Designer Babies? Why on earth not??

[CarZee]

I've been listening to the commentary about this in recent days and there's a vote happening on the Evening Standard website today about it.

Accustomed as I am to being on the unpopular side of most arguments (being correct necessitates disagreeing with most people ) I was quite surprised to find that people are against being able to choose the gender of a child by the considerable ratio of 4:1.

I just cannot work out why people are against it though...

Pro-Lifers complain about it, but wouldn't they rather people could choose gender before conception rather than aborting a foetus discovered to be of the gender less desirable to it's parents.. ?

Sounds like an aversion to progress if you ask me.

[mondeoman]

First step towards eugenics .......

Why stop at gender if you can influence eye colour, height and a host of other features. And there is the connections with Dolly the Sheep etc.. (I know thats cloning and a totally different arguement but for the great unwashed...)

Personally I don't care one way or the other as we have been interfering with natural pro-creation (the pill, abortions, tests for cerebral palsy etc...) for decades now, so why not take the next step? But, from a philosphical stand-point, where do you stop human intervention (or invention) and decide that enough is enough?

[jmorgan]

Genie's out of the bag so its going to happen.
However its going to bugger up morning TV in the near future. If they are all going to be future brain surgeons etc where are they going to get the muppets they have now for Kilroy, Tricia etc....er....or so I have been told

[CarZee]

mondeoman said: But, from a philosphical stand-point, where do you stop human intervention (or invention) and decide that enough is enough?

The great thing about philosophy is that you can find a position to support any argument you choose to put forth..

Even Eugenics represents nothing more than a logical progression of 'survival of the fittest', does it not?

And if we're wrong to be fiddling, that too will become apparent before very long at all..

Let's consider the fact that IMO it's the Europeans who are *least* likely to want to interfere in what I would call a creepy (and potentially disastrous) way. Some religions and national traditions mean that having a son is much more desirable than having a daughter. Some orientals want western/Nordic features (blue eyes, blonde hair etc).

And if the outcome of gender selection is less abortions and less unwanted children in the world then what could possibly be wrong with it..

Anyway, this 'thin end of the wedge argument' is specious IMO..

[mondeoman]

CarZee said:

mondeoman said: But, from a philosphical stand-point, where do you stop human intervention (or invention) and decide that enough is enough?

The great thing about philosophy is that you can find a position to support any argument you choose to put forth..

Exactly - but you didn't answer the question .....

Even Eugenics represents nothing more than a logical progression of 'survival of the fittest', does it not?

And if we're wrong to be fiddling, that too will become apparent before very long at all..

and who has to live with the consequences of it going wrong - the parents, family, the child itslef - or will you just take it outside and bang its head against a wall if it doesn't come out the way you originally designed it - eg wrong hair colour? Mistakes can and will be made - who pays?

Let's consider the fact that IMO it's the Europeans who are *least* likely to want to interfere in what I would call a creepy (and potentially disastrous) way. Some religions and national traditions mean that having a son is much more desirable than having a daughter. Some orientals want western/Nordic features (blue eyes, blonde hair etc).

but surely everyone wants their child to grow up looking beautiful, strong and healthy - you only have to look to California which has been attracting a certain type (be that physical or mental) to see the effect of natural selection..... then extrapolate that forward with designer babies and what sort of society will you get - bet it wont be a pretty one (and I dont mean as in eye candy!)

And if the outcome of gender selection is less abortions and less unwanted children in the world then what could possibly be wrong with it..

Anyway, this 'thin end of the wedge argument' is specious IMO..

Why specious?

[ben789]

Personally I am against choosing the sex because some countries / religions believe that boys are superior to girls, so if they allow people to choose the sex there might be alot more blokes about ... and I know when I'm older I'd rather see lots more good looking girls

/me is planning to be like peter stringfellow when he's older j/k =]

[moleamol]

The thing is, the only way to carry this out is to pay for the genetic modifications (max power babies ). This will mean that a huge proportion of people will miss out on any stated advantages. Is this fair becasue they have less money?

And also, where will it stop? Are we going to try and achieve Hitler's ideal of a perfect race? If the rich can make their babies intelligent by paying for it, in theory at least they will always be more intelligent and continue taking the worlds power and resources. Is this fair just due to the size of their wedge?

It's a slippery slope, but I'm off home so I can't be arsed thinking

[johno]

I think it is wrong. But I am not about to discuss it on here now. See you on Friday night for a beer Aidan and we can discuss before we get onto cars, petrol, women and err...well ... is there anything else .... we'll already be drinking....

[CarZee]

:sigh: you must be pretty bored if you're arguing with me, Mondy..

Where do we stop? well again this is something that everyone will have their own point of view on..

If you like we can stop after we've become able (legally) to choose the gender of our children.

Anyway, I don't see the point in wanting to specify height, eye colour, hair colour etc.. people don't all want to look the same as each other - parents still want their children to look like them (unless they're Stephen Hawking or something ) - and even if everyone expressed a preference on these features, what's to say everyone would want blue eyes or blonde hair.. ?

The spirit of individuality would live on and that would stop the world becoming full of nordic 'clones'.

Where the benefits outweight the disadvantages, it must be allowed to go ahead IMO..

Who has to live with the consequences if/when it goes wrong? The very same people who might otherwise have had to live with having a child they didn't really want or a child with some hideous hereditary degenerative disease - or aborting time after time because they couldn't have what they wanted..

At least these people would know that they'd taken the opportunity to try & influence the genetic characteristics of their child in a positive way. Right now it's a lottery & the idea of being able to have some control is an extremely powerful and attractive one.

but surely everyone wants their child to grow up looking beautiful, strong and healthy - you only have to look to California which has been attracting a certain type (be that physical or mental) to see the effect of natural selection..... then extrapolate that forward with designer babies and what sort of society will you get - bet it wont be a pretty one (and I dont mean as in eye candy!)

yes - everyone wants healthy & strong children - this is an objective wish. there is a generally accepted idea of what healthy and happy mean (happy means mentally heathly for this purpose) Why should it not be fulfilled?

Beauty is an altogether different matter being quite the most subjective thing there is.. individuality overrides conformity here.

Pray tell what exactly has been the effect of natural selection in California? And how is the outcome different that different from state sponsored eugenics as practiced in Sweden?

The thin end of the wedge argument is specious because you could apply 'where will it all end' to anything representing progress. People fear change because they innately fear the unknown. Do you not think people said "where will it all end" when computers first came into civilian industrial society? 30 years later, do you consider humanity to be in any danger of being subordinated by computers? Humanity is bound to protect itself against the destructive extremities which are availably to us through technology. Nuclear weapons are an example of this.. maybe a poor example..

I'd expand this further, but after 8 hours of staring at the clock, all the hands are pointing in the right direction and I can go home..

[Fatboy]

Pray tell what exactly has been the effect of natural selection in California? And how is the outcome different that different from state sponsored eugenics as practiced in Sweden?

I've often seen this state sponsored eugenics in sweden brought up, but have no idea what it's all about. Could anyone enlighten me? (i.e. how is it done etc)

[Mr E]

Worms. Can of. Open.

Do not return to eugenics arguement once participants lit...

I truly don't know what to think. From a moral point of view, I have no problem with the human race tinkering with it's genes. And yes, horrible mistakes will be made. That's the price of progress.

But, I'm concerned about the affects on society as a whole, with the haves and have-not. Sod class barriers, there could be species barriers. And you've seen how the average person deals with something as petty as skin colour....

[mr_tony]

I've often seen this state sponsored eugenics in sweden brought up, but have no idea what it's all about. Could anyone enlighten me? (i.e. how is it done etc)

Saw a tv prog on this a while back, so what i remember :

Basically in the 1930's state sponsored eugencis programmes meant that anone considered 'abnormal' by the state (this included mentally / physically handicapped persons / persons of low iq ) were forcibly neutered.

Obviously this is a horrific abuse of human rights.
The studies into this were popular in many european countries and are similar in many ways to the ideal of the Nazi party / facism in general. This thinking had champions in most european countries and was adopted by many eiropean states to greater / lesser degrees.

As for designer babies, well personally I think it's codswallop. You might get a physical specimin that looks like you want it too, but fine tuning the kids mental abilities using genetics is Star Trek stuff right now anyway. Not to mention the whole nature / nurture side of things anyway.

I think it should be stopped, people think they'll have a lot more control over the kid than they actually will, leading to far more dissapointed customers than happy ones. Perents have to believe that the kid will turn out good because they put the effort in to doing the best for their kids that they can, not because they could afford to 'buy' them blonde hair.....

>> Edited by mr_tony on Wednesday 23 October 18:44

[moleamol]

:sigh: you must be pretty bored if you're arguing with me, Mondy..

I think you were replying to me there khazi, and I'm moley, not mondy

Anyway. I do believe it could be a good thing, as in helping to reduce birth deficiencies etc. I do believe however it would have to be policed in a very strict manner. I have many reasoned intelligent arguments to support me, but my mate will be here in 20 minutes to whisk me off to a pub, so I'm off for a shower

Edited to find out the time

>> Edited by moleamol on Wednesday 23 October 18:47

[mondeoman]

CarZee said: :sigh: you must be pretty bored if you're arguing with me, Mondy..

Absolf@ckinlutely! just wanted to see wot you'd come back with

Where do we stop? well again this is something that everyone will have their own point of view on..

If you like we can stop after we've become able (legally) to choose the gender of our children.

Anyway, I don't see the point in wanting to specify height, eye colour, hair colour etc.. people don't all want to look the same as each other - parents still want their children to look like them (unless they're Stephen Hawking or something ) - and even if everyone expressed a preference on these features, what's to say everyone would want blue eyes or blonde hair.. ?

The spirit of individuality would live on and that would stop the world becoming full of nordic 'clones'.

I hope you're right on that one - being a bit on an SF reader, there are numerous tomes about the ability to engineer your body prior to birth. Got to admit most of them do actually promote diversity, but my fear is that with the socio-engineering culture that we are drifting into (already in perhaps?) its only a small step before Governments would be able to dictate certain criteria of the baby. I dont have a crystall ball, so cant see where it will all end - I suppose that I am arguing for caution, rather than headlong acceptance of such a powerful genetic tool. Having heard of the probelms with GM crops and pesticides, we do not fully understand the forces we are dealing with here, nor the potential consequences.

Where the benefits outweight the disadvantages, it must be allowed to go ahead IMO..

Who has to live with the consequences if/when it goes wrong? The very same people who might otherwise have had to live with having a child they didn't really want or a child with some hideous hereditary degenerative disease - or aborting time after time because they couldn't have what they wanted..

At least these people would know that they'd taken the opportunity to try & influence the genetic characteristics of their child in a positive way. Right now it's a lottery & the idea of being able to have some control is an extremely powerful and attractive one.

Point conceded

yes - everyone wants healthy & strong children - this is an objective wish. there is a generally accepted idea of what healthy and happy mean (happy means mentally heathly for this purpose) Why should it not be fulfilled?

Beauty is an altogether different matter being quite the most subjective thing there is.. individuality overrides conformity here.

Pray tell what exactly has been the effect of natural selection in California? And how is the outcome different that different from state sponsored eugenics as practiced in Sweden?

Sweden I can't comment on - but California has, because of the lure of television/movies, over the years attracted a certain facial/body type (the current definition of beauty perhaps) - these people mate and re-inforce the genetic hereditary. Hence the proliferation of blue-eyed blondes (possibly a crude example, but the best I could come up with).

The thin end of the wedge argument is specious because you could apply 'where will it all end' to anything representing progress. People fear change because they innately fear the unknown. Do you not think people said "where will it all end" when computers first came into civilian industrial society? 30 years later, do you consider humanity to be in any danger of being subordinated by computers? Humanity is bound to protect itself against the destructive extremities which are availably to us through technology. Nuclear weapons are an example of this.. maybe a poor example..

GM crops - pesticides that bugs are resistnat too, viruses that are resistant to penicillin - unknown and unthought of consequences from what at the time were deemed to be good ideas. The more I get to know, the less I realise I know.

I am most certainly NOT against progress - technical or sociological - I just prefer to have things thought about and tested prior to wholesale acceptance. :wry grin:

I'd expand this further, but after 8 hours of staring at the clock, all the hands are pointing in the right direction and I can go home..

But I went home before you!! nerh nerh ne nerh nerh!!

[tekta]

If genetics gives people the control to make their kids however they want, like the capitalist systems now allows us to have whatever products we want, then what happens to human dignity? Is the kid going to have to grow up and 'perform' to the 'specification' the parents designed? Why should everyone else bother with finding someone for life, getting married, bringing their own child up if you can just do it all through a bottle? Is the child still connected to the parents if it's genes are very different, or is it a 'prototype' to be tested and perhaps discarded - "we'll try again, go for one with better teeth". And a child might be engineered to have certain advantages, but if all the other kids at school are normal and know he/she is meant to be 'better', then imagine the years of bullying it will get.

The whole thing does my head in really, but no-one seems to have any firm control on it. It's something that because it CAN be done, WILL be done. Like nuclear weapons. What is progress anyway? Technical capabilty or wisdom in using it? You can't just say "these people are just against progress" - scientists use the opposite argument to justify doing every crackpot scheme they dream up. Is everyone happier these days because of all the gadgets and gizmos we have? Was no-one happy 1000 years ago? Don't think so.

If this had been invented in Victorian times, it wouldn't have been touched, messing with god's creation and all that. If it had been found in Hitler's time then what the hell would we have now? Every generation will think they have the right morals to choose the right thing to do, but that will change over time, so personally I don't think anyone should be able to choose. And if experiments were to be done, they should be conducted over 50/100/200 years, to see what the long term effects are. What is the rush? The human race seems to have done pretty well to get to this point.

Unfortunately of course we have large corporations involved, who need to make money over 1-2 years, not 100. So they will push for it to be done NOW "Or we'll lag behind x country, and oh my god, lose money"

If we wanted to design people for a purpose, then it should be for surviving without all the things that civilization provides, to keep the human race going if everything else goes tits up. But then again we've been doing that for millions of years, so it's not really neccesary. So I can't really see the point.
Life is a gift, nobody has the RIGHT to have the perfect kid, so get on with it. We all try and do the best with what we have. If your kid can breathe, then they have a chance at life. I don't think anyone should be stopped from being born because they don't fit the parent's wishes. Unless the kid wants to drive a Proton.

[elanturbo]

If you dont get exactly the make and model of baby you wanted, can you send it back and get a full refund?

There are justifiable medical reasons for tinkering with our genes but when it comes to choosing sex or appearance, it makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

[scruff400]

Women have been doing this for yonks - choosing a breeding partner that will fit the criteria for what her genes have programmed her to choose. Tallness, dark/fairness, health, intelligence - and you will get extremes of these.

It's just a shame the conclusion of the experiment doesn't get to participate (i.e. NOT born in Sweden etc).

[aww999]

Anyone seen "Gattaca"? Top film, highly recommended, all about the effects of widespread genetic manipulation on the populace sorta thing. Much better than your usual spoonfed sci-fi dystopian tosh.