-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
IVF baby born using revolutionary genetic-screening process
- Thread starter Ripclawe
- Start date
- Status
We'd never make any progress if we're too cowardly to try new things.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
And you know why? Because politicians thought they knew better than scientists.
CornBurrito
Member
You're absolutely right that things developed in the scientific field have been used for bad. But they have also been used for good. So the only option to play it safe is obviously to never make any scientific progress after tomorrow at say... 11:59am?
Monocle
Member
Does this mean I can finally have the gay, blue-eyed, dark-skinned super baby I've always wanted?
Hammers have been used to bash people's skulls in, therefore nobody should use hammers?
It means the person will have a flat belly no matter how much Haagen-Dazs they eat.
You know what? Scientists are still flawed humans just like the rest of us. They may claim objectivity but objectivity at it's core is unattainable due to human nature. Scientists are not bound to altruism by default and I have no good reason to believe that there aren't scientists out there who just want to see how far they can push the boundaries.
CornBurrito
Member
You do not understand Monocle. Ugly people may be discriminated against in the future because of this technology, unlike now where ugly people are discriminated against.
Hmm wait...
Oh but apparently the discrimination will intensify because that is what happens in all my sci-fi and fantasy novels. And nobody is better at predicting how cultural norms and societal expectations will change due to technology than a sci-fi writer.
ClassyPenguin
Banned
Most scientists believe in open inquiry and not keeping secrets. Completely the opposite of most politicians.
To quote Robert Oppenheimer: "There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress."
The scientists who believes they have all the answers or refuses to respond to criticism is no true scientist.
Mind you, that this is a modern idea, but that's the nature of ethics; very dependent on society.
Good point. George Orwell was WAY off! Amirite?
CornBurrito
Member
So George Orwell was right, therefore all Sci-Fi writers are correct, or therefore your slippery slope fantasy is correct?
The Bible made many predictions and was bound to get one or two things correct. Likewise, Orwell is one among many many many speculative fiction writers. Not shockingly, one of those writers is bound to get something correct.
Therefore this
is neither here nor there.
Again, Science Fiction writers are humans, just like politicians and scientists. And another aspect of human nature is the ability to infer what may or may not happen as a result of a, b, or c. People aren't concerned because they saw Gattaca, rather Gattaca brought to the forefront what people already wondered about and articulated their thoughts for them.
If the implications of what could happen don't concern you, that worries me, and I hope the people driving this have better foresight.
Most Christians believe that you should love your neighbor as yourself. Beliefs and our ability to act on them are, unfortunately, two very different things.
CornBurrito
Member
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Control leads to disappointment.
Curing diseases is one thing, choosing physical traits is another. There are definitions of diseases and handicaps, so we don't have to allow genetic modifications that go beyond that.
Also, by making our children customizable, we inherently enter in a new zone of materialistic disappointment.
"My child will be 6' tall!"
A few years later:
"Sorry mam, you chose poorly! 6' is the new 5'8!"
"Nooooooooooo"
Little Timmy is the shortest of his class. His parents failed. He knows. The difference with today is that in his case it was his parent's choice, while today no parent chooses the height of their child and as such no loving parent would think less of them as a result of their height. By making the choice possible, you give it value.
And in a world where everyone is beautiful, no one is. It's like how if everyone was rich, no one would be rich. Being able to create non-subjective physical beauty through genetic modifications, for your child no less, will tilt the balance from a child being simple in its beauty and singular in his identity, to a piece of work inherently owned by his parents, designed by his parents, branded, something he will never be able to undo, and existing as a representation of a subjective ideal to be judged in relation to another, neither of which actually relate to him as a person.
By making the physical traits of your child a matter of choice, you inherently take the view that there is good and bad in appearances, that beauty is no longer subjective, because if it was subjective then you would not impose your view on the genetic makeup of your child. It automatically causes a division in our perception of humanity, and it leads to a cycle of never ending disappointment and competition, not unlike that of fashion where everything eventually becomes out as other things are considered in.
Curing diseases is one thing, choosing physical traits is another. There are definitions of diseases and handicaps, so we don't have to allow genetic modifications that go beyond that.
Also, by making our children customizable, we inherently enter in a new zone of materialistic disappointment.
"My child will be 6' tall!"
A few years later:
"Sorry mam, you chose poorly! 6' is the new 5'8!"
"Nooooooooooo"
Little Timmy is the shortest of his class. His parents failed. He knows. The difference with today is that in his case it was his parent's choice, while today no parent chooses the height of their child and as such no loving parent would think less of them as a result of their height. By making the choice possible, you give it value.
And in a world where everyone is beautiful, no one is. It's like how if everyone was rich, no one would be rich. Being able to create non-subjective physical beauty through genetic modifications, for your child no less, will tilt the balance from a child being simple in its beauty and singular in his identity, to a piece of work inherently owned by his parents, designed by his parents, branded, something he will never be able to undo, and existing as a representation of a subjective ideal to be judged in relation to another, neither of which actually relate to him as a person.
By making the physical traits of your child a matter of choice, you inherently take the view that there is good and bad in appearances, that beauty is no longer subjective, because if it was subjective then you would not impose your view on the genetic makeup of your child. It automatically causes a division in our perception of humanity, and it leads to a cycle of never ending disappointment and competition, not unlike that of fashion where everything eventually becomes out as other things are considered in.
Clearly you only believe this because of Gattaca.
The conversation was inevitably going to venture down the ethics road. This technology is merely a first step to the inevitable screening of embryos for arbitrary traits.
YourMaster
Member
Really? I think it is just the opposite. If you offer the choice in physical appearance it is more a matter of taste and less a matter of good and bad.
Currently if you are short, this is something that could be seen as unfortunate, as bad luck, as - something bad - . If however you were chosen to be short, it is just something the parents preferred over being tall.
Look at clothes, that is a matter of choice and there people don't consider some clothes 'good' and others 'bad'. At most they speak of bad taste. This differed in the past where some clothes were only accessible to some people, who could wear the right clothes, and the clothes of the poor people who were bad for it.
This is like today, were poor people who are fat or ugly are looked down upon because of their appearance. Health and cosmetic surgery is now something much more accessible for the upper class.
edit: to clarify, personally I think it is wrong to judge people on appearances, but nobody can deny it does happen.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
Really?
John Kowalski
Banned
Really really.
SteveWinwood
Member
really
I think the "everyone would choose blond hair and blue eyes" problem could be solved if (I don't know if it works this way) you could only choose between the genes the parents carry, which would normally be the ones that go to the children. Normally they are selected at random, but with this method you could select the ones you want.
Obviously, people would choose the best traits of the parents (or any past relative whose genes are still in the family genepool), but that would make it impossible for someone who comes from a dark-haired family to make his children be blond or blue-eyed if those genes were not already present.
It could be a solution, I don't know.
Still, I would not support the whole thing. One thing is to prevent diseases and malformation and quite another to create you children as if they were Sims characters. Besides, only the super-rich would be able to do it.
Obviously, people would choose the best traits of the parents (or any past relative whose genes are still in the family genepool), but that would make it impossible for someone who comes from a dark-haired family to make his children be blond or blue-eyed if those genes were not already present.
It could be a solution, I don't know.
Still, I would not support the whole thing. One thing is to prevent diseases and malformation and quite another to create you children as if they were Sims characters. Besides, only the super-rich would be able to do it.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
i mean, are people just bored sometimes and going through old threads to find something they think is worth doing a hot take on?
YourMaster
Member
whoops, replied to wrong tread.
No, there was another relevant topic and I somehow ended up here, replying to what I though was the recent tread.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
And why does everyone here think blonde hair and blue eyes are perfection? WTF? I'd like neither.
- Status