Political Crossfire Forums

[Gryff1nd0r]

Imagine that we successfully learn to manipulate the human genome for basic traits within a reasonable human limit. We could successfully genetically engineer children to be free of any genetic diseases and even genetically resistent to many non-genetic sicknesses, increasing the life span and life quality of our children, and freeing them of disabilities. Is it immoral to genetically engineer a child who will be free of Down's Syndrom? Is it immoral to genetically engineer a child who will be a heterosexual male with brown hair and blue eyes? If you say no to the first scenario and yes to the second, how do you fairly tell one parent that they can genetically alter their child and the other that they cannot? What if genetic engineering was used only to prevent serious defects; the upperclass who could afford genetically engineered children would be free of genetic disorders, while the lowerclass would have to deal with typical genetic defects and would undoubtedly blame them on the wealthy. Should the government subsidize genetic engineering to breed healthy children?

Imagine now that our scientists have mastered the human genome, and can now manipulate it however they please, possibly even adding on "superhuman qualities". You could genetically engineer your child to be musicaly, athletically, and/or socially inclined, and to be very talented in their area. What are the moral implications of this genetic engineering? Is this a violation of the child's autonomy? What would it mean for society as a whole? How would these genetically engineered children feel as they grow up and what would the reaction be towards them? What if only the rich could afford to genetically engineer their children to be super smart/strong/big/sexy/artistic, and it became mainstream for the upperclass while the lower class could not choose and/or increase their genetically endowed traits?

This was the subject of our freshmen readings for the class of 2010. We had to have a discussion group to debate/discuss, and now I'm bored and I don't feel like calculus and I'm still thinking about genetic engineering, so here we go.

[Green]

they have done a movie on this subject. It is called Gattaca, you should rent it some time. Or just Wiki it.

And I agree with the movie: No

Genetic engenerring will produse a new opressed minority. The movie is probably right about that tere will be a bias against the genetically perfect, although the genetically normal person may work harder and be better as somthing.

[ieatfood]

gattaca is wrong

gattaca assumes that the world is zero sum gain--one man's gain is another man's loss

the world is NOT SO

having smarter people will benefit society as a whole by making a better economy, creating more jobs for the smart and dumb alike

there will be no oppression--just an increase in wealth for all through economic expansion.

[Demonic Spoon]

Gryff1nd0r wrote: Imagine that we successfully learn to manipulate the human genome for basic traits within a reasonable human limit. We could successfully genetically engineer children to be free of any genetic diseases and even genetically resistent to many non-genetic sicknesses, increasing the life span and life quality of our children, and freeing them of disabilities. Is it immoral to genetically engineer a child who will be free of Down's Syndrom? Is it immoral to genetically engineer a child who will be a heterosexual male with brown hair and blue eyes? If you say no to the first scenario and yes to the second, how do you fairly tell one parent that they can genetically alter their child and the other that they cannot? What if genetic engineering was used only to prevent serious defects; the upperclass who could afford genetically engineered children would be free of genetic disorders, while the lowerclass would have to deal with typical genetic defects and would undoubtedly blame them on the wealthy. Should the government subsidize genetic engineering to breed healthy children?

Imagine now that our scientists have mastered the human genome, and can now manipulate it however they please, possibly even adding on "superhuman qualities". You could genetically engineer your child to be musicaly, athletically, and/or socially inclined, and to be very talented in their area. What are the moral implications of this genetic engineering? Is this a violation of the child's autonomy? What would it mean for society as a whole? How would these genetically engineered children feel as they grow up and what would the reaction be towards them? What if only the rich could afford to genetically engineer their children to be super smart/strong/big/sexy/artistic, and it became mainstream for the upperclass while the lower class could not choose and/or increase their genetically endowed traits?

This was the subject of our freshmen readings for the class of 2010. We had to have a discussion group to debate/discuss, and now I'm bored and I don't feel like calculus and I'm still thinking about genetic engineering, so here we go.


Yes to all.

To those who think it's immoral to genetically engineer a child's looks: Looks are important. I don't give two ***** about any "looks are skin deep" arguement, they are important. In addition to simply being more pleasing to look at, it has been scientifically tested that ugly people are less liked than pretty people. It is a subconcious reaction we have. Even members of the same gender are more likely to talk to a pretty person as opposed to a butt-ugly one. You would be doing your kid a huge favor by giving them good looks.

One arguement against this is that people fear everyone would look the same...I don't know about you, but I can think of about 8 REALLY REALLY hot people at my school, and they all look different. Just because everyone would look good does not mean everyone would look the same.

[perdidochas]

ieatfood wrote: gattaca is wrong

gattaca assumes that the world is zero sum gain--one man's gain is another man's loss

the world is NOT SO

having smarter people will benefit society as a whole by making a better economy, creating more jobs for the smart and dumb alike

there will be no oppression--just an increase in wealth for all through economic expansion.

Nope, it will result in instability. Smart people in brain dead jobs (and I see no way of eliminating them in the near future) just causes frustrated smart people.....

Also, the main problem with genetic engineering is unintended consequences (i.e. murphy's law and related corollaries). Manipulation of nature has it's costs.

[The Grandmaster]

Demonic Spoon wrote:
Yes to all.

To those who think it's immoral to genetically engineer a child's looks: Looks are important. I don't give two ***** about any "looks are skin deep" arguement, they are important. In addition to simply being more pleasing to look at, it has been scientifically tested that ugly people are less liked than pretty people. It is a subconcious reaction we have. Even members of the same gender are more likely to talk to a pretty person as opposed to a butt-ugly one. You would be doing your kid a huge favor by giving them good looks.

One arguement against this is that people fear everyone would look the same...I don't know about you, but I can think of about 8 REALLY REALLY hot people at my school, and they all look different. Just because everyone would look good does not mean everyone would look the same.

Hmmm........ :think:

In approximately 11 months, and reading well over 20,000 – 40,000 posts in a span of probably about 500 hours on this forum in the past year…this post here will now rank as one of the top 10 posts on all these forums that I agree with the most.

[John Galt]

Of course I would engineer a child, and so will most of the people of the future.

[Demonic Spoon]

Wish I was born 100 years later. I am f***ing ugly :lol:

[Green]

perdidochas wrote: Nope, it will result in instability. Smart people in brain dead jobs (and I see no way of eliminating them in the near future) just causes frustrated smart people.....

Also, the main problem with genetic engineering is unintended consequences (i.e. murphy's law and related corollaries). Manipulation of nature has it's costs.
Actually, it may destroy the hierarchy. Read 1984 where it says what would happen if people could get the fruits of their labor back in the 20th century.

IE, goldstein's book.

[Green]

John Galt wrote: Of course I would engineer a child, and so will most of the people of the future.

Ok, I admit it, I agree with Genetic Engineering, only if everybody gets it, and not just half or one third.

Oh and btw, somebody will get born the natrual way, and they may be opressed, because no matter how hard they work, they will always be inferior.

[Demonic Spoon]

Highly doubtful.

By the time we are good enough at such genetic engineering, it will be so cheap/easy to do that it will not really be out of the price range of anyone. s**t, they'll be like vaccinations.


Of course people born the natural way would be at a big disadvantage in life, but then again, it's the same thing with diseases, etc. People born naturally will still be able to function in the real world.



And I am doubting this "being oppressed" bulls**t. Being born naturally when your neighbor was engineered to have great intelligence would be similar to a retarded kid vs a regular kid. We haven't put retards in forced labor camps yet.

[Green]

Demonic Spoon wrote: Highly doubtful.

By the time we are good enough at such genetic engineering, it will be so cheap/easy to do that it will not really be out of the price range of anyone. s**t, they'll be like vaccinations.


Of course people born the natural way would be at a big disadvantage in life, but then again, it's the same thing with diseases, etc. People born naturally will still be able to function in the real world.



And I am doubting this "being oppressed" bulls**t. Being born naturally when your neighbor was engineered to have great intelligence would be similar to a retarded kid vs a regular kid. We haven't put retards in forced labor camps yet.

No, but we deny them jobs.

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
No, but we deny them jobs.



We deny anyone who is not qualified. If a retard is qualified, he will get a job.[/quote]

[Bolshevik]

Well, first off, it's definitely ethical to change the human genome. I would go for superhuman strength. And if I could rebuild my genes, I would add kahunas the size of grapefruits.

However, the gene pool would still need to be balanced out. You simply can't have a world without underachievers and morons. The easiest way to balance everything out would be to make 1 out of every 100 or so syringes containing these altered-genes; also contain the stupid gene. Let's throw muscular dystrophy in there too, for good measure.

Of course, superhuman genetic alterations should be reserved for military use only. Babies would have to be stolen at birth and forced into the military, then pumped up on superhuman genes their whole lives. It would also help if they were rabid.

The applications and possibilities are far, far too immense for me to explain in one post, but I think you get the jist of what I'm saying.

[Tepic]

Demonic Spoon wrote: In addition to simply being more pleasing to look at, it has been scientifically tested that ugly people are less liked than pretty people. It is a subconcious reaction we have.
Okay, so while we're genetically engineering people we could (1) make them prettier (2) make them friendlier, so they even treat ugly people nicely. Two birds with one stone!

perdidochas wrote: Nope, it will result in instability. Smart people in brain dead jobs (and I see no way of eliminating them in the near future) just causes frustrated smart people.....
Maybe ... or maybe they'd just automate everything.

perdidochas wrote: Also, the main problem with genetic engineering is unintended consequences (i.e. murphy's law and related corollaries). Manipulation of nature has it's costs.
That's true, but we've been doing it ever since some shaman discovered that chewing willow bark cured fever (and chewing a different bark gave you hallucinations...)

[Demonic Spoon]

Quote:
Okay, so while we're genetically engineering people we could (1) make them prettier (2) make them friendlier, so they even treat ugly people nicely. Two birds with one stone!

It has nothing to do with being friendly or not :roll:. Even a friendly person will not treat an ugly person as well. Although if everyone was made not-ugly, then your suggestion is kind of moot.

[Tepic]

Depends on your definition of friendly ;) but you were talking about a subconscious, inborn reaction - and surely anything inborn can be engineered out?

[Demonic Spoon]

Well, what you'd be doing would be changing people's ability to judge based on uglyness. It's possible ,but kind of pointless if noone is ugly.

[Selfish_Meme]

While genetic engineering of test tube conceptions will probably come first, already has in a way (gender selection), the next stage will probably be retrofitting existing genomes. ie take a pill and get a different color skin. its only melanin expression after all. I would also expect more electronic components making their way into our bodies soon. Many bionic eyes, ears, hearts, brain modulators are already being fitted. These will improve and I think will make the most difference. How can you compete with a petabit of storage and a few petaflops of processing power.

Myself I would like an address book, calendar, face recogniser and short term video/audio storage for a start.

I probably wouldn't have a direct connection to the net though! :cool:

[slitedeviance]

See, here's my number one major all time problem with genetic engineering to enhance / define peoples looks and abilities (not in principle opposed for medical reasons)...

Mentioned earlier is the chance that there would be an underclass formed by this of people. People have dismissed this, and stated that this would not happen, as it could be made available for all etc.

Take a look worldwide...

How long do you think it would be before they could afford this in Africa? How would you address the imbalance created there between the (mostly) white wealthy westerners able to alter their childrens appearances and the black guys who can't afford food?

Secondly, do you not think it would rob people of part of their humanity? We are meant to be imperfect, it forms part of our personality and drives how we live our lives. If your ugly, deal with it. If your chunky, deal with it. If you have a slightly odd birthmark above your right ass-cheek, deal with it. Grab your balls (whatever size) and live your goddamn life.

Thirdly, what gives parents the right to decide how their children would look? Parents make crap choices all the damn time. What happens when they get bored of their blue eyed blonde hair baby girl? Feed her another pill to change it all so they remain interested?

It would be another example of the church of the self winning out over basic grubby mucky humanity.