Genetically Engineering Babies a Moral Obligation, Says Ethicist 840
Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that Oxford Professor Julian Savulescu, an expert in practical ethics, says that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a 'moral obligation' as it makes them grow up into 'ethically better children' and that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence as it means they will then be less likely to harm themselves and others. 'Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?' writes Savulescu, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics. 'So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice. To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.' Savulescu says that we already routinely screen embryos and fetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome and couples can test embryos for inherited bowel and breast cancer genes. 'Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance.'"
What would Hemingway looks like (Score:4, Insightful)
without alcohol's input?
Re:What would Hemingway looks like (Score:5, Interesting)
Non-suicidal. The fact is we don't know what Hemmingway would have done without alcohol (let alone alcoholism, which is a different question).
It would be egregious however to deny someone treatment for alcoholism on the basis that it will hurt their literary output. We can't simply deny people remedies because their diseases are so "picturesque," We might as well deny antibiotics to lepers, on account of the fact that their disease reminds us of God's wrath.
Re:Straw man (Score:5, Interesting)
You're talking about something different from the OP.
I would first find fault with the designation of "designer" humans. Are in vitro fertilized embryos "designer"? After all, these are people which shouldn't exist, their parents are empirically incapable of conceiving children, an intervention has occurred (which kills several fertilized embryos in the process) in order to conceive a child, because of the parents' belief that they are incomplete without children -- it is their wish, their sensibility, their purchase, and not their right or their nature. The child is a plan, a consumer product, alas, only available to the relatively wealthy.
Further, places much less well off than rich US medical clinics already offer "designer" humans, in China and India it's common for mothers to simply cull their female zygotes, they abort them. This is plainly an evil thing, it's bad practically and bad morally. But, how do you prevent it? What steps are you willing to go to to prevent the abortion of "undesirable" zygotes? You can ban abortion, but that only bans it for people that can't buy a plane ticket or have access to "discrete" services, and a lot of people believe they have a right to have abortions. The government could examine all expectant mothers and license abortions, forbidding ones that meet their politically-correct standard of "by design." Of course, that designation is up for debate, and something like malaria susceptibility might or might not be defect dependent on local conditions, the "luck" of such a trait given their parents genotype.
And then, we're not just talking about giving people glowing ears or racing stripes, we're also talking about making sure they'll never contract HIV, or the plague, or congenital blindness. What do you tell someone who's born with an abnormality? "Sorry, but our advanced moral consciousness demands that you be born blind, because it would be a violation of human dignity for you not to be"? Why are genotypic changes such a big deal, but phenotypic modifications, like vaccines, not a "violation of human dignity"? Is it a violation of human dignity that I'm immune to measles, because I grew up rich and white in the western world, while a billion Africans are not?
Re: (Score:3)
Then the blind one would cease to exist, and a completely different individual would be born.
Also: I love existing. Being dead would suck. And killing me in the womb would be at least as bad as killing me now. In fact, it would be worse, because if someone kills me now then I at least enjoyed life for a couple of decades.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think destroying fetuses for any purpose is wrong, that means that you must oppose in vitro fertilization.
Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
But where do diseases end, where does aesthetics start? Who enforces that line for the rich? Clearly this guy hasn't seen enough dystopian movies about two-class societies emerging from genetics.
Re:Ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a contest running somewhere called "Can we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"?
This topic isn't even about the rich, it's specifically about a potential era where these technologies may become affordable enough to apply on a massive scale. So try again.
Don't be so naive (Score:5, Interesting)
Every topic about any subject with potential for abuse is about the rich (though not solely so, of course.) The rich are the people in power. Those with power decide how any technology will be used. Everything is a double-edged sword, and the question "How will those who hold the largest double-edged swords use them?" is always entirely valid. Indeed, it must be asked.
I hope this helps you understand why "we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe", which is - of course - a complete mischaracterization of the nature of the discussion.
Re:Don't be so naive (Score:5, Insightful)
a complete mischaracterization of the nature of the discussion
Other than the part where he's exactly right. This is a prevalent, recurring theme throughout many /. threads, and the tone of such posts is almost always irrational, whiney, or worse. The GP is very observant. Not that you'd have to be to spot that trend.
Re:Don't be so naive (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't seem to understand the term "anti-rich". You are confusing it with "anti-abuse-of-power". Nobody is faulting anyone for being rich. They are faulting the powerful for abusing their power.
So observant that he cannot distinguish between "anti-wealth" and "anti-abuse-of-power" ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Don't be so naive (Score:4, Insightful)
The rich are the people in power.
Really? Is Jim Carrey "in power"? Is Stephen King "in power"? Is Michael Jordan "in power"? Is Mariah Carey 'in power"? Is Justin Bieber "in power"? These are really the people that scare you?
Those are the 1%ers, most of which aren't much of a problem. The 0.1%ers are much more troublesome. There you will find the megabank and megacorp CxOs that are mucking up everything for everyone else.
Re:Ethics (Score:4, Informative)
"Can we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"?
The idea that rich people historically came into existence by merit and not by legal exploitation and a cubic fuck-tonne of wars and violence is a myth. The legal foundations of a society are backed by guns and violence and anyone who thinks the current system is not exploitive and rigged in some sense is a moron, the whole legal framework is setup to deny economic rights to the majority through historical enclosure movements which to enable the new legal framework requires massive violence and unrest. So to talk negatively of the rich is the historically LITERATE thing to do.
Enclosure:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure [wikipedia.org]
Bail outs (priviledges of the elite) see here:
http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html [dailybail.com]
and here:
http://dailybail.com/ [dailybail.com]
Re:Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree with the grandparent's stance that aesthetic genetic engineering is morally wrong, but he is correct about bringing the rich into this. When a new feature for cars comes out (like anti-lock brakes), the high-end cars get them first. It takes a couple of years for the improvement to trickle down to the rest of us (about 10 years for ABS). Don't be mistaken, it will be the same for designer babies. In fact, I think it has already started. Substitute the word test for the word feature and you can already see the similarity between car features and babies. New tests for fetuses are being developed all the time to find defects and correct issues. There are "experiments" being done right now to "correct" babies with intersex issues [medicalxpress.com].
Economic stratification is becoming an issue in the United States. The paranoid, pessimistic predictions (paranoia and pessimism doesn't automatically make a prediction improbable) see that stratification becoming more pronounced, with a deep divide between the rich and the poor. With fetal engineering, rather than talking about whether or not to get a car with a sunroof, we are talking about how many IQ points we can afford. So the wealthy will not only be richer, but they will be born far beyond what the average person could ever be. The basis of the American Dream is that anyone can make it. Fetal engineering is the death of that dream.
Re:Ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say it's mostly genetic already...but that probably doesn't go well with the everyone is identically equal crowd.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But where do diseases end, where does aesthetics start?
In the dictionary [google.com]:
A particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people.
The line is entirely subjective, based on someone's particular definition of "adverse". If, for example, parents see being a redhead as adversity, why should they be prohibited from engineering a blonde?
Who enforces that line for the rich?
Why should anyone?
Clearly this guy hasn't seen enough dystopian movies about two-class societies emerging from genetics.
Or perhaps movies aren't the best indicator of future progress. More likely than a two-class dystopia is just an evolution of our current society, where the rich can have medical procedures done on a whim, and the poor can have procedures done after months of careful plann
Your signature (Score:3)
Wouldn't the DNA for durum semolina be the ultimate spaghetti code?
Re:Ethics (Score:4, Insightful)
"Clearly this guy hasn't seen enough dystopian movies about two-class societies emerging from genetics."
We ALREADY have a two class society, whether capitalists admit it or not the 'pay you what you're worth' element of capitalism NATURALLY sorts people eugenically to some extent whether any of us want it to or not.
Re:Ethics (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, but only if we dump them all there as babies. Wouldn't want anyone leeching off a public education, or the knowledge of previous generations.
Soooooo..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Soooooo..... (Score:5, Insightful)
No thanks, I'll just stick with chance.
And if your whistling-past-the-graveyard la-dee-da-chance-is-fine-with-me baby turns out to need $200k worth of otherwise avoidable neo-natal heart work or a lifetime of constant nursing care, you'll be happy to stick other people with the bill, too, right? Because that how that ends of working.
... yeah, you're a nice guy. Chance is fun! Save it for poker, not the avoidable horror show of a sick and dying kid.
It's one thing to get hit by a bus on your way to work and rack up $1m in neurolgical services. It's another thing to decide to go rock climging without a belay or helmet, and do the same. Likewise, knowing you've got a quarter of a teaspoon of embryo with sure-fire signs of a short, miserable, explensive life of pain and suffering in store for it, and proceeding anyway
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, who are you to decide that I'll spend my life to pay off your bad choices. Preserve my human dignity please.
Re: (Score:3)
In general they make that choice in a drunken stupor. Choose very carefully. LOL.
Re: (Score:3)
How carefully was Britney Spears choosing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Federline [wikipedia.org]
No, just no. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not even going to bother with the obligatory "what could possibly go wrong", because this is so bat-shit crazy and irresponsible. We simply do not understand how personalities work and how traits interact - to even suggest that we start removing traits before we understand how whole works is just as stupid as suggesting we amputate everyone's left hand to make sure everyone is right handed and not 'sinister'.
Re: (Score:3)
Parents are already "designing" their kids (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife worked for a pediatrician in a well to do area a couple of years ago and if it looked like their kid was going to be under 6 foot, they would ask for a referral to an endocrinologist for hormones to get the kid to grow a bit more. The pediatrician didn't think it was necessary in most cases, but they are his patients so he complied. The parents wanted the best for their kids and wanted to insure that they could get any advantage that they could possibly get for them.
James Watson, co-discover of DNA, was on the National Press Club a few years ago, and this question was asked (can't find the archive right now - heard on NPR). Anyway to paraphrase,
90% of CEOs are over 6 foot. A 5 foot 2 inch tall man and a five foot tall woman may want to better the opportunities for their child.
Of course, what he meant was that up to a point, height matters in all sorts of endeavors and not only sports: politics, finding a mate, work, etc ... There is a strong correlation between height and success. Yes, I know - queue up all the exceptions but keep in mind, many of those were extraordinary people; such as Einstein - 5' 5".
Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife worked for a pediatrician in a well to do area a couple of years ago and if it looked like their kid was going to be under 6 foot, they would ask for a referral to an endocrinologist for hormones to get the kid to grow a bit more. The pediatrician didn't think it was necessary in most cases, but they are his patients so he complied. The parents wanted the best for their kids and wanted to insure that they could get any advantage that they could possibly get for them.
James Watson, co-discover of DNA, was on the National Press Club a few years ago, and this question was asked (can't find the archive right now - heard on NPR). Anyway to paraphrase,
90% of CEOs are over 6 foot. A 5 foot 2 inch tall man and a five foot tall woman may want to better the opportunities for their child.
Of course, what he meant was that up to a point, height matters in all sorts of endeavors and not only sports: politics, finding a mate, work, etc ... There is a strong correlation between height and success. Yes, I know - queue up all the exceptions but keep in mind, many of those were extraordinary people; such as Einstein - 5' 5".
Malcolm Gladwell pointed out this exact phenomenon in his book Blink [gladwell.com] , which he calls the Warren Harding effect.
While searching for the presiden't name (I'd forgotten it, but I loved reading the book) I also ran across this: Malcolm Gladwell Explains Why Underdogs Win An 'Astonishing' Amount Of The Time [businessinsider.com]. Ha! Take that You expert in practical ethics!
What the hell is an expert in practical ethics, anyway?
Genetic engineering is different (Score:3)
Genetic engineering is different from what you describe, for multiple reasons. One reason is that what you describe is not transmitted to the child's offspring, so it is less likely to result in a separated and immensely powerful upper class. See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551 [slashdot.org]
Busybodies everywhere (Score:3)
Its always the same thing withe busybodies and totalitarians: Anything that is not forbidden is mandatory.
Here's an alternate ethic: Leave us alone. We'll make our own choices.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Busybodies everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, we can turn the question around: If someone has a baby without genetically engineering it, have they actually committed some sort of evil crime? Enough to, presumably I guess, arrest them and put them in jail? That's what the guy is arguing.
I'd be one of the first to go (Score:5, Insightful)
We have five different genetic conditions in our family, some are considered diseases, others are considered disabilities. I am quite sure under these new "ethics", myself and my whole family would be on the top of the list for instant abortion. Yet despite all medical conditions, many of my family have lived very long and productive lives. In same cases, I consider my relatives and ancestors choice and will to fight and overcome the odds stacked against them something to inspire me to never feel sorry for myself. Would we ever see such a thing in a future where all babies were born "perfect"? I think the sense of entitlement we see in our society is already overwhelming as it is, and i find it's people who overcome their disabilites that throw cold water, figuratively speaking, in the fact of self indulgence and entitlement. Would we see that this 'ethical" future?
My other point, this whole issue reminds of of that famous line from near the end of the movie "The Third Man", where the character Harry Lime says:
"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed—but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
In a world full of "perfect babies", well, just saying.
Re:I'd be one of the first to go (Score:5, Insightful)
500 years of democracy and peace.
Re:I'd be one of the first to go (Score:4, Insightful)
I seem to remember something about a patent office in Switzerland, too.
If crippling diseases are in fact necessary for human progress, we could always discontinue polio vaccinations.
If, on the other hand, it is challenges that are important, then science, engineering, and sport can provide endless spurs to human achievement.
Wrap this up however you want... (Score:5, Interesting)
He's STILL talking eugenics.
Even taking out the racial connotations and stating you're looking at it from a more "humane" angle is STILL going to raise hackles.
Also, genetics has been getting studied for under a century. While YES, we know a LOT about the human genome, there's still a lot we don't know. Such as WHY some of these diseases and behaviors are in our genetic code in the first place. Yet people want to start selecting away from it, or better still, excising it from our genetic code?
They're essentially playing with fire, and the nearest bucket of water is someplace in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri.
Re: (Score:3)
While YES, we know a LOT about the human genome, there's still a lot we don't know. Such as WHY some of these diseases and behaviors are in our genetic code in the first place.
Sure we do. Random mutation and inefficient natural selection of uncommon recessives. And some undesirable characteristics are selected for even though they harm society. Imagine a gene that causes men to rape women. The rapist gene could result in the men who have it making more babies, until somebody hangs them.
Let's be honest, we do this already (Score:3)
The question is only when we start to be open about it and try to influence the genetic composition of our kids more directly,
Re: (Score:2)
If this works for US .... (Score:2)
Then we can legally mandate, better babies or no babies.
If we can get there, then we just make sure what babies are better and what babies rule US.
DAMN! This may have happened over two hundred years ago with a selective breeding project for the leading political families of US.
IMO: It would explain Bush, but not Reagan, maybe Reagan worked for our Gang of Four (King of Hearts Chaney, Dummy Don Rumsfield, Pontious Pilot Bush, and Coffee Candy Rice) and Animals Control Officer Rove.
China will do it to US we
A great new business opportunity! (Score:2, Insightful)
Think about it: If you genetically engineer a baby, you've inserted non-natural genes, that is, inventions you can patent. So after the babies grow up, those people cannot have children without paying you for licensing (at the time the general public notices it, many years later, it's already too late). Maybe they'll even insert terminator genes, so that you cannot any more have offspring the normal way, unless you buy a (very expensive) special "medicine" which re-activates the genes needed for production
Oblig Shakespeare (Score:5, Insightful)
that has such people in't.
Definitely a great idea... (Score:5, Interesting)
This sounds like an incredibly great idea, that I'm sure will have no down sides.
I mean, if we weed out violence, that can only be a good thing. Nice docile people who won't put up any kind of fight. What could go wrong with that?
Also, aren't mental illness and creativity linked?
https://www.google.com/search?q=creativity+mental+illness [google.com]
So if you weed out schizophrenia, for example, to create a superior being.. you could simply be creating non-creative people, who will never invent anything new.
Honestly, we don't understand the human mind and how it works... how can we choose what human attributes are safe to discard?
Engineering != Selection (Score:2)
The title suggests genetic engineering, but the article in fact talks about selection: you don't build a child to be sure he won't become an alcoholist, you discard him if the tests say that he could grow into an alcoholist.
How that would be realized? En masse switching to in vitro fecundation? Widening of the reasons for which you can have a therapeutic abortion?
It's immoral pure and simple (Score:2)
future us... (Score:2)
Ummm... no... (Score:2)
And what if by "curing" their alcoholism via genetic engineering you turn them into a raging psychopath? This is eugenics, plain and simple, and anyone who thinks it's a good idea really needs to be genetically modified to raise their IQ above 10.
This is never news (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
There's such a thing as morals-- the collective judgement of society that has decided if something is right or wrong.
Infanticide is immoral. We do not need a discussion on it's advantages.
Suggesting that there should be a reasoned discussion of it is bullshit. In the same way that have a reasoned discussion on the advantages of slavery is bullshit.
And your argument--that an infant is equivalent to a stray dog--is also bullshit.
Not genetic engineering (Score:5, Interesting)
Screening out harmful genes is not genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is splicing, or mutating genes. What he is talking about is just a selection process.
Does anyone really think it's a bad idea to screen out the gene for Huntingtons? There's absolutely no reason any child today has to be born with Huntingtons, an incredibly miserable way to die as a chile. I'd say that screening for Huntingtons is such a serious moral obligation, that failing to do so should be criminal.
If that's OK, it's just a discussion of how much selection we should be doing, not whether we do it. Actual genetic engineering is a whole different story.
Re: (Score:3)
Treat whatever disease the woman has that makes the pregnancy risky. One solution of last resort would be to induce early labor, with all car
I love the idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
"I wish that all of mankind would give up it's warlike ways and the Earth would become a society of pacifists. That way, I could take it over with a butter knife."
-Dogbert.
Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic (Score:5, Insightful)
This proposal has horrible intrinsic moral problems. And think about the societal consequences.
Parents with a good moral sense would not engineer their babies.
However, selfish and immoral parents would do it. Thus they could create a strong, intelligent, long-lived baby, who they would raise in an environment of selfishness and immorality.
Rinse and repeat. After a few generations, you have divided society in two classes: one upper, dominating class consisting of strong, intelligent, but selfish and immoral beings (who would no longer be even _humans_), and one lower class consisting of naturals.
This is a freaking dystopia.
The scary part is that this gentleman is editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics! I fear for the future.
Moral relativists contradict themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
Moral relativism is absurd. If all morality is relative, then moral relativism is itself relative and therefore non-binding.
Also, moral relativists are huge hypocrites. They claim moral relativism when we are discussing something that they like (such as prostitution), but when we discuss something they do not like (such as deforestation, or nuclear energy), then they are all for absolute morality.
Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Moral relativism is absurd.
Moral absolutism has to deal with the problem of which moral framework is correct. There is no moral authority in nature so, naturally, different individuals come up with different answers.
Also, moral relativists are huge hypocrites. They claim moral relativism when we are discussing something that they like (such as prostitution), but when we discuss something they do not like (such as deforestation, or nuclear energy), then they are all for absolute morality.
Nice strawman. Pure moral relativism can be demonstrated to be absurd, but it at least shows a willingness to understand other groups -- a concept completely absent in pure moral absolutism. Most individuals do not rigidly adhere to pure moral absolutism or relativism; a few fundamental assumptions shape their worldview (e.g. biblical authority, human rights, or environmental conservation), and they have the mental flexibility to tolerate cultural differences in other groups that do not infringe on those assumptions.
Re: (Score:3)
Non-binding? I do not follow the logic.
Moral relativism is like saying the sun has variable insolesence. Absolute morality is like claiming the sun is the sun everywhere on earth. Try explaining the midnight sun's weak rays with that!
"Morality" has 2 facets: the first, is the societal facet. This is the part where the creationists consider evolution to be dirty lies, and which compells them to interject their religious beliefs onto others via the political system. The microsociety they have created for the
Re: (Score:3)
Take olymplic athletes (just to employ a recent topic). Most of them quite probably outmatch you in willpower and determination, they train their bodies to crazy levels and can perform things we can only dream of. From an evolutionary point of view (let's focus on phyical traits and success), they are simply superior beings compared to those two humans that are you and me.
Do you think they view themselves "above" you? Some actually do, but if you choose not to push yourself to the limits like they do, how c
Lies. (Score:3)
Too bad about genius & creativity being weeded (Score:3)
creating so-called designer babies could be considered a 'moral obligation' as it makes them grow up into 'ethically better children'
Ethics is a matter of opinion and are not universal. Diversity is key to survival. Don't go the way of the Borg.
screen out personality flaws in their children such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence as it means they will then be less likely to harm themselves and others.
Bummer about accidentally weeding out creativity and genius in the process. That professor has a lot to learn from the factory farming industry that made all sorts of mistakes with breeding in pigs, cattle and poultry, accidentally creating inferior genetic lines and losing important behavioral traits. We don't know enough to start messing with 'designer' babies.
This falls in the really, really, really bad idea category as in, the late humanity that bred itself to extinction.
Gattaca (Score:3)
Society not parents (Score:3)
I'm going to draw a lot of flack here, but I strongly believe that for many (not all) decision regarding future human beings, the parent are the last ones who should decide. Simple truth of the matter is that nobody is further away from objective evaluation than hormone-swamped people with built-in motherly and fatherly love.
Look at disabled children brought into the world with full knowledge of their genetic defects and severe consequences for their entire lives. There is no rational explanation for allowing that to happen, all the explanations are irrational: Either religion ("do not interfere with gods mysterious ways") or psycho-babble ("but it is our child and we'll love it no matter how it is").
There are some conditions where I consider it cruel to bringt that child into the world. It will be suffering its entire life. Abort it and make a new one if you are a loving parent.
Now TFA simply extends that to psychological, etc. defects. That's a bit SciFi and a bit nonsense because on most of those we do not yet know how much and what effect precisely the genetic component plays. But imagine it works, at least for some. What's the ethical consequences? I don't have a full answer, but I do have first-hand experience with someone mentally ill. Not genetically caused in this case, but for the thought-experiment assuming it would were. I must honestly say that I'm not sure. The amount of pain and suffering caused to both the ill one and everyone close was tremendous and long-term. I can not imagine any ethically defensible argument to abstain from prevent such things to happen, except that the actions required would be even worse. That certainly is true for murder, but then we're back at the irrational arguments where abortion and murder are equated, which rests on irrational definitions of life, personality and entity/beings.
And before you hit me with a reply, keep in mind that common sense is what tells us that the world is flat. Don't make "it feels wrong" an argument, because it isn't. Not in either direction - slavery or force marriages of very young girls didn't feel wrong for most of human history. Saying that your imaginary friend actually is imaginary, but not much of a friend, on the other hand, did.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
He is right (Score:5, Funny)
Re:He is right (Score:5, Funny)
Re:He is right (Score:4, Insightful)
Eugenecist Plays God Again (Score:5, Interesting)
"We always know best, and what is for the best."
"Our intellect is capable of producing a better world on its own, if given sufficient technology."
"It is immoral not to condition our babies to accept whole-hardheartedly, their statistically inevitable circumstance in life."
Thank Ford, Huxley's vision of a moral paradise is nigh.
Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again (Score:5, Insightful)
"We always know best, and what is for the best."
"Our intellect is capable of producing a better world on its own, if given sufficient technology."
"It is immoral not to condition our babies to accept whole-hardheartedly, their statistically inevitable circumstance in life."
Thank Ford, Huxley's vision of a moral paradise is nigh.
Mod Parent UP!
...and it always starts with the best of intentions...
This isn't genetics; it's EUGENICS.
Mark my words: If followed, this will have extremely negative, and unforseen, impacts. Such as "Ok, you've gotten rid of schizoid and autistic tendencies; but now the mean IQ is 60, and no one is left that knows how to modify the software in the automatic, and now government-mandated fetus-selector."
So, programmable evolution and quickly become programmable devolution.
Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again (Score:5, Informative)
They Tell Us That
We Lost Our Tails
Evolving Up
From Little Snails
I Say It's All
Just Wind In Sails
Are We Not Men?
Re: (Score:3)
Well there is a difference. Using genetic engineering we can choose to make our babies "better". Previous methods involved culling babies, children, and even adults which is morally wrong. I don't see any moral issues with tweaking an embryo to gave the child a better life.
Will we always make choices that are better? Only time will tell.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless they happen to be rich, they won't have access.
Tho, their children might need it most, so some countries might make it available for them free of charge for removing tendencies to addictions, and other highly negative elements.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
Let's create a genetic monoculture, and screen out diversity.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the woman has it really hard. But I don't think people fully appreciate how hard pregnancy is on the man. All those Lamaze classes, when all she wanted was a punching bag to swear at.
Re: Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
And they might not. They may just be flaws.
Sometimes something that appears bad is bad.
I'm more concerned that the individuals who will be able to afford this genetic engineering will be the last people we want to become supermen. I don't have that much faith in our economic elite.
We would be selecting for selfishness (Score:5, Insightful)
It is even worse that that. We would be selecting for selfishness. See
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551 [slashdot.org]
This would be an unprecedented dystopia.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It is even worse that that. We would be selecting for selfishness.
You think we're not already doing that?
If you don't believe me, just try driving ANYWHERE for more than about ten minutes. You'll run into some selfish fuck. Or get a job in retail and you'll be surrounded by people who want to use you without the slightest common courtesy. You're just furniture to them.
Really how'd you notice? The dystopia is here. It's called anti-intellectualism. It prevents people from having even an enlightened self-interest. If they were a bit smarter they'd realize that
Re: (Score:3)
Since it doesn't affect me (when/if human-engineering starts to have a big effect on society, I will be already old or even dead), worrying about it is not selfishness. I am actually worrying about other people, and society; I don't want an upper class of strong, intellige
Re: (Score:3)
I might mention one thing you're missing, the price of new technologies often decreases sharply. We may have a generation of wealthy uber-babies but with them leading the way as early adopters, the next generation could be quite a bit more pleasant for everyone.
Now, tell me truthfully that you don't want a generation of wealthy that lacks sociopathy and mental illness. Imagine the good that could be done (Or rather, the bad that wouldn't be done.)
The REAL problem is that we are contemplating this about a hundred or so years too soon. Check back when we really HAVE decoded human DNA; which is not today. Right now. we are NOWHERE close to that; but we're already talking about not only screwing with the genetically-modified-humans (GMH) lives, but, by releasing these GHM into the population (where they will more than likely breed), we can have VERY unintended consequences that affect the entire species.
And, oh yes: As soon as a company gets a PATENT
Re:We would be selecting for selfishness (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many things to be concerned about. What you have expressed is one of those concerns. There are also worries that we don't know enough yet about genetic selection to start tinkering on humans. For instance, what if shutting off one trait ends up turning on another in a way we don't yet understand? The foxes that were bred for a good disposition is an example. As these foxes were bred for their personality traits, their physical traits seemed to change as well. Their snouts became longer and they looked more dog-like. I found that fascinating because at least superficially it seemed that coaxing specific traits to become more dominant can result in other unexpected changes elsewhere.
I don't think genetic engineering on humans should be excluded as a possibility for the future, however we need to take a slow and cautious route getting there.
Re: Maybe (Score:5, Interesting)
So the summary mentions cystic fibrosis. This is a perfect example. If you get 2 copies of the gene, you get a terrible condition and would (without modern treatment) probably die in you 20's. However, a single copy of the gene offers advantages [brynmawr.edu] over not having it at all.
The problem is that humans actually have very little understanding of how the body works and should not meddle in genetics on a large scale. Even in a case where we know a specific condition (2 copies of the CFTR gene) is bad, we should not try to eliminate that gene from the gene pool. I would agree that not producing babies with 2 copies is *probably* a good thing, but people have a tendency to generalize and go too far. Evolution - if left to function - would probably find a way to convey the benefits of this gene without the downside eventually.
There have also been recent drug trials where the substance in question had the opposite effect from what was intended. The immediate effect was correct, but the expected response in the body was wrong. We have a long way to go both scientifically and socially before such things may be considered a good idea.
Re: Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely agree, we don't yet have nearly the understanding to start meddling with our genome on a large scale. Not that that will stop us.
The problem with evolution though is that by virtually eliminating death by other than "old age" we've largely eliminated one of the driving forces behind evolution - survival of the fittest. The driving force now is simply who makes the most babies (i.e. the fittest in the new reality). So basically if we want to select for anything other than "breeders" we're going to have to do it ourselves, either by genetic engineering or reproductive control regulations. So three bad choices to wind our way between...
Even if evolution was still working it is unlikely to magically find a "solution" to trade-offs, at least not on any timescale were we'd care. Take sickle-cell anemia as a recessive disease with clear benefits - if you only have one copy of the gene you're immune to malaria, a major advantage in tropical locales without access to modern medicine. If the gene is prevalent enough in the population then *eventually*, maybe, another random mutation will occur that counteracts the anemia problem - but it will probably incur a cost of it's own. If the cost/benefit ratio plays out well then it will disperse through the population as well, if not...
Basically "magic bullet" solutions will pretty much require intelligent intervention, and we'll probably eventually be able to start meddling on that level. In the meantime, our meddling is unlikely to be much worse than nature's "let's fuck with stuff and see what works". Except for the interaction with social inequities of course.
Re: Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)
Evolution - if left to function - would probably find a way to convey the benefits of this gene without the downside eventually.
Evolution has already found the solution: Let those with only one mutated allel of CFTR enjoy the advantages, and if those with two mutated copies develop cystic fibrosis, so what? The mutated version has already benefitted enough others, so it's not a big deal for the species.
The problem with "lets have Evolution do the work" is that Evolution is not ethical, and Evolution doesn't care for the individual, when it benefits the whole species. We humans care for individuals, mainly if we ourself are the said individual, to a lesser grade if it is a close relative.
And that's my gripe with the concept of ethical gene mutation.
It will make us either uniform: It's risky to be an outsider in the society, and most parents don't want their children to become outsiders. So they will basicly choose the gene makeup à la mode, whatever is in vogue when they get pregnant. You will be able to determine the age of anybody just by looking at their genetic code, because most people will closely match the type that was preferred during the times of their embryonic phase, the same way you can determine the construction time of a car by looking at the typical design and technical features.
Or it will split the species Homo sapiens sapiens into subspecies as envisioned by Aldous Huxley. The parents (with more or less obvious pressure by the society as a whole) will choose the genetic makeup of their children depending on their planned future place in life. We get a genetic elite, modified to be fit for the ruling class, we get several ranks of drone classes, fit for their jobs, but without any chance or ability to become someone else.
In both cases, we will rob future individuals of their right to be individuals. They will be streamlined and optimized for what the parents (with helpful input of the society) considers best, and differently than us, who had the chance to get out of the predetermined life concepts our parents envisioned for us, will be less and less able to become actually individuums.
Re: (Score:3)
So the summary mentions cystic fibrosis. This is a perfect example. If you get 2 copies of the gene, you get a terrible condition and would (without modern treatment) probably die in you 20's. However, a single copy of the gene offers advantages [brynmawr.edu] over not having it at all.
Cystic Fibrosis is a good illustration, also, that selecting for the supposed well-being of children is a trap. One of my close friends is engaged to a man in his late 20's (or early 30's) with cystic fibrosis. Yes, he worries about his health, and yes he has had some scary moments, but generally he is fine. Him and his fiance are in love, and have a pretty good quality of life. He has done some interesting things in his life, and has pretty much enriched the lives of people around him. And while there
Re: Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the problem is that moral busybodies or other authorities start dictating what character traits must to be culled "for the children" or "for society", such as the short list Professor Savulescu outlined. After all, it's a moral obligation.
But even if every tyrant's wet dream was somehow averted, let's do a thought experiment: suppose this hypothethical technology had been available at your parents time. Consequently, every character trait you have that your parents disagree with is eliminated, and every character trait you lack that they wish you had gets added. Are you comfortable with this thought? And if you are, feel free to extrapolate this further back in time, right through capitalists and communists and anarchists and monarchists and atheists and fundamentalist right back to the first living creature in your line; along the way you're bound to find someone you disagree with. Should that person be allowed to decide the content of your character?
You'd think an "expert in practical ethics" would think of the obvious practical consequences of his ethical recommendations, but I guess his flawed character can't resist the temptation of playing god.
Sickle cell anemia (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes anyone think we can actually identify all the interrelated effects of any gene - especially ones that affect the brain?
Re: (Score:3)
Still missing the point (Score:3)
Hardly anything's that simple in genetics. We already know that the genes for red hair also tend to produce freckles, and it turns out it apparently affects pain response in the skin, too. Everything's interrelated.
The proposal is to select for
Need more than 'barely'. (Score:3)
That's why you need more than "barely". Simple molecule, studied for safety... except they didn't test long enough, among enough diverse circumstances, to catch a major issue. Biological systems are orders of magnitude more complex than the things humans normally work with, and are the equivalent of spaghetti code, with just oodles of non-obvious interactions, kludges, and general weirdness.
So no, 'barely' isn't enough. You need 'thoroughly'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be more inclined to say 'Idiocracy' covered this topic. The kind of parents with that level of morality are more likely not to have kids at all, or at least fewer than the rest. It's Gresham's law applied to genetics - bad genes drive out the good.
Re: (Score:3)
didn't the Nazis try this a few years back ??
Yes, right. And the idea has been demonized since, mainly to justify a war which was waged to bring the US economy out of recession and suppress the two most potent economic competitors. When we outgrow the propaganda from that time, we might get a clearer look on that issue.
Re: (Score:3)
didn't the Nazis try this a few years back ??
Yours is a rather simplistic response that is likely to be easily shot down by this ethicist guy, but it highlights an important point.
Arguments in favor of eugenics have always been made on the basis of the idea that the people we select for will be superior. They will be stronger, taller, able to run faster, able to throw a discus with more accuracy, they will be smarter ... they will be more BLONDE!
So this guy, an ethicist, comes along and says -- because it's his speciality -- that if we breed humans pr
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly your not a 70s DC comics fan. Here's the goal:
http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Superbaby_(Earth-One) [wikia.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The telegraph is always up to slashdot standards.
slashdot: trolling the tech community since 1997
Re:The question is (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell that to the banana, or household dog.
Re:The question is (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't call his argument a straw man argument. You just happened to thoughtlessly pick two of the worst examples possible for claiming that our influence on the progression of species is beneficial. It's your own fault for doing so.
Yes, there are plenty of examples of breeding done right. You should have cited one of those. Instead, you picked the banana, apparently without realizing that the variety most of the Western world is familiar with is said by many experts to be on the verge of collapse due to
Re: (Score:3)
I noted two examples of where it turned out for the better
No, you did not. That's what my comment was all about. Well, that, and the fact that you claimed someone else made a straw man argument when they didn't (how could they, when your entire post was "Tell that to the banana, or household dog."?). For reference, since you've applied it twice now to situations in which it does not fit, here's the wikipedia article for "straw man [wikipedia.org]".
You also chose to ignore half my comment...
I didn't ignore it. It was irrelevant to what I was commenting on, since I only disagreed with part of what you said. It's a common pr
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)