6 ms·

"You want to give your child the very best start...Keep in mind this child is still you, simply the best of you." - Gattaca

Filligree 13y ago
Yep. And what's so bad about that?
- paganel 13y ago
  You're right, we need the best from among us to build the brave new world.
  - jarman 13y ago
    Brave new world castes where created by inducing birth defects, not avoiding them
- functional_test 13y ago
  You should probably watch Gattaca - the answer to your question is pretty much the whole point of that film. Or if you don't want to watch, at least to read the first two paragraphs of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    Watching Gattaca is very recommended to everyone. It raises many important questions on how to properly and ethically handle genetic improvements in society, but in my opinion it doesn't at all say that the genetic improvements shouldn't be done, it simply warns about the social, political and legal issues that the society should discuss and solve alongside with the actual biological/engineering challenges.
  - toomuchtodo 13y ago
    So, I was 15 when Gattaca came out. 15 year old me was very much "Look at the protagonist succeed against all odds! Take that cold science!". 30 year old me is much more pragmatic. The world is changing very quickly, and even though I'm still somewhat young, I know things will get harder for me as I get older (I work in the tech sector; "The Benevolent Treadmill"). I have a wife, and soon kids on the way. I need to be able to get more done in the day, concentrate more, remember more, and continue to constantly learn while competing against kids half my age. 30 year old me would select the best traits for my child(ren) in a heartbeat. I want better for them than I had, as all parents do.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Is not so good if you are invalid.
- pfortuny 13y ago
  Thinking that the genotype adds value to a person's existence. If this is good, then eugenics is good as well, or at least 'not that bad.'
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    A better genotype does add value to a person's existence - For example, all other things being equal, a healthy person both individually feels better and is better for society than the 'same' person with a genetic defect that causes a horrible death in his/her childhood. If we can fix that, then it's a noble cause. If a genotype doesn't add value to existence, then it can't be called a "better genotype", then it's simply a different genotype. And, by the way, "If X, then eugenics is not that bad' is in no way an acceptable argument against or for X; it's worse than irrelevant.
    - pfortuny 13y ago
      No, that is what I contend: a better genotype makes no sense because there is no such thing as a "better" person from the physical standpoint. That is what I contend and that is why I take the natural conclusion: if you can "choose" between people based on their genotype, then you are treating them as 'things', not as 'people'. Which is what leads to eugenics, for example, with people with Down syndrome. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21555947 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21555947). "It is worse than irrelevant," I do not know why: I assumed the Parent was against eugenics, that is why I tried to make him realize it.
      - PeterisP 13y ago
        My personal moral opinion is that it would be extremely good if there was some way to make the kids/embryos with Down syndrome be cured, preferably before birth (because earlier in development there are less irreversible changes). And if we had such a cure (as far as I know, we currently don't and won't for quite some time), then not applying it wouldn't be okay - not using that cure would be pure evil, and comparable to torture or, say, forcibly denying someone their eyesight or hearing or limb.

Filligree 13y ago

Yep. And what's so bad about that?

paganel 13y ago
You're right, we need the best from among us to build the brave new world.
- jarman 13y ago
  Brave new world castes where created by inducing birth defects, not avoiding them
functional_test 13y ago
You should probably watch Gattaca - the answer to your question is pretty much the whole point of that film. Or if you don't want to watch, at least to read the first two paragraphs of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  Watching Gattaca is very recommended to everyone. It raises many important questions on how to properly and ethically handle genetic improvements in society, but in my opinion it doesn't at all say that the genetic improvements shouldn't be done, it simply warns about the social, political and legal issues that the society should discuss and solve alongside with the actual biological/engineering challenges.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  So, I was 15 when Gattaca came out. 15 year old me was very much "Look at the protagonist succeed against all odds! Take that cold science!". 30 year old me is much more pragmatic. The world is changing very quickly, and even though I'm still somewhat young, I know things will get harder for me as I get older (I work in the tech sector; "The Benevolent Treadmill"). I have a wife, and soon kids on the way. I need to be able to get more done in the day, concentrate more, remember more, and continue to constantly learn while competing against kids half my age. 30 year old me would select the best traits for my child(ren) in a heartbeat. I want better for them than I had, as all parents do.
moocowduckquack 13y ago
Is not so good if you are invalid.
pfortuny 13y ago
Thinking that the genotype adds value to a person's existence. If this is good, then eugenics is good as well, or at least 'not that bad.'
- PeterisP 13y ago
  A better genotype does add value to a person's existence - For example, all other things being equal, a healthy person both individually feels better and is better for society than the 'same' person with a genetic defect that causes a horrible death in his/her childhood. If we can fix that, then it's a noble cause. If a genotype doesn't add value to existence, then it can't be called a "better genotype", then it's simply a different genotype. And, by the way, "If X, then eugenics is not that bad' is in no way an acceptable argument against or for X; it's worse than irrelevant.
  - pfortuny 13y ago
    No, that is what I contend: a better genotype makes no sense because there is no such thing as a "better" person from the physical standpoint. That is what I contend and that is why I take the natural conclusion: if you can "choose" between people based on their genotype, then you are treating them as 'things', not as 'people'. Which is what leads to eugenics, for example, with people with Down syndrome. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21555947 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21555947). "It is worse than irrelevant," I do not know why: I assumed the Parent was against eugenics, that is why I tried to make him realize it.
    - PeterisP 13y ago
      My personal moral opinion is that it would be extremely good if there was some way to make the kids/embryos with Down syndrome be cured, preferably before birth (because earlier in development there are less irreversible changes). And if we had such a cure (as far as I know, we currently don't and won't for quite some time), then not applying it wouldn't be okay - not using that cure would be pure evil, and comparable to torture or, say, forcibly denying someone their eyesight or hearing or limb.