Designer Babies

[MolotovCocktail]

How many of you here are familiar with this?

 

In a nutshell, a designer baby is a genetically engineered human, or more specifically one that has its various features preordained before they were born. We have already mapped out the human genome and we know the genes that make up the various physical traits.

 

But then the question is, would you want this to happen? After all, by choosing their physical traits, you are in a sense deciding their future, and even their children's future as well. Also, many of the same genes that determine physical traits are also responsible for your brain chemistry, and thus your mental traits for that matter (Grandin 76). This is seen a lot in selective processes of farm animals such as hens. What has happened over the years of selective breeding is that people have been over-breeding for one specific physical trait, such as more meat or a cuter dog, and this is causing all sorts of problems for them psychologically (Grandin 76-8). For instance, in the effort to create the perfect child, how do we know that the physical traits that have been selected will not cause that person to have, say, schizophrenia or an otherwise abnormal personality. Not only that, the role that genes have in a person's personality is far less known. Another thing to keep in mind too is that sex can also be chosen. In nature, your child's sex is randomly chosen by what ever chromosomes the sperm brings into the egg cell. However, since designer babies allow us to choose the person's sex, what may happen is that many people will prefer to have one gender over the other (in our culture and in the vast majority of other ones, there is a preference for boys). Also note that the general public is unaware of the consequences of designer babies too, preferring instant gratification rather than long term nurture.

 

So, yeah, I really don't think designer babies is a good idea, but what are your thoughts on it???

[foodchain]

How many of you here are familiar with this?

 

In a nutshell, a designer baby is a genetically engineered human, or more specifically one that has its various features preordained before they were born. We have already mapped out the human genome and we know the genes that make up the various physical traits.

 

But then the question is, would you want this to happen? After all, by choosing their physical traits, you are in a sense deciding their future, and even their children's future as well. Also, many of the same genes that determine physical traits are also responsible for your brain chemistry, and thus your mental traits for that matter (Grandin 76). This is seen a lot in selective processes of farm animals such as hens. What has happened over the years of selective breeding is that people have been over-breeding for one specific physical trait, such as more meat or a cuter dog, and this is causing all sorts of problems for them psychologically (Grandin 76-8). For instance, in the effort to create the perfect child, how do we know that the physical traits that have been selected will not cause that person to have, say, schizophrenia or an otherwise abnormal personality. Not only that, the role that genes have in a person's personality is far less known. Another thing to keep in mind too is that sex can also be chosen. In nature, your child's sex is randomly chosen by what ever chromosomes the sperm brings into the egg cell. However, since designer babies allow us to choose the person's sex, what may happen is that many people will prefer to have one gender over the other (in our culture and in the vast majority of other ones, there is a preference for boys). Also note that the general public is unaware of the consequences of designer babies too, preferring instant gratification rather than long term nurture.

 

So, yeah, I really don't think designer babies is a good idea, but what are your thoughts on it???

 

We interact with variables that would come into play with evolution on many levels constantly, this would just be another form of that. I always wondered simply what the impact of toothpaste has had on various organisms that make a persons mouth there home for instance.

 

That aside, yes we have mapped the human genome, but I really doubt for that to have explained everything that should be in order to make genetic engineering a completely controlled reality, or in total I am all for research around genetics, but I cant really say I support application at this point because I would have to say I don’t think we know close to everything we should in order to do such safely.

 

For instance stem cells, who knows how much knowledge that will bring to light as time goes on, which I am sure will tie into genetics or find application in such. Plus if you google the ACS for biochemistry papers you can find a constant or non stop source of new research that after browsing alone will reveal the reality of how much we know compared to how much we still don’t know for instance, the same could be said for molecular biology of course and the reality that we have not mapped out biology in regards to genetics fully or for that many species, I mean we have terms like "junk" DNA alive and well, which probably does not fit the reality of such overall. I think like nuclear power, genetics will become a more realized reality the farther we progress into the future, but currently again I would simply state I don’t think we know enough to apply such currently, I still of course fully support research, and genetics big break or main area of application in my opinion as of now should be used to combat various health problems, not to make designer people, could you imagine if it had some negative consequences? That would be rather horrible to say the least.

[Martin]

some links

http://www.genetics-and-society.org/resources/items/20010928_nytimes_kolata.html

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3990134/

 

http://www.progress.org.uk/events/ChosenChildren.html

 

http://www.gene-watch.org/genewatch/articles/17-1darnovsky.html

 

http://www.fertility-docs.com/fertility_gender.phtml

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3451

 

Does anyone know the figures?

 

I think that a lot of babies are born each year via PGD

 

pre-implantation genetic diagnosis

 

that is where when the embryo is a clump of cells, like maybe 8 cells, you remove one and test the DNA for various genetic things.

 

I understand it is widespread for a couple to choose the sex of their baby these days. But I don't know how many thousands of couples do this per year

 

I think it is a parent's choice thing. It is their business what PGD tests they want to have run.

 

My nextdoor neighbor is in a startup company that does genetic testing for couples having a kid and PGD is of course one of the options if you are at risk of your kid having some disorder and want to screen out that possibility.

 

We live near silicon valley----biotech is the new thing. 20 years ago he would have been in a electronics startup, now he is in biotech/genetech startup.

 

It is about people's ability to choose.

[MolotovCocktail]

It's not genetic research that I am against. I'm in full support in that. I'm also in full support of stem cell research.

 

Its about allowing the general public (who are far less educated and will only think about their own needs) to selectively breed human children, and hence direct the course of human evolution.

[Sisyphus]

and hence direct the course of human evolution.

 

You know, I wonder if that's bad. Humans are evolving right now within the context of a civilization which protects the weak, and where higher intelligence correlates with having fewer and later children. Maybe the influx of some superbaby genes wouldn't hurt.

 

(Idiocracy was a great movie...)

[Martin]

Maybe the influx of some superbaby genes wouldn't hurt.

 

as long as it is the parents who are chosing, I have no objection

 

in different cultures groups of people have been influencing human evolution for many generations---culturally approved traits translate into more offspring and there it goes. not a new thing.

[AzurePhoenix]

I would certainly be all for screening for diseases, making sure they got good healthy traits. I'd be sorely tempted to choose for a girl though, and even ensure good-lookingness, and despite my own interest, that's where i get uneasy about it, but i can't figure WHY that makes me uneasy... probably an ingrained cultural stigma.

 

 

But them there's the sci-fi part of me, that, if we were far enough ahead in our genetic prowess, would be all for breeding supertraits from various species into my kids. Course, how could i be a good mom if i were insanely jealous of my baby's nifty gifts?

[Gypsy Cake]

I agree with genietic research and most research. At the end of the day as long as we're careful about applying our knowledge there's no reason why we shouldn't.

 

But anyway, I would like to mention two points:

One, that if we were to introduce ways of creating "better" human beings then we may also introduce further discrimnation into society. Parents would pressured to make their baby smarter and fitter etc. And afterall why wouldn't you? You would be putting your child at a disadvantage if you weren't to. This may seem a disirable example of evolution to many, I'm more of a conservative and believe we should let nature take its course when it comes to evolution. Although I thought Foodchain made a good point:

 

We interact with variables that would come into play with evolution on many levels constantly, this would just be another form of that. I always wondered simply what the impact of toothpaste has had on various organisms that make a persons mouth there home for instance.

 

Back to point two, by allowing artificial selection we will lose the originality and amazing variety in our species. We may lose some of the most famous geniuses of all time, even if we do also lose some of the most infamous as well. (A Clockwork Orange--free will is more important than 'perfection')

[Sisyphus]

Gypsy Cake:

 

Why is "nature taking its course" better? What is "natural" for us right now takes place in a setting, civilization, that is far removed from any environment that would select for tougher, smarter, more capable organisms. It protects the weak and gives incentives for NOT having children that smarter people are more likely to take advantage of. Most of the traits which correlate with more offspring right now are what we would probably call negative - low intelligence being the prime example. Right now, as we speak, the human race is naturally evolving to become dumber.

 

I also don't see why it would lessen variety. If anything, I would expect to see more variety, the more genes could be tailored. The only "varieties" that would disappear would be birth defects and the like.

 

And the "losing geniuses" argument is flawed, as well. If we can't alter intelligence, then we'd gain as many geniuses as we "lost." If we can alter intelligence, we'd gain more than we lost.

 

And finally, what does any of this have to do with free will?

[Gypsy Cake]

Gypsy Cake:

Why is "nature taking its course" better? What is "natural" for us right now takes place in a setting, civilization, that is far removed from any environment that would select for tougher, smarter, more capable organisms. It protects the weak and gives incentives for NOT having children that smarter people are more likely to take advantage of. Most of the traits which correlate with more offspring right now are what we would probably call negative - low intelligence being the prime example. Right now, as we speak, the human race is naturally evolving to become dumber.

 

I completely disagree. It's true that we make it possible for 'weaker' specimens of our race to survive and therefore slow evolution but we aren't becoming dumber are we? You can tell by the staggering advances we've made over the last few centuries. And I also don't agree that smarter people choose not to have children. It's an instinct, It doesn't matter how successful we are, the majority of humans are compelled to have children.

 

I also don't see why it would lessen variety. If anything, I would expect to see more variety, the more genes could be tailored. The only "varieties" that would disappear would be birth defects and the like.

I believe variety would decrease because there is a common conception of the perfect human. When parents would be making their decisions about their baby then they would undoubtedly include many of the traits seen as good. And although these may be good traits, if everyone had them they would no longer be special.

 

And the "losing geniuses" argument is flawed, as well. If we can't alter intelligence, then we'd gain as many geniuses as we "lost." If we can alter intelligence, we'd gain more than we lost.

Who said we can't alter intelligence?

But anyway, my point here was that there are many things that form a genius; there is their potential intelligence of course, but parts of their personality that cause certain things to happen to them during their lives (eg. being hated by people results in withdrawal but also possibly the formation of a genius.) we can not predict these things. And if I'm correct, and variety decreases then so will individual experience.

 

And finally, what does any of this have to do with free will?

 

Very little, but I just wanted to mention A Clockwork Orange coz its a good book. Sorry.

 

Look forward to your response.

[Sisyphus]

It's true that we make it possible for 'weaker' specimens of our race to survive and therefore slow evolution

 

Why "slow?" In what way are "positive" traits selected for?

 

but we aren't becoming dumber are we? You can tell by the staggering advances we've made over the last few centuries.

 

I don't think that's an indicator. Science can progress faster the more information it has to begin with, technologies synergize with one another, education is much more widely available, and the population (i.e., the number of thinking minds) has exploded a hundredfold. All of those things would yield an exponentially increasing base of human knowledge even if the average human intelligence was dropping.

 

I don't know that it's had a significant effect as of yet, since the selection pressure has only really been in effect for a dozen or so generations. But it is probably inevitable.

 

And I also don't agree that smarter people choose not to have children. It's an instinct, It doesn't matter how successful we are, the majority of humans are compelled to have children.

 

It's not just whether to have children. It's how soon and how many. If group A has an average of 4 children starting at age 18, and group B has an average of 2 children starting at age 36, group A is spreading its genes with four times the efficiency of group B.

 

And that's usually how it happens. Most people want children, but there are plenty of incentives to WAIT longer before having them, and to not have a lot of them. Financial concerns are one obvious example - and so the financially prudent are "punished," evolutionarily speaking. Also, people want to be settled down, which obviously takes longer the more education you undergo. So the more educated are punished, as well.

 

I'm not making up the correlation, either. These are things I've read from reputable sources.

 

I believe variety would decrease because there is a common conception of the perfect human. When parents would be making their decisions about their baby then they would undoubtedly include many of the traits seen as good. And although these may be good traits, if everyone had them they would no longer be special.

 

Right, and as soon as they become no longer special, they become no longer desirable. The human desire to be unique and special is powerful, and the more opportunity we're given to willingly differentiate ourselves, the more different from one another we become. That's why I think there would be an increase in genetic variety, rather than a decrease. (With the exception, as I mentioned before, of obvious birth defects.)

 

But anyway, my point here was that there are many things that form a genius; there is their potential intelligence of course, but parts of their personality that cause certain things to happen to them during their lives (eg. being hated by people results in withdrawal but also possibly the formation of a genius.) we can not predict these things. And if I'm correct, and variety decreases then so will individual experience.

 

Well, this just falls out from the variety thing, mostly. I think the variety of human experience will greatly broaden, not narrow. (And I don't think any of this could stop people hating each other!) But, as you say, we can't really predict these things, so it doesn't have much force either way in the debate. However, the one thing we can predict, a raising of the average intelligence, would yield more "genius."

[Gypsy Cake]

I don't think that's an indicator.

 

To be honest I don't think there are any indicators of devolution. Would you not agree? That due social classes over the last couple of millenia or so there would be more naturally smart people held back and more naturally unsmart propelled forward in their success. And therefore a greater mix of genes.

By this I mean that your "group A" (lower classes) would contain many more intelligent people merely held back because of their position opposed in 'caveman times'. And the opposite in the upper classes.

 

This would mean that just because society's failures have more children that they wouldn't necessarily be more stupid than before. meh.

 

 

The human desire to be unique and special is powerful.

 

I would say that generally humans strive to be similar. Keeping up with the Jones', religion, gang culture I would say were examples of this.

 

However, the one thing we can predict, a raising of the average intelligence, would yield more "genius."

 

There is no genius that is one just because they're smart. There is always something in genuis' life that is different to the norm and has a knock-on effect.

[Sisyphus]

[quote name=Gypsy Cake;330719

 

This would mean that just because society's failures have more children that they wouldn't necessarily be more stupid than before. meh.

 

Well' date=' sure, of course. The number of exceptions is vast. But in terms of evolution, you're talking about averages. If 51% of dumb people have lots of kids, and 49% of smart people do, you're still going to see a trend towards the dumb ones. I suspect it's not that close, either.

 

I would say that generally humans strive to be similar. Keeping up with the Jones', religion, gang culture I would say were examples of this.

 

"Keeping up with the Jones'" can mean trying to conform OR trying to distinguish oneself somehow. This is all speculation, though, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

There is no genius that is one just because they're smart. There is always something in genuis' life that is different to the norm and has a knock-on effect.

 

Being smart is not sufficient but it is necessary. Hence, all other factors aside, the more smart people you have, the more genius you produce.

[Gypsy Cake]

kk. I think we've come to an end on this for a while. We'll just have to disagree on somethings.

Though I think at some point we should open a thread on whether the human species is devolving.

Could be interesting to have some other people's views on that.

 

till then...

[Martin]

Gypsy Cake:

 

Why is "nature taking its course" better? What is "natural" for us right now takes place in a setting, civilization, that is far removed from any environment that would select for tougher, smarter, more capable organisms. It protects the weak and gives incentives for NOT having children that smarter people are more likely to take advantage of. Most of the traits which correlate with more offspring right now are what we would probably call negative - low intelligence being the prime example. Right now, as we speak, the human race is naturally evolving to become dumber.

 

I also don't see why it would lessen variety. If anything, I would expect to see more variety, the more genes could be tailored. The only "varieties" that would disappear would be birth defects and the like.

...

 

I certainly agree with your general vision that on balance it could be enormously beneficial for parents to have more control over genetic makeup---be able to exercise more genetic choice.

 

I think it even holds some hope of helping save humanity from eventual Orwellian state and from destroying our environment.

 

My reasoning is that even subaverage-witted parent might catch on that they can have fast-learner kids that could be more successful.

You might see masses of more intelligent more educable people.

 

right now, given the available technology and its potential to screw things up barring collective intelligence people are not bright enough to avoid the pitfalls.

 

We need more intelligent humans, i believe, or we are likely to end up with a CLASS society where the rampaging very very rich will run everything to suit themselves, and lie to the rest of us sheep, or a DICTATOR society along some high-tech fascist lines, or a disfunctional Democracy not worthy of the name.

===========

 

So I think it is possible that Designerbaby could be a "great equalizer" in human history similar to things like Gunpowder and Printing.

Firearms changed society by leveling the battlefield, sort of, for a while. Printing made books available more widely and let more voices be heard and leveled the Ideas-field and Knowlege-field somewhat.

things like this can cause major social transformation.

 

it only takes a few IQ points to realize back in 1970s that you needed a (like $2) gasoline tax to force more fuel-efficient vehicles

it only takes a few IQ points to have realized while there was still time that invading Iraq would be stupid.

 

so anyway the analogy of gunpowder, you give every peasant in the Colonies a rifle and you get rather uncontrollable frontiersmen or you give every peasant the chance for his child to have CEO-class smarts or Wallstreet-class analytical ability, and of course the prospect is very disturbing---there arent enough Wallstreet and Siliconvalley jobs, for one thing. there might be some shakeups.

 

but what's the alternative?

 

Designerbaby is a form of natural-selection-driven evolution.

Genes win out because parents select them.

(because of some kind of appeal to parents which gives those genes an advantage in the free-marketplace of genes)

It is all natural selection---in the Darwin jungle genes could win out if they conferred survival and reproduction advantage so here we have an alternative selection mechanism. desire for pride in successful offspring, culture-driven, the jungle environment provided by civilization

 

well Sisyphus you can see I am not at all clear about this. lots of confusion. but I am in general agreement with your posts in this thread and see them as going somewhere. thanks for pushing ahead with this

[Gypsy Cake]

Martin:-

What's your view on the argument me and Sisyphus were having on designer baby effecting the variety in humans? or do you not feel it would be effected?

[Aftabnadim]

Man evolution take alot of time from some unknown sources i came to know that man evolution takes about 40,000 years and I'm more of a conservative and believe we should let nature take its course when it comes to evolution. Although I thought Foodchain made a good point. If we produced genetically modified babies than what the poor peooples will do. Let go nature to do everything it want because we experianced alot of problems in the past whenever we tried to disturb the nature for our own plesures of life

Response to my message and think about it

[foodchain]

I dont think we are at a point to say we really know what we are doing.

[richard]

It could be an advantage with the chav. They will obviously desire a Burrbery baby and, may be prepared to work to pay for it.

[Royston]

It could be an advantage with the chav. They will obviously desire a Burrbery baby and, may be prepared to work to pay for it.

 

Ummm, I think applying for child benefit would be more realistic

 

They could tamper with the frequency range of their ears, and be immune to '*chav busters' however these have sadly been banned in my local city.

 

 

*Alarms that can only be heard by young people.

[labman]

Cant see a problem with it myself especially if it helps a poorly sibling.

[Sepiraph]

In some primitive way, many species in Nature already exercised certain degree of this "designer babies" syndrome by being selective in their matings. For humans, this manifested itself in the perception of physical and (perhaps somewhat lesser) mental attractiveness. So designer babies can be in some sense be seen as a more intelligence-driven form of selection.

 

And really we aren't talking about transhumanism, but more along the line of making sure that your babies don't have genetic defects. Therefore I don't see how one can argue against it, especially if they don't force everyone to have designer babies. However, I can think of special cases where genetic disorder runs prominently in a family where one may still choose to be an irresponsible parent by not taking advantage of this technology, then I personally cannot agree with allowing that type of stupidity to happen.

[someguy]

It's tough to say if this is a good idea or not. on the one hand it could totally mess up our diversity of genetics which allow many different humans to be fit for many different tasks. It wouldn't bode well for capitalism. Most people would want to make their children really smart and really physically attractive and really physically able and talented at everything. if everyone was this way people would be way too over qualified for certain jobs and go crazy.

 

On the other hand we'd probably get very wise as a population and we would solve all of the problems of humanity and become really a good community rather than individuals at war with each other.

 

or maybe we could somehow regulate our genetic population so that we get some really really smart people and then other people for doing the jobs that dont' require so much intelligence, but then you would be in a sense making slaves and we'd be back in the day with plato and natural slaves and citizens and that doesn't seem ethical to me. maybe if we build an army of super wise to rule the planet.. i'd be more down with that.

 

I think designer babies could possibly be the best thing that could ever happen to human beings, but it could also possibly become the worst it depends how it is allowed and monitored. But imagine the world with 10 000 einsteins only 10 000 would be huge probably there would be revolutions all over the place. we don't even get 2 einsteins alive at the same time, at least i don't think so.

[Jadey12]

Has anyone here seen the movie GATTACA? It has to do with genetic engineering, more specifically, removing illnesses rather than engineering someone’s physical characteristics. I thought the movie was very interesting, and I could actually see many aspects of it happening in the future.

[lucaspa]

IMO, designer babies is a stupid idea. This presumes several fallacies about evolution.

 

1) that some traits are ALWAYS good.

2) that we are smarter than natural selection.

 

Both of these are very, very wrong. Traits are "good" or "bad" only in relation to a particular environment. Every trait has a benefit and a cost. Natural selection is always sifting thru the cost/benefit ratio. As someone also noted, designing means eliminating some alleles from the population. This decreases genetic diversity and makes the population less able to respond to environmental changes. Instead of enhancing human survival, it actually reduces it.

 

Also, humans use natural selection when the design problem is too tough for them. This means that natural selection is much, much smarter than we are. Trying to take over from natural selection, then, is a very bad idea.