First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Why Do People Think Genetic Engineering A Better Child is Wrong?
20902 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Online
Posted 1/2/15
If does not hurt it does not work, the goal in life are the challenge and the reward itself.
Its pay to win basically
bhl88 
75211 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/2/15
Playing God.
A bunch of media showing the bad effects of genetic modification.

6506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 1/2/15 , edited 1/2/15

RedExodus wrote:

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.


Miyazaki is old and has lots of good things to say. I generally like and side with his opinions.

But it's like fashion, bright ideas are taken on by the shallow who don't look beyond themselves. His character Nausicaa was half based on Japanese folklore, the Princess who loved insects. She was said to be strange because she had dark eyebrows and white teeth in a time where a princess should have shaved her eyebrows and dyed her teeth black. She found more enjoyment playing on hillsides with bugs than she did keeping up with the trends.

The manga really does a good job of describing the benefits of genetic engineering from an animal husbandry perspective. Dogs were made from wolves in a time where it was acceptable to brutally abort aggressive wolf projects. I am not anti-GMO when it comes to plants, it's a very easy process that humans have been doing since agriculture was invented. GMO with animals gets more complicated and creates more debate.

I think it can be done properly, but the danger lies in our nature. Humans are really good at recognizing patterns, which is why fashion is a thing in the first place. Whether it would be better if wild grass took over or not is honestly debatable, but I think the idea is more of a plea to get back to our roots and our nature, not an honest plan to solve humanity's shortcomings.
Posted 1/3/15
I don't have any moral or ethical objections to this.

But I would be curious how you can make someone more intelligent, genetically. Considering I don't think anyone's discovered which gene is responsible for increased/decreased intelligence etc.

If people in the future can do it, then do it. Let's turn everyone into Einstein, let's create the ultimate race of humans... *insert evil laugh here*
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 1/3/15

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.


See the movie Gattaca and you would understand
Posted 1/3/15

veritatis_cupitor wrote:

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.


Lol, doesn't that help my case? I was only tackling motive. I could also find out that it still goes on undetected.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Government-sets-new-rule-for-sex-test/articleshow/45737879.cms
How expensive has it been for the Gov if this article is just out 2015 3rd Jan?

i haven't watched Gundam Seed. Genetic engineering has been important for many years. Most mutations are random. If perhaps you "get rid of diseases and defects" you can perhaps find others occurring later on.
11280 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/3/15 , edited 1/3/15

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.
It would make a new type of overclass. A new superhuman perfect race originating from rich parents. I don't see that as a positive thing, because it would be terrible for equality and create racism on an entirely new level.

It would also open up for superhuman genetic soldiers. It's cool to watch in TERRAFORMARS, but most people don't really want that to exist IRL.

If using genetic engineering to prevent birth defects and such would be something mandatory around the world, not something you have to pay a shitload of money to get, then I would see it as a positive thing though. But it also have a risk of something going wrong with new genetic modifications that could leave an entire generation worldwide with infertility and stuff like that, so I'm still not convinced.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/15 , edited 1/3/15
There's a whole host of reasons.

Rather than ridiculously long wall o text, here's my arguments in outline format
  • 1. Genes don't dictate success.
    • a.Nature vs. nurture,
    • b.Chance or luck
    • c.Opportunities available is a greater measure of success than genetics

    2.Genes change over time
    • a. The new study of epigenetics

  • 3.Social engineering at its finest
    • a.Gene therapy would be costly, therefore only the wealthy would be able to afford it.
    • b.Caste systems could be reinforced.
    • c. What is really "better"?
      • i.Engineering people for specific tasks, a la Brave New World
      • ii. Genetically engineering the sexes to be more "desirable", creating even worse problems for equal rights

  • 4. Loss of genetic information
    • a. genetic engineering for a singular trait means the loss of others - monoculture
      • i. reference plants and current monocultures in agriculture industry
    • b. beneficial mutations may be missed/lost

  • 5. Genetics often work together to code many things
    • a. What codes for one thing affects the code for other things
    • b. sex genes and related inheritable traits (colorblindness, etc) more inheritable due to only 1 X chromosome
    • c. trade offs. - ideal in one area may cause another to suffer
Posted 1/3/15
Well I took a Genetics class this past semester and this came up. It's mostly because people view it as unethical and their is so much we don't know about cloning humans. Sure we've cloned other animals and plants, but that's different. One argument that people make is that genetically modified organisms have a compromised immune system and age prematurely.

An example of this can be seen in Dolly the sheep. At age 3 scientists looked at the length of her telomeres at the end of her chromosomes and they were consistent with that of a sheep that is 9-10 years old. So the evidence here suggests premature aging. Scientist also found out that up to 5% of genes were not expressed normally, so that raises questions. Finally, about the compromised immune system. According to my professor Dolly had to stay "indoors" at all times due to the risk of contracting disease. However, Dolly still developed a lung disease which was rare for a sheep her age.

So I think people are using Dolly as their basis on whether or not cloning should be permitted.

If you're wondering where I got all this information, I just looked over the notes I took from class
867 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / ihlok
Offline
Posted 1/3/15 , edited 1/3/15

severticas wrote:


veritatis_cupitor wrote:

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.


Lol, doesn't that help my case? I was only tackling motive. I could also find out that it still goes on undetected.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Government-sets-new-rule-for-sex-test/articleshow/45737879.cms
How expensive has it been for the Gov if this article is just out 2015 3rd Jan?

i haven't watched Gundam Seed. Genetic engineering has been important for many years. Most mutations are random. If perhaps you "get rid of diseases and defects" you can perhaps find others occurring later on.


Government has set new rules for sonography and not for sex test. the article is just trying to make it sensational.

some people do manage to succeed in their nefarious activities. that doesn't make it norm. just because some use the technology in bad way is the reason government makes rules. we needn't stop going after the technology, we need to stop those people. i agree with your view that this technology can have very bad results. that's why the world has been quite cautious with sensitive technologies.

yes genetic engg has been important for many years but still it isn't being used for day-to-day treatment. when it does, ...well it'd be interesting, even in bad ways. it'd be quite messy and yet i still want to see that time. damn!
31952 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Iowa
Offline
Posted 1/3/15 , edited 1/3/15
Personally I don't. It might give your child an unfair advantage, but that's kind of the whole point in life. The better traits your child has, the more likely your child will pass it on, meaning higher chance of your family tree growing. Higher chance that the ones colonizing other planets like Mars, will have came from you.
26257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26
Offline
Posted 1/3/15
the ethical question won't lie with whether or not we should execute gene therapy. once we have a solid grasp on genetic engineering and all the horrifying accidents are over with, the real arguments will be about fairness.

the bigger problems will arise from the fact that the procedures required for genetically modifying a child will probably be profoundly expensive and only available to higher income brackets.
Sailor Candy Moderator
200576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28
Offline
Posted 5/28/16
op nuked. Locked.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.