Designer Babies

Post Reply New Topic

Evolutionary Standpoint.

When we think about designer babies the first thing that to comes to mind with alot of people is personally determining the physical characteristics of their future offspring, but when I think about It I feel designer babies will be the next breakthrough in human evolution (I dont believe in evolution, but for arguements sake). If we aquired weak genes from our parents we typically be wiped out through natural selection where only the strongest survive. One hundred years ago, if a child developed say diabetes from their parents, or maybe from a mutation in their genes, they would be fortunate to survive to adult hood. Thanks to modern medicine, a diabetic can live a long prosperous life.

Normally if a we aquired weak genes from mutations from our parents, we would be weeded out through natural selection. Because of modern medicine, we are able to live our lives to the fullest, and carry our mutations and bad genes and pass it down to our offspring. Eventually, over the generations, someone will be negatively affected by these genes. Maybe this can be one of the influences for the surge in autistic children, or an influental factor in the increase in people who suffer from heart dieseases in America? What science will be able to do is seperate these known genes from our offspring, and as a result, our children will be better condition for the world after theyre born. This will basically make us a stronger species rid of many genetic diseases, and make us better repaired for the hazardous conditions that await us in the future.

Maybe scientist will be able to find the genes or mutations that makes us stronger, run faster, jump higher, and have better coordination. I can see pro-sports becoming much more competitive, violent, and fun.

Although the idea of being able to screen out genetic disorders, harmful mutations, and to give your child the traits you desire sounds exciting, the idea of a scientist playing god with your child is paramount to opening up pandoras box. For starters, diversity in our population would dissapear, and then there's the possibility that the doctors might make a mistake someplace which could lead to a whole new set of problems. And one has no way to account for mutations that would happen naturally.

I'm not saying I'm for it, or against it. I wish at times that I didn't have aspergers, but then, aspergers has given me some traits that I would want to give up.

There's just simply too many pros and cons to come up with a difinitive answer on this, the perverbial catch 22, IMHO.

Even though some seemingly devastating disabilities and/or diseases along with physical challenges/frailities have a large affect on humanity, it has not always been a negative force to be cured of. I sometimes feel adversity can be one of mankinds best tools for forcing creativity into motion. Let me give you a few examples:

Franklin D. Roosevelt - Polio kept him confined to a chair but his strong guidance helped us get through the Great Depression and WW2.

Stephen Hawking - His challenges are many but his inner strength and intelligence are unparalleled in his contributions to physics & the field of astronomy.

Ray Charles - I can't help but think that his lack of sight helped him to see music in a way we can only dream to understand it.

Thomas Alva Edison - who had 1,093 patents for inventions in his lifetime, was too disruptive to his own classroom to the extent that his mother finally pulled him from conventional schooling and home-schooled him. I wonder what drugs they would have forced on him in this day and age?

I'm not saying that these (and many, many more) individuals would have been any less great without their challenges but some part of me wonders if their strength came from the very "human weakness" that someday we wish to eliminate.

Is it possible without our challenges and obsticles we would lack our very individuality and our ability to think original thoughts? Would our very own creative essence be lost in the quest for conformity and perfection?
-monastic-

I once thought genetic engineering would result, through "market forces," in one ideal genotype dominating the earth; but, after reading about my condition, I have come to understand that certain ideal traits are almost mutually exclusionary. In other words, genetic engineering would not necessarily result in a super race of stratospherically intelligent, socially apt, physically strong, physically attractive people. Most parents would probably select a highly sociable, attractive child, but they probably would not be able to select high genius with it. Some people would want genius children, though, and this would essentially keep autistic genes in the engineered gene pool.

I have no doubt in my mind that widescale vanity genetic engineering would have major social consequences, but they would not likely be completely dystopic.

If you watched Star Trek, you would see that genetic engineering on humans is banned in the future. Now, speaking seriously...
It is obvious that genetic testing will be perfected before direct modifications of genotype. This causes the real threat that fetuses that have genetic predispositions to known diseases or disorders, or just lack desirable features, will be aborted. This is currently happening in China, where some parents consider boys preferable to girls. If there were tests for autism genes, how many of us will not be posting on this forum? Of course, this type of selection, while dangerous, has limits. Parents would not conceive 40 children, only to abort 39 of them and give birth to only one that they deem ideal. With direct gene manipulation that will allow to remove or add specific genes, parents will be able to design their children, picking traits from the catalogue. What would they pick? Certainly the species consisting of Einsteins only will not be able to survive. Restrictions would need to be imposed, so that leaders, scientists, teachers, car mechanics and janitors are produced in appropriate proportions. I suggest Huxley's Brave New World for description of such a society. I prefer the future depicted in Star Trek, if I were to choose.

I promote abolishing ignorance, zelousness, and consious stupidity . Even if you could take out the "bad" genes, people would still be stupid and ignorant.

Stupidity is the leading cause of death.
Ignorance is the leading cause of conflict.
Zelots are too set in their ways to change, so there is no way to fix them.

I agree with the concious stupidity and the ignorance.

i declare that it is a complete discraze. the ability to live what ever our condition is essential. we should not have designer babies as it denies those that arent perfect, it denies them existence. its a discraze. we all deserve the right to live and i say to any parent who cannot cope with the child with as and would rather that child not be here and have some perfect child. id call them cowards. we all have a right to live. we are human and i say it should be illegal to make designer babies. it should be natural

the fact is star trek got it right they should ban it. i say denying mine and anyone elses life to live is a serious misconduct of humanity. we have a right to live and i would shed every drop of my blood to defend that right.

brother devil

This sounds like a scene from the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. In the fictional society the books talks about, the babies are made in test tubes, using handpicked genes.

Well...no. I'd prefer using more direct methods. The injection of a simple viral trojan can induce muscle growth, for example, and we will eventually be able to induce our brains to increase connectivity in the areas responsible for complex thought. The procedures for doing so will become increasingly simple, though, and I wouldn't expect any dramatic or sudden shifts in our way of doing things. Our brave, new world will just be a simple trip to the doctor to get the kids those shots that promote healthy, "normal" connectivity between areas of the brain. We'll be so used to it by the time it rolls around that it'll be wholly taken for granted, and, really, that suits me perfectly because I'm against any "revolutionary" alteration in our daily existence.