Willravel

Congratulations, you and your SO have decided to have a baby! You now have some decisions to make. What gender would you like the child to be? What potential IQ would you like the child to have? What height would you like him or her to be? Would you like him or her to have a genetic predisposition for heterosexuality or homosexuality? Would you like the child to have hollow bones for speed? Maybe you'd like the child to see UV light? Perhaps he or she should have a clear second set of eyelids and gills for aquatic life? Please fill out the forms and we'll get to work immediately. Once we have the sperm and egg, we can grow your son or daughter in about 6 weeks. Again, congratulations and thanks for choosing the Tyrell Corporation!

So where do you stand on genetic engineering? I'm sure most people would be fine reducing the odds of genetic disorders or malformations, but would you also consider augmentations? What augmentations would you be okay with? Is this playing god? Is there anything wrong with playing god?

Personally, I'm a bit torn. On the one hand, I see certain augmentations as a positive: imagine having people with a stronger resistance to disease, no allergies, longer life, and superior mental and physical abilities. On the other hand, where does this end? Should humans have the ability to artificially alter our own evolutionary process? Surly we have to a certain extent through the development of medicine and technology, but I suspect most would agree this would be taking that to a very different level. Imagine humans capable of winged flight or with superhuman strength; it's the stuff of bad comic books and it raises questions about what these people might do with these abilities. Moreover, there's the possibility that genetic mistakes could be made that result in the end of humanity, or super-humanity. There could even be a divergence of species, homo sapiens becoming 2 or 3 or more different species.

Where do you stand?

levite

Great question, Will!

I think for me, I have no problem with a certain amount of basic tinkering: small modifications to the palette of options presently extant to human beings, as it were. So, yes, given the chance, I might like to ensure that my kid is free of allergies, with good eyesight, prone to physical fitness, very intelligent, prone to arts and music, etc. I personally have minimal or no attachment one way or the other to things like eye or hair color, sexual orientation, gender, or suchlike, and for those, am happy to roll the dice the old-fashioned way. Although I suppose it might be useful-- given that I'd ideally love one of each-- to pick which comes first, the boy or the girl. But that's less important for me.

I would certainly say that some choices ought to be watched or even regulated by government: it wouldn't do to have radically disproportionate gender pools in the population, or to be essentially eliminating sexual orientations or certain racial characteristics. But tinkering with things about personal health, personality, or even certain cosmetic choices, at the least ought to be free options for parents to consider, I think.

But I believe I am opposed to artificially modifying the basic form of homo sapiens sapiens beyond the current parameters of our current evolutionary niche. So, no gills, no nictitating membranes, no wings or hollow bones, no multiple arms or legs, no glow-in-the-dark people, or dudes with prehensile penises, or chicks with extra boobs, etc.

My one potential exception to this line of thinking might be if we were serious about colonizing other planets, and if that were really a practicable option, then it might behoove us to modify the colonists to survive on different partial proportions of oxygen, or to be able to resist or process other atmospheric gases in different partial proportions or pressures than on Earth, or to be denser boned and muscled or more lightly boned and muscled to best use different gravities, and suchlike.

But otherwise, I definitely oppose serious changes to human beings just for the sake of "let's see what happens," or "I like swimming, so let's make my son more like a flounder."

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

ObieX

I think the biggest problem is finding all the people you'd have to pay to get everything you wanted done. After watching this video on Hulu: I've learned that all of this stuff (variations of genes, etc) are or will be patented by someone at some point. For example they say in the documentary that one gene that is responsible for causing breast cancer has been patented. The result of this is that every single researcher that attempts to use this gene in some way in their research TO CURE BREAST CANCER has been shut down by the people who own the patent on the gene. That is, of course, unless they pay a huge amount of money for the privilege.

But I digress... To answer your original question i would have to say that my answer is somewhat similar to levite's. I would agree that preventative measures are reasonable. If your child is to be born with a certain disability or genetic defect then i don't see why you wouldn't cure them or choose/alter the egg/sperm that avoids these things. Other things such as hair color, eye color and even the sex of the child are trivial things which don't concern me either. Even when it comes to things like faster/stronger/smarter etc I'm not concerned.

Other things like gills and such I'm not so sure about. I would rather those be something the person chooses for themselves instead of having it imposed upon them. Of course it would probably be a hell of a lot more difficult to incorporate these things into a full grown individual, but fully developed gills or extra arms aren't exactly a common trait in the human race and would most likely cause more problems than they would solve.. socially and physically.

Besides, just because a parent wants their child to grow up and be an Olympic swimmer doesn't mean that the child will want to be one when they grow up. They could deck the kid out with gills and webbed toes/feet for nothing, and those attributes could end up being a burden.

As for the evolutionary part of this i see it as inevitable. Human beings will continue to integrate technology into themselves in one form or another. Some humans may end up going a Borg-like route and other may "evolve" themselves through genetic engineering into who knows what. This kinda stuff is already happening and will continue to happen. (that is unless we blow ourselves up or some other kinda crazy crap like that.)

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Wrexify

You can argue that we started "altering" evolution a long time ago when we created medicine to keep the sick alive. I think that technology and bio-engineering have, in a sense, become the new human evolution; we don't really rely on natural selection anymore.

That being said, I'm pretty open to genetic engineering. I wouldn't try to create a superhero, but I'm all for increasing disease resistance and intelligence. We finally have the technology to build humans with super strength and speed, but we don't have any need for those traits anymore because of our increased technology. What a paradox!

I recently went to a talk with Ray Kurzweil, a big supporter of this idea of transhumanism. He demonstrated some really mindblowing stuff, but one that stood out was an artificial red blood cell. It's a tiny device that performs the same function as our natural red blood cells, BUT it's about 1,000x more efficient. So, you get injected with a few thousand of these things and you can now hold your breath for an hour. Asthma and other respiratory deficiencies will be eliminated. He made it sound like we'll have all this stuff to look forward to in the future, but then revealed that this is in animal testing as we speak- it will be used in humans before next year. Ray's endgame? To live forever.

I personally don't want to defeat death and live forever, but I wouldn't mind a few enhancements I'm in favor of general modifications (disease resistance, super efficient respiration) for unborn children, but I think it should be their own choice later in life to be outfitted with gills, laser vision, or immortality.

__________________
"Nitwit! Oddment! Blubber! Tweak!"

snowy

I thought I would say no thanks, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought--maybe.

I recently had to do a project that involved taking a look at three generations of my family and charting their problems. If there was an alcoholism gene, and I could prevent my kids from getting it (I don't know that there is just one alcoholism gene, I think it's probably a polygenic trait), I would try.

I think that's about as far as I am willing to go.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Willravel

Good point. There may come a time when genetic engineering becomes not just practical but necessary. If we know a natural disaster is 100 years off, changing our abilities and limitations could be a matter of survival.
Whoa, well I'd say we absolutely, positively should not be able to patent genes that deal with medical issues. I don't want a greedy corporation monopolizing a cure and standing between me and the health of my child, or in the case of breast cancer, my mother/wife/daughter.

---------- Post added at 08:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 AM ----------

BTW, I'd be okay allowing eternal life so long as an individual had the legal right to end his or her own life.

little_tippler

I don't know. If everyone was perfect, how would that work? No diseases. Everyone is very intelligent. Everyone is very gifted. Everyone is very physically fit. Everyone is beautiful.

Little to no variety. No-one will want to do menial work. No one will excel at anything more than anyone else in that same field. If we have everything and want for nothing, will we strive to improve or change anything?

This reminds me of a part of the movie "Matrix Reloaded", where the Architect says the first version of the Matrix was as perfect as it was a total failure.

__________________
Whether we write or speak or do but look
We are ever unapparent. What we are
Cannot be transfused into word or book.
Our soul from us is infinitely far.
However much we give our thoughts the will
To be our soul and gesture it abroad,
Our hearts are incommunicable still.
In what we show ourselves we are ignored.
The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged
By any skill of thought or trick of seeming.
Unto our very selves we are abridged
When we would utter to our thought our being.
We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams,
And each to each other dreams of others' dreams.

Fernando Pessoa, 1918

Wrexify

Hmm... a world where everyone is perfect does sound like a bad sci-fi plot. But will everyone have the opportunity to be engineered? If it's an expensive process, maybe only descendants of the wealthy become part of this new super-perfect human race.

__________________
"Nitwit! Oddment! Blubber! Tweak!"

loquitur

As the father of a 19 y.o. with autism, I say that any genetic engineering research we can do, we should do. Yes, there will be frivolous uses, but that is true of other technologies as well. I don't care if other people are choosing their kid's height, weight, hair color, IQ or anything else. But I do want the ability to ensure that kids won't be disabled.

roachboy

there's alot of activity in genetic engineering these days, and the implications run in many directions, dependent on which area you're looking at. so in agriculture there's problems with patent law/copyright law which are different from the questions raised here.

anyway, what i keep wondering in this context is where a line would be drawn between genetic engineering and eugenics...

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

I think about this as well.

There are people who don't even have access to antibiotics...or clean water.

Extensive genetic engineering will create a class of people that will widen the current gap between the wealthy and the poor, and the First World and the Third, far beyond our imagination.

However, there is a side of me that says, "Catastrophe." We can easily bungle our genetic retooling. We don't even adequately understand Alzheimer's or why we dream at night. What makes us think we can control our genetic destinies without fail?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

Divergence:

Zeraph

Hell yeah we should be able to alter the shit out of our genes. I can't wait for the day to hail our new mutant overlords. No, but seriously. I think it's awesome and the next step in our evolution. There's really very little difference at this point in our doing it or natural selection doing it. We've already been programed to a certain extent, now it's just time to iron out the kinks.

Herbert West

I try to see this issue from the potential child's point of view. If I was going to be born, would I want my parents to be able to genetically engineer me or not, and if so, to what extent?

On one hand, it would not be nice to be born with gills and webbed feet because my parents wanted me to be an olympic swimmer, but then decide that I don't like swimming. This is where I think most of the opposition to genetic engineering in humans comes from - people are afraid that children will be given freaky bodies through no choice of their own. I think that this objection is entirely justified - if we allow genetic engineering in humans, we should regulate it, and put limits on the modifications which can be made.

On the other hand, it would be equally unfortunate if I had a genetic disease, or even a propensity towards any particular disease, because my parents decided not to genetically engineer me. Even if I don't have a genetic disease, I would probably be upset by the fact that their decision to not engineer me means that I was not as intelligent, healthy, or attractive as I otherwise could have been.

The argument has been made (and I think it was mentioned somewhere in this thread, too) that if we allow genetic engineering in humans, this will elevate the disparity between the rich and the poor, both within nations and between them. If all of my peers were made exceptionally smart, attractive, and athletic, and I was 'normal', then I would be rather stupid, ugly, and weak in comparison. Thus, if genetic engineering is available, then I think it should be made equally available to everyone.

Another objection:
If everyone is equally good at everything, then this doesn't mean that there will be no variety. People will still learn different skills, study different things in university (if they choose to go to university), have different culture, play different games, have different interests, and have different hobbies. If anything, there will be more opportunity for variety in the world, because people will be able to develop whatever skills they want, and won't be constrained by variations in their innate abilities.

There are many ways that a human could be genetically engineered, and I don't think that we can tar all of them with the same brush. I don't think we have the right to give children fins or gills, for example. On the other hand, when it comes to eliminating diseases, once this technology is available and safe, I don't think we have the right to not use it. There are a lot of grey areas, though - for example, a modification which would make someone immune to many viruses but which will give them a very slightly higher risk of cancer.

Mantus

All for it. Believe it to be the next step in human development since our current "survival of everyone" isn't helping the gene pool.

Not that I think we'll all benefit from it. It's going to be a really bumpy ride until such technology is universally available.

Even if such technology is a universal constant; advancements could make the GE market parallel to today's PC market. Imagine being a 26 year old 8-bit 8086 in the Quad Core age. Parents will have to make tough choices like whether to go with iGirl or WinBoy?

We might lose the soul of humanity. We'll get to a point where genetic value becomes the yardstick for personal worth. The ultimate evolution of materialism - think Patrick Bateman 2.0.

Still. I think it's worth the risk.

Plan9

My thoughts exactly. The point where life value changes... and qualitative becomes quantitative.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Derwood

to quote "The Incredibles".....

"When everyone is special, then no one will be"

Willravel

The quote sounds great, but I dunno. If I can run really fast and you can fly (we can start a justice league!) we're each special, just in different ways.