Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Designer babies are awesome.

APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 12:47:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Who doesn't want their kid to have a high IQ, peak physical condition and immunity to HIV? Genes are the basis of life, so give your kid the best.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 12:53:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree regarding things that people cannot achieve. Like giving them great looks for instance is fine. But intelligence and fitness can be acquired. I wouldn't want to deprive the babies of the amazing feeling they get when they master a difficult concept or meet a fitness goal - those to me are the some of the best moments.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 1:47:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 12:53:54 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I agree regarding things that people cannot achieve. Like giving them great looks for instance is fine. But intelligence and fitness can be acquired. I wouldn't want to deprive the babies of the amazing feeling they get when they master a difficult concept or meet a fitness goal - those to me are the some of the best moments.

Intelligence and fitness are both governed by genes, and those genes are not distributed evenly.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 1:58:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 1:47:01 AM, APB wrote:
At 4/18/2013 12:53:54 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I agree regarding things that people cannot achieve. Like giving them great looks for instance is fine. But intelligence and fitness can be acquired. I wouldn't want to deprive the babies of the amazing feeling they get when they master a difficult concept or meet a fitness goal - those to me are the some of the best moments.

Intelligence and fitness are both governed by genes, and those genes are not distributed evenly.

Yes, Intelligence is about 0.7 heritable. Intelligence measures cognitive ability and capacity. Its different from knowledge or skills learned.

I'd say that physical ability is probably more environmentally based since most people don't even come close to achieving maximum fitness due to sedentary lifestyles. However, maximum physical capacity is another thing.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 2:04:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 1:58:54 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/18/2013 1:47:01 AM, APB wrote:
At 4/18/2013 12:53:54 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I agree regarding things that people cannot achieve. Like giving them great looks for instance is fine. But intelligence and fitness can be acquired. I wouldn't want to deprive the babies of the amazing feeling they get when they master a difficult concept or meet a fitness goal - those to me are the some of the best moments.

Intelligence and fitness are both governed by genes, and those genes are not distributed evenly.

Yes, Intelligence is about 0.7 heritable. Intelligence measures cognitive ability and capacity. Its different from knowledge or skills learned.

I'd say that physical ability is probably more environmentally based since most people don't even come close to achieving maximum fitness due to sedentary lifestyles. However, maximum physical capacity is another thing.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 8:39:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 12:47:27 AM, APB wrote:
Who doesn't want their kid to have a high IQ, peak physical condition and immunity to HIV? Genes are the basis of life, so give your kid the best.

If I were to have a kid, I would use every available technology to ensure that he or she was both as brilliant and healthy as possible. I see no moral problem with doing so.

Michael Sandel (whom I have a great deal of respect for) objects to what he calls "the commodification of children," but I have to disagree. It's technologically facilitated natural selection. No more or less.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 11:25:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 8:39:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/18/2013 12:47:27 AM, APB wrote:
Who doesn't want their kid to have a high IQ, peak physical condition and immunity to HIV? Genes are the basis of life, so give your kid the best.

If I were to have a kid, I would use every available technology to ensure that he or she was both as brilliant and healthy as possible. I see no moral problem with doing so.

Michael Sandel (whom I have a great deal of respect for) objects to what he calls "the commodification of children," but I have to disagree. It's technologically facilitated natural selection. No more or less.

Does Sandel go on to prove that "The commodification of children" is morally wrong? I doubt it.
YYW
Posts: 36,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 3:05:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 11:25:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2013 8:39:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/18/2013 12:47:27 AM, APB wrote:
Who doesn't want their kid to have a high IQ, peak physical condition and immunity to HIV? Genes are the basis of life, so give your kid the best.

If I were to have a kid, I would use every available technology to ensure that he or she was both as brilliant and healthy as possible. I see no moral problem with doing so.

Michael Sandel (whom I have a great deal of respect for) objects to what he calls "the commodification of children," but I have to disagree. It's technologically facilitated natural selection. No more or less.

Does Sandel go on to prove that "The commodification of children" is morally wrong? I doubt it.

Well, proving normative arguments is a daunting task for anyone -even Harvard's preeminent public moral philosopher. It's a compelling case, but I take issue with it (though not for moral reasons, but on the grounds of my own interests).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 4:27:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 3:05:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:25:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2013 8:39:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/18/2013 12:47:27 AM, APB wrote:
Who doesn't want their kid to have a high IQ, peak physical condition and immunity to HIV? Genes are the basis of life, so give your kid the best.

If I were to have a kid, I would use every available technology to ensure that he or she was both as brilliant and healthy as possible. I see no moral problem with doing so.

Michael Sandel (whom I have a great deal of respect for) objects to what he calls "the commodification of children," but I have to disagree. It's technologically facilitated natural selection. No more or less.

Does Sandel go on to prove that "The commodification of children" is morally wrong? I doubt it.

Well, proving normative arguments is a daunting task for anyone -even Harvard's preeminent public moral philosopher. It's a compelling case, but I take issue with it (though not for moral reasons, but on the grounds of my own interests).

He axiomatically comes to the conclusion that it's wrong because it sounds wrong.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2013 4:34:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 4:27:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2013 3:05:21 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/18/2013 11:25:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/18/2013 8:39:09 AM, YYW wrote:
At 4/18/2013 12:47:27 AM, APB wrote:
Who doesn't want their kid to have a high IQ, peak physical condition and immunity to HIV? Genes are the basis of life, so give your kid the best.

If I were to have a kid, I would use every available technology to ensure that he or she was both as brilliant and healthy as possible. I see no moral problem with doing so.

Michael Sandel (whom I have a great deal of respect for) objects to what he calls "the commodification of children," but I have to disagree. It's technologically facilitated natural selection. No more or less.

Does Sandel go on to prove that "The commodification of children" is morally wrong? I doubt it.

Well, proving normative arguments is a daunting task for anyone -even Harvard's preeminent public moral philosopher. It's a compelling case, but I take issue with it (though not for moral reasons, but on the grounds of my own interests).

He axiomatically comes to the conclusion that it's wrong because it sounds wrong.

Essentially, his argument doesn't go beyond merely describing the issue. He does no deconstruction whatsoever.
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 8:40:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 12:53:54 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I agree regarding things that people cannot achieve. Like giving them great looks for instance is fine. But intelligence and fitness can be acquired. I wouldn't want to deprive the babies of the amazing feeling they get when they master a difficult concept or meet a fitness goal - those to me are the some of the best moments.

You'd still have those moments. Except the concepts you'd be mastering would be more complex, and you'd be benching 750. While intelligence and fitness can be acquired, there is an upper limit to what we can do. This would raise those limits.

Now that I think of it, a lot of the things listed in the OP could probably be done through gene therapy...
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2013 8:49:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/19/2013 8:40:52 PM, drhead wrote:
At 4/18/2013 12:53:54 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I agree regarding things that people cannot achieve. Like giving them great looks for instance is fine. But intelligence and fitness can be acquired. I wouldn't want to deprive the babies of the amazing feeling they get when they master a difficult concept or meet a fitness goal - those to me are the some of the best moments.

You'd still have those moments. Except the concepts you'd be mastering would be more complex, and you'd be benching 750. While intelligence and fitness can be acquired, there is an upper limit to what we can do. This would raise those limits.

Now that I think of it, a lot of the things listed in the OP could probably be done through gene therapy...

Yes, they could.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2013 7:19:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 5:13:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I've always wanted a baby that was half armadillo.

You've raised another issue here. How much change is too much? Giving a child good looks and super strength is one thing, but can we turn them into an anthropomorphic cat (for example)?
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:57:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me be the first to tell you what we're all going to find out through horrific experience much later on: we're going to try to mess with genes thinking we are improving babies, only to find out we are doing the opposite.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 8:59:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:57:36 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Let me be the first to tell you what we're all going to find out through horrific experience much later on: we're going to try to mess with genes thinking we are improving babies, only to find out we are doing the opposite.

...based on?
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:14:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/21/2013 8:57:36 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Let me be the first to tell you what we're all going to find out through horrific experience much later on: we're going to try to mess with genes thinking we are improving babies, only to find out we are doing the opposite.

You do realize that if we had the technology to screw up our DNA, we'd have the technology to fix our DNA, right?

However, there are some cases where things might go wrong. For example, improving the immune system to resist pathogens. Pathogens might mutate to become super pathogens - on the other hand, they might just die out due to herd immunity. We'd also have to worry about making ourselves immune to gene therapy treatments, since that'd be an end to our human-controlled evolution.

Technological advancement is good, as long as you keep advancing. It's an arms race with ourselves.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:17:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/20/2013 7:19:56 PM, APB wrote:
At 4/20/2013 5:13:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I've always wanted a baby that was half armadillo.

You've raised another issue here. How much change is too much? Giving a child good looks and super strength is one thing, but can we turn them into an anthropomorphic cat (for example)?

If that becomes possible, then Spiderman will start to be viewed as a documentary.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2013 2:54:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/18/2013 12:47:27 AM, APB wrote:
Who doesn't want their kid to have a high IQ, peak physical condition and immunity to HIV? Genes are the basis of life, so give your kid the best.

Sounds like an advertisement, lol.

In thinking about this, I became rather curious about how it would work.

For example, while considering the manufacture of genes that would result in a high IQ, it occurred to me that I couldn't actually isolate any given set of genetic influences that would definitely result in a high IQ. The closest I think one could get to influencing the development of a high IQ through gene cultivation is advantageous potential and a reduction in otherwise inherent genetic flaws.

I mean, don't get me wrong. Of course, genes can be applied that will certainly increase intelligence to some degree. Neurons, or brain cells, are nothing more than nerves, so utilizing genes that incite nerve growth will inevitably result in what appears to be higher intelligence, as British researchers evidenced in lab mice: http://news.bbc.co.uk....

However, if you pay attention to that article, you see that such genetic alterations are not limited to the manufacture of human beings before full development. Indeed, ethical questions arise regarding a drug that can be produced with the same effects. Accordingly, it wouldn't require that someone "design" their child for that child to entertain such benefits. One would only need a prescription, lol.

So, the question becomes whether it's even necessary to affect such augmentation to children. Genetic potential can be altered even after birth. Beauty is relative. Mutations are uncontrollable. Inherent human characteristics that comprise the entire human construction are yet to be fully understood and accounted for. Thus, I don't think this is even a question informed enough to produce a coherent answer.

For argument's sake, though it may be conjecture, I'd say it's safer to let coitus do the talking when it comes to the creation of human beings, and make any changes that we'd like after the fact.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 5:08:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's better the evil we do know than the evil we don't. Smaller gene pools, possibly the rich gaining an unbeatable advantage and possible disalignment of genders among other things are not awesome. It's better to tread carefully and slowly in this situation.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 5:59:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 5:08:15 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
It's better the evil we do know than the evil we don't. Smaller gene pools, possibly the rich gaining an unbeatable advantage and possible disalignment of genders among other things are not awesome. It's better to tread carefully and slowly in this situation.

The rich already have unbeatable advantages.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 6:01:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yeah, I'm not so sure that there's really anything wrong with this. If our current accomplishments become meaningless as a result of designer children, I'm sure that new benchmarks will be set. My only worry is that if we focus too much on genes, we could create a society in which people are groomed to be what their genes say they are good for; nobody would want to push beyond that.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 6:05:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, I guess it would ok to just get rid of all the organs that can be replaced by technology. Why be the way we are born. We can just design ourselves, what do we need God for. Shoot, we can just replace everything but our brain and just become immortal, what do we need God for.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 6:07:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 5:59:40 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/22/2013 5:08:15 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
It's better the evil we do know than the evil we don't. Smaller gene pools, possibly the rich gaining an unbeatable advantage and possible disalignment of genders among other things are not awesome. It's better to tread carefully and slowly in this situation.

The rich already have unbeatable advantages.

I wouldn't call their advantages unbeatable, nowhere near, but they are substantial. Even with designer babies, I don't think they would actually be unbeatable, but they would be a lot closer to it.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 6:10:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 6:05:07 AM, Pennington wrote:
So, I guess it would ok to just get rid of all the organs that can be replaced by technology. Why be the way we are born. We can just design ourselves, what do we need God for. Shoot, we can just replace everything but our brain and just become immortal, what do we need God for.

I agree with you, but not because of God. I think it's good to have insurance policies; things we can fall back on if our advancements fail.

We shouldn't replace organs, but enhancements would be nice.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 6:14:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 6:05:07 AM, Pennington wrote:
So, I guess it would ok to just get rid of all the organs that can be replaced by technology. Why be the way we are born. We can just design ourselves, what do we need God for. Shoot, we can just replace everything but our brain and just become immortal, what do we need God for.

Do you have a problem with this? Read Singularity Theory; it's predicted that this will happen by about 2050.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 6:15:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 6:07:01 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/22/2013 5:59:40 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/22/2013 5:08:15 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
It's better the evil we do know than the evil we don't. Smaller gene pools, possibly the rich gaining an unbeatable advantage and possible disalignment of genders among other things are not awesome. It's better to tread carefully and slowly in this situation.

The rich already have unbeatable advantages.

I wouldn't call their advantages unbeatable, nowhere near, but they are substantial. Even with designer babies, I don't think they would actually be unbeatable, but they would be a lot closer to it.

Our incomes combined will be lower than those of Mitt Romney's son no matter how untalented or talented he is (I don't know anything about him, so I don't want to make judgments; I'm just using him as an example).
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2013 6:16:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/22/2013 6:14:16 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 4/22/2013 6:05:07 AM, Pennington wrote:
So, I guess it would ok to just get rid of all the organs that can be replaced by technology. Why be the way we are born. We can just design ourselves, what do we need God for. Shoot, we can just replace everything but our brain and just become immortal, what do we need God for.

Do you have a problem with this?:
No way. It is great to become a machine by human creation.
Read Singularity Theory; it's predicted that this will happen by about 2050.
Great that affirms my thoughts.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...