Incoherent fool

I don't think it's a good idea. If a new technique were to be developed that allows us to change the genetic code for our children, but it costs more than $1 million, then only rich people would be able to do it. Now think about this for a second. What would happen if all the rich people suddenly got more intelligent, more athletic, less prone to diease, etc. than people who can't afford the $1 million? We would all of a sudden have this supreme race on our hands. And thus the line between rich and poor grows larger. Who would control the world after that? You can figure that out.

Totalitarianist

But they'll be terminated just like abortions. Are you an anti-abortionist? I'm not.

A few dead babies is insignificant compared to the idea of furthering the human race. I cannot see anything wrong with having different classes, so long as the higher class has the technology and cannot be defeated by the weaker class, then what's the problem? Isn't that what you're afraid of?--the possibility of the lower class taking over the higher class like in the French Revolution. That's the only thing I'd be worried about--however, the higher class would have the military and the like, and anything of that sort would never happen. With the technology of the upper-class, something like the events on the French revolution would never happen today.

Hence, I have no criticism of the idea of genetically-engeneering humans to further the species.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Lack of Paint ]</p>

rebelnerd

I think the idea of genetic "improvements" to humans is inevitable. The problem I see is that I just don't trust humans to use the best judgement.

Look at how many people believe in religion or in the supernatual, I think they are off right there for believing in that stuff. Now we are going to make decisions about genetic changes to humans with the judgment of these people? Yea, right.

My personal thoughts are that genetic manipulation is a powerful tool that can provide a great benefit to humans if used properly. The caveat is who defines "properly" and it should not be entered into willy-nilly just because we can.

Filo

Melysni

I've asked myself this question a few times before--as any person should do in this age of possibility--and really, the only honest answer I can give is: I'm not sure.

Is it a cop out? Maybe. I wish I could say more than that. However, I will justify it to the best of my ability.

As you know, I'm legally blind. Chances are, my vision will only get worse over time, blah blah blah. I'd love it if something could be done to where the progression of this disease would cease in me--and things seem to be getting close in that area of research so yippy Would I want to be fully "cured"? Of course. And I certainly want the same for children who might be "doomed" (that sounds a little overly dramatic) to a similar fate.

However, there are of course possible problems here: creating a super race, etc.--all that stuff you'd read about in comic books. The question is, how real is the threat?

There is always potential for abuse of any new technology.

If genetic tinkering is legal, it should at least be regulated in my humble opinion. Even if the regulations are strictly nominal (after all, anyone with the know-how and the drive to create a super race will try regardless of law) I believe they should still be there to calm any fears people might have. Besides, this might prevent a genetic race among companies who want to capitalize on the possible "beautiful baby" and "Einstein Infant" markets.

It's difficult to answer this question without delving a little too far into the sci-fi realm. The fact is, all of this is sci-fi until it actually happens.

My main worry is abuse.

I think most initial fears many people have come from the same thing that caused fears in those who worried about organ transplantation and test-tube babies: fear of the unkown.

Still, one can't help but wonder about the possibilities that would be if the "bad" guys (whomever they may be) get ahold of this technology.

brighid

<a href="http://www.gene-watch.org/magazine/vol14/14-4childbearing.html" target="_blank">http://www.gene-watch.org/magazine/vol14/14-4childbearing.html</a>

Here is some food for thought. I have not had time today to thoroughly review it, or the make any of my conclusions about the subject, but I did find the material to have merit.


Brighid

The Other Michael

That would be the Malibu Barbie (TM)?

There are numerous science fiction stories dealing with this topic. In many of them that I can recall a problem is that the numbers of the genengineered children can't increase quick enough to give them parity (or better) with the "normal" mobs howling for their blood. And the mob howling is often not justified based on the children's actions - more often it seems to be whipped up by an agitator playing on the fears of the masses.

Personally, I'd have been quite happy to have had better eye-sight, no open bite, and less of a tendency towards kidney stones genengineered out of my before birth. Other than that though, I'm close enough to perfect to not want additional changes.

cheers,
Michael

echidna

Now this ironically comes across as an extremely strong case against human genetic engineering.

Because in contrast I think most of us here actually have huge problems with class-based social systems. To what extent they are with us today is immaterial, but the humanist consensus would be towards lessening class distinctions, not increasing them.

So naturally it is quite disturbing to see the expected contrary view, and the flippant responses to the complex problems associated with class structures.

echidna

Are you still there Mr Kitchen ?

Jane Bovary

That would be the Malibu Barbie (TM)?

Naturally...and Cool Shavin' Ken.

[ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: Jane Bovary ]</p>

Totalitarianist

Actually, I do not agree with classes; in fact, I am a communist.

I am a humanist in that I subscribe to communism, which is for the good of all.