Designer Babies 902
Singularity Hub writes "The Fertility Institutes recently stunned the fertility community by being the first company to boldly offer couples the opportunity to screen their embryos not only for diseases and gender, but also for completely benign characteristics such as eye color, hair color, and complexion. The Fertility Institutes proudly claims this is just the tip of the iceberg, and plans to offer almost any conceivable customization as science makes them available. Even as couples from across the globe are flocking in droves to pay the company their life's savings for a custom baby, opponents are vilifying the company for shattering moral and ethical boundaries. Like it or not, the era of designer babies is officially here and there is no going back."
Parents choose their baby's name (Score:3, Interesting)
Although there certainly is a lot of "fashion" and "tradition" in choosing names, it's hardly the nightmare of uniformity that is predicted by those who oppose genetic choice. Sometimes it might appear that everyone is named Steve, but alas, it is not so.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Insightful)
Although there certainly is a lot of "fashion" and "tradition" in choosing names, it's hardly the nightmare of uniformity that is predicted by those who oppose genetic choice. Sometimes it might appear that everyone is named Steve, but alas, it is not so.
Nice straw man you got there.
The truth is that names hardly matter that much compared to your child's physiology and anatomy. In some countries, it's not uncommon for parents to kill girls that are born to them because they cannot carry on the family name, so to speak.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Funny)
Names most definitely CAN play a VERY important role in a child's life.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Funny)
I'm betting she'd be very popular.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Interesting)
Three years later, the Lanes had another baby boy, their seventh and last child. For reasons that no one can quite pin down today, Robert decided to name this boy Loser. It doesnâ(TM)t appear that Robert was unhappy about the new baby; he just seemed to get a kick out of the nameâ(TM)s bookend effect. First a Winner, now a Loser. But if Winner Lane could hardly be expected to fail, could Loser Lane possibly succeed?
Loser Lane did in fact succeed. He went to prep school on a scholarship, graduated from Lafayette College in Pennsylvania, and joined the New York Police Department (this was his motherâ(TM)s longtime wish), where he made detective and, eventually, sergeant. Although he never hid his name, many people were uncomfortable using it. âoeSo I have a bunch of names,â he says today, âoefrom Jimmy to James to whatever they want to call you. Timmy. But they rarely call you Loser.â Once in a while, he said, âoethey throw a French twist on it: âLosier.â(TM)â To his police colleagues, he is known as Lou.
And what of his brother with the canâ(TM)t-miss name? The most noteworthy achievement of Winner Lane, now in his midforties, is the sheer length of his criminal record: nearly three dozen arrests for burglary, domestic violence, trespassing, resisting arrest, and other mayhem."
Re: (Score:3)
I believe this is called the "Boy Named Sue" Effect [youtube.com].
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Insightful)
Fun fact, most people wind up with jobs that are neither terribly glamorous nor pay 6 figures. Police sergeant is actually pretty respectable to those who don't blindly hate cops.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Insightful)
But retards like yourself aren't even a necessary evil. They are entirely unnecessary, but sadly, quite common.
Re: (Score:3)
Can't you combine anything with Stan Lee and get mutants?
Wait, I have a better example (Score:3, Informative)
even more outrageous..
Name your daughter Aryan Nation... Then name your son Adolph Hitler..
Nah.. who would dare?
(hint- true life is weirder than fiction)
Re:Wait, I have a better example (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, if there's a better way to ensure that your kids won't be racist, I can't think of it...
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:4, Insightful)
That depends... how large are her breasts?
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Interesting)
In some countries, it's not uncommon for parents to kill girls that are born to them because they cannot carry on the family name, so to speak.
Nice straw man YOU got there.
There's a difference between infanticide (i.e. killing someone) vs. designer babies (i.e. preventing a hypothetical person from existing). By your logic it's also abhorrent for people carrying genetically transmission illnesses to abstain from having children.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Insightful)
Shit, that kinda sounds like names are really important.
This has to be Slashdot at it's finest.
Pretending not to understand the difference between family name and given name to avoid acknowledging the point?
Yes, that is /. at it's finest.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, I'm married to an Asian woman, who told me precisely this, and we have two spectacular daughters that I wouldn't trade for anything. She told me she would never have married a Chinese guy because of the way she'd expect him to treat her.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:4, Interesting)
Asian cultures are not homogeneous. Even within the larger countries there is huge variation - why do you think infanticide is common in certain parts of India and unheard of in others?
Dowry customs, in particular, vary enormously between countries and communities within countries. I think there are still places where a bride price is paid, completely changing the economics of it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think what you state is not completely correct. In traditional Chinese culture ancestor worship is very important. If you sacrifice something at a temple, then your sacrifice goes to support your ancestors in the afterlife. Problem is that your sacrifice only goes to the ancestors which have your family name. So if you have no male heirs you are not only suffering without support in the afterlife, you are also failing to provide for you
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Kind of like marriage in the west. Wow. Small world!
Doesn't it kind of remind you of that "endangered species" article yesterday, which suggested that by placing a dollar value on members of endangered species and allowing individuals to control them a motive would be created to protect them?
Personally, I'm saving money to pay for a surrogate so I can have another child, and
Re:So then you argue in favor (Score:5, Insightful)
The 99% Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that females are being born to these people, the problem is that they are willing to kill them because of that.
After an entire generation of all males I think the stigma against females will evaporate rather rapidly. Let people do what they really want long enough and they'll figure out when ideas are bad or simply unfeasable.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You might also end up with female babies that tend to not cry and wake up their parents in the middle of the night.
Re:The 99% Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
putting aside how horrible an idea that is for a moment, let's face that that's certainly what is happening.
In india, their are more boys than girls now, which is something of an oddity, and in some communities the new generation are so predominantly male than they're having to do reverse-dowries. As my brother put it, "sooner or later they're going to run out of girls to subjugate, and they'll have to stop treating girls like dirt. either that or the guys will all go gay, but oh wait, that's against crummy traditional values too."
Re:The 99% Solution (Score:4, Interesting)
It may not happen this time, but a surplus of unhappy males always creates a volatile situation. Partially the problem is solved by Chinese importing women from neighboring poor countries (like Vietnam), but while that may help in China it obviously creates a problem elsewhere.
Re:So then you argue in favor (Score:5, Insightful)
cayenne brings up a good point. Maybe he was trolling *shrug*, but as of this moment the post is marked troll. What you mods (and the people who agree with a troll mod) need to realize is, whether he was serious or being sarcastic you're REALLY going to be hearing that conversation, in real life, coming from people you know and love, and they're going to be discussing serious real-life options in a serious mindset.
Brace yourself folks, this one is going to be a trollercoaster on par with Roe vs. Wade, the civil rights movement and invading Iraq. Opinions will be firm, worded strongly and civility will suffer.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Interesting)
> I guess if a culture wants to go that way, then it is their own fault when they don't
> have enough chicks for all the guys to marry....and they slowly go extinct...
That is one option. But what if they decide to wage The War For Poontang? Think about it. You get a bunch of your excess male population killed off along with a good proportion of the male population of the victim country leaving it with an excess of females to carry off as prizes. And there is that nice territorial expansion bit for essentially free.
It is a related problem to the Muslim problem. Muslims are permitted up to four wives. Wealthy ones max out leaving lots of poor horny males with almost no prospect of getting any poon. And we wonder why they sign up as suicide bombers on the promise of those heavenly virgins? Those mating practices are a win if you are losing lots of your male population to war or other things, a recipe for disaster otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh c'mon, it'll be awesome! What would it be like to be able to see an extra color? Say, infrared or ultraviolet?
> Once we do this, we'd be wondering what else can we do, individuals with no limbs?
We can do that already, it is called 'amputation' and I don't recommend it.
> individuals with 8 arms?
I'm hardly able to use two arms at the same time, I simply don't have the concentration to effectively use another six. Eight arms are going to be pretty useless most of the time.
> eyes on the back?
Now you
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with "genetic choice" is that we haven't been around long enough to know the purpose of all of our traits. If enough people were to, for example, not pass on the sicle cell trait who's to say that humanity won't be wiped out by a malaria epidemic? Of course, that's an outlandish scenario, but it's meant to raise a point not prove one. We just don't know why humanity comes in all of our different variations. It's a dangerous game to start removing traits artificially.
LK
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Insightful)
One only has to look at what breeders have done to pure breed dogs over the years to know this is a horrendously bad idea.
Re:Parents choose their baby's name (Score:5, Insightful)
But, do you blame the breeders or the dog shows? I know some working class breeders have fought AKC recognition knowing that over time they'd end up with very pretty but very incompetent training stock.
If dog shows for working breeds were performance-based, you'd have breeders working towards the betterment of the breed rather than appearance.
I bought a husky about 10 years ago from a breeder who was a recently retired sled dog racer. Ten years later I went back to her for another puppy and her dogs were very pretty, but not at all trained or bred for racing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In a way, dog breeding is all about performance. Dogs in AKC-recognized shows are _not_ judged on how pretty they are. Each dog is judged against the official, written physical standard for that particular breed, not how well they're groomed or how cute they are. If you've ever wondered how a judge can compare dogs of different breeds in the group competition, that's how; the dog that best meets its standard wins.
Of course since the judges are human, grooming or cuteness sometimes plays a part, but not usua
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Officially here"? (Score:5, Funny)
I like how the summary says that the "designer baby" era is here despite the fact that, hey, we can't actually customize babies yet.
Lack of choices, though (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to assume that you can just produce all combinations there. You can't.
E.g., out of two black haired Japanese parents you can't feasibly produce a redhead, because (A) neither of them has the gene, and (B) it's recessive, so the baby would need TWO such genes, one from each parent, to actually get red hair. The probability that _both_ the egg _and_ the sperm have that mutation out of nowhere, is pretty much nil.
It might work if both parents had the gene as recessive, but that's not a given. And then you can't want your second child to be a blonde.
The same problem hapens if you want, say, blue eyes for the kid. There is exactly one version of that gene that actually produces blue eyes. If the parents don't have it, that's that.
Of course, I suppose the wife could get some help from the milkman or whatnot ;)
One gene != one characteristic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One gene != one characteristic (Score:4, Insightful)
They're not "inserting" a gene. They're screening out "candidate" babies that don't have it.
I.e. there are lots of embryos, they pick the one that randomly got the characteristics they want and throw out the rest.
However, there can still be unintended consequences. If people do this a lot and tend to make the same choices, the genetic diversity of the human race will be reduced, leading to greater susceptibility to widespread disease and genetic problems in the generations to come.
Re:One gene != one characteristic (Score:5, Insightful)
If people do this a lot and tend to make the same choices, the genetic diversity of the human race will be reduced, leading to greater susceptibility to widespread disease and genetic problems in the generations to come.
They're not choosing on the vast majority of the genes in the human genome. Your hair color, for example, doesn't really confer any selective advantage when it comes to resitance to infectious disease. Diversity, even among those superficial genes, also probably won't be lost. A lot of the genes people want to select for are already rare, if this catches on I'd expect red-headedness to increase dramatically (its at something like 1% right now). And there's going to be some auto-balancing anyway: if everyone wants to have blue-eyed blond-haired children you know what's going to suddenly be a lot more attractive to that generation? Brown eyes and brown hair. And they'll select that in their children.
Sky: still not falling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not choosing on the vast majority of the genes in the human genome. Your hair color, for example, doesn't really confer any selective advantage when it comes to resitance to infectious disease. Diversity, even among those superficial genes, also probably won't be lost
Wait, do you have some insight into genetics that you've been holding out from the rest of the world? Or are you trying to say that because we have only found one purpose for a given gene means that there must only be one purpose?
Billion Dollar Baby (Score:3, Funny)
I want mine to look like Alice
There's no stopping this (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if it may be inhuman, unethical or whatever, people will want this. It's a new step in human evolution. There is a plus on the ethical side of this: many genetic diseases can hopefully be prevented.
Re:There's no stopping this (Score:4, Interesting)
Remember when antibiotics were developed and they were hailed as the great solution for bacterial infections? Now look what has happened - yes, we've solved some problems (many, even), but we've made others much worse.
So let's take a minute to think of the can of worms that we're opening. 1.) How are we supposed to determine whether something is a disease and whether it should be screened for? 2.) What if there's some genetic/evolutionary advantage to many of the "diseases" we hope to prevent? Obviously, no one wants to stand up and say that there's an advantage to -insert horrible disease here- but it's impossible to predict the future and what may be advantageous. 3.) We're also bound to get idiots that want their kids screened for stupid things like being short or stupid. There's probably a potential danger in this as well, not to mention that it's stupid.
Anyways, as far as treating diseases go, we should be mindful that if we don't want to mess with the gene pool (as many believe that we shouldn't), we should consider non-genetic alternatives to treating problems. Furthermore, we should be excited with the advent of new technology, but we should be very careful in how we employ it (in particular, how much). These aren't necessarily my opinions, but it's important to at least play Devil's Advocate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Life savings? (Score:5, Insightful)
as couples from across the globe are flocking in droves to pay the company their life's savings for a custom baby
It saddens me to think that so many people are that shallow. It no longer surprises me that people would risk their financial stability to have a baby with a particular hair color. But it does still depress me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As some earlier posters have pointed out, this is a good opportunity for couples to diagnose and remove genetic diseases. Many families have known genetic ailments they would like eradicated.
Hair colour and eye colour are often advantages/disadvantages in life. Shallow or not im sure most parents will simply do whats best for baby.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I look forward to the ability to remove the ugly, awkward social misfit segment from society.
It's bad news for Slashdots future though.
Ironically it's the awkward social misfits who are the loudest proponents of this. Seems like tech is some sort of religion to them.
"Yes Mr and Mrs Smith, your embryo has all the genes to ensure it will forever be a pseudo-intellectual, who will be quite ugly for their entire life, will never fit into greater society will have a miserable adolescence and although will be exc
China and India (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll have a huge market in China and perhaps India. China has that history of euthanizing baby girls, so why waste the nine months if you can't get exactly what you want?
Sorry, but this really freaks me. Now we're making a true commodity out of babies. In a way that actually cheapens them; they'll become mass-market items akin to cellphones, when we can pick and choose exactly what color, what "skin", we want them to have, what shape and size, what sort of CPU and accessories.
Can you hear Darwin howling?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who flagged this as insightful?
If you don't want to "cheapen" your baby and make one the old-fashioned way, do it. If I want a redhead with green eyes, I'll do it. Who gives a shit? Suddenly having choice in something that used to be arbitrary is somehow bad now? Should we actually get to that level of customization it'll be an epoch of sorts and we'll either get through it or something will go terribly wrong. Life and the universe will go on.
25,000 years from now there's bound to be a severe paradigm shift
Why is this a problem again? (Score:5, Insightful)
People already screen your embryos and sperm for certain genetic markers. It's not eugenics, it's called "dating."
Go watch GATTACA (Score:5, Insightful)
Go watch the movie GATTACA http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/ [imdb.com] The basic premise is in the not too distant future a company has come up with a way for parents to determine all of the genetic qualities of the baby so that when the baby is born it is already determined what it will become/do in it's life based upon it's DNA. Prior to birth they know if you'll be a physician or a garbage man. "Natural" babies, those with no genetic selection are unheard of. The plot is a "natural" born character tries to fool the system into thinking he's got the DNA to be an astronaut...
Interesting concept.
The Homosexual Gene (Score:3, Interesting)
So, what happens when they find the genetic marker that indicates homosexuality?
Will it be okay for parents to not select an embryo because he/she might grow up to be gay?
Convenient way to settle disputes (Score:3, Funny)
My wife and I couldn't come to an agreement on what color to paint the nursery. I wanted red and she wanted green. We got tired of arguing about it, so we finally agreed just to have a red-green color blind kid and tell him the room's purple.
Babies are the problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Insightful)
Who gives a shit what you or "society" thinks. I think it is retarded to allow people to call their children "Apple" or "Montana" but, thankfully, I don't have the right to control other people's choices. Freedom means putting up with shit you don't like.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? We allow abortions based on sex. And you clearly don't understand the technology here. It's not embryos being aborted, it's embryos not being implanted, much like current IVF technology that already exists.
Are you catholic? (Score:3, Insightful)
You shed god knows how many skin cells every day, how is _that_ different? Or do you believe contraception is murder because a sperm inside an egg cell is somehow a human being?
Once a baby is actually _born_, I consider it a human being (though even then, Peter Singer makes a good argument that it's not really until it's self-aware, which is a couple of months later). Until birth, it's either a part of the mother's anatomy to do what she feels like (if it's implanted in the womb already) or just a thing in
Re:Are you catholic? (Score:4, Insightful)
You sound a little bit confused, perhaps you should take a biology class or three? The zygote/embryo/fetus/infant/adult/old-fart is a complete, living, genetically-unique, human organism. Skin cells, on the other hand, are not living individuals (human or any other kind.) Neither is a strand of hair, a nail clipping, or a sperm or an egg, by itself. However when a sperm fertilizes an egg, at that precise moment, a new human organism comes into existence. You can use whatever justification you like to say that it isn't a "person" or deserving of "legal rights" or whatever your argument is, but please, drop the bogus biology. Misinformation and faulty science doesn't help your cause.
Misrepresenting the views of your opponents doesn't further your argument either. It is true that Catholics believe that unjustly (according to their standards) terminating the life of a human organism is murderous. They do not, however, believe that the use of artificial contraceptives constitutes murder. They oppose contraception for other reasons, but do not call it murderous.
Re:Are you catholic? (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to take the same position......right up until I saw a baby born (and watched her grow) who was going to be aborted (pre three months). They are children, "potential children". That being said, I have no problem with abortions. I don't have a problem with eating meat either. I do have a problem with people trying to avoid responsibility for what they do by pretending it isn't what it is. If you kill a fetus, you have killed the potentiality of a child. Don't mess around and try and justify it, that is what you are doing. If you eat lamb, it was a baby animal. Same thing in my eyes. People should stop justifying what they do and just take responsibility. If there is no god, then there is no absolute morality. It is your choice.
Don't feel I am trying to attack your views in this. From the tone of your posting I would say your opinions are exceedingly close to mine with a few exceptions. If anything, I just hold the potential as more important than you because I watched it manifest once.
Re:Are you catholic? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am the father of a 4 months old baby daughter. We had planned on getting children and prior to this we have had 2 abortions because the embryo did not develop properly. And by that I mean that they did not develop with a cranium. "Children" like this can develop until birth, whereupon they die after a couple of hours due to the fact that they do not have a brain. A "natural" miscarriage had not happened, hence the abortions. A messy business all around.
During this process I learned a few things by listening to doctors, going to genetic consultations and by reading up on the subject. Most of the human embryos (more than half) that are started, dies in some way inside the womb. Usually so early that the woman never realizes she is pregnant. The reasons are as varied as the embryos, and quite immaterial to this topic. The point is that "natural" pregnancies are a chancy and tricky business with less than 50/50 chances for each pregnancy to have what you may call a child that is able to live outside a womb (some would argue that this would make children even more "precious").
Why are pregnancies tricky and chancy? Because it has developed over millions of years through a process called evolution. A process that is far from perfect, but that works. If anything the trickiness of having children is a (another) strong argument against the creationists (if we ever needed any more) who are determined to believe that we are "perfectly" created by some kind of supreme being. If so this proves he made a hash of it. But this is again a sidetrack to this topic.
The "holy grail" of a "designer baby" is that you are able to take what is the "best" genes in each parent, prune away dangerous recessives and damaged genes and then hope that it works. It is with the current technology quite impossible to do this. For this the variables are just too great.
As a person born with near-sightedness and a couple of other issues (which we all have), I would not mind having my genes a bit altered. And I would definitely consider it with any future children if the technology is actually viable (which it is not). Alterations that don't work at all, will for the most part be terminated in the womb. Other will die afterwards (just like it is now. No difference). And maybe some will grow up and be able to have children of their own. It is evolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you, o lone sane voice...The non-viable fetuses you had to terminate are more likely due to bad luck and environmental factors than due to the genetics of the rugrats-to-be (and we have a lot more toxic environmental factors now then ever before). Miscarriages can often happen from the smallest chemical imbalances during the first week or two after fertilization that may affect the development - we've perhaps even evolved the 'miscarriage' gene because it is evolutionarily costly to deliver young'uns
Re:Are you catholic? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll bite.
When is a thing more than a thing? Can I put you in a glass jar and consider you a thing? How about if I get enough people to agree with me that as you're stuck in a jar right now and can't participate in society... you're nothing more than a sac of water filled flesh? Sure if we let you out you might do something interesting but that's in the future and we're talking about right now. How do we know you'd turn into a human when we let you out? Are you even self-aware inside that jar... we can't hear you talking (it's cute how she moves her mouth like that as if she's talking) and all those convulsions you're making could just be automatic responses.
I'm not saying abortion is wrong, I'm just saying your logic is flawed and your self-deception is transparent. Abortion is stopping a process that would otherwise (in a typical scenario) end in a fully aware human being. That is a fact. If you want to delude yourself into thinking otherwise fine, just be 'self-aware' enough to know that it's just an excuse.
Abort a pregnancy because you are not prepared to raise the child. Abort because the child will be treated poorly by society... pick a reason, you'll need to live with it.
BTW I think contraception is definitely the way to go. Tens of thousands of eggs and billions of sperm are there explicitly to be lost to biology's natural processes. Contraception does nothing more than put those processes on a different schedule or manage how they express (ie: re-absorbed by the body).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But we certainly know when it hasn't. For example: when there's no nervous system it's safe say there's no conciousness. A fertalized egg, or even a clump of 100 cells, doesn't have the wiring for consciousness. There's no there there.
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm heavily pro-choice, but that made even me cringe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom to choose, without taking into account the generational implications, may mean stuff we ALL don't like. We just don't know it yet. And by the time we do know it, it may be too late.
Let's take China's (old) policy of 1 child per family. Leads to a glut of boy children. We have no idea what implications that may bring in the next decade or 3. May lead to nothing, may lead to a world war.
'Freedom' is one thing...stupid, selfish, misguided 'choices' that affect us all is quite another.
hmmm....sounds like the climate change vs the anti climate change argument.
Fuck you, I'm gonna build a coal plant and drive my Hummer. "freedom means putting up with shit you don't like"
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Insightful)
Who gives a shit what you or "society" thinks. I think it is retarded to allow people to call their children "Apple" or "Montana" but, thankfully, I don't have the right to control other people's choices. Freedom means putting up with shit you don't like.
There are limitations to freedom when it comes to other people. And babies are people. Even if it's your own child, you can't do anything you want to them. If you suddenly decided that your little girl would look nice in earings, fine, not many people will care if you get her ears pierced. If you suddenly decide that she would look better without ears, then you have a problem. The law doesn't allow for you to just go and cut them off.
We're headed down a very tricky road here. These "designer baby" choices would be made before conception, but the consequences would last the life of the child, so we have some big issues to debate, not to mention those minor questions of when human life deserves protection and to what degree we should "play God".
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom means putting up with shit you don't like.
Which is exactly what this clinic is promising to do away with. Come to them, and you won't have to deal with anything you wouldn't like to see in your children.
I'm wondering how many of those who flock to this clinic are asking for a homosexual child.
I'm wondering how many are seeking children of a certain ethnicity or skin color.
I'm wondering how many are seeking children of a certain sex.
The list goes on, but basically what this whole thing is about is reintroducing the racist, sexist, homophobic tendencies of society under the guise of progress. The Nazis tried this in the 1930's with their eugenics programs, and it ultimately led to someone concluding that Jews weren't fit to live. We all know how well that worked out, and I think this is even more sinister. The problem with "designer babies" is that by removing the perceived imperfections from a majority of the society, as a society, we never learn what it feels like to be marginalized, oppressed, disadvantaged, etc... The grand consequence of this is a general loss of compassion and inability to empathize with the less fortunate. Which in turns leads to a greater separation between the haves and have nots, and paves the way for tyranny.
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Insightful)
Or are you for allowing school choice... even when it means fundies can skip teaching evolution and condoms?
Or are you against using the power of the State to seize the resources of the successful to give to those who couldn't give enough of a shit to get an education?
And you are of course against crap like the Fairness Doctrine, right?
And are you against all gun control. at least anything less than crew served weapons or WMD, right?
Hate Speech? That doesn't exist in your "Freedom is flying yer freak flag" world, right?
Funnily enough, I'm in favor of school choice, against the Fairness Doctrine, against most gun control, and against hate speech control laws. I don't favor arbitrary property seizure, though. I note that the wording of your questions is highly loaded, attempting to resolve any debate through the framing of the questions. I choose not to address that issue further.
I'm really not sure why you picked a handful of controversial topics to try to prove that many issues of freedom are simple and obvious. Merely because you feel strongly about these topics doesn't mean that all thoughtful, intelligent people agree.
I don't have a problem with "designer babies", as this article calls 'em. While this company currently is talking about superficial choices like hair and eye color, perfecting the technology could well lead to generations of smarter, stronger, disease-resistant, congenital-defect free children.
Further, I'm afraid that taking legislative control of children's genetics is more dangerous to the preservation of diversity than allowing free choice. Once the finger of legislation is in the pie, there's no taking it out again, and most long-standing governments have made eugenic policies at various points. I have no reason to believe that it will never happen again in nations which have rescinded such stances.
I don't deny there's plenty of arguments on both sides - I was exposed to this debate many years ago in a biomedical ethics course in college. The actual practical application is bound to raise a bit of hubbub and maybe some new insight, but unless someone has a compelling new argument I'm unlikely to see this as a Bad Thing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case the "shit you don't like" is a de facto eugenics policy. I would have thought we'd learned from the last century that eugenics is very problematic.
No we didn't learn eugenics was a problem. If anything what was learned was that a group of people, whether it's the government or not, should not try to to exterminate those they don't like in an attempt to create a super race like the NAZIs did.
No rational person wants to place blind trust the state to enact a eugenics policy allowing it an extrem
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, now it's happened. And as a society we lack the moral fiber to even say it is a bad idea. Forget making an actual judgemental moral decision and declaring it "immoral" or "wrong". We can't even agree it is a bad idea and will almost certainly have bad consequences.
I find it odd that you're not only assuming it is wrong and bad, but you're saying questioning it at all is a sign that we're doomed. NOT questioning imposed morality and superstition is what will doom us (see the dark ages and crusades, and in fact most wars for proof.)
I wouldn't take it as a given that their nightmare scenario will be all or nothing. We allowed abortion, we are now apperantly allowing this... I'm missing the links to generic big bad thing. Who says anything bad will come out of it? Besides you and them, that is.
This isn't designer babies anyway. The fundies are still wrong.
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of people saw gattaca, and pulled out the message that we should abandon all genetic research before it destroys us all.
In the beginning of gattaca, the narrator even mentions that "genoism" laws were passed, but in the movie we see blatant discrimination.
The message that I got out of that movie is less about genetic engineering, and more about discrimination in general. If we as a society just flatly ignore certain discrimination laws, then of course society is going to go to hell in a short amount of time.
It seems like there is this whole branch of scifi designed to terrorize people about the horrors of technology. The creators seem to think that we would all be better off if we abandoned technology and all went back to live in caves.
If I had the opportunity to have children who were smarter, faster, stronger, and with laser eyes, I would do it in a heartbeat. What is the point of life in general without progression of evolution?
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:4, Interesting)
> In the beginning of gattaca, the narrator even mentions that "genoism" laws were
> passed, but in the movie we see blatant discrimination.
Because the idea that laws from a legislature will overrule laws of physics is dumb. It's the sort of thing Democrats do.
> The message that I got out of that movie is less about genetic engineering,
> and more about discrimination in general.
Wrong. Discriminating against people because they are of African descent is just dumb. Discriminating against someone because they are physically weaker, less intelligent, less emotionally stable, more likely to contract diseases and will generally die younger is a totally different thing. And that is where genetic engineering leads. I am not opposed to Eugenics because I don't think it will work, I oppose it because I know it WILL work.
Our whole civilization can be summed up by these immortal words:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Genetic engineering tosses ALL of that in the trash. All men are created by the Company with whatever inequalities the customer orders. Their ass is the property of the customer who commissioned them but the copyrights and patents on their design belongs to the Company. If it's defective just kill it and try again, hopefully we catch the defects before initial customer delivery.
And as for Happiness? We commissioned a miner and mine it damned well better do, who cares if it enjoys it. We can just breed the 2.0 version to be too stupid to care if too many revolt or commit suicide. So what if it causes a few more losses because they won't be able to understand some of the safety rules, we will adjust the design until the cost benefit is right.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> imagine people were saying similar things when racial discrimination laws were passed.
They happened to be wrong. Not saying there aren't actually some variation between the races but any differences in the averages appear to be safely inside the deviation bars.
> Do you think we ought to throw those laws out as they'll never work and blacks will always be discriminated against?
Actually..... yes we should dump those laws because they can't work. Racial discrimination isn't much of a problem anymore
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know who you were talking to, but I don't know any legitimate scientist in biology who didn't think this was going to happen by 2015.
What people said was that for traits that people are most interested in doing this for - most commonly intelligence, attractiveness, and physical ability - it's basically impossible at this point (and will likely remain so for a decent while, considering how many loci people are finding in genome-wide screens). However, eye color and skin color are pretty straightforward, and it's silly to think that when it became technologically possible to perform genetic tests on early embryos (which was something that absolutely had to be developed, as it's basically the only way to avoid any number of horrific genetic diseases) that it wouldn't be used for these purposes as well.
The bigger issue is, who cares? Eye color and hair color are completely superficial traits that mean nothing, and skin color (as evidenced by black males leading both major political parties) isn't anywhere near the issue it was 20 years ago. Sex choice is actually a bigger issue for non-American cultures, as you can wind up with the China situation of a very unbalanced population, but in developed countries (that would have the money to afford this kind of screening) I don't see the value of having a boy or a girl being dramatically different.
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Insightful)
You should elaborate as to why you think this is a bad idea.
Personally I think it's a good idea. Being able to screen for genes that cause cystic fibrosis, Huntington disease, Alzheimer disease, trisomy 13/18/21, etc. would allow no one to suffer from such diseases anymore either through picking different embryos or repairing the diseased gene.
It's certainly better than the crap-shoot that we have now for procreation.
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:4, Insightful)
Reducing the gene pool is bad for the longevity of the species. As the gene pool becomes more homogeneous the risk of a species exterminating disease increases, since the likelihood of a genetic mutation which can resist the new disease is diminished.
Add in the fact that we know startlingly little about how genes really operate and you have the possibility of some serious unknown consequences.
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't really reduce the gene pool an appreciable degree and not necessarily in a bad way either. Can you tell me a good reason for keeping the triplet repeats within the gene that causes Huntington disease or fragile X or other disease that result from expanded triplet repeats?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the point was that he can't give you a good reason, but that doesn't mean that there isn't one. Our knowledge is limited and it may be prudent to keep from mass scale meddling until we understand better, but that's not a reason not to dig and innovate.
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody is engineering these embryos. They are fertilized eggs that are then screen for traits, and only the ones wanted are implanted.
There are no mucking with genes being done. Its a passive process. Make X many embryos, and scan them for various traits. Pick the ones you want. Simple, and non threatening to the species.
Humans are not evolving anymore anyway, so what does it matter? We do not exist in a world of natural selection pressures.
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:4, Insightful)
Humanity is still evolving, it is foolish to think we can stand outside of the evolutionary process. It just probably more subtle that examples we see in the wild.
I would suggest that there has been a very strong selective pressure towards resistance to addictive substances. Think of what distilled alcohol did to almost every aboriginal culture who encountered it and think of what Methamphetamine does to someones appearance and ability to survive in the modern world
Also as my ancestors survived the black death, it is possible that I have a greater resistance to contracting HIV, I could be even be immune, and my genes may of already saved me.
Evolution is still with us now, and always will be with any beings that replicate with variation. It is just slow and subtle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Granted, we have taken a lot of the natural selection process out of the equation, and substituted a lot of artificial selection, but rest assured, we are still evolving.
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted, we have taken a lot of the natural selection process out of the equation, and substituted a lot of artificial selection, but rest assured, we are still evolving.
Just under the wrong criteria.
just think about it (Score:3, Insightful)
While I would generally agree with your point, there is a flaw.
You're assuming that the gene removed would be passed on. If the gene we're preventing from being born is one that causes death or severe mental retardation, then it's more about having a baby that won't suffer/be crippled. Why give birth to one that wouldn't be able to reproduce anyway because it's dead in a few years or too retarded for romantic interest.
A little story in how this is dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)
There are 3 things I might select for, health, high intelligence, and physical fitness.
I had a palaentology professor who described the interesting puzzle of a type of ocean bacteria which uses a tiny magnetic crystal to determine which way is up (the Earth's magnetic field having a vertical component). What the biologists could not figure out is why a small fraction of each generation would be born with the crystal the wrong way around and then swim down, instead of up, and perish. Surely evolution would have corrected this error?
What the palaentologists did was use the crystals that fell from the bacteria when they died to measure the direction of the magnetic field - this in part lead to the discovery of the flipping of the field every 100k years and suddenly things became clear. What was a bad genetic mutation 99.99% of the time suddenly became essential to the survival of the species after the field flip. The few percent with the wrong crystal then became the survivors.
So convince me that in selecting the "perfect" health gene and high intelligence gene we are not also potentially removing other genetic traits that might appear to be useless at the moment but which may offer resistance to some future virus or similar threat? Not to mention the social problems of trying to find a road sweeper or janitor when we are all giving birth to baby Einsteins.
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, making sure your kids have no future ailments or life threatening conditions/diseases is a.. bad> thing?
Sorry, but I'm 100% in favor of non-cosmetic Eugenics. Maybe you'd feel the same if you knew someone with cancer, diabetes or countless other horrible conditions.
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but I'm 100% in favor of non-cosmetic Eugenics. Maybe you'd feel the same if you knew someone with cancer, diabetes or countless other horrible conditions.
I /had/ cancer, and I"m still not sure that I'm in favor of it. The thought of the current relatively minor money-based class separation eventually becoming codified genetically (this service ain't gonna be cheap) is more than a little disturbing.
You eventually end up with the descendants of the wealthy and middle class (yay consumer finance) who are guaranteed no major health problems, and the descendants of the poor who remain prone to the many diseases. These people are already at a disadvantage financially, now they become a heavy burden on a society since the only ones who actually get seriously ill.
How many generations until the healthy class stops paying for them?
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Insightful)
Eugenics got a bad rap because of the fascist nature of the Nazis. From Wikipedia: The word eugenics derives from the Greek word eu (good or well) and the suffix -genÄ"s (born), and was coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883, who defined it as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations"
Taking control of our own genetic future is the only way we'll evolve the human race without also needing the severe stress of massive population reducing mechanisms like war, disease, asteroid, etc.
Besides benignly selecting for better traits in our own embryo sets, I'm hoping that we can eventually genetically change ourselves in place with retro-viruses or something similar.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
NO. It is not.
Eugenics is about controlling which sperm has the legal/moral rights to fertilize which embryos. All of your examples reference such acts.
What is occurring in the article is actions regarding fertilized embryos that had free will, or non-Eugenic motivations, in the choice of which sperm fertilized it.
Don't confuse eugenics with euthanasia either. Or genocide for that matter. Euthanasia is the killing of human beings motivated by the desire to mitigate the burden to society or the
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know, it sounds like a good idea to me. We can start with simple things like eye and hair color, and hopefully move on to eliminating the genetics that cause obesity, stupidity, and depression.
Re:This too was foreseen (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know, it sounds like a good idea to me. We can start with simple things like eye and hair color, and hopefully move on to eliminating the genetics that cause obesity, stupidity, and depression.
Of course stupid obese depressed people are more susceptible to advertising and consumption in general... so when google buys out the fertility clinics, that will be the default selection... and the question to couples seeking fertility help is... well... do you want a baby or not?
We offer you a child with the eye and hair color of your choice at no charge... of course you'll have to accept that he'll buy everything in sight. Your IVF treatment was paid for by advertisers after all... no we don't offer a paid option without the ads.
If you don't like that, talk to Apple... they'll hook you up with one of their models -- of course they only have exactly 3 models, they'll engrave your name on it though; but that's the extent of personalization, they cost a premium, and this year its glossy silver hair on all of them. If you don't like it, tough...
Warning... offensive comment to some coming (Score:3, Insightful)
The real key issues will be...
I don't want a gay baby. Now I haven't bought into the whole being gay is genetic. However should it be proven otherwise how long before the more radical groups affiliated with gays decide it is offensive or an affront to their rights to have this gene designed out of offspring? I have always been under the impression that if it could be determined to be genetic and then detected that it would turn the whole issue of abortion on its head. Look, we have already seen societie
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good point, this is in no way -designer- babies, there's no design, just rejection of the ones you don't like.
When we start being able to specify that our kids have wings or eye lasers, THAT's when things get awesome/scary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Patented Babies coming to you! (Score:4, Interesting)
Just wait until they patent the genes for intelligence. If your kid reproduces without the assistance of the medical company they'll be spreading patented genes or something and they'll demand the DNA information of the offspring. Sorta like Monsanto does with crops... Just imagine if these companies only give you sterile kids and require you to go through them to have future kids.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)