Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

At some point potentially in the near future, we will possess the resources/means to alter our genes. This would range from simply removing latent diseases such as cancer, hypertension, diabetes, etc. from our gene-code, up to and including superior strength, stamina, intelligence, speed, resistance to disease and so on. We may even be able to create hybrids/custom-designed Human sub-species for specific situations.

Now, my question is: what's your stance on the matter? Should we limit genetic alteration to when it's only necessary? Will you oppose it completely? Or will let things run their course, believing that Humanity should learn on its own and trusting in its own ability to choose right when the time comes?

Limit it to necessity.
There are certain cultures where this will cause enormous problems
the ability to select gender for example.
Some hospitals will not reveal the gender of a foetus due to selective abortion of (otherwise healthy) females.
This is having a massive impact in some areas where male children are greatly preferred (usually due to dowry issues, and the practice of the male children supporting parents in old age)

I have no problem with sorting out genetic defects/diseases though.
There is massive scope for abuse though, which needs to be considered.

OH god... real furries....

"shiver"

Pretty much what marv said. There is a massive scope for abuse, so there should be rules and guidelines. Parents should be able visit the hospital and tell the doctor that they want a kid with blonde hair and green eyes. They shouldn't be allowed to have a kid with nine legs and the tail of a scorpion.

 iproxtaco wrote:
Pretty much what marv said. There is a massive scope for abuse, so there should be rules and guidelines. Parents should be able visit the hospital and tell the doctor that they want a kid with blonde hair and green eyes. They shouldn't be allowed to have a kid with nine legs and the tail of a scorpion.

Agreed, but I think we shouldn't be too restrictive either. Otherwise, we might give off a vibe of 'forbidden fruit' and the last thing we need are illicit gene alteration operations out there.

The poll options are too narrow. I think that they should be limited only on the grounds of safety and the patients physical and mental health. I realise that this may involve a degree of cosmetic alterations but these should only be allowed on fully consenting adults, which would only allow for very limited genetic alterations at the moment anyway.

Yeah, I think the main problem here is you are making drastic choices for a person who doesn't even exist yet. It's pretty obvious that's going to lead to trouble.

Then again, it's not like parents don't already ruin their children's lives with other nonsense...

It should be used to treat medical conditions, genetic illnesses like cystic fibrosis. It's not cosmetic treatment for the rich, or to have children with selected traits that suit the whims of parents.

There's enough problems with some cultures only wanting boys which makes early gender identification and abortion provision ethically problematic. I'm pro choice, but it's not to be abused for gender selection. Imagine being able to select a raft of things for your child, and those attitudes will become much greater.

Further I believe it's a bad thing for society if only the rich can afford stronger, smarter, healthier children. There's a growing problem with a rich-poor divide already with the children of the wealthy getting a leg up from birth without genetically making them superior.

Gattaca worked out alright.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It should be used to treat medical conditions, genetic illnesses like cystic fibrosis. It's not cosmetic treatment for the rich, or to have children with selected traits that suit the whims of parents.

There's enough problems with some cultures only wanting boys which makes early gender identification and abortion provision ethically problematic. I'm pro choice, but it's not to be abused for gender selection. Imagine being able to select a raft of things for your child, and those attitudes will become much greater.

Further I believe it's a bad thing for society if only the rich can afford stronger, smarter, healthier children. There's a growing problem with a rich-poor divide already with the children of the wealthy getting a leg up from birth without genetically making them superior.

Actually, that last one shouldn't be too much of an issue. Assuming inter-marriage between social classes, enhanced traits would spread across the gene-pool give or take a few generations.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It should be used to treat medical conditions, genetic illnesses like cystic fibrosis. It's not cosmetic treatment for the rich, or to have children with selected traits that suit the whims of parents.

There's enough problems with some cultures only wanting boys which makes early gender identification and abortion provision ethically problematic. I'm pro choice, but it's not to be abused for gender selection. Imagine being able to select a raft of things for your child, and those attitudes will become much greater.

Further I believe it's a bad thing for society if only the rich can afford stronger, smarter, healthier children. There's a growing problem with a rich-poor divide already with the children of the wealthy getting a leg up from birth without genetically making them superior.

Actually, that last one shouldn't be too much of an issue. Assuming inter-marriage between social classes, enhanced traits would spread across the gene-pool give or take a few generations.

Not necessarily. Class distinctions (of smart, beautiful build-a-babies with perfect IV's vs normal people) could easily lead to sympatric speciation (Rich don't breed with poor, diverge into morlocs and eloi). Secondly, even if there was inter-breeding, with there being a lot fewer rich than poor, and rich generally having fewer children, the new genes would not saturate the gene pool all that quickly. Third, even if the genes spread in a few generations, the then-current generation is still going to have to deal with the fact that the rich are now genetically superior for a generation or two. This will be compounded by the fact that any tech improves as it ages (or at least our knowledge of how to use it does), and so the rich would keep getting better, while the poor are playing catch-up with last generations genes.

So yeah, no build-a-baby workshops, but we should look into defeating genetic diseases.

Oh, I think aftermarket genetic modifications, especially the cut rate ones, will induce a new stage of evolution. Imagine, retroviruses designed on a budget to remove and replace portions of human genetic code, let loose from the lowest bidder! They mutate, become infectious, and before you know it, humanity itself is a spectrum, rather than a species. It will be horrifying and glorious.

Ask yourself this. Would it be acceptable for deaf parents to use genetic manipulation to ensure they have a deaf child? Equally is it right to alter the genes of an embryo to ensure that it dose not have congenital deafness against the parents wishes?

I think this answers why we should have very strict limits. For some conditions genetic manipulation is going to happen, but for others we have to be very careful about how it is used.

I don't think you should be able to make any vanity choices, sex, hair colour, even intelligence etc. If we allow that how long before someone insists that there child is 7' tall and athletic to give them the best chance to be an NBA player, even though this may cause damage in other areas.

I think it should only be allowed for very strict, agreed reasons.

 Steve steveson wrote:

I don't think you should be able to make any vanity choices, sex, hair colour, even intelligence etc. If we allow that how long before someone insists that there child is 7' tall and athletic to give them the best chance to be an NBA player, even though this may cause damage in other areas.

And why not? How different is this from plastic surgery and things like that.

Because you can't give a baby plastic surgery?

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
Because you can't give a baby plastic surgery?

Touche...but what about vaccinations? That's actually rudimentary genetic alteration there, using dead/weakened micro-organisms to force our immune systems to evolve a resistance. And babies get a lot of vaccinations.

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
Because you can't give a baby plastic surgery?

What do you call a circumcision?

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
Because you can't give a baby plastic surgery?

What do you call a circumcision?

Genital mutilation.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

And why not? How different is this from plastic surgery and things like that.

Plastic surgery isn't inheritable.

 Soladrin wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Dark Apostle 666 wrote:
Because you can't give a baby plastic surgery?

What do you call a circumcision?

Genital mutilation.

Exalt! I agree completely.

For me, it's a complete acceptance when it comes to the physical side and only for "adults", as in people who consciously make that decision (Is it even possible to genetically changing something like the intelligence of a being?) I don't like the idea of parents deciding how their unborn child is going to look and how he's going to act.

Ofc, I find the idea of creating new hybrid races completely fascinating. I'd love to see such a thing one day.

But then again, if I know humanity, it'd only give it an enormous pile of new things to hate because they are different.

How do you vet who can alter genes? What genes can you alter? How do you prepare for unforeseen consequences of genetic interaction?

I think this is a can of worms that will be disastrous when opened.

There are genetic conditions that absolutely ruin peoples lives but I don't think it is wise to alter our genetic code if we don't have to. Medical advancements might be enough that we don't need to do anything on a genetic level.

@TheDraconicLord

There was a medical article once that stated that intelligence is influenced by how many connections can be formed between neurons in the brain. So yes, it might be possible to increase a person's base intelligence by using gene-alteration on genes that control nerve connections.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
So yes, it might be possible to increase a person's base intelligence by using gene-alteration on genes that control nerve connections.

That is so far ahead of what we can do now that we can't even see it. We don't even know which genes affect intelligence never mind how to manipulate them.

I think that the safest plan of action is to make any genetic alterations reversable. Its also worth remembering that any post birth genetic manipulation will have a limited impact.

I think it's something that has such a potential for abuse, it would almost be better not to use at all.
I mean, it'd be great to cure genetic diseases, but if a by-product of that ability would be a physical stratification of the "wealth gap" and the creation of the rich "post-humans" looking down on the rest of humanity, and all the trouble that could cause...
I can't help but think that it's a Pandora's box which shouldn't be opened - or if it is, opened very slightly, only at great need.

Basically, cure genetic disease? Yes,
Make hybrids or designer babies? NO!
That's playing god, and even as an atheist, I think that's a bad idea.

I'm personally on the fence of "fix only disabilities/diseases" and "manipulate all the genes!" I mean, if we have the ability to "get the best IV's" and fully max-out the human potential, why not? Think of all the things that could be accomplished!

However, there's also that chance of someone becoming like Liquid Snake, and attacking the world with a stolen Metal Gear.

Just because no one has yet: You know who else wanted to create a race of Übermenschen?

...Although, if you were to vat-grow every child, and raise them outside of a 'normal' family unit, something similar to Brave New World, I could get behind that...

 Admiral Valerian wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It should be used to treat medical conditions, genetic illnesses like cystic fibrosis. It's not cosmetic treatment for the rich, or to have children with selected traits that suit the whims of parents.

There's enough problems with some cultures only wanting boys which makes early gender identification and abortion provision ethically problematic. I'm pro choice, but it's not to be abused for gender selection. Imagine being able to select a raft of things for your child, and those attitudes will become much greater.

Further I believe it's a bad thing for society if only the rich can afford stronger, smarter, healthier children. There's a growing problem with a rich-poor divide already with the children of the wealthy getting a leg up from birth without genetically making them superior.

Actually, that last one shouldn't be too much of an issue. Assuming inter-marriage between social classes, enhanced traits would spread across the gene-pool give or take a few generations.

I don't see the genetics trickling down to the lower classes any more than their wealth. People tend to pair within their social circle. The short term result is that the children descending from the rich will always benefit greatly from genetic enhancement. There's room for a bit to feed outwards in society but the rich will be far in the lead. There will be a genetic as well as economic wealth that simply perpetuates in a small section of society. I don't believe the 'morlocks and eloy' idea as that's extreme speciation which wouldn't result without extreme manipulation and reproductive isolation. But you will find that some people will benefit with the best genetic enhancement has to offer in health, fitness, intelligence etc, and this will only be a minority being primed for the best education and opportunities in life. While the rest get nothing, except the possibility of a little feed down into their future generations. It's not healthy for society IMO.

But that's all for stuff beyond treating medical conditions. Genetic manipulation should be reserved for treatment of specific conditions which should then be made available for all, not the elite, and not allowed to become 'owned' by corporations trying to patent genetic treatments for profit.

 Admiral Valerian wrote:
@TheDraconicLord

There was a medical article once that stated that intelligence is influenced by how many connections can be formed between neurons in the brain. So yes, it might be possible to increase a person's base intelligence by using gene-alteration on genes that control nerve connections.

I see we're disregarding any semblance of reality in favour of having a "GUIZ! HOW C00L WUD IT BE IF WE CUD MAKE CAT PEEPL N ALL GET SMART" discussion.

If you would like to return to reality and talk about the moral implications of genetic alteration then please leave plasmids at the door.