|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 21, 2003 15:32:58 GMT -5
I voted no, and I will elaborate later on.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Nov 22, 2003 2:47:17 GMT -5
I voted no, because I doubt that humanity has complete understanding of all the laws and secrets of genetics.
Even if once we knew EVERYTHING there is to know about the DNA, we'd have to make sure that Genetic Manipulation wouldn't harm the human race in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 22, 2003 14:29:48 GMT -5
My reasoning is roughly as follows: people (including myself) don't primarily want "perfect kids", but they want to have descendants. Now, if we meddle with the hereditary qualities of our descendants, then we are in a way making them more different than ourselves. But, I believe that people take great pride in their children being like themselves, since this gives them a sense of continuity.
A good analogy is with adoption. A couple can go through the difficult process of childbearing, with often unpredictable results, or they can opt to adopt. In the second case, they can literally choose many of the hereditary qualities of their children. But despite all this, most people choose to try and have their own children. I think this is because the imperative to have the "perfect baby" is less significant than the imperative to have their baby.
PS: Of course the relationship between parents and their adopted children can be as strong or even stronger than that between parents and their biological children, but I'm thinking more in terms of what people want before they accept one or the other solution.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Nov 22, 2003 15:34:18 GMT -5
In any case, the concept of 'what people want' has often proven to be in collision with 'what's natural' and usually there have been many negative consequences because of our attempts to meddle with natures business.
|
|
Arawn
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by Arawn on Nov 22, 2003 15:48:21 GMT -5
Plus what people want will often be determined by fashion, which is somewhat lame.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 22, 2003 16:44:16 GMT -5
In any case, the concept of 'what people want' has often proven to be in collision with 'what's natural' and usually there have been many negative consequences because of our attempts to meddle with natures business. That is certainly true. I believe that in the big life and death issues most people will be conservative. I'm not anti-technology, but I think that the Genetic Engineering enthusiasts are overestimating the market for "designer babies".
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Nov 22, 2003 19:28:27 GMT -5
My reasoning is roughly as follows: people (including myself) don't primarily want "perfect kids", but they want to have descendants. Now, if we meddle with the hereditary qualities of our descendants, then we are in a way making them more different than ourselves. But, I believe that people take great pride in their children being like themselves, since this gives them a sense of continuity. I agree with all you said (I voted "No" for the same reasons), but let's take it a bit further. I have dark brown eyes, but I am almost sure that I could have kids with blue/green eyes (two out of my four brothers/sisters have them). I would rather have a kid with blue/green eyes than with brown eyes, especially because I like the combo "brown hair/light eyes", thus I (would) have a reason to interfere with the natural process. If the gene selection process came down to selecting the right Spz (I am therefore talking about my own DNA), my green eyed child would still have my genes, and yet... he/she would have my chosen eye colour. The main reason why I voted "no" was because as soon as you start "perfecting" your children, you start messing up with the random selection of genes. It could be potentially hazardous to reduce the variety of genes in a population, considering that its survival would always depend (to a certain extent) in having a variety of genes able to cope with a variety of situations.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 22, 2003 20:53:04 GMT -5
If the gene selection process came down to selecting the right Spz (I am therefore talking about my own DNA), my green eyed child would still have my genes, and yet... he/she would have my chosen eye colour. That would be artificial selection at the gamete level. But for polygenic traits, it would take a lot of searching to find a spermatozoon with the desired alleles.
|
|
|
Post by Gus Morea on Nov 26, 2003 3:42:22 GMT -5
Nope.
I would, perhaps, see to it that my kid won't have certain features, ones that are rare to humans overall and cause undue pain and suffering. Couldn't stand by and let my son be an Elephant Man, for instance, but that's as far as I'll go.
The fact that we don't have to choose, say, what color our kid's eyes will be, seems like such an intrinsic and defining part of humanity itself. After all, would we all be here talking about this if, long ago, some early life forms swimming around got to pick what color their kid's eyes would be? I doubt it. Whenever I hear talk of genetically engineered humans, no matter how hard I try, I can't get rid of the thought in the back of my mind that somehow people like this won't be completely human in some way, that somehow they will miss out on something.
Call me crazy, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Nov 26, 2003 15:09:36 GMT -5
I would, perhaps, see to it that my kid won't have certain features, ones that are rare to humans overall and cause undue pain and suffering. Couldn't stand by and let my son be an Elephant Man, for instance, but that's as far as I'll go. I agree with this view. If genetic screening or even modification is used to prevent serious diseases, the kind that make one entirely dependent or end in early death, then I'm for it. However, I'm afraid that this hinges on the definition of what a "serious disease" is. I think that once we start playing with human DNA our civilization's utilitarian world view will keep on pushing towards creating "perfection", making the definition of "serious diseases" increasingly broad, and the definition of "health" increasingly narrow.
|
|
|
Post by alex221166 on Nov 26, 2003 21:04:59 GMT -5
I agree with this view. If genetic screening or even modification is used to prevent serious diseases, the kind that make one entirely dependent or end in early death, then I'm for it. However, I'm afraid that this hinges on the definition of what a "serious disease" is. I think that once we start playing with human DNA our civilization's utilitarian world view will keep on pushing towards creating "perfection", making the definition of "serious diseases" increasingly broad, and the definition of "health" increasingly narrow. In the unlikely situation of a serious genetic or embryonic disorder, the pregancy should be terminated. I wouldn't even have a kid with Down's, but that's just me. I agree with Dienekes when he speaks of "pushing towards perfection". One could always argue that a kid with "beauty" genes would be happier, healthier and longer life than a kid with "uglyness" genes. One thing that doesn't get out of my head is to think that if we would change our offspring's genetic heritage beyond a certain level, they would stop being OUR offspring and started ebing something else. From an ecological and from an animal point of view, the success of our children represents the success of our own genes. OUR genes. When they don't have our genes, they aren't our children - no matter how successful they are.
|
|
|
Post by LuvSpune on Nov 27, 2003 0:38:16 GMT -5
I would always say no not only because its messing with nature, but because although a kid never can choose what they are born with, I have no right to choose for them
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyReb on Dec 9, 2003 17:45:58 GMT -5
I would say no. I'd rather just marry well, and have my brood of Ubermensches the natural way. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Stribog on Dec 9, 2003 18:09:41 GMT -5
I agree with JohnnyReb, my ideal is to find a woman who has the traits that I find attractive (longer face, blonde hair, blue or green eyes) and the traits I find desirable (high intelligence, compassion, self-control, patience, etc.) and simply have 'good' kids the natural way.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyReb on Dec 9, 2003 18:43:07 GMT -5
I've often wondered about the feasability of a eugenics matchmaking service. It would be like regular internet dating, but there would be standards one must meet before signing up.
|
|