Would you genetically engineer your future child?

[Dinner]

If I could save my kids the pain of mental illness or early death then I'd do it in a heart beat.

[C0ckney]

but how does one define a mental illness or defect (or a physical one for that matter), what are the limits? does it have an illness that a person WILL have or merely a genetic predisposition (i.e. a higher chance) to develop one.

these are not easy questions, where do you draw the line?

[SlowwHand]

I think the people responding yes need to have a discussion with their parents to find out their thoughts on the subject.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You still end up with less disease and more fit humans. For at least the rich any way since this would likely cost a lot of money. Most of humanity would continue on as they always had been but the rich would be able to afford designer children who literally were genetically superior.

This is what I have a general problem with. I don't consider myself a technophobic person, but when I look at history I hardly see technology alone solving the big problems of humanity. Yes, technology makes our lives easier, gives me more opportunities etc, but it IMO it does so only in a certain environment which is not purely defined by technological progress.

Now when you say it would at least help the rich, yeah, but in a way it still affects the rest, since then it would cement a divide between those who can get these advantages and those who can't, or at least not "the full version" of it. Ok, we have that already to some extent, rich people obviously enjoy a lot of things poor people can't and our societies aren't breaking down.

I just think serious genetic engineering (more than fighting disease or genetic defects) on the human being itself is such a fundamental change that I really consider it a problem to modern liberal democracy which is IMO about more opportunities for more people, not just a small elite. IMO this sort of GE is the best way to create some new kind of aristocracy, which has its advantages not because of own achievements or hard work, but purely due to genetic improvement.

[VetLegion]

To prevent an illness, I would. To make her eyes brown because we already have one with blue, I wouldn't.

[LordShiva]

What if you could make one eye brown, and one eye blue

[C0ckney]

my mother has that, with no genetic engineering whatsoever.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by LordShiva
What if you could make one eye brown, and one eye blue

Or what if you could make each one of your eyes half-blue, half-brown

[LordShiva]

And a third eye in the back of the head that's green

[Donegeal]

So, lets imagine for just a moment, that improved GE Humans was currently possible.
We have a clear means of improving the species; and you say we shouldn't help ourselves?

Fine. Don't help your kids, but don't tell me that I can't help mine.

[BeBMan]

Well, what does help mean here? Most seem to agree that it would be ok to cure genetic defects etc.

However, if it goes further would you not have a problem when some kids get advantages over yours in school/job/life/whatever, just because of GE? Maybe your help isn't enough, and someone else did more GE on his children, giving them more and greater advantages, what then? Do GE in ever-increasing intensity?

It's quite a difficult question to me too, and I don't pretend to know how it's all right, I just think it has all kinds of potential to lead to some serious negative effects, and the possible downside should at least be seriously considered and not easily be dismissed.

[Eli]

Originally posted by General Ludd
It's flaws, quirks, and pecularities that make us humans rather than automatons.

Mainly flaws, quirks and peculiarities of the mind, not of the body.

As far as I'm concerned, people should be free to do whatever modifications they want. As long as they take responsibility for the results, of course.

[Donegeal]

What is considered 'help' is determined by the people living at the time. Who are we to say that what we feel is 'help' now is what our great-grandchilderen will consider 'help'.

We consider curing genetic disease as 'help'. What will the next generation consider 'help'? I don't know, but if GE gets shot down, 'help' will have the same definition.

[Eli]

It's quite a difficult question to me too, and I don't pretend to know how it's all right, I just think it has all kinds of potential to lead to some serious negative effects, and the possible downside should at least be seriously considered and not easily be dismissed.

Of course. But we must not prevent people from bettering themselves only because other people don't want or can't do the same.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Eli
Of course. But we must not prevent people from bettering themselves only because other people don't want or can't do the same.

QFT.

Why not ban gym memberships, since many poor people can't afford them?