Designer Babies

[Fuller]

I've had a quick scout over the other threads and don't believe this one has been highlighted before.

What are your thoughts on the future of human genetic modification / manipulation? More specifically, where should we draw the line. The following descisions may only apply to in-vitro fertilisation at this time, but in the future, these choices may become more widespread.

Is it ok to screen for hereditary diseases and only use unaffected embryo's with the knowledge that they will be healthier?
Is it OK to select the embryo's which show a genetic tendancy to be stronger, and physically fitter?
Is it OK to chose exactly what children you wish to have, down to the colour of their eyes?

What do you think is right or wrong, is their a line which we should draw somewhere and why?

I personally am of the old school train of thought, and believe nature should decide the outcome. Even if we have the choice to screen out potentially harmful diseases such as Huntingdons etc. My main reason for thinking this is because a foetus in the womb will be naturally terminated by the body if any major physical or genetic problems occur, so this leads me to wonder. Why does a body not reject a foetus if it carries a potentially life threatening gene? I think if we screen these out, it will upset the balance of the human gene pool in some way. Never mind getting to the stage of choosing eye colour!!

What are your thoughts on this?

[Belial]

My main reason for thinking this is because a foetus in the womb will be naturally terminated by the body if any major physical or genetic problems occur, so this leads me to wonder. Why does a body not reject a foetus if it carries a potentially life threatening gene?

Because evolution isn't perfect, and neither is our biological screening process?

[Andrew]

Is it OK to chose exactly what children you wish to have, down to the colour of their eyes?

The answer to this question is "yes", but I think anyone who really wants to shouldn't be allowed to have children because they're very obviously doing it for the wrong reasons. And I think that aborting foetuses to do it is a bad thing -- it's like killing animals: it's one thing to do it for a good reason, but to do it for a reason like this you either have to be very sure that they can't feel it or think for themselves or anything, or a total bastard.

[Gelsamel]

Yes, yes, yes.

I'm pro-genetic enhancement!


Also, I was under the impression that "The Human Gene Pool" doesn't exist and is just a concept used to teach some stuff in biology. At least that is what my bio teacher said.

[Phenriz]

given the option, i would only remove any congenital diseases the child may have.

that would be the only type of alteration i would do to my (hypothetical) kid.




now if i were given the option to genetically alter myself, i could have a field day.

[mister k]

I think the answer has to be nuanced. I'm sure you've heard the (false) story about Beethoven's siblings all being blind and mute and what have you, but there is a vaguely valid point there. If we systematically remove people who are predisposed to getting a certain disease, theres a possibility that you might remove people with great potential in other spheres that we are simply unable to predict. Having said that... it's definitely a tough one, if only because we have to be quite clear on who gets to decide what a valuable member of society is. Certainly some inheritable conditions will make life short and miserable, and are perhaps to be avoided, but being born without the ability to walk... certainly one would prefer to be able to walk but it's not going to utterly ruin your life. I'm entirely unsure where I stand on this issue. It's a tough one, certainly.

[gmalivuk]

My main reason for thinking this is because a foetus in the womb will be naturally terminated by the body if any major physical or genetic problems occur, so this leads me to wonder. Why does a body not reject a foetus if it carries a potentially life threatening gene? I think if we screen these out, it will upset the balance of the human gene pool in some way.

How does it make any difference at all on the gene pool if a baby with some kind of horrible congenital defect is carried to term and dies a painful death a The fact is, it's simply false to say that fetuses are always naturally terminated whenever there are major problems.

In terms of other things, like Down's Syndrome (with which people can still live good, albeit much shorter, lives), it depends on each case. Sure, if you've got plenty of time and money and can ensure that your special-needs child will have the best upbringing possible, one could argue that it's immoral to abort. But what if you've already got two kids you're trying to support on a single wage, and then discover the pregnancy you're carrying now is going to have all kinds of specialized (read expensive) needs that you now have to try and pay for on top of the financial load you've already got? In my opinion, at least, it is completely ethical to decide not to bear a child that is going to cost so much for you and the rest of your already existing family. Not to mention the fact that the kid with Down's or whatever isn't likely to have a very quality existence, either, since you can't afford special schools or special programs or whatever.

(Note that this whole thing is only in terms of current technology. If and when we get the ability to selectively alter embryos on the genetic level, to get rid of specific defects, it's a whole other issue. On that issue, I lean towards the already-mentioned opinion that it's okay to correct serious defects and diseases, but eye color and such is pushing it. Again, for the already-mentioned reason that parents who have a strong opinion on their child's eye color probably aren't having the kid for the right reasons.)

[rachel]

I think that as far as screening for a healthier fetus goes, there is nothing wrong with that. If you can eradicate diseases that will ultimately end in death, then by all means go for it. There are, like Mr. Malivuk said, some cases like Downs Syndrome or just mental retardation where it is up to the parent. Those children will be able to live life, albeit a more difficult one. However, when it comes down to things like choosing your child's gender, eye/hair colour, etc., that is where you should draw a line. That should all be something that occurs naturally, that is what makes it your child. Parents who are more concerned with making sure that they have a green-eyed, brown-haired girl instead of being concerned with whether or not they have a healthy child are the types of people who honestly shouldn't have children. It shouldn't be about having the smartest or the prettiest or the (in the future) more physically and athletically inclined child, it should be about having a healthy happy child that you can love.

[Pixel]

This is only tangentially related, but is a damn cool article:
Respectful of Otters, Ambivalence

I have no issue with screening of potential fetuses(1) for anything, genetic mutation, diseases, eye color, etc.
However in my personal opinion screening and rejecting for things like eye color or strength or whatnot shows a certain lack of maturity on the part of the parent(s). They're trying to chose options for their kid like people shop for options for a new car.

For myself, I'm all about genetic engineering. Heck I have a ranked list of mutations I want.


(1) "Potential fetus" used because to my understanding at the stage they are at for in-vitro they are technically still either a zygote or blastocyst.

[Owijad]

The fact is, it's simply false to say that fetuses are always naturally terminated whenever there are major problems.

Well, depending on the severity, they will end up dead naturally.


I posed a similar question, only in a much more controversial form.

If you could select against any or all of dwarfism, diabetes, and homosexuality, where would you draw the line?

[Brian]

Parents who are more concerned with making sure that they have a green-eyed, brown-haired girl instead of being concerned with whether or not they have a healthy child are the types of people who honestly shouldn't have children.

Ultimately, if we continute designing our children over the next few centuries, we will be able to phase out the type of people that would choose to design their babies.

(I kid. I actually think it's a good idea, even though it will obviously be misused.)

[Gazette]

I'm kind of ambivalent on this topic...

I think genetic engineering is great however, society is not yet ready for a full-blown genetic engineering pandemic. The thing is, most people are extremely selfish, thus they will want their children to be absolutely perfect. How much money will this cost, and will this put a disadvantage to those who do not have the money? All sorts of trouble will come from this.

Removing disease causing genes should eventually be a routine task, but designing your own babies? We've got a long way to go before the population as a whole are responsible enough and ready for the consequences.

[Kles]

The concept has noble purposes (genetic diseases and such) but I think it's just too easily abused. The gap between rich and poor will absolutely split open if this happened.

[ArchangelShrike]

From what perspective? If we were the leader of a society on some far away planet, say Alpha Centauri, and the creation of making the most Talented people was our only way to survival, to beat out all the others...

But this is all hypothetical. And nature has a few million years of a headstart on perfecting her processes, even if she works at a much slower pace.

[Spag]

I don't know if anyone here has seen the movie GATTACA, but the basic plot is that designer babies have been perfected, you dont actually change genes of the kid but instead they can find out what genes are in each sperm and egg so they can find the best egg and sperm for the couples desire, not gentic modification but more genetic selection. The idea the movie pushed was that because everyone was so genetically perfect, those who were concieved in the old fashioned way were inferior and couldn't compete in the job market with those who were better off genetically. The protagonist is a person who is concieved with good 'ol fashion sex and takes the identity of someone who is genetically more advanced to get ahead in life. It's definitley worth watching as it covers this exact topic.

I guess my opinion is that you can screen for abnormalities but it should be left there.

[ArchangelShrike]

I've seen it... Very interesting, especially the doctor at the end that gives it away.

Edit: Because it is almost a spoiler although you need to watch the movie to really know what I wrote means.

[Spag]

words

uhm spoiler?

[fjafjan]

In theory, i definately support it, in practise, we need to evolve alot as a culture I think before this is possible, especially globally, in places like India and china further "selection" of your baby will have huge effects, you will get ALOT of boys, and few girls, and it will fuck up society in so many ways.

That said, I don't really mind making people of the future smarter and better looking. even if it does make me feel more insecure

[Owijad]

Another good question is, who here would not want to be genetically perfect, just because it would put those around you at a disadvantage?

[Phenriz]

Another good question is, who here would not want to be genetically perfect, just because it would put those around you at a disadvantage?

i wouldn't want to be "genetically perfect" for that reason alone, i'd want to be genetically perfect so my offspring wouldn't have to worry about defects, but is there such a thing(even hypothetically) as genetic perfection?

how would you define it?

[ArchangelShrike]

Perfection is like truth and beauty in the other thread: different depending on viewpoint. I don't want perfection, I'd like to struggle a bit and see how bad it gets so I can appreciate how good it is later. But then I already have a advantage over most in intelligence, so...

[Spag]

Another good question is, who here would not want to be genetically perfect, just because it would put those around you at a disadvantage?

I would love to be genetically perfect, problem is it's the parents who chose whether you are or not, and if you wanted to be, too late you have been born.

[elminster]

I think its fine, although id draw the line in the same place as the average supporter. Less diseases, but no supermen. Overtime if it takes place enough, the gene pool will tend towards progressively better human physical traits.

Then again, nature vs nurture, its not like filtering alone will produce mentally alot better people. Although would be interesting to see a human with extremely good genes with average upbringing compared to average genes with extremely good upbringing.

[Vaniver]

I do not desire any limits on my or other's ability to design our progeny. Progress should be halted or slowed only for the most severe of reasons, and the reasons to block designer babies are cowardice at best.

From what perspective? If we were the leader of a society on some far away planet, say Alpha Centauri, and the creation of making the most Talented people was our only way to survival, to beat out all the others...

Then clearly it would be wise to spend the energy to hurry the Human Genome Project.

(I'm hoping that was a reference to what I think it was a reference to)

[fjafjan]

I do not desire any limits on my or other's ability to design our progeny. Progress should be halted or slowed only for the most severe of reasons, and the reasons to block designer babies are cowardice at best.

Because corruption of power Never happens right? The fact that this could potentially create an extreme elite and extreme lower class does not bother you in the least I guess.
Calling it Cowardice when it's reasonable hesitance is just retarded.

[Narsil]

Well if I can give my kid advantages that will help in the real world, then why the hell wouldn't I?
Unfortunately, the process to get these perfect babies completely takes the fun out of making them.

[fjafjan]

I agree, the problem would be people having vastly different ideas of what is "perfect".
Essentially I think it's a great technology but it takes with it some serious ethical considerations and can not just be givven out to people with a "have fun making babies!". What qualities are disadvantagous? What kind of society do we want to create? This is kind of what my dead topic about changing drives is about, if we can make children more/less obedient, do we really want to do that?
and so forth

[Vaniver]

Because corruption of power Never happens right? The fact that this could potentially create an extreme elite and extreme lower class does not bother you in the least I guess.
Calling it Cowardice when it's reasonable hesitance is just retarded.

The argument "oh we shouldn't seek power because we might misuse it" is one I call cowardly, because it shrinks from responsibility. It trusts to random chance things that could be determined by human intelligence; human intelligence is by no means perfect, but it is by nearly all means superior to random chance. Just because you are afraid of what perils progress might bring does not mean it should be, or can be, stopped.

I do not fear inequality; I fear more the solution of chopping down the tallest trees. The geniuses hatched in cloning vats will design technologies that will have an unrivaled positive impact on normal humans; this will probably outweigh whatever negative impact their existence has on those born with worse genes.

And once the procedure becomes cheap enough to do on everyone- if we dislike inequality so, why should we not try to level the genetic playing field by bringing everyone up as high as possible, instead of letting it remain random?

The class of supermen will have power over the others, but I have little hope that they will be elitist in a way that'll result in genocide. I expect they'll have the liberal, tolerant bent of most intellectuals and/or celebrities today.

[fjafjan]

The problem isn't that we shouldn't have the power, it's that we should know what the hell we are doing before we get into it, the problems that might arise and create an effective system which will prevent this, we don't want to create a dystopia.
If someone is going to have a gun you damn well better teach them not to shoot people with it.

and how do you know the geniuses will be liberal?
Alot of smart people are intolerant biggots that would want to kill everyone else, they might very well turn into racists, except they would be "right"..
Basically you are saying "i welcome our new genius overlords".
Naivity towards new technology has caused massive damage in the past so why not prevent that happen again eh? Especially as the future technologies are becoming so much more powerful than ever before.

[Phenriz]

and how do you know the geniuses will be liberal?
Alot of smart people are intolerant biggots that would want to kill everyone else, they might very well turn into racists, except they would be "right"..

Being a liberal doesn't automatically disqualify one from being a racist/ biggot, in fact i know of quite a few liberal biggots. But i know equally as many conservative biggots, so take your pick. Being ultra-liberal, can result is the same negative effects as being an ultra-conservative.

Granted this doesn't have any bearing on the topic so i don't mean to derail. Just wanted to address this notion.

[Vaniver]

The problem isn't that we shouldn't have the power, it's that we should know what the hell we are doing before we get into it, the problems that might arise and create an effective system which will prevent this, we don't want to create a dystopia.
If someone is going to have a gun you damn well better teach them not to shoot people with it.

Until one creates cars, and creates a system to deal with people using those cars, that person cannot adequately predict what obstacles will arise for that transportation system. Requiring that someone "know what the hell they are doing" before they try something for the first time means that people will only be able to try things that have been done before.

and how do you know the geniuses will be liberal?

I don't. I hope they won't.

Alot of smart people are intolerant biggots that would want to kill everyone else, they might very well turn into racists, except they would be "right"..
Basically you are saying "i welcome our new genius overlords".

Yes. I would not be too sad if a new era of genius and creativity overtook the Earth, regardless of how much blood was shed to start it. But, that's my bias towards progress and quality of life over quantity of life.

Naivity towards new technology has caused massive damage in the past so why not prevent that happen again eh? Especially as the future technologies are becoming so much more powerful than ever before.

How will we prevent naiveté towards new technology? It's new.

Even if we decided that we would not advance ourselves, that will not save us from the negative effects of new technologies. The Amish breathe the same air polluted from factories around the world as we do; they will be destroyed by nuclear strikes if America is; they will die if an engineered plague is deployed to wipe out humanity. However, they receive none of the benefits of new technology- they do not have cheap nuclear electricity, let alone electricity at all; they do not have the benefit of mass-produced factory goods (sort of); they have few of the benefits of modern and future medicine (such as their children being supermen).

Being a liberal doesn't automatically disqualify one from being a racist/ biggot, in fact i know of quite a few liberal biggots. But i know equally as many conservative biggots, so take your pick. Being ultra-liberal, can result is the same negative effects as being an ultra-conservative.

Granted this doesn't have any bearing on the topic so i don't mean to derail. Just wanted to address this notion.

Polite society generally does not allow (spoken) bigotry. Sure, "scientific racism" will come to pass with genetically engineered supermen, but that isn't really bigotry.

[fjafjan]

Well it's a semantical issue, people often confuse "libertarians" with "liberals", really libertarian is more or less the economical side of classical conservatism, Conservatives have a moral position, Libertarians a fiscal position, these tend to go along. Example of Libertarian would be the Ronpaul, and if you read what he has said he is more or less a biggot. He is not however a liberal.
But ofcourse there are liberal racists, but in general conservatives are more racist, as liberals tend to want to fight racism while conservatives say "let it be!". Which is, while not directly racist, a position a racist is more likely to support. Also the reason why Republicans are huge in the american south
Conclusion: Conservatives More racist, more biggoted, Liberals, can be racist, can be biggoted.
But this is off topic.

[Vaniver]

Well it's a semantical issue, people often confuse "libertarians" with "liberals", really libertarian is more or less the economical side of classical conservatism, Conservatives have a moral position, Libertarians a fiscal position, these tend to go along.

I... don't think I've ever heard someone confuse libertarians and liberals.

[fjafjan]

Really?
Well I have, but then probably more often since the word "libertarian" doesn't really exist in Sweden, so "Liberals"('Liberaler') vary from "reasonable" to "insane".

[Vaniver]

Well I have, but then probably more often since the word "libertarian" doesn't really exist in Sweden, so "Liberals"('Liberaler') vary from "reasonable" to "insane".

Is their insanity a measure of how much they disagree with you?

[fjafjan]

How much it disagrees with observable reality, which is generally what constitutes insanity.

[Phenriz]

How much it disagrees with observable reality, which is generally what constitutes insanity.

so to draw an unrelated conclusion, anyone with a religious dogma is insane?

[fjafjan]

They are delusional to an extent, yes.
Ofcourse the people who believe God created the world eight thousand years ago and everything upon it are alot more delusional than the ones believing there is some kind of presence out there.

[Phenriz]

They are delusional to an extent, yes.

sounds quite biggoted to me.

[Gelsamel]

GATTACA is AWESOME, and there are so many lil' references to stuff in that movie. But the 'slippery slope' it portrays is highly unlikely like most 'slippery slopes'