Coming Soon..Designer Babies

[Blisspath]

I'll have one with blond hair..blue eyes..and a mean curve ball please:)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/now-we-have-the-technology-that-can-make-a-cloned-child-808625.html

[The_Amaster]

Pshawww, parents have been doing this by raising for years, making sure Timmy is off to Harvard with straight A's as captain of the football team.
This is just on an appearence based level, and I bet you the same people will be interested in it.
(Read, Yuppies and Academic Liberals, my most hated demographics.(Especially Yuppies *shivers*))

[Beldaran]

I have news for the idiots that are opposed to genetic engineering:

When you decided to marry an attractive person instead of an ugly person, you just engaged in genetic engineering. When you decided to marry the smart guy with lots of money, you just engaged in genetic engineering.

We are all designer babies to an extent. We were designed by our parents' genetic urges. What's wrong with a little more precise control? I think we could really improve the gene pool using special technology to eliminate diseases and make more people be physically attractive.

[rock_nog]

Beldaran, it's because the feared outcome is that it'll extend social Darwinism over into the realm of biological Darwinism - after all, only the wealthy will be able to afford genetically engineered babies, which some argue is wrong, because we don't live in a pure meritocracy, and so wealth is not a direct measure of one's capabilities.

Myself, I'm staying out of this one - I know I've never been afraid to stick my foot in my mouth before, but I'm not even gonna pretend to claim that I understand the full ethical, social, biological, and economic ramifications of this can of worms.

[Feasul]

Beldaran, you took the words right out of my mouth. I've never seen the immorality of cloning and genetic engineering. As far as I'm concerned the only immoral actions are those that hurt people, which this clearly doesn't. It actually helps people by making them healthier, smarter, stronger, more attractive, or whatever else the scientists figure out how to do.

[Beldaran]

Yeah, I don't care about "level playing fields" and "social Darwinism" and all that stuff. I think we should advance the species and help better ourselves with technology. There is absolutely no moral difference between owning a car and being genetically engineered. A car is a piece of technology that gives you the ability to do something you cannot do normally: travel 60mph. Some people have cars, some people don't. It hasn't destroyed society, it has made it better.

Look at the computer you're typing on. It gives you all kinds of abilities you don't have naturally, and some people don't have computers, and yet computers have benefited society enormously.

Genetic engineering would be the same. If more people had genes that were immune to disease, and had massive IQ's, humanity could improve the world even more.

[The_Amaster]

...and for those who argue that this is different because it messes with our bodies, just remember all the drugs and supplements we take these days.

(I don't agree completely with Bel, but enough that I felt it needed to be said)

[Beldaran]

...and for those who argue that this is different because it messes with our bodies, just remember all the drugs and supplements we take these days.

(I don't agree completely with Bel, but enough that I felt it needed to be said)

Right. How about glasses? Or how about artificial limbs?

Everything is technology. If you are opposed to technology that gives us power, you must stop using pencils, toilet paper, toilets, sinks, refrigerators, medicine, the telephone, language, and the alphabet. You must huddle in a cave... oh wait, the knowledge of caves is a type of abstract technology...

ok you must stand naked in the middle of a field and not use your brain, because otherwise you are "playing god" with your life.

[rock_nog]

Isn't anybody going to respond to the social Darwinism argument? It is, after all, the primary reason people object to genetic engineering. Like I said, I have no position on the whole matter, I just want to point out the other side.

[Feasul]

I think Beldaran did respond to that by saying that genetic engineering is no different from any other expensive commodity.

There is absolutely no moral difference between owning a car and being genetically engineered. A car is a piece of technology that gives you the ability to do something you cannot do normally: travel 60mph. Some people have cars, some people don't. It hasn't destroyed society, it has made it better.
Therefore, the Social Darwinism argument could be applied to cars, computers, or anything else. Since it doesn't work for cars and computers, it doesn't work for genetic engineering.

[rock_nog]

Oh, right, somehow I missed that post entirely.

[Blisspath]

The one difference between talking about designer cells and expensive cars is that our government loves to apply equal access to people. If one person has the ability to choose the sex, hair, eye color of their child then the feds would eventually set up a program to help the less fortunate. I'm not totally against it, as it would be incredible to be able to guard against major genetic diseases, but I do see major ethical problems and I fear we would lose some of our diverse cultures and traditions..it would be like the Star Bellied Sneetches..only a thousand times worse.

[rock_nog]

Ouch... Ouch... I hadn't even thought about that argument. I think you're on to something, there - can't argue with Dr. Seuss. Oh, and I almost forgot - there's the Gattaca argument, that it'll lead to discrimination and a new group of second-class citizens. I must admit, that one is a little troubling, considering the natural human tendency to segregate and discriminate. Plus, in this case, there would actually be some grounds for the genetically engineered group to argue, "So what? In this case, we actually are better. We've got better genes. We have every right to oppress the other group." I mean, hell, the whole history of prejudice revolves around trying to convince people that the differences between two groups aren't biological, but merely a product of culture.

I can already hear the arguments now... "So what, we're not all equal, it's ridiculous to force us to pretend." The thing is, and this is always the problem with prejudice and discrimination... It's never about giving people what they've earned. It always turns into holding people back who prove themselves capable of more than we're willing to give them credit for.

Actually, it's one thing that bothers me, Beldaran and Blisspath, about all your talk about how people aren't equal - I'm not saying that it's not true, but more often than not, that attitude has been used to hold people back, to deny them opportunities that they had earned. "Listen, maybe you should rethink a career in business. Men and women aren't equal, and I'm just not sure you could compete."

[Dark Nation]

One major difference between genetic engineering of this type and the other mentioned luxuries (cars, medicine, artificial limbs) is that this genetic engineering is a one-chance deal. You miss it when you are 'made', and (at the moment), it can't be changed later on. You can buy a car later if you don't have the money now. This procedure doesn't (apparently) allow you to correct or alter genetic code once the embryo has been created (so you, as a 25-year old person, who now has lots of money, can't decide to be genetically beautified). However, this sort of thing may lead to future genetic developments, which *would* allow for after-market enhancements. So, I'm kind of on the fence about this.

Another thing to consider is this: Suppose all fatal disease were wiped out on this planet. Suppose that, though genetics, humans were given life spans of 200 years. How would that affect things that are dependent (if even partially) on our current life spans? Food supplies, retirement age/years worked, retirement pensions, health insurance, life insurance, etc. Not saying that this is worth abandoning the idea over, but these are issues that should definitely be addressed.

[Aegix Drakan]

We covered this in ethics calls last year.

...It would probably severely narrow down the gene pool (example: females would probably become predominantly blond, and guys would have (insert desirable male quality here) ), making the human race genetically weak.

...So this is probably a very stupid idea.

That being said, if we just do some minor alterations that will make the next generation more resistant to disease or wipe out learning disorders, and apply this to all newborns, then I'm all for it.

[Breaker]

Unfortunately once the technology to do it exists, we won't be able to stop rich millionaires from seeking out doctors in foreign countries to do it, regardless of the moral or ethical implications it might have on society.

If I had the money and wanted to have a kid, I would be interested only in genetically engineering the child to be physically and mentally healthy, free of hereditary disease etc. I wouldn't care so much about choosing physical traits like gender, color of hair, eyes, etc. I would still like that to be "random" as to give the child a unique identity. Also, if I couldn't have children or my wife was infertile, this technology would still allow us to have our own child.

If any of you could go onto a terminal pediatric ward of a hospital and tell all the cancer kids that they shouldn't be allowed to live because genetic engineering is evil, despite the technology being available, then you're more heartless than I.. =/

Edit: I'ts already been mentioned in this thread, but if any of you are really interested in this and haven't seen the movie Gattaca, go check it out. It's a pretty interesting take on it and a pretty good SCIFI movie. I might go watch it again now.

[Dann Woolf]

I'll have one with blond hair..blue eyes..and a mean curve ball please:)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/now-we-have-the-technology-that-can-make-a-cloned-child-808625.html

Should we tell him?

[rock_nog]

We covered this in ethics calls last year.

...It would probably severely narrow down the gene pool (example: females would probably become predominantly blond, and guys would have (insert desirable male quality here) ), making the human race genetically weak.

...So this is probably a very stupid idea.

That being said, if we just do some minor alterations that will make the next generation more resistant to disease or wipe out learning disorders, and apply this to all newborns, then I'm all for it.
Oh God, I hate blonds... I weep for the potential future.

[AlphaDawg]

This whole "designer baby" thing's got "eugenics" written all over it. And we all know how well that turned out...

[Dann Woolf]

We covered this in ethics calls last year.

...It would probably severely narrow down the gene pool (example: females would probably become predominantly blond, and guys would have (insert desirable male quality here) ), making the human race genetically weak.

...So this is probably a very stupid idea.

That being said, if we just do some minor alterations that will make the next generation more resistant to disease or wipe out learning disorders, and apply this to all newborns, then I'm all for it.

Exactly. It's like what ol' Uncle Ben said: with great power there must also come great responsibility. This should be used to clean up the gene pool, not to turn babies into living, breathing fashion accessories. That's a job for chihuahuas, folks.


This whole "designer baby" thing's got "eugenics" written all over it. And we all know how well that turned out...

What-genics?

[rock_nog]

Eugenics is basically the process of guiding evolution along, giving it a helping hand, so to speak. Now, that kind of thing works great on a farm, when you're trying to breed healthier cows, or corn that gives you more ears per stalk, but ethically speaking, when it comes to human beings, not so much... It has a tendency to devolve into, say, the rounding up and slaughtering of millions of Jews because they're "genetically inferior." I actually meant to bring that up, as bringing Godwin's law into a debate is never the best move (Godwin's law - basically has to do with how quickly any internet debate ends up at a point where one side is compared to Hitler/Nazis - it's cheap, and it's rarely a valid argument).

[Dann Woolf]

I know what Godwin's law is.

Besides, how can you blame a person's religion on genetics?

[rock_nog]

Well, aside from the speculation that there may, in fact, be a "God gene" that causes us to believe in religion, it's a lot more complex than that. Being Jewish isn't simply being a religion, it's a culture, too. People don't really convert to Judaism, and so heritage plays a much larger role in it than it does for other religions like Christianity. As such, yes, the German Jewish population was a genetically distinct group. On top of that, you had the confounding factor of antisematism, which is just a lot harder to understand in today's society.

[Feasul]

Technically Godwin's Law only states the tendency of internet arguments to bring up Hitler and/or the Nazis. The fallacy itself is known as reductio ad Hitlerum. :tongue:
And there's a good reason that this thing smells like eugenics. It's because it is eugenics. We'd be artificially manipulating our evolution. The question is whether that's a bad thing. Just because we'd be messing with our genes doesn't mean it'll lead to all the nasty stuff the Nazis did. Technically, this doesn't even really relate to the Nazis because they had no knowledge of genetic engineering. We could take it in the exact opposite direction of the Nazis. For example, they sterilized anyone they deemed unfit to pass on their genes. With the new technology, eventually there'd be no such thing as being unfit to pass on your genes. Any genetic disorders or defects you could pass on to your kids could simply be eliminated artificially.

[firebug]

Ponder this: Given the choice, what parent is going to choose stupidity over intelligence? Sickliness over a long healthy life? People always want the best for their children, and personally, I see nothing wrong with pushing our evolution on a little quicker. Hopefully the masses will become intelligent enough to start making some real changes.

[AtmaWeapon]

Feel free to attack my following argument for using the slippery slope fallacy and various others, but it makes sense to me. Pardon me for not taking the time to make it completely sound. Also I tire of writing books so I'll try to be short.

From a basic ethical standpoint, I see no compelling reason to resist designer babies. No one is hurt or harmed by the process in any way that is not common to natural childbirth. The ethical issues come from things that happen after we claim that it's OK to do this.

From a religious standpoint, I'm indifferent. Sex may or may not be involved, but it's not like (extra|pre)marital sex is a requirement for gene manipulation. I can't fight on the side that says any birth defects are dictated by God and you have to let them be; Calvinism is a cruddy viewpoint on life and can be used to completely undermine the morality of Christianity. If anything, what I have learned tells me that if I have a way to prevent a human from suffering I should do so, and preventing a child from dying early to diabetes seems to fall under that case. I just can't find a religious platform from which to attack this without pretending I'm a subscriber to a much more fundamentalist philosophy than the one to which I subscribe.

From a biological standpoint, I'm concerned. The entire point of sexual reproduction is biodiversity. The more diverse our gene pool, the more likely there's multiple "good" sets of genes and the more likely there's at least a few people resistant to this or that disease; extinction of the species due to disease is not something we should have to fear. Furthermore, the mingling of parents' genes I'm not real familiar with the entire process they're talking about here, but it seems like it's a matter of taking the genes of a single organism and manipulating a few to produce desired traits; it seems like a clone with minor changes. It seems to me that this will not promote biodiversity very much. My prediction is that only the rich will be able to do it at first, and who wouldn't want a vanity child? Let's slide down a slippery slope. After a while, more people will be able to afford this kind of thing. But if you're of average or below-average intelligence, why would you want to create a child with the same disadvantages you have? My guess is what will happen is we'll either decide on a set of characteristics that are "best". It'll either be some rich person who manages to patent his or her "best" embryo code, or it will be some engineered code that some scientists patents. Everyone will want this one genetic code, and suddenly we'll have lost a great deal of our biodiversity. Incidentally, the poor, who will be unable to afford such things, will still be protected by their archaic methods of producing children. That is, until we decide that as a service to society the government will subsidize "good" children for these people.

Now's where the ethical can of worms gets opened. What happens if we artificially select a society of highly intelligent people? Who will work in the factories? Who will paint houses or be construction workers? Who will work on farms to feed the world? We'll probably have selected genes that instill certain attitudes and outlooks on life (so far as that can be influenced by genes), so it's likely these people won't want to lower themselves to do such things. They'll be too busy looking into exciting fields of science.

If you slide down the slope a little farther and suggest that we create a few people that aren't "best" so we still have a lower class, I can start making analogies to Brave New World. I think that's really all I need to mention about this paragraph for you to get the picture.

So I find myself in an interesting position where I'm excited by this research and worried about the problems that it might cause. Some of humanity's most horrifying diseases are hereditary and gene manipulation provides a promising way to eliminate these diseases. Some of society's basic tenets are based upon the idea that families of poor socioeconomic status will produce children that stay in the same social class with very few exceptions.

Honestly the debate doesn't matter; this generation will probably fight designer babies but the next generation won't. They'll grow up in a world where the technology is available, and the arguments against will be made by aging adults whose opinions they don't respect anymore. I just hope there's not some unforeseen consequences.

[The_Amaster]

The only standpoint I'm worried from is a financial one, in which money=improvements=best, and so the rich elite get perfect children.
Of course it could go to an even worse extreme, a la Bioshock.

[Master Maniac]

i think it should be optional, if it happens. so that the "ethical" parents can have natural children, and the "protective" parents (for lack of a better word) will have their own custom children.

of course, i also believe that in the future, our children will be produced in factories, instead of sex, so that the human race will still exist.

robots will milk us of our genetics, i tell you!

[rock_nog]

Children produced in factories? Sounds good to me - I'm sorry, but I've never really been able to get down with the whole "childbirth" business. Yes, I know it keeps the species alive, but damn... I just can't help but think of the movie "Alien." It's like, BLARGH, and then this writhing larval mass violently erupts from the mother's genitals. It's just not right, I tell ya.

[The_Amaster]

Unfortunatly, children born in factories remind me too much of the book "Brave New World".

[rock_nog]

Reminds me of "Brave New World," too. On the other hand, my reaction to the whole thing was "Damn, well, that's one thing they got right."

[ShadowTiger]

I've had so many potential replies to this ever since the thread appeared on the forum index. None of them are in the least appropriate for general viewing, if not society's generic moral fiber today.

...

In the Vorkosigan saga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorkosigan_Saga) by Lois McMaster Bujold, there is a cloning laboratory in a world in a remote sector of known space in which acts such as cloning are considered legal, in the "Out of sight, out of mind" way of things. They make a tidy profit by cloning people, keeping the clones in top physical shape, and then about a year from the deal's closure, move them to an enclave for further physical strengthening, and then the dealmaker's brain is surgically substituted for the clone's, and the clone's brain is deemed medical waste. A happy ending, no? :)

Let's hope this doesn't come to that down the road. The place would probably get bombed by activists less than ten years after the place sees its first customer.



Of course, this is just me being completely bored before my first class, and having to empty my mind to absorb what economics class can try to push into it.