78 replies to this topic

[rashore]

I would have to say at this time, no. It's not a good idea. GM is just too recent and too new of a technology, we don't know exactly what the outcome of it is yet in plants and animals, it's waaaaaayyyyy too soon to start tinkering around with humans.
Too soon in an ethical way as well. We are still in raging debate about things like cell research, abortion, IVF and contraception, and other things to do with babies and pregnancy. I really don't think we are ready to face the ethics of GM yet.
And yeah, shades of Gattaca.

[Taun]

AsteroidX, on 19 February 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

I do not foresee us as capable of doing one without the other.

Well what I meant was getting to a point where parents could go down a laundry list of "improvements"... Not just fix defects...

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Well what I meant was getting to a point where parents could go down a laundry list of "improvements"... Not just fix defects...

So what is a defect and what is an improvement. I believe brown eyes and pigeon toes are a defect. Do I qualify ? Thats why its too early. And yes sadly children could likely be saved that will suffer horrible birth defects. But I blame us as a society for that.

[freetoroam]

ExpandMyMind, on 19 February 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

This would change the elitists into super-elitists! Shades of Gattaca anyone?

haha, shades indeed.

They may be able to find a way of making the perfect gene one day, but it does not mean it will be a perfect mind.
I still think its all a very very bad idea.

I wonder if they make a GM human whether it would have to be fed on GM foods only?

[Frank Merton]

Genetically engineered babies = homo homogenizedious

[Rlyeh]

Spore, on 19 February 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

I think its a bad idea. Genetically modified anything is whole-heartedly unnatural. One of the main reasons why there are so many diseases is becauce of modified food etc.. If its not natural then theres no point in continuing with the process.

Get off the computer then.

[Rlyeh]

Tsa-La-Gie Oyate, on 19 February 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

It's ethical to eradicate genes known to cause disease and illness interfere with the function of living, but I disagree on the idea of genetic modification to make someone "perfect" or more "desirable", the risks are too high in bioethics to manifest in the field of eugenics on making "designer" babies or "better" humans.

Why? We already have modified our environment, our mortality rate, our lives. Yet modifying our genes is deemed "unnatural" as if some are clinging to a delusion that our state of living is natural.

[freetoroam]

AsteroidX, on 19 February 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

So what is a defect and what is an improvement. I believe brown eyes and pigeon toes are a defect. Do I qualify ? Thats why its too early. And yes sadly children could likely be saved that will suffer horrible birth defects. But I blame us as a society for that.

Brown eyes! me too. Never thought of it as a defect before.

[freetoroam]

Rlyeh, on 19 February 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

Why? We already have modified our environment, our mortality rate, our lives. Yet modifying our genes is deemed "unnatural" as if some are clinging to a delusion that our state of living is natural.

And can they genetically modify the minds?
The problem in our society is not the way people look, its the minds of the mad which is our problems!

[AsteroidX]

OK. If we can GMO kids then we can ban abortion because all kids can be born perfect. Even a rape victims child can be modified to not be a victim anymore.

Edited by AsteroidX, 19 February 2013 - 06:21 PM.

[SpiritWriter]

No but we should be careful about who we mate with to some degree.

[freetoroam]

AsteroidX, on 19 February 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

OK. If we can GMO kids then we can ban abortion because all kids can be born perfect. Even a rape victims child can be modified to not be a victim anymore.

Its only the rich which will have GM kids.
I very much doubt it will be available to "shopping list" what your child will looks like on the NHS.

If 2 healthy people want a child, then how will they know that their child is going to have defects? So you may have a GM child and it would not have been necessary.
Or do they start GM experiments on the child after it is born?.......................oh boy!

[Taun]

Another way to look at it...

Let us assume for the sake of arguement that genetic engineering actually works as advertised...

I'm sure the process would not be cheap and/or readily available to everyone... So we would end up with the people with the most cash/influence designing their unborn children to be 'perfect' - i.e. ultra handsome, ultra beautiful, faster, stronger, smarter, etc...

These 'super children' (when adult) would dominate the culture especially in sports, entertainment, finance, business, science... Where would 'ordinary' children get a chance?... Ditch diggers, port-a-potty emptiers, dish washers and laborers... Yes someone has to do all those... but it would forever split the species along not only financial/social lines but genetic as well...

You think it's hard to get ahead now... Wait until this happens and see what a normal persons chances would be...

Edited by Taun, 19 February 2013 - 06:35 PM.

[freetoroam]

Taun, on 19 February 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Another way to look at it...

Let us assume for the sake of arguement that genetic engineering actually works as advertised...

I'm sure the process would not be cheap and/or readily available to everyone... So we would end up with the people with the most cash/influence designing their unborn children to be 'perfect' - i.e. ultra handsome, ultra beautiful, faster, stronger, smarter, etc...

These 'super children' (when adult) would dominate the culture especially in sports, entertainment, finance, business, science... Where would 'ordinary' children get a chance?... Ditch diggers, port-a-potty emptiers, dish washers and laborers... Yes someone has to do all those... but it would forever split the species along not only financial/social lines but genetic as well...

You think it's hard to get ahead now... Wait until this happens and see what a normal persons chances would be...

Stephen Hawking  was not GM`d, and he is rather clever to say the least. So what they look like means nothing.
As for the money side of it, the rich children today already have a higher foot on the ladder than then poorer people, but again, what they look like does not mean they will be clever.

[AsteroidX]

I dont think my child could have turned out better then what he is and he isnt a GMO.