Genetically Modified Babies Born

[Traitorfish]

There's a difference between affecting and actually changing a body.

I would argue that putting on a pair of shoes constitutes changing a body.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Clothing is not part of the body.

 

[Traitorfish]

Define "body".

 

[Save_Ferris]

Your organic composition.

 

[Algeroth]

Your organic composition.

Extended phenotype, dude.

 

[Traitorfish]

Your organic composition.

Define "organic".

 

[innonimatu]

@akka:
We are humans. And we humans are the ones deploying this technology. Whatever we make with it, it will be a product of our humanity, our ethics and morals. Should we reject (doomed to failure, most likely) new technology because we are afraid of what our humanity will do with it? Or should we endeavor to use it in the best possible way?
In other words, should we have faith in the "goodness" of humanity, in out potential to improve things, or should we fear ourselves? Those are the two extreme positions, the general ideas behind rejection or accepting a disrupting technology: optimism vs pessimism in humanity.

Yes, I know. I know I'm on the wrong side of history on this and IVF.
[...]
Most people are de facto against transhumanist research, we can tell this by our spending patterns. Hell, most parents will spend more on 'fashionable' baby clothes than they'd ever donate to research that pushes this type of field forwards (though, ideally, you'd donate the money while you're young, to increase the likelihood that the upgrades are available when you want to have kids).

I understand you, and I also feel that I'm in the "wrong side of history" on this one. Modifying human beings seems to me like opening another Pandora's box. But it is just another one. This kind of "big change" has been done (in other fields, granted) before, many times, and humanity carried on. I think that we should have faith in that out societies will find ways to make the best of this new technology so as to eventually benefit everyone.

Damn, I think I'm finally becoming an optimist!

 

[AlpsStranger]

@Akka: I think your concerns come from a good place, I just don't think you'll drown out the drumbeat of progress.

I hope for the best and assume that all technologies will end up being explored. It's all you can do, really.

 

[Winner]

Define "organic".

Define Traitorfish.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Define Traitorfish.

Oh this is going to be an excellent thread.
I'm looking forward to our Ersatz Traitorfish trying to define Traitorfish.

 

[Traitorfish]

Define Traitorfish.

"Traitorfish" is a process of conciousness occurring on an archipelago off the North-Western Eurasian coast. (Was that a trick question?)

 

[Save_Ferris]

Define "organic".

Any living system.

 

[El_Machinae]

I would argue that putting on a pair of shoes constitutes changing a body.

It certainly does. However, not in a significantly permanent way. A genetic modification (or a circumcision) is a fewer orders more dramatic and significant in their long-term consequences.

There's a big difference between giving your children shoes or no shoes. There's not much developmental difference between the different styles of shoes you could give them, though

 

[eduhum]

We begin with this and we finish with Deus Ex Human Revolution


When genetic science advances, what will the limit?

When only rich people can afford to have more intelligent, strong and blonde blue eyed babies, perfect, in that sense, will they rule the world? Is it fair to those who are poor? NO This is social injustice taken to the extreme.

Many people don't like genetic science just because of this. Because nowadays those actions are good, but when science advances problems will start. And this type of problems must be cut as we say in Spain 'from the root'

 

[Winner]

And again, that's why it must be regulated to prevent social classes from turning into biological castes. I'd say any country with a decent public health care could manage that.

 

[Traitorfish]

Any living system.

Define "living". I'm sorry to keep doing this, but we really need to define our terms, here.

It certainly does. However, not in a significantly permanent way. A genetic modification (or a circumcision) is a fewer orders more dramatic and significant in their long-term consequences.

That's certainly true. My argument is simply that there is nothing fundamental unprecedented about this sort of technology, I'm quite ready to accept that it could have a profound impact on the individuals to who it is applied.

And again, that's why it must be regulated to prevent social classes from turning into biological castes.

We're still waiting for a coherent mechanism for that, actually. No-one ever really got around to describing one.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Well, above all else a caste system implies the existence of discrete social groupings which are both endogamous (i.e. that marry only with themselves) and hereditary. Nothing in your scenario suggests that such groups would emerge.

Fair enough, but what is the functional role of a caste system? To assigns people to different groups of power and prestige - by birth. The quality of one's gene designs may accomplish the same thing. What differentiates this from today is that genes could set in stone what today is "only" a subject of general tendencies. But the ability to choose your own path is one of the key ingredients of our modern societies - at least as far as ideology goes. In light of that, I think it is useful to make the comparison to a caste system, as the defining element of a caste system for the individual - to be given a specific type of economic and social role by birth - would be recreated. But okay, I guess to just call it a caste system is some considerable inaccuracy for the sake of emphasize.

If human ability is not reducible to genes, then why would genetic modification imply the emergence of this "de facto caste system"? As you (quite rightly) pointed out to Sill, the human subject is extremely plastic.

I see two reasons: (1) Current differences in gene codes and their effects may not reflect the potential artificial design entails. (2) Even if gene codes don't define one's abilities, they still define the possible range of one's abilities. In an highly competitive environment, that then can easily be the deciding factor, even though it is only one of many regarding the end result.
Think of it in the terms of marathon runners. Most people are no marathon runners. And even less are good marathon runners. And even less are wold-class marathon runners. Obviously, for a person to be come a world-class marathon runner, many factors have to be right. Having a gene code which carries the simple potential doesn't make you one.
But what happens to the role of genes in a highly competitive environment?
Here is an illustration. Kenyan runners have come to basically own the Olympic discipline of 3000-metres-steeplechase. This caused interest in the scientific community, and the latest info is that the Kenian runners have a genetic advantage, which allows their blood to carry more oxygen / to do so more efficiently.
Now imagine we could tailor our genes to other professions than winning Olympic medals. Imagine the impact this may have on the job market. And I don't think I need to highlight to you the high relevance of ones job regarding ones social standing in general.

 

[Algeroth]

Now imagine we could tailor our genes to other professions than winning Olympic medals. Imagine the impact this may have on the job market.

So,all professional athletes would be people crafted with modern medicine and science. How it is different from current situation?

 

[Leoreth]

Another angle: why is it fundamentally more unfair to have a genetical advantage from genetic engineering compared to pure chance?

If you don't have suitable genes, you're screwed either way.

 

[Kozmos]

Think of it in the terms of marathon runners. Most people are no marathon runners. And even less are good marathon runners. And even less are wold-class marathon runners. Obviously, for a person to be come a world-class marathon runner, many factors have to be right. Having a gene code which carries the simple potential doesn't make you one.
But what happens to the role of genes in a highly competitive environment?
Here is an illustration. Kenyan runners have come to basically own the Olympic discipline of 3000-metres-steeplechase. This caused interest in the scientific community, and the latest info is that the Kenian runners have a genetic advantage, which allows their blood to carry more oxygen / to do so more efficiently.
Now imagine we could tailor our genes to other professions than winning Olympic medals. Imagine the impact this may have on the job market. And I don't think I need to highlight to you the high relevance of ones job regarding ones social standing in general.

Yeah, but as I recall the US even passed a law some time ago that forbids companies to discriminate based on genetic background and DNA testing. I don't think GM is suddenly going to mean normal people will get the boot, especially as tech is always slow to roll out, from early adopters to mainstreaming takes a while. All the while the tech will get cheaper as it usually does. Now there might be a case or two misuse and abuse but that is standard for everything really. Advanced gene therapy suggests that even already fully grown humans could receive the advantages the tailored babies are supposed to have. Some may be concerned about breaching the Weismann barrier and what it will mean for baseline humanity but considering our massive numbers right now and that we are still growing I don't think transgenic humans could completely replace baselines in any time frame that is considered dangerously short and unstoppable.