What would happen to parenthood, or individuality, of the concept of providence in a world in which human beings are, in essence, engineered? What will life be like if we actually possess the power to turn human beings into manufactured objects?
Basically, science is on the verge of permitting us to design our offspring – parents would choose the genes that “define” humanity – hair colour, height, eye colour, longevity, intelligence, even some personality traits. Playing God would be normal as opposed to leaving it up to nature, which is the luck of the draw. There’s no doubt in my mind that the abolition of ailments such as cystic fibrosis or Tay-Sachs would be substantially helpful. But who decides what’s “average” and what isn’t? Someone who is blind is just as regular as someone who isn’t – but blindness won’t be a sought-after trait, will it? Of course not.
Another argument could be the ridiculous longevity of the genetically modified children. What if everyone lived to be 100? 130? The world would be an incredibly crowded place, and I don’t want to be one of the people trying to clean it up. It would make larger gaps between the rich and poor; it wouldn’t be free. Would the rich be guaranteed a great life, with unnatural intelligence or good looks, whereas the poor have to play the “life-lottery”?
How do you feel about it?
Well, yeah, but at least you're being fucked by people way smarter and hotter than you.
I suppose that is better then being screwed up ugly idiots. I'd rather not get the shaft period.
It'd be a meritocracy because the richest would become smarter through bioengineering.
That would be true if intelligence was directly tied to genetics and if morals and ethics were as well. Some of the richest people aren't the brights nor the most ethical. Again, results in a aristocracy. A meritocracy relies upon ethical intelligent people. The rich often only have one, or neither. What we could do is essentially what Socrates argued, abeit slightly modified. Take the most promising line of genetic heritage and then teach them specific morals and ethics. They then become the supreme biological philosopher Kings and Queens. I'd rather do that then merely favor the rich.
Starts off as a plutocracy, winds up a meritocracy. The problem with aristocracy is that all the inbreeding makes them all fucking retarded assholes--bioengineering not only corrects that, it makes them smarter.
You can only work with a set number of avaliable genes. Unless you plan on importing genes from other people. That's of Mary Shelley if you ask me.
Usually one would want smart --> leader --> money; in this case, it'd be leader --> money --> smart.
Not necessarily, and not in the US.
Just make it really expensive. Then, for the first time in history, the ruling elite of the planet is guaranteed to be both handsome and intelligent, as the masses get more retarded in comparison. An engineered meritocracy.
That doesn't ensure a meritocracy, that's aristocracy, which in history has been shown to be the cause of many bad decisions.
What makes you think the rich are the best to rule? The US is a plutocracy and we have so many problems, many caused by our leaders.
designer babies allows for genetic determinism. It is the ultimate anti-thesis of equal opportunity.
The ONLY tinkering we should be doing is to remove the most painful and horrible hereditary diseases. And even then it is questionable as those genes may in the future interact in ways we cannot forsee to stop a contagious disease.
You're an idiot, I never told anybody to do anything, I simply SHARED my OPINION, and I didn't force my opinion on you or anybody else. I hate when idiots try and make situations into something their not.
I said how is it your right to decide who and who doesn't "play god"? You replied with "it's not man's place", you didn't answer my question, you basically claimed it was your right to tell man that it's not his right.
We were put on the Earth to SERVE God. That's a fact. And last time I checked, as servants, we don't try to overtake God's throne.
Last time I checked, that hadn't be proven and therefore was not fact.
Are we to completely abandon the pursuit of knowledge out of terror over what horrors might be born from it? Furthermore, are we to pretend that we have PhD's in genetics that enable us to talk on the consequences of the practical uses of such knowledge as if we are authorities?
No we should not completely abandon the pursuit of knowledge out of fear, but we should not assume that just because something CAN be used for good that it WILL be. I don't think it's necessary to have a PhD in genetics to speculate about possible consequence, some of it is just common sense. I mean you have to look at both sides of a story. Now, I know my opinion on this subject seems pretty extreme, and really I think I'm more moderate than I'm coming across, but from what I was reading the main argument against genetic engineering was "It's Playing God," and while I do kind of agree with that I just wanted to offer up more solid reasons why this might not be a good thing. I suppose the ultimate question is: How would this technology be regulated so that it could be used for good? A question that needs to be asked of all new techniquest that seem to be on everyone's thoughts, like stem cell research, but that's another topic entirely.
687 users online 
222951 members 1445 active today Advertise Here
687 users online 222951 members 1445 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
