It's not just having the right frame -- as we learn more about gene modification, genes affecting the rate of muscle growth and muscle recovery can be modified (somewhat relevant link). Intelligence also has a genetic basis. Everything about you, perhaps even down to your temperament, is in your DNA. An embryo's DNA could theoretically be modified to change them into an entirely different species altogether. Nobody's saying it's simple, but you seriously underestimate the potential in this kind of science, and the exponential nature of progression in technology. Even if it's long-term, 50 or 100 years, this is still something that will become very real, and perhaps the discussion should be had now, while the technology is in its infancy.
Fuck, just wait until the Chinese get ahold of this technology. There will be billions upon billions of eternally pre-pubescent piano-playing doctor gymnasts. A fair point. I really didn't concede the power of the technology expanding. Although I do agree that the effects of DNA on a person's overall personality and traits are going to turn out to be more powerful and strange than most people imagine. I think a lot of people's perceptions about using DNA to create designer kids is slightly misguided. A lot of people have the impression of altering kids in the same way a sculptor modifies a statue. That's not how DNA works. DNA becomes an embryo in the same way that cake ingredients become a cake. All of the individual pieces, when added together, do not sum up to the total of the parts. Development must occur in the right environment, particularly during embryological/fetal development. I don't mean environment as in getting lots of hugs and kisses from mom and dad; I mean, the right concentration gradient of Vitamin A, enough Folic Acid for the neural tube to develop, all that shit, the same way a cake needs a pan and temperature to be baked into the right shape. You're right that I'm in no position to say that we'll never make babies with 200 IQs and sixpack abs, but I think the idea that we can identify and modify only those two discrete parameters may well turn out to not be clean and simple. Modifying cell metabolism in one area to result in increased differentiation and proliferation might, to use an easy example, result in increased cancer rates. For example, the lining of the respiratory tract is normally composed of a single layer of cells, but in smokers becomes a squamous multi-cell layer because of the irration from smoke. The over-proliferation contributes to squamous cell carcinoma. Remember that humans only have about 20-25,000 genes (for those of you who haven't taken a biochemistry course, it's a far smaller number than anyone expected); complexity is achieved via modification of RNA and protein after transcription of DNA. I'll admit my knowledge of genetic engineering is weak, but it seems to me if you take a single-celled blastocyst, knock out genes or modify others to amplify their expression, the effects will be quite far-reaching beyond a desired series of traits. Alteration of homozygous recessive alleles for MS or sickle cell anemia is one thing, but complex inheritance patterns that simply modify the probabilities of other diseases or traits is quite another. Then again, with a little bit of research, a few tricks could very well be invented to get around it. That said, genetic engineering in lab animals has already gotten pretty impressive. They've made mice with specific neurotransmitter receptors knocked out to look at their effects on anxiety and depression, and all other sorts of cool shit. The effects on people would be pretty damn interesting, but it's a far cry from making people genetically resistant to depression and anxiety via genetic knockout; or at least, doing so without the potential for some serious backfiring. The Chinese, with their callous disregard for human life, are probably in a better position to figure this shit out than us. I hope all of you bleeding hearts will be happy when their genetically modified super-army attacks.
As a parent, I feel I should speak on this. If there is a way to eliminate the chance for a disease or condition in my unborn child, I say do it. As far as the picking genders: I say allow it. My brother-in-law on my ex-wife's side has 5 girls. They were trying for a boy the whole time. The guy has bills out the wazzoo, and his daily home life must be stressful as hell being surrounded by 6 women. If they had that capability back then, he would probably only have two or three kids. And as far as what I would imbue my child with: Realistically, I would give him better maxilofacial structure than I have; I was blessed with large teeth, but small jaws. The only way that I could have a decent smile was to REMOVE 8 TEETH (4 molars, 4 bicuspids). Yeah, pull 'em out, cut 'em out, whatever. After the teeth were out, then I had braces for the next two years (when I was 13). It was awful, and I think I would really rather go to jail again than have to wear braces again. So yeah, my son looks just like me, and he has my big teeth. I hope he doesn't need braces. As far as comic book style traits go, I would give him super eye sight. He could see in the dark like a cat, and be able to focus on far away points like a hawk. And be able to see colors that we regular humans can't.
My boy would have a big dick, a high-functioning brain that produced clear thoughts, be well-spoken, creative, immune to depression and born to surf. In short, he'd be everything I am not. Which is why I've decided not to breed. When mom asks I just say, "the buck stops here." And I mean that. Both literally and figuratively.
As will mine.. Fortunately, I don't need genetic engineering to produce such an offspring. Ahem. (right about here, I would be getting smacked upside the head by my very annoyed wife. Take from that what you will...)
Like many others here, I'm all for screening my sperm and the matching eggs for genetic disorders. I don't want my kid (or myself) to have to deal with growing up as a drooling retard, have no legs, be unable to eat meat, or be guaranteed to die of butt cancer by the age of 30. If I can't tell for sure whether or not a given thing is a "disorder", then it probably isn't and needs to be left alone. I don't have any moral objection to genetic screening, but I don't want to be living in a society where people genetically engineer their kids based on fashion fads. As for superpowers, I'd go with: 1) Regeneration. The ability to grow back lost limbs, brain cells, etc. 2) Enhanced senses and the ability to finely control that sensitivity. Being able to hear people talking shit about you from across the room is fine, but you want to be able to turn that off. 3) Laser eyes on command. Enough said.
My father works in this field, like specifically IVF and IVM. He was quite frank with me when he explained that the lab techs just inseminate a bunch of eggs and choose the healthiest one. It seems logical to me, if I'm spending (at a minimum, usually) 15,000$ for a kid, you bet your ass I'll want to kill the doctors who plugged in a MS/MD/Paulsy/Down's kid. It's a horrible life, for the child and the parent, no one wants that. Try this one: A friend of my fathers, unrelated to my father's field, recently became a new dad. His kid was born with Down's and his wife's pregnancy doctor had told them to not bother checking for Down's (during the pregnancy) because of the small likelihood of it occurring. So the kid is born, with Down's and there's nothing they could do about it. There are no birth abortions. The guy is 29 or something, he's devastated and has nowhere to turn. Devastated doesn't even begin to explain it. If it were me I'd sue the doctor and get him to raise the kid. Edit: Oh, the ability to heal like Wolverine. Definitely.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691121354/streamjackieg-20 In my mind this stuff is just the next leap in evolution. We already do it with crops and animals, the next logical step is ourselves. What's interesting to me is all of the long term effects this could have. - Will countries where this is available slow in population growth as people chose to pay X amount of dollars for a "super baby" in lieu of a normal child? - Since we are artificially choosing which genes to express will we stop evolving as a species? - Will our society devolve more into an oligarchy as a superior group of "ubermensch" start to excel past normal human capacity? I'm not sure morally how I feel about all of this yet. On the one hand when I reproduce with whatever unlucky lady I want to look at my child as a mix of me and this other person. And on the other I don't want to have to explain to my son that little Billy down the street is stronger, faster, and smarter than him because his parents were richer. As it stands I'm of the conviction that the gene pool needs a little chlorine. If in ten years I see advertisements for the "Brad Pitt package deal" at a fertility clinic I'll be packing my shit up and moving to some isolated beach in Indonesia to live out my days.
The next step in human evolution? I remember in high school one of the psychology teachers was a big nut for evolutionary psychology and atheism. He used the defense that no merciful God would ever allow an anencephalitic human be born. Seeing how we're quickly becoming our own God we should try to knock out the suite of genes in every embryo as a service to public mental health. Getting an unplanned pregnancy terminated early is one thing, trying to conceive and then finding out your baby is essentially not human is another thing entirely.
100% against Eugenics. It is a slippery slope indeed. All one has to do to see this, is look at this topic from a historical perspective, and some of the main backers of eugenics (which is selective breeding to improve the human species).
Since when is a high IQ any guarantee of success in life? I bet you there are more bums out there with a college education than there are millionaires that dropped out of high school. ( that's if you judge success in terms on monetary wealth) Mind you , as many of you would already know the Spartans of ancient Greece were practicing a form of selecting for the healthiest and strongest children ... " Shortly after birth, the mother of the child bathed it in wine to see whether the child was strong. If the child survived it was brought before the Gerousia by the child's father. The Gerousia then decided whether it was to be reared or not. If they considered it "puny and deformed", the baby was thrown into a chasm on Mount Taygetos known euphemistically as the Apothetae " More recently those caring , sharing Nazis also had ideas about creating a race of superior men and women. If the sex of a baby could be pre-determined and selected for in countries like China and India where males are currently preferred , wouldn't there be a point in the sex ratio where female babies would become more "valuable" than males ? Gattaca is an awesome movie.
Fuck the slippery slope argument when it comes to genetics (or Eugenics). Ever heard the phrase, "God would have given us wings if He'd wanted us to fly"? Were you all calling the Wright Bros devil worshippers and/or souless Hedonists then? As human beings we are constantly replicating ourselves and our memory in hitherto unnatural ways. Reason is a strange new beast. The manipulation of biology is its future. Not death as we know it. Reason is not given to the geographical whim of seasons and freak comet strikes. Its biggest foe isn't vanity but more likely a better-replicating virus. Primarily I believe Reason serves to protect and further its internal message, the recording of our DNA. This will enable it to mold itself in a new way that will allow it to survive space travel as time on this rock is running out. Whether or not this or that army or the baby next door has pretty blue eyes and shiny teeth does not matter. Ultimately the goal is to move forward.
Brillant idea for discussion. Having trouble figuring out where to start weighing in. There's no reason *not* to remove abnormalities if at all possible. I've heard a lot of shit about it being selfish for parents to want to abort a child who will potentially have a disability, but the fact of the matter is that it isn't just the parents who suffer. What about the fuckin' kid? He doesn't get to have a normal life, gets to be the ass end of every joke, and in many cases might not even make it to age 10. Fuck that. My parents would've buried me at birth if they knew that was how it was going to be, and I would've thanked them by not haunting them as a retarded ghost.* Often not mentioned is the cost of treating and raising such a child, not only in monetary terms, but also in lowering the quality of life for the parents and those around them. These kids are in many ways negatively affecting all sorts of people around them. Now, I'm not saying they don't deserve to live, as they've done nothing wrong. If they're born, they're born, so give them a good shot. That being said. if it can be prevented, either by removing the problem or aborting the problem, then by all means go ahead. Green light that shit. It's for the greater good. I think the better question is will this kind of thing even really matter? It was mentioned in the article that limiting the extensions of science is not something to want to do, and I think most people can agree, so it's pretty damn likely that such a thing is not all that far off. That being said, will people actually go for it? If they do, will it really be any worse that what's going on right now? I mean, raising a child is supposed to be something meaningful, and while a lot of people have the right idea in not pushing their children in any specific direction and letting them develop naturally into what they want to be, a lot of people already live vicariously through them and push them to be whatever they are not. If we can suddenly eliminate the middleman and just push a button to make them proficient in something, will things change? Will it even register? I don't think it'll make that big a splash, save for the ongoing religious debate over playing God. That's a different story for a different time though. * I am going to return from the dead as a ghost and haunt every motherfucker who has ever done me wrong. I'm quite serious. FOCUS: I'm game for anything that gives my kid a fair shot at a long life. Anything that happens after birth until death is up to chance, luck, and fate. My girlfriend and I have discussed it many times. If we had the oppurtunity to abort a retarded or otherwise fucked up kid, we would. We're not going to fuck up our lives, the life of the kid, and the lives of those around us. My limit is reached at specific traits. How a person develops is influenced by their traits and how they handle the situations that arise from those specific traits. I'd like my kids to know that they grew up on their own. I'd want them to trust themselves. ALT-FOCUS: I'd turn the fucker into Colossus. Forget having to walk him to school in the morning. Ain't nothing going to happen to a kid who can turn into solid steel. He'd be running cars over.
I think we are on the right track as far as knowledge and general intelligence goes. Having grown up with an autistic brother, I'd have to vote for the whole genetic manipulation idea. The limitations that are placed on a family are huge when you have a disabled kid. (Not to mention the number of fights I'd have to pick because of some insensitive asshole kid.) I hate the idea of euthanasia or abortion yet, to devote the rest of my life to a person whose afflictions could have been avoided... The idea that we can somehow eliminate deformities and mental disabilities in our lifetime is incredible. If the old lady gets herself pregnant I'll just pray a healthy baby and forget about superpowers altogether.
Nothing bad ever came from such a concept in the past. I can't think of any times when one group thinking it was inherently superior to another had negative consequences. I agree that yes, if this technology becomes widespread and is abused, people could use it as a basis for persecution. However, this isn't something that we can just pretend doesn't exist. It's a natural progression of our technology, and needs to be embraced as such. When vaccines were first developed, some people decried them as interfering with the natural order, or being "an affront to God". Nowadays, almost nobody thinks twice about getting a vaccine, and refusing to provide some basic vaccinations to your children is considered tantamount to child abuse. Once the technology becomes affordable enough that it is available to everyone, it will cease to become a divisor, and mankind as a whole will benefit from it. Even if we decide right now that genetically modifying children is immoral, eventually some generation down the line will realize that the potential benefits outweigh the disadvantages, and laugh at our naivety. Of course, there is the potential for abuse of this technology, and some system will have to be put in place to curb dangerous behavior, such as the creation of super soldiers or other ubermenschen. However, the possibility to do good with it outweighs the possibility of evil. If I ever choose to have a child, I intend to do everything in my power to give that child the best life possible. If I can prevent him from being blind or crippled, or even having something simple like nearsightedness or asthma, I'll gladly pony up a couple grand if I can prevent my child from suffering. I probably wouldn't go so far as to choose his eye or hair color, because that's not important to me (as long as he's not ginger, that kid's getting the coat hanger). Alt-Focus If there's a way to do it, I want my son to be able to decode what girls actually mean when they say something. I definitely missed that gene.