7 ms·
What's wrong with "designer babies". I think it would be cool if you could clean up your DNA removing all the nasty genetic diseases you could pass on to your
by Fuxy 12y ago
What's wrong with "designer babies".
I think it would be cool if you could clean up your DNA removing all the nasty genetic diseases you could pass on to your children.
I wouldn't really change the appearance of my child though.
Plus I would keep most of the original genetic material just fix the bits that are detrimental to a long and healthy life.
- viccuad 12y agoYou end up with an aristocracy that can afford to have better superhuman children meanwhile the plebs can't afford it. And it would perpetuate itself. Bye tabula rasa in birth and death.
- Shivetya 12y agoWe already have an aristocracy that can afford better schools, better neighborhoods, and the like. If designer babies one day leads to no more birth defects or unwanted children it is not a future to be feared. there will always be people who have an advantage over others, the majority simply comes from where you were born followed to whom to you were born too. The real fear is likely that some will make choices that are not politically correct, it is certain this would happen in non Western countries.
- task_queue 12y agoWe computer professionals think we'll be or are part of that aristocracy, so it's okay.
- logfromblammo 12y agoWe will probably become collared pets once "gene hacking" becomes a thing. The real aristocracy will use the law to make unauthorized genetic modifications a crime punished more harshly than unauthorized computer access, which is already sometimes punished more harshly than crimes like armed robbery. Consider the ethical implications of the job they pay you to do. Always. Who will be benefiting from my work? Who might be harmed by it? Can I trust my employer to protect--or even just accurately represent--my own interests? Do not take jobs that grant more power to the powerful at the expense of the weak. My litmus test for human gene-mod technology will be whether I will ever be able to repair my phi-GULO pseudogene, to restore the mammalian ability to synthesize ascorbates (vitamin C) in the liver, without needing to get permission from anyone to do it, and without paying more than a year's salary or using more than one garage of space on the equipment. If I can do that, this particular genie cannot be re-bottled. And you can bet I'd be selling CKGGRAKDC-GG-D(KLAKLAK)2 under the table, too.
- andygates 12y agoTaking the most obvious example from India: You end up with lots of boys. They'd just be legally designed instead of backstreet-aborted girls. That kind of gender imbalance and bogus value on the favoured gender makes for trouble down the line: demographic lulz and a miserable time for second-class undesigned/undesired citizens.
- robmcm 12y agoWouldn't this quickly flip the desire to want boys? If a girl has 1000s of male suitors perhaps they would need to start paying a dowry... Not that I agree with choosing the sex of your child for non medical reasons.
- orblivion 12y ago> What's wrong with "designer babies". It destroys our existing concept of the human experience. Is it silly to want to live among "natural" children? Then explain me why it's not silly to want to continue the species at all?
- Houshalter 12y agoI can just imagine our distant descendants reading through this thread, thinking how horrible we are for condemning our children to genetic diseases and inequality. Just like we look down at the people who fought against the smallpox vaccine because it was unnatural.
- orblivion 12y ago> our children What does this phrase mean?
- Houshalter 12y agoChildren? As in the next generation, descendants, kids, etc? What do you think it means?
- orblivion 12y agoWell, I'm trying to highlight the "our" part. Does it matter to you how much the kids have to do with "us"? If so, why? As I was trying to express above, it seems strange to me to imply somebody is irrational for wanting "natural" kids, but not likewise call someone out for caring about creating "their" progeny at all.
- Houshalter 12y agoI'm confused about your confusion. All I meant was that future generations will probably think it's weird and immoral that we allow children to have genetic diseases, when we have the technology to stop it.
- task_queue 12y agoCongratulations, you were born with Monsanto mDNA Correction! Due to intellectual property restrictions, you must attain a license to activate your reproductive system and pass on our genetic code.
- M2Ys4U 12y agoI wish people wouldn't conflate those promoting GMOs with copyright/patent maximialists - the two issues are orthogonal. Monsanto are an awful company, and a very large part of that is down to their maximalism, rather than the GMO part. Continuing to conflate the two issues just does one's own argument a disservice (it's a strawman) while also reinforcing the maximalists' position that GMOs have to be patentable.