Master Index of Archived Threads


Designer Babies

VERY!

7 votes

Somewhat

4 votes

Just a little bit

3 votes

Not at all

0 votes

Benjamin Grimm Nov 28 2018 11:41 AM

How disturbed are you by the notion of designer babies?

batmagadanleadoff Nov 28 2018 12:08 PM Re: Designer Babies

Nothing morally or ethically wrong with this . It's our future and nobody's gonna be able to stop it because every single person out there wants to be intelligent, wants to be attractive, wants to be healthy and wants to be athletic and graceful. And if you do well in just one of those categories, you're goddamn lucky. I am concerned with the current efficacy of the technology, though.

d'Kong76 Nov 28 2018 12:18 PM Re: Designer Babies

It's kinda creepy, took 'just a little bit.'

batmagadanleadoff Nov 28 2018 12:19 PM Re: Designer Babies

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Nothing morally or ethically wrong with this . It's our future and nobody's gonna be able to stop it because every single person out there wants to be intelligent, wants to be attractive, wants to be healthy and wants to be athletic and graceful. And if you do well in just one of those categories, you're goddamn lucky. I am concerned with the current efficacy of the technology, though. And designer babies? Just wait until they start altering the DNA and genes of fully grown adults!

smg58 Nov 28 2018 01:02 PM Re: Designer Babies

Just because we can doesn't mean we should. But we will, because we can.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 28 2018 01:09 PM Re: Designer Babies

I think that if you could turn off the gene for a congenital disease, it's a good thing. Designing your baby's eye color or nose is where it gets weird, but it's probably harmless. Designing a baby with blue skin or Spock ears because you want your child to be "unique" is a bad use of this technology. The people who object to this say that we're not ready yet. But if it's acceptable to do it in the future then someone has to, at some point, advance from designing mice to designing humans. How could we ever be "ready" unless we take that first step? I think what complicates this is that an adult can volunteer to be a test subject for new medicine or new surgery, but an embryo can't volunteer to be a test for genetic engineering. I guess parents today give consent to experiments on their children but it's definitely the kind of thing that needs rules and oversight.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 28 2018 01:16 PM Re: Designer Babies

I think that one of the biggest issues that the scientific community is grappling with over this technology is that depending on how the genetic modifications are performed, some of those modifications will be inheritable, thus potentially altering the entire human gene pool.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 28 2018 01:29 PM Re: Designer Babies

Yes. That adds another level of concern that didn't exist with test-tube babies.

Lefty Specialist Nov 28 2018 02:21 PM Re: Designer Babies

The problem with this is that once it escapes into the wild, the rich (and only the rich) will be able to design their babies. That has very disturbing consequences.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 28 2018 02:37 PM Re: Designer Babies

This is interesting, from The New Yorker web site: Michael Specter wrote: ...sickle cells evolved as a protection against malaria; the shape of the cell blocks the spread of the parasite. Nobody could have envisioned sickle-cell anemia, but if gene-editing technology had been available two hundred thousand years ago, it might have seemed sensible to edit sickle cells into the human population in order to save it from potential death from malaria. But the results would have been devastating, inflicting sickle cells, which block the proper absorption of oxygen into red blood cells, on much of humanity. He Jiankui and the Implications of Experimenting with Genetically Edited Babies

Frayed Knot Nov 28 2018 03:03 PM Re: Designer Babies

Yes, that's why sickle cell exists almost exclusively in those whose ancestry derives from Africa. Having sickle cell is a life shortener and/or is considered a less desirable trait to potential mates on most of the planet and therefore the disease died out rather than got passed on. But in those parts of Africa where malaria is common the genes for SCA survived because only there did they carry the advantage of making one NOT susceptible to the even worse condition of malaria. One can only imagine the outcry if/when this technology becomes available and parents start selecting their kids to have, say, a certain gender or skin tones, and not necessarily in 'equal' proportions. Will 'Hate Crime' legislation be far behind?

Fman99 Nov 28 2018 07:00 PM Re: Designer Babies

I'm hoping for more weird ugly babies in the world. Cause they're kind of awesome, in a weird, ugly way.

Mets Willets Point Nov 29 2018 08:14 AM Re: Designer Babies

"Designer babies" are less disturbing to me than a potential future in which "normal babies" are discriminated against for not having the genes modified.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Nov 29 2018 09:11 AM Re: Designer Babies

Mets Willets Point wrote: "Designer babies" are less disturbing to me than a potential future in which "normal babies" are discriminated against for not having the genes modified. I mean, one comes hand in inferior/natural hand with the other, right? The whole thing is just lousy with the specter of unintended consequences. Good Lord, the unintended consequences!

d'Kong76 Nov 29 2018 10:08 AM Re: Designer Babies

Ok, I think I've been bumped up to somewhere between VERY! and Somewhat

batmagadanleadoff Nov 29 2018 10:14 AM Re: Designer Babies

Lefty Specialist wrote: The problem with this is that once it escapes into the wild, the rich (and only the rich) will be able to design their babies. That has very disturbing consequences. That's the same thing everybody complained about when desserts were Invented. And air conditioning.

Edgy MD Nov 29 2018 08:07 PM Re: Designer Babies

batmagadanleadoff wrote: I think that one of the biggest issues that the scientific community is grappling with over this technology is that depending on how the genetic modifications are performed, some of those modifications will be inheritable, thus potentially altering the entire human gene pool. And potentially drastically affecting our biodiversity, making huge populations potentially massively vulnerable to a single contagion.

batmagadanleadoff Nov 29 2018 08:48 PM Re: Designer Babies

Edgy MD wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: I think that one of the biggest issues that the scientific community is grappling with over this technology is that depending on how the genetic modifications are performed, some of those modifications will be inheritable, thus potentially altering the entire human gene pool. And potentially drastically affecting our biodiversity, making huge populations potentially massively vulnerable to a single contagion. Do you realize how many gene mods they're gonna hafta do to meaningfully affect the gene pool? Meanwhile, think of all the fun you'll have going around looking like Cary Grant, being able to hit a baseball twice as far as Babe Ruth, all the while packing an eight inch cock and having more memory capacity in your brain than all of the information you can access on your smartphone. And for a few dollars more, you can get the bird gene and fly around town like Superman.

metsmarathon Nov 30 2018 06:28 AM Re: Designer Babies

i'm on team #unintendedconsequences though maybe i watched jurassic park a few too many times. i mean, they mixed frog dna into dinosaurs, and got rid of all the awesome feathers!!

Centerfield Nov 30 2018 01:14 PM Re: Designer Babies

I'm excited about the technology. They claim that in a few years, they will have the ability to alter an existing person's DNA to remedy terrible diseases like ALS, Alzheimer's etc. I hope that I can see that in my lifetime. I think there should be a strict ban on using it for cosmetic purposes, but people will do it anyway. My feeling is that you can't stop science, and people are always gonna people.