Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
genetically engineered children
- Thread starter stilleto
- Start date
stosstruppe
Well-known member
stilleto said:
Absolutely.
stosstruppe
Well-known member
reno240 said:
Yes, like colour blindness, astigmatism, myopia - conditions I have (or had for the last two
) that society will discriminate against you for particular occupations such as being a pilot, military engineer, fireman etc.
mrplunkey
New member
I'd definately filter-out *any* diseases or defects but I'd probably go a step further to chose the genetic combinations that are most valued by society in general (i.e. height, intelligence, appearance).
Any manipulation of which sperm/egg combination is selected would be fair game. But I'd probably stop short of actually tinkering with specific gene sequences within a sperm/egg pair.
At the end of the day, it's all about maximizing your kid's chances to thrive.
Any manipulation of which sperm/egg combination is selected would be fair game. But I'd probably stop short of actually tinkering with specific gene sequences within a sperm/egg pair.
At the end of the day, it's all about maximizing your kid's chances to thrive.
aint that the truth...stilleto said:
and mini me comes by it honestly.....she's a symbol of perfection.
lol, actually, i wish i could take away her eczema and asthma. she's got the worst case of it imaginable and has been scratching herself to pieces since she popped out. maybe she's allergic to me.....hmmmm.
no i didn't. what's it called??? i'd love to look into it.stilleto said:
she's been on EVERYTHING.
H
heatherrae
Guest
Yes, I would, but I wouldn't want to alter the child so much that she/he bears no resemblance to my family. Mainly, I would do it to rule out diseases.
matty420
New member
bear in mind that i'm not a religous guy.
wouldn't we get into a few moral issues here with this? would the child have a soul if he were made in a lab? let's say that in the year 2010, scientists had convinced the powers that be that introducing lab bred children to the general population would be acceptable. they promised children that were of an above normal intelligence, and from a genetic standpoint, were perfect. the trend would take off. within ten years everyone with a little bit of money, as well as everyone who were naturally unable to have children would be all over this, thus creating a generation of soulless humans.
now, no matter what religion you are, or aren't for that matter, in the back of all of our minds we are all basing every decision we make here on earth on the fact that there is an afterlife. we all believe somewhat that we are all creations of a higher power, and also believe that if we commit serious sins here on earth, that our positioning in the afterlife will be affected. plain and simple, do good while you're alive, you'll do good when you pass on. if you commit murder, rape and so on while here, when it comes time to pass on, chances are, you'll be suffering that eternal flame. i think we as humans base our entire system of life laws and morals on that thought.
now back to the lab-bred kids. they would be soul-less. any offspring of a soul-less child would also be soul-less. 100 years down the road, 4 generations from now, there will be an entire soul-less society living without the fear of god, without the fear of a higher power. this society will have no sense of right or wrong, no conscience. there would be no fear of suffering the ultimate punishment in the afterlife for all of your wrong doings while living in the here and now. if it were proven to me that there were no god, no afterlife, no heaven or hell, i as well as everyone else on this earth would have no respect for life. if someone did us wrong, we could easily kill them guilt free knowing that when our day comes, it's game over.
i'm done babbling, does this make sense?
wouldn't we get into a few moral issues here with this? would the child have a soul if he were made in a lab? let's say that in the year 2010, scientists had convinced the powers that be that introducing lab bred children to the general population would be acceptable. they promised children that were of an above normal intelligence, and from a genetic standpoint, were perfect. the trend would take off. within ten years everyone with a little bit of money, as well as everyone who were naturally unable to have children would be all over this, thus creating a generation of soulless humans.
now, no matter what religion you are, or aren't for that matter, in the back of all of our minds we are all basing every decision we make here on earth on the fact that there is an afterlife. we all believe somewhat that we are all creations of a higher power, and also believe that if we commit serious sins here on earth, that our positioning in the afterlife will be affected. plain and simple, do good while you're alive, you'll do good when you pass on. if you commit murder, rape and so on while here, when it comes time to pass on, chances are, you'll be suffering that eternal flame. i think we as humans base our entire system of life laws and morals on that thought.
now back to the lab-bred kids. they would be soul-less. any offspring of a soul-less child would also be soul-less. 100 years down the road, 4 generations from now, there will be an entire soul-less society living without the fear of god, without the fear of a higher power. this society will have no sense of right or wrong, no conscience. there would be no fear of suffering the ultimate punishment in the afterlife for all of your wrong doings while living in the here and now. if it were proven to me that there were no god, no afterlife, no heaven or hell, i as well as everyone else on this earth would have no respect for life. if someone did us wrong, we could easily kill them guilt free knowing that when our day comes, it's game over.
i'm done babbling, does this make sense?
stosstruppe
Well-known member
matty420 said:
I really don't see what your "argument" has to do with the discussion at hand.
A fictitious "worst case" scenario motivated by the lack of following some cult is what you're offering against those that want to give their children the very best head start in life?
Is that it?
U
UA_Iron
Guest
thats a long way off
longer than you think probably.
tissue engineering is still in its infancy, we can barely construct anything besides superfacial tissues.
Remember that ear growing on the back of a rat? That was essentially bullshit.
longer than you think probably.
tissue engineering is still in its infancy, we can barely construct anything besides superfacial tissues.
Remember that ear growing on the back of a rat? That was essentially bullshit.
H
heatherrae
Guest
I don't think we are talking about the genes being from nowhere. I think it is more like, they see a gene with a faulty chromosome, like in down's syndrome, and can go in and fix it. Or they can tweak, let's say, height. The underyling genes are still the mother and father's. I don't see how this would make someone suddenly lack a conscience. If anything, you could tweak for that too, maybe. Even if they could create a child fully out of nothing because they had discovered how to manufacture genetic material without any donor at allmatty420 said:
U
UA_Iron
Guest
matty420 said:
dont get silly with me, cloning is significantly different than the genetic engineering we're talking about.
stosstruppe
Well-known member
matty420 said:
Society judges our offspring as being "less than satisfactory" as you put it so clinically, not parents. Obviously I'm concerned that a child of mine can't follow a particular career path or participate in certain social activities because my fellow human beings have deemed them "unfit" for that role, hence why I would like for my kids to have no such limitations.
Yea I'd be absolutely thrilled to bits hearing my kid tell me how his peers ridicule and shun him day in and day out for years on end because of a certain medical condition that could have been "screened" for and avoided.
U
UA_Iron
Guest
The idea of a soul is so much attached to this emotional argument of there being a god. It is certainly an invention of a human mind wanting to feel meaningful in a world that he cannot comprehend.
Dont believe it.
Dont believe it.
stosstruppe
Well-known member
heatherrae said:
Yup.
"The child is very much yours, he or she is just the very best of each of you".
javaguru
Banned
Soul?
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html
"To wonder where the mind goes after the brain decays is as silly as asking where the 70-miles-per-hour have gone after a speeding auto has crashed into a tree. Just as the relative motion of an auto can be altered only within certain limits and still represent the process called "speeding," so too we can alter the functioning of the brain only so much before the process called "mind" or "thinking" becomes altered out of existence.
Now that scientists recognize mind as a process rather than a thing, they are making rapid advances in understanding the specific brain dynamics that correspond to the various subjective states collectively known as mind. Certain drugs are known, for example, that affect certain neural paths and centers in the brain to produce the psychic state known as euphoria. Others affect other circuits and produce depression or sleep. We can implant electrodes in the brain and cause the subject to "hear" bells and symphonies that aren't "there" at all. We can be made to "see" figures and lights without using our eyes at all, by stimulating the visual cortex at the back of the brain. We can cause to appear the emotions of rage, sexuality, sorrow, religious awe, etc., by altering the dynamic functions of the brain in appropriate ways. We are beginning to understand how neural circuits compete with each other to give us the illusion of "free will." Indeed, we are on the verge of being able to write equations relating the physicochemical states of the nervous system with the subjective, mental states described by psychologists and other mystics. In short, we are learning to study subjective states objectively. "
Ethics without Gods
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html
Federal Prison Population
http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Judeo-Christian Total :83.761%
Atheist: (8%-16% of the US Population): .21%
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html
"To wonder where the mind goes after the brain decays is as silly as asking where the 70-miles-per-hour have gone after a speeding auto has crashed into a tree. Just as the relative motion of an auto can be altered only within certain limits and still represent the process called "speeding," so too we can alter the functioning of the brain only so much before the process called "mind" or "thinking" becomes altered out of existence.
Now that scientists recognize mind as a process rather than a thing, they are making rapid advances in understanding the specific brain dynamics that correspond to the various subjective states collectively known as mind. Certain drugs are known, for example, that affect certain neural paths and centers in the brain to produce the psychic state known as euphoria. Others affect other circuits and produce depression or sleep. We can implant electrodes in the brain and cause the subject to "hear" bells and symphonies that aren't "there" at all. We can be made to "see" figures and lights without using our eyes at all, by stimulating the visual cortex at the back of the brain. We can cause to appear the emotions of rage, sexuality, sorrow, religious awe, etc., by altering the dynamic functions of the brain in appropriate ways. We are beginning to understand how neural circuits compete with each other to give us the illusion of "free will." Indeed, we are on the verge of being able to write equations relating the physicochemical states of the nervous system with the subjective, mental states described by psychologists and other mystics. In short, we are learning to study subjective states objectively. "
Ethics without Gods
http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html
Federal Prison Population
http://holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
Judeo-Christian Total :83.761%
Atheist: (8%-16% of the US Population): .21%
all the whey
New member
I just think ugly people shouldn't breed.
all the whey
New member
habitualhealth said:
I think I am allergic to you also.
H
heatherrae
Guest
it isn't that a child is "less than satisfactory" but if you could prevent your child from having Down's Syndrome or spina bifida, you would be neglectful to let that child be born with something that could have been cured in advance. It would be just as irrational as not giving a child medicine to cure a bad infection because you didn't want to insinuate that your child was "less than satisfactory."matty420 said:
digimon7068
New member
nope. . .just plain wrong. . .however, if there was some way that i could ensure that my kids don't get my f'd up knees. . .i might be tempted to do it. . .
JayC9
Well-known member
What sort of research specimens does genetically engineering human babies produce?
In the late 1970's Robert Klark Graham founded the Repository for Germinal Choice, a sperm bank specializing in donors from famous high achievers and those with genius level IQ. His theory was basically that we were breeding stupidity into society and the only way to overcome it was selective breeding of human beings, a sort of early method of genetic engineering and not so different to more sinister motives in past history.
218 babies were born through the repository. Some turned out to be geniuses, a few were amazingly talented, some were above average IQ, but most were average human beings. A pretty normal spread.
The interesting thing though, was not all those with genius level IQ wanted to be quantum physicists or the next Nobel prize winner etc, some opted for more humble lives and jobs. On the other hand those with normal IQ were not all satisfied with humble lives and jobs and have went on to be very successful and contribute a lot to society. Results were not as expected, we don't have to be super brains.
Improving the chances for a child is very difficult to argue with but it’s still the thinnest sweetest end of the wedge.
In the late 1970's Robert Klark Graham founded the Repository for Germinal Choice, a sperm bank specializing in donors from famous high achievers and those with genius level IQ. His theory was basically that we were breeding stupidity into society and the only way to overcome it was selective breeding of human beings, a sort of early method of genetic engineering and not so different to more sinister motives in past history.
218 babies were born through the repository. Some turned out to be geniuses, a few were amazingly talented, some were above average IQ, but most were average human beings. A pretty normal spread.
The interesting thing though, was not all those with genius level IQ wanted to be quantum physicists or the next Nobel prize winner etc, some opted for more humble lives and jobs. On the other hand those with normal IQ were not all satisfied with humble lives and jobs and have went on to be very successful and contribute a lot to society. Results were not as expected, we don't have to be super brains.
Improving the chances for a child is very difficult to argue with but it’s still the thinnest sweetest end of the wedge.
Similar threads
