First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Why Do People Think Genetic Engineering A Better Child is Wrong?
Posted 1/1/15
I don't get it, if you have the ability to give your child a great singing voice or the ability to do gymnastic, why wouldn't you? I'm sure he'll thank you for being so gifted. Then again, I'm not sure that any child would like to have their life "planned out", but I still fail to see why genetically engineering your child to be more talented is so wrong.


Note: This is not about genetic engineering to prevent birth defects and such. I'm sure we all agree to use genetic engineering to prevent birth defects if necessary.
37321 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Saint Charles, Mi...
Offline
Posted 1/1/15
You should watch Gundam Seed. It show in the long run, science has no way to prevent genetic birth defects, such as genetically modified children becoming sterile over time, at least thats the one the show went into. When I was big into Gundam Seed I looked into genetically modified humans, and there are many long term risks that we cannot overcome right now. And if humans develop medicine for our most destructive decease and illnesses, genetic modification will loose support, imo.
11660 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / Cali
Offline
Posted 1/1/15 , edited 1/1/15
I don't think it's taboo or anything. They don't have to be an idol master or something, but it's always good to have refreshing characteristics about yourself. If you're talking about stuff like parents forcing their child to become a doctor like my Asian parents then that's a whoooole different story lol. If there are a set of appropriate paths for someone then I believe the person should be the one deciding which one they're willing to take, not their friend, parents, or anyone else.. Btw my parents aren't actually forcing me lol
9140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / Madison, Wi
Offline
Posted 1/1/15
genetic engineering a child to make them better? i LEAN toward no on that. regardless of how much engineering you do, it still comes down to how the child is raised. Sorry, but thinking of engineering a child makes me think of the experiments performed by the Nazis. (not saying that genetic engineering is evil)
55093 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 1/1/15 , edited 1/1/15
It depends on how the genetic modification was done, Zodiac. If you are simply picking traits from the parents, ala Gattaca, that are already a possibility then there is no reason to expect there to be long term risks associated with that unless the traits picked have some sort of genetic risk. If you are talking additive genetic engineering, adding traits that the parents don't have even recessive traits for, then that is a whole other issue. You are right that there are many long term risks we can't overcome at the moment with genetic modification, but that doesn't mean that we can't overcome them in the future. Despite it's multi-decade history of use, genetic modification is not yet ready for human or animal use without significant risks. As for your last comment, medicine for our most destructive diseases and illnesses, no I don't think that that will cause it to lose support. The reason being, that with a decrease in destructive diseases there would be a larger push to wipe out genetic diseases of which the only way to do so would be either breeding it out (Eugenics, which is a bad idea but a whole other topic), or genetic modification, either before birth through selective trait technology or after birth through gene therapy. In case it wasn't obvious, I'm on the pro genetic modification side of the table, though cautious about how we approach it.

(PS, anime isn't a good source of science fact. So I'm glad you looked into genetic modification on your own.)

Edit: Someone referenced the right movie, I meant Gattaca not Galaga.
37527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 1/1/15 , edited 1/1/15
You ever hear of "The Haves" and "The Have Nots" in sociology class? Imagine then the kind of problems there could be for all those who can afford to use genetic engineering tech to refine their offspring to be great vs. all those who can't afford it/don't have access to it/etc. (And that would be the vast majority of humanity) Not only would there be a huge negative outcry of such a thing, but in time, give it a generation, two generations, three generations...and you'd have a whole new kind of discrimination going on in humanity. Think of the group of people who were genetically engineered to be great and how they might think they are so great and so much better than normal people (those who never were enhanced by genetic engineering) and think they are better than most people. Plus, a lot of them would probably have greater success (in general) or have great looks due to genetic engineering, and thus can easily date beautiful people like them, but they got those beautiful looks because their parents paid lots of money for them to ensure they have good looks...again, this would both relate to the huge negative outcry of the "have nots" as well as feed into the problem of the genetically engineered people generally thinking that they are so much better than most other people. ... It'd be controversial and cause problems to start genetically engineering children like this.
Posted 1/1/15

Dubnoman wrote:

You ever hear of "The Haves" and "The Have Nots" in sociology class? Imagine then the kind of problems there could be for all those who can afford to use genetic engineering tech to refine their offspring to be great vs. all those who can't afford it/don't have access to it/etc. (And that would be the vast majority of humanity) Not only would there be a huge negative outcry of such a thing, but in time, give it a generation, two generations, three generations...and you'd have a whole new kind of discrimination going on in humanity. Think of the group of people who were genetically engineered to be great and how they might think they are so great and so much better than normal people (those who never were enhanced by genetic engineering) and think they are better than most people. Plus, a lot of them would probably have greater success (in general) or have great looks due to genetic engineering, and thus can easily date beautiful people like them, but they got those beautiful looks because their parents paid lots of money for them to ensure they have good looks...again, this would both relate to the huge negative outcry of the "have nots" as well as feed into the problem of the genetically engineered people generally thinking that they are so much better than most other people. ... It'd be controversial and cause problems to start genetically engineering children like this.


Oh, how the mighty are constrained by the small people of this world. Although, I'm pretty sure being gifted in a few things wouldn't hurt humanity that much. I just think of people want to genetically engineer their child, let them.
14468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 1/1/15 , edited 1/1/15
Genetics can really only take you so far and there is a reason that the most common genes made it this far... they work. For example being very tall increases chances for cancer (more cells means more opportunities) and the same factors that make someone tall also make them more susceptible to injury and increases chances to have disorders such as enlarged heart. With every perceived advantage these desirable traits have there is usually a flaw.

Don't underestimate environmental factors as both flexibility and voice can be trained to a large extent. Talent exists but I feel that talent is extremely overstated... Skills must be trained, you can't genetically engineer them.
5049 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/1/15 , edited 1/1/15
Genetics, although can predetermine ease of things in life dose not equate to being good at something. Ones strive for life,passions and gained experience make people who they are as individuals and our society benefits from diverse opinions and classes, it creates the economic world we live in today.

Having people genetically engineered would be really cool, I'm +1 for this, if I had the opportunity to give my children a vastly reduced chance of getting predisposition related illnesses later life issues why not?

Posted 1/1/15

kimjesmark wrote:

genetic engineering a child to make them better? i LEAN toward no on that. regardless of how much engineering you do, it still comes down to how the child is raised. Sorry, but thinking of engineering a child makes me think of the experiments performed by the Nazis. (not saying that genetic engineering is evil)


I knew Poe's law would be invoked by this, but I didn't think it happen on the first page.
8028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21
Offline
Posted 1/1/15
Watch the movie Gattaca, a rift in society is a very possible consequence of genetic engineering and favorable traits.
Posted 1/1/15

GreatLordBalzak wrote:


Don't underestimate environmental factors as both flexibility and voice can be trained to a large extent. Talent exists but I feel that talent is extremely overstated... Skills must be trained, you can't genetically engineer them.


I see, but a major trait I would see being taken would be intelligence, which is somewhat environmental, but only somewhat.
14468 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Houma
Offline
Posted 1/1/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


GreatLordBalzak wrote:


Don't underestimate environmental factors as both flexibility and voice can be trained to a large extent. Talent exists but I feel that talent is extremely overstated... Skills must be trained, you can't genetically engineer them.


I see, but a major trait I would see being taken would be intelligence, which is somewhat environmental, but only somewhat.


That is indeed one that really isn't trainable, the innate ability to attain and apply knowledge effectively. There are studies tying intelligence to the age of the father at conception, the younger the better.
5049 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/1/15
The movie Gattaca, proved that peoples reliance on being superior specimens become moot and provide the false sense of superiority in the face of a person determination.
55093 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 1/1/15
GLBalzak is right that genetics can only take you so far, all that genetic modification can do, other then the possible eradication of genetic defects and diseases, is give someone a leg up. I personally do not see an issue with choosing certain types of traits (red hair, blue eyes, freckles, are some of the examples I would give), but I would caution people that it is definitely not a magic pill at the current state of technology. Every trait has some other thing that it also effects. One of my friends likes to joke that the trait that gave me psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis will also make me immune to alien syphilis (weird sense of humor). The reason I don't worry about the 'Haves' and 'Have nots' is because of the limits of genetic engineering, as long as it's not additive (i.e. traits from something else entirely like blood hound genes to try to give a superior sense of smell), then it is highly limited in what you can do with it. Additive genetic modification is a whole other issue and would have all sorts of other issues as well that we would have to control for.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.