Well, good thing work in the scientific field that was intended for good use but then used in a not so savory manner has never happened before.
Well, good thing work in the scientific field that was intended for good use but then used in a not so savory manner has never happened before.
Well, good thing work in the scientific field that was intended for good use but then used in a not so savory manner has never happened before.
Hammers have been used to bash people's skulls in, therefore nobody should use hammers?Well, good thing work in the scientific field that was intended for good use but then used in a not so savory manner has never happened before.
It means the person will have a flat belly no matter how much Haagen-Dazs they eat.Wait. What the fuck does "genetically perfect" mean?
And you know why? Because politicians thought they knew better than scientists.
Hammers have been used to bash people's skulls in, therefore nobody should use hammers?
Most scientists believe in open inquiry and not keeping secrets. Completely the opposite of most politicians.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.
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.
Good point. George Orwell was WAY off! Amirite?
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.
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.
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.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.
Watching Gattaca right now as I type this, the implications here are frightening. Genetically engineered kids.
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.
The actual content of the OP mostly about decreasing miscarriages, since they only counted the number of chromosomes and didn't test for specific genes... Thread went headlong into Gattaca ethics debates prematurely due to a possible future implication that wasn't in play here.
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.
Dat thread Necromancy. o.o
i mean, are people just bored sometimes and going through old threads to find something they think is worth doing a hot take on?
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.