Should We Genetically Modify our Children?

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I've answered that argument a hundred times.

Technology is fine because it was always natural for humans to develop it.

As long as it doesn't corrupt any natural goals it is fine.

things like cancer corrupt the natural state of health, and since preserving health is a natural good, it is ok to fight cancer.

Natural goals... oh god I just read 11 pages of that crap in the homosexuality thread. Define "natural". Then tell me why I can't define it differently (for example, saying that being hurt while walking is a natural thing and that we should forbid footwear for that reason, or that cancer is our own bodies growing and we should let it happen like old age).

Now. As far as in-vitro genetic modifications, I would personally think the only issues are:
-Weakening of the gene pool if everyone wants the same thing (this would lead to a very unvaried gene pool, and that NEVER turns out good for a race. Imagine we start doing this, and everyone wants a blonde baby with white skin and blue eyes, and then all of a sudden a certain radiation event starts happening that only affects aryans) (can be circumvented by good regulation)
-Potential consequences that we don't know about (gets less and less likely as research becomes more and more advanced
-Preprogramming a child. This is a biggie. While I would be one of the first to say that I am a morally corrupt person, the thought of shoehorning a child, before he is born, into a certain profession or profession group seems wrong. Ideally, we would make designer babies that are better at everything (literally) than other people; i.e. smarter, stronger, faster, etc. and not just stronger and tougher. However, the idea of supercops with god complexes is very, very scary.
-Knowing how far we are able to go. I think this is less of an issue for me than it is for most, but where do we stop?

Now. As far as arguments for this. I think the key part is being able to genetically enhance the human race. It has come to the point where we as a race are more or less immune to natural selection-anyone with enough luck or money can pass on his/her genes, and in fact women gravitate towards men who are often very poor for a modern society (thugs, for example, have this "bad-boy allure"). There is no more natural selection within the human race, or rather close to none. So what do we do to counteract that? Well, we have the technology to counteract that on our own terms, messing with genes as we please. It makes us, as a species, more powerful, more intelligent, and less likely to die out/end the world as we know it.

 

[BSP]

I could possibly discuss any of the above questions.
Firstly, modifying them in the fields of the immune system would have its consequences in different ways. Besides, viruses are always mutating, and there are always bacterial infections that break through our bodily defences nonetheless. Improving immune system health may render them "invincible" to some diseases, but not others. True, they may (considering this is theoretical as of now) be immune to the most common forms of the common cold and be immune to many typical bacterial afflictions, yet there may be other diseases that would still break through.
Also, with the enhancement of our immune systems, there are always bacteria and viruses evolving and mutating in order to cope with our immune systems.

And that's just the beginning, I surmise.

So, do you have an opinion of what actions we should take? Should we try to enhance or not?

 

[Cyn]

So, do you have an opinion of what actions we should take? Should we try to enhance or not?

From what he is saying (and if he is I support him), I'm going to guess he is against it. As he stated the virus' main way to cope with life is to evolve and adapt to our ever changing immune systems. So while we may defeat the common cold as we know it today, that doesn't mean that a newer "super common cold" wouldn't break through our "super immune systems".

On the topic of phenotypes: Genetic engineering, if accepted, may have negative impacts on the society of the future. It could result in the increase of unreasonable fear or hatred towards people who may not have been altered genetically. People with genetic defects could be socially rejected. "Gene poor" people could be separated from society. In a way they already are. Women who are considered "beautiful" or men who are considered "handsome" are treated a lot differently than people who are lacking in looks.

Also, people who have true genetic defects are already treated differently and cast out from society in several parts across the world. This could lead to a genetic aristocracy.

 

[BSP]

From what he is saying (and if he is I support him), I'm going to guess he is against it. As he stated the virus' main way to cope with life is to evolve and adapt to our ever changing immune systems. So while we may defeat the common cold as we know it today, that doesn't mean that a newer "super common cold" wouldn't break through our "super immune systems".

Yeah. If the viruses would eventually break through our new immune systems, it would make it pointless, and people who couldn't afford the improvements would have even more trouble.

[On the topic of phenotypes: Genetic engineering, if accepted, may have negative impacts on the society of the future. It could result in increase of unreasonable fear or hatred towards people who may not have been altered genetically.

True, and I see it becoming rich vs. poor. The possible enhancements will cost money no doubt. How much is questionable, but I'm sure it would be enough to create a gap between our social classes today. Then, we end up with one side being "better" than the other, while the poor population remains susceptible to disease and possibly improved diseases. I mentioned this on my post from the first page IIRC.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Also, people who have true genetic defects are already treated differently and cast out from society in several parts across the world. This could lead to a genetic aristocracy.

I remember the Film Gatacca was about this. What a messed up society they had. Your CV file was some of your saliva, excellent isn't it?

I must say though, that a genetic aristocracy is probably unjustified, environmental factors play a giant role in the development of individuals.

 

[GoldShadow]

Aren't all emerging technologies only available to a select few at first (cars, telephones, TVs, and the internet just to name a few)? Should other sorts of innovation be banned?

 

[Aesir]

Aren't all emerging technologies only available to a select few at first (cars, telephones, TVs, and the internet just to name a few)? Should other sorts of innovation be banned?

This is directly effected though, there's a difference between a car and genetic modifications.

Now if it was socialized so everyone had access, that's acceptable.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I could see this happen and unless it is used for cruel porpoise I truly do not see genetic manufacturing of children as much of a problem because we already do it to a massive scale with are food. I like to think of it as Build a baby workshop as a twist to Build a bear workshop. I really do not see how it is different form invetro fertilization (I am positive that I misspelled something and to make it worse spell check will not give me the correct spelling.) Other than the customization of the baby.

 

[gm jack]

It raises to moral issue of what if the child grows to dislike the traits chosen for them? Say you picked them to be ginger and they are bullied for it. I'm sure that sort of thing could seriously damage parent-child relationships.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Yes, however that happens in families that do not have genetically modified children I could see were it would be a little worse. Over all though everyone is bullied at some point of there lives there is unfortunately going to happen weather the child has been modified or not.

 

[gm jack]

However, knowing your parents picked the traits as opposed to luck puts a lot of answering to do on the parents, especially when they could have potentially picked other traits such as for size and strength which could have prevented the bullying.

What exactly is there to be gained fro genetic modification of our young, other than potentially to help remove genetic diseases from the gene pool? Other diseases won't be affected to much in the long run due the the extreme ability of some pathogens to mutate, and hence circumvent our defences. As for straight enhancements, where is the benefit over just letting nature run its course?

 

[rvkevin]

What exactly is there to be gained from genetic modification of our young, other than potentially to help remove genetic diseases from the gene pool?

Isn't that enough in order to advocate for genetic modification.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

However, knowing your parents picked the traits as opposed to luck puts a lot of answering to do on the parents, especially when they could have potentially picked other traits such as for size and strength which could have prevented the bullying.

Something tells me that that would normally be something the parents would not tell the child to avoid exactly what you said. Even if they did know it would change very little, at least they have someone to blame other than them selfs most victims of bulling do not even have that, And there is always family counseling and that helps the economy.

What exactly is there to be gained fro genetic modification of our young, other than potentially to help remove genetic diseases from the gene pool? Other diseases won't be affected to much in the long run due the the extreme ability of some pathogens to mutate, and hence circumvent our defences. As for straight enhancements, where is the benefit over just letting nature run its course?

Economically speaking there is plenty to gain from genetic modification that opens a whole new market, with new buyers and gives more options to people when investing stock options. It can also open up new possibilities with workers especially if they have traits that can assist them with a particular job giving them an advantage over the other workers or if they wish a different job a temporary fall back position until they get the job they wished for.

 

[gm jack]

Isn't that enough in order to advocate for genetic modification.

Because we can already screen embryos for diseases, so in in vitro fertilisation, non-diseased zygotes can be chosen.

Something tells me that that would normally be something the parents would not tell the child to avoid exactly what you said. Even if they did know it would change very little, at least they have someone to blame other than them selfs most victims of bulling do not even have that, And there is always family counseling and that helps the economy.

I really don't think causing family distress in order to support counsellors is a morally valid argument. In the same (but more extreme) way, murderers are just keeping coffin makers in business.

Economically speaking there is plenty to gain from genetic modification that opens a whole new market, with new buyers and gives more options to people when investing stock options. It can also open up new possibilities with workers especially if they have traits that can assist them with a particular job giving them an advantage over the other workers or if they wish a different job a temporary fall back position until they get the job they wished for.

If you were talking about livestock, you would be just speeding up artificial selection which takes place. However, humans are expected to do more than just a single task in life. In a world running for the sake of running efficiently, I can see your point. Deciding jobs and boosting performance as early as possible will lead to better results.

However, people generally don't take to being told what they must do as well as animals without the use of force (and a lot of animal management relies on them fearing us instead). I can't image the people who where engineered to work on the sewage system will be as supportive as those engineered to be surgeons.

TL,DR/didn't make sense
Humans don't run on base instincts so will not willingly accept getting the short end of the stick.

 

[rvkevin]

Because we can already screen embryos for diseases, so in in vitro fertilisation, non-diseased zygotes can be chosen.

This is only selection, I'm sure there are ways to decrease the chances of disease or to increase the general health of offspring that are not present in today's gene pool. Fixing our genome to enable us to make vitamin C would be one example.

This is a good example of how a disease we see today results directly from evolution occurring in the very distant past. It is well-known that humans must eat lots of vitamin C to stay healthy. Vitamin C is a nutrient found in many fresh fruits and vegetables, particularly the citrus fruits. Without it, humans develop a terrible disease called scurvy, which is one of the most serious diseases affecting teenagers today, causing bleeding gums, bruises, and even death. Most other mammals (like your dog) synthesize their own vitamin C, and therefore don't get scurvy. Why do we get it? Because our bodies do not make vitamin C (ascorbic acid). We have the same genes for vitamin C production as other mammals, but a frame-shift mutation has made one of these genes non-functional [1]-http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2006/september/evolution.htm

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I really don't think causing family distress in order to support counsellors is a morally valid argument. In the same (but more extreme) way, murderers are just keeping coffin makers in business..

Murderers also contribute money to the economy by giving the defense and the prosecution lawyers as well as coffin makers a job and once you add in jail security, Police, Detectives, (possibly) P.I.'s, The Judge, Law researchers, Court officer, Juries, and then some. They give way more jobs than Genetic Modified children. I am not saying what there doing is moral, it is not, but to some rather sick degree it is beneficial. Genetic Modification is a whole lot of a less extreme example than the one above and possibly there may even be little in the way of bad if all goes perfectly. (Most likely not because we do not live in a perfect world but there is a lot less bad coming out of genetic modified children than murderers but yes I understand that was an example.)

If you were talking about livestock, you would be just speeding up artificial selection which takes place. However, humans are expected to do more than just a single task in life. In a world running for the sake of running efficiently, I can see your point. Deciding jobs and boosting performance as early as possible will lead to better results.

However, people generally don't take to being told what they must do as well as animals without the use of force (and a lot of animal management relies on them fearing us instead). I can't image the people who where engineered to work on the sewage system will be as supportive as those engineered to be surgeons.

I do see you point about people not willingly accepting the short end of the stick however Just because you are skilled at something does not mean you have to do it. Let us say (I will use the example you gave.) You have physical abilities that makes you have an advantage over the normal sewage cleaner. You may not wish to do it and you may have a completely different job, however if you fall on hard times you have a fall back possession that you can use for temporary work and is there for beneficial.

 

[GoldShadow]

BIn the same (but more extreme) way, murderers are just keeping coffin makers in business.

Murderers also contribute money to the economy by giving the defense and the prosecution lawyers as well as coffin makers a job and once you add in jail security, Police, Detectives, (possibly) P.I.'s, The Judge, Law researchers, Court officer, Juries, and then some.

This analogy is not correct, the way both of you have described it.

1) Death keeps coffin makers in business, and it is inevitable and plentiful regardless of the existence of murderers.

2) Lawyers, judges and law enforcement would exist even if there were no murderers for several reasons. There could still potentially be murders, first of all, and more importantly, all of these people do things besides prosecute and handle murders or violent crime. Their jobs would exist even if those things didn't.

 

[gm jack]

I do see you point about people not willingly accepting the short end of the stick however Just because you are skilled at something does not mean you have to do it. Let us say (I will use the example you gave.) You have physical abilities that makes you have an advantage over the normal sewage cleaner. You may not wish to do it and you may have a completely different job, however if you fall on hard times you have a fall back possession that you can use for temporary work and is there for beneficial.

But how will you be able to compete effectively for other jobs with applicants who have been enhanced in those areas?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

This analogy is not correct, the way both of you have described it.

My mistake.

But how will you be able to compete effectively for other jobs with applicants who have been enhanced in those areas?

For the purposes of this debate, should I pretend everyone is enhanced or just a slightly realistic % (With 15% of the worlds population being a high number)?

 

[gm jack]

Slightly realistic, though both will be interesting.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Let us start with the realistic %: I only see it being only the rich/(rarely) the upper-middle class just simply because that type of procedure would require cutting edge technology and that I can think of very few thing in the real world the you can get costume made cheaply. Though for a dictatorship country I could see were they would genetically modify some of there soldiers (Which would be immoral unlike parents selecting traits for there children that could help them.) adding to the % of the worlds population but 15% would be a very high number (I would think realistic % would be lower.) as for the rare occasion in which a non-modified person goes against a modified person for a job in which the modified has an advantage, I do not see it as a mewtwo v marth match up it is not impossible for the non-genetically modified person to win out however they would have to work harder than normal to win out.

As for if everyone was genetically modified: I very well see your argument here, if everyone was modified I would agree with you. Just because the culture brought in that world would have a predetermined mentality make competing very difficult. Everyone still has freewill however.

 

[Kanelol]

It makes sense to do any and everything possible to prevent disease in unborn children, but genetically modifying them, short or long term, to meet your, as the parents, hopes and expectations, is dangerously close to treating a living, breathing, if somewhat young, human being as property.

Holy run on sentence batman.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Against this. If you read this article on a disease called HYPP (http://www.horses-and-horse-information.com/articles/0695hypp.shtml), it shows a disease caused by altering a horse's genes.

...Symptoms are that the horse has muscle cramping, quivering muscles, difficulty breathing, and paralysis. Death can occur from heart or respiratory failure due to toxic effects of high blood levels of potassium...

Do we really want this to happen to humans?

 

[gm jack]

@Dark HorseSince when was that altering horse genetics?

That is simply as a result of the selective breeding that goes on in pretty much all domesticated animal breeding.

It is simply the end result of the inbreeding that can result from long term use of only a very few parent animals to produce many children, concentrating recessive defective genes.

If we were to do modification ourselves, we would surely be far more specific about what we do than to modify genes with unknown outcomes.

@Dragoon fighter

If only a select number have access to it, it would lead to more guaranteed success to the children of the already rich, potentially creating a two tiered society. Like any poverty circle, exceptionally brilliant and/or children in the worse off groups can rise out of it, but the vast majority would be held back by the wealth of their parents who were in turn held back etc. The best would get better while the rest would be stuck taking what they could.

If everyone had access to it, it would either need an almost totalitarian regulation in order to allocate enough to each sector. I suspect most parents would want their children to get boosted in the areas for accessing the most well respected, highest paid jobs, so creating a huge lack of people boosted for more menial or less well respected jobs. In that case, it would be exactly like it is today, where everyone has a decent chance with enough work, but with a potentially huge fee to even stand a chance.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

If only a select number have access to it, it would lead to more guaranteed success to the children of the already rich, potentially creating a two tiered society. Like any poverty circle, exceptionally brilliant and/or children in the worse off groups can rise out of it, but the vast majority would be held back by the wealth of their parents who were in turn held back etc. The best would get better while the rest would be stuck taking what they could.

More guaranteed? I do not see 99% increasing much more. Other than that I see were you are coming from.

If everyone had access to it, it would either need an almost totalitarian regulation in order to allocate enough to each sector. I suspect most parents would want their children to get boosted in the areas for accessing the most well respected, highest paid jobs, so creating a huge lack of people boosted for more menial or less well respected jobs. In that case, it would be exactly like it is today, where everyone has a decent chance with enough work, but with a potentially huge fee to even stand a chance.

I agree with you here, but it can't be a huge fee if everyone has access to it but you are right here.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@gm jack

Before HYPP was discovered, several horses had their genes altered to match impressive's performance enhancing genes. Those horses, and the offspring, are the only horses to get HYPP. (this applies to all horses who have their genes altered)

 

[GoldShadow]

Dark Horse, you're misinterpreting something or other. HYPP is a naturally occurring genetic disorder in horses. It became widespread in some lines due to selective breeding, like gm_jack said. What does it even mean to say "several horses had their genes altered"? The disease has been around long before we had the technology to actively insert/remove/modify genes. Moreover, as far as I know, this technology has never been employed for horse breeding.
The disorder became more prevalent in horses that were bred for larger musculature, as this site explains quite well:

"What is the Origin of the Genetic Defect Causing HYPP?
The original genetic defect causing HYPP was a natural mutation that occurred as part of the evolutionary process. The majority of such mutations, which are constantly occurring, are not compatible with survival. However, the genetic mutation causing HYPP produced a functional, yet altered, sodium ion channel. This gene mutation is not a product of inbreeding. The gene mutation causing HYPP inadvertently became widespread when breeders sought to produce horses with heavy musculature."
http://www.touchstonefarmva.com/HYPP.html

Anyway, a discussion on equine genetic disease seems more like a tangent than something really related to the topic at hand.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Whoops, I won't be getting the pink name for a while. Now, the only problem I can think of is a problem that has been brought out before, that it would probably be used only on rich people, giving them unfair advantages against others.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Whoops, I won't be getting the pink name for a while. Now, the only problem I can think of is a problem that has been brought out before, that it would probably be used only on rich people, giving them unfair advantages against others.

What are you talking about? They Already have an unfair advantage, this really will not change there already existing advantage all that much.

 

[gm jack]

Or, in addition to Dark Horse's point, we would have to allocate people jobs from before birth so that we have people to fill every role needed. This I believe to be clearly unfair, as it takes away all reason for anyone to work hard at their job.

@Dragoon fighter.

I come from a decidedly average family, but worked hard to get into a good grammar school (free, selective school) and am now doing the most demanding course at what is ranked at the second best uni in the world. Money is something which of course gives an advantage, but it doesn't always limit what you can do.

If people work to earn money and want to pay for their child's education, fir enough to them. However, the state system is good enough so that is doesn't destroy chances for people from other backgrounds.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

What are you talking about? They Already have an unfair advantage, this really will not change there already existing advantage all that much.

I'll use sports as an example. If an athlete wig altered genes competes against normal people, it would be like using performance-enhancing drugs, but it isn't drug and it's legal.

 

[1048576]

Every new existing technology ever has temporarily been obtainable only by the rich, and if it's useful at all, gives them an "unfair advantage" in many facets.

Should we have not built cars in 1904? Stop developing new laptop technology? What about expensive life-saving procedures?

Rich people get more and better stuff. That's the advantage of being rich, that's why people strive to produce enough to be rich, that's why the economy runs.

The cost of these procedures will go down eventually, especially if we have superbabies working to that end.