Would you choose specific traits for your children?

[blike]

If the technology was available, would you support designer babies? Why or why not?

[Nevermore]

Hell no! Children Should look like who their DNA says they are. Not like the fantasy of an immiture parent. And just for the record I'm pro choice for abortion, this is different. This would bo wrong

[Coral Rhedd]

If the technology was available, would you support designer babies? Why or why not?

 

A sense of wonder and joy sustained through life! Children often seem to start out with this but they often lose it somewhere along the way. This is so tragic.

 

The reason: I would want my child to be happy and an abiding fascination for life creates happiness.

 

I would support "designer babies" with some limitations. The first should be that everyone who wants to be a parent (and I hope a worthy parent) could avail themselves of the technology.

 

However, I can imagine a downside. Suppose aggression correlated with success? Do we really need more aggressive people?

[Macroscopic]

No. I think genetically changing people would slow down evolution, and that would be bad. I only support genetically changing people if it is to cure diseases.

I voted 'no, on other grounds'.

[Dak]

my kids idea of what they should be might not be the same as my ideah of what they should be... but i would take the option of 'scanning' their genome for any severe genetic disorders and fixing them if that were possible

[AzurePhoenix]

I'd want my kids to be like me psychologically. I just don't deal well with normal people, and thus would severely traumatize normal children, probably creating a new breed of Super Serial Killers. I'd want them to be intelligent, rational and motivated, but thoughtful, cynical, and noble in a humble way, with a good streak of twisted humor in them. We'd make such a happy family.

 

Most of all, I'd want to engineer them to be as healthy as possible . What loving parent wouldn't want that for their kids?

[Callipygous]

Azure, im with you all the way on most of those traits. thats the way my family is (the intelligent but cynical way, not the serial killers). i think youll probably find that such things are more related to how you raise them, perhaps with the exception of intelligence . if you display those traits yourself and encourage them in your children it is likely they will develope them.

 

i voted yes. i personally would not choose to alter any appearance related traits. i voted yes more on the idea of making sure they are not genetically predisposed to certain illnesses, or, for that matter, have genetic mutations.

 

 

 

(even the intelligence, i think can be altered by upbringing. if your always educating your children from an early age i think they will develope an easier understanding of such things and have a greater aptitude later in life, as well as greater interest)

[AzurePhoenix]

Agreed, but it'd be nice to have an innately genetic bedrock, just in case.

[rakuenso]

cough GATTACA cough,

 

anyone remember the part with teh 6 fingered pianist? If designer babies can give someone an advantage over someone else, competition and natural selection demands that they take advantage of the advantage.

[AzurePhoenix]

That's a good thing. Right? Guess it depends on your view of society and civilization.

[-Demosthenes-]

No. I think genetically changing people would slow down evolution' date=' and that would be bad. I only support genetically changing people if it is to cure diseases.

I voted 'no, on other grounds'.[/quote']

Slow down evolution? You can't slow down evoltion, genetically changing people would just be another tool used by evolution.

[Ryoken]

This would just advance the gap in disparity between the rich and the poor. The rich would have better babies, the poor would become more menial.

You can use your imagination for what would eventually happen.

[AzurePhoenix]

I'll take a shot at it.

The poor are genetically inferior. They remain poor, numbers dwindle, the rich become Spliced and fully dominant, and their livelihood becomes protected to maintain the order of the higher class Spliced people. Eventually, the population is exclusively composed of the Spliced, and the world is a better place, wth healthy people, and a good system for society. No one ever becomes poor again. The human race get's back on track in regards to advancing genes (though through artificial selection rather than natural) we become stronger gene-wise, healthier, and the race is saved from a long slow death by congenital entropy. Extinction is no longer an issue. Everyone is happy.

[Dapthar]

I'll take a shot at it.

The poor are genetically inferior. They remain poor' date=' numbers dwindle, the rich become Spliced and fully dominant, and their livelihood becomes protected to maintain the order of the higher class Spliced people. Eventually ... Everyone is happy.[/quote']I wonder how many lifetimes will pass between the onset of this hypothesized trend and the "everyone is happy" stage.

 

Put another way, if you were poor, but told that "eventually the human race will be better off by getting rid of the poor", would it make your life, or your descendant's lives any better?

 

They remain poor, numbers dwindle,

It may just be the pessimist in me, but if the above scenario were to occur, I would think that the poor would be used as cheap slave labor, since they would most likely be significantly cheaper that robots. Thus, since the rich actually have a vested economic interest in keeping the poor around, the poor are never eliminated from society, and the "everyone is happy" stage is never attained.

 

EDIT:

 

Regarding the poll, I voted "Yes", however, I think that the poll should distinguish between therapeutic and cosmetic genetic modifications.

 

For example, if parents knew that their child would be born with cystic fibrosis unless genetic modifications were made, I doubt that many of the forumites would disapprove of such a procedure, if the potential errors/side effects of the treatment were fairly mild, or had a relatively small probability of occurring.

 

However, one might question the motives of parents who elect for cosmetic modifications such as hair and eye color, since, as with any medical procedure, there is a non-negligible probability of a serious error occurring.

 

In short, I voted 'Yes' because of the first reason, and I would never approve cosmetic genetic modifications for any future unborn child of mine. However, I don't think it is my place to tell other parents what kind of elective surgery their child can have. As long as it is approved by a qualified medical professional, they should be able to do as they wish.

[AzurePhoenix]

Anything's possible if we utilize our greatest weapon. The power of IMAGINATION!!

 

Eh, I myself am an uber-cynic, but I dislike people more, so my little fantasy fulfills my desires.

[Newtonian]

I'll take a shot at it.

The poor are genetically inferior. They remain poor' date=' numbers dwindle, the rich become Spliced and fully dominant, and their livelihood becomes protected to maintain the order of the higher class Spliced people. Eventually, the population is exclusively composed of the Spliced, and the world is a better place, wth healthy people, and a good system for society. No one ever becomes poor again. The human race get's back on track in regards to advancing genes (though through artificial selection rather than natural) we become stronger gene-wise, healthier, and the race is saved from a long slow death by congenital entropy. Extinction is no longer an issue. Everyone is happy.[/quote']

Disagree.

People accidents not withstanding,would be guaranteed to live longer.We would simply have too great a percentage of elderly populus,to maintain economic stability.We already have problems as it is.

It would open a whole can of worms up.How would we address the situation,one could imagine

"oh well you have had such a healthy trouble free life,we feel your contribution should be now at a different level.....after all your 65 now and the needle of permanent sleep awaits you...but dont worry were all atheist and your actually only going as far as the genetic crop field as fertilizer for our corn...look at it as eternal life"

[ydoaPs]

i voted yes. you do it in a low tech way anyway. your mate is chosen (usually) by traits that you want to pass on.

[AzurePhoenix]

I don't actually believe what I typed Newtonian. Human society and politics, as well as basic "human ecology" are way too complicated for something like what I ever described to occur. Besides, if the elderly are helathy enough, we could find something productive for them to do. Imagine, we could fight all our wars exclusively with the elderly!!

[Coral Rhedd]

I'll take a shot at it.

The poor are genetically inferior.

 

One presumes the poor are genetically inferior only if money is how you keep score to determine genetic superiority.

[YT2095]

(No, on other grounds)

 

where would be the Fun/diversity/interest and dare I say Normality in that?

 

surely HALF the pleasure is discovery for both you AND the Child.

Predictability is SOooooo overated!

[AzurePhoenix]

One presumes the poor are genetically inferior only if money is how you keep score to determine genetic superiority.

 

Of course, hence the basis of the hypothetical situation. They lack the money, so can't afford genetic modification, so eventually become left behind in the gene race, not so much as becoming inferior, but rather not becoming superior. Yeah, that makes a whole lotta sense....

[YT2095]

taken on That basis then, the "Poor" will easily out do the rich, we still have natural selection on our side, whereas they have cash, and money will come and go as will jobs etc...

and so supporting a Genetically weak strain of "humanity" will only prove to be counter productive in the long term, they don`t just have Nature to deal with, but Finance too.

We have no such issues to contend with.

 

rather them than me!

[Callipygous]

the general idea would be that they arent fighting nature. they are helping to move it along faster. whos going to choose genes for their children that come along with disease or weakness?

[YT2095]

if I`ve learned one thing, and that one thing alone over all these years.

is that you Don`t fiddle about with nature!, because if nothing else, it always seems to come at the cost of something else as a trade-off

[-Demosthenes-]

...slow death by congenital entropy. Extinction is no longer an issue. Everyone is happy.

Is extinciton such an issue now? I don't see any evidence that the human race is having any kind of "slow death" and extinction.