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.'"
This is never news (Score:4, Informative)
Re:We would be selecting for selfishness (Score:3, Informative)
It is even worse that that. We would be selecting for selfishness.
You think we're not already doing that?
.. ooh shiny american idol!
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 they too benefit from not being completely selfish. But that would mean a few seconds of thought and
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: Maybe (Score:2, Informative)
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...
You still have death by "other than old age". You have death at the cellular level. At the gamete level. As for malaria, you are making an unstated assumption along the lines that either the sickle cell gene will just mutate to be safer/better, or that malaria will cause it to need to mutate along the lines of the red queen hypothesis. Neither is necessarily true. It could be that the sickle cell gene is the best it can be where it is located, a local maxima if you will, and that the only way to force a better solution would be to eliminate that gene and open the entire genome up to random mutation and see what occurs.
As for there being less survival of the fittest, you have a flawed understanding of what survival of the fittest means. "Fittest" is subjective (by environment standard, not personally subjective), it is only what works better in the environment of the moment. It is not personally subjective, just because some people would like for it to mean more intelligent or more physically fit it does not have to mean that. It might be that "breeders" are the best options given the situation at the moment. We're too tied up in our own prejudices and in the system to often look at it objectively and judge.
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?