What's new
By:

If you could alter genetic makeup of your baby would you do it?

Can we drop race arguments and get back to original idea? I know it sounds like science fiction now but I bet in the future altering genetic makeup of humans will be possible and inevitably questions of morality and unborn rights will surface. Heck, if people can circumcise baby boys without asking their opinion and there is a lot of talks about violating their rights, then I expect even more uproar about genetic reconstruction.
 
MVP said:
Can we drop race arguments and get back to original idea? I know it sounds like science fiction now but I bet in the future altering genetic makeup of humans will be possible and inevitably questions of morality and unborn rights will surface. Heck, if people can circumcise baby boys without asking their opinion and there is a lot of talks about violating their rights, then I expect even more uproar about genetic reconstruction.
Click to expand...

It doesn't really sound like science fiction, it's pretty much here already, we just are very primitive at it. It's gonna be huge, tremendous, very successful.
 
b_line said:
So why do black people remain black from generation to generation? It certainly isn't becsusr they are in the sun all day any more (at least bit in the US ).

If being black or yellow or red or white has nothing to do with our genetic heritage, then why are my kids so damn pale?

You are acting like there are no such things as heritable traits that exhibit themselves over a broad pattern.

Sure, melanin content can be random at times, but the extremely overwhelming majority of children are not going to be albinos.

It may not be race, but acting like these things don't exist is extremely odd.

Tell me how you define a genetically similar group of people if not by using the word race?
Click to expand...

This is the crux of the problem. The word "race" in English has one meaning to you and many different meanings to other people. The word "race," like any other word, has an etymology. The word has developed and changed its meaning through the years from its origin. Now we are in the midst of defining it, and you won't even get the same definition from person to person, let alone region to region. We define what "race" is. There is no fact waiting to be found that constitutes "race." "Race" is a means by which we classify something, not scientifically, but culturally. "Race" was never based in science and is based off of an idea of purity and a fallacious idea that we can delineate precisely what "race" is. It started culturally and still is a cultural construct.

When you bring in genetics, you are now trying to subsume modern science into a historically cultural means of classification. The question is, "What genetic markers constitute a given 'race.'" How many matching genetic markers does one need to be included into a "race"? Which ones are excluded? What percentage of a person needs to be from a given continent in order to be included in a given "race"? Are there multiple "races" from these general regions, and how do you determine the micro features that would differentiate these various "micro races" from a given continent of origin? As an example, Africa, a continent, has the most genetically diverse population by far. So, which peoples constitute disparate "races" in Africa, and then how do we account for the percentages of these originally disparate "races," which are now found in varying proportions within the genetic code of a given human being that may have genetics from multiple continents?

When it comes down to it, "genetics" is a way for people to feel comfortable with their continued use of a culturally determined word "race." "Race" started culturally, and still is a cultural construct. This reality is assumed within the vast majority of academic institutions, be it in the humanities or the sciences.
 
If I had a kid and it was proven safe to do all of it I would. I would definitely get rid of any genetic diseases and defects but I would also do other stuff. I would give them better metabolism, athleticism, improved intelligence and any thing else to make their life better. I would pick the eye, color, hair color, and all that stuff. I would not do anything to effect their sexuality since I dont think that matters nor do I think it is set, I think it is fluid anyways. People are already doing this to some extent by picking a partner to have a baby with.

On a side not I agree with what Siro is saying about race being a construct of society. However saying that all white people are considered the same race does not seem true to me. I guess in the last 50 years in the US it is heading that way but groups such as Italians, Irish and others have traditionally been considered a different race. I guess most people who have arbitrarily assigned race categories have white as a category but there are usually sub categories. But genetically the similarity of people with the same eye color is just as much a thing as people with the same skin color. It just as easily could have been arbitrarily decided in the world to define your "race" by something such as eye color, hair color, height or anything else. Two siblings from the same parents could have the genetic markers to show their ancestors to be from very different places. I know the ancestry.com does the DNA test to show your "ethnicity" and two of my brothers have had it and they are not close. One is dominantly German and the other is Italian I think. One has some native american genetic marker and the other does not. You could have more genetic similarities with someone of a different "race" than someone within your own "race."
 
Broncster said:
If I had a kid and it was proven safe to do all of it I would. I would definitely get rid of any genetic diseases and defects but I would also do other stuff. I would give them better metabolism, athleticism, improved intelligence and any thing else to make their life better. I would pick the eye, color, hair color, and all that stuff. I would not do anything to effect their sexuality since I dont think that matters nor do I think it is set, I think it is fluid anyways. People are already doing this to some extent by picking a partner to have a baby with.

On a side not I agree with what Siro is saying about race being a construct of society. However saying that all white people are considered the same race does not seem true to me. I guess in the last 50 years in the US it is heading that way but groups such as Italians, Irish and others have traditionally been considered a different race. I guess most people who have arbitrarily assigned race categories have white as a category but there are usually sub categories. But genetically the similarity of people with the same eye color is just as much a thing as people with the same skin color. It just as easily could have been arbitrarily decided in the world to define your "race" by something such as eye color, hair color, height or anything else. Two siblings from the same parents could have the genetic markers to show their ancestors to be from very different places. I know the ancestry.com does the DNA test to show your "ethnicity" and two of my brothers have had it and they are not close. One is dominantly German and the other is Italian I think. One has some native american genetic marker and the other does not. You could have more genetic similarities with someone of a different "race" than someone within your own "race."
Click to expand...

The thing about picking preferred traits like intelligence or athleticism (which I would rather NOT be done by the parent), is that it won't really confer any advantage in real life. Simply because the technology won't only be available to you. Making your child an elite athlete is irrelevant when millions others have done the same thing, as far as professional sports are concerned. Intelligence is even more problematic because it's not really one thing. It is a multi-faceted phenomenon, and I don't like the idea of tailoring your child's cognition to suit what parts of intelligence you value.

It is interesting to consider what the world would be like when everyone has access to such technologies.
 
Siro said:
The thing about picking preferred traits like intelligence or athleticism (which I would rather NOT be done by the parent), is that it won't really confer any advantage in real life. Simply because the technology won't only be available to you. Making your child an elite athlete is irrelevant when millions others have done the same thing, as far as professional sports are concerned. Intelligence is even more problematic because it's not really one thing. It is a multi-faceted phenomenon, and I don't like the idea of tailoring your child's cognition to suit what parts of intelligence you value.

It is interesting to consider what the world would be like when everyone has access to such technologies.
Click to expand...

Athleticism would be an advantage if others were not doing it or it would put your kid at a disadvantage if you were not doing it. However the reasons I would do it would not be for sports reasons but for health reasons and ease of day to day activities in life. Its effect and efficiency would have to be greatly researched and studied before I would do it to my kid but I would if it helped. Things such as greater lung capacity, metabolism, muscle fiber types and number of them in different regions would all be things I would consider. As far as intelligence goes, there are many factors and I would aim for ones that improve their life. Such factors might include things that help with improved problem solving or just related to general happiness. I dont know why people wouldn't want to give their kid the best chance if it is a proven to help and be effective. I think it would be easy to begin (or there are already many in existence) studies on genetic markers and how they help overall. The "moral" issue is not one that I care about or think is a real issue. People have been trying to choose better genes for their kids in many different ways since the beginning of time.

I agree in general that letting parents pick out any of these things could be problematic for society and way to complex to leave up to them. But letting parents have kids and raise them has always been problematic and too complex in the same way, its nothing new. I think the vast majority of parents are terrible at it.
 
Part of what is cool about having kids is finding out what they look like/personalities/ interests are, etc...and just seeing how they are, as they are. It seems very creepy for the parents to be able to decide thkngs like that.

With my last child when we did the blood test at the beginning of my pregnancy, it said the baby had a very high chance of having downs syndrome. Being in that position, if there was a way too correct that, I think it would be hard to turn down if it could be done safely.
 
ConradA24 said:
Part of what is cool about having kids is finding out what they look like/personalities/ interests are, etc...and just seeing how they are, as they are. It seems very creepy for the parents to be able to decide thkngs like that.

With my last child when we did the blood test at the beginning of my pregnancy, it said the baby had a very high chance of having downs syndrome. Being in that position, if there was a way too correct that, I think it would be hard to turn down if it could be done safely.
Click to expand...
Ya choosing looks and personality and stuff like that is something I would decline.
 
Cunning Linguist said:
This is a really slippery slope and reminds me too much of Gattaca.
Click to expand...

In Gattaca the gene editing technology had the critical limitation of only being able to edit genes in an embryo. That doesn't look like it's going to be how the technology develops in reality. We can already alter the genes of mature creatures. Sure it will be easier to edit an embryo but I think we will put reasonable limits on what you can edit in an embryo. The real interesting bit is what people will choose to edit about themselves.
 
I'd feel like a bad parent if I didn't look into it, assuming cost wasn't too terrible an issue. But where does it cross the line.

Maybe something that'd grow the frontal lobe faster, and improve neural network infrastructure.

If there is a fat gene, I'd remove it. But I wouldn't try to make the kid a super athletic freak or anything.
 
Nothing funnier than older dudes trying to act current and cool by picking up a silly meme a year too late.
 
Siro said:
Nothing funnier than older dudes trying to act current and cool by picking up a silly meme a year too late.
Click to expand...

1. This was the plan since the incident
2. I had to wait for my infraction to expire
3. Not a dead meme
4. .....#dixout4me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top