Would you genetically engineer your future child?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by 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.

Depends how much those other people are affected by it. Just look at sports - doping is considered cheating, and when it costs another guy (who doesn't use doping) the victory it's personal improvement at the costs of others.

Similarly some GE could be considered cheating if it leads to unfair advantages. Of course in reality it would be difficult here to come to norms about what would be "unfair" here. And of course, you also have the idea in sports to legalize doping just to give all the same chances. But there are also serious problems, some people were clearly doped to death.

[Eli]

Originally posted by BeBro
Depends how much those other people are affected by it. Just look at sports - doping is considered cheating, and when it costs another guy (who doesn't use doping) the victory it's personal improvement at the costs of others.

Similarly some GE could be considered cheating if it leads to unfair advantages. Of course in reality it would be difficult here to come to norms about what would be "unfair" here. And of course, you also have the idea in sports to legalize doping just to give all the same chances. But there are also serious problems, some people were clearly doped to death.

There's a difference. IIUC those drugs tend to cause long term damage. Legalizing them would actually harm sports because most sane people would not be willing to harm themselves for the sake of a medal.

When we talk of GE, though, we assume that there are no side effects (or at least nothing non-negligible), so LordShiva's gym analogy applies. Some people can't afford gym memberships, others (like me) are too lazy or stupid to get them. And the people who do exercise end up being better looking and having healthier lives. If we apply the nay-sayers' logic, gym memberships should be banned.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Eli


There's a difference. IIUC those drugs tend to cause long term damage. Legalizing them would actually harm sports because most sane people would not be willing to harm themselves for the sake of a medal.

Some are harming, without doubt. Are all of them?

When we talk of GE, though, we assume that there are no side effects (or at least nothing non-negligible) , so LordShiva's gym analogy applies. Some people can't afford gym memberships, others (like me) are too lazy or stupid to get them. And the people who do exercise end up being better looking and having healthier lives.

The gym thing is not a good argument IMO because you don't go there, pay some money, and then look automatically like Ahnooold, you actually have to do something for it, and in that time poor people could do something for themselves as well without a visiting a gym. You don't need a gym to do exercises, for some you don't even need stuff (jogging).

[Elok]

Er, are we even close to having a good understanding of how genes work/are expressed? Oerdin et al seem to be assuming a simple scale of bad and good, but I suspect you can't have flat-out "good" and "bad" genes. That is, if you gain in one thing, you lose in another. I say this as an aspie who got superior memory and some cognitive powers at the expense of social aptitude (among other things).

And also as someone who doesn't believe in a free lunch. You show me someone who can bench-press 500 pounds, run a two-minute mile, solve calculus problems in his head and speak two dozen languages, I'll show you someone who takes forty years to reach maturity, needs about 10K calories a day, and is at increased risk for various health problems. He'll probably have inferior senses too, with all that brain space dedicated to memory and learning. Or else an enormous brain that has difficulty communicating between all its parts. I'm not a biology expert, but it seems strange that evolution would not have accomplished as much if it were a simple matter of changing a few genes to become superman.

Finally, don't forget heterozygote advantage. Having some genes for sickle-cell anemia will make you more resistant to malaria. Being at risk for cancer, or having one of the genes that leads to diabetes, might also protect you from other disorders.

[Dinner]

There are certainly screen out some negative effects though not all.

[DanS]

I am undecided.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Elok
Finally, don't forget heterozygote advantage. Having some genes for sickle-cell anemia will make you more resistant to malaria. Being at risk for cancer, or having one of the genes that leads to diabetes, might also protect you from other disorders.

I'm generally in favor of genetic engineering, but I think that many people underestimate the problems that Elok addresses.

If I knew that my baby was going to have Down's Syndrome (or something even worse), and if I had a way to genetically engineer the baby in utero to avoid that problem, then I would do it.

Ultimately, I think that genetic engineering might end up being the key to human expansion into space. We'll need to have people who can survive hundred+ year journeys to new planets and all the stresses that such a journey would entail.

[Odin]

Genetically engineering humans:

Luddites:

Democratic Transhumanism:

[Barnabas]

Whats the meaning of luddite?

[Barnabas]

Ah, it is ludista in spanish, dont need to answer

[Barnabas]

I still say modified people should leave a continent to normal people who want to remain natural

[VetLegion]

What's the status of growth hormones in most countries?

You can artificially boost your child's height using them. Is that legal or illegal?

[Barnabas]

Legal in most countries I can think of, Tennis player Andy Roddick and football (soccer) player Messi took them while growing up.

In Messi´s case it is not very controversia, since he is still quite short.l

But Roddick is 6 feet 2, and one feet taller than his parents or brothers, it seems he did not really need them, and that he wouldnt be as good as he is had he not taken those drugs, since his serve is his main weapon, and to have a good serve in tennis, you need to be tall.

[BlackCat]

Any reason why such a treatment will be expensive when discovered ? Yeah, first generation will probably, but after that ?

What I want to cure in my children would be known genetical desiced diseases, including deafness etc.

Making some kind of superhuman, well, no matter what the genetic guys claim, I seriously doubt that they can make such in foreseeable time.

[DanS]

It would depend on the method. In vitro fertilization is still expensive, f.e.