]
] 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
] that they are grounded in reality and not radical ranting by
] pre-concluded techno-phobes.

Yes, legislature was what I mentioned in my last post as one of the reasons I don't think that this is ever going to happen. There is no way that we will ever get to the point where we are allowed to make "designer babies" because nobody that radical will ever get elected. Just look at the stem cell decision. It looked good on the outside (I mean, I was just glad there wasn't a full on ban on stem cell research), but the decision made by the Bush administration to only allow use of existing stem cell lines will screw stem cell research in the US in the long run. It looked good, because theoretically, you could keep passing cells to new flasks and keep growing them forever, but in reality, the lines that we have already show slight signs of differentiation into specific cell types, because we don't know enough about stem cells to keep them from eventually differentiating ever so slightly.
I personally don't find this article to be grounded in reality, which is why I responded in the way I did when you asked me what I thought about it. To me, this is your classic Bill Joy....it could happen, but it probably never will, because we will be stopped by something (be it laws or technology or just plain humanity). Articles like this make it seem as though this kind of thing is right around the corner, which I can tell you with certainty, is not.

]
] ] 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?

Well, this is just a hypothetical situation that I came up with. We can already make site-directed mutations in eukaryotic cells using PCR. (I did this with yeast cells during my last research project). And vectors such as viruses are being researched as ways to do gene therapy. Hypothetically you could get a virus to "reprogram" your DNA....and you would hypothetically be able to do this whenever you want. But of course...its never *that* easy:)

RE: Wired News: Will Genetic Engineering Kill Us?