What exactly would be wrong with designer babies?

[Argus]

So scientists in the US did an experiment in gene splicing of an embryo. They wanted to see if they could remove and replace genes which causes diseases. This, apparently scares a lot of people. It's not the fear of getting rid of genetic diseases that bothers them so much as the fear people will have 'designer babies". And I\m thinking, what is a designer baby? Probably tall, beautiful, blonde and blue eyed, with above average intelligence, maybe.

And this is wrong, why?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/oregon+scientists+first+human+gene+embryo+editing/13928757/story.html

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

So scientists in the US did an experiment in gene splicing of an embryo. They wanted to see if they could remove and replace genes which causes diseases. This, apparently scares a lot of people. It's not the fear of getting rid of genetic diseases that bothers them so much as the fear people will have 'designer babies". And I\m thinking, what is a designer baby? Probably tall, beautiful, blonde and blue eyed, with above average intelligence, maybe.

And this is wrong, why?

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/oregon+scientists+first+humane+embryo+editing/13928757/story.html

 

It's not wrong.  It's choice.  It's also inevitable.  It might get a bit messy along the way.

[Omni]

Lets see, wasn't there a regime a few decades ago that strove to create a tall, beautiful, blond haired, blue eyed race of people? Removing harmful genes no one would likely complain about, unless perhaps if you are a JW or some such, but crafting humanity beyond that seems a bit of a danger zone to me.  

[Hal 9000]

34 minutes ago, Omni said:

Lets see, wasn't there a regime a few decades ago that strove to create a tall, beautiful, blond haired, blue eyed race of people? Removing harmful genes no one would likely complain about, unless perhaps if you are a JW or some such, but crafting humanity beyond that seems a bit of a danger zone to me.  

Why?

[Omni]

1 minute ago, Hal 9000 said:

Why?

You know I'm not exactly sure why. As I said kicking out DNA that is a fore teller of disease is obviously worthwhile. however if we engineer all our offspring as tall, blond haired, blue eyed people, isn't it going to get s bit boring?  

[taxme]

40 minutes ago, Omni said:

Lets see, wasn't there a regime a few decades ago that strove to create a tall, beautiful, blond haired, blue eyed race of people? Removing harmful genes no one would likely complain about, unless perhaps if you are a JW or some such, but crafting humanity beyond that seems a bit of a danger zone to me.  

You must be talking about the supreme race, eh? I wonder what the world would be like if those beautiful, blond haired, blue eyed people were never created? A cesspool of a world comes to mind. But hey. 

[Hal 9000]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

You know I'm not exactly sure why. As I said kicking out DNA that is a fore teller of disease is obviously worthwhile. however if we engineer all our offspring as tall, blond haired, blue eyed people, isn't it going to get s bit boring?  

Boring and danger are two very different things.  You said "danger zone" and now you can even defend that statement.  I stumped you with one simple word.

[taxme]

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

You know I'm not exactly sure why. As I said kicking out DNA that is a fore teller of disease is obviously worthwhile. however if we engineer all our offspring as tall, blond haired, blue eyed people, isn't it going to get s bit boring?  

You said "you know I am not exactly sure why". But isn't that always the case for you? Never sure of anything you say? 

[OftenWrong]

It could be reckless, since half the time these propeller-heads don't really know what their doing. It's not necessarily the short term result that matters.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:

Boring and danger are two very different things.  You said "danger zone" and now you can even defend that statement.  I stumped you with one simple word.

I doubt you've ever stumped anybody, no matter how many words you throw out. Especially in this case as I doubt you are a physician so you are into foreign territory, as am I. However this is an adult discussion, not a silly little kids game of na na na na na.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Omni

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

don't really know what their[sic] doing.

So says OftenWrong. 

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

However this is an adult discussion, not a silly little kids game of na na na na na.

That is what you pretty much always do, Omni, and support it from others. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Hal 9000 said:

Why?

The truth is that we've been on a eugenics program for centuries, if not longer. Looks? Who do young people look for in a partner? Someone hot, ie, attractive, someone tall and easy on the eyes, and preferably someone smart. If couples go to one of those sperm donor clinics what do they want to know about the donors? They want them to be intelligent and good looking. I think that some clinics even pay a premium for people like nobel prize winners.

All this would be is doing it more efficiently.

Besides, it's tired and cheap to say if Hitler liked dogs then everyone who is a dog lover is acting like Hitler.

 

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The truth is that we've been on a eugenics program for centuries, if not longer. Looks? Who do young people look for in a partner? Someone hot, ie, attractive, someone tall and easy on the eyes, and preferably someone smart. If couples go to one of those sperm donor clinics what do they want to know about the donors? They want them to be intelligent and good looking. I think that some clinics even pay a premium for people like nobel prize winners.

All this would be is doing it more efficiently.

Besides, it's tired and cheap to say if Hitler liked dogs then everyone who is a dog lover is acting like Hitler.

 

What exactly would be wrong with designer babies?

I'm just worried that the Neanderthal branch of conservatives will become extinct, Argus. 

[Hal 9000]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The truth is that we've been on a eugenics program for centuries, if not longer. Looks? Who do young people look for in a partner? Someone hot, ie, attractive, someone tall and easy on the eyes, and preferably someone smart. If couples go to one of those sperm donor clinics what do they want to know about the donors? They want them to be intelligent and good looking. I think that some clinics even pay a premium for people like nobel prize winners.

All this would be is doing it more efficiently.

Besides, it's tired and cheap to say if Hitler liked dogs then everyone who is a dog lover is acting like Hitler.

 

Agreed.  Especially about donor clinics.  I don't understand Omni's fears, but then again, I don't think he's here to be understood.

[Omni]

2 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

 I don't understand Omni's fears

I know you don't, but I would refer you to do a google search of a thing called thalidomide. 

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Omni said:

I know you don't, but I would refer you to do a google search of a thing called thalidomide. 

Thalidomide was a tragedy, but it was for morning sickness. It wasn't an attempt to change people.  That just happened to be a side effect.

Genetic modification will probably result in a few unwanted side effects too, but as I said, it's going to happen, like it or not.  And once it's available, in any form, it's a matter of choice. 

I guess the most basic form is already available, in that women can have abortions if they don't like the sex of the foetus.

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Thalidomide was a tragedy, but it was for morning sickness. It wasn't an attempt to change people.  That just happened to be a side effect.

Genetic modification will probably result in a few unwanted side effects too, but as I said, it's going to happen, like it or not.  And once it's available, in any form, it's a matter of choice. 

I guess the most basic form is already available, in that women can have abortions if they don't like the sex of the foetus.

I'm not saying we should thwart science, but in this case especially we need to tread carefully. 

[hot enough]

18 minutes ago, Omni said:

I'm not saying we should thwart science,

No danger there, Omni. You've made it abundantly clear that you lack the capacity. 

Edited July 30, 2017 by hot enough

[Omni]

12 minutes ago, hot enough said:

No danger there, Omni. You've made it abundantly clear that you lack the capacity. 

Please go back to your 9-11 corner.

[Topaz]

This may be for nothing because the north American male has slow sperm count, so  not much chance for this kind designing going on. The TV news said something about plastics and smoking having something to do with it and I bet drugs also.                                                                             http://globalnews.ca/news/3623319/docs-find-very-steep-decline-in-sperm-count-in-north-american-men-heres-why/  

[Hal 9000]

2 hours ago, Topaz said:

This may be for nothing because the north American male has slow sperm count, so  not much chance for this kind designing going on. The TV news said something about plastics and smoking having something to do with it and I bet drugs also.                                                                             http://globalnews.ca/news/3623319/docs-find-very-steep-decline-in-sperm-count-in-north-american-men-heres-why/  

Much like the chicken and egg question, I just want to know what came first - the man bun or the low sperm counts?

[OftenWrong]

On 2017-07-29 at 10:39 AM, Argus said:

And this is wrong, why?

Nature is performing this experiment all around us all the time, on a local tiny scale. The very principle of evolution through natural selection is based on random mutation. Nature rolls the dice. If the individual is born with a negative defect, they lose. If positive they could win, if it gives their offspring an advantage.

It would be quite vain to presume that we know what is best for our future in terms of designing "better" human beings. Why should everyone be physically strong or tall, blonde, blue-eyed? What if there was some situation where we needed a small person. Tall people take up more space and need more food, and the world is getting over-crowded. But seriously, there is evidence that a person who was otherwise considered defective in many ways became the one who provided the path forward for all of humanity, and their defect played a role in giving them this advantage. Say the little freckle-faced kid who was weak and small, and hated by others became an introvert, in their isolation pondered philosophically on many things relating to the human condition and wrote important works of philosophy or science.

[Wilber]

We need smaller people so airlines can keep reducing seat sizes and pitches.

[GostHacked]

On 7/29/2017 at 3:20 PM, Hal 9000 said:

Why?

We can barely collectively understand things we got going on today, let alone consider the implications of GMO humans. Take that one gene away, and what else happens? That answer is not known yet.   If this is not a big deal then cloning humans is not a big deal either.