First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Why Do People Think Genetic Engineering A Better Child is Wrong?
2459 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Minnesota, USA
Offline
Posted 1/2/15
I'm all for it as long as the "better" part is related to their health/body and not an attempt at engineering their personality. I know a lot of Christians or religious types tend to not like the idea due to it being what they call "playing God". I have no such issue even with being a Christian. God gave us brains to use to make earthly life better so why not use them?
3333 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/2/15 , edited 1/2/15
It seems a bit sad to order a kid like you're at subway, imagine someone you really like never having existed because of these genetic alterations, I mean flaws are also a part of who you are.
867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / ihlok
Offline
Posted 1/2/15

severticas wrote:

Oh did you know that in India, they'd choose not to have girls?

That is just one example of many.

http://www.economist.com/node/15606229

Title: The war on baby girls: Gendercide

I think you can use your brain to figure out what the effects are etc...



you failed to highlight the fact that it's illegal and punishable by law. the link even fails to mention it. that's great journalism!!!

i think genetic engineering will be very important in future to get rid of diseases and defects when this field develops more but there will be lot of controversies around it. gundam seed nailed quite a lot of them.
people think its wrong because it can be unethical. take for example 'producing' GE persons for special reasons like say as sportsperson, soldiers, etc. i'd prefer it be used for medical reasons mainly. that would be relatively less controversial.
23684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Fort Bragg, NC
Offline
Posted 1/2/15 , edited 1/2/15
You talking about designer babies?

Wrote a very extensive paper on them during philosophy

There are a few reasons that some people oppose it
1. Some claim that only the 1% (rich people) in the world will be able to use it, making a really small super-population that is far superior than everyone else (even though I think we're already at that stage with medicine, equipment, etc)
2. Apparently people think it's not fair to give your kids awesome brains at school and a bigger body to shit on people during sports when other kids don't have it
3. They only agree that genetic enginering should be done on things like defects; parents should have the right to strengthen their children's immune systems, fix disorders, etc.

Dunno, I feel as if it will pop up more in the future as they study it more; but for now it's an insanely difficult issue to argue for
2408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Vancouver Canada
Offline
Posted 1/2/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

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.


Think for a second, if everyone could do it, everyone is the same. There's no unique identities because everyone is good at everything because they don't want their child to fail at anything. So it isn't technically wrong just morally wrong.
Posted 1/2/15

Eucku wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

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.


Think for a second, if everyone could do it, everyone is the same. There's no unique identities because everyone is good at everything because they don't want their child to fail at anything. So it isn't technically wrong just morally wrong.


We'd all fail at something, I mean, who'd want to be good at nothing?
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / New Hampshire
Offline
Posted 1/2/15
Well in terms of the OP's first sentence, it blurs the line between talent and hard work. Plus, it's a new thing that not a lot of us understand, and humans always fear and hate what they don't understand. Fact.
42905 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/2/15 , edited 1/2/15

Gyava wrote:

You talking about designer babies?

Wrote a very extensive paper on them during philosophy

There are a few reasons that some people oppose it
1. Some claim that only the 1% (rich people) in the world will be able to use it, making a really small super-population that is far superior than everyone else (even though I think we're already at that stage with medicine, equipment, etc)
2. Apparently people think it's not fair to give your kids awesome brains at school and a bigger body to shit on people during sports when other kids don't have it
3. They only agree that genetic enginering should be done on things like defects; parents should have the right to strengthen their children's immune systems, fix disorders, etc.

Dunno, I feel as if it will pop up more in the future as they study it more; but for now it's an insanely difficult issue to argue for


Personally, I'm all for it. Even more so if it could be done to an adult that could choose it rather than in vitro. If we ever want to survive anywhere but this planet (or even on this one in the more extreme visions of the future) we can't be limited by natural selection.

That said, I can vouch for your point #2. I wanted to play football as a kid but because I was so much bigger than the other kids someone was worried I'd hurt them so they put me on the middle school team. They were all older and more experienced than me and really didn't want a kid from elementary school on the team so they made a point to hurt me until I couldn't play or I quit. I got shit on because of a natural advantage, I can only imagine backlash had I been designed that way.
35033 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 1/2/15 , edited 1/2/15

Bulshock wrote:

That's the thing, BlueOni, it would have to come down in cost, either through already having it as part of a publicly funded healthcare program or making it inexpensive enough for it to be worth it to the corporations. You can't easily maintain a business if the only people you are catering to are the vastly wealthy. What if there are only three people in that group that wants to have GMC's that year? (GMC = Genetically Modified Child) Sure, you can charge them a lot individually, but that leaves 75% (at least) of the time with nothing but expenses. It is the reason the cost of items and medicine starts to go down (in the US it goes up for various other reasons, not the least because of a lack of a good healthcare system that causes people to miss payments, forfeit payments, etc. but that is another issue as well). Also for the same reasons you are talking about it would be quite a while before it would be accepted for humans, probably at least another 20-50 years barring breakthroughs and dependent on various other factors. The big problem with moving the money though, is that you then have a group of scientists out of a job as you took funding away from scientific research grants.


Well, the money I was specifically referring to was money spent on implementation and (if it's part of a compulsory public health scheme) enforcement. I didn't mean that money should be diverted away from research. The money spent on implementation and enforcement may one day prove worthwhile, but until then it's better spent in places which are already known to improve public health or on research. As for cost control measures, I tend to favor the publicly funded healthcare program option over simply trying to make it cheaper through private markets. That's just my own personal tendency, there are arguments in favor of either.
Posted 1/2/15
As long as it isn't the Les infantes terribles project, sure, why not? Just don't be aborting the other fetuses to encourage strong fetal growth.
Sogno- 
45682 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/2/15 , edited 1/2/15
I don't think it's right for parents to chose for a child to be a singer or mathematician or whatever by any means. What that child wants to do should be up to the child. And just because one is good at something doesn't mean he or she will want to do it. i.e., I'm good at writing, but I don't want to do it. Why would I "thank" someone for forcing something on me I don't even want, especially before I even had a say?


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.


The movie GATTACA did a great job of showing everything you just said. It also


asteriskmonkey wrote:

...proved that peoples reliance on being superior specimens become moot and provide the false sense of superiority in the face of a person determination.


Seriously, go watch this film. It's really good. And Ethan Hawke is hot (ok ok... Uma Thurman is very pretty too).

1042 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/2/15
someone needs to genetic engineer up some unicorn and make a fortune off the parents of wannabe princesses, and bronys
1408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / The Cosmos
Offline
Posted 1/2/15
It's like Pay to Win. No one likes Pay to Win
6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 1/2/15 , edited 1/2/15

Sogno- wrote:

I don't think it's right for parents to chose for a child to be a singer or mathematician or whatever by any means. What that child wants to do should be up to the child. And just because one is good at something doesn't mean he or she will want to do it. i.e., I'm good at writing, but I don't want to do it. Why would I "thank" someone for forcing something on me I don't even want, especially before I even had a say?


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.


The movie GATTACA did a great job of showing everything you just said. It also


asteriskmonkey wrote:

...proved that peoples reliance on being superior specimens become moot and provide the false sense of superiority in the face of a person determination.


Seriously, go watch this film. It's really good. And Ethan Hawke is hot (ok ok... Uma Thurman is very pretty too).



While I agree it's totally unfair, I don't think that makes it bad practice.

Let the "haves" screw up, they are better equipped to deal with the mistakes that might be made. GATTACA is fiction, and it raises good points. But that's like saying Americans shouldn't vaccinate their children because poorer countries have people regardless of their susceptibility to horrible debilitating diseases.

I like the idea of genetically engineering for nothing more than memory and reasoning, with a dash of improvement into the right supramarginal gyrus (this is where empathy comes from). Then let our great great grandchildren decide what to do next.
11702 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 1/2/15
What is better? Sometimes, my human responsibilities makes me feel as though it would have been better to be a simple beloved cat. Miyazaki also says that modern life is so thin and shallow and fake, it would be better if Japan's developers go bankrupt and wild grasses take over. Technology in general only gives you a key, it doesn't tell you what door to use it on.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.