Posts: 67357
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
August 6, 2017 at 12:10 am
(This post was last modified: August 6, 2017 at 12:15 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(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? 
(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!
Posts: 2013
Threads: 28
Joined: January 1, 2017
Reputation:
15
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
August 6, 2017 at 12:19 am
(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?
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.
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
August 6, 2017 at 12:27 am
(This post was last modified: August 6, 2017 at 12:28 am by ErGingerbreadMandude.)
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
Posts: 30129
Threads: 304
Joined: April 18, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
August 6, 2017 at 2:09 am
Is the kid still tender and delicious ?
The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
Posts: 3541
Threads: 0
Joined: January 20, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
August 6, 2017 at 3:24 am
(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
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
90
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
August 6, 2017 at 5:31 am
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
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
August 6, 2017 at 6:32 am
(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
Posts: 28520
Threads: 525
Joined: June 16, 2015
Reputation:
89
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
August 6, 2017 at 7:36 am
I'm in favor of the attempt to eliminate disease. Beyond that I don't have much of an opinion, yet.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
Posts: 9176
Threads: 76
Joined: November 21, 2013
Reputation:
40
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
August 6, 2017 at 7:49 am
(This post was last modified: August 6, 2017 at 7:51 am by Chad32.)
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!
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Eugenics/Designer-babies... is the concept really that bad?
August 6, 2017 at 8:59 am
Ummmm. . . Baby Wars will bring a new meaning to "survival of the fittest." Who wouldn't support that!?
|
