7 ms·

It's implied that later it won't just be functional things like color vision, but eye color, height, hair color, cleft chin, etc.

baddox 12y ago
And the same goes for those as well, if changing them would for some reason improve the child's quality of life.
- mseebach 12y ago
  And then someone isolates a gene that predicts homosexuality. I'm a strong techno-optimist, and I think we should have an extremely open mind to the possibilities offered to us by these advances, and we should fight the tendency to fortify our little local maximum out of fear - but we also need to recognize that some really dangerous things lie ahead.
  - teddyh 12y ago
    If homosexuality really is genetic, isn’t it doomed to eventual extinction? http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=118 http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=118
    - mseebach 12y ago
      Apparently there's some influence: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influen... But genes or not, I brought it up as an example of something that we're clearly NOT comfortable removing (even if we could), although there's still plenty of communities where not being gay "would for some reason improve the child's quality of life".
      - afafsd 12y ago
        >But genes or not, I brought it up as an example of something that we're clearly NOT comfortable removing (even if we could) Why are "we" clearly not comfortable with that? Indeed, if "we" are all uncomfortable with that then we needn't worry about anyone doing it. You seem to be worried that some people are going to want to specify non-gay children but think they ought to have them anyway. For some reason. On the other hand I admit it might make me queasy to think of parents deliberately engineering their children to be gay. As in "Oh honey, let's make our third child gay, it'll be fun!"
        lutusp 12y ago
        > On the other hand I admit it might make me queasy to think of parents deliberately engineering their children to be gay. As in "Oh honey, let's make our third child gay, it'll be fun!" Yes, especially given the fact that the only reason people have children is because nature intends to replace the parents with their offspring, using rules crafted by natural selection, not the parents' tastes.
        afafsd 12y ago
        >nature intends to replace the parents with their offspring, using rules crafted by natural selection, not the parents' tastes. In fairness, sex was invented at least 1.2 billion years before parents could have possibly had "tastes". The reason we reproduce sexually rather than just churning out clones of ourselves appears to be that we're more resistant to parasites/diseases if our genes keep constantly shifting into new combinations rather than hanging around for too long looking exactly the same. This wouldn't necessarily be impacted by the parents' deliberate choice of a few specific alleles.
        lutusp 12y ago
        > The reason we reproduce sexually rather than just churning out clones of ourselves appears to be that we're more resistant to parasites/diseases if our genes keep constantly shifting into new combinations rather than hanging around for too long looking exactly the same. That's certainly high on the list, but replacing one population with another on a regular basis is also on the list. > This wouldn't necessarily be impacted by the parents' deliberate choice of a few specific alleles. Of course it would. Evolution can be a complex topic, but there's one simple fact at the center -- nature knows more than we do. An organism's ability to survive, to prevail over other genotypes, speaks louder than any of our expressed tastes and choices. That means if parents make the wrong choices, nature will step in and correct them.
    - oafitupa 12y ago
      Not necessarily; it could be, but it certainly wouldn't happen quickly. Here you have several possibilities explained by Dawkins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
    - tzs 12y ago
      Look up (1) kin selection, and (2) sickle cell anemia for information on a couple ways by which genetic traits that can discourage those who have them from reproducing can persist and even thrive in a population.
  - mseebach 12y ago
    I'd be very interested in knowing what's so objectionable about what I wrote?

baddox 12y ago

And the same goes for those as well, if changing them would for some reason improve the child's quality of life.

mseebach 12y ago
And then someone isolates a gene that predicts homosexuality. I'm a strong techno-optimist, and I think we should have an extremely open mind to the possibilities offered to us by these advances, and we should fight the tendency to fortify our little local maximum out of fear - but we also need to recognize that some really dangerous things lie ahead.
- teddyh 12y ago
  If homosexuality really is genetic, isn’t it doomed to eventual extinction? http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=118 http://tailsteak.com/archive.php?num=118
  - mseebach 12y ago
    Apparently there's some influence: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influence-male-sexual-orientation-study http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/feb/14/genes-influen... But genes or not, I brought it up as an example of something that we're clearly NOT comfortable removing (even if we could), although there's still plenty of communities where not being gay "would for some reason improve the child's quality of life".
    - afafsd 12y ago
      >But genes or not, I brought it up as an example of something that we're clearly NOT comfortable removing (even if we could) Why are "we" clearly not comfortable with that? Indeed, if "we" are all uncomfortable with that then we needn't worry about anyone doing it. You seem to be worried that some people are going to want to specify non-gay children but think they ought to have them anyway. For some reason. On the other hand I admit it might make me queasy to think of parents deliberately engineering their children to be gay. As in "Oh honey, let's make our third child gay, it'll be fun!"
      - lutusp 12y ago
        > On the other hand I admit it might make me queasy to think of parents deliberately engineering their children to be gay. As in "Oh honey, let's make our third child gay, it'll be fun!" Yes, especially given the fact that the only reason people have children is because nature intends to replace the parents with their offspring, using rules crafted by natural selection, not the parents' tastes.
        afafsd 12y ago
        >nature intends to replace the parents with their offspring, using rules crafted by natural selection, not the parents' tastes. In fairness, sex was invented at least 1.2 billion years before parents could have possibly had "tastes". The reason we reproduce sexually rather than just churning out clones of ourselves appears to be that we're more resistant to parasites/diseases if our genes keep constantly shifting into new combinations rather than hanging around for too long looking exactly the same. This wouldn't necessarily be impacted by the parents' deliberate choice of a few specific alleles.
        lutusp 12y ago
        > The reason we reproduce sexually rather than just churning out clones of ourselves appears to be that we're more resistant to parasites/diseases if our genes keep constantly shifting into new combinations rather than hanging around for too long looking exactly the same. That's certainly high on the list, but replacing one population with another on a regular basis is also on the list. > This wouldn't necessarily be impacted by the parents' deliberate choice of a few specific alleles. Of course it would. Evolution can be a complex topic, but there's one simple fact at the center -- nature knows more than we do. An organism's ability to survive, to prevail over other genotypes, speaks louder than any of our expressed tastes and choices. That means if parents make the wrong choices, nature will step in and correct them.
  - oafitupa 12y ago
    Not necessarily; it could be, but it certainly wouldn't happen quickly. Here you have several possibilities explained by Dawkins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHDCAllQgS0
  - tzs 12y ago
    Look up (1) kin selection, and (2) sickle cell anemia for information on a couple ways by which genetic traits that can discourage those who have them from reproducing can persist and even thrive in a population.
- mseebach 12y ago
  I'd be very interested in knowing what's so objectionable about what I wrote?