Designer Babies

[Hababi]

If (when) science progresses to where you can pick most everything about your prospective child, from hair color to eye color etc. and remove genetic predispositions and weaknesses, ala Gattaca, would you do it? Would you have a designer baby? Do you think others should, or should even be allowed to?

[Volumnius Flush]

If (when) science progresses to where you can pick most everything about your prospective child, from hair color to eye color etc. and remove genetic predispositions and weaknesses, ala Gattaca, would you do it? Would you have a designer baby? Do you think others should, or should even be allowed to?

This is a very difficult proposition; one that I don't currently have an answer to. It seems that if all children were chosen by their parents to be genetically engineered, we would have a very dangerous, self-destructive society on our hands. Imagine 17 million school age children who are all genetically engineered Einsteins, supermodels or bodybuilders, ruthless, hateful, do-anything-to-get-to-the-top savagery. It would be a horrible, horrible day. Unless we could engineer them to be happy go-luckies. Only then the terrorists would win and all the technology in the world couldn't save us. The only remedy to this would be the return of serfdom and/or the caste system. It would be a modern day Athens v. Sparta while in the midst of it all, the evil Romans are attacking is both.

Imagine for a minute a couple decide to have a daughter. The father has two options: recuse himself of the responsibility, or not recuse himself. Of the former he can therefore say, "I want my daughter to be the most beautiful princess in the world." He would therefore engineer a daughter, subconsciously or otherwise, a daughter he would be physically and sexually attracted to. Or he could try to make her as ugly as possible so that no one would ever want her. This is playing with fire.

On the same token, a couple have a son. The father may want his son to be a huge linemen. Thus, we now have genetically engineered football legends. This could be disastrous to the furtherment of education. I can see it now: Great, big, towering, ogres filled to tee with testosterone tormenting all the little scientists. Of course, the father has the option of making his son a great athlete and brilliant scientist altogether. But Americans are too stupid.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

I would if it were proven safe

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

It has a role and that role is preventing disease

I don't want to live in teh brave new world

[A Spoonful Supreme]

omg this thread just gave me a vision... of kids like in a hallway with school uniforms on and faces made out of puddy and they were marching and singing something like "We dont need nooo educatiioonn" and then some dude was like "hey! teachers! leave those kids alone!"

[Janeway]

I wouldn't. If I choose to have kids, then I should be prepared to love them no matter what they are. If anything, I think I'd grow to resent the kid. Perfection is aggrivating.

I don't think it should be done at all. People need to die. Babies don't always survive in nature. It's part of life. If no kids have birth defects or any disease, then the population is going to increase too much too fast.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

If you wouldn't, and somebody else would, your kids are going to have a hard time competing

[Hababi]

If you wouldn't, and somebody else would, your kids are going to have a hard time competing

That's why I'm for banning it :p

[griftadan]

If you wouldn't, and somebody else would, your kids are going to have a hard time competing

just like gattaca, that movie kicked ***

[John Paul Harrison]

Not a good idea. I would not trust myself to pick the best traits for a child. Every thime she'd screw up, she'd blame it on my lame genetic choices.

just like gattaca, that movie kicked ***

Yes. Yes it did.

[Hababi]

Yes. Yes it did.

I own that movie :cool:

[John Paul Harrison]

I own that movie :cool:

I had a science teacher give me an actual test on GATTACA. Because that how our schools work in Kentucky.

[HaVIC5]

I don't see anything unethical about the actual technology and process to create designer babies at all, but like Volumnius Flush said, there are huge social ramifications to be had, and most of them are extemely negative. Now, I am by no means a communist or socialist, but it certainly doesnt take one to see that this is where the capitalist system would truly rear its ugly head. Only the wealthy will be able to afford such procedures at first, creating a generation of wealthy elite before the technology will be available to everyone. This will take the concept of social classes in a democracy from a rather nebulous system of socioeconomic levels that theoretically can be crossed to social classes based not just on wealth, but an entirely different race. This is an extremely dangerous path to go down with the technology of eugenics, and unfortunately, it is an extremely likely one as well.

[Egggo]

It has a role and that role is preventing disease

I don't want to live in teh brave new world

indeed

this should only be limited to congenital disorders

if you have ever worked with the mentally disabled, i think it would be more understandable why

[Electronic Wolf]

I want my kids to look like me.

[Mr. Ron]

I think this is crossing the line. Just keep it natural.

[Electronic Wolf]

Truth.

[Jude]

I think it should be limited to preventing a well-defined list of genetic diseases or mental problems. Otherwise, as in Gattaca, normal children would end up being retarded, effectively.

[Reaganista]

of course
I can't think of any reasons to oppose this
besides ****ty ones

It has a role and that role is preventing disease

I don't want to live in teh brave new world
um everybody wouldn't be able to do it

poor people would still have to raise their little retarded kids

[Electronic Wolf]

Children would become fashion accessories.

[Reaganista]

children are already fashion accessories dammit
don't you read 'details'

now they would just be smart, athletic fashion accessories
that don't have genetic diseases

[Electronic Wolf]

People would get their children bronzed and put them up in the family room.

Let's make sure this doesn't happen.

[Egggo]

um no they wouldn't because if there is one thing people like even more than children it is grandchildren

[Smokey D]

One half of me sees designer children as an extremely desirable proposition, as it essentially offers a cure for almost all disease (not only could we end congenitive disease, but theoretically I don't see why we couldn't artificially improve the immune system to cope with all other inflictions), not to mention making our children good looking, intelligent and athletic.

However, I am concerned with the negatives some of you have outlined -- most importantly, that this would undoubtedly be the preserve of the rich and could render the wealth gap a concrete and ever widening reality.

[Egggo]

well it's not like we haven't abolished things like private schools and expensive tutors

i think this stuff cannot be left in the hands of profiteering corporations and instead must be watched over by the government when the implementation takes place

and my god...imagine the money saved and burdens alleviated for healthcare

[Knifeboy]

I want 20 kids that all look like David Hasselhoff

[Smokey D]

well it's not like we haven't abolished things like private schools and expensive tutors

Genetic perfection is vastly more permanent than good schooling.


and my god...imagine the money saved and burdens alleviated for healthcare

Indeed.

[Reaganista]

poor people would benefit from a class of hyper-intelligent, perfectly healthy hotties

[VomitStainedCretin]

As parents will inevitably not want their children to have genes considered to have negative effects, this whole thing would probably lead to a narrowing of the gene pool, lowering the ability of people to resist disease exetera.

Still, I would so laugh if the Super Rich Super Human Scenario happened and they all got wiped out by some disease.

[Egggo]

Genetic perfection is vastly more permanent than good schooling.

yet neither can guarantee to save you from poverty, death, or a miserable life

i'm all for it as long as everyone gets access to it

As parents will inevitably not want their children to have genes considered to have negative effects, this whole thing would probably lead to a narrowing of the gene pool, lowering the ability of people to resist disease exetera.

lmao no it won't

[postcount plus plus]

yeah I would. Then when all you god fearing ludites came screaming "omg you're playing god stop it!" I'd just reply with "FEEL THE WRATH OF MY GM ARMY".

[VomitStainedCretin]

I have nothing against playing God, I just dont want to have a new race of GM super kids being superior to me.

[postcount plus plus]

Dont worry. You'd probably be retired/ dead by the time it really kicks off.

[Scythe404]

This is a very difficult proposition; one that I don't currently have an answer to. It seems that if all children were chosen by their parents to be genetically engineered, we would have a very dangerous, self-destructive society on our hands. Imagine 17 million school age children who are all genetically engineered Einsteins, supermodels or bodybuilders, ruthless, hateful, do-anything-to-get-to-the-top savagery. It would be a horrible, horrible day. Unless we could engineer them to be happy go-luckies. Only then the terrorists would win and all the technology in the world couldn't save us. The only remedy to this would be the return of serfdom and/or the caste system. It would be a modern day Athens v. Sparta while in the midst of it all, the evil Romans are attacking is both.

Imagine for a minute a couple decide to have a daughter. The father has two options: recuse himself of the responsibility, or not recuse himself. Of the former he can therefore say, "I want my daughter to be the most beautiful princess in the world." He would therefore engineer a daughter, subconsciously or otherwise, a daughter he would be physically and sexually attracted to. Or he could try to make her as ugly as possible so that no one would ever want her. This is playing with fire.

On the same token, a couple have a son. The father may want his son to be a huge linemen. Thus, we now have genetically engineered football legends. This could be disastrous to the furtherment of education. I can see it now: Great, big, towering, ogres filled to tee with testosterone tormenting all the little scientists. Of course, the father has the option of making his son a great athlete and brilliant scientist altogether. But Americans are too stupid.

The social ramifications are the most deadly. I'll take your case about the athlete and look at it through another lens:

The one simple thing that connects us to life is the knowledge that we are a part of it. We can grow and change, aspire, succeed and fail. Without a central motive or a greater goal to work towards, upon the path of which are many smaller goals that one must achieve for both their own benefit and the greater goal, we have nothing. As people, we have no reason to exist if we're not advancing towards something desirable.

It's as simple as asking a child what they want to be when they grow up to see what i'm speaking of. They're not something great yet, but they all aspire to be.

Now, your hypothetical athlete, well, he's been born and engineered; he has everything he needs to be the star player. He has the charisma, the stamina, the muscle and maybe some strategical skill. He'll race down his own path with no struggle to build his character. Perhaps he'll win all the time, but will lose and on that one rare occasion will not be able to cope with it because he's so used to winning. Or, maybe his advantage will be so great that, with the complete lack of struggle required to advance towards his greater goal, the victory and praise will be hollow.

He hasn't had to work to earn it, it was no difficulty to achieve it and it's exactly what he's used to. He becomes jaded, and loses his drive and reason to exist. Maybe he kills himself, or just gives up and lives a rather dreary life, going on forever in the world, but unable to grow or change like the rest of us.

Do you see where i'm going with this? The greatest danger of this designer crap is its threat to life itself; it's an attack on the randomness, spontaneity and triumph of the human soul. It denies those born 'greater' the chance to struggle and persevere like the rest of us, and creates a staunchly divided society where those of us born normally will be looked down upon. Volumnius made a good point about the reversion to a caste system and that's another very real danger we face: The super-beautiful and super-well engineered become another society above us altogether, and society itself splinters even further.

If you want a good case study on that sort of thing, see the film "Gattaca". This entire process can't be allowed.

[Reaganista]

lol that was a satirical post right

[Smokey D]

poor people would benefit from a class of hyper-intelligent, perfectly healthy hotties

They could. But there could also be extremely negative implications.


yet neither can guarantee to save you from poverty, death, or a miserable life

i'm all for it as long as everyone gets access to it

Yeah.


Do you see where i'm going with this? The greatest danger of this designer crap is its threat to life itself; it's an attack on the randomness, spontaneity and triumph of the human soul. It denies those born 'greater' the chance to struggle and persevere like the rest of us, and creates a staunchly divided society where those of us born normally will be looked down upon. Volumnius made a good point about the reversion to a caste system and that's another very real danger we face: The super-beautiful and super-well engineered become another society above us altogether, and society itself splinters even further.

Except there would still be struggle within the cohort of engineered people, not to mention with exceptionally talented normal people

[Reaganista]

They could. But there could also be extremely negative implications.
yeah like somebody might get really jealous
good thing there'll be all those baby einsteins to smooth things over
and end poverty, hunger, aids and all that stuff too

[Amit]

hehe yep

[VomitStainedCretin]

yeah like somebody might get really jealous
good thing there'll be all those baby einsteins to smooth things over
and end poverty, hunger, aids and all that stuff too

Nah, humanity thinks about ending poverty, hunger and AIDS last. All the little geniuses will probably be working on the latest planet destroying weapons.:)

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Nah, humanity thinks about ending poverty, hunger and AIDS last. All the little geniuses will probably be working on the latest planet destroying weapons.:)

No way. The scientists that worked on the nuclear bomb did so only because the germans had already started and they didn't want millions of dead allies/germany to win the war

scientists like nothing more than to see their work put to good use for the good of the people

[VomitStainedCretin]

I was being sarcastic.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

apologies


omg you have 69 posts

[ChickenStu]

If it were possible it would be so expensive that the rich would be the only ones who could afford it.

This would give you libs just another reason to bitch about the rich.

[Amit]

umm lololol

services, especially healthcare ones, that involve a lot of research (which is all healthcare services haha) are often very expensive at first but they can only be feasible and sustainable if the market for the service opens up after an initial period of inaccessability

i think bitching about the poor, fat, lazy and stupid makes more sense than bitching about the rich and beautiful \:D/

[Hababi]

umm lololol

services, especially healthcare ones, that involve a lot of research (which is all healthcare services haha) are often very expensive at first but they can only be feasible and sustainable if the market for the service opens up after an initial period of inaccessability


Only to a certain degree. IE plastic surgery is still cost prohobitive for poor people. It would take at least a generation or two before the genetics programs would be affordable for even lower middle class people, let alone poor, and by that time, the more privelaged would already have their elite generations produced....

[Reaganista]

there's nothng wrong with only the rich having access to this
everyone would still benefit greatly

[Amit]

yeah pretty much

[Hababi]

Except those that would make up the perpetual genetic underclass :p

[Amit]

the lower healthcare costs would be deliciously beneficial for all though

[Hababi]

the lower healthcare costs would be deliciously beneficial for all though

But at what cost? :\

[Amit]

um whatever the cost the designer baby is

[Hababi]

um whatever the cost the designer baby is

I mean the cost on society you nong:smash:

Lower health costs at the expense of social mobility and the creation of a defacto class system.

[Amit]

lol hehe

being born without disabilities doesn't create social immobility (being born with disabilities however...)

[Hababi]

lol hehe

being born without disabilities doesn't create social immobility (being born with disabilities however...)

Having a system where some are born with superior geneticss whereas others are born with inferior ones would do the job of eliminating mobility, as inferior genes would essentially become a disability. So you'd have two classes--in a sense, you'd come much closer to Marx's view of society than he could've ever dreamed :p

Just imagine all the cannon fodder Danish would have ;)

[Amit]

Having a system where some are born with superior geneticss whereas others are born with inferior ones would do the job of eliminating mobility, as inferior genes would essentially become a disability. So you'd have two classes--in a sense, you'd come much closer to Marx's view of society than he could've ever dreamed :p

umm people are already born with superior genes and inferior genes

once the cost goes down it will massively directly help the people with inferior genes (as it only indirectly helped them before by reducing healthcare costs)

[Hababi]

umm people are already born with superior genes and inferior genes


The difference is that now it would be structured and streamlined and a formal matter.


once the cost goes down it will massively directly help the people with inferior genes (as it only indirectly helped them before by reducing healthcare costs)

...who by that time will be reduced to little more than a servant class, which btw will cause quite a lot of resentment and possibly resistance. So sure, keep the servants healthy. But keep them servants, too.

[Amit]

lol you are so cynical of upper classes

[Hababi]

lol you are so cynical of upper classes

I know it's my inner populist :p

[Jude]

lol you are so cynical of upper classes
I think a quick glance at history justifies that.

[Hababi]

We should have a debate thread of Amit vs Jude or Scythe just for this :cool:

[Mr. Ron]

We should. GOOOOOO!!!!!

[HaVIC5]

umm people are already born with superior genes and inferior genes

But is it the rich who have the superior genes? No. In the eugenical world, only the rich will have the advantage of superior genetics and thus will have total advantage over the lower classes. There will be zero permeability between social classes, and it will become based on two different races.

You keep touting the notion that prices will drop so that such a procedure will be affordable for all in time before there is a total monopoly on genetic superiority for the upper class. I really doubt that, seeing as 1 in 5 Americans don't have something as basic as health insurance as it stands. Besides, if you were the upper class, why would you make it so that the poor could afford eugenics? That's just more competition.

[Amit]

I think a quick glance at history justifies that.

yeah that's why i hate christians and muslims as well

because a quick glance of history justifies it

But is it the rich who have the superior genes? No. In the eugenical world, only the rich will have the advantage of superior genetics and thus will have total advantage over the lower classes. There will be zero permeability between social classes, and it will become based on two different races.

not if it is available for everyone

You keep touting the notion that prices will drop so that such a procedure will be affordable for all in time before there is a total monopoly on genetic superiority for the upper class.

close government/independent regulation would prevent that

I really doubt that, seeing as 1 in 5 Americans don't have something as basic as health insurance as it stands.

and that could be alleviated greatly with the removal of congenital disorders

Besides, if you were the upper class, why would you make it so that the poor could afford eugenics? That's just more competition.

because what helps the lower classes eventually helps everyone

[Reaganista]

Except those that would make up the perpetual genetic underclass
no they would benefit too

Besides, if you were the upper class, why would you make it so that the poor could afford eugenics? That's just more competition.
because genetically perfect people would be smart enough to see that doing such a thing would improve the lives of everyone
and they'd also have no reason to fear competition

[Jude]

yeah that's why i hate christians and muslims as well

because a quick glance of history justifies it

Hate =/= be cynical about.

[Reaganista]

so it's ok to be cynical about muslims

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

so it's ok to be cynical about muslims

it's ok to be cynical about any religion

[Jude]

so it's ok to be cynical about muslims
I fail to see any reason why not.

[HaVIC5]

not if it is available for everyone

The only way you can do this is to make it free. Which is economically impossible.


close government/independent regulation would prevent that

The only way I can trust that this would work is that if the government made the service free to anyone and everyone. Which again, is economically impossible.

and that could be alleviated greatly with the removal of congenital disorders

This goes back to bringing this eugenic service to the poor. You'll remove the disorders from those who can afford it, but they'll remain painfully prevalent in the lower class.

because what helps the lower classes eventually helps everyone

Then why have a lower class in the first place? I mean, if everybody in the upper class lived by that maxim, then charity would be flooding the lower income bracket. Not so.

no they would benefit too

Pray tell me how the underclass would benefit.

because genetically perfect people would be smart enough to see that doing such a thing would improve the lives of everyone
and they'd also have no reason to fear competition.

You speak as if you think that genetic engineering predisposed people to think in a certain way, namely, think in your sort of way. DNA is merely a set of instructions for cells to follow governing physical characterteristics. You can make people "smart" only by modifying the brain's capacity to gather and analyze information. There are no genes governing ethics. There are no genes governing philisophical concepts. Once you make the person, the brain can develop in ways that genes simply can't predict.

You also seem to think that people who are "smart" both know and do what's best for society. Hitler had an IQ considerably above normal.

[Scythe404]

Except there would still be struggle within the cohort of engineered people, not to mention with exceptionally talented normal people

Perhaps, but this also falls under the other negative i mentioned: further and harsher segregation of society.

Football for those engineered, and football for those born...etc.

EDIT: In regards to Havic's above post, i'll also take some space to chip in an agreement. People often forget that the reason a middle and upper class exist is because there is a lower class. Just like if there weren't millions of people starving in the third world, we wouldn't have a wealth of it here in the first. Just like you can't compare one thing to another without a basis for comparison.

It just doesn't work.

[Reaganista]

Pray tell me how the underclass would benefit.
they're the ones suffering from the problems like AIDS, starvation, dictatorships and so on
all problems that a lot of super-smart people would solve much more quickly than a lot of stupid people

You speak as if you think that genetic engineering predisposed people to think in a certain way, namely, think in your sort of way. DNA is merely a set of instructions for cells to follow governing physical characterteristics. You can make people "smart" only by modifying the brain's capacity to gather and analyze information. There are no genes governing ethics. There are no genes governing philisophical concepts. Once you make the person, the brain can develop in ways that genes simply can't predict.

Well it's true that hyper-intelligent people would be more likely to think like me than say
you idiots
notwithstanding, hyper-intelligent people would be far more likely to understand that more intelligent people means a better life for everyone and that comparative advantage dictates that everyone benefits from competition through trade therefore they'd only be acting in their own self interest to encourage education among the masses
i mean honestly this is something that even the current ruling classes understand, ffs


You also seem to think that people who are "smart" both know and do what's best for society. Hitler had an IQ considerably above normal.
hitler was a ****head
if we can't engineer people who are at least smart enough not to go around genociding people then there's no point in trying, since we come out with people at least that bright by ****ing

[Scythe404]

Well it's true that hyper-intelligent people would be more likely to think like me than say
you idiots

Can i first point out the irony of you calling yourself 'hyper-intelligent' and insulting him and simulatenously lacking the grammatical/punctuation skills of a 15 year old?

notwithstanding, hyper-intelligent people would be far more likely to understand that more intelligent people means a better life for everyone and that comparative advantage dictates that everyone benefits from competition through trade therefore they'd only be acting in their own self interest to encourage education among the masses
i mean honestly this is something that even the current ruling classes understand, ffs

See my above post. We can't have a higher class without a class below it to be dominated. Many wealthy people are wealthy because they are, indeed, smarter or superior because they possess some quality that puts them above others. Without inferior beings below them they have no way to accumulate their wealth (from consumers who buy their products), prestige (from people they consider lesser, or whom consider them greater than they) or power (from people who they control). They encourage the education system to a point. But those smart or powerful enough to initiate real long term change, not just, say, throw money at the education system (for example) are in their positions for a reason. And they're smart enough to know they don't need more competition.

hitler was a ****head
if we can't engineer people who are at least smart enough not to go around genociding people then there's no point in trying, since we come out with people at least that bright by ****ing

It's not that simple, though! You can't engineer good or evil. Whether you believe it comes from inside you as a predisposition of your personality or from your surroundings, the closest you could get to making sure you have a hyper-intelligent being ideologically adjusted the way you wanted him/her to be would be to -in the style of the Truman show- carefully manipulate his or her entire life. To do that correctly, i'd imagine you'd also have to be one hell of a psychologist and a sociologist. Get studying.

Ruling out the ethical problems with engineering a human's entire existence, do you really think someone entirely sheltered would have the maturity or life experience, or understanding of the real world, to massively impact it?

I mean, come on. Morality tales in TV and movies, where rigid intellectualism with no heart or understanding is prevalent - and - preached against, are a dime a dozen. What you're proposing is pure flight-of-fancy, and in no way could ever work in any kind of real world that we live in. Not as long as the concepts of power, class and superiority exist, which they always will.

Picking out designer functions on engineered babies pre-natally is hardly a solution to any major problem. Hell, it'll just create more.

[Reaganista]

Can i first point out the irony of you calling yourself 'hyper-intelligent' and insulting him and simulatenously lacking the grammatical/punctuation skills of a 15 year old?
no
stop trolling
you should be banned

See my above post. We can't have a higher class without a class below it to be dominated.
if by dominated you mean 'really jealous and ignorant of the benefits they draw from the upper class' then yeah


Many wealthy people are wealthy because they are, indeed, smarter or superior because they possess some quality that puts them above others. Without inferior beings below them they have no way to accumulate their wealth (from consumers who buy their products),
um trading with someone doesn't make you inferior to them
by any stretch of the imagination

prestige (from people they consider lesser, or whom consider them greater than they) or power (from people who they control). They encourage the education system to a point.
to a point higher than any people anywhere ever have encouraged it

But those smart or powerful enough to initiate real long term change, not just, say, throw money at the education system (for example) are in their positions for a reason. And they're smart enough to know they don't need more competition.

by long term change you mean communist revolution right
because we don't need that kinda change
the only changes we need are being actively encouraged by people in power
just not as effectively as they could be


It's not that simple, though! You can't engineer good or evil.

of course you can
there's nothing about a person that can't be engineered, we're products of genes and experience and both of those things can be controlled

Whether you believe it comes from inside you as a predisposition of your personality or from your surroundings, the closest you could get to making sure you have a hyper-intelligent being ideologically adjusted the way you wanted him/her to be would be to -in the style of the Truman show- carefully manipulate his or her entire life. To do that correctly, i'd imagine you'd also have to be one hell of a psychologist and a sociologist. Get studying.

why the hell should I study for something as mundane as that
we'll hire people to do that


Ruling out the ethical problems with engineering a human's entire existence, do you really think someone entirely sheltered would have the maturity or life experience, or understanding of the real world, to massively impact it?

no
why would we entirely shelter them
we would give them the experiences judged best for a ruler(s) to have
and it's not like we wouldn't be able to have multiple attempts
if one turns out to be depraved we'd just use some others

I mean, come on. Morality tales in TV and movies, where rigid intellectualism with no heart or understanding is prevalent - and - preached against, are a dime a dozen. What you're proposing is pure flight-of-fancy, and in no way could ever work in any kind of real world that we live in. Not as long as the concepts of power, class and superiority exist, which they always will.

your conceptions of class, power and superiority are stupid
and apart from the science not being there, there's no reason this couldn't be applied in reality
I actually have little doubt that it eventually will be, but in a less effective form


Picking out designer functions on engineered babies pre-natally is hardly a solution to any major problem. Hell, it'll just create more.
well it's an instant solution to genetic disease
and by creating more intelligent people it will lead to solutions to any and all other problems more quickly than relying on the current method of having a bunch of dumb people **** and hoping something brilliant comes out

[HaVIC5]

if by dominated you mean 'really jealous and ignorant of the benefits they draw from the upper class' then yeah


This doesn't make any sense at all. How the hell is this a justification for a lower class?

hitler was a ****head
if we can't engineer people who are at least smart enough not to go around genociding people then there's no point in trying, since we come out with people at least that bright by ****ing

Smart does not equal good. Why do you convolute your arguments with this crap? It takes somebody incredibly intelligent to engineer a social system, ideology, genocide and cult of personality starting from the bottom rungs of society. There are plenty of ethically-concious "good" individuals who are total idiots.

um trading with someone doesn't make you inferior to them
by any stretch of the imagination

You'll have less money, eventually, by the workings of other people. Inferior? Only in socioeconomic status. But when the upperclass starts to be able to afford to engineer their young to be better than yours, you actually be inferior.

of course you can
there's nothing about a person that can't be engineered, we're products of genes and experience and both of those things can be controlled

Really? What are the specific genes for every ethical absolute? I want my kid to believe killing is wrong and that stealing is wrong, but not that homosexuality is wrong. To think you can even come close to developing an ethical sense with genetics is absurd. You have a point with conditioning, but we're talking about eugenetics here, not full social programs, mind you. Designer babies are a more imminent phenomenon than Brave New World.

Note that your assumption that intelligent people will always have an interest in the betterment of society is painfully misguided. Mensa, the organization for people of exceedingly high IQ's, was originally started to be a sort of hyperintelligent society for philanthropic work with the idea that if you put a bunch of smart people together, they can figure out ways to cure the world's ills. Of course, now all Mensa is, is a club where really smart people get together to solve complex puzzles in a persuit that has been called "mental masturbation". What makes you think other intelligent people would act differently?

[Amit]

The only way you can do this is to make it free. Which is economically impossible.

less economically impossible than saving the american healthcare system

The only way I can trust that this would work is that if the government made the service free to anyone and everyone. Which again, is economically impossible.

lol

This goes back to bringing this eugenic service to the poor. You'll remove the disorders from those who can afford it, but they'll remain painfully prevalent in the lower class.

or you make it available to everyone and congenital healthcare issues become a thing of the past

Then why have a lower class in the first place? I mean, if everybody in the upper class lived by that maxim, then charity would be flooding the lower income bracket. Not so.

there will always be a lower class; now they and everyone else won't have to suffer through the sorrows of congenital disorders and susceptibilities

Pray tell me how the underclass would benefit.

a staggeringly lower burden to healthcare is an amazingly good thing for everyone in any nation




lol am i the only pre-med person here

[bleep_bloop]

Well I'm a pre-idontknow person.

[MrSigma]

yeah i would do it

[Mr. Ron]

I think this whole designer baby thing is reflective of our materialism. We have to have everything a certain way, brand and so on, then it spreads to our own children. Why would you even want to have your kids to have a certain hair color? Does it even matter? Keep it natural.

[Reaganista]

This doesn't make any sense at all. How the hell is this a justification for a lower class?

having an educated class is good for everybody
including the jealous and ignorant masses
the only alternative is for everyone to be poor, anyway


Smart does not equal good.
it's smart not to go around genociding people
asshat

You'll have less money, eventually, by the workings of other people.
No sorry trade actually creates wealth where have you been for the past 200 years

Inferior? Only in socioeconomic status. But when the upperclass starts to be able to afford to engineer their young to be better than yours, you actually be inferior.

and you'll get to be really jealous of them the whole time their solving all of your problems
damn smart people think they're better than everybody else!

Really? What are the specific genes for every ethical absolute?
I don't know ask a scientist

I want my kid to believe killing is wrong and that stealing is wrong, but not that homosexuality is wrong.
then give them experiences that make them think that


Note that your assumption that intelligent people will always have an interest in the betterment of society is painfully misguided. Mensa, the organization for people of exceedingly high IQ's, was originally started to be a sort of hyperintelligent society for philanthropic work with the idea that if you put a bunch of smart people together, they can figure out ways to cure the world's ills. Of course, now all Mensa is, is a club where really smart people get together to solve complex puzzles in a persuit that has been called "mental masturbation". What makes you think other intelligent people would act differently?
mensa people are products of ****ing and were raised in environments where they were nerdy social outcasts
designed people would be far more intelligent and could easily to instilled with a greater sense of civic responsibility by raising them to feel embraced by society and responsible to the people who give them their station.

[VomitStainedCretin]

it's smart not to go around genociding people
asshat

In what way? If there was a global famine of some sort, it could be considered rational to "cull" excess people.

[Amit]

umm except that isn't genocide and it would not be rational at all to "cull" excess people

[Reaganista]

In what way? If there was a global famine of some sort, it could be considered rational to "cull" excess people.
no that would be like the most stupidly inefficient thing possible
rational would be like
feeding them
or something

[Futue te Ipsum]

Perhaps a gentle walk around a neuro clinic would wake the no voters up...

[Amit]

lol they wouldn't know how to pronounce neuroscience let alone go to a clinic

[Hababi]

What I'm finding is that the med people support it. And the political/philosophy people oppose it.

I'm in the political/philosophical camp because I understand the [I]real[/[I] ramifications of it, instead of blithely taking an optomistic, idealistic viewpoint.

PS keep the debate up. This is the most interesting thread in ages...of course it's mine :chug:

[Amit]

i'm in the med/intelligent people camp because i actually understand what's going on instead of blithely taking a poorly informed viewpoint

[Reaganista]

What I'm finding is that the med people support it. And the political/philosophy people oppose it.

I'm in the political/philosophical camp because I understand the [i]real[/[i] ramifications of it, instead of blithely taking an optomistic, idealistic viewpoint.
that's a pretty nongy thing to say

[Hababi]

i'm in the med/intelligent people camp because i actually understand what's going on instead of blithely taking a poorly informed viewpoint

No I don't think you understand what's going on, let alone what would go on:smash:

Thus far the only concrete positive you have produced is lower (perhaps dramatically so) lower health costs. Yeah, that's great, but the cost is quite substantial too.

I don't mean to use populist/marxist rhetoric here, but the upper class will always ensure that there is a lower class. They will not allow such equalizing technology to be made available to the poor. It will stay cost prohibitive to the poor as some current technological/medical advances remain today. And that's just a reality that all of your 'what if's' isn't going to change.

[Reaganista]

given the option of making everybody's life better or keeping things the same I can't see why anyone would chose the latter in the interests of fairness

[Hababi]

given the option of making everybody's life better or keeping things the same I can't see why anyone would chose the latter in the interests of fairness

You say it's making people's lives better but I say it's making them worse. I will sooner procreate with the chance of a genetic disease than procreate with the knowledge that my child will be genetically inferior to a ruling class' progenry, and will be doomed to a life of servitude, essentially.

[LittlePound]

allowing this to happen would essentially create two classes of people. You would have the "pre-determined" which would be the the babies whose characteristics were chosen, then you would have the "randoms" whose characteristics were randomly chosen through natural pro-creation.
So between these to classed of people you would have extreme animosity, feelings of superiority, etc. that would cause a lot of problems.
The "pre-determined" people would think they were better becuase they had no genetic deficiencies, the "random" people would think they were better becuae they were all natural. There would definetely be problems between the two classes, and i don't think it would be worth the rioting/possible civil war that one can coming from such.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Yeah, The Pre-Determined would probably treat the Randoms kind of like whites treated black slaves.

[HaVIC5]

less economically impossible than saving the american healthcare system

Come on. Honestly. How would you propose paying for a procedure that will take many thousands of dollars, many man hours and a specialized team of doctors and geneticists for all 300 million (or however many there are in the future) Americans immediately after the technology is perfected? It's utterly unviable to do this. Yes, the price will go down, but by then, there will already be a generation of wealthy upperlings in charge, which is what we dont want.

You people seem to think that these superintelligent upperlings will want everybody to be equally intelligent. Why would superintelligent beings want to undermine the basis of society? No person so involved in abstract thought would ever want to take up the millions of menial laborer jobs, mind-numbing clerk jobs, office cubicle jobs, etc that many Americans have. It would be utterly unbecoming of their intelligence. Societal structure would collapse because nobody would fill jobs that needed to be filled. Basically, read Brave New World to see the structure of society that would be required.

or you make it available to everyone and congenital healthcare issues become a thing of the past

How? Again, you're just assuming that this complex procedure can be given away to everybody. What about the purists that will inevitabily pop up? Those who insist on the natural system? Will it be mandatory or optional for all?


there will always be a lower class; now they and everyone else won't have to suffer through the sorrows of congenital disorders and susceptibilities

Again, you're insistant on the notion that the lower class will have access to this. When has the lower class ever had access to half-decent HIV medicines, much less a complex gene rewrite of a new child?

lol am i the only pre-med person here

What does medical science have to do with any of these problems? It's a wholly social issue we're talking about here. Barring the current social system, I would definitely support such research and procedures.

having an educated class is good for everybody
including the jealous and ignorant masses
the only alternative is for everyone to be poor, anyway

The Russian intelligentsia led the Bolshevik revolution. Look where that ended up.

No sorry trade actually creates wealth where have you been for the past 200 years

So, trade creates equal wealth among everybody? Interesting. I never knew that.

and you'll get to be really jealous of them the whole time their solving all of your problems
damn smart people think they're better than everybody else!

When have smart people ever solved my problems? There are plenty of people with 170+ IQs running around today, why aren't they the ones in power, curing the world's ills?

I don't know ask a scientist

Sorry, the burden of proof lies on you. You were the one that claimed that ethics can be controlled by genes, you are the one that does the research. There are 3 billion base pairs to go through. Get cracking.

mensa people are products of ****ing and were raised in environments where they were nerdy social outcasts
designed people would be far more intelligent and could easily to instilled with a greater sense of civic responsibility by raising them to feel embraced by society and responsible to the people who give them their station.

Tell me. Is Brave New World the ideal society for you? Because from what you're talking about with social engineering and such, it certainly sounds like it.

[HaVIC5]

i'm in the med/intelligent people camp because i actually understand what's going on instead of blithely taking a poorly informed viewpoint

Since again, medical science is all that this debate is about. Not social structure.

[Amit]

yes because without medical science this debate would arise anyway right right right

lol @ your other points as well

your argument sounds like the kind of the early arguments against mass smallpox/polio vaccinization because

it
was
just
tooooo
expensive

to get to everyone

so why give it to anyone?!

[PerpetualBurn]

Six Million Dollar Atman - starring Amit

All my film needs is the funding.

[Reaganista]

You say it's making people's lives better but I say it's making them worse. I will sooner procreate with the chance of a genetic disease than procreate with the knowledge that my child will be genetically inferior to a ruling class' progenry, and will be doomed to a life of servitude, essentially.
um your kids will already be genetically inferior to a lot of people
probably most people :p
and if by 'life of servitude' you mean 'life only distinguishable from modern life by the virtual abscence of disease and vastly superior rate of technological development' then yeah that's what they'd be doomed to


The Russian intelligentsia led the Bolshevik revolution. Look where that ended up.

if the best we can genetically design is some damn russian commies from the last century, then there's no point in doing it

So, trade creates equal wealth among everybody? Interesting. I never knew that.

equal wealth is not desirable
more wealth for everybody involved is

When have smart people ever solved my problems?
lolol
he asks this as he uses the internet

Sorry, the burden of proof lies on you. You were the one that claimed that ethics can be controlled by genes, you are the one that does the research. There are 3 billion base pairs to go through. Get cracking.

um this is a science speculation thread
oh and btw i never said anything about ethics being controlled by genetics
or anything you could justifiably confuse with that


Tell me. Is Brave New World the ideal society for you? Because from what you're talking about with social engineering and such, it certainly sounds like it.
brave new world is a ****ty ****ing book
one that makes sense is the ideal society for all people

[Smokey D]

I don't think it's really accurate to equate intelligence with moral goodness, which would be the only circumstances in which we could gauruntee that this technology wouldn't be misused.

[Scythe404]

um this is a science speculation thread
oh and btw i never said anything about ethics being controlled by genetics
or anything you could justifiably confuse with that

You actually did.

In response to me saying:

It's not that simple, though! You can't engineer good or evil.

you said:

of course you can
there's nothing about a person that can't be engineered, we're products of genes and experience and both of those things can be controlled

This discussion is pointless. You're ignoring the burden of proof that falls squarely on your shoulders, you're making completely inane arguments, ignoring important points and apparently lack the intelligence to even grasp simple context, as displayed magnificently by statements like this:

brave new world is a ****ty ****ing book
one that makes sense is the ideal society for all people

That, or you think you're funny (which you're not). You're producing nothing to prove your point while decades of psychological study and consensus lies behind what Havic and I are arguing. If you didn't think psychology was "boring" maybe you could research that for yourself.

You've repeatedly made statements such as: "That's stupid, that wouldn't work, this is how it is" and not even bothered to explain how it would work let alone prove that explanation beyond any reasonable doubt. Your beliefs are those of a person but your reasoning is that of a child, and children are often very stubborn.

Add to the fact that your half-reasoned insults flung at us in exchange for our points shine no light on anything, and add the fact that you're unwilling to hear any view but your own, and you have a completely irrelevant discussion. No one is going to learn anything, no one's mind is going to be changed or opened to new viewpoints by healthy discussion, and we're certainly not going to generate any interesting dialogue.

This discussion is pointless.

[Reaganista]

You actually did.

In response to me saying:
you said:

perhaps you should learn to read
the part about experiences
huh did you get that

This discussion is pointless. You're ignoring the burden of proof that falls squarely on your shoulders,
never
you're making completely inane arguments,
never
ignoring important points
never

and apparently lack the intelligence to even grasp simple context, as displayed magnificently by statements like this:

brave new world does suck
now
stop trolling me

That, or you think you're funny (which you're not)
I wasn't joking
and I am funny

You're producing nothing to prove your point while decades of psychological study and consensus lies behind what Havic and I are arguing.
I didn't realize that psychologists thought thoughts came from something besides genetics and experiences
perhaps you could post a source where psychologists say they believe in magic morality fairies or something

If you didn't think psychology was "boring" maybe you could research that for yourself.

I don't believe in fairies

You've repeatedly made statements such as: "That's stupid, that wouldn't work, this is how it is"
if I did, I was right
but I don't think I did

and not even bothered to explain how it would work let alone prove that explanation beyond any reasonable doubt.
I'm not here to lecture you
if you can't follow my reasoning, print it out and come back and read it again in a few semesters. It's for your own good.

Your beliefs are those of a person but your reasoning is that of a child, and children are often very stubborn.

this douchebag keeps trolling me


Add to the fact that your half-reasoned insults flung at us in exchange for our points shine no light on anything,
when you say something stupid I'll call you stupid
thus illuminating your stupidity

and add the fact that you're unwilling to hear any view but your own, and you have a completely irrelevant discussion. No one is going to learn anything
that's entirely your fault

, no one's mind is going to be changed or opened to new viewpoints by healthy discussion, and we're certainly not going to generate any interesting dialogue.
zero said this thread was interesting
all you've done is troll

This discussion is pointless.
well your posts are anyway

[Reaganista]

I don't think it's really accurate to equate intelligence with moral goodness, which would be the only circumstances in which we could gauruntee that this technology wouldn't be misused.
well we've never had such a guarantee with any other piece of technology ever
so I don't see why we should hold such a useful one to an impossible standard

[Hababi]

um your kids will already be genetically inferior to a lot of people
probably most people :p
and if by 'life of servitude' you mean 'life only distinguishable from modern life by the virtual abscence of disease and vastly superior rate of technological development' then yeah that's what they'd be doomed to


I have yet to see convincing evidence that this will magically be made available to all equally. So, I don't buy that argument. The privelaged would have comfortable lives free from genetic disorders. The poor? uh uh.

[Amit]

there has never been medicine which has been magically been made available for all equally what is your point

quality of healthcare, from neonatal all the way to geriatric, has always been something that is class/income dependent

[Reaganista]

I have yet to see convincing evidence that this will magically be made available to all equally. So, I don't buy that argument.
cars haven't been made availible to all equally
all of our lives are a lot better because of cars

[Hababi]

cars haven't been made availible to all equally


Sure. And the poor drive unsafe, crappy cars. And the wealthy drive safe, technologically far superior cars.

So what, the poor will get the McDonalds genetic option? Maybe a Happy Meal selection of choices? "Prevent two diseases for the price of one"?

[Iskandar]

quality of healthcare, from neonatal all the way to geriatric, has always been something that is class/income dependent
Depends if you're using the private or public system at the time. I might use either, depending on the circumstance.

[Reaganista]

Sure. And the poor drive unsafe, crappy cars. And the wealthy drive safe, technologically far superior cars.

the poor don't have cars


So what, the poor will get the McDonalds genetic option? Maybe a Happy Meal selection of choices? "Prevent two diseases for the price of one"?
no they'll get no genetic option.

[Hababi]

no they'll get no genetic option.

So you're conceding this point...

And you have no problem with the creation of two distinct human races, the genetically engineered and the natural birthed?

[Reaganista]

So you're conceding this point...

no they would still draw incredible benefits from the implementation of this technology

And you have no problem with the creation of two distinct human races, the genetically engineered and the natural birthed?
um
I don't think race is the right term
but why would that be a problem
we have people with good genes and bad genes now

[Amit]

umm there wouldn't be any racial difference between designer babies and the "naturally" birthed

[Iskandar]

but why would that be a problem
We've been over this. If this service is more affordable for the wealthy, the wealthy will become genetically superior and gain manifold advantages over everyone else.

This wouldn't be a problem if it were available only publically.

[Hababi]

umm there wouldn't be any racial difference between designer babies and the "naturally" birthed


I'm not talking about race in the 'color' sense. I suppose 'class' would be the more accurate term. It'd be the birth of an American caste system.


no they would still draw incredible benefits from the implementation of this technology


Would you rather have been concieved without the small risk of various genetic disorders, or on the same genetic grounds as everyone else (meaning that it is essentially a matter of chance, not engineered, that you will get a good batch of genes)? I think anyone who'd pick the former would be a fool. And this is coming from a gigantic germaphobe, as you well know.

[Reaganista]

We've been over this. If this service is more affordable for the wealthy, the wealthy will become genetically superior and gain manifold advantages over everyone else.
that's not a problem
we have people with good genes and bad genes now
believe it or not, people with good genes tend to seek each other out and ****
if it's absolutely intolerable for anyone to have a systematic genetic advantage, then reproduction should be handled by lot
and we should just all cross our fingers and hope this random ****ing will give us the people who cure cancer and develop cheap replenishable energy sources as quickly as designing hyper intelligent people will.

Would you rather have been concieved without the small risk of various genetic disorders, or on the same genetic grounds as everyone else (meaning that it is essentially a matter of chance, not engineered, that you will get a good batch of genes)? I think anyone who'd pick the former would be a fool. And this is coming from a gigantic germaphobe, as you well know.
I would rather be genetically superior. Lucky me.

Failing that, I would rather genetically superior people exist to do things like cure my cancer and make hyper-funny movies and stuff.

[Hababi]

that's not a problem
we have people with good genes and bad genes now

There's still a tremendous amount of chance to it. This would eliminate chance altogether, and establish the most rigid caste system imagineable.


and we should just all cross our fingers and hope this random ****ing will give us the people who cure cancer and develop cheap replenishable energy sources as quickly as designing hyper intelligent people will.

Einstein came randomly.

[Amit]

We've been over this. If this service is more affordable for the wealthy, the wealthy will become genetically superior and gain manifold advantages over everyone else.

every single innovation in healthcare/technology/transportation ever since civilization began has been available to the wealthy first and then to the rest of the public

please tell me what makes this any different from the substantially better neonatal to geriatric treatment that the upper classes in western countries receive

if it were available only publically.

like every other important healthcare innovation ever created right?

yeah

There's still a tremendous amount of chance to it. This would eliminate chance altogether, and establish the most rigid caste system imagineable.

hey everybody spot the contradiction

Would you rather have been concieved without the small risk of various genetic disorders, or on the same genetic grounds as everyone else (meaning that it is essentially a matter of chance, not engineered, that you will get a good batch of genes)? I think anyone who'd pick the former would be a fool. And this is coming from a gigantic germaphobe, as you well know.

[Reaganista]

There's still a tremendous amount of chance to it. This would eliminate chance altogether, and establish the most rigid caste system imagineable.

Yeah it would be pretty rigid.
but there's still a chance that it might not work out, or that a normal person might turn out to be smart.
there'd probably be a lot of designed people who we had to reject due to mistakes in education. Until we got the hang of it at least.

have you even read the republic


Einstein came randomly.
yeah we get a pretty bright person every few hundred years
forgive me for preferring to make a few hundred thousand every year

[Scythe404]

There is about one point in here worth addressing on its own:

I didn't realize that psychologists thought thoughts came from something besides genetics and experiences
perhaps you could post a source where psychologists say they believe in magic morality fairies or something

I can see where you might make the mistake about what i was saying, but i was talking about our entire points of view in general. You're of the opinion that genetics can completely engineer morality, while i vehemently disagree. My point was that psychological study thus far backs up the argument i am making, and doesn't offer anything in the way of proof as to what you're saying.

If you have something to offer to the contrary, something that constitutes proof, i welcome you to post it because this is an interesting topic without you flinging insults. You accuse me of being a troll, then call me a douchebag. You're talking about 'magical fairy solutions' while it is you who proports an instant and unrealistically convenient fix to all our problems.

You say 'X IS RIGHT, COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY' and insult me for disagreeing but you offer no reasoning or proof to back it up, and that's what's annoying me. And for the record, simply calling it reasoning does not make it so. Please give us a detailed explanation of how you think a world of super-smart people is automatically going to fix everything. I mean, i know you find psychology and sociology boring, but surely you must have some knowledge of it to be able to predict how a microcosm of a hyper-intelligent society would function, thus making it ideal?

I may be attacking you, but i am attacking you based on the principles of your arguments here, so put the sword down, and i will lay off a bit too. Just start by explaining why you believe what you do.

[Reaganista]

I can see where you might make the mistake about what i was saying, but i was talking about our entire points of view in general. You're of the opinion that genetics can completely engineer morality, while i vehemently disagree.
I never said anything of the sort
what I said was a completely controlled existance can engineer morality.
All we are is the sum of our genes and experiences.


My point was that psychological study thus far backs up the argument i am making, and doesn't offer anything in the way of proof as to what you're saying.

where's the morality fairies

If you have something to offer to the contrary, something that constitutes proof, i welcome you to post it because this is an interesting topic without you flinging insults. You accuse me of being a troll, then call me a douchebag.
I call all trolls douchebags.

You're talking about 'magical fairy solutions' while it is you who proports an instant and unrealistically convenient fix to all our problems.

um I never said it would be instant
it would take a lot of shrinks and geneticists a lot of time to produce even one prototype
After that, these hyper intelligent people would lead to solutions to our problems being devised more quickly than normal people trying to solve problems


You say 'X IS RIGHT, COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY' and insult me for disagreeing but you offer no reasoning or proof to back it up, and that's what's annoying me.
Every statement I've made has been reasoned
and I've repeatedly explain away your confusion/objection, which you repeatedly raise
even though my initial statement wasn't even confusing

And for the record, simply calling it reasoning does not make it so. Please give us a detailed explanation of how you think a world of super-smart people is automatically going to fix everything. I mean, i know you find psychology and sociology boring, but surely you must have some knowledge of it to be able to predict how a microcosm of a hyper-intelligent society would function, thus making it ideal?

I already have
stop trolling


I may be attacking you, but i am attacking you based on the principles of your arguments here, so put the sword down, and i will lay off a bit too. Just start by explaining why you believe what you do.
I don't know if you've noticed but there's been a disscussion going on for 6 pages now

[HaVIC5]

have you even read the republic

the republic is a ****ty ****ing book

[Reaganista]

well it's hardly surprising to read something like that from someone of your
limited capabilities

[Scythe404]

the republic is a ****ty ****ing book

And on the day that the term 'shut down' was redefined, the internet stood in awe and watched.

Brother Havic, have one on me. :chug:

EDIT: Ha, and he's still missing the context. I truly give up.

[Amit]

hey can anyone reply to me what does it take does wayne brady need to choke a bitch

[Reaganista]

EDIT: Ha, and he's still missing the context. I truly give up.
stop trolling and
discuss

[HaVIC5]

stop trolling and
discuss
All I did with my last statement was replace "Brave New World" with "Republic" from your comment.

[Smokey D]

well it's hardly surprising to read something like that from someone of your
limited capabilities

Dammit, you're still equating intelligence with morality.

Plato's argument only works if smart people are necessarily good people.

[Reaganista]

I said that we would need to control these people's experiences as well as their genes

All I did with my last statement was replace "Brave New World" with "Republic" from your comment.
the context in which the 2 were brought up was completely different
besides which what I said was true and what you said was false

[HaVIC5]

I said that we would need to control these people's experiences as well as their genes


the context in which the 2 were brought up was completely different
besides which what I said was true and what you said was false
NO YOU'RE WRONG

[HaVIC5]

To humor eggo and answer him, I will concede that what you're saying is for the most part valid. What has happened in this argument, at least between you and Serenity/myself, is that we seem to be arguing points from completely different premises as to the nature of the debate, so really, it goes nowhere. That said, your point is valid, but I simply don't agree that it will be the same sort of system with designer babies. I don't see eugenics as a medicine, rather, a "supramedicine". It's a way to bypass the need for medicine all together and make humans that are not susceptible to genetic defects, and are a lot more resistant to pathogens (at least the ones that are around today. Who knows what bacteria and viruses will adapt to do to bypass genetic superiority? But thats for a different discussion.). Which, as far as medicinal ethics goes, is the best thing you could ever do for a person and a species. I agree with you so far.

I'll continue to harp on this point though about some possible capitalistic ramifications of this "supramedicine." Pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals and the entire medical profession will essentially go bankrupt with all of these super humans running around with no need for their product or services, and if everybody, eventually, gets some form of eugenical treatment, medicine will become essentially obsolete. A broken arm? Pft, simply engineer a gene to kick in an extreme metabolism and cellular response to heal it in a matter of minutes. Splice in a regenerative gene (like those found in lizards) to make accidental amputations irrelevant. All sorts of medical catastrophes could be taken care of in this manner. Fearing their obsolescence, medical professions would resist administering eugenical procedures to everybody, probably by keeping the price out of reach, and thus the supramedicine will remain in the hands of an elite.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Anyone that says brave new world isn't a good book is an idiot or a troll

that's like saying that Harry Potter books are terrible because it would never happen

[Reaganista]

no it's a ****ty book because the world is imagined in a completely haphazard and ill:lol:gical way
same goes for harry potter

[Futue te Ipsum]

A broken arm? Pft, simply engineer a gene to kick in an extreme metabolism and cellular response to heal it in a matter of minutes. I started laughing here.

[Amit]

That said, your point is valid, but I simply don't agree that it will be the same sort of system with designer babies. I don't see eugenics as a medicine, rather, a "supramedicine". It's a way to bypass the need for medicine all together and make humans that are not susceptible to genetic defects, and are a lot more resistant to pathogens (at least the ones that are around today. Who knows what bacteria and viruses will adapt to do to bypass genetic superiority? But thats for a different discussion.). Which, as far as medicinal ethics goes, is the best thing you could ever do for a person and a species. I agree with you so far.

except prenatal genetic engineering isn't and can't be anything like you described above

I'll continue to harp on this point though about some possible capitalistic ramifications of this "supramedicine." Pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals and the entire medical profession will essentially go bankrupt with all of these super humans running around with no need for their product or services, and if everybody, eventually, gets some form of eugenical treatment, medicine will become essentially obsolete. A broken arm? Pft, simply engineer a gene to kick in an extreme metabolism and cellular response to heal it in a matter of minutes. Splice in a regenerative gene (like those found in lizards) to make accidental amputations irrelevant. All sorts of medical catastrophes could be taken care of in this manner. Fearing their obsolescence, medical professions would resist administering eugenical procedures to everybody, probably by keeping the price out of reach, and thus the supramedicine will remain in the hands of an elite.

i am sorry this is just an impossible scenario

[HaVIC5]

I started laughing here.
Whats wrong with this?

[PerpetualBurn]

They don't show X-men at medical school?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

no it's a ****ty book because the world is imagined in a completely haphazard and ill:lol:gical way
same goes for harry potter

so whut, your idea of good bedtime readings is the encyclopaedia britannica?

[Sunny Afternoon]

the terrorists


racist.

[Reaganista]

so whut, your idea of good bedtime readings is the encyclopaedia britannica?
Don Quixote

[Amit]

They don't show X-men at medical school?

omg no jenetick injunhearing i don't want no kids with adamantium clawz

that's basically what your post is leaning towards, havic

[Otherside]

omg no jenetick injunhearing i don't want no kids with adamantium clawz

that's basically what your post is leaning towards, havic


and who WOULDN'T want a child with adamantium clawz anyways?!

[Amit]

hemophiliacs for one

[Futue te Ipsum]

Whats wrong with this?i am sorry this is just an impossible scenarioAtman has answered it for me.

[Futue te Ipsum]

They don't show X-men at medical school?They tried to get homeopathy in but the person who tried was kinda sacked and stuff.