Designer babies of the future

[Ms.Sivad]

The thing that concerns me is that I doubt whether humanity is smart enough to play god yet. Could there not be secondary, tertiary effects from these fundamental changes? You also have to consider you are changing the entire evolution of man / woman effectively here. Gene changes pass on, do we have people with scope enough to see and plan the big picture here?

My major concern as well, and why I'm not too enthusiastic yet... I certainly don't deny the medical benefits, but these are people's lives that will be affected (as the child develops/becomes an adult). I'm afraid people are just going to take the all too common stance though, that someone has to make sacrifices for the greater good--something I agree with as long as those sacrifies are made voluntarily (these future offspring that have modified genes aren't given a choice, so if there are are consequences then they'll have to bear them).


As for the non-medical, unnecessary, and purely superficial modifications... I'm sorry, but that's just kinda sick to shape your child into something you want/think they should be... even if the intentions are for the child's benefit (assuming that, in the parents' minds, it is actually beneficial), I still wouldn't agree with letting anyone have this option--they shouldn't get to mess with someone else's life to that extent. I mean really, would you like someone playing around with you like that? And don't assume you'll like what they choose to make you into...

[DJ Papyrus]

They really think they can outsmart God. But if they create the perfect baby then never gets sick from all the diseases that we normal folks get, I bet you that the kid will get some disease that nobody's ever heard about, and it'll spread to everyone else through genetics or whatever. Each time they think they can outsmart nature, nature will throw a curve ball at them and mess it all up again. People should just accept what sex their child is and what genetics run in the family, cause no matter how you want to fix it, you better be happy you have Diabetes and not some other really bad Genetic disease. Theres worse things out there. Personally, Id leave it up to God to decide what my children have, or dont have, and what they look like. Fate decides what your children will grow up to be, not you. You just influence them as they grow.

Just my two cents.

[Alex E]

My major concern as well, and why I'm not too enthusiastic yet... I certainly don't deny the medical benefits, but these are people's lives that will be affected (as the child develops/becomes an adult). I'm afraid people are just going to take the all too common stance though, that someone has to make sacrifices for the greater good--something I agree with as long as those sacrifies are made voluntarily (these future offspring that have modified genes aren't given a choice, so if there are are consequences then they'll have to bear them).


As for the non-medical, unnecessary, and purely superficial modifications... I'm sorry, but that's just kinda sick to shape your child into something you want/think they should be... even if the intentions are for the child's benefit (assuming that, in the parents' minds, it is actually beneficial), I still wouldn't agree with letting anyone have this option--they shouldn't get to mess with someone else's life to that extent. I mean really, would you like someone playing around with you like that? And don't assume you'll like what they choose to make you into...

"they shouldn't get to mess with someone else's life to that extent", really? You live in the US, did you see all the fat kids walking around (or at least trying so)? We already get to 'mess' with our children big time during the first say 18 years of their lives. I think the effects of this will be relatively small (if you indeed screen parents and apply other controlled measures such as that), compared to how you raise your child.
As for the possible side-effects... Well, yeah, that's what research is for...

@ DJ Papyrus: SRSLY. Uknown superdisease created by god to punish us all for meddling in his great plan? If there is a god, we'd be his antfarm, I can't imagine him/her/it really caring.

[2030]

Do scientists really understand the changes they are creating through gene manipulations in every respect?

The thing that concerns me is that I doubt whether humanity is smart enough to play god yet. Could there not be secondary, tertiary effects from these fundamental changes? You also have to consider you are changing the entire evolution of man / woman effectively here. Gene changes pass on, do we have people with scope enough to see and plan the big picture here?

I am all for the eradication of disease here but this is a dangerous game. Not only that but in many cultures there is a strong favour towards one sex. We would need legislation to soon come in otherwise we will have an imbalance in that respect among I predict others.

These procedures will ultimately become more advanced, it doesn't take a genius to see that there is both a demand here as well as a huge amount of money to be made. The incentive is there for medical industries to fund huge projects on this. I just want them to understand the issues with looking at the short term rather than the long.

The way I would implement this is to have future parents screened for genetic makeup. Doctors could forecast issues and then only use this technology to remove genuine life threatening medical conditions. I don't think people should be given the choice to change small factors such as hair colour etc.

Of course through legislation you also create a black market. New technologies open up new areas for abuse.

Humankind doesnt grasp the scope of most of the things it does. Nobody is planning the big picture anywhere, for anything. Its just politicians wanting to get re-elected 4 more years.

[Alex E]

Humankind doesnt grasp the scope of most of the things it does. Nobody is planning the big picture anywhere, for anything. Its just politicians wanting to get re-elected 4 more years.

And that.

[Darren]

Humankind doesnt grasp the scope of most of the things it does. Nobody is planning the big picture anywhere, for anything. Its just politicians wanting to get re-elected 4 more years.

Play with fire and you get burned.

[Alex E]

Play with fire and you get burned.

Come on Darren, let's not reduce the discussion to such generalizing words of wisdom

[Darren]

Come on Darren, let's not reduce the discussion to such generalizing words of wisdom

I'll clarify a little more for the sake of the discussion ...

Don't poke it if you don't know what it is

[Ms.Sivad]

"they shouldn't get to mess with someone else's life to that extent", really? You live in the US, did you see all the fat kids walking around (or at least trying so)? We already get to 'mess' with our children big time during the first say 18 years of their lives...

So you're saying, what's a little more screwing around with them, right? And the case of child-hood obesity seems quite irrelevant to this subject, since that's not a matter of the child being purposefully altered to an image of the parent's choosing--it's the result of poor care-taking choices. And those are choices that parents have to make for him/her, as part of rearing the child... if they didn't interfere in that respect, then children would be left to fend and choose entirely for themselves. And parents have the right to make those choices (granted that the child won't endure abuse, of course), but NO one has the right to fundamentally change someone just because they happen to think it's for that person's "benefit", when that's clearly a subjective thing (if we're talking about the superficial).


And going back to a comment you made about appearance, about how if things could be a certain way, then there'd be no more worries about looking good enough.... to me, that sounds foolish, cause when it comes to beauty, NOTHING is ever enough. Just take a woman for example, who is naturally beautiful... nice symmetrical features, clear skin, pretty doe eyes and full lips--and a healthy, lean body to boot. But if she's already beautiful, why does she need make-up? Or why does she feel like she needs to lose another 5 pounds to be more appealing? Beauty is subjective, and one little feature can be deemed a flaw by anyone. (for example, a small hump in the middle of a woman's nose is thought unattractive by many... just why???) How could you say that things would be so much better with a few changes, when it's no lie that beauty in most of our world's societies, is an obsession that can't be fully satisfied? So even if there were no ethical issues in the way, it still wouldn't solve anything.

[Alex E]

So you're saying, what's a little more screwing around with them, right? And the case of child-hood obesity seems quite irrelevant to this subject, since that's not a matter of the child being purposefully altered to an image of the parent's choosing--it's the result of poor care-taking choices. And those are choices that parents have to make for him/her, as part of rearing the child... if they didn't interfere in that respect, then children would be left to fend and choose entirely for themselves. And parents have the right to make those choices (granted that the child won't endure abuse, of course), but NO one has the right to fundamentally change someone just because they happen to think it's for that person's "benefit", when that's clearly a subjective thing (if we're talking about the superficial).

And going back to a comment you made about appearance, about how if things could be a certain way, then there'd be no more worries about looking good enough.... to me, that sounds foolish, cause when it comes to beauty, NOTHING is ever enough. Just take a woman for example, who is naturally beautiful... nice symmetrical features, clear skin, pretty doe eyes and full lips--and a healthy, lean body to boot. But if she's already beautiful, why does she need make-up? Or why does she feel like she needs to lose another 5 pounds to be more appealing? Beauty is subjective, and one little feature can be deemed a flaw by anyone. (for example, a small hump in the middle of a woman's nose is thought unattractive by many... just why???) How could you say that things would be so much better with a few changes, when it's no lie that beauty in most of our world's societies, is an obsession that can't be fully satisfied? So even if there were no ethical issues in the way, it still wouldn't solve anything.

No, I was saying:"I think the effects of this will be relatively small, compared to how you raise your child." I might be playing the devil's advocate here, but there's so much you decide in how you raise a child, one might wonder how problematic it is to make a few changes in appearance and maybe remove a cleptomaniac gene or something? You say: "but NO one has the right to fundamentally change someone just because they happen to think it's for that person's "benefit" ". But there's exactly the point: What is 'fundamentally'? What is really the main reason of your behaviour? Nature or nurture? I think we need to do a lot more research before we can actually make bold statements such as saying we change how someone fundamentally is by switching some genes on/off.

I'm not immediately saying this is the way to go, but compare it to our current way of life:
Some of us get all kinds of plastic surgery to look better, since we're simply living in a day and age where looks matter. Others don't because they feel like that's not who they are. And I respect that, and sort of would feel like that too, but what if you're already born that way anyway? Then the good looks is already a part of who you are, so it's not an issue!
Some of us are depressed, or have constant headaches, or are severely aggressive by nature. So we take a load of pills against this. But what if we can save people the trouble of taking these pills by solving the problem in the genes before the child even gets born? Just saves a lot of hassle. Granted, the pharmaceutical industry will hate you for it, but who cares.

Now I'm not in favour of meddling with the complete collection of a genes a child has, because that would probably cause complete generations of almost identical children. Like you said, beauty is subjective, and when I talk to friends about the looks of a girl I always get reminded of that. I can think of a girl as absolutely gorgeous, a friend of mine can think of her as so-so. But taking the best of what the mother and the father have to offer...* Hmm, doesn't sound that bad. You see, in the belly of the mother it's more or less a matter of chance which sperm cell ends up in the egg anyway. So in that way, you'd still have original children, but without the issues on the inside or outside that almost anyone finds annoying/problematic (and denying that there are certain features in your looks or behaviour that nobody finds appealing might be very idealistic, but also quite ignorant of reality).

It's all just a way of looking at things...

*for clarification, read post #2

[Darren]

But there's exactly the point: What is 'fundamentally'? What is really the main reason of your behaviour? Nature or nurture? I think we need to do a lot more research before we can actually make bold statements such as saying we change how someone fundamentally is by switching some genes on/off.

Fundamentally changing someone = Making irreparable changes

Behavioral patterns can be influenced, genes as I am sure you'll know are a hell of a lot harder.

I'm not immediately saying this is the way to go, but compare it to our current way of life:
Some of us get all kinds of plastic surgery to look better, since we're simply living in a day and age where looks matter. Others don't because they feel like that's not who they are. And I respect that, and sort of would feel like that too, but what if you're already born that way anyway? Then the good looks is already a part of who you are, so it's not an issue!

This is a choice made by the individual concerned in an informed manner, gene changes made by parents are not the decision of the recipient having to face those changes.

Some of us are depressed, or have constant headaches, or are severely aggressive by nature. So we take a load of pills against this. But what if we can save people the trouble of taking these pills by solving the problem in the genes before the child even gets born? Just saves a lot of hassle. Granted, the pharmaceutical industry will hate you for it, but who cares.

This is an area I see a possible benefit in (helping medical science), I do however urge caution & I must add again, if you can't foresee the possible consequences, don't take the actions.

Now I'm not in favour of meddling with the complete collection of a genes a child has, because that would probably cause complete generations of almost identical children. Like you said, beauty is subjective, and when I talk to friends about the looks of a girl I always get reminded of that. I can think of a girl as absolutely gorgeous, a friend of mine can think of her as so-so. But taking the best of what the mother and the father have to offer...* Hmm, doesn't sound that bad. You see, in the belly of the mother it's more or less a matter of chance which sperm cell ends up in the egg anyway. So in that way, you'd still have original children, but without the issues on the inside or outside that almost anyone finds annoying/problematic (and denying that there are certain features in your looks or behaviour that nobody finds appealing might be very idealistic, but also quite ignorant of reality).

It's all just a way of looking at things...

*for clarification, read post #2

What needs to be clarified is the difference between medical issues affecting health, and physical appearance changes for purely cosmetic preferences. I am favour in changing the former but not the latter.

I strongly believe that parents shouldn't be granted the power to make changes on matters of taste or preference.

[Alex E]

Fundamentally changing someone = Making irreparable changes

Behavioral patterns can be influenced, genes as I am sure you'll know are a hell of a lot harder.

I believe you're talking about altering every single bit of someone's basic behaviour (at least as far as that is set in your genes). This is not what I'm talking about. If people have 'the right to' alter a person's behaviour by changing genes or not is way too subjective for me. Instead, I'd like to look at the consequences.
One is that the child would know its(=his/her of course) parents chose to alter major parts of its personality, which could cause issues in how the child thinks about its own identity, which could very well be traumatic for the child. Another thing is that children will all end up more or less the same, while we are in need of diversity. Not only because it makes the world a more interesting place to live in, but also because we need it to manage the world.*

And once again, you don't know what "fundamentally" means, you don't know what parts of who someone is cause in what we people behave. If you did, you'd have solved the big nature-nurture discussion that has been going on in the scientific world for decades, but somehow I doubt that.

This is a choice made by the individual concerned in an informed manner, gene changes made by parents are not the decision of the recipient having to face those changes.

Yes I know that argument. But if you are born in a certain way, it's already part of how you look! It's not a change! And a change in looks does not have such a large impact as a change in character, not by far.
Besides, I've already said I'm not in favour of some sort of a production plant where 'perfect babies' come out, but you can read my other posts for that.

This is an area I see a possible benefit in (helping medical science), I do however urge caution & I must add again, if you can't foresee the possible consequences, don't take the actions.

I agree, and as I said before, that's what research is for...

What needs to be clarified is the difference between medical issues affecting health, and physical appearance changes for purely cosmetic preferences. I am favour in changing the former but not the latter.

I strongly believe that parents shouldn't be granted the power to make changes on matters of taste or preference.

But why exactly? If you can take away some issues that would embarasse a child for the rest of his life, why is this such a bad thing? (Keep in mind that there is a difference between what's truly embarassing and what's just a minor, subjective imperfection.)


*A theory by futurologist Ray Kurzweil. He says the knowledge we have as mankind currently doubles every 14 months. Our personal information-capacity does not grow nearly as much. Logically, we need to diversify to make good use of all this knowledge.

[2030]

Isnt it a little shallow when we talk about changing genes here, that the first thing some ppl worry about is how the kids will look? Arent you yourselves then overly obsessed with outer appearances?

Id assume that parents make genetic changes to improve their child, making their kids more beautiful. What harm is in that? Playing god... whenever youre making a child, youre playing god. With this technology you have knowledge of your genes and this knowledge gives a responsibility. You can either have some control over the creation of life, or let nature play Russian roulette

I must add again, if you can't foresee the possible consequences, don't take the actions.

I think, especially since this would be science, the consequences can be predicted far better than in other fields. You got to take risks sometimes...

[Alex E]

Isnt it a little shallow when we talk about changing genes here, that the first thing some ppl worry about is how the kids will look? Arent you yourselves then overly obsessed with outer appearances?

Hmm, matter of zeitgeist I guess. I'm not sure it's a bad thing

Id assume that parents make genetic changes to improve their child, making their kids more beautiful. What harm is in that? Playing god... whenever youre making a child, youre playing god. With this technology you have knowledge of your genes and this knowledge gives a responsibility. You can either have some control over the creation of life, or let nature play Russian roulette



I think, especially since this would be science, the consequences can be predicted far better than in other fields. You got to take risks sometimes...

Thankkkk yoouuu...

[GummyFox]

Good Idea! Bad Idea!

Oh My.

I don't honestly think I want to say anything, this is one of those topics that makes me want to sit on a nice comfy sofa and think about all the pros and cons.

I see awesome pros.
I see terrible cons.

We need not discuss and argue at the matter of what is right and whats wrong, but what our future race as a whole will develop in to.

~~~~~~

I think by "Choosing" our genetics (Gene Splicing) that we sort of make ourselves "unnatural" , We lose our "Natural" characteristics and replace them with "Perfect" characteristics. Choosing these factors could create a paradox for our human race.

... If it were up to me, I would leave it alone.

Sounds awesome... but, I dont dont like the unbalance of bad it brings...I dont think its worth it.