26 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
26 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

'Designer' Babies Are Only for the Rich

by Joe Mobley
20 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
For the fortunate, nearly every aspect of conception can now be carefully controlled using cutting-edge reproductive technologies introduced in just the last few years.
I have been deliberately vague in quoting as I wanted those who might be interested to enjoy the entire article. Well worth a look.

'Designer' Babies Are Only for the Rich

Joe Mobley
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    It's an interesting article. Does its logic hold together?
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9352642].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
      I'm not sure TB. Like most other technologies prices will come down, advances will be made, we will get better at it.

      I do like the idea of designer babies. I can see a lot of benefit to (wo)mankind as a whole.

      ---
      By the way, how is your son?


      Joe Mobley

      Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

      It's an interesting article. Does its logic hold together?
      Signature

      .

      Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9352678].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
        Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

        I'm not sure TB. Like most other technologies prices will come down, advances will be made, we will get better at it.

        I do like the idea of designer babies. I can see a lot of benefit to (wo)mankind as a whole.

        ---
        By the way, how is your son?


        Joe Mobley
        I think my son was well-designed, LOL. We spent the day at a nearby park with lots of outdoor sprinklers for kids to run around and splash in. He had a ball.
        Signature

        Project HERE.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9352784].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          My designer son, who is 4.......


          I think that, choosing the best version of the combination of parent's genes is a remarkable step forward. As a species, we would live longer, be healthier, smarter. What could be wrong with that?

          I would imagine that the costs would go down dramatically, and only a minority of people would decide not to influence the health of the baby. Just like now, only a minority of parents don't have their babies in hospitals and have prenatal care.
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          “Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.” - Matsuo Basho
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9353787].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            I think that, choosing the best version of the combination of parent's genes is a remarkable step forward. As a species, we would live longer, be healthier, smarter. What could be wrong with that?
            The benefits of IVF treatment and screening for certain chromosomal abnormalities, such as Down syndrome, are undeniable, but we enter murky waters when extending the process of genetic manipulation to create so-called "designer babies".

            Consider that genes are the driving force behind evolution. Countless genetic mutations have occurred over millions of years in order to produce the genetic make-up of modern-day humans. During that time, minor changes (mistakes) in genetic structure that have ultimately proved beneficial to the species have been incorporated (by means of continuously successful reproduction), and the less-useful mutations have been discarded (by failure to reproduce).

            And while "True “designer babies”—choosing for attributes such as appearance, intelligence, or sports ability" may be still some way off, the assumption that human selection would be superior to nature's is bold, if not foolishly hubristic.

            That's leaving aside the political question of who (or more likely: what authority) would end up being in control of the selection of attributes in this brave new superhuman world.

            I shudder to think.
            Signature

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9356863].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
              Being foolishly hubristic is one of nature's self-delusions that I allow myself to indulge in from time to time.

              Joe Mobley

              Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

              the assumption that human selection would be superior to nature's is bold, if not foolishly hubristic.
              Signature

              .

              Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9357065].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
              Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

              The benefits of IVF treatment and screening for certain chromosomal abnormalities, such as Down syndrome, are undeniable, but we enter murky waters when extending the process of genetic manipulation to create so-called "designer babies".

              Evolution works because future generations adapt to their environment. That has nothing to do with what I was suggesting. I was suggesting using this science to cut down on disease, downs syndrome (for example) and deformities. That would make us smarter, stronger, and live longer.

              I wasn't suggesting creating super babies.


              Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

              And while "True “designer babies”—choosing for attributes such as appearance, intelligence, or sports ability" may be still some way off, the assumption that human selection would be superior to nature's is bold, if not foolishly hubristic.
              .
              I don't think so. Nature (evolution) has no mind, it's simply a matter of adapting to fit our environment. Imagine that the oxygen levels suddenly lowered to make our lifespan shorter. We could try to make our lungs more efficient, our blood carry more oxygen. If we waited for nature, it would probably be a similar result, but we may not have the time for thousands of generations...or hoping for a genetic mutation.

              If there were some catastrophe, where some attribute would save us...perhaps the ability to hibernate, or digest some inedible food, we could engineer ourselves (or at least the next generation) to survive what we couldn't.

              All of this is "pie in the sky" speculation anyway. I'm surprised there hasn't been more "We'll unleash an army of super mutants" or "Evil scientists will create atomic zombies" or "Doctor Frankenstein will rule the world."

              But...the night is young.
              Signature
              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

              “Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.” - Matsuo Basho
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9357108].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                Evolution works because future generations adapt to their environment.
                Evolution works because our genes drive us - we're effectively just carriers whose role it is to pass our genes on to the next generation. Thus, all of evolution is based on genetic change, but it's the randomness of these changes over millenia that has been crucial to getting us to where we are now. (I know you know all this).

                My concern is that we're entering a field of science that may well be biologically and technologically feasible, but one whose implications the human mind, let alone society, is ill-equipped, as yet, to deal with.

                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                I was suggesting using this science to cut down on disease, downs syndrome (for example) and deformities.
                Totally accept that and agree with you. That's the real pay-off that this science promises.

                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                I wasn't suggesting creating super babies.
                I realize that. I was referencing the "designer babies" extract from the article.


                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                Imagine that the oxygen levels suddenly lowered to make our lifespan shorter. We could try to make our lungs more efficient, our blood carry more oxygen. If we waited for nature, it would probably be a similar result, but we may not have the time for thousands of generations...or hoping for a genetic mutation.
                That hypothetical scenario would imply that we should develop the technology for advanced genetic engineering but save using it until some humanity-threatening event occurred. In practice we'd find enough creative ways to screw ourselves up with our new scientific toys long before that.

                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                If there were some catastrophe, where some attribute would save us...perhaps the ability to hibernate, or digest some inedible food, we could engineer ourselves (or at least the next generation) to survive what we couldn't.
                Claude, how many times must we tell you - you are NOT Superman.


                Frank(enstein)
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9357259].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                  The human animal will continue to improve his (her) lot... both before and after birth.

                  "The Rise of Superman: Decoding the Science of Ultimate Human Performance"

                  As the author of The Rise of Superman and co-founder of the Flow Genome Project, Steven Kotler is one of the world's leading experts on ultimate human performance.

                  Whether or not we are or have designer babies, most of us can live designer lives if we choose.

                  Joe Mobley
                  Signature

                  .

                  Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9357353].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                  Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

                  That hypothetical scenario would imply that we should develop the technology for advanced genetic engineering but save using it until some humanity-threatening event occurred. In practice we'd find enough creative ways to screw ourselves up with our new scientific toys long before that.



                  Claude, how many times must we tell you - you are NOT Superman.


                  Frank(enstein)
                  When I read the bolded part, I laughed out loud. Not because it was funny, but because that thought never occurred to me. It does now. Thanks to you.

                  My original thought was that it may take a few hundred years to make the genetic changes necessary for a new environment.

                  But here's another question...if there were such a drastic change, wouldn't most other life die anyway? And how would we survive while we are trying to make the genetic changes?

                  I was trying to think of uses that would give us the technology..the science to make these "survival changes"....but be useful now. Maybe try to make fruits that have far more nutrients than they do now. Or create a type of plant that has super active photosynthesis.
                  Or a super nutritious algae. Or a way to make Kale taste good (that was a half joke)
                  Signature
                  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                  “Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.” - Matsuo Basho
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9357516].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
              Let me suggest that most gardens are more beautiful and most farm production increases with a little human selection.


              Originally Posted by Frank Donovan View Post

              the assumption that human selection would be superior to nature's is bold, if not foolishly hubristic.
              Joe Mobley
              Signature

              .

              Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9357404].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    This isn't anything new. THIS, INCLUDING the stupid hype, was in gattica! In gattica, the stupid hype led to a generally unjust discrimination. The protagonist is FIRST prevented from getting a job, because he supposedly could never do it, THEN must buy another's ID to trick them into hiring him based ONLY on the merit, and NO discrimination. He THEN gets framed for a murder, because "HIS KIND" has no business there, etc....

    Ironically his OWN brother almost catches him for basically two reasons. The HYPE said that he was GARBAGE. The SAME HYPE said his brother was PERFECT! FURTHER, his brother NEVER forgave him because once he did was was deemed INCAPABLE of doing! He BEAT his brother in a swimming contest. In the end, his brother nearly drowned and HE saved his brother!!!!!!!!!

    I am all for trying to remove disease, etc... But the DESIGNER label and attendant hype is something humanity can do without. There may ALWAYS be problems. Other things may ALWAYS change odds!

    BTW you may wonder why someone SOLD HIS PERFECT ID to an INVALID! Well, he WAS "perfect". He was a champion swimmer! A mistake one day left him a CRIPPLE, and it was never reported. The invalid, in a way, bought hype on hype! HIS OFFICIAL prognosis was that he would never do ANYTHING like beat his brother in a physical challenge! The other person was OFFICIALLY a champion award winning athlete. The REALITY was that the other person was a washed up, depressed, suicidal, CRIPPLE, that couldn't even WALK!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9353948].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I think genetic testing of a fetus will be common in the future. What I don't know is what will bring on that testing as the "norm".

      I can visualize this happening in several ways.

      Demands of unfairness of tests available only to the wealthy could lead to govt subsidies to provide genetic "diagnosis and treatment" in utero to anyone wanting it.

      Or, I could imagine costs of public health care rising so high that govt requires all newly pregnant women to undergo genetic testing/treatment to eliminate costs of treating infants born with problems.

      I like the idea of "designer babies" to the extent genetic problems and perhaps other birth defects can be stopped/reversed to improve quality of life.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
      ***
      2024 Patriot's Award for Service to Veterans
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9353975].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    One fact that emerges from this is that I myself and would probably have been filtered out by designer baby criteria. Chances are, my son wouldn't have been born either. My great grandfather, who invented plastic, probably would have been filtered out as well. It is likely that some people reading this and approving of the procedure in theory, would also have been filtered out by it. Autism test would deprive the world of geniuses | Science | theguardian.com
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9356581].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

      One fact that emerges from this is that I myself and would probably have been filtered out by designer baby criteria. Chances are, my son wouldn't have been born either. My great grandfather, who invented plastic, probably would have been filtered out as well. It is likely that some people reading this and approving of the procedure in theory, would also have been filtered out by it. Autism test would deprive the world of geniuses | Science | theguardian.com
      I was waiting for someone to bring that up..

      Another way to filter, is to simply filter out the bad genes, or the damaged genes. Or the genes that give you birth defects.

      That way, the child would still be born, but healthy. It wouldn't be a matter of this embryo growing, or that one.

      And I assumes that this would become an emotionally charged issue....mostly along the lines of "Who's to say who will live, and who will die?"
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      “Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.” - Matsuo Basho
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9356605].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        I was waiting for someone to bring that up..

        Another way to filter, is to simply filter out the bad genes, or the damaged genes. Or the genes that give you birth defects.

        That way, the child would still be born, but healthy. It wouldn't be a matter of this embryo growing, or that one.

        And I assumes that this would become an emotionally charged issue....mostly along the lines of "Who's to say who will live, and who will die?"
        I don't even doubt that it is going to be standard procedure. It would be an expansion of procedures already in place. My guess is that it would only be an emotionally charged issue for a minority. Overall, it would probably be an improvement, even it if meant that individuals such as myself would be filtered out from existence. I don't feel emotional about it myself. If I wasn't ever born, life would still go on. I only meant to point out an implication of it.

        Most people are too clued-out to care about anything much, even things that directly impact their lives. How many people care that American democracy has been usurped by 100% unverifiable, easily rigged, electronic voting systems that have already produced mathematically impossible results? Very few.
        Signature

        Project HERE.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9356655].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        I was waiting for someone to bring that up..

        Another way to filter, is to simply filter out the bad genes, or the damaged genes. Or the genes that give you birth defects.

        That way, the child would still be born, but healthy. It wouldn't be a matter of this embryo growing, or that one.

        And I assumes that this would become an emotionally charged issue....mostly along the lines of "Who's to say who will live, and who will die?"
        You CAN'T simply "filter out the bad genes". The embryo wouldn't be viable. "FIltering" them out would be tantamount what one guy I knew in highschool did. He kept removing lines with errors, and the program just never worked!

        That is why they have "replacement therapy", and get rid of bad embryos.

        BESIDES, they don't know much about humans ANYWAY, and so know LESS about genes. It is like the brain, where they are finding that so many things interreact, etc... SPEAKING of which, they have some BASIC understanding of various chemicals that work in the brain, but have no real clue how to FIX imbalances.

        BESIDES, the "PROBLEMS" that would cause them to exclude some are often why they end up doing something else! Remove that problem, and you may HAVE killed that person as far as that discovery is concerned.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9356936].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    ALSO, realize the garbage they have done with GMO produce!!!!!!!! And has anyone seen "The 6th day"? It speaks of a future where EVERYTHING can be cloned, even from a GROWN BLANK!

    Due to the way the laws were, and similar laws exist ***NOW***, so it will likely happen that way, humans are NOT allowed to be cloned past a certain point. Such a law exists NOW! PETS, and PRODUCE MAY be cloned, as they could now.

    Where it deviates from the present is that they have a gadget to record and transfer knowledge, they can grow from a grown blank, and they have the cloning down to a science. ONE person controls it and is evil. He ALSO is afraid of the law, as he is a clone, and has no right to own anything. Partially because of this, he clones people with a flawed blank so they have a disease that will kill them in a few years. If they don't make the cloner mad, they are recloned as if nothing ever happened. They are otherwise killed or left to die.

    What is to prevent such behavior?

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9356953].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    What if....

    .... we can produce babies that will never get cancer, 'flu, HIV, TB, etc., that are gorgeous to look at, have musical and sporting ability, high IQ's and so on, but....

    ..... because their genes have been manipulated so much it renders them incapable of reproducing. Or in other words despite all their admirable qualities, they're born sterile.

    What then?

    If the only way they can reproduce is artificially that'd take the fun part out of the reproductive process.

    And if they could reproduce in the age old fashion, how is that going to solve the problem of living on a planet with dwindling resources? Or do we develop genetically modified people who can thrive on genetically modified food?

    Mother Nature knows what she's doing. Any attempt to cheat her never ends up well for those that try.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9357505].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      What if....

      .... we can produce babies that will never get cancer, 'flu, HIV, TB, etc., that are gorgeous to look at, have musical and sporting ability, high IQ's and so on, but....

      ..... because their genes have been manipulated so much it renders them incapable of reproducing. Or in other words despite all their admirable qualities, they're born sterile.

      What then?

      If the only way they can reproduce is artificially that'd take the fun part out of the reproductive process.
      I always thought the fun part was sex. By the way, I've never been a women. Do they enjoy giving birth? That's a serious question. (Man, I hope that question doesn't bite me)


      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      And if they could reproduce in the age old fashion, how is that going to solve the problem of living on a planet with dwindling resources? Or do we develop genetically modified people who can thrive on genetically modified food?
      Or do we simply not reproduce as quickly? Or maybe use our science to make some healthy food plants that will grow in terrible soil? Or plants that will make great soil out of clay?
      And, let's all not forget, that this is all "what if" stuff that is far removed from our current reality. It's as though we are discussing which movie star we would clone to have sex with.
      (Not Simon Pegg...Not Simon Pegg)

      Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

      Mother Nature knows what she's doing. Any attempt to cheat her never ends up well for those that try.
      Well, we created dogs..every breed out of wolves by genetic manipulation by selective breeding. We invented cows. Chickens sure look different than in the wild. Corn sure tastes better than it used to. (Based on what I've read in a glance on Wikipedia)

      And Slim Jims, we made out of genetically modified hot dogs. So there.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      “Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.” - Matsuo Basho
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9357540].message }}

Trending Topics