Chieftess said:
There has been one time in history where a nation even tried to genetically alter a region - although in a brute force way. Now, it can even be done subtly. Right now, if it's $70,000 for the "perfect baby", I don't think many people -- maybe except the rich -- will go for it.
Unless I'm mistaken, it's $70,000 for a baby of the right gender. I doubt we can make a "perfect baby" right now. And if gender selection is only available to the rich ... well, I think there are bigger problems to worry about.
Chieftess said:
Scenario 1: Several of the wealthy elite, especially those with corporate interests, decide to form a family line of "intellectually business minded" children. Maybe not much to go on there, as genetically, their genes may naturally be passed anyway, but this ensures it 100%. Kind of an insurence policy to pass the family business along.
"Intellectually business minded"? What? Assuming I know what you're talking about, I think how the kid is raised has way more of an influence in that matter than his genes, and obviously the wealthy already raise their kids to keep the wealth alive plenty well.
Chieftess said:
Scenario 2: The price comes down, and everyone's doing it. Now, You've got maybe, 80% of the population that are doctors, musicians, lawyers, scientists. Great, but then you're lacking manual labor. It'll be an economic change.
Seems like a faulty argument to me.
You might as well use that argument against advances in education. We need garbage men and burger flippers, so our populace can't be too educated! Hooray for piss-poor inner city schools!
Not only is that attitude ethically disgusting, it's factually misguided. Historical trends have shown us that as education (and by logical extension, genes) improves, manual labor is even better taken care of, through robotization. Never, ever has an economy been troubled by people being too smart or talented.
Take a look at our world today versus the world 50 (or 100, or 200, or whatever) years ago. Today, we are smarter and healthier. Do we face a manual labor problem? No. What was once manual labor (say, making fabric) is now automated. Genetic engineering would just continue this trend.
Chieftess said:
Scenario 3: The government regulates a defined set of genetic characteristic that a child can be. This may wind up creating many "twins" if the genetic code is specific enough that they're virtually the same. (or some computer program re-programs it that way) Put this in the hands of say, a communist govenment, and you may have a "Utopian's Dream", where a certain, predictable percentage of the population will have one interest over another.
Either you are overestimating, or I am underestimating, the knowledge of geneticists. I mean, a government genetically editing its population to fall in line more easily? That sounds like a bad science fiction novel, nothing more.
Chieftess said:
Scenario 4: I'll just toss out a "nightmare scenario" for all of you. Although like #3, the government goes to the extreme. They create an intelligent class of people to be doctors, lawyers, scientists, and whatnot. Now, they also create a lower class of the gene pool where people actually have lower intelligence, and are very submissive (and naive). The only thing they have going for them is being resistent to the pain of manual labor. Their genes are also programmed that they do not sleep, so that they are forced to work 24/7. They could also completely remove people's gene that controls how religious or non-religous they are (yes, they actually found that gene).
Well, before you thought it'd be bad that there wouldn't be enough stupid people, now you're complaining about the thought of the government making some? Seems like you're just trying to make as many arguments as possible, regardless of the fact that they contradict each other.
Since you seem to me like a reasonable, emotionally healthy human being (or am I wrong?
), I'm going to assume that what
really upsets you is scenario 4, not scenario 2. But like I said before, you don't have to worry about scenario 4, since it is never economically sensible for anyone to be kept stupid. (When Huxley wrote
Brave New World, he was apparently ignorant of this piece of social science.
)
Elrohir said:
I think changing the sex of your baby before it is born is just as unethical as if you had a doctor take a knife, and do it after your child was born. In other words, completely unethical.
If you're modifying their genes to get rid of debilitating or fatal diseases, fine. But modifying them to suit your whims is a very dangerous path to follow.
Assuming the parents consent, what's so unethical about changing a baby's gender? I have to admit it strikes me as a tad unsettling, but I can't really back this up with sound reason.
classical_hero said:
Welcome to the brave world of Nazi Germany. Wait this is not Germany, but modern day.
We obviously have not learnt the lessons of Nazi Germany and thus we will make the same mistakes that happened back then. This is a frightening thing.
I haven't heard anyone make any racist comments, or propose forced sterilization. This isn't a repeat of Nazi Germany. Maybe you could make a nice little "slipperly slope" argument, but then again you can do that with anything.
