Build Your Own Baby

[anax4aero]

I was under the impression that you wanted to have a debate. If you want to spew mindless insults back and forth then I'm sure there are quite a few threads in the White Noise section that you'd find quite exhilarating. If not, go ahead and enlighten me on the many flaws that my post apparently holds.

I was having a debate with napalm. I don't consider someone who puts words into my mouth to flame me someone worth debating with. I see it more as being "mindless", as you say.
Now how about we both shut up and wait for someone else to actually contribute to the topic?

 

[Napalmbrain]

Yea, and be sure to pay attention to what that leads to in a couple years, maybe decades.
To every action, there is an equal and proportionate reaction, no?

Newton's Third Law of Motion applies to non-relativistic dynamics, not to complex social scenarios. :frown2:

And change for the better...we'd have to sell our freedom, liberty, thought and reality to have humanity reach better places. You could arguably say humanity never reaches better places, improvement in condition only occurs in individuals.

Yes, I am glad I live in an age where kids live longer than a few years and where I can't get certain terrible diseases thanks to medicine. But I still believe that as a whole, humanity does not benefit from further attempts to control everything in nature.

Err... Why would we have to sell our freedom and "reality"? We would still have free will with or without genetic diseases.

And I ask again, why shouldn't people be able to decide their own futures? If everyone subscribed to that sort of fatalism, we wouldn't have the medicine that cured those certain terrible diseases. We'd just go through life in pain from every disease and injury we come across and die around 40 something. But fortunately, some people created medicines, developed better surgical techniques, etc., and now we can live longer and in better health. Why shouldn't we continue? It's like saying "Preventing meningitis is okay, but preventing cystic fibrosis is wrong". That doesn't make any sense. I believe that if we have an opportunity to cure a disease, we should take it. If you don't like that, well... you do have the freedom to refuse it for yourself.

 

[Brawny]

Newton's Third Law of Motion applies to non-relativistic dynamics, not to complex social scenarios. :frown2:


Err... Why would we have to sell our freedom and "reality"? We would still have free will with or without genetic diseases.

And I ask again, why shouldn't people be able to decide their own futures? If everyone subscribed to that sort of fatalism, we wouldn't have the medicine that cured those certain terrible diseases. We'd just go through life in pain from every disease and injury we come across and die around 40 something. But fortunately, some people created medicines, developed better surgical techniques, etc., and now we can live longer and in better health. Why shouldn't we continue? It's like saying "Preventing meningitis is okay, but preventing cystic fibrosis is wrong". That doesn't make any sense. I believe that if we have an opportunity to cure a disease, we should take it. If you don't like that, well... you do have the freedom to refuse it for yourself.

It's not their own future they're deciding though.

 

[anax4aero]

I understand your argument, Napalm, and what you say makes a lot of sense. Thing is, I personally do believe that most of the great inventions designed to improve the human condition only improve the condition of individuals in a specific time-frame, not necessarily the community as a whole. Tragedy of Commons in a way.
It's a difficult argument to make, really, because it's not like I think it's ok to let millions of people suffer and die from disease. It's kind of the reason I kept myself away from medicine and science, because I don't want to be the one to make those decisions. And it's not exactly fatalist either, because I do believe we are capable of decisions that will generally affect our future. My issue is that I don't think most people understand the consequences of such ethical decisions.
In a way it's like predicting the future...would you want to know what happens so you can try to control it, or would you prefer to just let it happen naturally and live "randomly"? I would love my son/daughter to be born naturally, no matter what that entails, mostly because then I would be able to see their beauty as a result of nature's design, not human artificiality. And I would still love them no matter what.
As for free will, that's a completely different argument that has filled and will fill several volumes of books. So I'd rather not discuss it here.
And Newton's Law, I personally do believe it applies not only to motion but to everything in life. I believe in balance in all of life's forces. I'm not saying I'm right, it's just what I believe.
Last thing...sometimes the decision to refuse medicine is not given. Especially if you haven't been born. And I am paranoid enough to fear world governments or corporations getting their hands on such technology.

 

[Napalmbrain]

I understand your argument, Napalm, and what you say makes a lot of sense. Thing is, I personally do believe that most of the great inventions designed to improve the human condition only improve the condition of individuals in a specific time-frame, not necessarily the community as a whole. Tragedy of Commons in a way.
It's a difficult argument to make, really, because it's not like I think it's ok to let millions of people suffer and die from disease. It's kind of the reason I kept myself away from medicine and science, because I don't want to be the one to make those decisions. And it's not exactly fatalist either, because I do believe we are capable of decisions that will generally affect our future. My issue is that I don't think most people understand the consequences of such ethical decisions.
In a way it's like predicting the future...would you want to know what happens so you can try to control it, or would you prefer to just let it happen naturally and live "randomly"? I would love my son/daughter to be born naturally, no matter what that entails, mostly because then I would be able to see their beauty as a result of nature's design, not human artificiality. And I would still love them no matter what.
As for free will, that's a completely different argument that has filled and will fill several volumes of books. So I'd rather not discuss it here.
And Newton's Law, I personally do believe it applies not only to motion but to everything in life. I believe in balance in all of life's forces. I'm not saying I'm right, it's just what I believe.
Last thing...sometimes the decision to refuse medicine is not given. Especially if you haven't been born. And I am paranoid enough to fear world governments or corporations getting their hands on such technology.

Touché, it is your child's future rather than your own that you're deciding. I think of it like this: I would want the best for my child. If I knew I had the chance to stop them being born with a horrible condition and didn't take it, I could never live with myself. And personally, I see nothing wrong with human artificiality over natural beauty, because we humans are quite capable of creating our own beauty.

 

[Twilight Hero]

I think this whole idea is full of fail. God makes each of us original, first class one-of-a-kind. Why would we want to alter His great design? D:

 

[anax4aero]

I would want the best for my child. If I knew I had the chance to stop them being born with a horrible condition and didn't take it, I could never live with myself.

Very true, no parent would wish their children to suffer.
What about aesthetic decisions that have nothing to do with health?

 

[AndThen?]

It's not their own future they're deciding though.

You're right. We have a decision to make. We can either alleviate these children of genetic diseases, say... cystic fibrosis, as Napalm mentioned... OR we can let them be 'natural' and live a disabled life. There's no saying what they'd have wanted, right?

 

[Napalmbrain]

I think this whole idea is full of fail. God makes each of us original, first class one-of-a-kind. Why would we want to alter His great design? D:

Personally I think we could do better.

Very true, no parent would wish their children to suffer.
What about aesthetic decisions that have nothing to do with health?

I already said there's no point in purely aesthetic changes.

 

[AndThen?]

Napalm, that was awesome. However, I see nothing wrong with aesthetic changes.

I think this whole idea is full of fail. God makes each of us original, first class one-of-a-kind. Why would we want to alter His great design? D:

Now that's just silly. There are plenty of genetically retarded people, many with disabilities which prevent them from living. What were they, God's ****-ups?

 

[ARav989]

In my bio class, we just finished genetics and I hate it now. It's like the most complicated thing I've ever learned so far. That's besides the point though

Anyway, I think that these genes should only be manipulated for disease prevention and disability prevention.

Doesn't this subject make you wonder about military use as well though? Putting together this scenario, couldn't a government use this genetic concept and make a stronger military out of it? The way I imagine it is that surrogate(sp?) mothers would sell their fetus to the military, allow them to do some genetic tweaks, and come out with a baby? Eventually raised to be a super soldier?

Does that make any sense to the science guys in here?

 

[ROB64]

In my bio class, we just finished genetics and I hate it now. It's like the most complicated thing I've ever learned so far. That's besides the point though

Anyway, I think that these genes should only be manipulated for disease prevention and disability prevention.

Doesn't this subject make you wonder about military use as well though? Putting together this scenario, couldn't a government use this genetic concept and make a stronger military out of it? The way I imagine it is that surrogate(sp?) mothers would sell their fetus to the military, allow them to do some genetic tweaks, and come out with a baby? Eventually raised to be a super soldier?

Does that make any sense to the science guys in here?

I'm reminded of the hulk. xD

 

[ARav989]

LMFAO. exactly ROB xD

 

[SkullKid]

ROB, you ain't the only one.

I don't like the idea of cosmetic changes for parental benefit. Not only is it selfish, but this embryo isn't a Barbie doll. It is a one-of-a-kind living being, and randomosity is quite necessary in cultural ways.

And how would you personally feel if you found out that your parents were so selfish as to cosmetically alter you. Myself, I'd feel like they'd made a new baby because I wasn't good enough.

Aside from cosmetics, this could be very good for disease treatment before the child would have to consciously go through it. But it is risky. Tampering with genetics seems so dangerous. I mean, what if some biological organism unnoticed by the grown body triggered a massive rupture in the embryo's life system? What then?



I don't know loads about this type of thing, but it seems like so much could go wrong in trying to make something right.

 

[Twilight Hero]

Napalm, that was awesome. However, I see nothing wrong with aesthetic changes.



Now that's just silly. There are plenty of genetically retarded people, many with disabilities which prevent them from living. What were they, God's ****-ups?

Why are we talking about disabilities now? I thought this was about altering hair color, facial features, height, etc. Babies aren't toys that you can treat anyway you'd like. No responsible parent would even risk having their baby tinkered with. Things like this are better left alone. :frown2:

As for the genetically retarded people, I feel that these scientists should take a different approach to curing them. Scientists do know all the answers, right?