Designer Babies

Post Reply New Topic

i was talking about taking control of the fundamental design structure of a human, and not the peripheral help that can be given to an already living human.

you are cross pollinating concepts.

if we rolled back evolution to the primordial soup, and gave every decision about the destiny of genetics to a human, what would be the state of life on earth now?
it would be a confused extension of a primordial soup.

humans have no foresight. they have hindsight (especially people with "butt" fetishes) .
so to assume the authority to say "NO" to a potential life occurring is to take on an authority that you are not qualified to have.

you can not have sufficient foresight to determine a genetic possibility of success with reference to all future developments of its environment.

"let the steering wheel go or you will cause an accident" says nature.
i believe that anyway.

i think (by the way) that antibiotics are the way that truly superior pathogens can robustify (coinage due to laziness) their resistance and successfully propagate in adverse conditions.
golden staph is an example.


if people who are sick are savable, then they must be saved.



anyone who is already alive is infinitely valuable (because they can not be "built" by another being), and they must have access to every facility available for their salvation.

any egg and sperm who is not yet married to make a conception, must not be tampered with by the blunderingly stupid intellect, and need for control, of humans.

i really do not care, and look at it like a moderately interesting TV show, but i switch it off when i am done thinking about it.

Can I get one with Vulcan ears? That would be cool!

Ah, quite true. But what is genetic quality, eh? Take Asperger's, for instance............
Solve that question, and you deserve a metal!

Asperger's strengths ARE its weaknesses. Asperger's weaknesses ARE its strengths. All depending on the occasion.
Even physical "deformities" or "abnormalities" can come in handy during just the right crisis.

Ever see that Twilight Zone called "What You Need"? It's about an old street merchant man who sells you exactly what you need -- and that's why everyone is annoyed with him -- because he sells them what they TRULY NEED, not what they think they need. So the merchandise are the most plain, uninteresting items -- but their respective sales are perfectly timed to benefit each buyer profoundly. On one occasion, its a pair of scissors... they end up saving the customer's life from a freak accident an hour after he buys it.

So, we'll never know what skills and genetics we're going to need in life. So, it's pointless to try designing the "perfect" human, since life is a motley and unpredictable assortment of challenges and rewards.

Last edited by Ragtime on 27 Feb 2009, 11:30 am, edited 8 times in total.

Seconded.

So basically....it'll be just like it is now. I mean, people who are dysgenic in whatever way, be it something as simple as being ugly are already discriminated against. What would be so wrong if that changed to discrimination against people who have had zero quality control? At least the latter could be an indicator of actual shortcomings which weren't filtered out.

Not if it is only dominated by people who are good-looking, have a high IQ etc...

Obviously society has shown that anyone fitting into the minority are more prone to stigmas, labels, and prejudices.

Very likely, not everyone could afford this procedure either. So then we have people who aren't smart in the sense of what is defined as smart getting the "good" jobs or jobs that pay for a living.

The idea of designer babies is almost as bad as the idea of screening unborn babies for various disabilities and than aborting them.

What is wrong with that? Which is better. Aborting the child in the first trimester before there is consciousness of having a kid grow up with cystic fibrosis or Lou Gehrig's disease? On the one case there is no suffering, in the other not only the sick person suffers but so does his family.

Do you prefer suffering to not suffering?

ruveyn