The Instigator
ColdDERR
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WinnerWinner
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Huamn Enhancement ("Designer" Babies)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 637 times Debate No: 52078
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

ColdDERR

Con

Human enhancement is an attempt to temporarily or permanently overcome the current limitations of the human body. This is bad because it limits the amount of genetic diversity by improving athletes ability without out any hard work and will start off a steroid's arms race (Science Daily). Also the gene pools diversity would slowly diminished because everyone wants to be like someone else and would make everyone almost the same genetically (Bright Hub). Diseases could wipe out thousands if not millions because the genes can't fight this disease or even adapt to it (Bright Hub).
WinnerWinner

Pro

Think of it this way. Human enhancement is technically already being used by simple every day drugs that either help people sleep more, keep them more energized, et ceterra. You say that this would make athletes have great ability without any hard work, yet, that is the gene pool. If two parents create a natural offspring that is athletic, then so be it. That kid will just be faster and better than everyone. So it is no different if two nonathletic parents unnaturally create athletic offspring. Also, they may not have the same athletic abilities. Furthermore, you said that diversity would slowly diminish. Fortunately, that is not the case. Not everyone can afford human enhancement, and not everyone wants human enhancement, as people are still given the right to choose. Additionally, to counter argue your argument that diseases could wipe out people because human enhanced gene cannot fight this disease or adapt to it, genes could actually better fight off these diseases. Genes could be made for those particular diseases even.

Now for designer babies,which are the next best thing. They have major benefits to them, including increasing the human life by over thirty years, preventing genetic diseases, allowing a healthy life, eliminating mitochondrial disorders, creating a quick adaptation to any environment, giving the child genes that the parent does not carry, granting scientists a better understanding of genetics, and reducing the risk of inherited medical conditions, according to designerbabiesethics.wordpress.com. Ultimately, designer babies create the ultimate children, and it is a choice. If someone wants to have a "perfect" child, then they can if they want to, and similarly, do not have to if they do not want to. Also, designer babies allow there to be no more, or much less, diseases. Basically, these choice babies may have their "bad" genes removed to make sure that the child does not have to worry about any inherited illness. As Mark Sauer said, "" to cure disease and to help women deliver healthy normal children." Otherwise, illness would be treated after the child is born, rather than preventing it before the illness has developed. Yet, what is the point in that? Why treat the illness after birth rather than before birth (Prospect.org).
Debate Round No. 1
ColdDERR

Con

Yes even if it helps improve life for those designer babies and that not everyone could afford it, but the majority of the people will most likely have this option done. Also if the human lifespan was increased the Earth's population would increase tremulously to where there will have to be another planet for us to live on to have our race to still survive. Even if we were immune to disease they can mutate and become even more dangerous than ever before to where if could kill more people in a faster rate.

Designer Babies is when two people can have their baby design the way that they want it to be like without any troubles. This is bad because some people could have their baby be design as a top of the line and dangerous criminal that would stop at nothing to kill people (Bright Hub). It"s also designing the future of the human race and that could be real bad because no one would be really that different to each other and could all get killed by the same disease and or sickness (Bright Hub). When turning on/off a gene scientist really don"t know what will happen when you turn that gene on/off because maybe that gene could turn off/on a gene that really want and would make your baby not the one that you want (Weebly).
WinnerWinner

Pro

You say that some people could have their baby be designed as a top of the line dangerous criminal that would stop at nothing to kill people. However, that is not so much a gene as the environment that the child is raised in. It could be a gene if the parents intentially designed their baby with a mental illness, but that does not mean that person would not go to jail for their actions. Designer babies can only be desgined as far as scientists have the abilities to do so. You only state the potential that someone could possibly create a bad baby. Also, scientists and researchers hae their job for a reason, and know what can or cannot happen when those genes are turned on or off, or else they could be put in an unfortunate lawsuit.

Moreover, the benefits of human enhancement weigh out the costs. As was stated in a previous argument, enhancement is already a reality through drugs, bionics, and digital technologies (labnews.co.uk). These things allow people to work harder than ever people. They allow people"s abilities to increase, for their concentration to enhance, or even to make sleep merely an option. Some people, such as the Academy of Medical Science, the British Academy, the Royal Academy of Engineering, and the Royal Society, would believe that human enhancement has a lot of ethical, social, and political issues. Still, enhancement focuses on restoration, or simply helping students pull of all-nighters. Enhancement could mean giving a person abilities they never had before, or simply helping them to feel energized for a day to increase that day"s work. According to labnews.co.uk, human enhancement could blur boundaries between abled bodied and disabled bodied, old and young citizens, or reducing prejudice. Human enhancement will increase the quality of life for everyone. Initially, it is an opportunity for those who could not work to work now. Enhancement is a healer.
Debate Round No. 2
ColdDERR

Con

Yes scientists and researchers have their job for a reason but there has been no released report about the possibilities of this happening. I do agree with the criminal thing but again it's part genes and part environmental so there is nothing to say that could happen. Even if their abilities are increased there is still a chance of mutations to occur and how would they be able to fix that and how would know that there is a mutation occurring.

How can we predict the future on how society would be with these human enhancement or designer babies? This would be bad because society now is usually based on appearance and this would make it stronger because parents who are doing this want their kid to look as beautiful or handsome as they can be so that they can get the best people for them (Weebly). This would also make companies that can make these babies make people who want them to pay a lot of money for them to be made (Weebly). When enough of these designer babies are released into society they can probably become a new class because they"re almost look alike and that they"ve some of the same valuable diseases to be killed by (Weebly).
WinnerWinner

Pro

We cannot predict the future on how society would be with these human enhancements or designer babies, agreed. And yet, in your argument, you go on predicting the future on how society would be with human enhancements, such as when you say, "...into society they can PROBABLY become a new class..." et ceterra. Also, I do not clearly understand your argument, because that all sounded like a rebuttal. So, to rebuttal your rebuttal, just because people can design their babies, does not mean all the babies will look alike. People have a different view on beauty, so there would likely be just as diverse of people as there are now, or even more diverse. Plus, when people design a baby, it is not to say that they all design their looks. People will design whatever they have the money for. This means they may design a baby with good looks, or a good character, or that is smart, or that is athletic, or artistic, or whatever else. The diversity could be so great that it is out of the question.

My argument is the repair line. According to foresight.org, in the long run, nanotechnology will allow people to analyze and repair any physical ailment of the body. This will repair someone who is damaged or diseased back to full health. An aged and bodied brain will be at a youthful state. This human enhancement repair line will result in the end of pain, disease, and aging. It will also grant children and unable people to start making decisions for themselves, so that they do not have to rely on others so much (foresight.org). The best part is, everyone is job-able again. There will be less unemployment, and more people actually doing something to contribute to the community, more people trying for something, and more people changing the world and making it better as people like as speak. The thing is... nose jobs, breast jobs, liposuction, and all these other surgeries have been deemed as okay, and people do this anyway without realizing that they are forms of human enhancement. Yet, as soon as it is done to a gene through science, it can be argued to be against the laws of nature. Instead of having all these surgeries and pain, human enhancement allows for something great, something that people can just be born with.
Debate Round No. 3
ColdDERR

Con

I do agree with what you're trying to say about how people can get back to work but there is a problem to that because now the owners' or CEOs' of those companies will now have to pay more people so that everyone could be happy and not everyone will be. There will be less money made by those people than money given to pay so there is a problem there that could send the economy in the wrong direction.

Would these human enhancement people evolve like all people or would they do the same. If an environmental change happens then maybe that person would probably not adapt because it's not produce by nature (Weebly). These designer babies could even be something even harder to understand because we don't know how they would be able to adapt or survive in certain conditions in everyday weather and environment (Weebly). Competition would be or almost be nothing because everyone would evolve the same pace and that no one would be better than the other one (Weebly).
WinnerWinner

Pro

Human enhanced people would by all means not be the same. In fact, there would very likely be even more completely different people than we have now. Reason being, certain aspects of different people would be enhanced. So someone's education might be better, or their athleticism, or their skill, or coordination, or maybe they will have all of these or half of these, or one of these, or something completely out of the ordinary that could not otherwise be gotten without genetic enhancement. Competition would increase for the reason that there would be new levels of paces and people would be better than each other at different things. For once, there could be no one that is completely unable to compete with others. Now, with everyone competing, things will get more advanced than ever before. Plus, who said that human enhanced people being harder to understand was such a bad thing? More than half of everything has yet to be understood. Everything is just nothing waiting to be completely discovered, and science is in the midst of it.

Let us introduce biologically enhancing soldiers, instead of just babies or everyday people. If a soldier is engine to resist torture, suddenly the majority of people see this as a good thing (theatlantic.com). This will allow soldiers to become unaffected by starvation, torture, and sleep deprivation, allowing them to be ineffective Prisoners of War as well, if that is what it was to come to. According to theatlantic.com, technology makes up for human absurd frailty, basically giving humans what other organisms already have, yet we lack. Generally, people do not see biologically enhancing soldiers as a "bad" thing simply because of the title that soldiers have. They have the title of soldiers, who are people that fight to keep the country free. They are one of the most valuable assets to a country. So, point is, is this is okay for soldiers, it should just as well be okay for the remaining population. This is equality, everyone gets enhancements. For a soldier, this could mean temporarily taking away hunger, fatigue, unnecessary emotions, and adrenaline. It is the difference between a failed mission or a succeeded mission. For the civilians, this could simply mean becoming smarter (theatlantic.com). Human enhancements will make people stronger, more aware, more durable, more maneuverable per environment, and simply more. Humans will be more than they are. Vaccinations of the human immune system. This is highly appropriate to use, and many do use this for their health without realizing that it is a form of human enhancement. Enhancement is already growing. As far as the genetically engineered soldiers, since using enhancement as a weapon against enemies is deemed as a moral action, then why can't enhanced humans used as a betterment for society be deemed as moral as well?
Debate Round No. 4
ColdDERR

Con

You've got me there on the soldiers and I would think that would help them out, but if every county in the world was doing it there would be no gaining ground or information anymore to where it would just be a standstill. Also how many of these type of people would the government would want so that they can put more people out of a job and lose everything that they were hoping for to live a good life. Soldiers would be good until the government gets involved with it to where it will the economy a lot.

People say that we're taking the role of nature and should humans be taking that role because mother nature can never be replaced and what bad effects would happen if we did. It was not meant to be where humans take control the role of nature or god because that was how it was supposed to be and so that nothing to tragic would happen that effect the whole world (Weebly). If we made more of these people animal populations would go down a whole bunch to where they're at the point of extinction because we've to kill more to feed more (Weebly). Even if we make the perfect baby nature is still there because mutations can still occur because there is a saying that says "Lets nature take it course." Which means that nature would effect anything living even if we make it perfect nothing would ever be perfect.
WinnerWinner

Pro

That is a simple religious stand point. You claim that mutations can still occur because of the saying, "Let nature take it's course," even though it is not phrases that affect science, but it is science and reality that created phrases. Either way, it is true that there can be mutations, and there is nothing wrong with that. Also, I did not say that everything would be perfect, because it should not be. So if nature affects every living thing to make it either imperfect or perfect, well so be it. At the beginning of your argument, you mentioned how people think that scientists are taking the role of nature, even though nature itself cannot be replaced. Yet, humans are a creation of nature as well, and therefore it is inevitable that humans are just a piece of nature creating new elements of nature with their resources, from nature. Essentially, this is even nature versus nurture.Furthermore, you said that animal populations would decrease because human population would increase. This could be both true and false. If you are talking about designer babies, then that is completely invalid, as they are not on the repair line. If you are talking about people becoming repaired, then that will only make humans live a bit longer, yet they still would not be invincible nor would they live forever. Also, just like humans, animals could be genetically enhanced, and their populations could increase just as well.

The most beneficial element of human enhancement, above all things, is that it improves the brain. Drugs and digital technologies let people work harder, longer, and be smarter, "according to scientists and ethicists," so pre enhancement will do the same, but long term (theguardian,com). Organizations such as Human Enhancement and the Future of Work have already considered what improves ability to do work, enhance memory and attention span, and physical/digital improvements. According to Genevra Richardson, "They could influence our ability to learn or perform tasks, influence our motivation, they could enable us to work in more extreme conditions or into old age." An example is Modafil. This improves attention and makes tasks more enjoyable for people to do. In turn, the human enhancement drug could improve economic output and competitiveness, driving everyone to do this as a whole nation, causing enhancement to eventually become the new "normal" so all is fair. Taking enhancements as a choice is one side of the argument, but taking enhancements as required is another concern. Perhaps someone has a job as a bus driver, who works long hour and often at night. Now this bus driver needs a fatigue related human enhancement to make him less tired and to stay awake when necessary. This would be needed for certain people to do and complete their job. These are simple, real life things that already happen, and are acceptable to most because they are necessary. So now, just to say that they can be a choice for one's betterment is all the same. Human enhancement should absolutely be allowed.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.