Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: August 19, 2022, 1:27 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
#31
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
(August 6, 2017 at 12:05 am)Astonished Wrote: I would have thought it would be implicit from the beginning. I mean, just because your best genes are active, doesn't mean they're going to recombine in the ideal way if you fuck someone, so I figured all reproduction would be done in that manner anyway. If you want the ideal genes, you can't trust your sperm and egg to figure that shit out on their own. So I thought it would go without saying that both the pseudo-sterility and monitored, lab-controlled gene-regulating reproduction would go without saying under that kind of system, and we'd all be better off for it.

I mean, that's basically how it was on Krypton in Man of Steel. Didn't seem very problematic.

Ish, you could..especially if the editing was expensive, seek out another identically edited person, and do this throughout generations.  Basically the same way we came up with our current agricultural cultivars.  At some point, you'd have a commonly expressed trait that you could reliably breed without paying for it.

I don't know that we'd be better off for it, personally....we have our history and current state of affairs in gmo's to refer to on that count, but it -would- be much more profitable.  

Krypton did get blown up, right?  Wink

(On the realz, though, the minute we've totally abandoned our own reproductive autonomy we've become livestock. Property of whomever owns the lab, whoever holds the patent. That;s not to say we won;t become better specimens on account of it, or that the owners can't manage our population better than we can. Obviously, that's what happens to livestock. Better genetics, better management.)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#32
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
(August 6, 2017 at 12:10 am)Khemikal Wrote:
(August 6, 2017 at 12:05 am)Astonished Wrote: I would have thought it would be implicit from the beginning. I mean, just because your best genes are active, doesn't mean they're going to recombine in the ideal way if you fuck someone, so I figured all reproduction would be done in that manner anyway. If you want the ideal genes, you can't trust your sperm and egg to figure that shit out on their own. So I thought it would go without saying that both the pseudo-sterility and monitored, lab-controlled gene-regulating reproduction would go without saying under that kind of system, and we'd all be better off for it.

I mean, that's basically how it was on Krypton in Man of Steel. Didn't seem very problematic.

Ish, you could..especially if the editing was expensive, seek out another identically edited person, and do this throughout generations.  Basically the same way we came up with our current agricultural cultivars.  At some point, you'd have a commonly expressed trait that you could reliably breed without paying for it.

I don't know that we'd be better off for it, personally....we have our history and current state of affairs in gmo's to refer to on that count, but it -would- be much more profitable.  

Krypton did get blown up, right?  Wink

Don't call me that. Call me Nish, Aston, or Stoni, but not Ish.

Remember my caveat, this has to be available to everyone no matter what difference, no discrimination permitted. So your initial objection doesn't make sense under that light (yes, I am aware it's unrealistic, but I wouldn't be in favor of it otherwise). You can't count on the same genes to combine in the same way without regulation, there's mutation, other parts of the genome that are inactive or just do nothing that might start having an effect in light of these new alterations. What if you wanted something different, or better, and that could only be gotten by a new advancement found in the labs? There's just no advantage to the 'old-fashioned way'. By all means, fuck all you want, no one would be getting any STD's of any significant harm nor having kids without being authorized (because you'd have to assume there would be a way of regulating who gets to have kids, like people who've passed child-rearing courses. While we're in the process of perfecting our newborns' DNA, no sense in not also perfecting the way they're raised.

Again, this hypothetical assumes we've got our shit covered and the enhancements (the ones done in the lab, not the ones that would occur from unassisted sexual reproduction) don't have the liabilities you're describing. Under that assumption, yes, we'd be vastly better off.

Krypton's blowing up had nothing to do with their biological revolution.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?

---

There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
Reply
#33
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
What if you buy your kid that is a version 1.0 but after 2 years they release version 2.0?

Will you

a) sell your kid on ebay
b) ship your kid to the company for software updation
c) throw your kid out and just get the newer better model
Reply
#34
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
Is the kid still tender and delicious ?
 The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it. 




Reply
#35
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
(August 6, 2017 at 12:27 am)pool the matey Wrote: What if you buy your kid that is a version 1.0 but after 2 years they release version 2.0?

Will you

a) sell your kid on ebay
b) ship your kid to the company for software updation
c) throw your kid out and just get the newer better model

d) get a new, better kid but keep the old one - for spare parts.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
Reply
#36
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
What's not to love about designer babies?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition

Reply
#37
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
(August 6, 2017 at 3:24 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote:
(August 6, 2017 at 12:27 am)pool the matey Wrote: What if you buy your kid that is a version 1.0 but after 2 years they release version 2.0?

Will you

a) sell your kid on ebay
b) ship your kid to the company for software updation
c) throw your kid out and just get the newer better model

d) get a new, better kid but keep the old one - for spare parts.

..or extra parts babies with 4 arms will be trending in the future
Reply
#38
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
I'm in favor of the attempt to eliminate disease. Beyond that I don't have much of an opinion, yet.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem




Reply
#39
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
All I can think of is, we have purebred dogs that are more likely to have health problems than mutts, because desirable traits cause problems down the road. So what makes us think it will work better with Humans than it does dogs?

Astonished Wrote:Don't call me that. Call me Nish, Aston, or Stoni, but not Ish.

No one thinks up nicknames like Aston!
Poe's Law: "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

10 Christ-like figures that predate Jesus. Link shortened to Chris ate Jesus for some reason...
http://listverse.com/2009/04/13/10-chris...ate-jesus/

Good video to watch, if you want to know how common the Jesus story really is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88GTUXvp-50

A list of biblical contradictions from the infallible word of Yahweh.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/jim_m...tions.html

Reply
#40
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
Ummmm. . . Baby Wars will bring a new meaning to "survival of the fittest." Who wouldn't support that!?
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Editing the "germ line" with CRISPR AKA "eugenics" Duty 9 617 March 26, 2020 at 3:00 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Older fathers increase odds of sicker babies brewer 3 161 November 1, 2018 at 11:14 am
Last Post: Angrboda
  We must de-stigmatize eugenics Alexmahone 62 2649 August 17, 2018 at 5:29 pm
Last Post: Joods
  Bad Dog vorlon13 23 1313 July 25, 2016 at 9:42 pm
Last Post: vorlon13
  What do you think about Eugenics? Twisted 47 6521 June 19, 2015 at 7:13 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Bad news for vegetarians Mudhammam 8 1774 July 3, 2014 at 4:49 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  Bad news for Rick Santorum: Homophobia shortens lifespan. TaraJo 34 5284 April 12, 2014 at 4:01 pm
Last Post: John V
  Interesting Concept..... Minimalist 15 5503 March 6, 2014 at 4:02 am
Last Post: max-greece
  Eugenics EgoRaptor 18 2881 January 29, 2014 at 10:45 am
Last Post: houseofcantor
Smile World’s First GM Babies Born Big Blue Sky 12 3364 June 28, 2013 at 10:01 pm
Last Post: Whateverist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)