The debate "Modify the human genoma to have healthy smarter and attractive baby" was started by
July 21, 2015, 7:00 pm.
50 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 76 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
I_Voyager posted 4 arguments, PsychDave posted 6 arguments, Sosocratese posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 4 arguments, sloanstar1000 posted 1 argument, UltraBoston posted 2 arguments, Psych_Code posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
desght posted 1 argument, thatdebatingchick posted 2 arguments, Sumerian posted 1 argument, DerpedLocke posted 1 argument, BookBunny posted 1 argument, I_talk2_Much posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
oscar, I_Voyager, PsychDave, sabrina, Sosocratese, skyfrancois_97, historybuff, WhyNotNow, sloanstar1000, UltraBoston, Bodaciouslady16, dgw23, aceofhearts, ELIJAHJ, Benjamin, PranavArora, Yuki_Amayane, Psych_Code, cancer_wins, Diogenes_of_Sinope and 30 visitors agree.
desght, thelogos, Adavion, nonliberalllama, AstroSpace, thatdebatingchick, Prit, thisrisingtide, musejay1, Sumerian, invincible_01, theQueenofdebate, The_lamp, DerpedLocke, wayneSPEC, bamasam777, Tristanzee, BookBunny, mohanraj, Musstta, jacksonparty, Inpoliticallycorrect, TruthSeekerCivilSpeaker, abby1212, WaspToxin, scotthansonMC, jjrocks1738, StarSoul, ThePhilosopher, I_talk2_Much, Frank, RedstarIsWeird, Cotton, Delta_Force01 and 42 visitors disagree.
What's the point of having a child in the first place? If you modified a baby it wouldn't be your kid it would look like you, but it wouldn't be YOU genetically
I feel like that'd go very wrong
we dnt really need any genetic modification..
well if something wrong happens while modifying..it will bring disaster for mankind
Think about children born with some disabilities. If this genetic modification was actually made possible, then I guess even their parents would be happy enough to alter or modify the human genoma. If it makes an individual someone who is healthier and stronger and better in his future days, there is no harm in this.
Where did this knowledge about shorter life spans come from? The technology has only existed very recently (less than the lifespan of a person, so the only place I can think of that such information is "known" is science fiction.
It's too risky and dangerous as human GMOs are known to have a short lifespan and suffer genetic disorders. Not only that, I think we should accept oneself and others for who we are naturally, not who we want to be.
Your argument makes sense if you believed that god made you the way you are or something like that. If so there is no point debating it. Otherwise you are an amalgamation of your parents DNA. If they alter that DNA before you exist as a person then you had no rights at the time. The person you are would never have existed. A different person would exist. Possibly one who is stronger, faster and smarter. I have asthma, if my parents had been able to change that before i was born i would be much happier. It is not a life threatening condition. But it would be nice not to have. There are studies that say that attractive people have much easier lives. People treat them better. If your parents want the best for you why wouldn't they give you every advantage they can. Isn't that their duty as parents?
That is a valid point, but them the question becomes when does someone become a person, and what are their rights before that. What if the modification was done to sperm and egg cells before the egg was fertilized? There is no life until they combine, so would that distinction make it better?
What gives parents the right to decide what and what isn't OKAY for their child to have?!? In terms of medicine, yes, there are examples that I would say benefit the baby health-wise. But in the context of DESIGNER BABIES, my mother and father do not have the RIGHT to decide for me what I am like. I am a unique human being, who laughs, who cries, who would not want to be any different today than I am.
let me clarify
I ment that they both fall under that archetype of actions so they have a lot of similaritys
but actually that was a stupid thing to say cause I completely forgot we were talking about specificly genitics I was thinking just biology
And rape and murder are very different. one is an assault the other is death. They are both violent but that is pretty much where the comparison ends.
What shots are you talking about that alter genetics? the vast majority of shots have no effect on a person's genetics.
I'd like to point out a few things.
1 baby's are robots there is no distention between a machine with self awareness
and a human with self awareness
they're just made out of a differnt material.
2 people inherently can't be better then others wisdom is gainable by any culture or species with higher cognitive fucntion and wisdom wins wars more often then not over intelligence
3 shots and injections are genitic modifications even tho they are superficialy so they still are extremely synonymous
saying there completely differnt I would say is allmost like saying rapping and murdering is way differnt
there both closely related types of violence
if we're technicall there not the same
we're being philosophical Witch means the synonymous value should prevail
I don't see why not, I almost said that I'm worried that the child doesn't have a say in its own genetic makeup, but no one has ever had a say in that.
If I was born with some sort of disability and I found out that it could have been prevented with genetic modification that was available to my parents, I would probably be annoyed.
then we get into the area of people trying to create a super baby, and competing to have the best baby, which I don't think is a good thing.
I don't even think people should be having babies anyway.
Better will be to alter human genome to develop an ability to accept others.
In what way did I advocate turning children into robots?
I think doctors and scientists could come up with ways to prevent these things with medications/injections rather than turning our children Into robots
That is the point, if your child was not going to be born healthy, but genetic modification could help them, would it still be unacceptable? If they were going to have spina bifida and spend their life using a walker, or if it could prevent them from someday getting Alzheimer's or dementia, would it be so bad?
if you were going to modify the human genome you may as well give us an apple device that looks like a baby I would rather watch my baby grow into a smart and healthy child
The benefits are endless. And I think once we modify ourselves to be smarter and more connected, we'll come up with new uses for the technologies as well. The questions we need to worry ourselves about, and prepare for are: what are the dangers and how do we equip ourselves to resist them? For these kinds of changes are inevitable in our lifetimes, and we'll see it in full swing.
The way I see it those kind of enhancements would be very dangerous. They would be very easy to control simply by pricing them out of the reach of regular people. This would make an even bigger decide between rich and poor. They wouldn't only have the financial and political advantage, they would literally be smarter, stronger and better than the rest of us. I see those kinds of enhancements only driving people farther apart.
You're looking at the tech in a vacuum. We're simultaneously breaking down manufacturing to a nanoscopic level and connecting humanity to a global intelligence network. Most activity will be necessarily voluntary or based on coercion. Yeah, it's not like we'll enter a utopia... Doubtlessly conflict and strategy are universals insofar as they pertain to intelligences with ignorance and observational barriers. But we don't stop curing some diseases because there are always other diseases. We push back the inevitability of death and suffering in order to experience greater knowledge, pleasure and freedom.
Why would we slow back down and not see benefits from having a more intelligent, capable population? If everyone was more intelligent, science would likely accelerate. What would slow it back down?
Another approach would be genetic modification to better suit conditions. Firemen could have better blood oxygenation to be less impacted by smoke, and would have increased strength and endurance as a result. Police could have enhanced reaction time, allowing them to assess a situation and respond appropriately faster and with less mistakes. Teachers and scientists could have increased intelligence, allowing them to create new knowledge and pass it on more efficiently. On a more trivial note, athletes could have enhanced senses and strength, allowing better performance.
Aside from benefits like that, the health benefits would be enormous. Conditions that currently reduce the quality of life for millions could be cured, allowing those impacted to live normal lived. ALS, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and many, many more could be cured. The health care system would never need to fund research into cures for these conditions, or pay for their treatments, because in a generation they would cease to exist.
I'd like to say right now that I am not religious, or biased in any other similar way. I just think its pointless. I mean sure, I admit this stuff is interesting and if it's accomplished it'd be worthy of a "hey mom! look what I can do!," but other than that I don't see a point. 1 of 2 things will happen: either everyone will get this sort of modification and then we'll still be in the same position we are relative to other humans (i.e. the guy who was smarter than you before will still be smarter than you now) and there will be a slight bump in in the science world for a short period of time but then we'd slow back down pretty quickly.
The second thing that could happen is only some people would get these modifications, which would lead to competing being much harder for those without them, eventually killing them off and leaving only those who are modified, which then reverts back to my first option.
I think the problem with Gattica is that it assumed we can't follow trends, statistics or have attention to detail. There must be some element of human nature which is transcendent of our biology and therefore unaccoutnable. Something about will power, where a person whose genes are beset against them will if ambitious enough exceed the sum of their genes and accomplish their goals. This presumes first we wouldn't notice the trend by taboo and be bitching about it in subcultures. But also, some psychological studies have demonstrated that will power is a limited resource. If it's a limited resource, it's mechanical, and understandable. In my best Snagglepuss - improvable, even! So it makes me wonder why genetic modification would be a problem...
The only problem I can think of is that people who allow themselves to be modified will be so significantly better than the average person, the average person will be obsolete. So anyone on grounds of religion, humanist skepticism or poverty who reject or cannot afford modification may find themselves hungry and alone very fast.
I agree with this proposition, although I can't help but think about Gattaca
At the very least genetic changes could mitigate or eliminate genetic diseases and conditions with genetic factors.
I think there are matters of ethics to discuss revolving around this. But generally I think it's necessary to modify the human condition first by genetic modification, and second by the use of nanobot-constructed carbon nanotube structures. The latter might bring us better upgrades, while the former will probably end up being strictly a way to interface nanotube and cellular algorithms.
Also, there ought to be a one-syllable descriptor for carbon nanotubes. Damascus? Since Damascus steel is something of a curiosity and not a material of significant interest. And, of course, Damascus steel had nanotubes in it.