Nanochick wrote:
] ] Bioethicists and scientists contemplating the future fear
] ] that genetic engineering and other technologies are going
] ] to divide human beings into classes that may one day try
] ] to destroy one another.

What do you think?

Decius wrote:
] Nanochick wrote:
] ] ] Bioethicists and scientists contemplating the future fear
] ] ] that genetic engineering and other technologies are going
] ] ] to divide human beings into classes that may one day try
] ] ] to destroy one another.
]
] What do you think?

Heh...thats no small question. I have several thoughts on this article. First off, it is obviously meant to be dramatic to draw readers in (Who wouldn't read an article with that title?)
From the very get go, its obvious to me that it was written with the intent to stir up emotions.
Yes, the scenario they envision is definetly hypothetically possible. This is the "designer baby" argument again, which I am so tired of. Seriously...there are other arguments to be made about genetic engineering, but this one is replayed like a broken record because it sounds so horrid. I never hear anyone bitching about the fact that if we start modifying genes in the germ line, it could cause serious problems down the road in the area of population genetics. Genes balance themselves out, and they have their own ecology. For example, in Africa, where there is more of a chance of getting malaria, you find a higher frequency of the gene for sickle cell anemia. Why is that? Because the sickle cell anemia gene aids in resistance to malaria. If we fixed the bloody sickle cell anemia gene in the germ line with genetic engineering, that whole population would then be vunerable to malaria and might even get wiped out completely by it. If that happens, the genetic diversity of the entire planet would be lowered, which brings us one step closer to total extinction. Now that, my friends, is much scarier than the designer baby argument.
The designer baby argument, although possible, is hard for me to respect. For one, designer babies would have to have a market. The proponents of this argument love to talk about how all the rich people would be dying to spend lots of money on this technology, but I have yet to hear one person say, "Damn, I wish I could design my baby...I wish Gattaca was a reality!" The designer baby argument is a logical fallacy. Its a slippery slope argument that stems from the fact that we have and use the power of genetic engineering to monitor embryos for devistating genetic diseases. Genetic screening is very similar to in vitro fertilization, which caused just as much stir when it showed up (I believe in the 1970s), but is accepted in present day society. Genetic screening is the same process as in vitro fertilization, only before the embryos are implanted in the mother, they can be screened for genetic disease if both members of the couple are carriers of a genetic disease, which would lead to a high probability that they could have an affected child. The embryos are screened, and only those that don't contain the mutation are implanted.
Obviously, you can see where some people would be uncomfortable with this. This... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

Nanochick wrote:

] Finally, if we did actually get to the point where
] we had designer babies, I don't think we would choose to do
] so. Although the human race as a whole is divided on many
] thousands of issues, when you step back and look at us from an
] ecological standpoint, we as a species are ultimately looking
] to keep eachother alive, if only to pass on our "selfish
] genes".

This is an interesting arguement, deeply rooted in a sound, but not universally accepted, conviction about human nature. As a counter-point, I think that sperm donors are required to provide information about their educational background, etc... People who buy artificial insemination like to think they are buying lawyer sperm and not beggar sperm. (Of course, why would a lawyer need to donate sperm? (I wonder if there is anyone in our circle of friends who knows anything about that industry. There must be sociological studies.))

I think as individuals, if presented with a choice between genetic roulette, and being able to choose specific desirable traits (intelligence, attractiveness), we would choose the later. I think thats were people see a market. In a very real sense, when we choose who we would want to sleep with we are making similar decisions about our offspring, just in a less direct way. We all want to have sexy kids.

I think the sort of societal preservation stuff you are referring to kicks in at the legislature rather then in the doctors office. If these things can be demonstrated to be dangerous, then they ought to be illegal. I think, therefore, there is some usefulness in articles like this, to the extent that they are grounded in reality and not radical ranting by pre-concluded techno-phobes.

] If it turned cosmetic, it
] would be more like science fiction, where you can go to the
] gene modification parlor (as opposed to todays tattoo parlor)
] and get something strange done like have your genes modified
] so that your hair glows green in a blacklight or something (or
] just get it modified so that you never go grey).

Now THERE is a market. How do you make these changes? (A virus?) Can you undo them? Could we change our cosmetic DNA makup on an annual basis?

]
] This is an interesting arguement, deeply rooted in a sound,
] but not universally accepted, conviction about human nature.
] As a counter-point, I think that sperm donors are required to
] provide information about their educational background, etc...
] People who buy artificial insemination like to think they are
] buying lawyer sperm and not beggar sperm. (Of course, why
] would a lawyer need to donate sperm? (I wonder if there is
] anyone in our circle of friends who knows anything about that
] industry. There must be sociological studies.))

Well, that being the case (that sperm donors have to create a profile, and people pick and choose) then why don't people bitch about that? Isn't that just as ungodly as genetically engineering your embryo to be better? I don't recall anyone ever raising an issue about picking the "good" sperm at a sperm bank...do you? I would be interested in seeing that.

]
] I think as individuals, if presented with a choice between
] genetic roulette, and being able to choose specific desirable
] traits (intelligence, attractiveness), we would choose the
] later. I think thats were people see a market. In a very real
] sense, when we choose who we would want to sleep with we are
] making similar decisions about our offspring, just in a less
] direct way. We all want to have sexy kids.

Yes...we were just talking about this in ecology the other day. But its only about sexy kids on the surface. Studies have been done to show that females are more picky about mates then males (this study has been done on animal species and humans). THis is because females put alot more "energy" into making eggs, and we have a limited number of eggs, whereas men produce sperm in overabundance. Females are more picky then males because they don't want to waste a precious egg on just any old sperm, because the whole point of reproduction (in the eyes of biology) is to make sure your genes live on. So yes...we all want "sexy kids" which equates into us wanting "healthy kids" that are going to live on. So in this light, it would seem as though designer babies would have a market. I still don't think it has a market though, because people fear genetic engineering as a technology. Which is why they don't care if you punch someone in the sperm donor office so that you get the last lawyer sperm, but why they can't stand the thought of designer babies. And that is why I don't think we will ever get to the point where this will be common, thereby creating a rift in society in which one wants to kill the other.

]
] I think the sort of societal preservation stuff you are
] referring to kicks in at the legislature rather then in the
] doctors office. If these things can be demonstrated to be
] dangerous, then they ought to be illegal. I think, therefore,
] there is some usefulness in articles like this, to the extent... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]