Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
- Ozymandias
- Posts: 108
- Joined: December 5th, 2016, 1:02 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Loren Eiseley
Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
I suggest everyone watch it, even if you don't want to participate in this discussion, because it's a very real possibility in the near future and something we will need to address at some point. So after seeing the video my question is whether you agree or disagree with Paul Knoepfler?
I for one agree with him, and I may even be more on the extreme of his position. The possibility of creating genetically superior humans is something that should be, at the very least, regulated internationally. In a free market scenario, this technology would be limited to those with the financial resources to have it- turning the financial elite into a more dangerous genetic elite. You would have major social and cultural implications because of this- some people are naturally superior to others? In what world would that not lead to a more or less racist struggle between the two groups? It may seem like a paranoid prediction of dystopia to say that designer babies would lead to two groups of humans, the genetically modified- smart, attractive, athletic- and the non-genetically modified- the rest of us normal people. However, I for one believe that is a real possibility.
Human genetic modification could only have positive benefits under two conditions: A/ It is regulated worldwide to only be used to prevent genetic disposition to disease, and nothing more, or B/ it is regulated in such a sense that everyone born from here on out is genetically modified, no exceptions, so as not to lead to conflict of GMO and natural people (a virtually impossible task).
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
Of course "we" won't be able to control genetic science - we already can't. Governments might make all kinds of regulations, but other governments will make different regulations, and rich people have never been bound by regulations, anyway. Some babies will be improved; some will be ruined; most will turn out human. The children of rich people are already narcissistic and aggressive; they already go to private schools and have powers that other people their age do not; they're potentially dangerous just because they grow up in wealth and influence.
Most people, though, don't want children who are better than they are. Not brain-damaged, not crippled; healthy and whole --- but, as much as possible like the parents. Why have babies, after all, except to replicate our own precious ego?
And, you know, I can't be all that sorry about the 400,000,000 people that didn't get born in China.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
Wonderful topic, OP.
I think your solution is a good one (either make all the same, or make all to prevent disease). However, the situation will get out of hand way before any regulations can be thought up, applied, or enforced.
Most uses initially will be in the military. All inventions first go get used by the military.
Then when it gets into the hands of the general population, it's the rich first who get a taste of new inventions.
Later come the shoddily put together fabrications, things that fall apart in a few uses, or malfunction, or features don't work on them. That's for the thrift-echelon of population. You and me, to be frank.
Rich people will have genetically modified Rhesus monkeys that look like Raquel Welsh and they will be super hot lovers. The poorer saps will have Rosanne-look-alikes, if we are lucky.
A lot of people in the third world will go with their natural wives. Yikes!
Gay people will have Schwartzenegger dolls, and lesbians will have the fifties' actor Dick One Dyke reincarnated from DNA remnants.
Dogs will have bones that are crunchy on the outside, and soft and chewy in the inside.
Cats will grow to be one hundred their toda's size, and will torture and maim people before they devour us.
-- Updated 2017 July 12th, 5:43 pm to add the following --
What's your cultural background, Alias? What socio-economic echelon in what ethnic backdrop? Your English is impeccable, so you are likely from the UK, USA, CAnada, SoAf (RSA), or Oz.Alias wrote: Most people, though, don't want children who are better than they are.
In my background, which is Hungarian and Hungarian Jewish, the parents always want the kids to be better than themselves: happier, richer, more skilled, smarter. Better looking, better spellers, taller. The peoples in the Far Eastern societies too.
From you is the first I hear of a valued and widely valued societal value of keeping the kids dumb as the parents or dumber. I don't doubt that you are right -- I fully believe you. I am just amazed.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
No they don't. That's what they say, but, really, they just their kids to do better - be more successful - not be better people than they are. They hate it when that happens by accident, and the kid has smart ideas of her own, rejects tradition, runs with an intellectual crowd, talks back and turns his back on the family business to go off and be a social worker in some hellhole with no eligible Jewish girls for a hundred miles.-1- wrote: [Alias -
Most people, though, don't want children who are better than they are.]
In my background, which is Hungarian and Hungarian Jewish, the parents always want the kids to be better than themselves: happier, richer, more skilled, smarter. Better looking, better spellers, taller. The peoples in the Far Eastern societies too.
However, they'll pay to have a kid that's better than the Mendel boy that stuck-up Golda's always bragging about.
Not dumb. Most parents don't think of themselves as dumb or ugly or inferior - and they're not. If they had the opportunities, they would have done better, so they want their kids to have education, a nurturing environment, the opportunity do develop talents and be recognized.From you is the first I hear of a valued and widely valued societal value of keeping the kids dumb as the parents or dumber.
They don't want to create super- freaks. It's the world needs changing, not the children.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
"To do is to be." "You are what you do." You can argue this of course, but most people have no other way of measuring "good" of a person. "Deeds, not words."Alias wrote: No they don't. That's what they say, but, really, they just their kids to do better - be more successful - not be better people than they are.
How do you be NOT better than someone else, when you are richer, faster, smarter, kinder, better situated in society, etc. etc.
I guess you have perhaps a measure of "good". If you would share your view what is a "better" person who is poorer, less learned, less intelligent, less successful, then perhaps I could understand your position better.
Anyhow, I am not saying that all parents in my cultural background always get what they want. Some kids are better, some become worse, some are the same as their parents. Mostly the intent of the parents and the kids' success have a zero correlation. But the wish and educational efforts of the parents are such that the kids will become "better" -- however you want to define that.
But all that is beside the point.
The only thing that I could take away from the table is your answering straight out what your cultural background is.
Please understand that this is not a personal thing: I don't know you, never will, your identity and your location will be forever hidden from me and from the other users on this forum. So have no qualms about that, please. But I am as a human really curious what cultural background is what you call your own. You remain completely incognito, the only outcome of your revealing this fact will be my education of cultural differences. Period, it's not going to get anywhere beyond that. Thanks.
However, I do understand if you don't want to answer that.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
No, that's not true and it's also not what I meant. Parents want their children to be successful, in whatever kind of world they find themselves. To make a good living, a good marriage, a good life. You can't "do what you are" in societies with rigid caste systems or racial or religious or gender discrimination.-1- wrote: "To do is to be." "You are what you do." You can argue this of course, but most people have no other way of measuring "good" of a person. "Deeds, not words."
Those traits don't come as a package. I have not noticed rich people being faster and kinder than poor people - or people who are smart being especially fast and vice versa. Some talents, like math and music, do seem to be associated - possibly as a result of right- or left-brain dominance - but I'm unaware of any correlation between any particular talent and any particular social grace. Of course, it's normal for people who are "better situated in society" to be convinced of their own superiority, but they have not convinced everyone else.How do you be NOT better than someone else, when you are richer, faster, smarter, kinder, better situated in society, etc. etc.
He just had the one tattered coat, and he gave it to the little match girl.If you would share your view what is a "better" person who is poorer, less learned, less intelligent, less successful, then perhaps I could understand your position better.
Oh, com on! You know there are many different classifications of human competition; you can be "better" is a thousand different ways.
I thought I had.Mostly the intent of the parents and the kids' success have a zero correlation. But the wish and educational efforts of the parents are such that the kids will become "better" -- however you want to define that.
Is it? I thought the point was the potential threat caused by genetic engineering of the human race, and on that score, I don't think there is all that much to worry about.But all that is beside the point.
I didn't and don't see the relevance. I have been dislocated and relocated;worked in multi-ethnic environments, taught ESL, met many kinds of people; sympathize with most. Plus, I watch a lot of TV. I'm Canadian, but don't care about hockey.The only thing that I could take away from the table is your answering straight out what your cultural background is.
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
Thanks. I appreciate your candid revelation.alias wrote:"I'm Canadian,"
-- Updated 2017 July 13th, 8:09 am to add the following --
-1-: "better" -- however you want to define that.
Alias: I thought I had.
Response by -1-: you only defined by what it is not. That is not satisfactory.
==================
-1- wrote: "To do is to be." "You are what you do." You can argue this of course, but most people have no other way of measuring "good" of a person. "Deeds, not words."
reply by alias: No, that's not true and it's also not what I meant.
Response by -1-: yes, maybe that's too restrictive, but one has to define success somehow if one is to talk about success. You never provided a definition; you only said it's too wide a range of human experience, and thus it defies definition. (Alias wrote: "He just had the one tattered coat, and he gave it to the little match girl. Oh, com on! You know there are many different classifications of human competition; you can be "better" is a thousand different ways.")
Maybe that's true, too, but to talk about something COMPARATIVELY, such as whether A is more successful than B, and whether B is the same as A, can only be done if you have at least an operative definition of success or sameness. You kept on denying the validity of any definition. Then how can you TALK about one being more or less successful than the other? I suggest that you obliterate the very point of your treatment of the topic by your stance.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
Better: superior, scoring more points on a defined scale of comparison of any one particular quality, attribute or accomplishment.-1- wrote: -1-: "better" -- however you want to define that.
Alias: I thought I had.
Response by -1-: you only defined by what it is not. That is not satisfactory.
A "better" person could be identified only if the person they're 'better than', is analyzed in all particulars; each attribute, quality and accomplishment is placed on a quantitative scale, to which the putative "better" can be compared, and the "better" person scores higher on a majority of the charts.
In the absence of such objective measurement, "better" is a mere word-bubble, floating in air.
==================
You didn't define success at all. You just said people are what they do and do what they are. Success, however, is not a function of goodness; it is measured on a social scale, according to external criteria, in given circumstances. None of that was defined, or even described.""To do is to be." "You are what you do."
reply by alias: No, that's not true and it's also not what I meant.
Response by -1-: yes, maybe that's too restrictive, but one has to define success somehow
Is not at all similar to to A is better than B. (I can show you a long list of bad/worse people who achieved great success in some endeavour.)Maybe that's true, too, but to talk about something COMPARATIVELY, such as whether A is more successful than B,
No, I keep rejecting your ill-assorted basket of random attributes as a definition.You kept on denying the validity of any definition.
No, my stance is that most parents don't want to make genetically enhanced children who are very different from themselves: they just want children who are free from birth defects, healthy and fit for life. Beyond that, they want their children to have social, educational and vocational opportunities that they themselves may have been denied. That second part isn't a function of genes; it's a function of social conditions.I suggest that you obliterate the very point of your treatment of the topic by your stance.
What's so hard to understand about this?
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
You seem to have a poor understanding of how babies are currently made...Ozymandias wrote:A fairly new term, "designer babies", was brought up in a TED talk I saw a couple weeks ago, and I wanted to bring the topic here. Here's a link to the talk:
I suggest everyone watch it, even if you don't want to participate in this discussion, because it's a very real possibility in the near future and something we will need to address at some point. So after seeing the video my question is whether you agree or disagree with Paul Knoepfler?
I for one agree with him, and I may even be more on the extreme of his position. The possibility of creating genetically superior humans is something that should be, at the very least, regulated internationally. In a free market scenario, this technology would be limited to those with the financial resources to have it- turning the financial elite into a more dangerous genetic elite. You would have major social and cultural implications because of this- some people are naturally superior to others? In what world would that not lead to a more or less racist struggle between the two groups? It may seem like a paranoid prediction of dystopia to say that designer babies would lead to two groups of humans, the genetically modified- smart, attractive, athletic- and the non-genetically modified- the rest of us normal people. However, I for one believe that is a real possibility.
Human genetic modification could only have positive benefits under two conditions: A/ It is regulated worldwide to only be used to prevent genetic disposition to disease, and nothing more, or B/ it is regulated in such a sense that everyone born from here on out is genetically modified, no exceptions, so as not to lead to conflict of GMO and natural people (a virtually impossible task).
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
Well... American babies are currently manufactured in Chinese baby factories.LuckyR wrote:
You seem to have a poor understanding of how babies are currently made...
(It's so wickedly almost true... but it's not. Or... well, we'll see that in the racial demographic changes in America in the next 20-40 years.)
-- Updated 2017 July 13th, 12:32 pm to add the following --
There used to be an old proverb... "If you like sausages, respect the law, and adore babies, you should not watch how any of them is being made."LuckyR wrote:
You seem to have a poor understanding of how babies are currently made...
-
- Posts: 172
- Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
- -1-
- Posts: 878
- Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
For once, and for the first time, I completely agree with you, Fan of Science. And I am not being facetious. At all.Fan of Science wrote:How can anyone know what parents want for their children genetically? This is an empirical question, and a new one, so there is probably little to no actual polling data on this topic. In general though, parents are evolutionarily designed to want their children to be successful. It's doubtful that parents, given our evolutionary history, would not want their children to be better genetically than they are.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
-- Updated July 13th, 2017, 12:20 pm to add the following --
For that matter, why do family members cluster around a newborn and say idiotic things like "He has your eyes!" "She's got my mother's jaw." People certainly seems to enjoy identifying themselves and their lineage in their offspring. At least, I've never heard anyone look at a baby and say, "How marvelous! He looks nothing like you two ugly duckies."
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Human genetic modification (Designer Babies) and society
It is completely clear what individuals want their children to be, genetically. Humans have been manipulating their progeny's genetics since sex was invented (which was a really, really long time ago). Remember, humans (like most animals) do not breed randomly. Individuals choose their children's genetics when they choose whom to have the children with.Fan of Science wrote:How can anyone know what parents want for their children genetically? This is an empirical question, and a new one, so there is probably little to no actual polling data on this topic. In general though, parents are evolutionarily designed to want their children to be successful. It's doubtful that parents, given our evolutionary history, would not want their children to be better genetically than they are.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023