Should we start genetically engineering "perfect" babies?

[Shinryu]

hey here's a crazy idea: how about adopting one of the many children in need of a home instead? or are we this fucking selfish

Because people generally like having their own offspring instead of raising someone else's? Not trying to be insensitive given the number of homeless kids out there for adoption, but I would generally think parents would want their own offspring with their genetics over another...

Anyways on topic, I also say pretty much leave it at screening for diseases and nothing more. Let people augment themselves into super human cyborgs later in life.

 

[6A9 Ace Matador]

sure, humans want to pass on their genes but at this stage there's such a massive over population program we may as well be altruistic and adopt...

having these genetic issues which you are likely to pass down gives even greater incentive not to reproduce through artificial means too, it's very unnatural

 

[Crimson Floyd]

Because people generally like having their own offspring instead of raising someone else's? Not trying to be insensitive given the number of homeless kids out there for adoption, but I would generally think parents would want their own offspring with their genetics over another...

I've never understood this. If you want someone to have your genes, you don't have to do anything, because you already have your own genes. Besides, your kids aren't going to be clones of you and probably will be nothing like you. They're individuals too.

 

[Pernicious]

If you want someone to have your genes, you don't have to do anything, because you already have your own genes

rofl

the point is to create a legacy...you can be super-literal and say what you just said but people want to leave some kind of imprint that will last AFTER they're dead. it's also nice to see parts of yourself reproduced, even if they're not always ALL there in the child. (that's the fun part -- finding out which qualities of you they have. you are the creator.)

edit: limi don't take it too seriously, i mean creator in the sense that you feel a certain amount of pride seeing personality traits or physical features replicated. i mean, in a certain sense, yeah, we literally create children out of nothing but jizz and an ovum, but i don't think there's anything "mad scientist" about that

 

[Limi]

I've never understood this. If you want someone to have your genes, you don't have to do anything, because you already have your own genes. Besides, your kids aren't going to be clones of you and probably will be nothing like you. They're individuals too.

sorta akin to what pernicious said, the desire to preserve your own genes is instictively programmed into every living being: they want to pass their own traits on.

but man, that article does a bad job at disguising its view of genetically disabled people, whether it wants to have, or convey, that view or not. "hey, of course, we'll grant you guys with genetic disabilities equal rights, nevermind the fact that we didn't intend for you to exist." but i can see (and i think everyone will have to admit to that) the logic behind that, genetic diseases are not beneficial to humans as a whole, as harsh as that sounds. consider that a purely biological viewpoint, though.
i find it hard to make up my mind on that. it's probably best and fairest to resort to adoption in that case, contrary to whatever instincts we might have here.

on the other hand, constructing perfect babies is of course ridiculous; we want to raise children and not dolls. but we all agree on that one anyway.

EDIT: oh god wow pernicious, i just noticed your use of "creator" in your post. that seems really wrong, not gonna lie. are we dollmakers after all?

 

[Crimson Floyd]

In my opinion, most legacies aren't worth prolonging even if you could. I don't come from a family that encourages me to be selfless or creative. I know my mother did not give birth to me to create a legacy; she even said I was an "experiment", and I find that degrading even though I can't think of anything else I would have meant to her.

I don't think the act of childbirth per se is accomplishing anything good for anyone. This is going to sound cliched, but even though your kid might discover a cure for cancer, so could anyone else, and in less time because they wouldn't have to wait a decade and a half (or maybe more) before they even get a job.

If I wanted people to remember my name, I wouldn't have a kid and wait for him to accomplish something; I would just do something. We're not all geniuses, but it's also highly unlikely that your kid will be one. I understand that there's a biological drive to reproduce, but it's not necessarily a good thing. Just speaking from my own experiences, I resent my parents for having brought me into existence, and I wish they hadn't. There is very little in this existence that I actually enjoy, and I would think about the potential harm of childbirth before having a kid. Your kid could become the luckiest person in the world and have everything he wants and suffer from no disorders or diseases, or he could suffer for his entire life. You never know.

And I guess that relates to genetic engineering somewhat. You can't make a kid live a happy life just by modifying his genes. There will always be suffering as long as there are living things capable of suffering.

 

[Snkz]

I really dont think its hard to see why someone would want their own kid arguing otherwise is pretty silly. Its cool if you personally prefer adoption

 

[Pernicious]

i can appreciate this post more

In my opinion, most legacies aren't worth prolonging even if you could. I don't come from a family that encourages me to be selfless or creative.

your family ! = representation of all other human families. also, keep in mind that there's no societal goal per se in in creating a child, it's a personal goal for the parent. of course you don't give a shit that Mrs. Crimson Floyd wanted a baby, and neither will your (ostensibly, i'm assuming you don't want one but just for the sake of argument) son when you form him out of the blackness.

I know my mother did not give birth to me to create a legacy; she even said I was an "experiment", and I find that degrading even though I can't think of anything else I would have meant to her.

that is a very strange thing for a mother to say and i'm genuinely sorry that you had such a painful childhood. i think there is probably love there, deep down.

I don't think the act of childbirth per se is accomplishing anything good for anyone. This is going to sound cliched, but even though your kid might discover a cure for cancer, so could anyone else, and in less time because they wouldn't have to wait a decade and a half (or maybe more) before they even get a job.

again, the goal of procreation isn't to cure cancer (although if you think about it for a sec, our kids are the natural extension to successful solipsism -- the average neckbeard thinks he's fucking brilliant and is going to make some amazing contribution, so naturally, wouldn't neckbeard jr. be able to do so also?) im not even gonna comment on the decade part because that literally makes no sense. again, the point is pride and ownership.

If I wanted people to remember my name, I wouldn't have a kid and wait for him to accomplish something; I would just do something. We're not all geniuses, but it's also highly unlikely that your kid will be one. I understand that there's a biological drive to reproduce, but it's not necessarily a good thing. Just speaking from my own experiences, I resent my parents for having brought me into existence, and I wish they hadn't. There is very little in this existence that I actually enjoy, and I would think about the potential harm of childbirth before having a kid. Your kid could become the luckiest person in the world and have everything he wants and suffer from no disorders or diseases, or he could suffer for his entire life. You never know.

no one is saying it's a good thing, we're just arguing that it makes sense and you shouldn't say people are ridiculous for doing something so appealing. no offense, but no matter how shitty your life is, i doubt you would rather NOT EXIST than live it, so i don't buy that argument. as for the last sentence, i would agree with you if you knew your child was at risk for a developmental disorder or clinical depression, but not otherwise (you never know and if you're not a bad parent he won't "suffer for his entire life" -- not all experiences are your experiences)

There will always be suffering as long as there are living things capable of suffering.

yup, doesn't mean we can't try to ease our suffering though

 

[Crimson Floyd]

that is a very strange thing for a mother to say and i'm genuinely sorry that you had such a painful childhood. i think there is probably love there, deep down.

I know she loves me, but she doesn't like me as a person. I can understand that. I don't even like myself as a person. She probably didn't mean what she said, and she was talking to someone else, so I wasn't supposed to hear it, but it's deeply upsetting to me when parents make such flippant comments about their own children.

again, the goal of procreation isn't to cure cancer

I know. I was just using a cliched example to show how having kids on an overpopulated planet doesn't produce a net gain in monumental discoveries, while not having kids on the same planet will not produce a net loss. But I don't think I can prove that claim. It just makes sense to me logically.

again, the point is pride and ownership.

If you mean ownership of the child, I have to disagree. You technically never own your child. You're just responsible for taking care of him until he can take care of himself.

no one is saying it's a good thing, we're just arguing that it makes sense and you shouldn't say people are ridiculous for doing something so appealing.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to imply that people who have children are ridiculous. I just personally don't see the appeal in it. That's just me.

no offense, but no matter how shitty your life is, i doubt you would rather NOT EXIST than live it, so i don't buy that argument. as for the last sentence, i would agree with you if you knew your child was at risk for a developmental disorder or clinical depression, but not otherwise (you never know and if you're not a bad parent he won't "suffer for his entire life" -- not all experiences are your experiences)

Well, nonexistence is unfathomable for us existent beings. But if I've gotten to the point of considering suicide, I can pretty confidently say that I'd be better off not existing, even though I technically wouldn't "be" at all. I'm not offended one bit, but I think I know myself well enough to say I genuinely wish I had never been born.

Anyway, if it were possible to genetically modify a human to be less at risk for harmful disorders, I think it would be immoral not to, even though some people may find disorders endearing.

 

[6A9 Ace Matador]

Should we or should we not is irrelevant.

We're going to it eventually. We won't be able to help ourselves, it's just a matter of time.

i place higher faith in ethics board comittees tbh

@pernicious

the point is to create a legacy...you can be super-literal and say what you just said but people want to leave some kind of imprint that will last AFTER they're dead. it's also nice to see parts of yourself reproduced, even if they're not always ALL there in the child. (that's the fun part -- finding out which qualities of you they have. you are the creator.)

this is evolutionarily not the point, the point is to pass on your genes. We only have a 50% stake in our children, a 25% stake in our grand children and so on, so these qualities do not really "live on" in the grand scale of things. I would argue it's only nice to see these parts of us (and our genes, more importantly) reproduced because we are inherantly selfish, and we should try to be more altruistic -- this engineering children is a great example of where we can choose to be altruistic. why, when we know it to be unnatural to splice our own genes and remove the ones which correspond to certain illnesses should we continue with it, instead of trying to make our "legacy" in some other way? we could educate an adopted child as well as we could our own, and he would call you father. we could attempt to produce our own "memes" which would themselves form a legacy. you do not hear talk of socrates sons (who infact were described as "silly and dull", but i digress), yet why should he care? his philosophies live on even to this day!

@Limi

sorta akin to what pernicious said, the desire to preserve your own genes is instictively programmed into every living being: they want to pass their own traits on.

preserving our own genes is indeed programmed into us, but in the unnatural society we live in today (with the welfare state etc.), there is far less natural selection in place to "weed out" as it were the people who otherwise would not have survived, and by resorting to genetic engineering all we are doing is making this society more unnatural... solution: condoms + adoption

but i can see (and i think everyone will have to admit to that) the logic behind that, genetic diseases are not beneficial to humans as a whole, as harsh as that sounds. consider that a purely biological viewpoint, though.
i find it hard to make up my mind on that. it's probably best and fairest to resort to adoption in that case, contrary to whatever instincts we might have here.

incidentally, we cannot account for every mistake in IVF, as you may know. so even if we are rid of a few of these mistakes, there is never even a high degree of likelyhood they will not have some other illness caused by some other mistake in their genetic make up.

 

[PK Gaming]

sure, humans want to pass on their genes but at this stage there's such a massive over population program we may as well be altruistic and adopt...

having these genetic issues which you are likely to pass down gives even greater incentive not to reproduce through artificial means too, it's very unnatural

AM, I am willing to bet my account that you won't feel the same way when you find the woman of your dreams 10-20 years down the line. If you still feel that way by then, i'll eat crow.

 

[Crimson Floyd]

AM, I am willing to bet my account that you won't feel the same way when you find the woman of your dreams 10-20 years down the line. If you still feel that way by then, i'll eat crow.

Sorry for replying to this when it isn't directed at me, but I'm just wondering: What makes you think finding the woman of your dreams would lead to having kids with her anyway? If that's what you mean. Because I don't see how loving someone and wanting to reproduce with them are at all related.

Just to be clear, I think we need to respect other people's lifestyle choices. If I don't want to have kids, I'm not fooling myself.

 

[The Knights of Wario Land]

There is no such thing as perfection in any form it "appears" in.

I'm not even saying this from any sort of religious perspective, just look around, see where every nation that has tried to make a "perfect" society has gone. Humanity has natural flaws, being perfect would require humans to be of an almost God-like structure. What people think of perfection nowadays is incredibly short-sighted, but it still fails within their realm, because there will always be at least one problem that breaks down their entire point of flawlessness.

tl;dr, people need to stop chasing for a goal they will never reach.

 

[New World Order]

sure, humans want to pass on their genes but at this stage there's such a massive over population program we may as well be altruistic and adopt...

having these genetic issues which you are likely to pass down gives even greater incentive not to reproduce through artificial means too, it's very unnatural

Does altruism really exist in this world though? Even the people who act "altruistic" in public are either doing it for attention (celebrities), or doing it to fill some void inside themselves (raising one's self esteem and feeling like they've made a difference in the world). I know in my case, whenever I donate to charity or anything, I do it for the latter reason, not because I'm truly altruistic.

Although I see where you're coming from with the latter point, you fail to realize that one's offspring's viability may be compromised without scientific intervention. How is the offspring supposed to pass on the genetic information if they might not live past the age of 6? Also, a lot of these terminal illnesses, such as Down Syndrome, aren't even the result of the parent's genes. It's a defect that occurs during meiosis. Are you saying people shouldn't at least have a choice in whether or not their child is fertile?

I personally feel that genetic modification can be justified, but only if it affects the ability of the child to live a healthy life (ie Down Syndrome). People shouldn't be allowed to abuse the system and create a beautiful, fit, 160 IQ child or anything.

 

[xenu]

Also, a lot of these terminal illnesses, such as Down Syndrome,

 

[Crimson Floyd]

Does altruism really exist in this world though? Even the people who act "altruistic" in public are either doing it for attention (celebrities), or doing it to fill some void inside themselves (raising one's self esteem and feeling like they've made a difference in the world). I know in my case, whenever I donate to charity or anything, I do it for the latter reason, not because I'm truly altruistic.

Altruism exists. Benefitting from an act, or even intending to benefit from an act, doesn't make it selfish. Your act of donating to charity is still altruistic compared to the alternative: not donating to charity. If you don't donate to charity, of course you're not going to feel like a better person, because you haven't actually helped anyone. Even if you are donating to charity just to fill a void in your life, it's a void that exists not necessarily because of low self-esteem or anything like that, but maybe because you just wouldn't feel right not donating to charity. If I had the ability to donate to charity, and if I chose not to, it would weigh on my conscience, but I wouldn't donate to charity just to relieve my conscience of that weight. If you feel like a better person after doing something selfless, you're doing it right. It doesn't take away from the selflessness of the act.

 

[6A9 Ace Matador]

Does altruism really exist in this world though? Even the people who act "altruistic" in public are either doing it for attention (celebrities), or doing it to fill some void inside themselves (raising one's self esteem and feeling like they've made a difference in the world). I know in my case, whenever I donate to charity or anything, I do it for the latter reason, not because I'm truly altruistic.

Although I see where you're coming from with the latter point, you fail to realize that one's offspring's viability may be compromised without scientific intervention. How is the offspring supposed to pass on the genetic information if they might not live past the age of 6? Also, a lot of these terminal illnesses, such as Down Syndrome, aren't even the result of the parent's genes. It's a defect that occurs during meiosis. Are you saying people shouldn't at least have a choice in whether or not their child is fertile?

"true" altruism categorically does not exist, of course there is always ulterior motives. the above poster outlines why this is irrelevant very well.

i am saying scientific intervention is unnatural and nowhere in nature do phenomena analogous to IVF occur. survival of the fittest is the law that governs nature, and we have no business tampering with it for our own selfish goals especially when faced with problems such as overpopulation.

if you are suggesting checking for abnormalities through the use of amniocentesis for example, then under your reasoning all couples should have this done since there will always be the chance of illness' such as down syndrome occurring -- quite frankly i can think of better ways to spend the absurdly large amount of money/human work that would be required for such an operation.

 

[Jorgen]

The issue with the "unnatural" argument is that it is really not a good argument to refrain from something. Ventricular Assist Devices are certainly pretty unnatural, and in earlier times the idea of transplanting organs would have been seen as violating the natural order. These are obviously worthwhile technologies in spite of that unnaturalness.

Citing overpopulation as a reason to avoid developing a medical technology is also pretty silly. The main problem when "overpopulation" is cited is actually the expected shortage of certain resources and the quality of life reduction that would follow, not the number of people in itself. Thus, trying to limit population growth by imposing lower quality of life via halted scientific progress solves nothing.

That being said, I'll reiterate my agreement that playing with our genes in this way should definitely be limited. This is because we really don't know that much about the long-term ramifications of tampering with our DNA right now. We could really fuck ourselves over and make ourselves too genetically homogeneous if we tamper our genes too aggressively. However, even if we did know what we were doing, if we didn't just focus on fixing the objectively nasty stuff and instead tried to push for better, less disease-prone humans, inevitably some births would evade the screening process and bam, we would have a new, man-made, "scientifically proven" reason for people to be dicks to each other. I'll bite the bullet and say that this means we oughtn't implement a process by which, during prenatal development, we would screen for and alter genes that could encode for, say, elevated cancer and heart disease risks later in life. The can of worms that opens is just too slimy and nasty to be worth it, imo.

 

[Myzozoa]

True altruism may not exist, true anything might not exist, I don't have any truths for you. If everything we do as humans is done out of self interest, what does that mean for anyone? What does it mean in psychology? Biology? Politics? Nothing, if every action that we do can be attributed to self-interest than that theory of explaining human behavior is no longer useful for anything. It is such a perfect, good theory that it isn't good for anything because it doesn't tell us any useful information. It certainly doesn't tell us WHICH self-interest we are acting out of when we make actions. It could be a true explanation for all human behavior, but it's just masturbation. Might as well say that humans act a certain way out of 'humanness.' It's okay, every adolescent has to find these things out for themselves.

Completely unrelatedly some people think psycho-analysis is useless in the same way, its perfection renders it useless.

 

[faint]

imo we should only genetically engineer babies that were the result of a rape pregnancy.

thoughts / opinions

 

[Murk]

Altruism exists. Benefitting from an act, or even intending to benefit from an act, doesn't make it selfish. Your act of donating to charity is still altruistic compared to the alternative: not donating to charity. If you don't donate to charity, of course you're not going to feel like a better person, because you haven't actually helped anyone. Even if you are donating to charity just to fill a void in your life, it's a void that exists not necessarily because of low self-esteem or anything like that, but maybe because you just wouldn't feel right not donating to charity. If I had the ability to donate to charity, and if I chose not to, it would weigh on my conscience, but I wouldn't donate to charity just to relieve my conscience of that weight. If you feel like a better person after doing something selfless, you're doing it right. It doesn't take away from the selflessness of the act.

I would say that what we think of as altruism does exist, but it is in fact a way of benefitting yourself which has evolved since humans (or our ancestors) began living in close-knit communities. I just scratched your back, you'd better scratch mine when you get the chance, etc.

 

[Glen]

imo we should only genetically engineer babies that were the result of a rape pregnancy.

thoughts / opinions

i

this is probably the worst post i have ever read in my life

 

[6A9 Ace Matador]

The issue with the "unnatural" argument is that it is really not a good argument to refrain from something. Ventricular Assist Devices are certainly pretty unnatural, and in earlier times the idea of transplanting organs would have been seen as violating the natural order. These are obviously worthwhile technologies in spite of that unnaturalness.

well the unnatural argument mainly corresponds to unforeseen ramifications of gene manipulation, much like your homogeneity argument.

Citing overpopulation as a reason to avoid developing a medical technology is also pretty silly. The main problem when "overpopulation" is cited is actually the expected shortage of certain resources and the quality of life reduction that would follow, not the number of people in itself. Thus, trying to limit population growth by imposing lower quality of life via halted scientific progress solves nothing.

no, not necessarily. i would argue that overpopulation isn't just a problem for the reason that those people will have a lower quality of life, but for the effects it will have on many ecosystems. i am, for example, more concerned by the overfishing of several endangered species of fish than by the shortage / poor quality of council houses for certain humans. and nowhere did i say i disagree with the development of this technology, in fact all the technology i do mention is quite common place today i.e. IVF, i simply believe there is more altruistic alternatives we should at least consider before yielding to our selfish instincts.

tl;dr there is a lot to weigh up when considering what will lower the quality of life, and it is likely safest to stick with the status quo for the mo'

 

[PK Gaming]

Sorry for replying to this when it isn't directed at me, but I'm just wondering: What makes you think finding the woman of your dreams would lead to having kids with her anyway? If that's what you mean. Because I don't see how loving someone and wanting to reproduce with them are at all related.

Just to be clear, I think we need to respect other people's lifestyle choices. If I don't want to have kids, I'm not fooling myself.

I don't think I ever implied that, but ok. FYI, I don't plan on having kids, at all. (kids actually kind of suck...? This isn't set in stone but w/e)
Any time I engage in any sort of conversation with AM, you should know that i'm not being a totally serious because of our history together. All I know is that god told me that when AM finds his dream girl, there's a good chance he won't care about "being altruistic" if he really wants kids. Trust me, I just know.

If you're looking for rigid debate on whether a couple should have kids or not I am afraid you're barking up the wrong tree!

Oh, and I accept your apology.

 

[Trax]

Given the outcomes of our genetic modification experiments in plants (i.e. corn that causes brain cancer and wheat that destroys the liver) I don't really want to try GM with people just yet.