Deisgner Babies- your stance

Would it even be possible to make babies the same like that through modification? I figured the majority of a person's intelligence and the way they approach problems etc. comes after they are born, through a good education.


Anyway, I have mixed views on "designer babies". People already get bullied enough in school for being ugly, for being gay, for being over-weight etc. If parents had the choice to change these attributes before birth then it would only make a bigger divide between what people perceive as good and bad. If people were being modified for beautiful looks then kids would grow up thinking that if someone is ugly then there's something wrong with them. People are already too superficial as it is. But as someone who got a lot of stick for not being good looking throughout school I think I would have been living a much better life right now had I been given good looks at birth. Ironically enough I have become better looking as I grew out of my teens, but that was after destroying my confidence and setting me back years.

What do you think about it all?

Whats the difference between a minor disability and ugliness/clumsiness/stupidity? Degree only.

The population is increasing by the day. Fewer people are dying at the 'opportune moment' to keep the population numbers low/stable. More people, IMO, is NOT GOOD. The land and resources cannot support us much longer, and neither can society. Nature, through disease/injury/natural selection, provides a counterbalance to all of this. As medicine gets better, this counterbalance is removed. Sure, it's hell for someone to go through a terrible disease and die, and it's hell for their family, but there is a bigger picture to think about. I'm pretty torn when it comes to medical advances for living people, let alone those yet to be born.

The study of Eugenics gets a ridiculously bad rap because of all the negative connotations caused by Nazism and ethnic cleansing. Its actually a very interesting field of science (but feel free to tell my I am wrong and different race people are identical in every way but appearance....).

the medical term disability.

You say that now but I bet if you had a close family member suffering like that your opinion would quickly change to wishing there was better medical technology.

The problem with population increase is because of the amount of babies being born in places like China and India. Between them they have about 2.5bn population, and that's around 38% of the world. In Europe, the birthrate and death rate is around the same and the population increase is tiny. Remember, each couple needs to have two kids for the population to be balanced with the death of two parents.

The medical model of disability is soooo 1975...the social model is where we're heading

Ugliness, clumsiness and stupidity aren't really considered disabilities though are they? Sure they're perceived as disadvantages to people, but not serious enough to warrant the medical term disability.

So are you saying that designer babies are an ethical possibility for us, but not for those in China etc? You can't make this kind of technology avaliable to one nation but forbid others from using it! "Sorry, all you Chinese can just have lots of babies and suffer, while we make our kids super healthy and super intelligent. Muahahahaha."

I suppose it depends if they can afford it or not. The world can't be equal, if would cost too much.

It's interesting - but it's still not something I'm comfortable with or think should be allowed to progress without strict regulation and monitoring.

All of these moves towards improving the human race basically come down to someone somewhere making a judgement about which qualities and genes are "good" and which are bad.

As Chemistboy has pointed out so far as genetics is concerned things aren't black and white - a gene that is of benefit in one environment can be a serious disadvantage in another. Until we understand COMPLETELY how human genes work and interact then any "improvements" we make are extremely random guesses (and I don't believe we should be playing russian roulette with our own genes).

The civil rights movement has been working on accepting, understanding and celebrating differences and diversity within society for the last couple of hundred years to try to stop injustice, unfairness, discrimination. Eugenics seeks to solve the problem of discrimination within society by removing diversity - changing the very make up of society rather than changing it's attitudes. It's sticking plaster, quick fix logic and IMO it's short sighted and not likely to work.

On a different tack is there really a problem with Everyone being smart and athletic and socially capable?

If ethics, and not cost, were the issue? Is it moral to allow one freedom to one people but deny it to another? And if cost is the issue, this will lead to the wealthy being beautiful and capable, and the poor being normal, thus drasticaly widening the class divisions. People's wealth and worth will be measured by how they look and how intelligent they are. Is this a positive thing?

And they aren't now? Surely a person's success is based on their intelligence (and ergo their ability) and, increasingly, their looks. People of wealth and worth tend to be the attractive ones; it's a self-confidence thing.

So are you saying that designer babies are an ethical possibility for us, but not for those in China etc? You can't make this kind of technology avaliable to one nation but forbid others from using it! "Sorry, all you Chinese can just have lots of babies and suffer, while we make our kids super healthy and super intelligent. Muahahahaha."

Hmmm.

Also, look around you. Look at the UK. Our cities are expanding out of control, people are constantly demanding more housing, more facilities, more food. Can little, old Britain really support this indefinitely? What about when people are all wonderful and intelligent. Will they be happy with a shoddy council house? Will they be happy cleaning toilets and working in factories?

As I said, curing genetic disease is one thing. But it can (and I feel, will) eventualy lead us into more dangerous ground. Who gets to define what is a condition worth screening for and eradicating? Just people who might otherwise die? So if someone has a terrible condition, they get cured, but if someone has a quite-nasty condition, they still suffer more than the person who originaly had a worse condition? And what about people who are really, really stupid? Or those with dyslexia? Dyspraxia? Aspergers? Autisum? ADHD? Where is the line between a medical conditon and a social inconvinience?

How can you predict opinion in the future? Ugliness, clumsiness and stupidity are (increasingly) seen as disadvantages, so in times to come perhaps they will be seen as disabilities.

A potential problem of removing the 'bad' aspects of our looks is also connected to opinions. Our idea of beauty is bound to change, as it has in the past, so what happens, for example, when blond isn't beautiful anymore? Will the genes of the die-hard "natural breeders" become highly prized? Will we see genetic robbery?

On a different tack is there really a problem with Everyone being smart and athletic and socially capable?

I don't think limiting health care like you suggested would be the best route.

Mandatory birth control is a whole new can of worms . . . however, I don't see how refusing to GM a baby is the same as witholding health care??

I believe that where a treatment is avaliable, people should not be denied on the basis of who they are or what funds they have. And initialy it would be relatively simple to set a criterior and choose to allow or eliminate certain genes for medical reasons. But what happens when all babies are free from genetic disorders or dodgy genes, when all babies are "healthy"? Soon, what were previously tiny issues compared to fatal problems, like clumsiness and stupidity, will be the worst thing someone has to face in their life. Soon, people will want to get rid of these as well, because they have no concept of terrible genetic problems (and thus don't realise what a good deal they have) and because the technology would exist to remove them. So you see, any fiddling with nature leads downhill.

We are already seeing this with modern medicine, with people who would have previously died living stagnant, unnaturaly prolonged lives, constantly having to take medicine just to survive, being bound to wheelchairs and beds. Is this a good thing? Is bringing a huge benifit to society or simply saving people the need to face death quite yet? I think it is slowly damaging us and our society, as people see themselves as duty bound to care for and protect even the most futile cases, as we must support and increasingly sick and aged population. While I think that there is nothing we can do (witholding medical treatment isn't an option), we can see how all of this isn't such an amazing thing.

The civil rights movement has been working on accepting, understanding and celebrating differences and diversity within society for the last couple of hundred years to try to stop injustice, unfairness, discrimination.