Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by throwthisaway at 8:35 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Science is basically on the brink of handing us the key to our own creation, of giving us the power to essentially “redesign” ourselves. There is gargantuan potential for good – diseases can be eradicated, death delayed, human potential extended even further. But why the fuck are we contemplating doing this if behind all the good lurks a sinister, bitter shade of uncertainty? 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? -- Posted by Spasty at 8:42 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 I think it's a disgusting idea. People should be the way they are intended to be, not some copy of everyone else. -- Posted by xxkat at 8:43 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Yeah, I don't like the idea of it. I still don't even know if I like the idea of them taking away diseases, because that is still "playing God", and maybe because that disease got taken away another one might develop. -- Posted by throwthisaway at 8:44 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 As true as that may be, history always repeats itself; From the harnessing of fire to the splitting of the atom, humanity has never made a scientific discovery and failed to use it. -- Posted by Vintorez at 8:45 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 If that were to become a standard way of having a baby, I would be pissed. It's not right, it's bad enough that scientists want to clone animals and humans, but genetic engineering is so far past the line. It's not the scientists' right to play God. -- Posted by im a girl wrestler at 8:45 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 WOW we just did a whole thing on this in Social Issues about 2 weeks ago.. I dont have an opinion on it really.. it can go either way.. there's some things i approve and others i dont... -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 8:46 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from xxkat at 11:43 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Yeah, I don't like the idea of it.   I still don't even know if I like the idea of them taking away diseases, because that is still "playing God", and maybe because that disease got taken away another one might develop.   Where does one draw the line at playing God? Is it playing God to mend a broken bone? Are we trampling in God's garden if we use chemotherapy to treat cancer? Are we pissing in His eye if we use respirators to keep someone alive long enough for them to recover full functionality on their own? At one point, exactly, do we cross from the allowable into the forbidden land? -- Posted by Seafercat at 8:48 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from im a girl wrestler at 5:45 pm on Feb. 22, 2007 it can go either way.. there's some things i approve and others i dont... Mhmm i don't see the problem with abolishing blindness etc, but i'm unsure where i stand on the issue, as a whole. -- Posted by Seafercat at 8:49 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 I think it's a fantastic idea.   -- Posted by happygoluckyelf at 8:52 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 I think designer babies are a horrible idea. It will lower genetic diversity, which could leave our whole species susceptible to diseases that could wipe out all of us because we all share the same weaknesses due to too much genetic similarity. Also, suppose a parent picks out their preferred genetic characteristics, but because science is a bit of an art as well something goes awry and the baby doesn't turned out like they had planned then that child would be a "mistake" because it wasn't "perfect." Also, I agree with the increased gaps between the rich and the poor. The wealthy would be able to easily advance themselves to have the best qualities a human could have, but those who couldn't afford the gene therapy would not have that advantage, and would be at a great disadvantage even after birth because people might automatically assume the rich kids were better and had more potential. The whole thing is just a nasty spider's web of ethics and immorality. Yes, we could get rid of some bad genetic mutations, and even help decrease some predisposition to certain disorders, but at what cost? -- Posted by Vintorez at 8:52 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 11:46 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from xxkat at 11:43 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Yeah, I don't like the idea of it.   I still don't even know if I like the idea of them taking away diseases, because that is still "playing God", and maybe because that disease got taken away another one might develop.   Where does one draw the line at playing God? Is it playing God to mend a broken bone? Are we trampling in God's garden if we use chemotherapy to treat cancer? Are we pissing in His eye if we use respirators to keep someone alive long enough for them to recover full functionality on their own? At one point, exactly, do we cross from the allowable into the forbidden land? First off, the body heals broken bones, not other people; chemotherapy doesn't always work because if it always worked, cancer would be easily treatable; I agree that keeping someone alive on a respirator is kinda "playing God." I wouldn't want to be alive on a respirator. -- Posted by Seafercat at 8:54 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 i don't see how someone can say "it's not the scientists' right to play God" -- how is it your right to decide who and who doesn't "play god"? -- Posted by xxkat at 8:56 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 8:46 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from xxkat at 11:43 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Yeah, I don't like the idea of it.   I still don't even know if I like the idea of them taking away diseases, because that is still "playing God", and maybe because that disease got taken away another one might develop.   Where does one draw the line at playing God? Is it playing God to mend a broken bone? Are we trampling in God's garden if we use chemotherapy to treat cancer? Are we pissing in His eye if we use respirators to keep someone alive long enough for them to recover full functionality on their own? At one point, exactly, do we cross from the allowable into the forbidden land? Yeah but by the point your bone is broken and your getting chemotherapy you have already developed the disease and you've already suffered from it. -- Posted by Vintorez at 8:58 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from Seafercat at 11:54 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 i don't see how someone can say "it's not the scientists' right to play God" -- how is it your right to decide who and who doesn't "play god"? As a religious person, God>>>>>>>>man, and it's not man's place to do His job. Man should learn their place. -- Posted by Seafercat at 8:58 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from xxkat at 5:56 pm on Feb. 22, 2007 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 8:46 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from xxkat at 11:43 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Yeah, I don't like the idea of it.      I still don't even know if I like the idea of them taking away diseases, because that is still "playing God", and maybe because that disease got taken away another one might develop.          Where does one draw the line at playing God? Is it playing God to mend a broken bone? Are we trampling in God's garden if we use chemotherapy to treat cancer? Are we pissing in His eye if we use respirators to keep someone alive long enough for them to recover full functionality on their own?    At one point, exactly, do we cross from the allowable into the forbidden land? Yeah but by the point your bone is broken and your getting chemotherapy you have already developed the disease and you've already suffered from it. so, i'm a little confused -- what you're saying is, it's okay to fix, but not prevent? -- Posted by Seafercat at 8:59 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from Vintorez at 5:58 pm on Feb. 22, 2007 Quote: from Seafercat at 11:54 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 i don't see how someone can say "it's not the scientists' right to play God" -- how is it your right to decide who and who doesn't "play god"? As a religious person, God>>>>>>>>man, and it's not man's place to do His job. Man should learn their place. so, you're telling me it's your right to tell people what to do, because you're religious? yeah, okay. -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 9:01 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from xxkat at 11:56 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 8:46 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from xxkat at 11:43 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Yeah, I don't like the idea of it.      I still don't even know if I like the idea of them taking away diseases, because that is still "playing God", and maybe because that disease got taken away another one might develop.          Where does one draw the line at playing God? Is it playing God to mend a broken bone? Are we trampling in God's garden if we use chemotherapy to treat cancer? Are we pissing in His eye if we use respirators to keep someone alive long enough for them to recover full functionality on their own?    At one point, exactly, do we cross from the allowable into the forbidden land? Yeah but by the point your bone is broken and your getting chemotherapy you have already developed the disease and you've already suffered from it. Would you not agree that if one had the power to prevent someone from breaking a leg or getting cancer, it would be an evil thing to withold that power instead of sparing someone suffering or death? -- Posted by Vintorez at 9:08 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from Seafercat at 11:59 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from Vintorez at 5:58 pm on Feb. 22, 2007 Quote: from Seafercat at 11:54 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 i don't see how someone can say "it's not the scientists' right to play God" -- how is it your right to decide who and who doesn't "play god"?    As a religious person, God>>>>>>>>man, and it's not man's place to do His job. Man should learn their place. so, you're telling me it's your right to tell people what to do, because you're religious? yeah, okay. 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. 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. -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 9:10 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 You have so far failed, Vintorez, to provide any clear line between man's realm of authority, in which he is permitted to play, and God's thoneroom. -- Posted by happygoluckyelf at 9:12 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:01 am on Feb. 22, 2007 Would you not agree that if one had the power to prevent someone from breaking a leg or getting cancer, it would be an evil thing to withold that power instead of sparing someone suffering or death? Yes, that would be ideal, and I think it would be good to use genetics for good like that, but come on: if we have learned anything about human tendencies through history isn't it that we try to use technology to gain power and control others in our favor? Think about it. I personally doubt that genetic engineering of children would simple result in the prevention of disease. It would be used to create "normal" kids, who looked and behaved exactly as the parents thought they should, and again if they didn't well then that kid is just a "mistake." Shallow gene pools would become an increasing problem, and eventually it could lead to a pandemic that could wipe out almost the whole population because all people who were genetically engineered could have the same weakness. I think the whole thing just creates more problems than it solves. -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 9:15 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 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? -- Posted by xxkat at 9:20 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from Seafercat at 8:58 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from xxkat at 5:56 pm on Feb. 22, 2007 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 8:46 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from xxkat at 11:43 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Yeah, I don't like the idea of it.         I still don't even know if I like the idea of them taking away diseases, because that is still "playing God", and maybe because that disease got taken away another one might develop.                Where does one draw the line at playing God? Is it playing God to mend a broken bone? Are we trampling in God's garden if we use chemotherapy to treat cancer? Are we pissing in His eye if we use respirators to keep someone alive long enough for them to recover full functionality on their own?       At one point, exactly, do we cross from the allowable into the forbidden land?    Yeah but by the point your bone is broken and your getting chemotherapy you have already developed the disease and you've already suffered from it.   so, i'm a little confused -- what you're saying is, it's okay to fix, but not prevent? yeah, basically, but I mean go ahead and take the gene of some disease away, I just think something bad will come from it like later in life that person may develop some new disease because their old one was taken away. It's kind of like picking at a red bump and its gone for a few hours and then you get an ugly whitehead in its place haha sorry for the bad metaphor. -- Posted by happygoluckyelf at 9:23 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:15 am on Feb. 22, 2007 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. -- Posted by Seafercat at 10:09 pm on Feb. 21, 2007 Quote: from Vintorez at 6:08 pm on Feb. 22, 2007 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. -- Posted by akallen at 5:35 am on Feb. 22, 2007 Thats stupid... really people should be the way they turn out, nothing more or less -- Posted by JuicyGal17 at 5:43 am on Feb. 22, 2007 I can see how it would be considered "Playing God", but as TheOtherHorseman pointed out, other medical advances which we now generally consider to be normal, could also be seen in that way. On the whole I would say that I don't oppose to it if it prevents children from having health problems that will endanger/impair their lives. On the other hand the concept of determining their physical appearance is just freakish and dull. -- Posted by obvious child at 4:22 pm on Feb. 27, 2007 Haven't any of you wankers watched Gattca? 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. -- Posted by Apotheosis at 4:52 pm on Feb. 27, 2007 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. -- Posted by obvious child at 4:56 pm on Feb. 27, 2007 Quote: from Apotheosis at 2:52 pm on Feb. 27, 2007 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. -- Posted by Apotheosis at 5:02 pm on Feb. 27, 2007 It'd be a meritocracy because the richest would become smarter through bioengineering. 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. Usually one would want smart --> leader --> money; in this case, it'd be leader --> money --> smart. Pages: 1 2  Next