Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mr.Kitchen · 06-15-2002, 05:21 AM

More specifically what would be wrong with the action of altering the genes of your child to make him or her smarter, or better looking.

If you think it is wrong or can come up with a non-technical reason for prohibiting it then say so. Bonus is it wrong to do this to eliminate genetic diseases?

If you don't think it would be wrong then defend your position.

Jeremy

Alonzo Fyfe · 06-15-2002, 05:38 AM

I do not think it will be wrong.

As far as defending my position, I think that it is up to those who would say it is wrong to defend their position.

Defend your position that there is nothing wrong with asking questions such as this on a bulletin board, or that there is nothing wrong with putting chocolate syrup on ice cream. The only answer is: "What's wrong with it?"

Three of the standard arguments I have heard for the wrongness of genetic engineering are:

It is unnatural.

This requires some intrinsic property of wrongness in that which is unnatural, and intrinsic value properties do not exist. The only values that exist are relationships between states of affairs and desires. Genetic engineering, it seems to me, would fulfill a lot of desires, and thwart few.

It is playing God.

This eventually boils down to another intrinsic value claim -- that there are certain types of actions that are intrinsically "off limits" to humans. Intrinsic values are a fiction.

Genetically engineered children have an unfair advantage.

Rich people will genetically engineer their children, poor people will not be able to afford it. So, we set up a permanent class structure with one class of engineered superhumans using their extraordinary powers to dominate a significantly larger class of nonengineered humans.

This is a legitimate concern. But it is not much different than the existing system where rich people send their kids to the best schools and the best doctors, giving them significant advantages over uninsured children educated in inner-city public schools. We don't take this as a reason to banish high-priced private schools or the best doctors and medical treatments. We debate the best way to make good education and medical care available to more people.

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

tronvillain · 06-15-2002, 10:56 AM

I don't think it would be inherently wrong to genetically engineer humans, though there is obviously the potential for abuse. Of course, that assumes that this genetic engineering will be done properly, and not have unintended side effects.

John Page · 06-16-2002, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Kitchen:
<strong>More specifically what would be wrong with the action of altering the genes of your child to make him or her smarter, or better looking.
</strong>

Did you choose who you're going to have the baby with yet? If so, I suggest you talk to them.

Smarter and better looking seem to influence a lot of our choices in natural selection (as well, of course, as availability). If we can accelerate or improve the process, why not?

Cheers, John

P.S. I wouldn't go for cloning just yet.

emphryio · 06-16-2002, 06:30 PM

It's wrong because it just feels wrong and I trust my feelings because I'm a christian. Thinking's overrated you know.

No, just kidding.

Only thing I can see goes along the lines of Tronvillian's post. (Also through lack of knowledge we might get rid of some very good intrinsic qualities in people). Such as: get rid of pain, accidentally get rid of creativity?
Or if Beethoven hadn't gone deaf, would he have wrote something as good as the 9th?

But I'm all for it anyway.

echidna · 06-16-2002, 06:54 PM

Newsflash Mr. Kitchen, I have just discovered the gene responsible for unhappiness ! Should I remove it so one never need to know unhappiness ?

(BTW Emphryio, I agree !)

Jane Bovary · 06-16-2002, 08:40 PM

Okay, so they get rid of unhappiness, because parents don't want their children to be unhappy. What else...?
Schizophrenia
Depression
Obesity
Homosexuality
Bad temper
Buck teeth

Could we end up with a race of blandly good-looking, happy, brainy Kens and Barbies? Will "market forces" drive the genetics? Horrors...

Isn't there some issue about genetic diversity? If we all demand similar improvements in our genetically engineered children, couldn't this be a problem for human variability and its role in evolution?

[/Q]This is a legitimate concern. But it is not much different than the existing system where rich people send their kids to the best schools and the best doctors, giving them significant advantages over uninsured children educated in inner-city public schools. We don't take this as a reason to banish high-priced private schools or the best doctors and medical treatments. We debate the best way to make good education and medical care available to more people.[/Q]

Actually it IS different because the effects of genetic enhancement would have far greater implications than exclusive schools or private health insurance. Advantages of wealth and priviledge have generally been put down to circumstances of birth, luck or hard work if you like.. We don't assume these people are any better than us...they are just fortuitous. Given the right set off circumstances we could all be successful.

By contrast, to be "genetically enhanced" could actually mean you are essentially different in your "humanness". It could lead to a genetic split-species that may create two seperate human groups. The genetically perfect may one day view the non-engineered as essentially inferior...not by circumstance but by genes. They may perhaps look at them the same way we now view apes. This could alter our whole concept of humanity and human rights. Thus the unenhanced humans won't simply be "disadvantaged"...they'll be a whole different species.

It's possible.

I'm not against genetic engineering, but shouldn't we tread carefully?

echidna · 06-16-2002, 09:12 PM

Yes, and once the floodgates of the human genome are opened, of course we must all use our �common sense�.

Are you able to prevent some nutter from creating his own freak show offspring ?

Do you require a list of characteristics which are OK to modify ?
And another list which is not OK ?

Because in principle, there is very little stopping one from modifications which would result in children debatable as still being homo sapiens sapiens.

Except of course common sense, but whose common sense ?

Oh bugger, this is more or less Jane's last paragraph.

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

MadMordigan · 06-17-2002, 05:49 AM

We have to recognize that 'market forces' already determine the traits of offspring to a great degree. Everytime a person selects one mate to breed with over another, they have performed a(rather haphazard) form of genetic selection.

Groucho · 06-17-2002, 07:02 AM

Well, the biggest drawback is that you can't just start genetically engineering children with 100% good results. There's got to be trial and error, and early failed experiments that will look like that vomiting frog thing on "The Simpsons."

06-15-2002, 05:21 AM	#1
Mr.Kitchen Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Oxford, Mississippi Posts: 172	Why would it be wrong to genetically engineer humans? More specifically what would be wrong with the action of altering the genes of your child to make him or her smarter, or better looking. If you think it is wrong or can come up with a non-technical reason for prohibiting it then say so. Bonus is it wrong to do this to eliminate genetic diseases? If you don't think it would be wrong then defend your position. Jeremy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-15-2002, 05:38 AM	#2
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	I do not think it will be wrong. As far as defending my position, I think that it is up to those who would say it is wrong to defend their position. Defend your position that there is nothing wrong with asking questions such as this on a bulletin board, or that there is nothing wrong with putting chocolate syrup on ice cream. The only answer is: "What's wrong with it?" Three of the standard arguments I have heard for the wrongness of genetic engineering are: It is unnatural. This requires some intrinsic property of wrongness in that which is unnatural, and intrinsic value properties do not exist. The only values that exist are relationships between states of affairs and desires. Genetic engineering, it seems to me, would fulfill a lot of desires, and thwart few. It is playing God. This eventually boils down to another intrinsic value claim -- that there are certain types of actions that are intrinsically "off limits" to humans. Intrinsic values are a fiction. Genetically engineered children have an unfair advantage. Rich people will genetically engineer their children, poor people will not be able to afford it. So, we set up a permanent class structure with one class of engineered superhumans using their extraordinary powers to dominate a significantly larger class of nonengineered humans. This is a legitimate concern. But it is not much different than the existing system where rich people send their kids to the best schools and the best doctors, giving them significant advantages over uninsured children educated in inner-city public schools. We don't take this as a reason to banish high-priced private schools or the best doctors and medical treatments. We debate the best way to make good education and medical care available to more people. [ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

06-15-2002, 10:56 AM	#3
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I don't think it would be inherently wrong to genetically engineer humans, though there is obviously the potential for abuse. Of course, that assumes that this genetic engineering will be done properly, and not have unintended side effects.

06-16-2002, 06:30 PM	#5
emphryio Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: WV Posts: 4,369	It's wrong because it just feels wrong and I trust my feelings because I'm a christian. Thinking's overrated you know. No, just kidding. Only thing I can see goes along the lines of Tronvillian's post. (Also through lack of knowledge we might get rid of some very good intrinsic qualities in people). Such as: get rid of pain, accidentally get rid of creativity? Or if Beethoven hadn't gone deaf, would he have wrote something as good as the 9th? But I'm all for it anyway.

06-16-2002, 06:54 PM	#6
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Newsflash Mr. Kitchen, I have just discovered the gene responsible for unhappiness ! Should I remove it so one never need to know unhappiness ? (BTW Emphryio, I agree !)

06-16-2002, 08:40 PM	#7
Jane Bovary Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Fatal Shore Posts: 900	Okay, so they get rid of unhappiness, because parents don't want their children to be unhappy. What else...? Schizophrenia Depression Obesity Homosexuality Bad temper Buck teeth Could we end up with a race of blandly good-looking, happy, brainy Kens and Barbies? Will "market forces" drive the genetics? Horrors... Isn't there some issue about genetic diversity? If we all demand similar improvements in our genetically engineered children, couldn't this be a problem for human variability and its role in evolution? [/Q]This is a legitimate concern. But it is not much different than the existing system where rich people send their kids to the best schools and the best doctors, giving them significant advantages over uninsured children educated in inner-city public schools. We don't take this as a reason to banish high-priced private schools or the best doctors and medical treatments. We debate the best way to make good education and medical care available to more people.[/Q] Actually it IS different because the effects of genetic enhancement would have far greater implications than exclusive schools or private health insurance. Advantages of wealth and priviledge have generally been put down to circumstances of birth, luck or hard work if you like.. We don't assume these people are any better than us...they are just fortuitous. Given the right set off circumstances we could all be successful. By contrast, to be "genetically enhanced" could actually mean you are essentially different in your "humanness". It could lead to a genetic split-species that may create two seperate human groups. The genetically perfect may one day view the non-engineered as essentially inferior...not by circumstance but by genes. They may perhaps look at them the same way we now view apes. This could alter our whole concept of humanity and human rights. Thus the unenhanced humans won't simply be "disadvantaged"...they'll be a whole different species. It's possible. I'm not against genetic engineering, but shouldn't we tread carefully?

06-16-2002, 09:12 PM	#8
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	Yes, and once the floodgates of the human genome are opened, of course we must all use our �common sense�. Are you able to prevent some nutter from creating his own freak show offspring ? Do you require a list of characteristics which are OK to modify ? And another list which is not OK ? Because in principle, there is very little stopping one from modifications which would result in children debatable as still being homo sapiens sapiens. Except of course common sense, but whose common sense ? Oh bugger, this is more or less Jane's last paragraph. [ June 17, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

06-17-2002, 05:49 AM	#9
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	We have to recognize that 'market forces' already determine the traits of offspring to a great degree. Everytime a person selects one mate to breed with over another, they have performed a(rather haphazard) form of genetic selection.

06-17-2002, 07:02 AM	#10
Groucho Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Freedonia Posts: 10	Well, the biggest drawback is that you can't just start genetically engineering children with 100% good results. There's got to be trial and error, and early failed experiments that will look like that vomiting frog thing on "The Simpsons."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.