Designer Babies

[Pyrotex]

haha, of course you can. Beauty and strength is only perception deep. All you gotta do is alter the perception.

 

Harrumph! that's easy for you to say :cup:

[Guest jamongo]

It would probably requires thousands of genes each being modified and rearranged on the DNA.

 

 

Probably true, and yet with a nice speedy computer and the proper software, Yaha, instant baby.

 

:Alien: :Alien:

[Southtown]

Pyro, would you love your children more if they were prettier or stronger?

[Pyrotex]

Pyro, would you love your children more if they were prettier or stronger?

 

No. Of course not.

 

I do have a step-son out there (in a safe place) who I tried very hard to love -- and finally gave up. He is pretty and strong. But he is also severely mentally challenged. He is 15, prone to anger, violence and he likes to kill small animals very slowly.

[Southtown]

No. Of course not.

 

I do have a step-son out there (in a safe place) who I tried very hard to love -- and finally gave up. He is pretty and strong. But he is also severely mentally challenged. He is 15, prone to anger, violence and he likes to kill small animals very slowly.

Sorry to hear that, man. That's gotta be hard.

[Pyrotex]

Sorry to hear that, man. That's gotta be hard.

It was even harder on my wife, his mother.

There are some genetic traits that are "beyond" not smart enough or not pretty enough or not strong enough. There are some genetic traits that can (even if only rarely) turn cute babies into something that cannot be turned loose in society. Ever.

 

There IS a place for this discussion, "designer babies". Sooner or later, we humans will take the plunge and start exercising our ability (however limited) to select which genes our offspring will (or will NOT) get.

 

Let me tell you, some of those "bad" genes are really, really awful.

 

Anybody want to start a thread, "Should We Play God?"

[CraigD]

I suspect that genetic alteration of one’s own offspring – “designer babies” - will, as advances in understanding of basic and applied genetics inexorably increases, be unavoidable. Some parents may chose not to, for reasons mentioned and unmentioned in this thread, but as various agencies – employers, insurers, etc – begin to take actuarial advantage of the differences in engineered and natural populations, such a position will become increasingly hard to maintain. The movie “Gattaca”, I think, portrays a reasonable prediction of these social and legal pressures (though much of its technical details seem to me unrealistic and overly stylized).

 

The early adoption of human genetic engineering is likely to follow a “slippery slope” pattern: initially, it will be used only in less controversial ways, such as to cure severe, genetic diseases (huntington's corea, etc), offering a far preferable alternative to the current ones of not having children, or having profoundly handicapped and/or short-lived and/or pain ridden ones. As society comes to accept these uses, more controversial treatment to “cure” genetic conditions that are not obviously handicaps or diseases (normal mental, and/or physical ability), will become acceptable, and, finally, frivolous, esthetic ones (hair and eye color, etc.). At some point, standing (who decides) is likely to change from parents to governments, and genes identified with undesired (criminal, subversive, etc) behavior may be targeted for modification.

 

The danger in all this is, I believe, mostly social. I’m optimistic that the understanding that allows the development of genetic engineering techniques will also produce profound understanding of potential hazards (decreased diversity leading to “monocrop”-like common susceptibility to disease, etc.), allowing them to be avoided.

 

I can only hope that real advances in understanding of society, with its many currently vague and intangible concepts, will appear in time to prevent harm to society from genetic engineering. This, I think, will involve far harder problems than those encountered by molecular geneticists.

[Pyrotex]

...The movie “Gattaca”, I think, portrays a reasonable prediction of these social and legal pressures (though much of its technical details seem to me unrealistic and overly stylized).

The early adoption of human genetic engineering is likely to follow a “slippery slope” pattern: initially, it will be used only in less controversial ways, such as to cure severe, genetic diseases... As society comes to accept these uses....

 

Good points. And excellent reference to Gattaca, a darn good movie. Concerning the "slippery slope" I wonder if the history of reconstructive (cosmetic) surgery would be an appropriate example.

 

ReconSurg originally was intended to repair the horrible damage done to faces by World War 1. Many of the techniques had to be "invented" on a one-by-one basis. This effort expended on Veterans justified the field, giving nobility to a kind of "unnecessary" surgery. After all, it didn't exactly save lives, it just made people look and feel better.

 

Slowly, we crept down the slippery slope until now, perfectly beautiful people pay $20K at a whack to "improve" features that need no fixing. All the moral debate has been mostly exhausted, and we accept CosmeSurg as one of those fringe ordinaries of life. The only thing that prevents it from affecting everyone is the EXPENSE.

 

GenetiSurg may go the same route. In the end, we will do anything we want to do with it. The only barrier, in the end, will be the EXPENSE. Can you afford the $20K* to give your offspring an additional 20 IQ points, eidetic memory, enhanced strength or the face of your favorite movie star? :cup:

 

*[2000 CE US Dollars, adjusted for inflation, of course]

[Southtown]

Yeah there's definitely a place for genetic modification. Even from a biblical POV, we should do what we can to help the less-fortunate. But I don't think it will be void of unintended consequences.

 

Disclaimers of side-effects aside, the problem lies in commercialism. Where do we draw the line between necessity and vanity? Who will get to decide? Companies will offer, promote, and glamorize whatever is both profitable and legal. The legislation regarding GMBs (like that?) will depend only on the corporate campaign contributions.

 

Craig brings up an important point. The poor will be at an even greater disadvantage. Health care costs already obstruct certain necessary care to the increasing population of poor people, now they will also be less qualified genetically to participate in society. Might as well modify my kids to have built in blue collars.

[Pyrotex]

...genetic modification. ...I don't think it will be void of unintended consequences.... draw the line between necessity and vanity? Who will get to decide? ... Might as well modify my kids to have built in blue collars.

 

Every age has been frought with critical decisions.

"Do we enforce this Christian religion in order to control the populace?"

"Do we enforce the Inquisition in order to control the Christians?"

"Do we permit steam power instead of horse power?"

"Do we permit banks, cheques, and letters of credit to replace gold?"

"Do we overthrow monarchs and permit democracies?"

"Do we fight the War to end all wars?"

"Do we permit the genetic manipulation of our food and our babies?"

 

And in every age, the unintended consequences often out-weighed the intended by many orders of magnitude. Often, the unintended were so off the map that they could not even begin to be predicted. Even if you had warned the participants, "don't do that or it will be the end of civilization as you know it", they would not have believed you, or even understood you.

 

Woody Allen once said, "There lies before us a great fork in the road of our destiny. Down one path lies the total collapse of our social systems and the end of our civilization; down the other path lies nuclear armegeddon. Let us pray that our leaders make the right choice."

 

Amen. :cup:

[WeMustEscapeEarth]

I pray that genetic engineering becomes accepted and highly advanced. I have confidence that it will. It's way too tantalizing for most of us to resist. It is also way too important. It will be rapidly enhance our evolution. I don't even necessarily consider GE "unnatural."

 

When it is a reality, the majority of the anti-GE's will hop onto the GE bandwagon. Especially when GE is perfected and proved to have no negative results on the specimen.

 

Of course there will be some less favorable consequences. I also have confidence that we will be able to work through the less favorable consequences so that it doesn't lead to our destruction. Then again I'm young and invincible.

[HydrogenBond]

Maybe an alternative would be to tweak the gene split in the sperm and ova so we get the best of both parents and leave the less desirable genes behind. The same two parents can have a range of children from sickly to healthy, from intelligent to less than average, from tall to short, etc. The idea is to split their existing genes to take more advantage of the best attributes. We are not adding anything that is not already there.

[zararhanson]

Designer babies is when they take the best egg and sperm to make the best baby possible with no defects.........