Designer BABIES !!!

[jimmoyer]

some people can handle downs syndrome children, some can't. Many marriages break up, and often the child is dumped onto siblings as a burden.

Down syndrome is a flaw, if people could give you a pill tommorow to give you the same effects as down syndrome permanenetly, no sane person would take it.

They have the same right to life as anyone else, but if there were some magic cure, then It would be dispensed. Children are meant to grow up.

IF a family decides they don't want a child with down syndrome, then I support that choice.

------------------------------------------------Zzarchov----------------------------------------------------

Even that position is fraught with legal problems.

What options is a doctor allowed by law to offer the prospective parents ?

Can it be as capricious as hair color ? Never mind if not all the options are available now.
One day they will be.

What precedents ?

We will design our evolution ....that's for sure.

 

[jimmoyer]

May be we need Designer Babies, especially if there is potential for the end of human
beings...


1: Robots taking over

Hans Moravec is a research professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Robotics Institute in Pittsburgh:

"Robot controllers double in complexity (processing power) every year or two.

They are now barely at the lower range of vertebrate complexity, but should catch up with us within a half-century. By 2050 I predict that there will be robots with humanlike mental power, with the ability to abstract and generalise.

"These intelligent machines will grow from us, learn our skills, share our goals and values, and can be viewed as children of our minds.

Not only will these robots look after us in the home, but they will also carry out complex tasks that currently require human input, such as diagnosing illness and recommending a therapy or cure.

They will be our heirs and will offer us the best chance we'll ever get for immortality by uploading ourselves into advanced robots."

Chance of super-intelligent robots in the next 70 years: High
Danger score: 8

2: Telomere erosion

Reinhard Stindl, a medical doctor at the University of Vienna, says every species contains an "evolutionary clock", ticking through the generations and counting down towards an inevitable extinction date:

"On the end of every animal's chromosomes are protective caps called telomeres.

Without them our chromosomes would become unstable. Each time a cell divides it never quite copies its telomere completely and throughout our lifetime the telomeres become shorter and shorter as the cells multiply.

Eventually, when they become critically short, we start to see age-related diseases, such as cancer, Alzheimer's, heart attacks and strokes.

"However, it is not just through our lifetime that telomeres get shorter.

My theory is that there is a tiny loss of telomere length from one generation to the next, mirroring the process of ageing in individuals.

Over thousands of generations the telomere gets eroded down to its critical level. Once at the critical level we would expect to see outbreaks of age-related diseases occurring earlier in life and finally a population crash.

Telomere erosion could explain the disappearance of a seemingly successful species, such as Neanderthal man, with no need for external factors such as climate change."

Chances of a human population crash due to telomere erosion during the next 70 years: Low
Danger score: 8

 

[Zzarchov]

Even that position is fraught with legal problems.

What options is a doctor allowed by law to offer the prospective parents ?

Can it be as capricious as hair color ? Never mind if not all the options are available now.
One day they will be.

What precedents ?

We will design our evolution ....that's for sure.

Who cares if they do make choices like that? I mean honestly, so what? We celebrate diversity not because its a good thing that people are different, but because it DOESN'T MATTER if they are different. In that same logic, it also doesnt' matter if they are the same.

 

[jimmoyer]

Who cares if they do make choices like that? I mean honestly, so what? We celebrate diversity not because its a good thing that people are different, but because it DOESN'T MATTER if they are different. In that same logic, it also doesnt' matter if they are the same.
------------------------------------------Zzarchov-------------------------------------------------------

I disagree with your reckless premise.

We might find a lot of mistakes are made in the aggregate, maybe even by a fad of the
zeitgeist saying this or that means perfection and thus some unintended consequences
like a generation of european thalydomide babies but for one FDA vote here in the US.

Too often we think massive mistakes and evil can only come from government.

But many of the same losses of privacy or losses in health come from personal decisions
mistakenly made under the guise of self-convenience or advancement of some perceived
health benefit, like taking a lot of vitamins because someone said they're good for you !

We should think more about this than the simplistic myopic sense of libertarian philosophy.

 

[Zzarchov]

and that is your decision to make for people how? stay out of the wombs of others.

 

[jimmoyer]

Too simplistic, careless, reckless, and dismissive of potential disasters similar
to the thalidomide scare years ago, Zzarchov. Those decisions were left to the individual.

 

[westmanguy]

I asked my parents about this issue, and they told me they would only alter me for health conditions and nothing else, not my appearance, personality, etc.

I think thats the main thought from most parents.

 

[Zzarchov]

Too simplistic, careless, reckless, and dismissive of potential disasters similar
to the thalidomide scare years ago, Zzarchov. Those decisions were left to the individual.

As well they should have. You know what else is left to the individual that does more damage? (and is even more simplistic, careless, reckless and dismissive of potential disasters) letting people control their own diet and excersize routines.

So what you must then be advocating is making it a crime to be overweight? Have police and the government scrutinize your diet and approve your eating?

Or you could accept even if you think you can do it better, its not your choice to make and let people lead their own lives.

 

[jimmoyer]

You know what else is left to the individual that does more damage? (and is even more simplistic, careless, reckless and dismissive of potential disasters) letting people control their own diet and excersize routines.

So what you must then be advocating is making it a crime to be overweight? Have police and the government scrutinize your diet and approve your eating?

Or you could accept even if you think you can do it better, its not your choice to make and let people lead their own lives.
-------------------------------------------------Zzarchov-----------------------------------------------------

Powerful point.
Pure.

But...

Getting away from the purity and power of libertarian ideology, you still run into something
that has a truth on both sides: Collective Responsibility vs Individual Responsibility.

From Seat belts and bike helmets to handicap parking and handicap ramps and
from regulating drugs to inspecting meat to environment regulations we are constantly
dickering with the seesaw between collective responsibility and individual responsibility.

Libertarians would unfairly put the entire onus on the individual to be caveat emptor
on a wide array of matters.

Designer babies is one more issue along those lines.

 

[Zzarchov]

One more issue, but an incredibley powerful one. Messing with peoples reproduction is a dangerous thing.

If you let them tell you that you can't procreate in ways that may be "harmful to society at large" you are giving them free reign to do all kinds of other nasty Eugenics, such as FORCING you to undergo designer babies.

And if you don't think that will happen you should take a look at immunization requirements currently. Try sending a kid to school without giving them potentially deadly immunizations (and yes, it is still a potentially deadly procedure, they tell you that flat out even still).

It won't be long until they tell you that new babies HAVE to be genetically modified to prevent genetic diseases, though they will probably call it something like "InVitro Immunization" to make it go down smoother.

And from there no doubt they will start stacking up all kinds of new changes.


If you give the government control over your breeding in terms of banning practices, you have also given them the same control for forcing them upon you.

 

[jimmoyer]

Pushing you, Zzarchov, has uncovered for me the most powerful argument of all you have made.
It is inevitable what you warn against. We will want to design our evolution, either because the
public demands it, or the government uses what the public demands to force the designing FOR OUR
OWN GOOD.

And why ? Because mankind's idea of perfection is what a Robot would be:

1. immune to most known diseases
2. longer life
3. no forgetfulness
4. no waste of unnecessary emotions
5. faster, stronger, smarter

It is endlessly interesting --- most people will deny it ---- that our idea of perfection comes
close to the idea of a robot.