just let nature take its course.. Unless they can get my kid to glow in the dark, like these pigs... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4605202.stm
Edited by Ovidius - 15-Mar-2007 at 13:14
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 11:52 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Never and I am deeply morally opposed to it occuring.
I believe that if it were allowed, it would simply be commandeered by the wealthy to produce offspring with yet another set of unfair advantages in life over those less privileged. It promotes elitism quite literally at the level of every fibre of the human form, and it is reprehensible because of that.
|
Still, if we perfected it we could give it out for free to everybody and create a new society of genetically near perfect people, just imagine a world with no diabetes, cystic fibrosis, or genetic predispositions to any sort of malady.
Wouldn't it be morally wrong not to create such a society?
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Dolphin
Arch Duke
Suspended
Joined: 06-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1551
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 13:42 |
huh Genghis?
Strange way of looking at things. Is it morally right to eliminate those who do not have the same genetic supriority as the 'near perfect' people? The pre-dispositions would have to be eliminated by selective abortion, and would include perfectly healthy foeteses that have a genetic disposition to a disease, not actually the disease itself, which is morally wrong on its own.
We wouldn't have had Hawkins, or Einstein, or them countless great men and women with extraordinary talents but some affliction of some sort.
How would every nation have access to it? How would everyone within a single rich nation have access to it?
What diseases would be included? Would we eliminate the 'depression gene', if it is ever located? Autism? One of my friends was born bow-legged which affected his height and movement etc, but he's a really rounded individual, who's very intelligent and sociable. With this designer babies business, him and people like him would either not be continued until birth, or ostracised much more than they are already by society.
Would the designer baby thing be a free choice or would it be government lead, meaning that it became obligatory? To many faults, too inethical, and too wrong.
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 13:50 |
I too have thought of that, but if you got rid of a disease such as sickle cell anemia from one generation it would be quite unlikely for it to reappear through mutation in anything but evolutionary time. Now, if a certain percentage of people with that condition die from it every year, you could calculate how many people would die from it for a given length of time, but if we managed to use genetic engineering to remove it from one generation it would likely be gone forever. I'm sure that for most such diseases the number of people that would die from the disease over a century would be greater than the number of embryos lost through genetic engineering. That's grim mathematics, but it must be done and the choice that saves the most lives must followed.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 18:25 |
Originally posted by Genghis
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Never and I am deeply morally opposed to it occuring.
I
believe that if it were allowed, it would simply be commandeered by the
wealthy to produce offspring with yet another set of unfair advantages
in life over those less privileged. It promotes elitism quite literally
at the level of every fibre of the human form, and it is reprehensible
because of that.
|
Still, if we perfected it we could give it out for free to
everybody and create a new society of genetically near perfect people,
just imagine a world with no diabetes, cystic fibrosis, or genetic
predispositions to any sort of malady.
Wouldn't it be morally wrong not to create such a society? |
And if we perfected treatments for cancer, AIDS and a range of other
medical ailments, we could give these out for free to everyone who
needs them so there is less suffering..... But of course that isn't how
it works, because that's just socialism.
But let's be realistic here. The treatment won't be cheap. The
systematic maniuplation of a human genome is going to be an intensive
process carried out by a highly qualified professional. It is going to
be available only to the very wealthy. And so once again we arrive at
the problem of further dividing society into rich and poor. The same
people who can afford this treatment will haughtily reject any
responsibility in sharing the benefits of this technology with the
poor. At the end of the day, it simply gives those with large material
wealth a further means to exalt their family over and above the rest of
the population - except now not even merit allows the poor man a chance
to better himself (because he is always competing against others who
are genetically superior by virtue of their parents' bank account).
Something tells me the same people who approve of eugenics also
disapprove of a system of healthcare which looks after those of limited
financial means.
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 18:28 |
I shouldn't, according to my beliefs... but I must admit it is very tempting. It's our nature for us to give all the advantages we could give in our power to our offsprings...
|
Join us.
|
|
Ovidius
Baron
Joined: 20-Jun-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 422
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 18:33 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
And if we perfected treatments for cancer, AIDS and a range of other
medical ailments, we could give these out for free to everyone who
needs them so there is less suffering..... But of course that isn't how
it works, because that's just socialism.
|
Its happened before with Small Pox, no reason to think join efforts wouldn't happen in the future. As for Genetic modification expanding. Well, you don't know what the future will hold. We've all seen the movies!
Edited by Ovidius - 15-Mar-2007 at 19:34
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 18:48 |
I am arguing against the next step, which is where a couple sit down with a geneticist and actually design their baby a la Gattaca.
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 22:04 |
If we could provide designer babies a la Gattaca to all people, I would support it. It would unwise not to, if your country chose not to do that and other nations did, soon your economy would be crushed by one run by people who are twice as smart as you, and your army would be defeated in battle by one made up of soldiers twice as strong and twice as clever as yours.
I truly think that this is the wave of the future, and we have two choices, surf it or drown in it.
Edited by Genghis - 15-Mar-2007 at 22:06
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Mar-2007 at 23:42 |
I found it is a great idea to have the control of the genetics and give our children the best for them.
I don't find any moral problem on that at all, but supersticion and atavism.
People with genetical disseases will have the chance to parent healthy babies.
People with low intelligence will be able to have smart kids.
Ugly people will be the parents of beauty winners.
Weak people will have strong children.
I believe designing babies will be the ultimate equalizer of society. No genetic adventage will exist that you can't buy in the drug store
|
|
Dan Carkner
Baron
Joined: 07-Nov-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 490
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 00:03 |
"Stupid" people don't have stupid kids, it's the situation they grow up in that makes them end up failing in society.
I really doubt that people will ever understand enough to know for sure what they are doing. In trying for blond hair people will be bringing in some other defect. I'll stick to the traditional way thank you very much. (Well, I don't have any kids, but in theory.)
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 00:24 |
I didn't say "stupid" people . Yes, intelligence is not fixed in stone, but it is believed the genetic factor contribute some.
Look in your society why it is so curious that certain families are plenty of talents that look something is going on in there. genes perhaps? If so, what's wrong with "robbing" them those genes? I am talking of "genetic communism" in here, nothing less.
|
|
Balaam
Housecarl
Suspended
Joined: 12-Oct-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1286
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 03:18 |
I would support it for eliminating disorders that would have your children disadvantaged in life.
Sure there are people who are born disabled and turned out to be great people but what about those that will never really achieve anything in life except for taking up space, money, time and manpower to look after them, there could be a way for these children not to hinder us like they do.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 04:27 |
Originally posted by Genghis
If we could provide designer babies a la Gattaca to all
people, I would support it. It would unwise not to, if your
country chose not to do that and other nations did, soon your economy
would be crushed by one run by people who are twice as smart as you,
and your army would be defeated in battle by one made up of soldiers
twice as strong and twice as clever as yours.
I truly think that this is the wave of the future, and we have two choices, surf it or drown in it. |
For such a step to become possible or feasible is still a very long way off.
Hopefully by the time it is practicable, humanity will be capable of
reaching consensus so as to ensure that this measure is not carried out
to the detriment of those people who cannot afford it.
Such technology will only be commandeered by the wealthy to further
exploit an elitist advantage over those who cannot afford it.
|
|
Goban
Colonel
Joined: 09-Mar-2006
Location: Subterranea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 581
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 04:30 |
Originally posted by pinguin
I didn't say "stupid" people . Yes, intelligence is not fixed in stone, but it is believed the genetic factor contribute some.
Look in your society why it is so curious that certain families are plenty of talents that look something is going on in there. genes perhaps? If so, what's wrong with "robbing" them those genes? I am talking of "genetic communism" in here, nothing less.
|
I don't know... My son is extremely smart for his age... a genius! And this has nothing to do with my side of the family at least...
|
The sharpest spoon in the drawer.
|
|
Mortazaa
Janissary
Joined: 15-Mar-2007
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Mar-2007 at 04:44 |
I think I agree with pinguin, I will do it too. I dont see any ethical problem at this.. We play human body or soul with other ways too.
I find that rich-poor thing a little wrong. wealty people afford better health care, better education ext. If these are not problems,having better gens is not problem too
I should also add, We should use every benefit science offer us.
|
|