Deisgner Babies- your stance

Reply 140

Schmokie Dragon

However, if someone is ugly and thick now, people just think "bad luck". But if lots of babies are GM, and someone is ugly and thick, then people will ask why. Why did their parents not GM them? Are their parents too poor? Have bad taste? Have ulterior motives? It's not just the luck of the draw anymore, but human intent and interferance.

What **** parents would deliberately go out their way to create a thick and ugly child? What **** doctor would then grant their request?

Schmokie Dragon

It's not just the luck of the draw anymore, but human intent and interferance.

How can you consider the arbitrariness of nature a good thing when it has the capacity to cause such angiush?

Reply 141

man_in_black

Schmokie Dragon

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.

I agree, but gene enhancement won't necessarily lead to a greater population size. Admittedly the death rate would fall (though this would happen decades after gene therapy is introduced) but I think the birth rate would fall simultaneously. This would be partly a consequence of people devoting more time to their jobs; being satisfied with having just the one 'perfect' child (instead of, say, trying again to have the girl they'd always wanted); having the foresight to limit themselves to fewer children to lessen the impact on the environment; and not relying on their children as an economic resource. Birth control is always available too.

Schmokie Dragon

As for using genetics to make people more beautiful/intelligent etc, I think people need to leave well alone. We are not God, and pretending to have absolute power in this manner could a) set a dangerous and uncontrolable precident and b) have adverse effects that we have not anticipated. Nature has been doing its thing for millions and millions of years. Does humanity really think they can re-write all of that in 100 years?

The safety of gene therapy is a legimitate issue but one that is likely to be resolved in the not too distant future. If a harmful mutation crept into one of the genes that a scientist inserted into a human then that would be a set-back but it's not necessarily something scientists couldn't overcome.

Reply 142

Schmokie Dragon

17

man_in_black

There are many similarlities between germline gene therapy and other forms of medicine. The only difference I see is that one is pre-emptive. There's just as great a moral obligation to give a living sufferer treatment as there is to cure a would-be sufferer.

I disagree. I feel we have no moral obligation to cure anyone, only a social obligation. There is no moral authority telling me that I must divert attention from my own life to help someone whose pilght is not related to my actions.

Besides, keep your response in the context. I have already established the problems with simply deciding to eradicate genetic problems in babies. The situation is that this form of treatment has a large number of unpredictable social and economic outcomes. You can't just say "it's all a kind of treatment, so lets eradicate genetic disorders/illnesses etc". Where do you draw the line? Who makes the decisions? Should the NHS be concerned with simply curing living people or trying to prevent problems arising with a potential life? Should this be funded privately? Is that an acceptable solution, socialy and moraly, etc etc.

In a perfect world, we would be able to identify all genetic problems worthy of eradication, press a button and voila. This would be a good thing, in terms of the individuals at hand. In reality, there are a myriad of grey areas and repercussions that must not be waved away!

The slippery slope argument only works if there's something bad at the bottom of the slope. Why is it bad to knock out a 'gene for stupidity'? That would be bliss!

Have you not read a word I have typed on this matter? People won't all suddenly be reasonable, nice and intelligent. Intelligence is ALL relative. A dog in more intelligent than a mouse, a chimp is more intelligent than a dog and a human is more intelligent than a chimp. Even is everyone had an IQ of at least 130 and so qualified as "intelligent", there would still be the most intelligent and the least intelligent. The most intelligent would still patonise the least intelligent and the least intelligent would still envy the most intelligent. Or we could all have the same intelligence, mandated by the government. Everyone thinking the same way. In the end, intelligence is not just a number or a MENSA score, it is so many things and so many personality traits. Even the greatest artist or doctor has the capacity to be selfish, foolish and deceitful. Simply raising the base IQ of society is not going to make everything better. People will still be fighting for the same jobs, the same resources and the same power. Do you think it is really going to work when people with an IQ of 140 are cleaning toilets?

I don't see how that can be used to say that gene enhancement is a bad thing. All you're saying is that an undesirable side-effect of some kinds of medical treatment is that people become helplessly care-dependent. Why does that extend to gene therapy? If anything, I envisage gene therapy freeing up our hospitals. More time would be devoted to finding cures for non-genetic diseases, and more of the NHS's funding could go towards making the technology cheaper.

If it ends up working this way, then good. But increasing medical intervention is not going to stop the gradual decline into old age and senility, unless you can create a situation where people are at their prime all the way through life and then drop dead when they get to 85. This is just another form of medical intervention and it will not be a magical, over-night cure-all.

But you have also not factored in the time, staff, money and resources that would be necessary to have GM open to the public. I can envisage it being quite a lot!

What **** parents would deliberately go out their way to create a thick and ugly child? What **** doctor would then grant their request?

Oh, I'm sorry. Did I fail to realise how nice and cuddly humanity is? What about the parents who helped murder a young teenager because she complained that their daughter was bulling her? What about the aunt and uncle who tied their niece up in a bath tub over night and let her starve and freeze to death? What about the mother who forced her son to drink ammonia? What about the doctors who murder patients for kicks?

So who gets to create the list of what traits are okay to change and what arn't? Almost every trait has a positive and negative effect. Intelligence can lead to wisdom, or arrogance. Stupidity can make you docile, or irrational. Looks can give you self confidence or complacency. There is no definitive list of "good" and "bad".

What about the soon-to-be parents who come to the doctor and say, "our other son is really good looking and intelligent, but it has made him arrogant, ruthless and aggressive. Please make this son calm, average and not very bright. We can't cope!". Who gets to decide if their plea is worth responding to? How are advanced looks and intellect any better moraly than average looks and intelligence? What makes a stupid person "worse" than an intelligent person?

How can you consider the arbitrariness of nature a good thing when it has the capacity to cause such angiush?

How can you consider the often hurtful, destructive and evil interventions of man to be so hallowed? At least nature has no intention, no wants, no needs and no whims. It has no intelligence and so cannot willfuly damage or hinder someone. It causes pain and also is the cause of great beauty and wonder, all the more magical for it's randomness.

Pain caused by man's intentions, recklessness and desire is far more terrible than the worst storm or earthquake.

So yes, I feel nature is a very positive thing that we should think carefuly about before messing around with. We are but a blink of an eye compared to it's vast expanse.

I agree, but gene enhancement won't necessarily lead to a greater population size. Admittedly the death rate would fall (though this would happen decades after gene therapy is introduced) but I think the birth rate would fall simultaneously. This would be partly a consequence of people devoting more time to their jobs; being satisfied with having just the one 'perfect' child (instead of, say, trying again to have the girl they'd always wanted); having the foresight to limit themselves to fewer children to lessen the impact on the environment; and not relying on their children as an economic resource. Birth control is always available too.

So big families are simply despirate parents striving for perfection? People are suddenly going to be more satisfied because their parents decided to grant them a higher intellect? There are going to be a myriad of new and exciting job opportunities for all these winderfuly astute and wise people? People will be able to put their emotions to one side and "do what is best for the environment"? People will suddenly be richer and more caring for all this gene therapy, and not have to breed simply to provide a support network for their twilight years?

You make vast, and dangerous, assumptions about how your magical be-who-you-want-to-be (or, in fact, be who your parents want you to be) world is going to work. I suggest you get your head out of the clouds and start thinking about the very possible, very negative effects of the treatment you defend.

The safety of gene therapy is a legimitate issue but one that is likely to be resolved in the not too distant future. If a harmful mutation crept into one of the genes that a scientist inserted into a human then that would be a set-back but it's not necessarily something scientists couldn't overcome.

So you honestly believe that there is a finite point at which science will triumph over nature and the vast expanse of time, the millions of laws and rules that govern our lives will suddenly count for nothing in the face of human ingenuity? Re-writing millions of years of evolution is not going to be that simple and it is a terrible symptom of our times that we have the arrogance to even think it possible. We are just a big ape, a bit smarter and a bit prettier, but a big, bald, ape. We are not gods, we are not perfect, we do not posses perfect information or ultimate power.

Reply 143

40550

2

I agree with it, if involves preventing a hereditary disease. Thats as far as it should go. If its about parents being able to modify thier baby in terms of looks then no. Its definitely wrong.

Deisgner Babies- your stance

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated