Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Argus

What exactly would be wrong with designer babies?

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Nature is performing this experiment all around us all the time, on a local tiny scale. The very principle of evolution through natural selection is based on random mutation. Nature rolls the dice. If the individual is born with a negative defect, they lose. If positive they could win, if it gives their offspring an advantage.

It would be quite vain to presume that we know what is best for our future in terms of designing "better" human beings. Why should everyone be physically strong or tall, blonde, blue-eyed? What if there was some situation where we needed a small person. Tall people take up more space and need more food, and the world is getting over-crowded. But seriously, there is evidence that a person who was otherwise considered defective in many ways became the one who provided the path forward for all of humanity, and their defect played a role in giving them this advantage. Say the little freckle-faced kid who was weak and small, and hated by others became an introvert, in their isolation pondered philosophically on many things relating to the human condition and wrote important works of philosophy or science.

Once we take evolution into our own hands, we will lose the ability to naturally adapt. We will have to adapt via technology, and yes that is already happening for the most part. But we are no longer human .. or homo-sapiens to be more precise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Once we take evolution into our own hands, we will lose the ability to naturally adapt. We will have to adapt via technology, and yes that is already happening for the most part. But we are no longer human .. or homo-sapiens to be more precise.

The concept of manipulating DNA to change humankind is in a way a fight against natural selection. Natural selection is a controlled experiment, in that it happens gradually, incrementally, where the organism must "prove" its right to survive by interacting with other organisms and the environment. Manipulating DNA bypasses these safeguards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

We can barely collectively understand things we got going on today, let alone consider the implications of GMO humans. Take that one gene away, and what else happens? That answer is not known yet.   If this is not a big deal then cloning humans is not a big deal either.

I don't have a problem with cloning humans. And the worst that could happen is that the designer baby turns out to have deep physical or intellectual flaws, which an awful lot of babies do now anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Once we take evolution into our own hands, we will lose the ability to naturally adapt. We will have to adapt via technology, and yes that is already happening for the most part. But we are no longer human .. or homo-sapiens to be more precise.

You have to remember that evolution is not an intelligent beast and it doesn't care about our wants and desires. For example, evolution has no interest in evolving towards a species free of cancer because, for the most part, cancer happens after the child-bearing years. So nature doesn't care. Nature has no interest in what diseases afflict us, be they heart, lung or whatever, once we're past child-bearing years. It will make no changes to lengthen our lives or make them less disease-prone in our middle and elder years. A stronger heart\? It's strong enough when we're in our twenties and early thirties and that's all nature cares about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Argus said:

You have to remember that evolution is not an intelligent beast and it doesn't care about our wants and desires. For example, evolution has no interest in evolving towards a species free of cancer because, for the most part, cancer happens after the child-bearing years. So nature doesn't care. Nature has no interest in what diseases afflict us, be they heart, lung or whatever, once we're past child-bearing years. It will make no changes to lengthen our lives or make them less disease-prone in our middle and elder years. A stronger heart\? It's strong enough when we're in our twenties and early thirties and that's all nature cares about.

As for cancer, that is only because we do a lot of things that cause us cancer. We've contaminated the environment to the point where it is getting harder and harder for nature to self correct. So if we want to survive, then I guess this or total integration with the digital to get around that. Either way, it's transhumanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2017 at 5:56 AM, Topaz said:

This may be for nothing because the north American male has slow sperm count, so...

It probably became all for nothing back when scientist's discovered the human race could carry on without men altogether.

So apparently the world will be filled with nothing but tall gorgeous blonds.

I bet cryogenics or suspended animation for men will be the next big thing scientists start working on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tone of all the responses in this thread seem to be predicated on one thing.....that only Caucasians would have access to the technology.  Does anyone really think that all Japanese people are going to elect to have a "Kimmy-look-alike" baby??  Will Brazil do the same?  Doesn't make sense to me....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Hydraboss said:

The tone of all the responses in this thread seem to be predicated on one thing.....that only Caucasians would have access to the technology.  Does anyone really think that all Japanese people are going to elect to have a "Kimmy-look-alike" baby??  Will Brazil do the same?  Doesn't make sense to me....

Japanese love blonde girls. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is this:  what could be wrong with designing your kid?  You can get rid of the potential disease/defects and keep the positive.  White people can have white babies, black people can have black babies, Japanese can little Japanese kidlits.  Not sure how this is any different from what is being done right now when it comes to choosing your kid - don't like it?  Give it up or abort.  At least this way the kids that ARE born will be wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

My point is this:  what could be wrong with designing your kid?  You can get rid of the potential disease/defects and keep the positive.  White people can have white babies, black people can have black babies, Japanese can little Japanese kidlits.  Not sure how this is any different from what is being done right now when it comes to choosing your kid - don't like it?  Give it up or abort.  At least this way the kids that ARE born will be wanted.

Would you be willing to test it out on one of your future children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course I would.  Rare diseases seem to run in the family so if I could prevent that in my kids, I sure as hell would have tried it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eliminating diseases of genetic origin makes sense. Or at least, identifying those who are at risk, as is already done these days for breast cancer.

Designing "improved" humans beings is another story. Consider sports for example. Would genetically enhanced athletes be allowed to participate in the Olympics? They have an advantage over others not unlike using performance enhancing drugs. But such methods of altering DNA might not be detectable. Where does that end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Designing "improved" humans beings is another story.

Why?  What would it matter?  As I said, it's not like North American white people would be the only ones able to do it.  If everyone wants to make 8 foot tall basketball players, let them.  Ask yourself this....are you sure Shaq wasn't genetically modified?  What about Perry the Fridge?  Does it make any difference?

What if everyone got smarter?  Would that be such a bad thing?  Perhaps Stephen Hawking is actually engineered.  If you found out he was, would you want him to NOT participate in scientific research?  I mean, he was born in 1942 so maybe the Nazi scientists got there genome on...

edit->And I happen to think that ALL professional athletes should be allowed to use performance enhancing drugs.  I couldn't care less if they got stronger in the gym or from the drugs - to hell with Usain Bolt's 9.58, I want to see someone run the 100m in 4.00 flat.

Edited by Hydraboss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hydraboss said:

Why?  What would it matter?

Read my other post above on why-

On 2017-07-31 at 8:27 AM, OftenWrong said:

The concept of manipulating DNA to change humankind is in a way a fight against natural selection. Natural selection is a controlled experiment, in that it happens gradually, incrementally, where the organism must "prove" its right to survive by interacting with other organisms and the environment. Manipulating DNA bypasses these safeguards.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is wrong with designer babies. Legalize it all and give people more freedom.

 

Edit: well maybe if someone wants to purposely genetic engineer a disability into a baby. Like someone wanting a deaf and limbless baby. Then I'd have an issue with that.

Edited by -1=e^ipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Nothing is wrong with designer babies. Legalize it all and give people more freedom.

No way. Look what we have done with our freedom as regards the  environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Omni said:

No way. Look what we have done with our freedom as regards the  environment. 

Maybe we can design babies to emit less CO2 and be able to live off dirt. Think how environmentalist that would be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Maybe we can design babies to emit less CO2 and be able to live off dirt. Think how environmentalist that would be!

Human worms that live off the detritus of the elite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another step on our way to become clones and to serve AI. It seems to be human nature to be a slave to something whether it be money, power, super stars, possessions, technology etc. The theory is if we all exactly the same there will be no more abuse of each other, personally I don't think this can be farther from the truth as humans will still pick on each other from the cubicle they sit in to their place in line to where they live, it's human nature.

Of course it may be possible to edit that gene from us also...

Then the population can truly become a tradable commodity for the elite at least for awhile. 

Edited by Thinkinoutsidethebox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/2/2017 at 8:13 PM, OftenWrong said:

Designing "improved" humans beings is another story. Consider sports for example. Would genetically enhanced athletes be allowed to participate in the Olympics?

Who cares? Sports is dumb. Especially compared to the potential benefits of a future generation that is free of genetic diseases, has improved immune systems, improved healing abilities, improved cancer resistance and longevity, and perhaps even enhanced intelligence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

This is another step on our way to become clones and to serve AI. It seems to be human nature to be a slave to something whether it be money, power, super stars, possessions, technology etc. The theory is if we all exactly the same there will be no more abuse of each other, personally I don't think this can be farther from the truth as humans will still pick on each other from the cubicle they sit in to their place in line to where they live, it's human nature.

...

Then the population can truly become a tradable commodity for the elite at least for awhile. 

Yes, I'm sure parents will be asking doctors to turn on their future baby's "I want to be a slave" gene. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2017 at 3:41 PM, Bonam said:

Yes, I'm sure parents will be asking doctors to turn on their future baby's "I want to be a slave" gene. 

Is there a gene that affects how submissive a human will be? If there is would the powers that be tell us? 

Who knows? As you spec out your new designer baby this may be a characteristic you don't have a right (or the knowledge) to choose, besides who wants a toddler that freaks out once in awhile?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...