Would you choose specific traits for your children?

[RICHARDBATTY]

If by technology it is meant that it was possible and safe, then I say yes remove disability. If possible enhance health like better resistance to disease, stronger muscles and increased stamina. I would say to leave eye colour etc alone. I think it would help us all in the long run as these improved genes would then be passed on and prevent some suffering. Some times the princess marries the frog and therefore it may not just benefit the wealthy. Well thats the way I see it anyway.

[Macroscopic]

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

I don't know what I meant. It made sense at the time though. I was sick when I made the post.

[AzurePhoenix]

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.

 

I possess a very farsighted streak of cynicism. At this time it is not an issue, but as long as we continue to allow those with disease and disorder carrying genes to have children when nature would have selected against them long before maturity, we certainly aren't doing their ancestors any good. Recessive diseases could hypothetically spread throughout the species before they're noticed in bulk. Who really knows? With regards to evolutionary paths and cycles, humans stand alone. The normal rules don't apply to us. Whether that's good or bad, who can say at this point?

 

Also, I'd like it to be known that besides the congenital entropy remark, that particular post from before was purely obnoxious smart-aleckness. Don't read too deep into it. Better yet, can anyone delete it?

[Coral Rhedd]

I don't know what I meant. It made sense at the time though. I was sick when I made the post.

 

Here's a thread with a device that will help rebalance you:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=153278#post153278

 

[Iceman]

In a way i would, i would want the baby to be healthy, or at least without any diseases it is inheriting from me or my parter. However, i would not want to change things like looks, etc. As long as they are healthy, or at least not NOT healthy because of me, I would be perfectly happy. Although, I would be perfectly happy without "designing" the baby in anyway, but if the option was available, i'd probably take the make-it-healthy route.

[Auburngirl05]

cough GATTACA cough' date='

[/quote']

That was a really good movie, we watched it in my Social Psychology class, it was definitely food for thought...

[-Demosthenes-]

I possess a very farsighted streak of cynicism. At this time it is not an issue' date=' but as long as we continue to allow those with disease and disorder carrying genes to have children when nature would have selected against them long before maturity, we certainly aren't doing their ancestors any good. Recessive diseases could hypothetically spread throughout the species before they're noticed in bulk. Who really knows? With regards to evolutionary paths and cycles, humans stand alone. The normal rules don't apply to us. Whether that's good or bad, who can say at this point?

 

Also, I'd like it to be known that besides the congenital entropy remark, that particular post from before was purely obnoxious smart-aleckness. Don't read too deep into it. Better yet, can anyone delete it?[/quote']

 

I don't think that you are quite sure what evolution is... There is nothing we can do to hurt evolution or stop it, its a continual thing that happens no matter what. All technology can do is change what it does and how it works.

 

All evolution really is, is the change of alleles in a population over time.

 

If weaker people survive that usually wouldn't have in the past without technology, and then they reproduce, then the genes that they pasted on wouldn't be nessicarily bad, they would be okay for the current enironment, with technology. Just becuase the genes are bad for our ancesters doesn't mean they are bad for us, if they didn't die because of technology then why would it be bad for the species if they reproduced as long as we have that technology?

[AzurePhoenix]

I understand genetics and natural selection, genetic drift and speciation just fine. What I'm unsure about is how our own actions will affect genetic patterns in domestic animals and our own species in the eons to come.

 

And true, you can't hurt evolution itself, and I agree that under normal, natural circumstances, a species cannot be "weakened" in the way that I speak. And it's inarguable that evolution never stops, and probably can't be stopped. But I think you fail to imagine the full scope of possiblities regarding the future of mankind. Who's to say that thirty-thousand years down the line we're still stuck on this dirt-ball, and some cataclysm reduces us to stone-age levels again. Suddenly, where's all that technological protection? Silk Moth do well in captivity, but can't survive in the wild. Someday, when humans no longer can or need to care for that breed, they'll go extinct. No one can really know whether or not the same applies to us, though certainly less drastically.

 

And really, we've only been influencing our evolution for a short time in the scheme of things. As of yet, we probably haven't made any potentially devasting changes in our genes, but give us a few more millennia in our current state, and who knows what we might do.

 

The point is, we know far less about genetics then we like to give ourselves credit for. We only just discovered gene-sequences can code for more than one protein. For Cheezus's sake, we only just were able to prove that sex is good for evolution!

[Flareon]

I voted yes.

 

If I could afford it, sure, I would want to give my children all the genetic advantage I could give them. If anything, it would be cost-effective in the long run--lowered medical bills, greater productivity due to increased intelligence and physical fitness, etc.

 

Furthermore, I would exercise great self-restraint so that I would rid the diseases, boost the phi ratio (make 'em look good), and elevate the intelligence to the semi-genius level and leave the rest of the cards to fall where they may, being careful not to overmanipulate much.

[klanger]

I voted yes, but that would have to be a yes with boundaries. If I could have life threatening traits removed, heart problems lukemia or any of those kinds of afflictions, then I would. I would NOT however want their mind reshaped or their looks perfected. I love the individuality of children and wouldnt want to ruin that with tampering, I would just wish for them a long life, no parent either expects or wants to outlive their children so if I could make those kind of things stop then I would.

[ed84c]

You dont need genetics to tamper with a childs mind.

[Coral Rhedd]

I think parents want their children to have every possible advantage if they are honest with themselves. I do think that it only makes sense to manipulate those things that we can agree are a serious disadvantage to all children.

 

But can we agree?

 

For instance, many would think that children would be happier and the world a better place if there were no Downs Syndrome. My understanding is that this can be tested for but that it is not quite possible to determine the extent of the impairment. Also, many parents of children with Downs Syndrome would consider that aborting such a child is wrong. Bear with me here: They see it as a form of discrimination.

 

Now take appearance. Anyone who does not think beauty is an enormous advantage, has been living in a cave. Why pretend that it is somehow shallow to manipulate your potential child's genes to make them look good? Looking good bestows a social and economic advantage.

 

The whole thing is going to be an ethical can of worms.

 

I think we should have a right -- all of us -- to improve our children's health and advantages. If having money is a factor for enjoying this advantage, then the whole notion of justice, fair play, and equality of opportunity is at risk.

 

How much do we want to give up in order to give our children the best possible start in life? Answers to these questions will utterly reshape our governments, our societies, and our neighborhoods.

[C60]

I think that most of the people who said yes really have control problems i mean whats the next step after changing our genetics to suite our needs. In my pinion I'm with YT2095 all the way you just have to leave things up to nature and work with what it gives you

[AzurePhoenix]

most of the people who said yes really have control problems

I said yes, but my argument is that our society and tech has placed too much control in our own hands, rather than under "nature's control" where it belongs, and it is gene-engineering's task to sort of make-up for what problems that might cause.

[Flareon]

I think that most of the people who said yes really have control problems i mean whats the next step after changing our genetics to suite our needs. In my pinion I'm with YT2095 all the way you just have to leave things up to nature and work with what it gives you

 

You make it sound like having control is a bad thing. If I had to choose between having too little or too much control, I'd choose the latter. Besides, nature can make mistakes, some very severe. I'm not really "controlling" all that much; I'm simply insuring that nature will "get it right" the first time.

 

I understand that some parents who are "control freaks" may go out of practical bounds and dictate everything down to the last hair follicle, and that might actually prove detrimental to the child. Perhaps measures can be put in place so that there is a limit to the specificity of the design. But wanting your child to be healthy and fit and intelligent is not out of the question.

[RedAlert]

First of all, are we able to do this? Or will it possible to make designer babies in the future?

 

BTW, If all parents get a choice to say how their kids will be like, eventually won't everyone on Earth become the same?

[Coral Rhedd]

First of all' date=' are we able to do this? Or [i']will[/i] it possible to make designer babies in the future?

 

BTW, If all parents get a choice to say how their kids will be like, eventually won't everyone on Earth become the same?

 

Probably not. There are always some people who enjoy being different.

[RedAlert]

I said eventually, the one set of traits that we regard in highest respect will be predominant, and maybe only 1% of the population would then be "different".

 

Who wants their kids to be demonic? And in anycase, I doubt the authorities would allow them to choose that trait anyways.

[Coral Rhedd]

I said eventually' date=' the one set of traits that we regard in highest respect will be predominant, and maybe only 1% of the population would then be "different".

 

Who wants their kids to be demonic? And in anycase, I doubt the authorities would allow them to choose that trait anyways.[/quote']

 

Demonic is not a mental illness you know. If it were, it would be in the DSM.

[AzurePhoenix]

If all parents get a choice to say how their kids will be like, eventually won't everyone on Earth become the same?

In a world where everyone liked the same things, sure, but people aren't automatons,they're indivuals, with individual likes and dislikes. This couple wants their daughter to look like the Jessica Simpson stereotype, but this one over here wants a nice olive Jessica Alba type, and those freaks over there prefer Angelina Jolie. These guys like smart, slim boys, they like stout and athletic boys. And I imagine parents would want their kids to share their features to some extent.

 

As much as people seem to dislike diveristy, we really do relish our individuality, and prefer to distinguish ourselves from others. Plus, imagine picking your kid up from daycare if they all looked the same.

 

EDIT: Sorry, didn't realize you guys were already discussing this while I was typing a response.

[RedAlert]

I doubt we can get the technology sufficiently advanced until a long long time. In any case, eventually, wouldn't the other traits that we do not prefer be filtered out. It could take a long time to happen.........

[AzurePhoenix]

Why a long, long time? We can already "reconfigure" a person's genes to treat hereditary illnesses, and we can engineer pea plants that glow in the dark by utilizing firefly genes

[Coral Rhedd]

Try to be serious' date=' and also try not to twist my question around.

 

I know that demonic is not a mental illness, but it is a trait we do not prefer.[/quote']

 

I always wanted one of those kids who twist her head around 360 degrees.

 

Okay. You want serious. Why do we not all decorate our living rooms the same way? Because we like to express our individuality. Lately I have a yin for lavender and violet in my living room. Bet you don't.

 

My daughter actually said she would like an albino-looking child because albinos look so cool.

 

As much as I might like lavender in my living room, it is true that I would prefer any grandchild of mine to not be "albino-looking," but I bet she won't let me have input on names either.

 

Some cultures value individuality a little less than Americans. Perhaps they would have no albinos.

 

None of this presents nearly the problem however that is embodied in your quote:

 

I doubt the authorities would allow them to choose that trait anyways.

 

Let's think about that one for a moment.

[Dak]

immajine all of the people who call their child things like 'trixybell la-la de'murr', people like jako and maddona.

 

now imajine how theyd desighn their baby.

 

"omg, wouldnt it be cool if he glowed in the dark and had a tail and 5 ears".

 

and these people have the money to argue that that should be allowed, if desighner babys were allowed atall

 

(actually, a tail would be quite cool)

[AzurePhoenix]

As long as it was furry. A naked rat's tail with those pulsing veins would be plain creepy.