Would you genetically engineer your children?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Well, would you?

  • Given the opportunity, I would do it!
  • Of course not! (Have to explain why.)
  • I’m not sure…need to know more.
0 voters

06.27.06.1346

Having read this thread, I felt it necessary to construct a poll regarding Dan’s following thoughts:

Personally, I think you’ve made a point about something worthy to be discussed (again). This topic has been seen on ILP before, however I have often been personally perplexed with the so-called ethics of genetic-engineering, eugenics, and to some degree, cloning.
Honestly, human cloning has not been proved to be a successful venture; or even a possible one at that, so to dictate ethics on something that has yet to show consequences we can only speculate upon is a priori absurdity!
Eugenics on the other hand have been proven to be somewhat unsuccessful, especially with the failings of Nazi ideology. Put two dominantly willful people together and you get a relationship hardly resembling an idealogical family.
Finally, with pre-conceptional genetic engineering, there is the possibility of a producing the boons of eugenical ambition without its flaws. How can a person argue for the ethics against such an act that serves not only in the best interests of the parents but in the bests interests of humanity and the human race in general?

Seriously, in terms of scientific achievement, this is the next break-through for humanity to approach one step closer to Nietzsche’s Overman! By surpassing the flaws of humanity, we have the opportunity to enhance—even perfect—the human physical form so that it does not tarnish the potential perfection of human spirituality and freedom of thought! Understanding that this method of improvement reaches down to our core yearnings for immortality, we can assure that our continuing genes that represent what we are can go on without fear of a genetic mortality. Think about it… what is it that you do not like about yourself? What are the elements of yourself which you desired you could change in order to make yourself a better person in society, as well as your personal well-being? You may not be able to change yourself, but is it ethically moral to let your offspring suffer those same faults?

[size=59](Most people in the world aren’t as lucky as Tab—one who has succeeded in eugenical ambition!)[/size]

2

oh, hells yeah

3

Genetic engineering is a form of preventative medicine.
What is prevented is weakness, disease and deformity.

The shallow human instinct is mostly reactive, prefering heroic-medicine to preventative-medicine. They only learn when it’s too late, sometimes.

I see humanity is perpetually “fucking itself”.
I should have disowned my sympathy long ago, it brings me nothing but grief…

[size=75][thx 4 pm][/size]

Anti-engineering “morals” are forms of dogmatic traditionalism, just like circumsition… Some conformists simply hate their superiors for no reason at all other then the harmless & good differences that they see.

Stupidity is the foundation of anti-engineering “ethics”.

4

Terrific! I’m very glad to see 100% of votes are FOR genetic engineering. Society to date has such a dismal view of genetic engineering I feared something far worse. Of course, only 4 people voted, but still, impressive.

The only thing wrong with genetic engineering is that it isn’t available right now. Once it’s been developed and repeatedly confirmed to do what it says it does - eliminate genetic health problems, increase metabolism and IQ and immunological response - I say HELL YES.

I took a sign language class once. The lady who taught the class refused to acknowledge that being deaf was a handicap or a disability, which I thought was stupid. Then she said that many deaf parents desired children who were also deaf, so that they would be in the “same world” as their children. I thought this was absolutely horrible. How do these people justify having disabled children for their own selfish reasons? If you have a hearing child, he will still learn sign language and communicate with you in that manner - but he will also have a huge ability you lack, which is wonderful! I am very bright, and I would be overjoyed if my child intellectually put me to shame. If my child were born telepathic, I would similarly be overjoyed.

If we can give our children advantages through science - that most successful of human endeavors - then we are morally obligated to do so.

5

Just one point, Sagesound, - the Overman hasn’t a thing to do with ‘freedom of thought’ - that’s a 20th century existentialist reading (i.e. a liberal reading, ironically) of the texts that is unsupported.

Twiffy - so you are in favour of genetic engineering, but against people using it to fulfil their desires if those desires conflict with your own values?

Are you familiar with Eugenics? That’s what you are advocating…

6

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

Nobody has mentioned it yet.

7

06.28.06.1347

An excellent point you have made here—one that has been caused by my lack of explaination concerning the term: ‘freedom of thought’. So allow me to elaborate. I agree that the Overman has nothing to do with the freedom of thought itself, however I merely stated it in the effort of interpretation. While Nietzsche may not have noted that a superior mind can meet ends with a superior body, I find it plausible that genetic engineering—specifically to enhance the mental properties of the posthuman—can lead to a clearer and more rational train of thought. To strengthen the mind is to strengthen the body—this is not something new! So in this interpretation, I could attribute a ‘freedom of thought’ to the Overman. Thank you for bringing this up to dispell any confusion.

However… at this time my current views on genetic engineering are far from radical as they are of moderate manipulation. I believe that it would be in the best interests of humanity to rid itself of physical and mental flaws, but not the enhancement thereof. At least not yet anyway… I do not think the world is ready for that yet. Of course, the consequences are not yet known. Science yields to that discovery.

8

I’m not quite sure. I would do it to so that he or she had the best life. To erase all chances of genetic diseases, to add rare immunities, reduce acne, tall, naturally muscular, perfect eyesight, no loosing of hair at an early age, but I wouldn’t design how they looked like hair color. If I could make them hot, that would be nice so they could get anyone they wanted and she/he wouldn’t have to deal with romantic rejection.

9

06.28.06.1349

Great example… consider the idea of genetic engineering not as eugenics, but as limited selective gene-encoding. What I mean by that is you and your partner hooked up on your own without any outside influence, so the element of love and companionship is there; debunking the notion of eugenical selective-breeding. Next, you and your partner choose from your own genes the best of yourselves that you wish to pass on to your offspring… or the worst… hey, it’s your call! It is limited as the only altering of genes would be for the case to rid the offspring of any deficiencies. The only downside with this whole agenda is when it starts picking-up, corporations are going to get their hands on this and make a fortune. However… in such a future, I would like to imagine the government regulating such agendas to be as affordable as possible.

10

Indeed.

I would not say I’m against improving the nature of our kids but I think that there should be some limits, in order to keep some degree of diversity in the world.

For instance how would everyone feel about gene ‘credits’? Allow me to elaborate:

Things like health immunity could be standard, but say, increased height - that would be worth a credit.

6th finger on each hand, another credit.

Super vision - 2 credits.

Big Dick/Boobs - 2 credits.

You get the idea. That way on things like sports teams and other co-operative ventures there would be a sense of utilizing your gifts or specialities rather than having a race of mirror image supremos

11

I think that genetic engineering has tremendous potential to increase health outcomes.

However, I’m not at all convinced that genetic engineering is the best way to increase health outcomes. I’m also not sure that it is the best way to justly distribute better health outcomes.

As such, I am troubled by genetic engineering more in terms of it’s potential to worsen inequality than in itself.

Another concern I have is the fact that some people seem to just asssume that it won’t bring any problems. Every technology entails trade offs, so will genetic engineering.

cheers,
gemty

12

The same problems with genetically engineering plants can occur with humans. If you make the perfect potato and a disease comes by, all of your potatoes will die becuase they are the same. To combat this, corporations keep regular crops of potatoes in storage and have them breed to keep the genetic variation flowing.

With humans, this could be disatrous.  Loss of life aside, but who gets to decide who serves as the fallback human race and doesn't get all the wonderful genetic enhancements?  How many of these fallback humans should we have?  What happens once we need to start knocking them up to restore the human race?

Gah! Complications :astonished:

13

06.29.06.1350

This is exactly why I am currently for minor genetic change meant only to scratch out general flaws. People today who wear glasses or contacts have to because that’s the only way they can see as well as those with better vision. The advent of laser eye surgery is an interesting breakthrough, although it hasn’t been around long enough to observe the long-term effects. Point is… laser eye surgery is a means of ‘fixing’ the problem. Genetic manipulation before birth is a means of preventing the problem. It’s like with diseases in the world… so many people work hard to find cures for something when they can just as easily work towards its prevention. Because we do not know the long-term consequences, this too is a risk. However, all scientific advances are risks. Perhaps someday we may get to the point of technology where we can feel confident and assured to persue genetic engineering on a more advanced level such as enhanced immunity, sight, hearing, smell, etc.

14

I love your multi-coloured posts. I really do.

Fair enough - by ‘freedom of thought’ you meant ‘less restrictions on the body and mind due to genetic manipulation and enhancement’ and I can live with that. ‘More free thought that we manifest at present’ is a much uglier phrase so I can see why you chose the one that you did.

15

I concur, minor changes to begin with. We have to pace ourselves and not overstep our boundaries.

16

06.29.06.1352

I have often thought that adding a little color to my posts on a consistent post-by-post basis gets my thoughts noticed more abound multi-non-colored posts within a thread. Although some people have used color in their posts from time to time, I don’t think anyone on this site remains to be seen as colorful a thinker as I. Perhaps it’s the artist in me aching to express itself beyond imagery?

If Nietzsche lived in this day, I believe he might have spoken of such things; but considering the times he lived in, this too would have been an unfulfilled wish of romanticism… With the rise of Germany in 1871, who has time to think about the self when everyone is getting hyped up over the craze of nationalism? Nietzsche was wonderfully ahead of his time…

17

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein comes to mind. Yes, I probably would genetically engineer my child to be immune to any form of disease. However, I would not engineer a child to be male, female or of a specific color.

The Wrath of Khan just came to mind. A genetically engineered group of people, caused strong ambitions, aggression and superiorty. These massive egos conflicted and a devastating war occured.

Then there is Critchton’s Jurassic Park.

Would this be a possible consequence of human genetic engineering?

As it is, we have so many running around with inflated egos whose only goal appears to be attack and win, not to learn.

This gives me pause. Do we do this to better humanity? What are the possible repurcussions of this? Do we really know? Should we do this?

With regards,

aspacia

Remember, I am just rambling attempting to resolve this question. :sunglasses:

18

06.29.06.1353

The Eugenics War. It’s interesting you bring this up as I had caught an episode of Star Trek: DS9 where Julian Bashier had been found out that he was subjected to DNA resequencing as a child by his ambitious parents seeking to save a 6-year-old who was doing progressively worse in school with each passing day. The story revealed that the Federation had laws governing the management of genetically engineering children to limit the process of DNA resequencing to rid the strain of any human flaws, but that was it. The ethics of a future government decided it should be illegal to engage in ‘advancing’ mankind into an Overman of sorts as it would lead to war.

19

Actually, I’m very sure that Nietzsche would have regarded Social Darwinism as an attempt to control the flux, not something he would have supported. The Nietzschean Overman is meant to be the embodiment of change, embracing change even if it leads to death.

20

Well, I guess trivially, yes. I mean, everyone is against things that conflict with their values, right? If someone wanted to genetically engineer their child to be an evil genius and the next Hitler, yeah, I’d oppose that. But if I could vote FOR genetic engineering or AGAINST it, I’d totally go for - because I think the vast majority of uses would be for good. Smarter, healthier, stronger people will almost always be a good thing. The only time it’s better for someone to be weak, stupid, or sick, is when that person is bad. Which is a valid concern - but I don’t think so valid that one should oppose genetic engineering. Just valid enough so that we should give more encouragement to parents to morally educate their children.

Yes, it certainly is. This is where I’m tempted to say “but what about all the GOOD things Hitler did!”

Seriously, though, Eugenics gets a bad rap because Hitler did it. Eugenics doesn’t mean killing Jews - it just means trying to take a hand in our own genetics, to make people’s lives better. HITLER’s eugenics were awful, and caused far more misery than good. But there are two obvious components to that - 1) Killing people is bad. Society doesn’t like it, people don’t like it - it’s really not going to work as a policy. 2) What’s wrong with Jews? They’re nice, smart - keep 'em around.

No sir, if you’re going to kill a bunch of people based on religion, kill the damn Buddhists. Always sticking their noses in other people’s business. Judgmental bastards.

Just because Hitler tried eugenics doesn’t make it bad. Hitler was a vegetarian - and actually I am too, but I like me some Jews! Really!

There may be things that make eugenics bad - economic considerations, or the possibility of social inequality a la Gattica. I don’t think these would be the case, but I could be wrong. But I don’t think anyone should say or assume that eugenics is bad without an argument to back it up!

I agree with diversity, but only in the sense that diversity is neutral or good. There IS such a thing as bad diversity. Right now, people have a diversity of immunological response to common allergens - and (all other things equal) that’s a BAD thing. No reason to cultivate diversity in that sense - better to shoot for an immune system that can differentiate between things that are truly trying to hurt you, and things that are innocuous.

Same with intelligence. This world has a diversity of intellects - but that’s a BAD thing. If everyone were smart, the world would be a better place. Now, people have a diversity of mental talents, and that’s a GOOD thing. We wouldn’t want a world where everyone was good at math and bad at the arts - we’d have great science, and boring lives!

Diversity of height and skin color - well, that really doesn’t make a damn bit of difference on an individual level, but I wouldn’t want to live in a world where everyone was 6’2". In general, traits that aren’t clearly good when regulated shouldn’t be easily regulatable. But immune system, intelligence, strength - super vision - those should all be standard.