Designer babies

[Encryptor]

I'm pro designer babies, we could become the perfect species after modifying ourselves enough; smart, good looking, athletic etc basically we'd skip millennia of evolution so why not? playing god in my opinion is a bad answer because you could say the same for curing illnesses or not curing them so allowing people to live or die or selective breeding perhaps, both are very common. (I hope the poll works)

[Strange]

43 minutes ago, Encryptor said:

I'm pro designer babies, we could become the perfect species after modifying ourselves enough

How do you define "perfect"? What if someone else has a different definition?

43 minutes ago, Encryptor said:

smart, good looking, athletic

At least one, if not two, of those don't fit my definition of "perfect".

[StringJunky]

Evolutionarily, it's a bad idea because the more variation there is the more chance there is of overcoming any future unknown adversity. Arbitrarily selecting for certain traits may reduce reproductive fitness in a population

[zapatos]

My current opinion is likely to be modified as I've not discussed this much, but generally speaking I support gene modification to support a 'better' outcome. If I could have chosen strength, intelligence, etc. for my children I would have. We currently try to adjust for these things after the birth, so doing so before birth seems a reasonable future approach. In addition, we are effectively doing so now with embryo screening.

[Encryptor]

18 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Evolutionarily, it's a bad idea because the more variation there is the more chance there is of overcoming any future unknown adversity. Arbitrarily selecting for certain traits may reduce reproductive fitness in a population

I do agree with this, however genetically modifying babies to be inheritably smarter or resistant to certain diseases wouldn't take away the variation in our species just enhance the current aspects and abilities but I do take back what I said about physical changes as that would most definitely increase our future risk, for example colonising mars and the changes in our skeleton and other physical attributes that would have to change. 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Encryptor said:

I do agree with this, however genetically modifying babies to be inheritably smarter or resistant to certain diseases wouldn't take away the variation in our species

Except, of course, it would. For example, the reason that sickle cell disease still exists is because it confers some resistance to malaria. 

On that note: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41386849 (BBC: "DNA surgery on embryos removes disease")

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Encryptor said:

I do agree with this, however genetically modifying babies to be inheritably smarter or resistant to certain diseases wouldn't take away the variation in our species just enhance the current aspects and abilities but I do take back what I said about physical changes as that would most definitely increase our future risk, for example colonising mars and the changes in our skeleton and other physical attributes that would have to change. 

As the saying goes: it takes all sorts to make a world. If everybody was of a particular cognitive type it would likely create deficits of ability in some areas of work where they are not suited.  Pushing this to an extreme to illustrate: what if everyone wanted their children to be pop stars, actors  and scientists (beautiful or intelligent); how long would a society like that last without all the other needs of society met? As that article Strange linked to says, scientists need to think carefully about the ramifications.

[Ten oz]

On 9/27/2017 at 7:27 AM, Encryptor said:

I'm pro designer babies, we could become the perfect species after modifying ourselves enough; smart, good looking, athletic etc basically we'd skip millennia of evolution so why not? playing god in my opinion is a bad answer because you could say the same for curing illnesses or not curing them so allowing people to live or die or selective breeding perhaps, both are very common. (I hope the poll works)

I voted no but that is only because "not yet" wasn't an option. I don't think the science is there yet. We do not know if we could actually make someone more intelligent in a quantifiable way without any negative impacts on other cognitive functions. That said gene modification in attempts to eliminate disease seems like a good idea.

 

The "perfect" person is a nonstarter. Every person, generation, and culture has there own idea of what the "perfect" person would be. Natural selection isn't a race to the top. Natural selection merely selects for what's most suitable to an environment at any given time.  Present perceptions of what a good looking or athletic person is may or may not be the most suitable for future environments. Besides mutation is a key component to evolution. There are any number of physical mutations which could be considered ugly or bizarre yet would potentially make one more suitable for an environment.

[Schizo@play]

No. artificial genetic manipulation of offspring is a slippery road. 

Just on the basis of virology its mind boggling the repercussions. 

[zapatos]

35 minutes ago, Schizo@play said:

No. artificial genetic manipulation of offspring is a slippery road. 

 

The same was said of surgery, especially on the human heart which was considered untouchable.

[Schizo@play]

 

On 10/10/2017 at 4:48 PM, zapatos said:

The same was said of surgery, especially on the human heart which was considered untouchable.

I believe the U.S. C.D.C. (center of disease control) did a study on antibiotics and medicine used to preform surgery.  It showed that its possible in the next 100 years (estamated) that becuase of the mis-use wether by over prescribed or patients not following usage instructions. Modern medicine to preform surgery could become obsolete and even the simplest procedures would become too risky base on possible infection alone. They went so far as to compare modern surgeries with out antibiotic and anististics would be almost like having surgey in the dark ages. (Adam ruins everything made me aware of this)So, the human race went down a slippery road and now we see the side effect of mis-use. 

The same holds true with any science and seeing how we are years away from designer babies. I personally believe that such science will be miss-used just like most else humans use science for. I will go so far to say genetic manipulation is nothing new in the field of science but there moral and ethical reason why have stalled such science. (Bad exsample of gentic science mis-used  "Dr. Monroe's Island". Better exsample twins studied by Dr. Mengele at Auschwitz) Just with the experimentation stages genetic manipulation can be horrorific.

So, live by natural order or prevert the natural order.  There are also the unforseen side effect of such science. Which I mentioned lil about before. I agrue virus adapts over time like most organisms do, however gentic manipulation could allow a virus to have an increased fatality rate and cross spieces at an alarming rate. Thats just to name a couple  exsamples off the top of my head.

The only way I would condone such science. Would be IF (yes a big if) it was possible to over come ill side efects and the science was only used as means of last resort.  

No matter what I believe the cons out wieght the pros.

 

Edited October 17, 2017 by Schizo@play
Typos

[Prometheus]

Another concern would be the availability of such technology. I think it likely it would be available to the privileged few who can afford it (estimates seem to be around 5 figure sums, occasionally 6 figure), further widening the divide between those that have and those that have not. Even being on a generally equal genetic footing would be taken from the poor.

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, Schizo@play said:

So, live by natural order or prevert the natural order. 

Wow. How does vaccination, artificial lighting, computers, and fresh water fit into your "natural order"?

 

Quote

No matter what I believe the cons out wieght the pros.

Sounds like you might have some real data to back up that claim. Can you please share it with us?

 

Quote

Modern medicine to preform surgery could become obsolete

Citation please.

4 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Another concern would be the availability of such technology. I think it likely it would be available to the privileged few who can afford it (estimates seem to be around 5 figure sums, occasionally 6 figure), further widening the divide between those that have and those that have not. Even being on a generally equal genetic footing would be taken from the poor.

I understand the concern about the widening divide in the case of a limited resource, such as money. However, I think that concern is misplaced if the benefit to one does not negatively impact another. How is making one portion of the population less susceptible to disease than another portion a bad thing? It is not as if good health for one requires bad health for another.

[Prometheus]

42 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I understand the concern about the widening divide in the case of a limited resource, such as money. However, I think that concern is misplaced if the benefit to one does not negatively impact another. How is making one portion of the population less susceptible to disease than another portion a bad thing? It is not as if good health for one requires bad health for another.

The OP refers to modifying the looks, smarts and athleticism of people, not just eliminating disease.

In this case the two groups will be competing for the same limited resources. University places go to those who can pay and have the grades - some smart or athletic poor people may have got through to uni on scholarships, but now they are barely average so no go. Same for jobs. The modified people will be stronger and smarter and better looking (which shouldn't impact on getting most jobs, but the reality is that is does - they even get away with more crime). Social mobility is hard enough as it is, this would erect an iron curtain through which very few poor people could ever overcome.

Add to that our track record on how we treat groups different to our own. It would take an extreme optimist to think there would be no abuse of the new under class.

 

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

The OP refers to modifying the looks, smarts and athleticism of people, not just eliminating disease.

In this case the two groups will be competing for the same limited resources. University places go to those who can pay and have the grades - some smart or athletic poor people may have got through to uni on scholarships, but now they are barely average so no go. Same for jobs. The modified people will be stronger and smarter and better looking (which shouldn't impact on getting most jobs, but the reality is that is does - they even get away with more crime). Social mobility is hard enough as it is, this would erect an iron curtain through which very few poor people could ever overcome.

Add to that our track record on how we treat groups different to our own. It would take an extreme optimist to think there would be no abuse of the new under class.

 

I understand your concern but I still feel it is misplaced. The problem is not smarter or better looking people, it is the laws, customs, etc. that hold the disadvantaged group down. It is unreasonable to not allow one group to excel simply because of the gap that would be created or extended. We don't stop rich kids from getting an education simply so they can be as uneducated as the poor, and we don't disallow expensive drugs for rich people just so they can be as sick as poor people.

The gap needs to be addressed by lifting up the disadvantaged, not by holding back those with means.

[Prometheus]

 

23 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I understand your concern but I still feel it is misplaced. The problem is not smarter or better looking people, it is the laws, customs, etc. that hold the disadvantaged group down. It is unreasonable to not allow one group to excel simply because of the gap that would be created or extended. We don't stop rich kids from getting an education simply so they can be as uneducated as the poor, and we don't disallow expensive drugs for rich people just so they can be as sick as poor people.

The gap needs to be addressed by lifting up the disadvantaged, not by holding back those with means.

 I feel you are overly optimistic - i wish i could take your outlook. Has that gap been widening or narrowing globally? 

I fear the disadvantaged will not be lifted up, and now they will have to compete with people genetically superior as well as socially superior to them. This at a time when resources as simple as fertile land are likely to become more scarce due to global warming ,and political movements to concentrate on the 'in' group are gaining momentum throughout the Western world.

You ask the privileged not to be held back, fair enough. But allowing genetically modified people will necessarily hold poor people back if they share the same geographical, socio-political space. A normal person and a genetically altered person compete for the same job - who will get it? The smarter better looking one of course. This necessarily holds back the poor person whose real reason for not getting the job was not being from a privileged enough background for the requisite modifications. Who is holding who back?

I don't mind the view that we should create genetically superior people if that is what people want, i just think it extremely naive to think it won't negatively impact all those left behind so long as they share the same space.

[dimreepr]

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I understand your concern but I still feel it is misplaced. The problem is not smarter or better looking people, it is the laws, customs, etc. that hold the disadvantaged group down. It is unreasonable to not allow one group to excel simply because of the gap that would be created or extended. We don't stop rich kids from getting an education simply so they can be as uneducated as the poor, and we don't disallow expensive drugs for rich people just so they can be as sick as poor people.

The gap needs to be addressed by lifting up the disadvantaged, not by holding back those with means.

Let's imagine a perfect world, in which everyone has an equal chance and everyone can create the perfect human, what is that?

Sounds a lot like "A brave new world" - Aldous Huxley.

We will inevitably create a populous that is a perfect fit for the world we have now; what happens when that world changes (and it will)? 

Perfection, not only, doesn't exist but the parameters will change tomorrow.

The only ethical way to use genetic manipulation is for health.

Edit. Crossposted

8 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I don't mind the view that we should create genetically superior people if that is what people want, i just think it extremely naive to think it won't negatively impact all those left behind so long as they share the same space.

1

I do and for the reasons I previously suggested.

Edited October 17, 2017 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

 

 I feel you are overly optimistic - i wish i could take your outlook. Has that gap been widening or narrowing globally?

I don't think I actually told you my outlook; only that you shouldn't address the problem by holding people back. Which is exactly what you are suggesting we do. The difference between us  is you think one group should be held back and another shouldn't. My suggestion was that no groups should be held back.

 

Quote

I fear the disadvantaged will not be lifted up, and now they will have to compete with people genetically superior as well as socially superior to them. This at a time when resources as simple as fertile land are likely to become more scarce due to global warming ,and political movements to concentrate on the 'in' group are gaining momentum throughout the Western world.

To paraphrase someone in this thread, The OP refers to modifying the looks, smarts and athleticism of people, not fertile land and global warming.

Quote

You ask the privileged not to be held back, fair enough. But allowing genetically modified people will necessarily hold poor people back if they share the same geographical, socio-political space. A normal person and a genetically altered person compete for the same job - who will get it? The smarter better looking one of course. This necessarily holds back the poor person whose real reason for not getting the job was not being from a privileged enough background for the requisite modifications. Who is holding who back?

Okay, then there's really no reason to draw the line at genetics. No more college or expensive clothes, makeup, and cosmetic surgery for the rich.

A normal person and a genetically altered person an educated, well put together person, compete for the same job - who will get it? The educated well put together one of course. This necessarily holds back the poor person whose real reason for not getting the job was not being from a privileged enough background for the requisite modifications. Who is holding who back?

Quote

I don't mind the view that we should create genetically superior people if that is what people want, i just think it extremely naive to think it won't negatively impact all those left behind so long as they share the same space.

Straw man. I never said it won't negatively impact those left behind. You can stop the implication any time now.

 

[Prometheus]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

The difference between us  is you think one group should be held back and another shouldn't. My suggestion was that no groups should be held back.

 

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Straw man. I never said it won't negatively impact those left behind. You can stop the implication any time now.

So... which is it?

[zapatos]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

We will inevitably create a populous that is a perfect fit for the world we have now;

Doubt it.

Quote

what happens when that world changes (and it will)? 

I guess we change with it, just like we do now.

Quote

Perfection, not only, doesn't exist but the parameters will change tomorrow.

Yes, that's rather obvious. Yet people still buy designer clothes, mansions, and nose jobs. Should we stop that as well?

Quote

The only ethical way to use genetic manipulation is for health.

I assume you feel the same way about surgery? If not, why not?

4 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

 

So... which is it?

Um, both.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Doubt it.

 

Why not? 

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I guess we change with it, just like we do now.

We change with it now, because we are all different.

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, that's rather obvious. Yet people still buy designer clothes, mansions, and nose jobs. Should we stop that as well?

Who's strawmanning now?

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I assume you feel the same way about surgery?

Of course.

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

We change with it now, because we are all different.

Can you please tell me the mechanism that will not allow us to change if we are similar?

Quote

Who's strawmanning now?

You should look up the definition of straw manning. I asked you a question. I did not misrepresent anything you said, nor did I knock down that mythical misrepresentation.

What I did was try to find where you draw the line on what is ethical and what is not, so that I could later pursue 'why' you draw the line where you do.

 

 

[DrP]

Just a note - this is a complex issue...  I am not sure what side of the discussion/argument I come down on  -  you all make some good points and I agree with some of the concerns and with some of the supporting arguments...   This might seem irrelevant, but I guess the point I am trying to make is not to fall out over this topic...  you might end up going in circles and getting frustrated with each other.

My thoughts?   Why not  -  maybe in the future though once we have sorted out social inequality on the planet...  which could take a few hundred years at least. And I wouldn't stop at eye colour  - If we do then lets do it properly and have replenishing teeth in old age, like a shark, lets extend life and strength and intellect too..    although there should be much debate first...  also, I think the religious lot might object - but hey, religion is dying anyway, so, as I said - give it a few hundred years for the idea to take hold.  

[Prometheus]

13 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I don't think I actually told you my outlook; only that you shouldn't address the problem by holding people back. Which is exactly what you are suggesting we do. 

I said i don't have a problem with it, here:

 

32 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

I don't mind the view that we should create genetically superior people if that is what people want, i just think it extremely naive to think it won't negatively impact all those left behind so long as they share the same space.

 

17 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The difference between us  is you think one group should be held back and another shouldn't. My suggestion was that no groups should be held back.

No group should be held back - but the less privileged will be held back. Poor people shouldn't be held back, but of course for all the social interventions we may put in place, they are. I think the same will happen with any realistic social intervention to ensure unmodified people are not disadvantaged by the presence of genetically superior people.

 

24 minutes ago, zapatos said:

To paraphrase someone in this thread, The OP refers to modifying the looks, smarts and athleticism of people, not fertile land and global warming.

The point is completely lost on me. Could you restate?

 

25 minutes ago, zapatos said:

A normal person and a genetically altered person an educated, well put together person, compete for the same job - who will get it? The educated well put together one of course. This necessarily holds back the poor person whose real reason for not getting the job was not being from a privileged enough background for the requisite modifications. Who is holding who back?

Again, I said i don't have a problem with it. 

 

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Straw man. I never said it won't negatively impact those left behind. You can stop the implication any time now.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Um, both.

 

OK, so we agree the creation of genetically superior people will lead to disadvantages for the rest. I' just think whatever social intervention, laws, customs or otherwise you put in place that gap will ever be bridged. For instance the wealth gap is widening, not shortening, despite various laws and taxes that should diminish wealth inequality. That's why i don't think you can have both. And btw that's the optimistic picture i wish i could share.

 

 

 

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, DrP said:

 but I guess the point I am trying to make is not to fall out over this topic...  you might end up going in circles and getting frustrated with each other.

 

zapatos and I like a good debate and have clashed several times in the past, that's why I'll sleep on it before commenting on his very good points.