Genetically Engineering Babies a Moral Obligation, Says Ethicist

Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that Oxford Professor Julian Savulescu, an expert in practical ethics, says that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a 'moral obligation' as it makes them grow up into 'ethically better children' and that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence as it means they will then be less likely to harm themselves and others. 'Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?' writes Savulescu, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics. 'So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice. To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.' Savulescu says that we already routinely screen embryos and fetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome and couples can test embryos for inherited bowel and breast cancer genes. 'Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance.'"

Comments

Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

A better statement might be that by applying genetic selection we might be able to do better than we have in the past. It is not a certainty at all. Pitfalls don't advertise and the world has a way of fooling us at times.

Re: Maybe

[craigminah]

All those things we perceive as flaws today may be the "mutation" that allows the human race to survive after something cataclysmic happens. Seems kind of selfish to pick and choose.

Re: Maybe

[PopeRatzo]

All those things we perceive as flaws today may be the "mutation" that allows the human race to survive after something cataclysmic happens.

And they might not. They may just be flaws.

Sometimes something that appears bad is bad.

I'm more concerned that the individuals who will be able to afford this genetic engineering will be the last people we want to become supermen. I don't have that much faith in our economic elite.

Re: Maybe

[gr8_phk]

All those things we perceive as flaws today may be the "mutation" that allows the human race to survive after something cataclysmic happens. And they might not. They may just be flaws. Sometimes something that appears bad is bad.

So the summary mentions cystic fibrosis. This is a perfect example. If you get 2 copies of the gene, you get a terrible condition and would (without modern treatment) probably die in you 20's. However, a single copy of the gene offers advantages over not having it at all.

The problem is that humans actually have very little understanding of how the body works and should not meddle in genetics on a large scale. Even in a case where we know a specific condition (2 copies of the CFTR gene) is bad, we should not try to eliminate that gene from the gene pool. I would agree that not producing babies with 2 copies is *probably* a good thing, but people have a tendency to generalize and go too far. Evolution - if left to function - would probably find a way to convey the benefits of this gene without the downside eventually.

There have also been recent drug trials where the substance in question had the opposite effect from what was intended. The immediate effect was correct, but the expected response in the body was wrong. We have a long way to go both scientifically and socially before such things may be considered a good idea.

Re: Maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything is a risk. NOT picking-and-choosing is just as much of a risk as picking-and-choosing. Since it is impossible to see the future, we have to rely on our reason to determine what is likely.

And it is clearly more likely that children who are born without a predisposition for common diseases that cause painful premature death in adults will be better-off than those who do. Sure, we *might* be wrong, but it isn't very likely. And even if we are wrong, there will always be a subset of the species who makes the other choice, and they will have a selective advantage, which will of course shift the trend when the time comes.

Sheesh, you would think that people posting on slashdot would be a little less motivated by fear of science.

Re: Maybe

[nomadic]

"All those things we perceive as flaws today may be the "mutation" that allows the human race to survive after something cataclysmic happens."

An entire species full of psychopaths might not be worth survival for.

Re: Maybe

[iter8]

This seems like one of those "what could possibly go wrong" scenarios. Genetic and epigenetic interactions are complex. Even simple genetic defects like the defect that causes sickle cell anemia can have a positive genetic benefit like conferring resistance to malaria. Maybe by eliminating something like alcoholism in a population, we eliminate some necessary positive trait. Sorting out how much of a particular complex trait like alcoholism or psychopathy is genetic, epigenetic, or environmental isn't easy. In general, when it comes to messing with our heredity, I think extreme caution is in order. I don't think we're as smart in this area as we think we are.

Re: Maybe

[methano]

After only 65 years, we seem to have forgotten everything.

Re: Maybe

[Immerman]

I completely agree, we don't yet have nearly the understanding to start meddling with our genome on a large scale. Not that that will stop us.

The problem with evolution though is that by virtually eliminating death by other than "old age" we've largely eliminated one of the driving forces behind evolution - survival of the fittest. The driving force now is simply who makes the most babies (i.e. the fittest in the new reality). So basically if we want to select for anything other than "breeders" we're going to have to do it ourselves, either by genetic engineering or reproductive control regulations. So three bad choices to wind our way between...

Even if evolution was still working it is unlikely to magically find a "solution" to trade-offs, at least not on any timescale were we'd care. Take sickle-cell anemia as a recessive disease with clear benefits - if you only have one copy of the gene you're immune to malaria, a major advantage in tropical locales without access to modern medicine. If the gene is prevalent enough in the population then *eventually*, maybe, another random mutation will occur that counteracts the anemia problem - but it will probably incur a cost of it's own. If the cost/benefit ratio plays out well then it will disperse through the population as well, if not...

Basically "magic bullet" solutions will pretty much require intelligent intervention, and we'll probably eventually be able to start meddling on that level. In the meantime, our meddling is unlikely to be much worse than nature's "let's fuck with stuff and see what works". Except for the interaction with social inequities of course.

Re: Maybe

[Xenkar]

Evolution doesn't function that way. It doesn't eventually make a gene work, it is just the selection of those who can either survive the longest or breed the fastest.

As a person with some nasty genetic disorders, I've been holding off having kids. If I could go to a specialist with a hypothetical wife and get some kids without said nasty genetic disorders I would do so immediately.

Re: Maybe

[Sique]

Evolution - if left to function - would probably find a way to convey the benefits of this gene without the downside eventually.

Evolution has already found the solution: Let those with only one mutated allel of CFTR enjoy the advantages, and if those with two mutated copies develop cystic fibrosis, so what? The mutated version has already benefitted enough others, so it's not a big deal for the species.

The problem with "lets have Evolution do the work" is that Evolution is not ethical, and Evolution doesn't care for the individual, when it benefits the whole species. We humans care for individuals, mainly if we ourself are the said individual, to a lesser grade if it is a close relative.

And that's my gripe with the concept of ethical gene mutation.

It will make us either uniform: It's risky to be an outsider in the society, and most parents don't want their children to become outsiders. So they will basicly choose the gene makeup à la mode, whatever is in vogue when they get pregnant. You will be able to determine the age of anybody just by looking at their genetic code, because most people will closely match the type that was preferred during the times of their embryonic phase, the same way you can determine the construction time of a car by looking at the typical design and technical features.

Or it will split the species Homo sapiens sapiens into subspecies as envisioned by Aldous Huxley. The parents (with more or less obvious pressure by the society as a whole) will choose the genetic makeup of their children depending on their planned future place in life. We get a genetic elite, modified to be fit for the ruling class, we get several ranks of drone classes, fit for their jobs, but without any chance or ability to become someone else.

In both cases, we will rob future individuals of their right to be individuals. They will be streamlined and optimized for what the parents (with helpful input of the society) considers best, and differently than us, who had the chance to get out of the predetermined life concepts our parents envisioned for us, will be less and less able to become actually individuums.

Re: Maybe

[Omestes]

So the summary mentions cystic fibrosis. This is a perfect example. If you get 2 copies of the gene, you get a terrible condition and would (without modern treatment) probably die in you 20's. However, a single copy of the gene offers advantages [brynmawr.edu] over not having it at all.

Cystic Fibrosis is a good illustration, also, that selecting for the supposed well-being of children is a trap. One of my close friends is engaged to a man in his late 20's (or early 30's) with cystic fibrosis. Yes, he worries about his health, and yes he has had some scary moments, but generally he is fine. Him and his fiance are in love, and have a pretty good quality of life. He has done some interesting things in his life, and has pretty much enriched the lives of people around him. And while there are inevitable bouts of suffering (which is actually just part of the universal human condition), he is happy.

He is much happier than he would have been if he had been aborted. And we, the people around him, are better for his presence. So its presumptuous to really make a claim that ridding yourself of people like him would benefit anyone. This observation is true for many of the "defective" individuals I have met.

The key to my own ethical philosophy is "anyone how knows better, doesn't.". Enforcing anyone's vision of utopia on anyone else's is a greater wrong than letting a bit of suffering escape from the gates.

You also enter a bit of a slippery slope. Where do we draw a line? All of us are genetically defective. My family is prone to some nasty cardiovascular ailments, should we have been "fixed"? You run into eugenics, which really didn't end very well. Sure you switch the metric from skull shape to genes, but the beast remains the same. We just filled a newer version of science into an ancient justification.

This also completely ignores the environment, yet again. Yes, genes are important, but they aren't destiny. Yes, your child will have cystic fibrosis (or whatever), but this doesn't mean they will die of it, or even suffer. Science is awesome, and just maybe will have a way of helping when the time comes. This is pretty much true of most diseases now.

I hate the phrase "playing God", but it sums things up nicely. We act like we have knowledge, and that forcing our will on others is good, because of said knowledge. But in the end we don't actually much at all. Especially when it comes to dealing with human lives, sure we can know a little about the aggregate, but the individual will always remain a mystery.

Re: Maybe

[andsens]

I had the exact same thoughts. It then occurred to me that random mutation isn't any better at preparing us for that cataclysmic event. Random mutations will still happen, we are just adding our own selection.
If we are picking strength and mental agility I can't really see this going the wrong way. It's actually just an acceleration of the selection process we use when picking mates.

Re: Maybe

[muridae]

I completely agree, we don't yet have nearly the understanding to start meddling with our genome on a large scale. Not that that will stop us.

The problem with evolution though is that by virtually eliminating death by other than "old age" we've largely eliminated one of the driving forces behind evolution - survival of the fittest. The driving force now is simply who makes the most babies (i.e. the fittest in the new reality). So basically if we want to select for anything other than "breeders" we're going to have to do it ourselves, either by genetic engineering or reproductive control regulations. So three bad choices to wind our way between...

Even if evolution was still working it is unlikely to magically find a "solution" to trade-offs, at least not on any timescale were we'd care. Take sickle-cell anemia as a recessive disease with clear benefits - if you only have one copy of the gene you're immune to malaria, a major advantage in tropical locales without access to modern medicine. If the gene is prevalent enough in the population then *eventually*, maybe, another random mutation will occur that counteracts the anemia problem - but it will probably incur a cost of it's own. If the cost/benefit ratio plays out well then it will disperse through the population as well, if not...

You still have death by "other than old age". You have death at the cellular level. At the gamete level. As for malaria, you are making an unstated assumption along the lines that either the sickle cell gene will just mutate to be safer/better, or that malaria will cause it to need to mutate along the lines of the red queen hypothesis. Neither is necessarily true. It could be that the sickle cell gene is the best it can be where it is located, a local maxima if you will, and that the only way to force a better solution would be to eliminate that gene and open the entire genome up to random mutation and see what occurs.

As for there being less survival of the fittest, you have a flawed understanding of what survival of the fittest means. "Fittest" is subjective (by environment standard, not personally subjective), it is only what works better in the environment of the moment. It is not personally subjective, just because some people would like for it to mean more intelligent or more physically fit it does not have to mean that. It might be that "breeders" are the best options given the situation at the moment. We're too tied up in our own prejudices and in the system to often look at it objectively and judge.

Re: Maybe

[Surt]

All of our choices are made by the combination of our memes and our genes. I see no reason not to let them choose for themselves their survival strategy. If they choose wrong, someone else will have chosen right. No matter how cheap we make this technology, there will be anti-technologist memes that avoid these choices and get it right for the cataclysm.

Re: Maybe

[ultranova]

The problem is that humans actually have very little understanding of how the body works and should not meddle in genetics on a large scale.

No, the problem is that moral busybodies or other authorities start dictating what character traits must to be culled "for the children" or "for society", such as the short list Professor Savulescu outlined. After all, it's a moral obligation.

But even if every tyrant's wet dream was somehow averted, let's do a thought experiment: suppose this hypothethical technology had been available at your parents time. Consequently, every character trait you have that your parents disagree with is eliminated, and every character trait you lack that they wish you had gets added. Are you comfortable with this thought? And if you are, feel free to extrapolate this further back in time, right through capitalists and communists and anarchists and monarchists and atheists and fundamentalist right back to the first living creature in your line; along the way you're bound to find someone you disagree with. Should that person be allowed to decide the content of your character?

You'd think an "expert in practical ethics" would think of the obvious practical consequences of his ethical recommendations, but I guess his flawed character can't resist the temptation of playing god.

Re: Maybe

[currently_awake]

1-Creativity is liked to mental instability. So your supermen will be dull and uncreative. If we assume that those who excel are genetic freaks then having them engineer their children is likely to eliminate the very traits that made their parents successful and allow others to replace them. 2-The rich and powerful tend to interbreed with many (poor) women. Human DNA is constantly getting mixed around, so we'll all eventually get the "benefits" of the rich man's genetic tinkering. 3-There will always be those who won't or can't engineer their kids, so those genes will not go away.

Re: Maybe

[macs4all]

And they might not. They may just be flaws.

Sometimes something that appears bad is bad.

Unfortuately, we have no idea what the REAL "DNA Code" is. We poke around, attempting to reverse-engineer a data structure by examining multiple samples of data, then try creating our own "specially crafted packets" to see what the result looks like.

Unfortunately for the eugenicists, the "fields" in the DNA packet were not designed with genetic modification in mind, and so there often ISN'T going to be a neat-and-tidy DNA "bit" that conveniently turns on and off certain features. So, great, you found the "gene" that controls Multiple-Sclerosis, but unfortunately, it seems to control the growth of muscles, too; and now those people are all too weak to even hold their heads up.

Add to that the fact that we share some frighteningly huge amount in DNA in common with, well, pretty much every other living thing on this planet at least, and you're much more likely to create a person with a Chimpanzee head than to cure the tendency for criminal behavior.

Re: Maybe

[PopeRatzo]

I completely agree, we don't yet have nearly the understanding to start meddling with our genome on a large scale.

Not only that we don't have anything close to the social stability and enlightenment to prevent genetic engineering from further creating destructive divisions in our society based upon who will control this technology.

If there was technology available that turned people of certain socio-economic stratum into unquestioning and obedient worker-drones who can digest human waste products, 95% of humanity would have already been turned into mindless worker-drones who are forced to eat shit every day.

Oh wait...

Re: Maybe

[Maxo-Texas]

while there are exceptions- (helping a sisters child survive).. let's ignore those to make a point.

By and large, it's PROCREATION and survival of the child and it's procreation which matters evolutionarily.

It doesn't matter if you live to 300-- if you do not procreate, you were a dead end.

If you have 15 children who survive then your genes are a 'winning set' until overpopulation makes some other trait more valuable (needs less food, water, not confrontational so isn't killed, good liar/adulterer).

Immunity to malaria only matters if malaria is an issue.

In our current society women with high sex drives and terrible birth control habits have a "successful" set of genes.

Likewise, religious genes tied to a procreation religion is a "successful" set of genes.

Smart people who limit themselves to 2 or fewer children are "losers".

Those genetic trends don't bode well for the future-- a future Harry Harrison predicted waaaay back in the 1950's.

Re: Maybe

[Maxo-Texas]

And with increasingly effective robotics and automation, you really don't need that many drones to do actual work.

Re: Maybe

[devleopard]

An example in the post: Cystic Fibrosis. CF patients have increased cholera survival. Most cholera patients die of dehydration, whereas the sodium chloride imbalance in the cells of CF patients allows them to retain more water. (Disclosure: I have CF)

Re: Maybe

[devleopard]

I have CF. I can't play sports, or spend alot of time outside, or do any kind of manual labor. It sucks, yeah, but it also pushed to intellectualism and a career that fits me perfectly (computer programming). Would the world have been better off with another high school jock or construction worker as opposed to a developer?

Re: Maybe

[couchslug]

Birth defects such as being a gimp and a retard OTOH are horrible for the defective human and let's not sugar-coat that.

"Sorry you're all fucked up, but we had to let that happen for the diversity!"

Re: Maybe

[couchslug]

"We get a genetic elite, modified to be fit for the ruling class, we get several ranks of drone classes, fit for their jobs, but without any chance or ability to become someone else."

At a sufficient level of tech there will be no need for a drone class. Cease to produce them and no one suffers.

Re: Maybe

[DeadCatX2]

Unless I am mistaken, there is no talk yet of directly choosing arbitrary DNA sequences. Everything I have read so far strictly involves screening out embryos that test positive for certain genes that are known risk factors.

I agree that once this crosses over into "construction" of human beings with arbitrary genes, then you will have moral problem. But I cannot see the big deal about letting people screen for diseases, since that still requires a mixture of two individuals' DNA. Indeed, I would consider it a moral obligation to a potential child. Since humans no longer feel the effects of natural selection - even the weakest among us can survive - then we ought to begin some form of artificial selection to pick up the slack.

Re: Maybe

[DeadCatX2]

Imagine the other extreme where everyone decides that they want their children to have one copy of some terrible recessive gene in order to get the beneficial effects.

Of course, humans won't just stop making babies the natural way if this was possible, and if a bunch of these people all have one copy of some terrible recessive disease, the incidence of full-blown versions of these diseases could very well increase.

Honestly, in the end, I think this could be a boon to evolution; a shot in the arm, so to speak. These new screened humans would still compete with the home-grown kind, and could very well lead to selective sweeps much faster and with less suffering than "traditional" evolution.

Re: Maybe

[0111 1110]

If you want to reproduce anywhere in the world you only really need one thing: physical beauty. In poor countries, your income or your family's income can also be important, but in most first world countries it's basically irrelevant if you are not attractive.

The survival of the fittest is still true, but only in the British slang sense of "fit". If you are attractive and you want to have children it's easy enough. If you are ugly? Hah! Good luck with that. It's possible in some cases, but it is very, very difficult. So natural selection is still going on but it's not selecting for intelligence. It's selecting for physical attractiveness.

Re: Maybe

[0111 1110]

You do realize that there are developers without CF, right? I was born ugly. I've sometimes tried to justify it and the unhappiness it has caused me in my life by thinking like that. "If I had been born good-looking I would be shallow and spend all my time at parties and having sex with hot girls instead of studying and pursuing challenging intellectual goals." But that isn't necessarily true. If my parents had been able to stop me from being born with an ugly face and body I would have been much happier. I don't think it would necessarily have made me lose my intellectual interests. In fact they could have selected for an IQ higher than a pathetic 137 while they were messing with my genetic code, which would have helped me achieve those goals that appeal to me so much. The whole point of genetic manipulation is to avoid such compromises. I'd rather have made the choice to spend my time banging hot chicks than to have some choice forced on me due to an undesirable genetic code. I've met people who were both good looking and intelligent. Were they happy? Hell, yes. Would I want to trade lives with them? Without hesitation. Someone with a genius level IQ, but who is even uglier than I am would give me more hesitation, but I'd still rather have a choice rather than my parents just selfishly ignoring the issue of my future happiness.

Re: Maybe

[interkin3tic]

The number of mutations which are purely deleterious is much, much higher than the number of mutations which could conceivably grant some type of advantage in a cataclysm. Sickle-cell anemia might help if there was an outbreak of a disease like malaria... that's about the only example I can think of.

I was listening to a talk from a neurobiologist who was studying a rare mutation that caused lissencephaly. The function of the gene had previously been unknown. He pointed out that with 6 or 7 billion people on earth, every gene that isn't absolutely critical for life, there are people out there with mutations in those genes. We have a long ways to go before designer babies are a possibility, and a longer way to go before that much genetic diversity is lost, and I think that any catastrophe, we're more likely to survive it with a technological solution rather than relying on our genes.

Re: Maybe

[harlequinn]

You'd think an "expert in practical ethics" would think of the obvious practical consequences of his ethical recommendations, but I guess his flawed character can't resist the temptation of playing god.

He suffers from the problem that he thinks he is intelligent and wise enough to make the correct choices - whilst others who he thinks are not of his enlightened moral compass or intellectual cadre would not make the right choice.

Rest assured, there are plenty of people as smart or smarter than Professor Savulescu who would not make the same choices as him, even though they may still choose to genetically alter mankind.

Re: Maybe

[Omestes]

But your being presumptuous of the actual content and value of his life. Thats my issue. There is no potential for a rational decision here, since you actually can't know the end value of your decision.

Would he have been happier to have been born otherwise the same, but without his disease?

That is a meaningless question.

The purpose of genetic selection is to pick the best from the batch that would have arose by chance; to say, "screw you, Nature, I'm not obliged to make someone suffer for you for no damned good reason."

How do you gauge potential suffering? From your point of view his potential ordeals may be horrific, but humans have a miraculous ability to cope. To him his life is generally tolerable, and mostly happy (as far as I know from talking to him).

Also, where do we draw the line? I am in a risk category for some nasty things down the line, but I am very very happy that I am here. Okay, we take out downs and cystic fibrosis, now what? Sickle cell? Diabetes? Depression? Heart Disease?

Further, I have a big issue (and we all should, thanks to recent history) with using so-called rational criteria for deciding about the fate of people.

Genetic selection is not like retroactively killing people. It's like birth control. Think of all the people you've decided *not* to make.

This is a good point.

Re: Maybe

[nobodie]

I have screamed into the wilderness for years ( and call me a neo-Luddite if you like) that our failure as a species is also our success: we like to fuck with shit. When I was a boy, I remember building rock dams in the stream, building "log cabins" in the woods, breaking things, moving things and building things: it is what we do and it is what has built a world that is rapidly becoming uninhabitable for us. Because of us.

The concept of being "God's earthly stewards" is a joke. We are children (literally) who mess with stuff that we don't understand and talk (like kids) as if we did. We DON't understand global climate change, it is happening, it has humans as an important cause, but we don't understand it at all. And yet there are people who want to dump shit in the atmosphere, the oceans or even into space to "solve" global warming.

We will probably do genetic manipulation and selective abortion more and more and the results will be hellish. We will do it because we can, like a 10 year old, justify our actions in 10 year old logic. That IS the level of our public discourse right now. Tell me, after watching 15 minutes of news on the politcal campaigns that it isn't.

We have a president who reaches up to the discourse of a 16 year old to "appeal to our higher nature." And we found that refreshing 4 years ago and find it baffling, confusing, "tricky", too nuanced today. He must be lying if the world doesn't work out the way he wanted and told us he would try to make it happen. And when it doesn't it must be his fault? That is childish: "But daddy, you said it would not rain!"

And we think we have the knowledge and skills to act as adults in the political world when we act like children in our cities, counties and states? Not mention at home? Look, I would like to live in a world where we did have thoughtful adult discourse about the issues confronting the world, the biosphere and our children's future. But who is there to have that discourse with?

Re: Maybe

[randyleepublic]

The answer to all these ethical questions would be to somehow find a way to modify our genes post conception. Then I can decide that although I am basically happy with my twisted psyche, I would like to have a larger appendage and be able to use it more then a couple times a week.

Re: Maybe

[Fned]

But in the end we don't actually much at all.

We don't even what we don't.

Re: Maybe

[garbut]

Even if evolution was still working

When did it stop?

Re: Maybe

[Immerman]

Never, can't be done. But evolution is driven by mutation and death, and we've largely eliminated (population culling) death which has sort of killed the driver at the wheel, so if something doesn't change we're on course for a rather spectacular crash at some point . I suppose we're in a genetic "fallow period" - perhaps some of those genes causing debilitating genetic conditions will prove useful somewhere down the line, but in the meantime allowing the (genetically or epi-genetically) sickly to breed, even if only by wiping out the saber-tooth swamp rats that would have eaten them otherwise, simply tends to increase the percentage of sickly people in the next generation. Same goes for the slow, the stupid, the weak, and any other "counter-survival" traits in a population.

The question is

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really want to play with your child's DNA ? I mean, what if you fuck it all up?

Re:The question is

[firex726]

Tell that to the banana, or household dog.

Re:The question is

[Coriolis]

You mean the Cavendish banana, that repeatedly comes under fungal and viral attack, that it can't defend itself from due to its lack of genetic diversity? Or the relentlessly inbred pedigree breeds that have defects in their breathing, walking or vision? Genetic engineering is and will be capable of wonders, but we shouldn't blind ourselves to the dangers.

Re:The question is

[firex726]

What does that have anything to do with it?

If anything it's a straw-man argument, you took one part of my post, pointed out one negative and somehow you think that proves we should not meddle with nature.

OP suggested we not meddle with nature, we have and we're the better for it.
So earlier attempts had some issues, what do you expect when you clone a plant?
What about the Gros Michel, it also does not occur naturally, but IS resistant to the Panama disease.

What about the work of "Norman Borlaug"?
Food scientist that has saved billions due to his work with crops, increasing their yields and making them more pest/disease resistant.

Also still waiting on a rebuttal for the household dog, and how it was domesticated from wild wolves.

Re:The question is

[Anubis IV]

I wouldn't call his argument a straw man argument. You just happened to thoughtlessly pick two of the worst examples possible for claiming that our influence on the progression of species is beneficial. It's your own fault for doing so.

Yes, there are plenty of examples of breeding done right. You should have cited one of those. Instead, you picked the banana, apparently without realizing that the variety most of the Western world is familiar with is said by many experts to be on the verge of collapse due to biological issues. Likewise, you picked dogs, which have been overbred to the point of ridiculousness in many cases.

Why you chose to pick those two examples is beyond me, when you could have easily cited any number of different fruits, hybrids, or other species that we've bred throughout the millennia.

Not only that, but you responded to a point about genetic modification by citing (what you apparently believed to be successful) breeding as a supposed counterexample. If anyone is using a straw man, it's you.

Re:The question is

[Anubis IV]

I noted two examples of where it turned out for the better

No, you did not. That's what my comment was all about. Well, that, and the fact that you claimed someone else made a straw man argument when they didn't (how could they, when your entire post was "Tell that to the banana, or household dog."?). For reference, since you've applied it twice now to situations in which it does not fit, here's the wikipedia article for "straw man".

You also chose to ignore half my comment...

I didn't ignore it. It was irrelevant to what I was commenting on, since I only disagreed with part of what you said. It's a common practice to only address relevant points, and since I don't disagree with your main thrust, which is that science and breeding are beneficial, I didn't see a point in addressing everything else you said. I have issues with your examples, not your point.

... where OTHER forms of common, DNA augmented species are NOT affected by that same blight.

Yeah...no. I actually chose not to respond as a courtesy, since, contrary to your claims that the Gros Michel is resistant to Panama Disease, the Gros Michel is extremely susceptible to Panama Disease . In fact, it was the banana that the Cavendish replaced when the Gros Michel was devastated by the disease in the '50s. Since that point was irrelevant to my arguments, I saw no reason (other than to undermine your credibility, which was not my purpose) to call you out for your blatant inaccuracy. But if you're going to try to hold it over my head like that, I have no qualms in doing so now.

Regarding Norman Borlaug, he too was irrelevant to what I was saying, since I wasn't arguing against breeding and science being beneficial or saving money. In fact, I agreed with you (as you would have known if you had read my comment) that they are beneficial. I saw no reason to state the fact that I agreed with you on that point, so I didn't address it.

So yes, you used a straw men by trying to take one specific aspect of my comment and disprove it

A straw man would be if I was arguing that science and breeding are worthless because bananas are a bad example. I'm not arguing that, however. I'm arguing that bananas were a piss poor example, but not going any further than that. The reason I attacked one specific aspect of your comment is because it was wrong, despite the fact that you reached the correct conclusion at the end. Choose better examples next time, since otherwise you make me feel bad for being on the same side as you. That was my point.

Re:The question is

[rubycodez]

that's been a hugely profitable banana, sales in the billions of dollars. prime example of success in commercial breeding for desired characteristics.

whatever point you are trying to make, it's silly

Re:The question is

[Coriolis]

Um. Saying that one should go into genetic modification with ones eyes open, prepared for unexpected consequences, learning from the mistakes we've already made? That's silly?

The problem here is that people seem to think I'm against genetic modification, which is something I never said. In fact, you'll notice I claimed genetic engineering is "capable of wonders", so I'm a little perplexed how people are getting such negative vibes from my comment. I'm just saying, picking the banana and the dog shows stunning ignorance and hubris, as those are two cases where we've made huge and costly mistakes. Why not use something like Golden Rice as an example? That said, I think there are valid concerns about Golden Rice becoming a victim of its own success, leading to a loss of biodiversity. But's that's where should learn our lessons from the banana, and take steps to prevent it.

Re:The question is

[rubycodez]

what lesson from the banana? it's a monstrous success story.

what costly mistakes choosing dog characteristics? have you seen the prices on those purebred puppies. another big money maker. so some breeds have problems as they get older, not an issue. not seeing any downside over here.

Re:The question is

[SuricouRaven]

I think you missed the point. Yes, they are the same species, just as my two examples are both vehicles. But one is a machine adapted to survive, endure and perform to it's limits, and the other is a toy.

Re:The question is

[harlequinn]

Um. Saying that one should go into genetic modification with ones eyes open, prepared for unexpected consequences, learning from the mistakes we've already made? That's silly?

People love to read meaning into things that is not there. They also tend to argue vociferously for or against. So someone who has a cautious but positive approach to a topic confuses the hell out of them.

Re:The question is

[Coriolis]

The banana hasn't actually been as successful as it could be, because of its vulnerability to disease. And that vulnerability has put the livelihood of banana growers at risk. Most of them are on lower incomes (globally speaking), so one bad harvest can be catastrophic. Random catastrophic shocks to economies leads to social instability.

As for dogs, I'm taking it from your comment that you don't assign any negative value to the suffering of non-humans. Fair enough. I do, which is why I refer to it as a cost, and as something to be avoided in future.

Re:The question is

[rubycodez]

There are no crops that avoid "bad harvests".

Do those breeds with their congenital defects suffer any less than humans from theirs? most of the problems have anologues in the human world, and owners who spend thousands of dollars for a puppy tend to spend more for veterinary care.

Re:The question is

[Coriolis]

I was imprecise, I apologise. I think, from other comments, you're from a farming family? So I don't mean a poor harvest, I mean loss of your entire crop. And it happening over and over again, because the crop is especially vulnerable.

Extending the pet analogy, yes I take your point about congenital defects, but what would you think of someone who deliberately or carelessly (as in, being capable of knowing better) bred those defects into their children?

What would Hemingway looks like

[Anonymous Coward]

without alcohol's input?

Re:What would Hemingway looks like

[Anonymous Coward]

without alcohol's input?

Beer goggles won't make him any prettier.

Re:What would Hemingway looks like

[iluvcapra]

Non-suicidal. The fact is we don't know what Hemmingway would have done without alcohol (let alone alcoholism, which is a different question).

It would be egregious however to deny someone treatment for alcoholism on the basis that it will hurt their literary output. We can't simply deny people remedies because their diseases are so "picturesque," We might as well deny antibiotics to lepers, on account of the fact that their disease reminds us of God's wrath.

Re:What would Hemingway looks like

[iluvcapra]

If you think destroying fetuses for any purpose is wrong, that means that you must oppose in vitro fertilization.

Re:What would Hemingway looks like

[jbburks]

We can cure deafness with technology (cochlear implants). Some in the deaf culture world think this should not be done, since, if widespread, it will end 'deaf culture' and people will no longer learn sign language and expect the deaf to get an implant. I think it's a crime not to cure it if we can.

Re:What would Hemingway looks like

[Surt]

Why? Lots of people choose non-destructive IVF.

Re:What would Hemingway looks like

[digsbo]

A quick Google didn't return much. Are you referring to embryo adoption? I've not heard of non-destructive IVF.

Re:What would Hemingway looks like

[Surt]

Yes, embryo adoption. Many couples have none of their IVF embryos destroyed.

Re:What would Hemingway looks like

[eugene ts wong]

I agree, even if it would eliminate all rememberance of a deaf culture. A culture isn't inherently worth saving. It's aspects of it that are worth saving. Deaf culture isn't worth saving anymore than cancer culture or leprosy culture [e.g. life in a leper colony].

But they needn't worry about that. Klingon language events and reading materials are a testament to that.

Re:What would Hemingway looks like

[Macgrrl]

Yes, embryo adoption. Many couples have none of their IVF embryos destroyed.

As someone who has done IVF I find this very hard to believe. The attrition rate of fertillised embryos to ones that were viable for implant was close to 50%. From talking to other couples who have tried IVF, my experience was better than many, even though we didn't manage to conceive.

It would be exceptional to have a cycle where all embryos were of a grade for implant. Or are you conveniently ignoring those embryos?

Re:What would Hemingway looks like

[Surt]

Embryos die all the time, even with natural conception. Death is not a synonym for destruction.

Ethics

[buchner.johannes]

But where do diseases end, where does aesthetics start? Who enforces that line for the rich? Clearly this guy hasn't seen enough dystopian movies about two-class societies emerging from genetics.

Re:Ethics

[BeanThere]

Is there a contest running somewhere called "Can we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"?

This topic isn't even about the rich, it's specifically about a potential era where these technologies may become affordable enough to apply on a massive scale. So try again.

Re:Ethics

[Sarten-X]

But where do diseases end, where does aesthetics start?

In the dictionary:

A particular quality, habit, or disposition regarded as adversely affecting a person or group of people.

The line is entirely subjective, based on someone's particular definition of "adverse". If, for example, parents see being a redhead as adversity, why should they be prohibited from engineering a blonde?

Who enforces that line for the rich?

Why should anyone?

Clearly this guy hasn't seen enough dystopian movies about two-class societies emerging from genetics.

Or perhaps movies aren't the best indicator of future progress. More likely than a two-class dystopia is just an evolution of our current society, where the rich can have medical procedures done on a whim, and the poor can have procedures done after months of careful planning and borrowing. For treatments that are widely recognized as being medically suitable, insurance providers will help reduce the impact of the cost.

Re:Ethics

[Intrepid imaginaut]

You don't need to press "genetics" buttons to influence personalities. In fact its debatable whether genetics has much influence on the collection of social behaviours we call a personality at all to even begin to start talking about things like this. Screening out clearly defined hereditary diseases, yes. Enhancing lifespans, great. Trying to change personalities? Well lets just say this guy is clearly not a Professor of either genetics or psychotherapy.

Re:Ethics

[blahplusplus]

"Clearly this guy hasn't seen enough dystopian movies about two-class societies emerging from genetics."

We ALREADY have a two class society, whether capitalists admit it or not the 'pay you what you're worth' element of capitalism NATURALLY sorts people eugenically to some extent whether any of us want it to or not.

Re:Ethics

[blahplusplus]

"Can we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"?

The idea that rich people historically came into existence by merit and not by legal exploitation and a cubic fuck-tonne of wars and violence is a myth. The legal foundations of a society are backed by guns and violence and anyone who thinks the current system is not exploitive and rigged in some sense is a moron, the whole legal framework is setup to deny economic rights to the majority through historical enclosure movements which to enable the new legal framework requires massive violence and unrest. So to talk negatively of the rich is the historically LITERATE thing to do.

Enclosure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

Bail outs (priviledges of the elite) see here:

http://dailybail.com/home/there-are-no-words-to-describe-the-following-part-ii.html

and here:

http://dailybail.com/

Re:Ethics

[lessthan]

I disagree with the grandparent's stance that aesthetic genetic engineering is morally wrong, but he is correct about bringing the rich into this. When a new feature for cars comes out (like anti-lock brakes), the high-end cars get them first. It takes a couple of years for the improvement to trickle down to the rest of us (about 10 years for ABS). Don't be mistaken, it will be the same for designer babies. In fact, I think it has already started. Substitute the word test for the word feature and you can already see the similarity between car features and babies. New tests for fetuses are being developed all the time to find defects and correct issues. There are "experiments" being done right now to "correct" babies with intersex issues.

Economic stratification is becoming an issue in the United States. The paranoid, pessimistic predictions (paranoia and pessimism doesn't automatically make a prediction improbable) see that stratification becoming more pronounced, with a deep divide between the rich and the poor. With fetal engineering, rather than talking about whether or not to get a car with a sunroof, we are talking about how many IQ points we can afford. So the wealthy will not only be richer, but they will be born far beyond what the average person could ever be. The basis of the American Dream is that anyone can make it. Fetal engineering is the death of that dream.

Re:Ethics

[GrantRobertson]

Sensitive much? The rich already take advantage of the better health-care that they can afford while arguing that the poor can just go to the emergency room. What would make any rational being believe that the rich would take advantage of this as well? If you can't look around and see how the rich are already taking every opportunity to manipulate things to their advantage - and have been for centuries - then you already have the rich blinders on. Either that or you blindly think you will be rich one day and want to be able to take advantages of that same system.

Re:Ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a contest running somewhere called "Can we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"?

This topic isn't even about the rich, it's specifically about a potential era where these technologies may become affordable enough to apply on a massive scale. So try again.

Class warfare is easier when one side doesn't fight back

Re:Ethics

[oever]

Case in point: terminator in movies vs in reality.

Movies require action and emotions. This makes them very bad for predicting the future.

Re:Ethics

[cyp43r]

Who enforces that line for the rich?

Why should anyone?

If someone makes a genetic mutation that causes them to breathe out gas that kills poor people, I would sure wish someone was drawing a line.

Re:Ethics

[drsmithy]

I say let all the Ayn Rand followers move to an island (or Venus) and lets see how this work's out for them.

Ok, but only if we dump them all there as babies. Wouldn't want anyone leeching off a public education, or the knowledge of previous generations.

Re:Ethics

[Intrepid imaginaut]

From the wikipedia article in your link: "Sir Francis Galton, a nineteenth-century intellectual, is recognized as one of the first behavioural geneticists... Galton is often credited as the pioneer of eugenics. Subsequently, Adolf Hitler is believed to have been motivated by Galton's work in enacting the Final Solution during World War II".

About as effectively argued as the other AC who seems to think that societies are just another form of plumage.

Re:Ethics

[zrelativity]

But it will always come down to money. Think of a future where some parents could not afford certain gene "remodeling"! What ethical impact does that have on those parents, the children involved and the society at large. At present, we almost all accept what what we are born with is act of nature or natural selection. But in the future it will be an active choice. Will it be ethical that a child should blame a parent for the choices (or lack of choice) that a parent made, often through inability to have access to such treatment because of cost. If you thought the problem of parents not being able to afford expensive designer clothing for their children or the latest fashion trainers or a short lived fad was bad, then think what the equivalent impact it may have when such "treatment" is more widely available.

Re:Ethics

[meta-monkey]

Yes, the first genetically engineered babies will belong to the rich. Fast forward 20 years and for $18.99 at Wal-Mart you'll be buying BabyGen pills (pop two before you screw and your baby will be twice as smart!).

Sounds pretty good to me.

Re:Ethics

[macraig]

You don't really grok "economy of scale" and how it arrives there in the first place, do you? And you can't claim being new here as a defense, but then your argument didn't really arise out of true ignorance in the first place, did it?

Re:Ethics

[timeOday]

Since we live in a world where millions of people die because they can't even afford antibiotics - or even clean water for that matter, it's pretty absurd to imagine genetic treatments being equally available to all. Those things are already plenty cheap. But if it comes to the point where you need $1 to live and you don't have it, your goose is cooked.

Re:Ethics

[BeanThere]

But remember, it's only immoral when evil rich people do it.

Re:Ethics

[jacerie]

Fast forward 20 years and for $18.99 at Wal-Mart

So in 20 years even American babies will be made in China.

Re:Ethics

[jd2112]

No, It's only immoral when poor people do it. Rich people will fly out to China or India and do it while the 'immoral' practice is banned in North America/Europe.And in a generation or two the division between rich and poor will be as much genetic as it is economic.

Re:Ethics

[Cwix]

+5 Funny

Re:Ethics

[Jawnn]

This topic isn't even about the rich...

It most certainly is, and if you can't see that, you're deliberately ignoring the obvious, or you're just an idiot. Regardless, the plain fact is that such a technology would be available only to those who could afford it, gifting the engineered children of wealthy parents with advantages far in excess of what they already enjoy. And that, my friend is absolutely fair game in a discussion about the ethics surrounding the use of such technology.

Re:Ethics

[ArsonSmith]

I'd say it's mostly genetic already...but that probably doesn't go well with the everyone is identically equal crowd.

Re:Ethics

[Requiem18th]

This is a basic feature of Runaway Capitalism (People please, don't shut down your brains yet). When I say Capitalism I'm talking about the very core of the idea of building capital. Using your gains to further your gains to further your gains to further your gains. This economic system cannot result in anything but a single unbeatable corporation owning life and limb and first born sons just like in feudalism.

Our antitrust laws have managed to shove that future for a while but we already have oligopolies controlling almost all markets. We NEED to put breaks on this, lest we end up in one of those dystopian situations we keep telling ourselves that are only fiction. This is NOT AGAINST WESTERN TRADITION. We already have public education and other public services. As designer babies become a reality we must ensure this service is available to everybody. This is just another argument in favor of public health. If better, more intelligent humans are restricted to the rich the consequences will be disastrous.

For reference just look at Canada. Already people there are healthier physically AND economically, and happier too. If they provide GE services for the general public they will be --as a nation-- smarter than Americans.

Re:Ethics

[Natural Join]

Is there a contest running somewhere called "Can we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"?

Obviously.

Re:Ethics

[omfgnosis]

Although hilarious, that would be unethical. Doubly so because it's apparently a moral obligation to engineer people.

Anyway. the effects will be about the same if they're sent with a Randian chaperone.

Re:Ethics

[BeanThere]

I'm not the one who is anti-technology, so I'm not sure why you appear to be "rebutting" me ... I think it will be a good thing when the average member of the public is able to increase the IQ of their offspring with cheap and widely available technologies. What I'm against is people being forced to do it, which is what the topic is about - i.e. an "ethics expert" is claiming that the public will have a "moral obligation" to genetically engineer their offspring - i.e. that when the technology becomes widely available then it should be mandated by law.

Re:Ethics

[BeanThere]

I presume you replied to the wrong post? As this makes no sense otherwise; I never claimed to be 'new here' either.

Re:Ethics

[Surt]

Who believes dystopia is fiction? Most of humanity has spent most of human history living in one dystopia or another. Even today that is true.

Re:Ethics

[Surt]

Beautiful men also far out-earn ugly men. An inch of height is worth something like $5000 annually.

Re:Ethics

[Surt]

Both sides want someone to do something different, it's just that the anti-Randians, when choosing between asking the slave and the slaveholder to change, choose the slaveholder.

Re:Ethics

[dywolf]

Wow. So much bullshit it's making my eyes water from the stench.
Oh and hey, it got modded informative.

Re:Ethics

[digsbo]

The only way the corporation grows unchecked is with government help. What you describe is only possible in corporatist/fascist societies (where the USA is heading). Look at all the benefits Microsoft provided the average person in a 1st or even 2nd world country. They were nearly a true monopoly. The antitrust moves against them were weak and meaningless...Apple innovated and found a competitive edge. There's simply no evidence for what you're saying. In fact, it's never ever happened in history except with government assistance, proof that you're dead wrong.

Re:Ethics

[khallow]

Here's some clue. "Rich", "elite", and "powerful" do not mean the same thing.

Re:Ethics

[khallow]

When I say Capitalism I'm talking about the very core of the idea of building capital. Using your gains to further your gains to further your gains to further your gains. This economic system cannot result in anything but a single unbeatable corporation owning life and limb and first born sons just like in feudalism.

Seriously, we have plenty of evidence of diminishing returns to massive concentrations of capital and wealth. The more you have, the harder it is to manage things and the harder it is to find profitable opportunities. A few threads ago, people were complaining that government was unfairly characterized as being more inefficient than private organizations. A common argument was that big businesses were very inefficient. Well, that part is true.

And to the second part of the claim, there just aren't that many opportunities for extreme wealth. So no, I don't see all wealth being concentrated in a few holders, because that much wealth just isn't efficiently managed nor has the profitable opportunities that smaller amounts of wealth have.

Re:Ethics

[GameboyRMH]

An inch of height is worth something like $5000 annually.

Hahahaha if only...

Re:Ethics

[Shempster]

Is there a contest running somewhere called "Can we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"?

Filtering out echo chamber noise, those arguments you attack, imo, are about humanity's capacity for selective morality, antipathy, selfishness and greed (to not share). Collectively, humanity is not a moral species, nor has civilization ever operated with empathy. Human GE will be weaponized (priority), and expensive. If human civilization operated with morals (which includes empathy), for food, we'd prioritize R&D GE to grow farm animal meat - without brains with advanced nervous systems.

Re:Ethics

[rastoboy29]

Except...to my mind the  writing is on the wall that we will start doing this shit before we properly understand it.  This could result in the rich damaging their children beyond repair.

For example, the whole "alcoholism gene" concept.  Sounds like a great idea to get rid of that!  Except that personally, the large majority of the smartest people I've ever met have been prone to alcoholism.  I kinda think that shows a correct understanding of the human situation, needing a drink, but that's a whole nother discussion :-)

I do feel pretty sure there will be some lovely disasters in the first thirty-fifty years we start doing this.

Re:Ethics

[Surt]

Sorry, I did overestimate. It's more like $800 per inch per year.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/standing.aspx

Re:Ethics

[macraig]

No, I didn't. Neither did did the others who challenged your reasoning. I tried to leave some puzzle pieces for you to complete. I guess you don't do puzzles.

Re:Ethics

[just another AC]

dystopian movies about two-class societies emerging from genetics.

How about 2 class societies emerging from corporatism, corrupt politicians, and "old boys" networks. Reality is not much better for the lower classes than in those movies.

Little social mobility: check
Limited freedoms for those on the bottom: check
Different set of rules/application of laws for those on top: check
No power for majority to change this without complete upheaval: check

Re:Ethics

[ArsonSmith]

except we could look and see that we are both partially right. There are easily seen "plitical environmentals" that we can see where governments that support private property and individual rights produce a basis where people can grow and become rich, while governments that don't support private property and extract as much money as they can provide for poor and 3rd world countries. (this is a division seen easily between all 1st world and 3rd world countries.) But within a 1st world country it becomes less clear. Still rich people seem to produce children with other rich people, narrowing the gene pool with in the rich. There are also environmental conditions of how the rich are educated and treated that also come into play.

Re:Ethics

[shaitand]

I certainly don't think everyone is identically equal. I just don't think genetic superiority belongs to the wealthy. Wealth certainly doesn't follow merit it usually follows the systematic identification and exploitation of those with merit and once the system is in place the genetically inferior offspring tend to gain the benefits in perpetuity.

Re:Ethics

[lessthan]

Seriously, we have plenty of evidence of diminishing returns to massive concentrations of capital and wealth.

I'm curious. What example?

Re:Ethics

[lessthan]

That is an amusing point. And you could point to the inbreeding of the old royal family as evidence that supports it.

Re:Ethics

[martin-boundary]

Fast forward 20 years and for $18.99 at Wal-Mart you'll be buying BabyGen pills

[citation needed]

Ferraris have been around for 20 years. Can you buy a new Ferrari for $30k? No? But they've been around so long, their price should have come down to regular car prices already!

Re:Ethics

[jrumney]

And since when did Eugenics become socially acceptable outside of Nazi Germany?

Re:Ethics

[meta-monkey]

I'm putting genetic engineering in the class of products that are primarily expensive because of R&D (computers, cell phones, Blu-ray players) as opposed to the cost of materials and construction (hand-built ferraris). Once early adopters (ie, rich people) foot the bill for the initial R&D, prices come way down.

And just like there's stratification in other products (ferraris for rich people, pintos for poor people) there will be 3x Smart Baby pills for rich people, and only 2x Smart Baby for poor people, at least until the 4x pills hit the market.

Re:Ethics

[Macgrrl]

Someone already thought of it. Obligatory link to a tag from the article.

Re:Ethics

[Macgrrl]

Think about it, what if you can keep your child "12" until they're 21?

Are you really ready for pop culture to become even more filled with drivel like Justin Bieber, One Direction and Twilight?

Re:Ethics

[euroq]

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the rich stuff you were saying, but... if guns and violence made people become rich means they became rich by merit of using such means to become rich.

Re:Ethics

[Fned]

I'd say that wealth being passed to offspring is ovewhelmingly more predictive of future wealth of that offspring than are genes getting passed to them.

Re:Ethics

[khallow]

Well, I doubt there's any disagreement that wealth makes more wealth at the small end. Having some capital is a clear advantage over having none. And managing the return from capital can be significantly lower effort than working.

But we're not speaking of people at that end, but the wealthiest of the wealthiest. There are several effects which I think contribute to diminishing returns. First, complexity increases as amount of wealth increases. Sure, a single person could manage trillions, if it all went into US federal treasuries. Just roll the money back into US treasuries when some comes due. But that doesn't have a very high return on investment compared to most businesses. It doesn't take a lot of expansion to get to the point where one needs a small army running things. At that point, you have a situation far beyond the capabilities of one person to handle.

Second, once you get to that small army running your investments, conflicts of interest show up. There's no magical way to perfectly align the interests of your employees with you.

Third, there's only a limited number of means for getting extremely high profits. Some jobs I can do, just showing up with the clothes on my back. So effectively, I can get returns from a day of work comparable to the resources I put in (clothes and perhaps food). That's not going to scale to trillions of dollars in assets.

Venture capitalists specialize in funding small businesses in the hopes that some of them become large, successful businesses. But there's not an infinite number of such businesses or of opportunities. Having ten times the capital to throw at startups doesn't create ten times as much profit.

Drilling for oil might be extremely profitable at times, but there's only so many orders of magnitude you can grow oil production before everyone has all the oil they want at any price that would make you a profit.

Let's give a couple of examples. For a time, the two richest US residents were Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. They both probably blew up their initial wealth by at least a factor of ten thousand. It wouldn't even make sense to try to increase that wealth by another factor of ten thousand. There simply isn't enough wealth in the world. Second, while Buffet has some magic still left (being more a trader and investor, which has broad applicability), Gates pretty much has used up his niche and his wealth has been declining for some time, even without the massive charity donations.

Then there's the matter of nimbleness. Suppose some global change radically changes human society and how we value different assets. The person with nothing just gets a new job, maybe with some retraining. The mutual fund which used to have 100 billion dollars in assets has to sell off what lost value and move it to the new thing. Because it is so large and has so much invested, it either moves fast and greatly shifts in an adverse direction, the values of the assets it is trying to obtain or discard. Or it moves in a glacial manner, slowly adapting to what may be a far faster moving situation. It might take many years to adjust to the new normal, all the while, the giant is losing wealth relative to the smaller wealthy who can shift investments more rapidly and adapt much faster.

In the virtual world, I've run into several cases of diminishing returns. For example, Eve Online is a space opera-style massively multiple player game with a strong economic basis. Many players there discuss the diminishing returns that come from increasing wealth. Generally, they don't lose wealth (unless they're deeply invested victims of a big scam, they made a bad, massive gamble, or they just blow up a lot of internet space ships), but they do gain it slower than players with far less wealth.

Re:Ethics

[Digital Vomit]

Maybe the OP meant an inch of *length*? ;-)

Re:Ethics

[GameboyRMH]

Let's see...nope still doesn't work out. This confirms that I'm horribly underpaid.

Soooooo.....

[robinsonne]

So in the future I should have super docile, conformist babies that fit the cookie cutter notion of how a baby should look? No thanks, I'll just stick with chance.

Re:Soooooo.....

[ScentCone]

No thanks, I'll just stick with chance.

And if your whistling-past-the-graveyard la-dee-da-chance-is-fine-with-me baby turns out to need $200k worth of otherwise avoidable neo-natal heart work or a lifetime of constant nursing care, you'll be happy to stick other people with the bill, too, right? Because that how that ends of working.

It's one thing to get hit by a bus on your way to work and rack up $1m in neurolgical services. It's another thing to decide to go rock climging without a belay or helmet, and do the same. Likewise, knowing you've got a quarter of a teaspoon of embryo with sure-fire signs of a short, miserable, explensive life of pain and suffering in store for it, and proceeding anyway ... yeah, you're a nice guy. Chance is fun! Save it for poker, not the avoidable horror show of a sick and dying kid.

Re:Soooooo.....

[starless]

So in the future I should have super docile, conformist babies that fit the cookie cutter notion of how a baby should look? No thanks, I'll just stick with chance.

But people don't usually stick with chance. In general, they prefer to very carefully choose who the other provider of 50% of the DNA of their child will be.

Re:Soooooo.....

[PattyMc]

I suspect much of the success of our species has to do with genetic wild cards. Eliminate that and you have the Eloi. I further suspect that a knowledge of this fact exists deep within us and motivates the conservative abhorrence of birth control and abortion. Being as conservatives do not frame their perception of reality in intellectual terms they are unaware of the biological basis of their opinions and instead frame them religiously, religion being the voice of the subconscious. But it seems to me that all these ancient ‘rules’ favor-ing unbridled reproduction favor the continuation of the male line and that is why religious men of any stripe so fervently insist that the females do nothing to hinder reproduction. As a woman, however, I say fuck that shit. OTOH, I realize that females controlling reproduction means entering a new territory of Unintended Consequences.

Re:Soooooo.....

[Requiem18th]

Sure I can let chance dictate my kids' personality, but I'm pretty sure high IQ, no heart diseases and not having metal problems are objectively good don't you think?

Re:Soooooo.....

[Surt]

In general they make that choice in a drunken stupor. Choose very carefully. LOL.

Re:Soooooo.....

[robinsonne]

How many children actually need neo-natal heart work? Or have severe birth defects? Most babies are born fine and healthy, and if not who better to accept responsibility for the expense and care of the child than the parent? I'm willing to accept that responsibility if it means my child is more than a carbon-copy drone like every other child.

Re:Soooooo.....

[colinrichardday]

How carefully was Britney Spears choosing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Federline

Re:Soooooo.....

[Gothmolly]

Your failure is assuming other people will pay your $200K bill.

Re:Soooooo.....

[ScentCone]

Nice straw man there, and utterly disingenuous attempt to pretend you didn't get the point. You get bonus points for throwing in the ad hominem gay bashing rant, too. Nice work!

Re:Soooooo.....

[ScentCone]

How many children actually need neo-natal heart work? Or have severe birth defects?

Because modern parents will sue a doctor, her practice, and any hospital they've ever visited in their lifetime if they sense for a second that every possibly $100,000 test, $1,000,000 imaging device, $10,000/dose experimental drug, $5,000/hour team of critical care people etc aren't fully deployed no matter what the prognosis, every child in that situations consumes more health care than a thousand (or more) generally-healthy babies. My neighbor gave birth to a premature kid. She's great, like her a lot all these years later. But her birth and the year following it cost roughly $3,000,000. And that was just a premature birth because the mother just had to go out dancing.

It isn't about denying healthcare to someone in such a situation. It's about knowing three weeks into a pregnancy that you're guaranteed to have a real problem on your hands that will cost what it would cost to birth a couple thousand other kids. There's nothing morally wrong with thinking that through while all you're dealing with is an embryo less sophisticated than the fish that went into the sushi you had for lunch.

Re:Soooooo.....

[aNonnyMouseCowered]

"Chance is fun! Save it for poker, not the avoidable horror show of a sick and dying kid." A "genetically engineered" baby sounds like what you'd get when an Android gives birth. So that's where you'll be getting all the negative posts. So between the two extremes of a malformed natural baby and a CGI-perfect looking designer baby, maybe there's a halfway point? Maybe we can allow genetic "intervention" for and only for obvious physical and mental defects? Gene combinations that result in a malfunctioning heart or mental retardation for example. But we should prevent parents from giving their babies an added boost, following the rule that if your face isn't broken don't facelift it. The problem with genetically engineering away undesirable traits that aren't obvious physical or health defects is that we don't know enough to tell whether a given trait is actually undesirable and what the side effects of removing it are. A predeliction for violence is obviously undesirable to anybody who has been a victim ofa violent crime. But what if the agressive tendencies that trigger violence are the same things that enable our survival in times of disaster? Or that allow ruthless innovators like Bill Gates, Von Braun, or Edison to flourish?

Re:Soooooo.....

[cstacy]

So in the future I should have super docile, conformist babies that fit the cookie cutter notion of how a baby should look? No thanks, I'll just stick with chance.

Hopefully, you will provide society with VERY PNEUMATIC daughters!

Re:Soooooo.....

[DecimalMan]

Sure I can let chance dictate my kids' personality, but I'm probably a sociopath and by my own logic, shouldn't be having kids anyway.

FTFY.

not having metal problems are objectively good don't you think?

There's a considerable segment of the autistic population that would beg to differ.

Re:Soooooo.....

[Macgrrl]

we could have given you a better life but we decided to gamble instead

The whole point is it wouldn't be the 'you' mentioned in your 'quote', it would be an entirely different person, because the screened child would never have been born.

Re:Soooooo.....

[Egyptoid]

But there's also the "privacy of the voting booth" People who will say nothing bad about homosexuals in public, would, in the privacy of the doctor's office, tell him to weed out a baby that had the hypothetical "homosexual gene". This scenario is all theoretical though, since homosexuality is a choice.

No, just no.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even going to bother with the obligatory "what could possibly go wrong", because this is so bat-shit crazy and irresponsible. We simply do not understand how personalities work and how traits interact - to even suggest that we start removing traits before we understand how whole works is just as stupid as suggesting we amputate everyone's left hand to make sure everyone is right handed and not 'sinister'.

Re:No, just no.

[__aaltlg1547]

Actually, we are starting to learn what genes cause specific personality and mental problems.

• http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/genetics/a/bluwa040114.htm
• http://www.citeulike.org/user/StephanMatthiesen/article/7593610
• http://www.iaees.org/publications/journals/nb/articles/2012-2%281%29/network-view-on-Schizophrenia-related-genes.pdf
• http://depressiongenetics.stanford.edu/mddandgenes.html
• http://www.biopsychiatry.com/suicide.htm

I'm sure we have barely begun to scratch the surface. There are of course also genes related to intelligence and (therefore also) stupidity. You want stupid kids? There are genes related to religiousity as well.

And that's just mental traits. What if you could select for children genetically more resistant to heart disease, cancer, obesity, bone loss, Alzheimers, auto-immune disorder and insulin-resistance and virtually every other chronic physical disorder? Most people would make that selection if they could.

It wouldn't be just a gift to your children. It would be a gift to every future generation of humanity if we could reduce the occurrence of genes that help cause these disorders.

Re:No, just no.

[Coriolis]

As long as, of course, we also knew what—if any— beneficial effects those genes had and had plans to compensate for their loss.

Re:No, just no.

[Dripdry]

So two of my uncles are alcoholics.

They are both INSANELY intelligent, awith families they care for, and they both contribute and contributed a LOT to society both on and off the sauce.

What's to say they would ever have cleaned up their act and done good things had they not had prior bad experiences? One uncle is both alcoholic and predisposed to violence. He is now one of the most rational, calm, funny guys I've met. Now, they also hire him to be an attack dog at work for quality control (don't get on his bad side) but he uses his skills for something effective, rather than lashing out now.

If he'd been born a "docile" baby instead, he'd be just another mook without the hindisight of experience. He probably wouldn't be so competitive and wouldn't have gone into the Navy SEALS, and never would have gotten his career going through that.

I'm telling you, bad traits can have good side effects. Bad experiences are what teach us things, and they can also drive us to accomplish a lot in our lives. While I am an advocate of screening out obvious diseases, other traits probably need to (and I'm sure will) be tested out first.

Further, I'd say that we'll have to do this testing on people, which is something it will be very interesting to see in how medical ethics is applied. I'm sure we'll start hearing in 20-30 years how people were never told they were "modified" by the industry as test subjects were never told, but monitored carefully over time so Big Pharma could make Big Bucks.

Re:No, just no.

[__aaltlg1547]

Do you know that he was genetically predisposed to alcoholism and violence?

Do you know that his history of alcoholism makes him a better person? Suppose he had had a brother who was just like him in all respects except that he had the normal variant of the gene that predisposes him to alcoholism. Would that brother necessarily be less accomplished, less kind or less loved than your uncle?

Everyone is capable of violence. Is he unusually prone to violence for genetic reasons or could it have something to do with his experiences and upbringing? There's a wide spectrum of potential for violence in people and it's clearly influenced by environment as well as genetics. But some people with abnormal genes may be too broken to function normally in society. It sounds like your uncle is not that broken.

Nobody is saying that every genetic variant must be policed. What's being said is that there may be (probably are) some genes that are just plain bad news, that have only a downside for the people who have them and those whose lives are affected by them. Obviously the genes would have to be extensively studied before they should be targeted for anti-selection.

Re:No, just no.

[metrix007]

The genes for religiosity thing is pretty speculative at the moment. No convincing evidence and given the problems in scoping religiosity it seems unlikely.

Re:No, just no.

[__aaltlg1547]

Yeah, and you know what? Correlation does not imply that these traits can have positive effects.

Just one potent counterexample: what if the impulses from gene(s) which predispose to alcoholism or addiction in general ALSO are what get harnessed by our greatest minds in science, technology, engineering, and medicine?

Still waiting for the example. All you seem to have is speculation.

Re:No, just no.

[__aaltlg1547]

So two of my uncles are alcoholics.

They are both INSANELY intelligent, awith families they care for, and they both contribute and contributed a LOT to society both on and off the sauce.

What's to say they would ever have cleaned up their act and done good things had they not had prior bad experiences?

You're saying it's better to have been an alcoholic and gotten control of your addiction than to never have been an alcoholic. BOTTOMS UP!

One uncle is both alcoholic and predisposed to violence. He is now one of the most rational, calm, funny guys I've met. Now, they also hire him to be an attack dog at work for quality control (don't get on his bad side) but he uses his skills for something effective, rather than lashing out now.

And that being a pushy bastard is great for quality control? Well maybe. But I think a person who's not genetically hyperaggressive can do the job.

If he'd been born a "docile" baby instead, he'd be just another mook without the hindisight of experience. He probably wouldn't be so competitive and wouldn't have gone into the Navy SEALS, and never would have gotten his career going through that.

This is actually the only thing you've mentioned that being hyperaggressive might help with. But again, who's to say that it's necessary. We know ordinary people can be trained to be effective soldiers. I'm not really sure we need a special class of abnormal people to do our country's dirty work.

I'm telling you, bad traits can have good side effects. Bad experiences are what teach us things, and they can also drive us to accomplish a lot in our lives.

And I'm telling you that you have no valid data. I think it's premature to start screening people now before we fully understand the full effect of these genes. But it's likely that there are some genetic variants that are all bad and that we will be able to identify some of these within the next decade, and our children and society at large will be better off the fewer people are born with them.

As for the putative value of bad experiences, yes, it can help form good character, but it never makes up for the problem of having had bad character to begin with.

There's no need to do experimentation on humans. All we have to do is observe the behavior of people with and without certain gene variants and analyze whether there are any correlated positive trends.

Re:No, just no.

[devleopard]

What if we identify the so called "gay gene"? Rest assured that the Fox News crowd will be rejoicing at the idea of "designer babies" at that point.

The random parent out there wants their kids to be successful. What if we can identify whether a kid would be a 6'6" outgoing athlete as opposed to an introverted short kid who excels in math?

Re:No, just no.

[Attila Dimedici]

The problem is that we do not know whether or not the gene that predisposes someone to be an alcoholic also predisposes someone to have traits that we find extremely valuable.

Re:No, just no.

[harlequinn]

No, we're learning what genes seem to indicate a greater potential for certain personality and mental problems.

The other poster is correct. We do not truly understand how DNA and personality interact and screwing with it, with our small knowledge of the human genome, may not turn out all peaches and cream.

We may have mapped the human genome, but we have not decoded it.

As it stands, IVF is mainly used to treat what can be termed as genetically inferior people to achieve reproduction (which would otherwise be denied to them from there own inferior genes). They pass on these inferior genes through IVF. We have not figured out how to give these parents a child with non-defective genes - i.e. their children will probably have the same reproductive problems. Now, this transfers to healthy babies too - we don't know how to make them better than average.

The oldest IVF baby is about 34 years old (born 1978). We don't currently know what long term effects IVF will have on humans. We do know it doesn't look good by indicators from other animals. Studies like this point to these same problems being inherited by humans: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/125/15/1890.abstract

IVF is a highly flawed technology. First we need to solve the IVF problem. Then decode the human genome. Then we can go making better humans.

Of course, adults shouldn't be interested in fixing unborn babies. Adults should be interested in gene therapy for adults. The real versus a potential.

Eugenics?

[Shag]

I think we've seen this movie before.

Re:Eugenics?

[__aaltlg1547]

We're not talking about making everybody look German. We're talking about making your own kids mentally and physically as healthy as they can be.

Re:Eugenics?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Indeed, that's the first thing I thought of... Hitler. We've been down this road. Ethics and moral obligations change depending on your perspective.

We're not talking about making everybody look German. We're talking about making your own kids mentally and physically as healthy as they can be.

Making kids mentally and physically healthy was the very goal of Nazism. "Looking German" was one accidental detail.

So yes, this proposal is eugenicist and utterly evil. Also it would select for selfishness and immorality. See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551

Re:Eugenics?

[__aaltlg1547]

I don't accept your premise that eugenics is unavoidably evil and equivalent to Nazism.

Re:Eugenics?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Eugenics plays with people who were not given any choice. It treats people as objects. This makes it wrong in itself.

And the consequences, as I've argued elsewhere, are awful. A Brave New World style of dystopia.

Re:Eugenics?

[__aaltlg1547]

Eugenics plays with people who were not given any choice. It treats people as objects. This makes it wrong in itself.

And the consequences, as I've argued elsewhere, are awful. A Brave New World style of dystopia.

Compulsory education plays with people who were not given any choice. This makes it wrong in itself.

Genetic selection is a technology. It is not right or wrong in itself. It is the goals and methods that may make it right or wrong.

The goal is no different than what people have been doing forever. In mate selection, we are attempting to influence the genetic characteristics of our own children. Sometimes unconsciously, as in when you pick a woman because she's hot. Sometimes it's consciously, as in a short man who only looks for women who are taller than he is because he wants his children to be taller. There's nothing immoral about either.

With eugenics, it is only the method that is different until you start trying to insert non-human genes into people, and the children you get from it will just be children, arguably healthier and happier and more productive members of society.

I'm not worried about losing important traits from the gene pool. We will always have the poor and if they have genetic advantages that were selected out of the formerly rich and powerful, so be it.

Re:Eugenics?

[shutdown -p now]

Making kids mentally and physically healthy was the very goal of Nazism. "Looking German" was one accidental detail.

No, making kids Aryan was the very goal of Nazism. They also presupposed that mental and physical health was an innate Aryan trait, which is why it was also selected for, alongside blond hair and blue eyes and other such things.

He is right

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone could make a baby that wouldn't cry and would sleep all night, then I'll buy one.

Re:He is right

[JockTroll]

Strangle a normal one and save the money.

Re:He is right

[2.7182]

I'll get one *only* when a fully open source one is available, which wasn't produced under unfair labor conditions.

Re:He is right

[Abstergo]

When you say "unfair labor conditions," the first thing I think of is Al Bundy.

Re:He is right

[2.7182]

I was thinking of my wife's labor.

Re:He is right

[flaming error]

Yes, the woman has it really hard. But I don't think people fully appreciate how hard pregnancy is on the man. All those Lamaze classes, when all she wanted was a punching bag to swear at.

Re:He is right

[davester666]

Yeah, both the man and the woman should get an epideral.

Parents are already "designing" their kids

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife worked for a pediatrician in a well to do area a couple of years ago and if it looked like their kid was going to be under 6 foot, they would ask for a referral to an endocrinologist for hormones to get the kid to grow a bit more. The pediatrician didn't think it was necessary in most cases, but they are his patients so he complied. The parents wanted the best for their kids and wanted to insure that they could get any advantage that they could possibly get for them.

James Watson, co-discover of DNA, was on the National Press Club a few years ago, and this question was asked (can't find the archive right now - heard on NPR). Anyway to paraphrase,

90% of CEOs are over 6 foot. A 5 foot 2 inch tall man and a five foot tall woman may want to better the opportunities for their child.

Of course, what he meant was that up to a point, height matters in all sorts of endeavors and not only sports: politics, finding a mate, work, etc ... There is a strong correlation between height and success. Yes, I know - queue up all the exceptions but keep in mind, many of those were extraordinary people; such as Einstein - 5' 5".

Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids

[Scarred Intellect]

My wife worked for a pediatrician in a well to do area a couple of years ago and if it looked like their kid was going to be under 6 foot, they would ask for a referral to an endocrinologist for hormones to get the kid to grow a bit more. The pediatrician didn't think it was necessary in most cases, but they are his patients so he complied. The parents wanted the best for their kids and wanted to insure that they could get any advantage that they could possibly get for them.

James Watson, co-discover of DNA, was on the National Press Club a few years ago, and this question was asked (can't find the archive right now - heard on NPR). Anyway to paraphrase,

90% of CEOs are over 6 foot. A 5 foot 2 inch tall man and a five foot tall woman may want to better the opportunities for their child.

Of course, what he meant was that up to a point, height matters in all sorts of endeavors and not only sports: politics, finding a mate, work, etc ... There is a strong correlation between height and success. Yes, I know - queue up all the exceptions but keep in mind, many of those were extraordinary people; such as Einstein - 5' 5".

Malcolm Gladwell pointed out this exact phenomenon in his book Blink , which he calls the Warren Harding effect.

While searching for the presiden't name (I'd forgotten it, but I loved reading the book) I also ran across this: Malcolm Gladwell Explains Why Underdogs Win An 'Astonishing' Amount Of The Time. Ha! Take that You expert in practical ethics!

What the hell is an expert in practical ethics, anyway?

Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids

[gay358]

BTW, some studies suggest that height may reduce longevity, although I have heard at least one study that found out the opposite.

Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids

[hythlodayr]

Of course, wait until a global famine hits and see how many 6-foot individuals last.

In the big scheme of things, is being a CEO so important? What do you get out of a it? Perhaps the chance to associate with (or spawn) individuals like the following Rich kids of Instagram?

Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids

[renoX]

Studies of dating website's have shown that taller men or richer men receive more messages from women than the other men..

Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids

[Surt]

They'll do quite well being able to graze the taller branches, just like the giraffes.

Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids

[kheldan]

What if that someone's son wants to grow up to be a world-class cyclist, and they completely screw his chances by ensuring he's over six feet tall?

We are neither smart enough or wise enough as a race to be mucking about with the genes of our offspring. Look at what's happening because of Monsanto and genetically-engineered food crops!

Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids

[rubycodez]

big men will do fine beating the shit out of and killing lesser men for resources and women.

next question?

Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids

[Attila Dimedici]

What the hell is an expert in practical ethics, anyway?

Someone who tells people that it is ethical to do what they wanted to do anyway and that all of those antiquated rules society has developed over centuries that people would rather not follow are obsolete.

Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids

[Velex]

This. My ex-parents wanted the family doctor to prescribe me testosterone with the idea that it would make me taller. Of course my doctor shot it down, because that's not how it works. Of course, these days, we know which hormone can affect that.

Three years later, that same doctor wrote me a prescription for estrogen.

If my parents had their way with the testosterone, I might have been unable to pass as a woman, and I probably would have killed myself. If the doctor had suggested human growth hormone to make me taller, same problem. My short height is one of the factors that makes getting strangers to gender me female easier.

The alternative is that they could have used genetic screening to determine that their son was not only homosexual but transgendered and aborted me. Or they could have just had me engineered so that I would be a normal guy. Either way, I might have been spared a gender conflict I still haven't resolved because, well, I kind of need a job to eat and pay the bills, and people go completely hysterical and stupid about gender.

Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids

[harlequinn]

And when everyone is 6 feet or taller the new CEO will have to be 6 feet 6 inches or taller...

And when everyone is 6 feet 6 inches or taller the new CEO will have to be 7 feet or taller...

Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids

[jedwidz]

This ^^^

We have to reign in the meddling before 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' becomes a literal expression.

I loved watching the Olympics because it teaches that diversity trumps equality. It's refreshing in our PC-mad world (everyone is equal, to differentiate is to discriminate) to see how it plays out.

Women don't compete with men. Why not? Well, imagine if they'd introduced mixed boxing instead of women's boxing.

And for once people get it that this doesn't imply men are superior. No one is suggesting that should improve our gene pool by getting rid of women.

Some sports are dominated by this or that racial grouping, but it's clear that this is about body type specialization, and not due to (some general notion of) racial superiority. The athletes winning the marathon aren't contenders for the dash, and neither group are going to be champion weightlifters in their spare time.

No matter how much genetic engineering you throw at the problem, the best specialists will always beat the best generalists.

Re:Parents are already "designing" their kids

[Stuarticus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Wiggins

Busybodies everywhere

[Kohath]

Its always the same thing withe busybodies and totalitarians: Anything that is not forbidden is mandatory.

Here's an alternate ethic: Leave us alone. We'll make our own choices.

Re:Busybodies everywhere

[Dunbal]

Some would argue that autonomy is the only ethic that matters. But there will always be someone more than willing to tell you what to do and how to live.

Re:Busybodies everywhere

[BeanThere]

Yeah, we can turn the question around: If someone has a baby without genetically engineering it, have they actually committed some sort of evil crime? Enough to, presumably I guess, arrest them and put them in jail? That's what the guy is arguing.

Re:Busybodies everywhere

[Mindcontrolled]

It's always the same with the libertardians and their ilk: "I haven't thought it through (and you can't make me, that woudl be SLAVERY), also, I am an idiot and have no intention of thinking things through - therefore: THINGS BAD AND EVIL!!!!

Re:Busybodies everywhere

[cyp43r]

Libertarians are the ones demonising gay people, minorities and foreigners, sure. Its certainly not the people trying to legislate against them.

Re:Busybodies everywhere

[Mindcontrolled]

No, libertarians are not legalizing against minorities - they just want all legislation prohibiting their persecution gone. Lovely guys.

Re:Busybodies everywhere

[Urthas]

You can throw all the Latin around you like, but you'll still be a fanatical quack. Sorry, what was that? Oh, it's because you waded in with the term "libertardian."

Re:Busybodies everywhere

[Mindcontrolled]

Yup. All the substance in a reply that I did expect.

Re:Busybodies everywhere

[martas]

A related question: if a parent denies essential (read: life-saving) medical care for his already born and self-aware child (assuming an idealized scenario where intervention implies instant guarantee of survival without side effects or financial burden), should he be arrested and put in jail? Of course in that situation the intermediate step is to strip parental rights, but suppose that is not possible, meaning whatever the parent decides happens?

Re:Busybodies everywhere

[BeanThere]

The guy here isn't arguing that life-saving care be mandated though, he is saying it should mandatory to genetically engineer everyone to be "better people".

I'd be one of the first to go

[joneil]

We have five different genetic conditions in our family, some are considered diseases, others are considered disabilities. I am quite sure under these new "ethics", myself and my whole family would be on the top of the list for instant abortion. Yet despite all medical conditions, many of my family have lived very long and productive lives. In same cases, I consider my relatives and ancestors choice and will to fight and overcome the odds stacked against them something to inspire me to never feel sorry for myself. Would we ever see such a thing in a future where all babies were born "perfect"? I think the sense of entitlement we see in our society is already overwhelming as it is, and i find it's people who overcome their disabilites that throw cold water, figuratively speaking, in the fact of self indulgence and entitlement. Would we see that this 'ethical" future?

      My other point, this whole issue reminds of of that famous line from near the end of the movie "The Third Man", where the character Harry Lime says:

"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed—but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

    In a world full of "perfect babies", well, just saying.

Re:I'd be one of the first to go

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck do you have against cuckoo clocks? They're awesome.

Re:I'd be one of the first to go

[RichMeatyTaste]

Sigh, I really need to proofread.

I meant to say: Example: What *if we* started screening for predisposition for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis? We might miss out on one of the greatest theoretical physicists [wikipedia.org] to ever live.

Re:I'd be one of the first to go

[Rozine]

Have you never heard of the Fall of Constantinople? Just because it's in some dumb movie doesn't mean you can attribute the Renaissance to bloodshed.

Re:I'd be one of the first to go

[anilg]

..In Switzerland they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce?

500 years of democracy and peace.

Re:I'd be one of the first to go

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

I seem to remember something about a patent office in Switzerland, too.

If crippling diseases are in fact necessary for human progress, we could always discontinue polio vaccinations.

If, on the other hand, it is challenges that are important, then science, engineering, and sport can provide endless spurs to human achievement.

Re:I'd be one of the first to go

[rrohbeck]

Einstein was born and raised in Germany though.
What you need is an environment that's healthy and free of stressors plus education. I don't see how health issues are conducive to mental development or that there's any correlation between intelligence and health detriments.

Re:I'd be one of the first to go

[hedpe2003]

..In Switzerland they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce?

500 years of democracy and peace.

Woah... Deja vu....And modded up both times. At least it wasn't a 'I for one, support our genetically modified, cuckoo clock overlords' joke :)

Re:I'd be one of the first to go

[Macgrrl]

$deity forbid your parents are hipsters or whatever the equivalent is, and make choices on the edge of normal. They might be trendy a few years later - but for you, life would be hellish.

Wrap this up however you want...

[Chas]

He's STILL talking eugenics.

Even taking out the racial connotations and stating you're looking at it from a more "humane" angle is STILL going to raise hackles.

Also, genetics has been getting studied for under a century. While YES, we know a LOT about the human genome, there's still a lot we don't know. Such as WHY some of these diseases and behaviors are in our genetic code in the first place. Yet people want to start selecting away from it, or better still, excising it from our genetic code?

They're essentially playing with fire, and the nearest bucket of water is someplace in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri.

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[__aaltlg1547]

While YES, we know a LOT about the human genome, there's still a lot we don't know. Such as WHY some of these diseases and behaviors are in our genetic code in the first place.

Sure we do. Random mutation and inefficient natural selection of uncommon recessives. And some undesirable characteristics are selected for even though they harm society. Imagine a gene that causes men to rape women. The rapist gene could result in the men who have it making more babies, until somebody hangs them.

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[mounthood]

While YES, we know a LOT about the human genome, there's still a lot we don't know. Such as WHY some of these diseases and behaviors are in our genetic code in the first place. Yet people want to start selecting away from it, or better still, excising it from our genetic code? ... They're essentially playing with fire, and the nearest bucket of water is someplace in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri.

While I personally agree, this argument could also be made against GMO foods and nobody seems very convinced by it.

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[dywolf]

Imagine a gene that causes people to self explode. Or emit gamma radiation.
What if Napolean had a B52?

Luckily neither your nor my hypothetical exists. You can what if all day, but that doesn't make it relevant.

And it's proven time and again that genes don't MAKE YOU do things, they only give a pre-disposition, and even then its always been some very broadly defined thing. A predispotion towards being overweight for example.

And people can and do overcome these pre-dispositions all the time. Because they are people, with brains, capable of making choices. Like, hey, I'm gonna put the fork down and not eat that extra helping (or six) of cake. even your hypothetical wouldn't stand up that, because being raised in a society that teaches right and wrong someone with the "rape gene" would still have to make teh conscious choice to committ such a violation, and being predisposed would not be any sort of excuse. And thats not even touching on your implied notion that people would just let rape-gene rapists be fruitful and multiply.

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[similar_name]

It is an interesting debate. There is probably a lot of overlap between people who are against actively selecting or changing our genes and people who alter their personalities or their children through the use of drugs (prescription, OTC, street, etc.).

Like drugs there are likely to be side effects. Take away the gene that's responsible for a propensity to commit rape and you might remove or alter other traits. It could be connected to testosterone (it's almost completely a male trait) and adrenaline. It's likely to be connected to other traits like dominance and aggression. Traits that are arguably good and bad. Leaders often like control and that tends to carry into the bedroom.

And who defines the behaviors of rape? Prison rape, jogger in the park rape, drunk adolescent rape, date rape, lying about a condom rape. Different societies define rape differently so one issue might be how different countries select traits. I could even imagine this causing some speciation between classes or countries or both.

Personally, I think manipulation of the human genome will happen. We augment ourselves with machines and chemicals all the time. As we fight natural selection by 'fixing' things after the fact we will assuredly start fighting it by doing the selecting ourselves. We've already done it with many other species.

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[misexistentialist]

Hang infants?! Eugenics is indeed a slippery slope.

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[__aaltlg1547]

Historically and prehistorically, it has worked just as I said.

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[jez9999]

Ridiculous, it would never happen.

Babies' bodies aren't heavy enough to cause their necks to break.

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[Chas]

Sorry, but there's a rather RIDICULOUSLY HUGE ethical divide between engineering a potential food/energy/natural materials source and engineering people.

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[shutdown -p now]

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with eugenics. What was immoral about eugenic programs of old was that they were applied to people against their will - forced sterilizations, anti-miscegenation laws etc. Provided that everyone has a choice of how to tweak the genes of their kids, and provided that we regulate it to avoid such changes that are clearly harmful, I don't see a problem. And don't give me that "the society is going to change into something horrible" BS. We evolve, and so does our society. I don't pretend to know what it's going to look like in a hundred years, but I'm sure that, either way, they will think us all idiots.

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[DigiShaman]

Svalbard Global Seed Vault. It serves many purposes. One of them is keeping an original copy of genetic diversity in case GM engineering takes us down a genetic dead end.

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[sjames]

The problem is the Gattaca scenario. It starts off as purely optional, but eventually due to discrimination it becomes Hobson's choice.

How long before un-engineered kids suffer from a significant dis-advantage due to the perception (true or not) that they'll underperform? How long after that is failure to engineer your child taken as negligent parenting?

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[shutdown -p now]

Natural segregation of human population due to pronounced genetic differences directly contravenes natural selection. Consider this.

Suppose twe start actively screening kids for certain desirable genetic traits. Generally speaking, those traits would correlate well with the ability to reproduce (or rather to spread one's genes wide, by whatever way). Even where our affinity for such traits is currently not entirely in line with reproductive capability, the traits themselves will also engage in an evolutionary arms race, so eventually it will trend that way.

Now, you have "engineered" kids who spread their genes around more than "un-engineered" ones. Accordingly, the genes of engineered kids would become more prevalent in the entire population, quite likely until such point as everyone has them. Of course, if we keep screening or otherwise pushing the genes in some direction, another genetic trait will arise that will provide superiority, and the cycle will repeat. But, either way, it will keep spreading.

The only way you can prevent it from not spreading is by forcibly segregating engineered from non-engineered, so that they don't interbreed at all (because even a little interbreeding will eventually result in the same dominance of the "superior" gene). In nature, this happens when populations end up geographically separated for long enough that they diverge. For humans, that would be very tricky indeed, as no purely social restriction would ensure the lack of interbreeding - we've tried that before (e.g. during Indo-Aryan conquest of India), and every time it failed. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that such a restriction would arise naturally in a society, since initially the differences wouldn't be anywhere near as great to "instinctively" segregate, so you'd still have enough interbreeding for genes to spread around, which would in turn ensure that the divide doesn't grow.

Long story short, I don't see how this would do anything other than accelerating the process of natural selection in a specific direction (though even the specificity of direction is arguable... as noted earlier, the criteria on which we select the genes then themselves become traits participating in selection - i.e. those which cause parents to recursively choose the same traits for their children would naturally spread, regardless of our desires... even engineered genes are still selfish!).

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[sjames]

I'm not necessarily concerned about the individual traits themselves, only the level of free choice on the parent's part and how such traits might become ubiquitous.

Let's not pretend that free choice is a certainty. If not engineering a child can come to be considered negligent, not engineering a particular popular trait can do the same and suddenly parents are NOT really free to choose at all.

There would be a distinct possibility that we create a mass die-off when it turns out that when carriers of two different de-facto mandatory popular traits have a child, the result suffers an unanticipated fatal genetic disease (or is simply sterile). The problem is that natural evolution and selection starts small and works up to covering the whole population, while trends in human society can (and generally do) sweep the whole society in well short of a generation's time. We could easily turn a 'natural experiment' that normally results in two or three infertile couples total into a massive problem.

If we could be sure that free choice would continue and that there would be plenty of un-engineered to take up the slack, I would just write all of that off as nature engineering foolish trendy parents out of the gene pool.

On another note, I have to wonder how fashion remorse might come to play. Just think about all of the 'what were we thinking' comedy routines about fads of the past. Think of the lawsuits from kids who grow up as the genetic equivalent of bell bottoms and a dashiki or the pet rock.

Re:Wrap this up however you want...

[IwantToKeepAnon]

He's STILL talking eugenics.

He's right ... m-u-s-t, n-o-t, i-n-v-o-k-e, G-o-d-w-i-n-'-s, L-a-w

Let's be honest, we do this already

[Aviation Pete]

by choosing a mate which we like. Good looks and a compatible character are the biggest factors in choosing a partner with which to reproduce. Consequently, we try to increase these desired traits in our offspring.

The question is only when we start to be open about it and try to influence the genetic composition of our kids more directly,

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[Dunbal]

Looking at divorce rates, I am not so sure you make a valid points. Perhaps we mate with people we THINK we like, but end up hating... Perhaps it has a lot more to do with impulse than actual planning. I often think that as a species we're not as smart as we like to think we are. Otherwise the human race has a lot to answer for. Maybe when we're smart we can re-visit this whole selective breeding thing, in a million years or so.

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[JackieBrown]

I find that insulting.

I did not pick my wife based on the type of babies she would produce. I picked her based on her personality. Looks are certainly important, but not lasting and certainly not the reason I would pick a wife.

Based on what you wrote, I would have rejected her as a "mate" - I hate that word even if it is technically accurate - since she has MS and comes from a family of diabetes and heart problems (my family has these same traits.)

My wife is due in March of next year for our 3rd child and hopefully we will have even more after that.

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[Anonymous Coward]

Social and personality traits are still mating criteria; just because they are as primitively biological as fertility and survivability doesn't mean you aren't selecting your wife/partner/mate/whatever man-designed-word-you-wish-to-use-to-describe-your-specific-set-of-selection-criteria.

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[__aaltlg1547]

by choosing a mate which we like. Good looks and a compatible character are the biggest factors in choosing a partner with which to reproduce. Consequently, we try to increase these desired traits in our offspring.

The question is only when we start to be open about it and try to influence the genetic composition of our kids more directly,

You mean more efficiently. Good looks is a proxy for reproductive capacity, good health and favorable personality. But what if the reproductive capacity is damaged? No kids for you! What if the apparent good health masks a predisposition to heart disease or cancer? What if the pretty face hides a predisposition to addiction?

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[Dunbal]

Or you could just be using this as a justification of your desire to copulate with as many strangers as possible because, you know, monogamy is not unique to the human species. So I doubt that it's a case of where human "morality" is overriding a "biological drive", unless you believe penguins and the like also have a highly developped code of ethics. In fact, the very existence of "jealousy" - an emotion that can even lead humans to kill each other - could be seen as an argument showing that monogamy is actually hard-wired into the human psyche, and perhaps those individuals who don't practice it are the unusual ones.

Either way I don't care, it's one of these argument that we will argue about 'till the cows come home but no one will actually ever be able to prove anything. Popcorn?

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[cyp43r]

Or you could just be using this as a justification of your desire to copulate with as many strangers as possible because, you know, monogamy is not unique to the human species. So I doubt that it's a case of where human "morality" is overriding a "biological drive", unless you believe penguins and the like also have a highly developped code of ethics. In fact, the very existence of "jealousy" - an emotion that can even lead humans to kill each other - could be seen as an argument showing that monogamy is actually hard-wired into the human psyche, and perhaps those individuals who don't practice it are the unusual ones.

Either way I don't care, it's one of these argument that we will argue about 'till the cows come home but no one will actually ever be able to prove anything. Popcorn?

We want our mates to be faithful, that's what jealousy does: tries to get us to make sure our partners are carrying our genes. There are good reasons why jealousy would propagate in a non monogamous society, it probably isn't an indicator that we're monogamous by nature. Monogamy can develop in nature, and thrive, and the opposite happens too. Humans do have well documented drives however to spread their genes around, just because you don't doesn't mean a lot of people do.

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[GrantRobertson]

Actually, this is something that shallow people like you already do. Most regular people are just hoping to find someone who will be nice to them.

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[cyp43r]

Your subconscious is only selecting on traits that signal to it. That's probably the reason diabetes, multiple sclerosis and heart problems thrive, because they don't signal early, they just manifest abruptly.

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[0xdeadbeef]

I find that insulting.

When reality insults you it is not a problem of reality.

I did not pick my wife based on the type of babies she would produce. I picked her based on her personality.

You seem proud of being short-sighted. When your kid is on a ventilator, just keep telling yourself "at least my wife has a great personality!"

my family has these same traits

And here is the real tragedy. Having the same flaws you were in no position to reject her, and yet by sharing those flaws you also ridiculously increase the risk of them being passed to your children.

Genetic engineering could break the cycle, but instead you'd rather deny others that freedom because it hurts your fragile ego.

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[dywolf]

The character of your mate has much much more to do with environment she was raised in, and her reactions to it (being a thinking species, two people could react in totally opposite manner), conscious and unconscious.

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[Urthas]

"You seem proud of being short-sighted. When your kid is on a ventilator, just keep telling yourself "at least my wife has a great personality!""

Uncalled for, and unnecessarily cruel, especially given that it is impossible to know.

"Genetic engineering could break the cycle, but instead you'd rather deny others that freedom because it hurts your fragile ego."

MS is not itself hereditary. Diabetes and heart disease can be managed fairly easily, if not cheaply. Properly managed, personal freedom is in no way compromised. As to cost, what would it cost to fully screen and then terminate fetus after fetus? By the way, pointing the finger at someone else's "fragile ego" is a bit misplaced. We're all in that particular boat, I think.

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[misexistentialist]

Divorce rates are dependent on the law. Pay women to divorce their husbands...and they do. That men enter into marriage anyway does raise questions about their intelligence and impulsiveness... Of course relationships in general don't last, but life is unpredictable

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[shutdown -p now]

Looking at divorce rates, I am not so sure you make a valid points. Perhaps we mate with people we THINK we like, but end up hating

Thing is, it has nothing to do with "like". We mate with people who are more likely to pass good genes to our babies (should we have them). The ability to care about offspring is also somewhat important, but only short term. After that, if they turn out to be an asshole and you divorce them, that doesn't change anything from evolutionary point of view - your offspring already carries those genes.

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[shutdown -p now]

Uncalled for, and unnecessarily cruel, especially given that it is impossible to know.

There are plenty of evolutionary psychology studies on human mating behavior out there. It's a rather enlightening read, though it will likely shatter your illusions of how much you're actually in control of your choices in that area.

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[ceoyoyo]

The problem is, people are shit at risk-benefit analysis. This guy is too. There is no alcoholism gene. There are lots of poorly understood genes that slightly increase or decrease your risk.

Yes, we screen for things like cystic fibrosis because those are the very few diseases that are liked overwhelmingly to individual genes. Everything else... is complicated.

Re:Let's be honest, we do this already

[DigiShaman]

I totally agree with what you've said. But I think our transition from a polygamy to monogamy is evolutionary. Because we've become extremely intelligent for a species, we have a much greater ability to inflict massive death through war. When a few men control the supply of women, societal breakdown often follows. Perhaps by agreeing to take on the practice of monogamy, we can all live in a more harmonious society which provides massive social incentives for production and life longevity.

If this works for US ....

[OldHawk777]

Then we can legally mandate, better babies or no babies.
If we can get there, then we just make sure what babies are better and what babies rule US.
DAMN! This may have happened over two hundred years ago with a selective breeding project for the leading political families of US.
IMO: It would explain Bush, but not Reagan, maybe Reagan worked for our Gang of Four (King of Hearts Chaney, Dummy Don Rumsfield, Pontious Pilot Bush, and Coffee Candy Rice) and Animals Control Officer Rove.

China will do it to US we must be christian jingoist, and competitive. We are #1, so we can piss on all.

Re:If this works for US ....

[Papaspud]

Wish I could mod this comment up, This was good for a nice chuckle.

Re:If this works for US ....

[OldHawk777]

Thanks, some people make me feel like I should always include an emoticon for humor. %~P

Re:Gattaca

[lobiusmoop]

I'd be more inclined to say 'Idiocracy' covered this topic. The kind of parents with that level of morality are more likely not to have kids at all, or at least fewer than the rest. It's Gresham's law applied to genetics - bad genes drive out the good.

A great new business opportunity!

[maxwell demon]

Think about it: If you genetically engineer a baby, you've inserted non-natural genes, that is, inventions you can patent. So after the babies grow up, those people cannot have children without paying you for licensing (at the time the general public notices it, many years later, it's already too late). Maybe they'll even insert terminator genes, so that you cannot any more have offspring the normal way, unless you buy a (very expensive) special "medicine" which re-activates the genes needed for production (but only as long as you take it).

Re:A great new business opportunity!

[maxwell demon]

err ... "needed for re production", of course.

Re:A great new business opportunity!

[maxwell demon]

(And why the Slashcode authors thought it were a good idea to insert a space after a closing em tag is beyond me.)

Re:A great new business opportunity!

[__aaltlg1547]

Patents last for 20 years. They can have kids after they're 20.

Re:A great new business opportunity!

[GrantRobertson]

This is moot. They already patent existing genes. Hell, Monsanto patented existing plants that the government had collected and put in a repository. Monsanto didn't even have to do the work of finding them. They just walked into the repository and started filing patents.

Gattaca

[LMahesa]

IMDB Linkie
Ring any bells?

Oblig Shakespeare

[stevegee58]

O brave new world
that has such people in't.

Re:Oblig Shakespeare

[Kevin Fishburne]

Oblig 300: When the boy was born, like all Spartans, he was inspected. If he'd been small or puny or sickly or misshapen, he would have been discarded.

Re:Stepford Babies

[Aviation Pete]

didn't the Nazis try this a few years back ??

Yes, right. And the idea has been demonized since, mainly to justify a war which was waged to bring the US economy out of recession and suppress the two most potent economic competitors. When we outgrow the propaganda from that time, we might get a clearer look on that issue.

Definitely a great idea...

[rgbrenner]

This sounds like an incredibly great idea, that I'm sure will have no down sides.

I mean, if we weed out violence, that can only be a good thing. Nice docile people who won't put up any kind of fight. What could go wrong with that?

Also, aren't mental illness and creativity linked?
https://www.google.com/search?q=creativity+mental+illness

So if you weed out schizophrenia, for example, to create a superior being.. you could simply be creating non-creative people, who will never invent anything new.

Honestly, we don't understand the human mind and how it works... how can we choose what human attributes are safe to discard?

Engineering != Selection

[Exitar]

The title suggests genetic engineering, but the article in fact talks about selection: you don't build a child to be sure he won't become an alcoholist, you discard him if the tests say that he could grow into an alcoholist.
How that would be realized? En masse switching to in vitro fecundation? Widening of the reasons for which you can have a therapeutic abortion?

Re:Engineering != Selection

[Hentes]

To be honest, with the success rate of mammal cloning genetic design would result in even more death. This is the same old eugenics dressed up in a liberal suit.

Re:Engineering != Selection

[buddyglass]

This.

Re:Also an obligation to create super soldiers

[2.7182]

Clearly your not a 70s DC comics fan. Here's the goal:

http://dc.wikia.com/wiki/Superbaby_(Earth-One)

It's immoral pure and simple

[medv4380]

Let evolution handle the details like weeding out bad genes. With the exception of weeding out genes that make someone unable to survive to adulthood. When we start taking a proactive roll in minor stuff like personality then we start down a road to eliminate genetic diversity not based on one actually being better or not but being based on our perception. Evolution might be slower but it's less likely to give advantages based on Fair Skin, Blond Hair and Blue Eyes, and if it did it doesn't do it so it so quickly that if that "advantage" goes away it's not stuck at some dead end after only 1 generation.

future us...

[staalmannen]

Just like I believe that we will get cybernetically enhanced I also think genetic modifications will happen. In the beginning probably just modifications of somatic cells like in gene therapy. For example, they have already demonstrated that green-red color blindness in male macaques can be cured by gene therapy. Bevause of this it is likely that the same technique could be used on adult humans to get the UV vision of birds. When this is common the next logical step is germline modifications... I think this future is far more likely than yhe molecular marker assisted selection of complex traits suggested in this article. Especially brcause you might loose a lot good with the bad if you start selecting on complex traits.

Ummm... no...

[WillyWanker]

And what if by "curing" their alcoholism via genetic engineering you turn them into a raging psychopath? This is eugenics, plain and simple, and anyone who thinks it's a good idea really needs to be genetically modified to raise their IQ above 10.

Re:-"Julian Savulescu"

[reboot246]

I'd go one step further. Let's identify and hunt down people like Julian Savulescu, and imprison them now. They're the defective ones. Sterilize them before they have the chance to reproduce.

And, for God's sake, never let them attain any leadership roles. Never vote for anyone who spouts such vile things. Don't let them teach. Run them out of your neighborhoods. Julian Savulescu should lose his job and be hounded out of the country. We don't want or need evil people like him.

Two words.

[Jayemji]

Unintended. Consequences.

This is never news

[rebelwarlock]

Can we stop pretending that "a guy said something" is news? Who cares if some shmuck has an opinion? It might as well be me saying the same thing, or the opposite, for all it matters.

Re:This is never news

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because this guy is a professor at one of the top and oldest universities in the world, meanwhile you're just a userID on the insignificant cesspool that is Slashdot.

Re:This is never news

[rgbrenner]

Any mention of this guy deserves a footnote.

He's also in favor of:

performance enhancing drugs in sport, genetic screening, early abortion, late-term abortion, sex-selective abortion, embryonic stem cell research, hybrid embryos, saviour siblings, therapeutic cloning, reproductive cloning, genetic engineering of children for higher IQs, eugenics, and organ markets.

Far from being sophisticated and profound, all of Savulescu’s arguments run on the same rails. Why shouldn’t we do transgressive action X? he demands. X hurts no one. X is an expression of autonomy. X is my right. Do you object that X is against human nature? No such thing, buddy. Therefore, X is ethical. Let us, then, be courageously transgressive.

Now, if Professor Savulescu were a mere philosopher, rather than an Oxford Bioethicist, he would be laughed offstage. To paraphrase George Orwell, some ideas are so stupid that only a bioethicist could promote them.

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/time_to_throw_in_the_towel/

He also found time to defend an article he edited advocating "after-birth abortions":

What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.

        What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/28/journal-defends-its-publication-of-an-article-advocating-after-birth-abortion/

Yes... those damn liberal values that prevent a reasoned discussion on infanticide.

Re:This is never news

[0xdeadbeef]

An infant is less aware of its own existence than a dog. We put down stray dogs routinely.

Don't confuse your irrational sentimentality with reason.

Re:This is never news

[rgbrenner]

There's such a thing as morals-- the collective judgement of society that has decided if something is right or wrong.

Infanticide is immoral. We do not need a discussion on it's advantages.

Suggesting that there should be a reasoned discussion of it is bullshit. In the same way that have a reasoned discussion on the advantages of slavery is bullshit.

And your argument--that an infant is equivalent to a stray dog--is also bullshit.

Re:This is never news

[Urthas]

"An infant is less aware of its own existence than a dog."

Proof?

"We put down stray dogs routinely."

Disagree. I worked in a veterinary hospital for several years, which entails a fair bit of communication with animal control. Stray dogs are not "routinely" put down. They are put down only after exhausting all efforts to locate the owner, and even then they are more likely to be sent to an animal shelter.

"Don't confuse your irrational sentimentality with reason."

I will stop confusing irrational sentimentality that frowns on infanticide with reason, when you and your ilk can show me what reason is.

Re:This is never news

[0xdeadbeef]

You've provided an astonishingly good example of fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.

Of course, the dim moralizing mob has always been that way. Which is why we resolve disputes with them with violence. Morality may be a popular vote, but the side that wins invariably has the most guns.

Those who want the genetic engineering of human beings will certainly be capable of delivering violence to you, should you decide to interfere. The question you have to ask yourself is, are there more fanatic moralizers than people who want better lives for their children?

Re:This is never news

[0xdeadbeef]

Proof?

No, you provide contradictory evidence. My assertion is easily debunkable, presuming it were false.

According to the Humane Society, for every animal adopted, an animal is euthanized. Are you trying to redefine the word "routine"?

Re:This is never news

[martin-boundary]

In other words, argument from authority.

Re:This is never news

[eugene ts wong]

Irrational liberals? Don't you mean irrantional conservatives?

Re:This is never news

[Macgrrl]

And yet we have societies in the present day who routinely practice infanticide against female infants because it is culturally more appealing to have a male child.

Morality is a cultural construct. Rational discussion about why something may or may not be moral is not in and of itself a bad thing, if only to reinforce why a particular decision should be considered good or bad.

Absolutes is how the US has got itself into the position where you have pro-life advocates looking to make hormonal birth control illegal as a form of abortion.

Not genetic engineering

[Hatta]

Screening out harmful genes is not genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is splicing, or mutating genes. What he is talking about is just a selection process.

Does anyone really think it's a bad idea to screen out the gene for Huntingtons? There's absolutely no reason any child today has to be born with Huntingtons, an incredibly miserable way to die as a chile. I'd say that screening for Huntingtons is such a serious moral obligation, that failing to do so should be criminal.

If that's OK, it's just a discussion of how much selection we should be doing, not whether we do it. Actual genetic engineering is a whole different story.

Re:Not genetic engineering

[misexistentialist]

Probably better if everyone died at 40...

Re:Not genetic engineering

[UnknownSoldier]

> There's absolutely no reason any child today has to be born with Huntingtons,

1. What gives you the right to decide that someone's else life is not important?? Because you assume that they "don't want to exist [in suffering]??" You want to tell that to all the creative people who are mentally unstable?

2. The height of arrogance and ignorance is to ASSUME that because _you_ are personally unable to see at least one positive reason that there are NO good reasons.

To emphasize my point: If you are unable to see at least one positive thing in ALL events, even the ones that humans love to label and judge atrocities or evil, you are being blinded by your emotions and unable to think rationally and separate the long term and short term consequences.

Of course, while I certainly don't wish suffering upon anyone, you are spiritually blind to why such things happen in the *first* place. After you die you will be literally be shown how all things work for the greater good over the long run even if the short term is unbearable. You are completely and totally ignorant of the fact that: People joyfully CHOSE the afflictions BEFORE they were born. It would behoove you to learn WHY instead of your incomplete and flawed human logic instead of dismissing a person's entire life before you have even seen the outcome and results of it.

Of course, knowledge doesn't take the suffering away, but avoiding negative situations will never give other people the chance to be inspired from it. Focus on what we want, not what we don't want.

Re:Not genetic engineering

[Hatta]

After you die you will be literally be shown how all things work for the greater good over the long run even if the short term is unbearable. You are completely and totally ignorant of the fact that: People joyfully CHOSE the afflictions BEFORE they were born.

This is how crazy you have to be to oppose screening for Huntington's.

Re:Not genetic engineering

[strikethree]

Does anyone really think it's a bad idea to screen out the gene for Huntingtons?

This is the start of the slippery slope.

Is it better to be cold blooded and let nature takes it course or is it better to show kindness to the future person and prevent their suffering to begin with?

Tough question. Assuming we answer with the latter option, how much suffering are we willing to prevent? There are plenty of terrible diseases which do not kill outright... should those be selected against? What about in a society of mostly blonde hair blue eyed children? Would your brown hair and brown eyed child suffer terribly?

This is a nasty business and I do not have a clear stance myself. The safest bet is just to be cold blooded and let nature takes its course but being safe means being extinguished on this planet when the Sun goes out of its current profile.

Re:Not genetic engineering

[Anubis IV]

Stop playing the pedant about it being "genetic engineering" or not. It's direct genetic manipulation to remove undesired genes. Apply whatever term you want to that.

And yes, I think it's a bad idea. The more we explore the genetic code, the more we realize how interconnected and interrelated its parts are. Things that seem harmful at first glance are later discovered to confer benefits in other areas. Removing them outright without a better understanding is INCREDIBLY short-sighted. I'll repeat it again since this is important: it's incredibly short-sighted. Culling genes in order to try and eradicate diseases now or in the near future may seem to be beneficial, and it may very well be beneficial in the short-term, but we'll also be losing positive traits, yet we won't realize we what we've lost for decades or centuries.

If there's one thing breeding has shown us that even the lay people can understand, it's that genetic diversity leads to more robustness. You're talking about limiting genetic diversity without fully understanding the consequences therein. You're effectively saying, "We know this cliff face well enough to pick the ideal route, so let's ditch the rope." Thanks, but some of us like keeping the rope intact, even if it is an inconvenience at times.

Re:Not genetic engineering

[Hatta]

Stop playing the pedant about it being "genetic engineering" or not. It's direct genetic manipulation to remove undesired genes. Apply whatever term you want to that.

It's not genetic manipulation. All the sequences involved occur naturally. You apply a similar selection mechanism when you select a mate that is tall or has big boobs. You're selecting against the genes for shortness or flat chests. The only real difference in a genetic screening process is that it uses technology to make traits visible that weren't before.

As for your genetic diversity argument, try asking a huntington's patient about the positive traits their mutant huntintin provides.

Re:Not genetic engineering

[Anubis IV]

You're correct regarding the nature of what's going on, and I apologize. I didn't properly educate myself on the topic before speaking.

Even so, I would point out that an appeal to pity is not a good leg to stand on, and that I still think there are major issues that need to be thought through very carefully. This is one of the roads that can go very, very wrong.

Re:Not genetic engineering

[RespekMyAthorati]

People joyfully CHOSE the afflictions BEFORE they were born.

Uh, WTF are you talking about?

Re:Not genetic engineering

[INowRegretThesePosts]

There's absolutely no reason any child today has to be born with Huntingtons, an incredibly miserable way to die as a chile. I'd say that screening for Huntingtons is such a serious moral obligation, that failing to do so should be criminal.

Totalitarian.

Re:Seriously?

[rgbrenner]

The telegraph is always up to slashdot standards.

slashdot: trolling the tech community since 1997

I love the idea...

[argStyopa]

"I wish that all of mankind would give up it's warlike ways and the Earth would become a society of pacifists. That way, I could take it over with a butter knife."

-Dogbert.

Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[INowRegretThesePosts]

This proposal has horrible intrinsic moral problems. And think about the societal consequences.

Parents with a good moral sense would not engineer their babies.
However, selfish and immoral parents would do it. Thus they could create a strong, intelligent, long-lived baby, who they would raise in an environment of selfishness and immorality.
Rinse and repeat. After a few generations, you have divided society in two classes: one upper, dominating class consisting of strong, intelligent, but selfish and immoral beings (who would no longer be even _humans_), and one lower class consisting of naturals.

This is a freaking dystopia.

The scary part is that this gentleman is editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics! I fear for the future.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[Anonymous Coward]

Morals have an intrinsic problem of definition.

Your morals are not my morals are not my neighbor's morals. The moment you start telling me mine are wrong, is when you should start questioning your own.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Except for the genetic part, how is this different from now?

Except substitute "strong/intelligent" for "rich/lucky/privileged"?

--PM

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Except for the genetic part, how is this different from now?

Except substitute "strong/intelligent" for "rich/lucky/privileged"?

First, not all rich are selfish and immoral. Second, the rich tends to have less children than the poor, which alleviates the positive-feedback process.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Also, there is mobility (some poor become rich and vice-versa), which further alleviates the problem.

Also, the rich are a minority, which, in a democratic country, further alleviates their dominance.

But genetic engineering could be practiced by a majority. So it would be a majority of beings who would be strong, intelligent, and, given time, they would be rich too. So the naturals would be _utterly screwed_. In fact, once the upper class ceases to identify itself as "human", they would probably feel little compassion to us humans; just like we don't feel compassion towards chimpanzees.

Anyway, the selfish-begetting-superbabies problem would _add_ to the rich-begetting-rich problem. Our society can barely resist its existing problems, we shouldn't add another big one.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[roman_mir]

What is a human? Isn't it just a featherless biped with opposable thumbs?

How do you genetically define what a human and a non human is, the people that would be the product of this unnatural selection, would still be products of selection, it's just the selection would be done by the humans themselves. Isn't it the exact opposite of what you are claiming, these people will be more human, because they will be the implementation of desires that humans have for themselves at this moment?

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[INowRegretThesePosts]

What is a human? Isn't it just a featherless biped with opposable thumbs?

How do you genetically define what a human and a non human is, the people that would be the product of this unnatural selection, would still be products of selection, it's just the selection would be done by the humans themselves. Isn't it the exact opposite of what you are claiming, these people will be more human, because they will be the implementation of desires that humans have for themselves at this moment?

This is a philosophical question with no consequences for this debate.
The point is, once the powerful beings are different enough from the naturals, they will probably think of themselves as better than the naturals, just like we normal humans think of us as better than chimps.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[roman_mir]

'Powerful beings', so you are scared that the future humans will be more powerful than the humans of the past, OK, understandable.

Realise that humans of today are much more powerful than humans of 100,000 years ago. We are even genetically somewhat different, what we want to do is to speed up the process, I don't see a problem with people in 100 years being more genetically advanced (whatever that means).

What is your real fear, that there will be 2 or more 'classes' of people? How is that different from any other time in human history?

Hitler didn't need any more advanced humans than the rest to claim that the Aryan race was superior, he just claimed it. People are divided across the ethnic lines today, even within the same nation in India people are divided by cast. This will be nothing new at all and there is no more ethical problem with it in the future than today.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[INowRegretThesePosts]

What is your real fear, that there will be 2 or more 'classes' of people? How is that different from any other time in human history?

This would be much worse than the current rich/poor divide. The rich are a minority; thus, in a democratic society, they have a small share of the votes and this alleviates their dominance. Also, there is mobility: some rich become poor and some poor become rich. And, the rich at least are the same species as us, so they normally feel some compassion.

But if genetic engineering becomes legal and acceptable, I believe a majority of people would do it. Thus, there would be a majority of strong, intelligent and powerful beings. Naturally, they would become rich (due to their advantages). So we would have a majority of strong, intelligent, powerful AND rich beings, against a minority of naturals. I fear we would be treated like animals.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[venicebeach]

You're begging the question.

He's saying that genetic selection is the moral thing to do. In your argument against this, you cannot assume from the start that selection is immoral. "Parents with good moral sense would not engineer their babies" is exactly wrong if this guy is right.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[Outlander Engine]

Bah. I was logged out for some reason... That's me.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[dywolf]

My morals arent your morals? Wanna bet?

Easy example: The most 2 common and important societal mores are:
-Don't Kill
-Don't Steal

The only reason organized society works is because we get together and write laws the reflect the largely or commonly held societal mores.

I'll bet ten bucks though you're one of those who gets confused between "morals" and "religion" and think they're the same interchangable thing.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[roman_mir]

I believe a majority of people would do it. Thus, there would be a majority of strong, intelligent and powerful beings

- well good, let's hope so.

Let us hope that majority of people will actually be able to use this to become strong, intelligent and powerful and rich.

I disagree with the assertion that the majority of the strong, intelligent, powerful and rich will be somehow against the minority of naturals.

Let's hope that more people are intelligent, that more people are rich, it actually is a very good outcome, if THIS is what it takes, then the dream of beating poverty is going to be realised.

Having a majority of intelligent people? We should be so lucky.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Your dystopia only exists in science FICTION novels. Try to remember that.

Because, to this day, human genetic engineering has been either unavailable, illegal or not viable.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[Outlander Engine]

Your dystopia only exists in science FICTION novels. Try to remember that.

Because, to this day, human genetic engineering has been either unavailable, illegal or not viable.

Hardly.
We already screen for many of these diseases and abort when they appear. A very primitive method, but it works.

Also, because we are fairly intelligent, we can think about the possible bad things that might happen and plan to either avoid or mitigate them. For instance, selecting for selfishness would quickly lead to dystopia. Ergo, we would go out of our way to avoid that. Because a society of sociopaths wouldn't function. Google game theory, joker effect and sociopaths.

And finally, I realize that the article is talking about removal of genetic disposition for behaviors, not genetic defects. That's a much squishier argument, and I'm avoiding it at the moment for the sake of simplicity. Mostly because you started with the generic premise that ANY genetic engineering is wrong.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[blindax]

So I have no good moral. Nice to know.

In my life I have gone through knee surgery (because of defective design, not a trauma), through eye laser surgery, I have a small but annoying defect to both my feet and there are chances I'll develop colon cancer in the future (it has a genetic base, my mother died because of that one month ago).

Plus I'm bald (and even if the British Journal of Medicine say it's not an illness it's not definitely a nice "feature") and just 1.72m in a country where the medium height for a male it's 1.74m.

If I could avoid this kind of problems to my offsprings (first the serious ones and then the less serious ones) you can be assured I would do it.

For a simple reason. My son/daughter will be the most important person to me and I'll try to do my best for him/her.

If this makes me a "selfish and immoral parent" i have a news for you: You are a moron.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[c0lo]

This proposal has horrible intrinsic moral problems. And think about the societal consequences.

I always thought the character is called Volescu, not Savulescu.

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[martin-boundary]

Technically, they are selfish because they accumulate wealth without spending it or expecting to spend it ("duh").

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[alexo]

After a few generations, you have divided society in two classes: one upper, dominating class consisting of strong, intelligent, but selfish and immoral beings (who would no longer be even _humans_), and one lower class consisting of naturals.

Genetic engineering notwithstanding, how exactly is it different from what we have today?

Re:Absolutely awful. Immoral and catastrophic

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Genetic engineering notwithstanding, how exactly is it different from what we have today?

The rich may be powerful, but they are a small minority. So, in a democratic society, they cannot completely dominate the lower class. In fact, in the USA rich people pay much more taxes (in absolute numbers), while getting less benefit.

In the scenario I described, the powerful beings (who would not even be human) would probably be a majority. So the upper class would be smarter, wealthier and more numerous than the underclass. Nightmare.

We would be selecting for selfishness

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I'm more concerned that the individuals who will be able to afford this genetic engineering will be the last people we want to become supermen. I don't have that much faith in our economic elite.

It is even worse that that. We would be selecting for selfishness. See

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551

This would be an unprecedented dystopia.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[Anonymous Coward]

It is even worse that that. We would be selecting for selfishness.

You think we're not already doing that?

If you don't believe me, just try driving ANYWHERE for more than about ten minutes. You'll run into some selfish fuck. Or get a job in retail and you'll be surrounded by people who want to use you without the slightest common courtesy. You're just furniture to them.

Really how'd you notice? The dystopia is here. It's called anti-intellectualism. It prevents people from having even an enlightened self-interest. If they were a bit smarter they'd realize that they too benefit from not being completely selfish. But that would mean a few seconds of thought and .. ooh shiny american idol!

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[INowRegretThesePosts]

You provided evidence that selfish people exists.
That does not change my point: genetic engineering would immensely intensify it and would create an upper class of strong, intelligent and selfish beings (who would not even be human). Naturals would be totally screwed.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[ScentCone]

You are being selfish, not wanting other people to be less likely than you to suffer from mental illness, premature death from failing organs, etc. The word "selfish" presents all sorts of opportunities for irony, and you just landed some.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[INowRegretThesePosts]

You are being selfish, not wanting other people to be less likely than you to suffer from mental illness, premature death from failing organs, etc. The word "selfish" presents all sorts of opportunities for irony, and you just landed some.

Since it doesn't affect me (when/if human-engineering starts to have a big effect on society, I will be already old or even dead), worrying about it is not selfishness. I am actually worrying about other people, and society; I don't want an upper class of strong, intelligent, long-lived powerful beings (who would not necessarily even self-identify as humans) to utterly dominate a lower class of naturals.

Second, human-engineering violates human dignity; far from being a right, it is the opposite of it. It should be forbidden even if it didn't have catastrophic societal consequences.

Besides, why on Earth do you think that parents would restrict themselves to weed out bad traits? We would have people doing all sorts of things; some would engineer babies to make them obedient and docile (so raising them is less stressful), for example.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[poly_pusher]

It's not that it would but that it could. We just don't know. If we want to come closer to knowing then we have to be very careful about the broad statements we make. Certainty when hypothesizing about the results of genetic engineering is absurd.

There are many things to be concerned about. What you have expressed is one of those concerns. There are also worries that we don't know enough yet about genetic selection to start tinkering on humans. For instance, what if shutting off one trait ends up turning on another in a way we don't yet understand? The foxes that were bred for a good disposition is an example. As these foxes were bred for their personality traits, their physical traits seemed to change as well. Their snouts became longer and they looked more dog-like. I found that fascinating because at least superficially it seemed that coaxing specific traits to become more dominant can result in other unexpected changes elsewhere.

I don't think genetic engineering on humans should be excluded as a possibility for the future, however we need to take a slow and cautious route getting there.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[Zagnar]

I might mention one thing you're missing, the price of new technologies often decreases sharply. We may have a generation of wealthy uber-babies but with them leading the way as early adopters, the next generation could be quite a bit more pleasant for everyone. Now, tell me truthfully that you don't want a generation of wealthy that lacks sociopathy and mental illness. Imagine the good that could be done (Or rather, the bad that wouldn't be done.)

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[flaming error]

How is it selfish to want others to be better off?

I think selfishness would be to wish oneself were better off than others.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[macs4all]

I might mention one thing you're missing, the price of new technologies often decreases sharply. We may have a generation of wealthy uber-babies but with them leading the way as early adopters, the next generation could be quite a bit more pleasant for everyone.

Now, tell me truthfully that you don't want a generation of wealthy that lacks sociopathy and mental illness. Imagine the good that could be done (Or rather, the bad that wouldn't be done.)

The REAL problem is that we are contemplating this about a hundred or so years too soon. Check back when we really HAVE decoded human DNA; which is not today. Right now. we are NOWHERE close to that; but we're already talking about not only screwing with the genetically-modified-humans (GMH) lives, but, by releasing these GHM into the population (where they will more than likely breed), we can have VERY unintended consequences that affect the entire species.

And, oh yes: As soon as a company gets a PATENT on a particular DNA modification, what happens with the poor, didn't-ask-for-it-anyway GMH when he/she WANTS to breed? Do we suddenly have the equivalent of the Monsanto Soybean lawsuits, ENJOINING the GMH from "violating Patents" by actually HAVING CHILDREN?!?

Think it won't happen? Think again.

Nope. This is NOT the Star Trek universe. And, if you will remember, THEY didn't even allow this level of genetic manipulation, even though they obviously COULD. There's a lesson to be learned from that.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[PopeRatzo]

I might mention one thing you're missing, the price of new technologies often decreases sharply.

Strangely, it doesn't seem to work that way so much in the bio-sciences.

For some reason, the same mechanisms that have brought the price of consumable technology for entertainment and for consumption way down do not seem to be working so well for medicines, life-saving treatments, etc.

Intellectual property is the ultimate weapon of the 1%.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[ScentCone]

How is it selfish to want others to be better off?

You've got it backwards. He thinks it's selfish to want to use science to make sure your baby is genetically healthy. I say he's an ass hat for saying that other people should just take the chances they get and lump it if they don't have to.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[TFAFalcon]

Exactly what dignity do you see in a child dying from a genetic disease? Or do you make a distinction between filtering for lethal and non-lethal conditions? And if non-lethal conditions can be fixed, why not other disadvantages?

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Exactly what dignity do you see in a child dying from a genetic disease?

Life.

If I was born with a genetic disease, my life would still be better than death.

And even if I did believe in the morality of euthanasia (which I don't), I would still thank my parents for allowing me to reach the age of reason and then decide for myself.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[epyT-R]

There's also 'over-intellectualism.' This is where people of like mind get into groups and mentally masturbate each other.. These days, they congregate in ivy league universities. Here, they have intellectual orgies that birth philosophies and ideologies so far removed from reality and human limitations that they cause nothing but suffering. The top of the ivory tower is just as nuts as the smallest backwater baptist church. Look at the 20th century for recent examples.. Most of them are NOT right wing.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[tqk]

I don't want an upper class of strong, intelligent, long-lived powerful beings (who would not necessarily even self-identify as humans) to utterly dominate a lower class of naturals.

I don't think your objections hold much weight. First, strength, intelligence, and longevity don't appear to be necessary. Inept but politically entrenched and legally coddled is all that's necessary for the 1%ers to dominate now. The Nazis were heavily into eugenics and all it bought them was a false sense of importance and overbearing arrogance.

Even fiction should point you to the same conclusion. Think of the Botany Bay episode from ST:TOS. Those "supermen" barely managed to get off Earth by the skin of their teeth, they were so hated by "naturals." For all their enhancements, they weren't better; they were worse.

Second, human-engineering violates human dignity

I don't even know what that means. I do think if we could engineer immunity to cancer, malaria, ... that would be a good thing. Dying at three in a weeping mother's arms due to a bug bite is hardly dignified, especially if we could have done something to prevent it.

Besides, why on Earth do you think that parents would restrict themselves to weed out bad traits?

I don't. I suspect lots of idiots would engineer their kids to be better suited to American Idol, or to have polkadot hair. Good! Evolution in action just like before, but now easier to tell the morons from the normals.

The ones who should be worried about this are people like Major League Baseball and the IOC. MLB just suspended Melky Cabrera for being doped up on testosterone. What are they going to do when The X-Men show up?

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[TFAFalcon]

But we're not talking about killing off children that are 'inferior'. We're talking about altering the genes of a single individual. Why is that considered 'undignified'?

However, if we do consider your scenario, where the choice is life or death for the fetus, even then I can see conditions where death would be preferable, even from the point of view of the fetus itself. Imagine a disease that would cause unending extreme pain and at the same time have no cure, with death taking a few days or weeks. The child would not even be able to commit suicide or ask for anyone to kill it. And what if the condition just caused pain, but was not even fatal? Would it be moral to force the child to live until the 'age of reason'?

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[0111 1110]

You think there's a lesson to be learned from fiction? It's fiction. It doesn't demonstrate anything.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[macs4all]

You think there's a lesson to be learned from fiction? It's fiction. It doesn't demonstrate anything.

No, but it can observe and comment. In fact, that's really what Science Fiction is all about.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[Skal Tura]

Really how'd you notice? The dystopia is here. It's called anti-intellectualism. It prevents people from having even an enlightened self-interest. If they were a bit smarter they'd realize that they too benefit from not being completely selfish. But that would mean a few seconds of thought and .. ooh shiny american idol!

You mean they would benefit from not being complete a**holes :)

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[Skal Tura]

What are they going to do when The X-Men show up?

Some "super" athletes already are superhuman, there is people living today who are Superhuman, such as:
- Super flexible
- Extreme threshold for pain (still feels, but no such reaction to pain)
- Those who can control their surface temperature exchange, useful in extreme temperatures, ie. Sauna and swimming in ice cold water
- Those who can control rate of oxygen consumption AND how much they can extract oxygen from air AND don't have as strong Co2 reaction
- Extreme tolerance to electric shocks (tens of times higher than what would kill average joe)
- Superior mathematical ability
- Echolocation like in daredevil
- Extreme strength
- Extreme endurance

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[LiquidAvatar]

Parents with a good moral sense would not engineer their babies.
However, selfish and immoral parents would do it. Thus they could create a strong, intelligent, long-lived baby, who they would raise in an environment of selfishness and immorality.
Rinse and repeat. After a few generations, you have divided society in two classes: one upper, dominating class consisting of strong, intelligent, but selfish and immoral beings (who would no longer be even _humans_), and one lower class consisting of naturals.

I've quoted your original post that you linked here. Yours is a circular argument. Moral people would avoid eugenics, therefore immoral people would benefit from eugenics, therefore eugenics empowers the immoral people and is therefore an immoral technology. Let's walk through your causal process with a slightly different (and I think more reasonable) first assumption:

Parents with a Luddite sense would not engineer their babies.
However, progressive parents would do it. Thus they could create a strong, intelligent, long-lived baby, who they would raise in an environment of forward-thinking and problem solving.
Rinse and repeat. After a few generations, two of society's existing classes move further apart; those who fear change/technology continue to live on in isolated communities according to their old ways and those who embrace technology, which is mankind's greatest evolutionary advantage, live longer, healthier lives.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I've quoted your original post that you linked here. Yours is a circular argument. Moral people would avoid eugenics, therefore immoral people would benefit from eugenics, therefore eugenics empowers the immoral people and is therefore an immoral technology. Let's walk through your causal process with a slightly different (and I think more reasonable) first assumption:

Actually, I said that selective killing embryos is evil in itself. Humans are not just objects.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I don't think your objections hold much weight. First, strength, intelligence, and longevity don't appear to be necessary.

It is not about being "necessary", it is about "increases the chance of".
Being strong, tall, beautiful and intelligent increases the chance of financial success.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[INowRegretThesePosts]

It would be an unprecedented dystopia for all the naturals, until they died out. The selfish superhumans would, however, be right at home, and humanity might progress faster since everyone might be smarter. What about selecting for people with genetic traits that make them good at working together with other people?

The naturals will not die out. There will always be a percentage of people who refuse to treat their babies as objects.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[Macgrrl]

You are making a bit of an assumption thinking that the wealthy would consider sociopathy to be a negative trait, when it's very often that very trait which led them to be wealthy (or continue to be wealthy) in the first place.

And who gets to decide what is a mental illness? Does my mild OCD count? It's part of what makes me a good analyst, being able to spot inconsistencies. How about homosexuality, or transgender people? Their lives can be pretty miserable at times dealing with the stigma - lets magic that away so they don't need to suffer being abnormal.

That sound a bit too far? There are prominent people in the US Religious Right currently advocating killing gays, do you think they would consider it a better option that they never be born?

I recall a book from the early nineties (can't recall the name off the top of my head), where the basic storyline was about a Melanges inspired doctor who was performing eugenics experiments genetically altering black women to give birth to blue eyes, blonde haired, white skinned Aryan babies. Most of the story was set in South Africa.

Frankly it may require genetic engineering to breed a population that would be responsible enough to be safe with this kind of technology. The human race as it currently stands at the start of the 21st Century certainly doesn't qualify.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[tqk]

I don't think your objections hold much weight. First, strength, intelligence, and longevity don't appear to be necessary.

Being strong, tall, beautiful and intelligent increases the chance of financial success.

Really? I thought all it took was rich, indulgent parents. Perhaps we're quibbling about the differences between merely "fabulously wealthy", and honest to gawd "rich."

Steve Wozniak wouldn't worry much if I don't consider him strong, tall, and beautiful, I don't think. He was smart and driven by his vision, which was enough to be successful in his own right.

I think Bill Gates is ugly (sorry Bill :-) inside and outside, but that didn't appear to slow him down in any way.

These "qualities" we quarrel over are very subjective. Without Woz, Jobs would have been nothing. Without Jobs, I think Woz still would've been something, though perhaps not what Woz+Jobs became.

Me, I prefer Linus and Ian Murdock and friends. :-)

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[Chrontius]

The lesson is there, it's just about Gene Roddenberry's sensibilities.

Re:We would be selecting for selfishness

[Chrontius]

Selective breeding also frequently results in inbreeding. This may just be an example of genetic drift in a small population undergoing a bottleneck effect, or the traits may in fact be linked genes.

Correlation != causality, kids!

Very shirt sighted

[gay358]

That would be very short sighted with the current level of knowledge. Even when we know something about the function of some gene variant, we typically don't understand well the interaction with other genes and their variants.

With some exceptions, many known disease causing gene variants only make the risk of getting disease higher, but there is no guarantee that you will ever get the disease. Other genes (with their variants) and environmental factors play large role in all except the simplest disease genes.

And it is worth to remember that often a gene variant that has some negative effects, has also some positive effects as well. Otherwise evolution would probably have removed that variant long time ago.

I think that dog breeding that has caused very unhealthy breeds and plant monocultures like banana, which is causing extinction of variants that lack diversity to resist diseases, have shown examples of what may be ahead of human race if get carried away with short sighted breeding ideas.

Gattica

[Scarred Intellect]

We're already heading towards 1984, now it seems like we're heading towards Gattaca , great!

Re:Gattica

[GameboyRMH]

GATTACA was rated the most realistic sci-fi movie by NASA. Sleep tight everyone.

A flaw today may be a requirement tomorrow

[hythlodayr]

Psychopathy and other behavior "problems" (binge eating also comes to mind) may have been survival traits during our hunter-gatherer times; these behaviors only become problems in the context of a civilized life. If civilization only goes back to 10k years to our 200k year history--which apparently included a number of ice ages--and given how fragile our civilization is today, I'm not ready to agree we have a moral obligation to start modifying and engineering behavior. Quite the contrary, I personally believe we have an obligation to let things run their course even if it's cruel to individuals 99 out of 100 times. Note that on a practical level and as a parent, my feelings and beliefs are just the opposite!

Combination of cluelessness with logical fallacy

[pesho]

This guy is perfectly in line with the most stupid aruments in support of eugenics:

1. He takes one simple genetic disorder (Down syndrome) and uses it to extrapolate to all posible "disorders" that potentially have a genetic component. This is such a basic logical fallacy that he should be stripped from his professor of phylosophy title.

2. He assumes, contrary to established facts, that genetic mutations are either "good" or "bad". In fact the phenotype of genetic variations strongly depends on the environment and mutations that are manifested as bad in one context may be good in another. For example mutations that give you sickle cell anemia will also protect you from malaria.

3. His approach will eliminate genetic diversity within the population that applies it. Elimination of genetic diversity is one of the best ways to kill off a population.

Don't be so naive

[Zero__Kelvin]

"This topic isn't even about the rich, it's specifically about a potential era where these technologies may become affordable enough to apply on a massive scale."

Every topic about any subject with potential for abuse is about the rich (though not solely so, of course.) The rich are the people in power. Those with power decide how any technology will be used. Everything is a double-edged sword, and the question "How will those who hold the largest double-edged swords use them?" is always entirely valid. Indeed, it must be asked.

I hope this helps you understand why "we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe", which is - of course - a complete mischaracterization of the nature of the discussion.

Re:Don't be so naive

[ScentCone]

a complete mischaracterization of the nature of the discussion

Other than the part where he's exactly right. This is a prevalent, recurring theme throughout many /. threads, and the tone of such posts is almost always irrational, whiney, or worse. The GP is very observant. Not that you'd have to be to spot that trend.

Re:Don't be so naive

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Other than the part where he's exactly right. "

You don't seem to understand the term "anti-rich". You are confusing it with "anti-abuse-of-power". Nobody is faulting anyone for being rich. They are faulting the powerful for abusing their power.

"The GP is very observant"

So observant that he cannot distinguish between "anti-wealth" and "anti-abuse-of-power" ;-)

Re:Don't be so naive

[BeanThere]

The rich are the people in power.

Really? Is Jim Carrey "in power"? Is Stephen King "in power"? Is Michael Jordan "in power"? Is Mariah Carey 'in power"? Is Justin Bieber "in power"? These are really the people that scare you?

Re:Don't be so naive

[jd2112]

The rich are the people in power.

Really? Is Jim Carrey "in power"? Is Stephen King "in power"? Is Michael Jordan "in power"? Is Mariah Carey 'in power"? Is Justin Bieber "in power"? These are really the people that scare you?

Those are the 1%ers, most of which aren't much of a problem. The 0.1%ers are much more troublesome. There you will find the megabank and megacorp CxOs that are mucking up everything for everyone else.

Re:Don't be so naive

[Zero__Kelvin]

You just made my point without realizing it. The posts here aren't anti-Jim Carrey. They are Anti-Abuse-of-Power. That being said, Jim Carrey has a great deal of power, because he is rich. The fact that he doesn't abuse it further proves my point. Thanks for playing, though.

Re:Don't be so naive

[JackieBrown]

You just made my point without realizing it. The posts here aren't anti-Jim Carrey. They are Anti-Abuse-of-Power. That being said, Jim Carrey has a great deal of power, because he is rich. The fact that he doesn't abuse it further proves my point. Thanks for playing, though.

This whole discussion could have been avoided if the original poster would have wrote "Who enforces that line for the powerful."

He didn't so BeanThere comment was appropriate.

Re:Don't be so naive

[Requiem18th]

If you don't have to very observant to spot that trend it doesn't follow then that the GP is very observant, unless you know this for external reasons.

That aside, whenever something can be abused it will be abused and it's only natural to ask how every new technology will be abused. That you find it "irrational, whiney, or worse" is your personal opinion.

Re:Don't be so naive

[MacGyver2210]

How about this, since you clearly didn't understand the valid and eloquent way Zero_Kelvin explained it.

"A large portion of the world is run by the super-rich, and these super-rich get to decide the future of genetic manipulation(as well as many Slashdot-relevant topics). As this is a discussion of genetic manipulation, the discussion of the super-rich who make these related decisions for the rest of us is very relevant. You should not be so naive as to think that it is merely political spam instead of informed, salient discussion based solely on the topic of rich people."

Re:Don't be so naive

[BeanThere]

So why do people like Zero__Kelvin blather on about "the rich", instead of, specifically, megabank CxO's that are mucking everything up? Are they incapable of identifying correctly who is actually committing crimes and causing problems?

Re:Don't be so naive

[BeanThere]

No, I didn't, and you just made my point without realizing it. The posts here are not "anti-abuse-of-power", they are anti-RICH --- don't lie about what you said now. I understand if you want to backtrack (you should backtrack, because you were wrong), but at least own up to your mistake. This is what you wrote: "Every topic about any subject with potential for abuse is about the rich (though not solely so, of course.) The rich are the people in power. ... I hope this helps you understand why "we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"". Now will you stop blathering about "the rich", and talk instead about people who ACTUALLY 'abuse power'?

And I'd love to know what great powers Jim Carrey and Justin Bieber have. Can they hold people in indefinite detention without due process? Can they rob your house and legally get away with it? Can they amass private armies and invade other countries? Can they legally murder you? Can they legally rape women? Do tell what great powers they have that you are so afraid of them.

Re:Don't be so naive

[Zero__Kelvin]

Show me one anti-rich post or STFU. I am sure I won't be hearing from you again, unless of course you like looking stupid..

Re:Don't be so naive

[BeanThere]

Yours, for starts, where you said, and I quote again: I hope this helps you understand why "we turn any slashdot topic into an anti-rich diatribe"

Now you're just trying to throw nonsense out there hoping people don't see what you wrote.

The simple reality is that you have been unable to meaningfully articulate the subject of your venom. It started with the "rich", then it more correctly morphed into "those who abuse power". That's fine - that's progress in the development of your moral understanding.

Re:Don't be so naive

[BeanThere]

Could you answer the question also please about what great powers Jim Carrey and Justin Bieber have?

Re:Don't be so naive

[Qzukk]

The hilarious part will be once it's discovered that Monsanto-brand children have terminator genes and cannot breed.

Re:Don't be so naive

[Zero__Kelvin]

Of course not, since your statement supports my point. Why would I try to counter my own point?

Re:Don't be so naive

[digsbo]

Maybe not incapable, but unwilling to admit they want the same power. You will not see many OWS protestors calling for an end to deficit spending, money printing, and central banking, because they think everything will be just fine if they throw out the Rothschilds and Rockefellers who currently run things and take over the central planning themselves. No clue that they are just tyrant wannabees.

Re:Don't be so naive

[digsbo]

Jim Carrey can keep large numbers of people from laughing. Bieber, well, I think he has some mystical power over young women. But that's not something I know much about.

Re:Don't be so naive

[ScentCone]

Nobody is faulting anyone for being rich.

No, that's exactly wrong. The point he made, and which I'm trying to reinforce, is that many posts here are marked by a reflexive, sweeping, venomous animosity that drips with loathing for anybody that runs a business (especially one that employs people, to say nothing of one that is actually successful). There is no topic here that doesn't find its way around some means by which to spout vitriol about anyone that makes one penny more a year than the person doing the bitching. If you don't see this, you're deliberately ignoring it.

Re:Don't be so naive

[Zero__Kelvin]

Show me some examples, and maybe I'll agree with you.

Re:Don't be so naive

[shaitand]

Semantics, the wealthier you are the more power you wield. The difference between the top 1% and the top .01% simply follows from this principle. Does Jim Carry have "the power"? He's got more of it than me. I can get ignored for protesting in a park and getting tossed out by police. Jim Carry can bankroll lobby movements, bribe politicians, take advantage of the system set up by his fellow rich by sinking all his excess wealth (something only the rich have) in "corporations" and growing it and shifting it around. So long as he can grow his wealth at a rate that produces more each year than he actually needs to support his lifestyle he can avoid taxation on that difference in perpetuity. He can use his wealth and popularity to harness media time and spread propaganda among the bulk population directly as well.

Does Jim Carry have more power than a penniless single mother on food stamps. Yes. Does he have more power than anyone in the middle class? Yes.

Re:Don't be so naive

[Zero__Kelvin]

Not exactly. They simply don't know what they are ranting about ;-)

Re:Don't be so naive

[Macgrrl]

All the people you mentioned have more power than I do. They exercise this power in the pursuit of more money on a regular basis through the negotiation of sponsorship contract (using their power with the general public to sway purchasing decisions) or through the sponsorship of politicians (Hollywood is seen as an attractive target for lobbyists as well).

While they may not have the power of a Rothschild or a Bill Gates, it's naive to imply they don't have greater power than most.

Not all people with power abuse it. But some do.

Do you really think that a someone who changes their body with extreme cosmetic surgery (which often requires a minimum of wealth to achieve) wouldn't manipulate their child genetically to better fit their vision of what the child should be like beyond simply removing life-threatening traits?

Re:Don't be so naive

[hoggoth]

Its not a trend on Slashdot. Its a trend in the world. There is a growing problem with the ultra-rich gaining more power and wealth and the rest of the world getting less and less.

Re:Don't be so naive

[avandesande]

This reminds me of the Chris Rock's distinction between being rich and wealthy. The guy playing football on a million dollar contract is rich. The guy that owns the team is wealthy.....

Re:Tinfoil hat

[GrantRobertson]

Just because war does not actually help the economy does not mean that wars have not been waged on the mistaken presumption that they would help the economy. Besides, even when those waging the war claim it is to help the economy, they neglect to mention that they only mean a small subset of the economy consisting of rich people they know.

two points:

[buddyglass]

1. Unfortunately, I suspect there's a positive correlation between many "negative" personality traits and beneficial outcomes. Many creative types suffer mental illness. Aggression can lead to competitiveness which can lead to achievement. Higher rate of autism among gifted kids. Etc.
2. So far as I can tell he's not actually proposing "engineering" or "designing" babies; he proposes terminating in utero all the ones that don't meet his criteria. Some folks see a difference between the the one and the other.

Sickle cell anemia

[Dr. Manhattan]

Get two copies of the gene, get anemia. Get one copy, get increased resistance to malaria.

What makes anyone think we can actually identify all the interrelated effects of any gene - especially ones that affect the brain?

Re:Sickle cell anemia

[SuricouRaven]

First, perfect treatment and preventative measures for malaria. Then commence elimination of the gene via selection. Problem solved.

Lies.

[doug141]

The position of CEO selects FOR psychopathy. "Bad" traits like lack of empathy, lying and cheating are really just those traits that benefit the individual over society. "Good" traits are the traits that benefit the group. This guy isn't doing it for the individual children. He wants to be protected from your individual children. He's doing it for him.

The Logic it burns the eyes!

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Validating the morality of future actions based on the morality of current ones does not always lead to good choices. And therefore, shouldn't be used as a valid argument for a particular corse of action.

Per example:

I've already killed 5/6 witnesses to my jay-walking, so I should probably kill the sixth.
We already prohibit gays from marriage in this state. Shouldn't we also prevent them from living together?

Oh please

[INowRegretThesePosts]

by choosing a mate which we like. Good looks and a compatible character are the biggest factors in choosing a partner with which to reproduce. Consequently, we try to increase these desired traits in our offspring.
The question is only when we start to be open about it and try to influence the genetic composition of our kids more directly,

Choosing a spouse is very different from genetically engineering a baby. One of the differences is that genetic engineering is far faster and more radical, not leaving time for society to adjust. It could create a race of intelligent and strong (but not necessarily moral) beings in a few generations. See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551

Re:Oh please

[Aviation Pete]

by choosing a mate which we like. Good looks and a compatible character are the biggest factors in choosing a partner with which to reproduce. Consequently, we try to increase these desired traits in our offspring. The question is only when we start to be open about it and try to influence the genetic composition of our kids more directly,

Choosing a spouse is very different from genetically engineering a baby. One of the differences is that genetic engineering is far faster and more radical, not leaving time for society to adjust. It could create a race of intelligent and strong (but not necessarily moral) beings in a few generations. See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551

In true Slashdot fashion, you have not read the article and now think you know it all. But it is not about genetic engineering, it is about avoiding known and harmful genetic variations. And that is *exactly* what we do and why we are so picky about our partners. Please do yourself a favor and read up on evolutional psychology.

Who knows - by actually reading the article and some comprehension of the subject, you may in future write a comment which actually enhances the discussion?

Re:Oh please

[INowRegretThesePosts]

In true Slashdot fashion, you have not read the article and now think you know it all. But it is not about genetic engineering, it is about avoiding known and harmful genetic variations. And that is *exactly* what we do and why we are so picky about our partners. Please do yourself a favor and read up on evolutional psychology.

Who knows - by actually reading the article and some comprehension of the subject, you may in future write a comment which actually enhances the discussio

I had already read the article. The article does not restrict the idea to removing severe diseases, but includes the possibility of selecting in wanted characteristics.

Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

[EmagGeek]

We cannot allow the genetic modification of people to screen out "undesirable" traits, because guess who will ultimately get to decide what are undesirable traits? Why, the government, of course.

Re:Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

[Stirling Newberry]

Or corporations. How would you like your medical premiums to go up if you do not agree to "screen and terminate?

Ethicist says:

[cyp43r]

"We should always ask how genetic engineering should go wrong." It's like calling someone out for going on an anti-gun nut diatribe after a bunch of nuts up and kill a heap of people. Who else is in a position to potentially abuse new technology? Minorities? Non-wealthy individuals? When we start to have people blaming the rich for peeing in dank city alleys, then you can start on that.

Still evil

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Does anyone really think it's a bad idea to screen out the gene for Huntingtons?

Me. Human rights (including the right to life) are unalienable.

Re:Still evil

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Let's posit a disease which is virtually guaranteed to cause death within a couple of years. Oh, and it is very painful. And no known painkillers have much of an effect. And while we're at it, let's add in a severe risk to the mother if the baby is carried to term. Plus, we'll introduce a simple screening test that'll detect the disease in the first weeks of pregnancy.

Treat whatever disease the woman has that makes the pregnancy risky. One solution of last resort would be to induce early labor, with all care to maximize the baby's chance of survival.

And this is a rhetoric question anyway, because these things are _extremely_ rare.

Re:Still evil

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I left out a clause that makes my hypothetical a bit unclear, but the baby is the one with the two-year, terminal disease. Would your answer still apply in that case?

You said that the pregnancy was risky (thus the possibility of inducing early labor) _and_ the baby was ill. I answered taking that into account. Yes.

Anyway, we should probably stop here. You will not convince me of the "relativity" of morality and I will not convince you of the contrary.

Re:Still evil

[Outlander Engine]

Anyway, we should probably stop here. You will not convince me of the "relativity" of morality and I will not convince you of the contrary.

I suggest you go read up on Huntingtons.
If we can prevent that gene from even popping up, we improve lives.

There is NO scenario where being born with Huntington's is a good idea. There is only one "moral" choice here. And while you were tangled in the underpants of semantics, you missed it.

Re:Still evil

[shutdown -p now]

Me. Human rights (including the right to life) are unalienable.

What if we do the screening before there is a child conceived?

Re:Still evil

[buddyglass]

There's more than one way to screen. IMO simply having more people genetically tested might encourage couples where both are carriers to adopt or get donated genetic material. I know that if my wife and I had been tested and found out we were both carriers for some horrible genetic disease we would not have chosen to reproduce our own genetic offspring. As it is we're both carriers for *different* genetic diseases (mine more serious than hers), but we only got tested after the fact.

Re:Still evil

[INowRegretThesePosts]

From http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-re/

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own.

This is what I am talking about.

Re:Still evil

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I believe that there's a good argument to be made in favor of selecting against Huntingtons.

If I was born with Huntingtons, I would still prefer life than death. And, even if I believed in the morality of euthanasia (which I don't), I would thank my parents for letting ME choose.

Re:Still evil

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Extremely rare means they still happen.
You can't make laws that ignore things that rarely ever happens.

Read before writing. I did say what could be done in such a situation.

Re:Still evil

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I suggest you go read up on Huntingtons.
If we can prevent that gene from even popping up, we improve lives.

There is NO scenario where being born with Huntington's is a good idea. There is only one "moral" choice here. And while you were tangled in the underpants of semantics, you missed it.

Except that the choice is not "being born with Huntington" x "being born without Huntington". We are speaking of "being born with Huntington" x "not being born at all".

The technique being discussed involves selective abortions.

Now that I think about it...

[GrantRobertson]

This is actually a good reason to let the rich go ahead and mess with this. Let them go about tinkering with their genetic code, removing bits here and there that they think will make them perfect. Then, after a few generations, the house of cards will start to collapse. All the bits that they have removed will add up to some major defects. But it will be too late. They will have screwed themselves. Just as ruling classes of the past have caused their own demise through inbreeding, these selfish bastards will genetically modify themselves into oblivion. Bwahahahaha!!!!

Re:Now that I think about it...

[omfgnosis]

In societies without a strictly enforced caste system, that kind of genetic tinkering is a danger to everyone, not just the rich people who can afford it. And beyond that, I don't particularly like the idea of living through a time when the people running the world are deranged by eugenic tinkering, even if it does spell their eventual overthrow.

Re:Now that I think about it...

[eugene ts wong]

Also, some kids would have the misfortune of being born into rich families that might tinker with genetic code just deal with superficial appearances. It's not fair to the kids. It would be like the lower classes saying, "Well, let the parents hinder the children's freedom of speech and the pursuit of happiness.". Sorry, but no.

If you dont, someone else will

[nurb432]

And then your kid is at a disadvantage.

Besides, morals are relative.

Re:If you dont, someone else will

[MerlinTheWizard]

That's sweet. Actually a very nice example of unethical reasoning.

Re:If you dont, someone else will

[nurb432]

Hate to tell you this, but ethics are relative too.

But go ahead and follow your version, and see your children squashed by the others.

Sweet!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Oh yes! Genetically engineer people who want to serve me, uhhh, I mean society.

C'mon, Weena, Morlock needs another "house cleaning"...

Re:Tinfoil hat

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Just because war does not actually help the economy does not mean that wars have not been waged on the mistaken presumption that they would help the economy. Besides, even when those waging the war claim it is to help the economy, they neglect to mention that they only mean a small subset of the economy consisting of rich people they know.

So they would _start a war_ just to enrich buddies? Wouldn't it be easier and safer to create one government program that indirectly helped their buddies?

Anyway, what evidence do you have that America has started wars for profit?

Hint: "they had an interest for doing so" is not evidence, but pure cynicism. Not everyone who has an interest in doing something will actually do it.

No

[LocalH]

The main problem with that is, who gets to decide which genetic modifications are "good" and which ones are "bad", and will they try to enforce that on others? There are people that would love to make it so that things like cannabis have no effect, for example, or that people have no inclination towards religious belief (which, like it or not, is a personal choice).

Re:No

[oever]

Is dressing childeren in a particular clothing that is offensive to some immoral? Is it immoral to teach them religion or a specific (minority) first language? Should children be given boys or girls toys or no toys at all? Must you learn a child to play the piano when it is five? Or is reading and writing more important? Is it immortal to make you child immortal? May you kill to feed your child? And if so, only plants or also animals and perhaps other humans?

Parents in modern society have responsibility for the welbeing of their childeren. The welbeing is defined very broadly. Malnourishment and violence is not allowed, but smoking while pregnant or refusing vaccination is permitted. Children are designed or at least formed by their environment. The genetic makeup (genotype) is just one aspect of the outcome (fenotype). Today parent have the ability to steer the genotype more than ever and many will use this ability, be it to steer the sex, the skin color or simply to avoid hereditary diseases.

This is a very interesting development and I'm eagerly awaiting the spectacle. We have plenty of humans and a large portion will eagerly make use of the new possibilities. The companies that provide these services will need to improve their marketing though.

Re:No

[GameboyRMH]

I actually agree with the rest of your argument but not this point. How is this so much worse than choosing an attractive mate? Yes it takes chance out of the equation but it's not that different.

I think the fact that it will be available only to the rich for the first few decades is the main problem, basically leading to the plot of GATTACA.

Re:No

[INowRegretThesePosts]

actually agree with the rest of your argument but not this point. How is this so much worse than choosing an attractive mate? Yes it takes chance out of the equation but it's not that different.

It is different for a couple of reasons. One of them is that selecting a spouse is a _far_ slower process of eugenics, and society has time to adapt to it without creating a completely separated upper class.
And for myself, I care more about the mind of the woman than her genes. Although I do have a bias for beautiful women.

I think the fact that it will be available only to the rich for the first few decades is the main problem, basically leading to the plot of GATTACA.

Even if it is accessible to everyone, a significant minority of people (a third or so) would not do it because of moral considerations. They would be the "naturals". The other people would become the upper class that would not be even human. And this upper class is composed exactly of the people (and their descendants) who see no problem with the whole process. So they would be disproportionately callous towards human life.

Would they respect the naturals? I doubt. They would see us as we see chimps. Maybe even worse; chimps are stupid by accident (they have no other choice), while the naturals are stupid because of moral considerations. So it is our fault that we are stupid.

I think the upper class would despise us.

Re:No

[martin-boundary]

To some extent, the GATTACA plot is at the more desirable end of the spectrum. If it becomes available to the public as a whole, it will necessarily be regulated, subsidised and distributed/controlled by the government. And *that* has been tried in the 30s under the name Eugenics in various countries. The Nazis (yes, Godwin alert) had good intentions, in that they truly believed that Jews and various other populations were genetically inferior and the Aryan race had strong optimality properties in areas such as intelligence and morality, which should become the standard of Humanity.

Re:No

[bryonak]

Take olymplic athletes (just to employ a recent topic). Most of them quite probably outmatch you in willpower and determination, they train their bodies to crazy levels and can perform things we can only dream of. From an evolutionary point of view (let's focus on phyical traits and success), they are simply superior beings compared to those two humans that are you and me.
Do you think they view themselves "above" you? Some actually do, but if you choose not to push yourself to the limits like they do, how can you complain that this bothers you?
Do you think they despise you? I don't see how this matters, they made the choice to pursue success/perfection in their specific area "at all cost". You didn't (I assume boldly here...) and could say that pure chance has "genetically engineered" them to be like this (physically and psychologically)*, but then you have no excuse for not allowing other people to influence their fate and that of their children themselves instead of leaving it to luck.

Now substitute with successful nerds, small business owners that made it big, then switch to people who were born rich/influential because this doesn't make a difference in practise, or ... people who were genetically engineered babies!

This divide between more successful humans and less fortunate ones already exists today. Interestingly, the former ones are usually looked up to (including the rich-born)!
Not every genetically altered human will be better than every one of your "naturals" (who rely on chance), and for society, the clear downside of allowing this gap to be more pronounced (with possibly dystopic consequences, or maybe no really bad ones at all, but I agree that it will lead to complications in some areas) is met by the advantage of greatly improving the average, plus reducing suffering due to birth disabilties.

* simplifying here, of course the environment plays a role too, but you can wrap that with the "luck" blanket.

Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Morals have an intrinsic problem of definition.

Your morals are not my morals are not my neighbor's morals. The moment you start telling me mine are wrong, is when you should start questioning your own.

Moral relativism is absurd. If all morality is relative, then moral relativism is itself relative and therefore non-binding.

Also, moral relativists are huge hypocrites. They claim moral relativism when we are discussing something that they like (such as prostitution), but when we discuss something they do not like (such as deforestation, or nuclear energy), then they are all for absolute morality.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[Ironchew]

Moral relativism is absurd.

Moral absolutism has to deal with the problem of which moral framework is correct. There is no moral authority in nature so, naturally, different individuals come up with different answers.

Also, moral relativists are huge hypocrites. They claim moral relativism when we are discussing something that they like (such as prostitution), but when we discuss something they do not like (such as deforestation, or nuclear energy), then they are all for absolute morality.

Nice strawman. Pure moral relativism can be demonstrated to be absurd, but it at least shows a willingness to understand other groups -- a concept completely absent in pure moral absolutism. Most individuals do not rigidly adhere to pure moral absolutism or relativism; a few fundamental assumptions shape their worldview (e.g. biblical authority, human rights, or environmental conservation), and they have the mental flexibility to tolerate cultural differences in other groups that do not infringe on those assumptions.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[wierd_w]

Non-binding? I do not follow the logic.

Moral relativism is like saying the sun has variable insolesence. Absolute morality is like claiming the sun is the sun everywhere on earth. Try explaining the midnight sun's weak rays with that!

"Morality" has 2 facets: the first, is the societal facet. This is the part where the creationists consider evolution to be dirty lies, and which compells them to interject their religious beliefs onto others via the political system. The microsociety they have created for themselves views the abandonment of creationist dogma as abhorrent and evil. They all share that view within their sub-society, and cling to a dogma of moral absolutism to justify their trespasses. (Sorry creationists, but you are too easy a target.) The other facet of morality, is the personal. What each individual considers to be personally good or bad. Things like my mom's refusal to support the march of dimes, because she heard they funded experiments on babies many years ago.

Moral absolutism, if it were real, would mean that people everywhere would hold a core set of universal beleifs, and that this would be undeniably demonstrable.

The observed reality, as far as I can tell, is that morality looks more like a statistical bell curve, with regional biases and trends. This clearly shows that there is no absolute moral belief being conserved; variance relative to culture, racial heritage, and geographical location is clearly extant.

I would conjecture that the more-universal argument against eugenic fetus production, would be that it is improper, and against the best interests of a society to subject the non-partakers inthat society to the inevitable world that would be created by those who do partake. (EG, if we create supermen, what becomes of the people who are not such?)

This completely discounts several things that science has told us, though: humans are *still* subject to sexual and natural selection pressures, and that nator favors local maxima over optimal performance, due to energy constraints and noisy inputs. What does that have to do with creating a dystopia? Simple: superhumans won't reproduce exclusively via artificial means, as sexual hormones are fundementally required for human health. This means that a truly superhumanized human, would seek mates just like a normal human would, and like humans do, natural choice in mates would rule the day. You cannot assume that the supermen would stay supermen, and that the unaugmented would remain unaugmented. For instance: if you live in north america, how much native american heritage do each of you have? Substitute native american indian heritage for "artificially produced superman heritage", and you can clearly see how deep that blurring between lines would be, and how untenable a racial intolerance would be. All the eugenics program would do is upregulate the availability of selected "desirable" genes in the general public. That could be cause for some alarm, if the "desired" traits are placidity and compliance without thought or question, but then it isn't the supermen that are trying to interject a forced opinion there; it is our faulted and foolish leadership that would be doing that.

Personally, I'd probably pull a big media stunt and end-run the legal clusterfuck that reactionaries to biotechnology on humans that people have made, and produce a wild-type, non-human baby. Like a cloned neanderthal. (Cue the 'oh god, that's evil! You sick bastard!' Chorus.) Neanderthals weren "wrong", they just went extinct. They were clearly intelligent, they had a human-like thyoid bone, and had human FOXP2. In every sense of the word, they were basically just ugly humans with lots of muscles, and appear to have reached sexual maturity by age 12. They are also conveniently listed as nonhuman by legal standards, and so for those people wanting a designer baby, or to work on human cloning, they make an enticing alternative since the genome was sequenced 4 years ago.

People produce children and throw them into th

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Moral absolutism has to deal with the problem of which moral framework is correct. There is no moral authority in nature so, naturally, different individuals come up with different answers.

Some moral values are self-evident. For example:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Also, moral relativists are huge hypocrites. They claim moral relativism when we are discussing something that they like (such as prostitution), but when we discuss something they do not like (such as deforestation, or nuclear energy), then they are all for absolute morality.

Nice strawman.

This is not a straw man, this is my honest observation. When it comes to abortion, you often hear "if you are against abortion, then just don't have one" or "abortion is a choice!". But these same people support overtaxing people for carbon emissions even though AGW is controversial.

I have never seen moral relativism used consistently; it is used as a weapon against certain Judeo-Christian ideas. I have never seen it used _for_ a Judeo-Christian idea.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[SebastianJB]

There are some simple, uncontroversial metrics out there: logical consistency and consistency with real world data.

Ethical beliefs are based on reasons and facts. Ones that do not are baseless, and not worth believing. The remaining ones can be judged based on our two metrics. Is the logic consistent? If no, then the belief is false. Are the facts they claim consistent with reality? If no, then the belief is false.

For example, a member of Al-Quaeda might say that women should not be educated because they are all too stupid to learn anything. This is demonstrably false, since we have successfully taught very many women in the West. Accordingly, their belief - at least on this basis - is false.

These metrics are universal, despite not knowing the answer to life, the universe, and everything, and do successfully distinguish between some true and false ethical systems. That doesn't mean finding the one, true moral system is easy, but it DOES mean that not everything is relative.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[RebelWithoutClaws]

Moral relativism is absurd. If all morality is relative, then moral relativism is itself relative and therefore non-binding.

Of course it is non-binding. That's the whole point. You're trying to assert that there must be absolute morality, because relative morality cannot be absolute. Your argument is irrational. Morals are relative because there is no basis for absolute morality.

It is often necessary, however, for a society to come to an agreement on what actions should and should not be permitted, or considered correct/moral; specifically on issues of actions that have consequences that reach beyond the individual taking said action. Societies exist because of the benefits of working together. Thus they promote the interests of the group as a whole, and so group consensus is important when dealing with matters which affect the group. The result is often a unified sense of morality; but it is still important to remember that morality is not universal. Rape is almost always considered immoral, and rightly so. If you weigh the pros and cons I think that one is fairly easy to judge; but not all issues are so simple and when you take a position of universal moral absolutes, you prevent the discussion that is necessary to reach well-considered decisions about the more complex moral issues. You are correct that many people take contradictory and hypocritical positions when discussing morally complicated issues; but the failure of certain individuals to maintain objectivity and discuss issues impartially does not negate the need to have such discussions. You are right to point out that issues such as deforestation or nuclear energy should not be approached from a position of moral absolutes, and that in fact makes my point.

Parents with a good moral sense would not engineer their babies.

Au contraire. Parents with good morals want what is best for their child, without brining harm to anyone else's child. The trick is, as always, balancing the interests of the individual against the interests of society.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[Pfhorrest]

Moral absolutism has to deal with the problem of which moral framework is correct. There is no moral authority in nature so, naturally, different individuals come up with different answers.

There is no factual authority either. We can't just read the laws of physics out of a book. Different individuals come up with different answers.

The only difference is that with facts, we have recently (a few hundred years is recent) devised a method of mediating those disagreements and gradually weeding out unacceptable answers. We still can't just read the laws of physics out of a book, but we can come up with better and better guesses over time.

There is no reason we can't do the same thing with moral laws. Prior to the scientific method, out approach to settling matters of truth was just as haphazard as our current method of settling matters of right and wrong. We made progress there, and we can make progress here too.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[shutdown -p now]

Moral relativism is absurd. If all morality is relative, then moral relativism is itself relative and therefore non-binding.

Moral relativism is only absurd when there's no clause to terminate recursion. But there is a very easy way to do that.

All morals are relative - yours is, and so is mine. But, as far as I'm concerned, mine is better because it's mine.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[shutdown -p now]

There is no reason we can't do the same thing with moral laws.

But there is. With physical laws, you verify them by making experiments. The result of every experiment either supports the theory, or it does not, or it's neutral.

When you're doing an experiment on a moral law, what metric of success do you apply to the result? Utilitarian? But many people would say that this metric itself is wrong. On what grounds will you pick one metric over another? That in itself is a moral choice.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[njen]

Moral absolutism is even more absurd...the idea that everyone around the world in all different cultures over the entire history of humanity somehow follows the same set of morals is such a leap of the imagination, that it stands out as fiction.

Human societies have been defining relative morals since there were societies of humans, whether you like it or not.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Of course it is non-binding. That's the whole point. You're trying to assert that there must be absolute morality, because relative morality cannot be absolute. Your argument is irrational. Morals are relative because there is no basis for absolute morality.

Straw man. I simply said that moral relativism implies that moral relativism is itself relative, and therefore saying "no one should impose his morals on others" is a self-contradiction: if you really believe morality is relative, then you cannot judge my action of imposing "my morals" on you.

Also, see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41037805

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I have never seen it used _for_ a Judeo-Christian idea.

An example: the human right to life, irrespective of his culture, religion, race, nationality, sexual orientation or even crimes. That's quite supportive of the Judeo-Christian idea of "Do not Kill." Of course that is not an exclusive concept, an example of which I find difficult to come up with. I'm little bit too tired to think about how moral relativism could be used to construct an argument for an ontological statement.

You did not understand what I wrote. I wanted an example of _moral relativism_ being used to defend a Judeo-Christian idea.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Certain truths are self-evident.
This includes the human right to life, for example.

By the way, how do you consistently apply moral relativism? How do you justify the very existence of the police and the court system if all morality is relative?

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Non-binding? I do not follow the logic.

Moral relativism is like saying the sun has variable insolesence. Absolute morality is like claiming the sun is the sun everywhere on earth. Try explaining the midnight sun's weak rays with that!

"Morality" has 2 facets: the first, is the societal facet. This is the part where the creationists consider evolution to be dirty lies, and which compells them to interject their religious beliefs onto others via the political system. The microsociety they have created for themselves views the abandonment of creationist dogma as abhorrent and evil. They all share that view within their sub-society, and cling to a dogma of moral absolutism to justify their trespasses. (Sorry creationists, but you are too easy a target.) The other facet of morality, is the personal. What each individual considers to be personally good or bad. Things like my mom's refusal to support the march of dimes, because she heard they funded experiments on babies many years ago.

Moral absolutism, if it were real, would mean that people everywhere would hold a core set of universal beleifs, and that this would be undeniably demonstrable.

Moral absolutism means that everyone must agree? You made that up out of thin air.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

If all morality is relative, then moral relativism is itself relative and therefore non-binding.

Moral relativism is not a moral, so this does not apply.

The moment you say "it is not fair to impose your morals on others" you are making a moral judgment.

That's like saying that if all cars have four wheels, then believing that cars have 4 wheels has 4 wheels.

Your analogy does not make any sense.

The sentence doesn't even make sense.

Duh.

Lots of people are hypocrites. some of them are probably moral relativists.

See what I wrote elsewhere.

Also nice job trying to convey moral relativists as people who like prostitution and cutting down forests.

Please read before writing.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Moral relativism is only absurd when there's no clause to terminate recursion. But there is a very easy way to do that.

All morals are relative - yours is, and so is mine. But, as far as I'm concerned, mine is better because it's mine.

And how do you base a political philosophy on that?
How do you even justify the existence of the police, if morality is relative?

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Moral absolutism is even more absurd...the idea that everyone around the world in all different cultures over the entire history of humanity somehow follows the same set of morals is such a leap of the imagination, that it stands out as fiction.

Straw man. I am not saying that everyone agrees; I am saying that there is right and wrong, even if people believe otherwise.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[shutdown -p now]

Certain truths are self-evident. This includes the human right to life, for example.

To clarify, "self-evident" really translates to "we're hardwired to think that way". Which we certainly are.

This is not universal, however. There are certainly human beings who do not have any right to life (e.g. Charles Whitman). As well, the boundary between human and non-human is unclear, either. Is a fetus human? Does a fully grown bonobo have a right to life?

By the way, how do you consistently apply moral relativism? How do you justify the very existence of the police and the court system if all morality is relative?

On utilitarian grounds. In other words, they benefit me. So long as they also benefit the majority of other people, we're in agreement, and thus society functions. We may occasionally disagree on what the police and the court system are supposed to enforce, but again, so long as we agree on more than we disagree, the system works, and basically enforces some intersection of what we want.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[njen]

There is no right and wrong. There is only your right and your wrong, that's the whole point.

For example, Hindus think it is wrong to eat cows. I think it's right to eat them. There are no absolutes.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[Pfhorrest]

But there is. With physical laws, you verify them by making experiments. The result of every experiment either supports the theory, or it does not, or it's neutral.

When you're doing an experiment on a moral law, what metric of success do you apply to the result? Utilitarian? But many people would say that this metric itself is wrong. On what grounds will you pick one metric over another? That in itself is a moral choice.

That is a philosophical "choice"; or position, at least. But so is the choice to appeal to empirical observations in determining truth. Many (e.g. religious) people reject the scientific method as "just another religion" too. Lack of universal agreement on a position doesn't invalidate it.

Both our metric for choosing facts and our metric for choosing norms face the same challenges, and I think the solutions to them both are the same, or at least, analogous: phenomenalism (we determine what is true or good based on our experience of what seems true or good, meaning empiricism about the truth and hedonism about the good) and objectivism (whatever is true or good is true or good for everyone, meaning realism about the truth and altruism about the good).

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[shutdown -p now]

Both our metric for choosing facts and our metric for choosing norms face the same challenges, and I think the solutions to them both are the same, or at least, analogous: phenomenalism (we determine what is true or good based on our experience of what seems true or good, meaning empiricism about the truth and hedonism about the good) and objectivism (whatever is true or good is true or good for everyone, meaning realism about the truth and altruism about the good).

I think you're going to run into insurmountable problems with objectivism. There are some "universal truths" that we seem to be predisposed towards from our evolutionary origins as social primates, but those are really basic, and occasionally include things that at least some of our societies widely consider wrong now on a purely conscious and rational level (e.g. xenophobia and parochial altruism). Other than that, the notion of "good" is cultural, and therefore not universal. How would you deal with that problem?

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

This is not universal, however. There are certainly human beings who do not have any right to life (e.g. Charles Whitman). As well, the boundary between human and non-human is unclear, either. Is a fetus human? Does a fully grown bonobo have a right to life?

A convicted serial murderer deprives himself of his right to life through his actions. But let's end this part of the debate; let's agree to disagree.

By the way, how do you consistently apply moral relativism? How do you justify the very existence of the police and the court system if all morality is relative?

On utilitarian grounds. In other words, they benefit me. So long as they also benefit the majority of other people, we're in agreement, and thus society functions. We may occasionally disagree on what the police and the court system are supposed to enforce, but again, so long as we agree on more than we disagree, the system works, and basically enforces some intersection of what we want.

So you impose your utilitarian morality on everyone.

And how do you justify human rights on utilitarian grounds? For example, let's suppose that there is an ethnic minority called the "Violians". They make 1% of the society, and 90% of that 1% are violent criminals.

The majority of the society hates the Violians, so they vote to exterminate them and win by a landslide. How do you justify disobeying the majority vote and protect the human rights of the Violians?

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Merely because people disagree, it means there is no moral Truth? That does not make sense.

And does that apply to Math too? If one person says 3 ^ 4 is 81 and the other says 3^4 is 12, they are both right?

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

The difference between Hindus that think the cow is a holy animal and people that eat beef is more than a disagreement, and to reduce it as such debases Hinduism.

Hinduism, like any other religion, may be false.

Indeed I know that, among Hinduism, Christianity and Islam, each one contradicts the other two. This means that at most one of them can be true.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[shutdown -p now]

So you impose your utilitarian morality on everyone.

I don't, since I need to be in consensus with the majority of other people to implement police and courts. I don't care why they agree with me that those are needed, so long as they do agree. It may well be that they don't do it on utilitarian grounds.

And how do you justify human rights on utilitarian grounds? For example, let's suppose that there is an ethnic minority called the "Violians". They make 1% of the society, and 90% of that 1% are violent criminals.

The majority of the society hates the Violians, so they vote to exterminate them and win by a landslide. How do you justify disobeying the majority vote and protect the human rights of the Violians?

I don't need to justify it. Like I said, all morality is relative; but, as far as I'm concerned, mine is better because it's mine.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[wierd_w]

Is that NOT what it means?

Ok, lets look at it from the religious' side.

Absolute Morality means that there is an absolute right, and an everything else is wrong.

"Killing babies is wrong." is such a statement.

Now, look at it from the NON-religious' side: "If you dont agree with ME that killing babies is wrong, THEN YOU ARE EVIL!"

Nevermind that there in fact, *ARE* cultures that practice infanticide, since they lack the ability to perform abortions. The infanticide performs a valuable civic service. It keeps other people from dieing, and keeps the society healthy. (There are horror stories from native south american indian tribes that practice this form of population control. They do it because they cant afford to have the child around; its existence endangers the rest of the tribe.)

See how that works? Something as "Clearly wrong" as "killing babies" can suddenly not be so clear cut.

Your argument basically boils down to "Without a perfect moral cornerstone, the very idea of morality becomes laughable." This does not hold, as people still practice moral judgement in spite of the lack of a perfect moral cornerstone, as evidenced by taking and comparing the "moral imperatives" of many world peoples.

So yes, Ultimately your argument must state "You must agree or else", because there is no other way it can exist. (amusingly, why do you think philosophies and religions that proclaim absolute moral validity seek to completely destroy opposing philosophies, religions and cultures that hold conflicting moral characters, if NOT to enforce agreement?)

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Within Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, etc. you have sects and sub-sects and cults and more, so it's not that at most one out of three can be true - it's really that at most one out of several million can be true.

Within "Christianity", the Catholic Church has 1.3B members, and the Eastern/Oriental "Orthodox" (that have essentially the same Faith) has some 300M more members.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Your argument basically boils down to "Without a perfect moral cornerstone, the very idea of morality becomes laughable." This does not hold, as people still practice moral judgement in spite of the lack of a perfect moral cornerstone, as evidenced by taking and comparing the "moral imperatives" of many world peoples.

What happens is that people temporarily forget about moral relativism when THEY think something is wrong.
But as soon as the government wants to forbid something they like, they scream "don't impose your morals on me".
I have *never* seen moral relativism be applied with a minimum of consistency. It is ONLY invoked to support something
the person agrees with.

So yes, Ultimately your argument must state "You must agree or else", because there is no other way it can exist. (amusingly, why do you think philosophies and religions that proclaim absolute moral validity seek to completely destroy opposing philosophies, religions and cultures that hold conflicting moral characters, if NOT to enforce agreement?)

Absolutely false. Defending absolute morality does not mean I will punish people who disagree with me. It does not even mean I claim to know the answer.

For example, before the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was published, its answer already existed, even if I (or anyone else) did not know it. And even now that I know the answer, I don't punish people for being wrong.

Besides, I have not seen credible answers to key problems raised by moral relativism, such as what happens to human rights (see what I wrote elsewhere about Violians).

Finally: reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Also, the ends do not justify the means. Infanticide is despicable, and it is abhorrent that you defend it.

You should read about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are certain things you MUST NEVER do, even if you think they are necessary. Freaking infanticide is on the top of that list; it is one of the most abhorrent things a person can possibly do.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

You speak of millions (actually I doubt there is a million; it is more like 50k) of subsects; but some of those "sects" are priviledged. Not only due to size, but due to the internal coherency and beauty of their teaching.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[wierd_w]

No, *YOU* assert such.

I picked that particular subject matter because of its implications. Do I agree with infanticide? Not particularly. Do I accept that their cultures do it, and that they do it for a reason? Absolutely.

I can understand their situation and their actions, even if I do not agree with them. Being bound by a faulted dogma of absolute morality, you fell right in, and proved my point, after openly denying it the post prior to that.

Who's the hypocrite again?

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

There is no hypocrisy in what I said.

On the other hand, you could not JUDGE me as a hypocrite and remain a consistent moral relativist.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[wierd_w]

There is no hypocrisy in what I said. On the other hand, you could not JUDGE me as a hypocrite and remain a consistent moral relativist.

Really now?

Then reconcile these two statements:

Absolutely false. Defending absolute morality does not mean I will punish people who disagree with me. It does not even mean I claim to know the answer. For example, before the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was published, its answer already existed, even if I (or anyone else) did not know it. And even now that I know the answer, I don't punish people for being wrong.

Also, the ends do not justify the means. Infanticide is despicable, and it is abhorrent that you defend it. You should read about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are certain things you MUST NEVER do, even if you think they are necessary. Freaking infanticide is on the top of that list; it is one of the most abhorrent things a person can possibly do.

Those two statements are in direct locigal contention.

Throw in this gem, and the hypocricy is glaring.

What happens is that people temporarily forget about moral relativism when THEY think something is wrong. But as soon as the government wants to forbid something they like, they scream "don't impose your morals on me". I have *never* seen moral relativism be applied with a minimum of consistency. It is ONLY invoked to support something the person agrees with.

I propose that you are guilty of your own condemned vice, as evidenced by your taking a mutually conflicting viewpoint on the subject of morality, taking one view when it suits, and reverting to a 180deg polar opposite when that suits.

As far as I can tell, you either have no ide what you are talking about (but feel strongly about it), or you are a shameless hypocrite.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[wierd_w]

Now, before you jump in and state something along the lines of "I don't have to know it for it to be true", remember that the point in contention I raised about infanticide in the first place was that it was *NOT* universally recognized as "bad, M'kay."

(Instead of attacking the reference, you jumped straight to shooting the messenger, and used an ad-hominem. You COULD have asked for specific tribes, for instance, but did not.)

When taken in the fuller context, that compared moral absolutism with fixed solar insolescense, my point becomes fully clarified by your statements.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Absolutely false. Defending absolute morality does not mean I will punish people who disagree with me. It does not even mean I claim to know the answer. For example, before the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem was published, its answer already existed, even if I (or anyone else) did not know it. And even now that I know the answer, I don't punish people for being wrong.

Also, the ends do not justify the means. Infanticide is despicable, and it is abhorrent that you defend it. You should read about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are certain things you MUST NEVER do, even if you think they are necessary. Freaking infanticide is on the top of that list; it is one of the most abhorrent things a person can possibly do.

Those two statements are in direct locigal contention.

There is absolutely no contradiction. I said "It does not even mean I claim to know the answer". I said that in the generic sense. Given a generic moral question, I do not claim to know its answer. But given a _specific_ moral question, I _may_ know its answer.

Given the question: "Is it fair to intentionally murder a completely innocent child?", the answer is "no".

To go back to Math. I do not claim to know the answer to all Math problems. Still, I say with certainty that the Pythagoras Theorem is true.
No contradiction.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Now, before you jump in and state something along the lines of "I don't have to know it for it to be true", remember that the point in contention I raised about infanticide in the first place was that it was *NOT* universally recognized as "bad, M'kay."

So freaking what it is not universally recognized? Failing to believe in Truth does not make it disappear.

(Instead of attacking the reference, you jumped straight to shooting the messenger, and used an ad-hominem. You COULD have asked for specific tribes, for instance, but did not.)

Why would I be interested in the specific tribes, when it is utterly irrelevant?

When taken in the fuller context, that compared moral absolutism with fixed solar insolescense, my point becomes fully clarified by your statements.

No; you not only deny human rights, but you make up "contradictions" where there is none.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[wierd_w]

Without universal recognition, "absolute morality" is just another relative worldview seeking to enforce itself on others.

That is why your statement is hyporitical. I pointed out that even something as shocking as infanticide is not universally recognized as a morally debased action; where you quite clearly claimed that it was one of those things which you just never do, ever, (cause it's de evilz, dawg.)

Your (and I emphasize "YOUR") absolute morality is fundementaly different from some other person's absolute morality. Just get a musslim and an arab in the same room and start discssing their absolute morals. Better being a bullet proof vest.

That is the point that moral relativists like myself point out. Your absolute morality is entirely your own, and only applies absolutely to yourself and no-one else.

It may compliment other people's senses of morality quite faithfully even, but since we are talking absolutes, "close" doesn't cut it. If you disagree on even one point in the discussion, your total morality is not conserved.

I was pointing out that given all of humanity as the source, you will find contention on every last moral issue, including something held sacrosanct by western cultures, like protecting babies.

This is why moral absolutism is a myth. It can be empirically shown to be false.

Your internal assertion of correctness, rightness, and absolutism means jack squat where your neighbor is concerned. Simply because you hold something to be true, does not mean that it is.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

You went from "people disagree about morality" to "there is no absolute morality" with zero justification, zero argument.

You simply presented the premise, then your "conclusion", and expect me to accept it.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[Pfhorrest]

I think you're going to run into insurmountable problems with objectivism. There are some "universal truths" that we seem to be predisposed towards from our evolutionary origins as social primates, but those are really basic, and occasionally include things that at least some of our societies widely consider wrong now on a purely conscious and rational level (e.g. xenophobia and parochial altruism). Other than that, the notion of "good" is cultural, and therefore not universal. How would you deal with that problem?

Our perception of what is real is also predisposed in certain ways from our evolution (and differs in subtle ways between some people, and in major ways between species), includes what we now recognize as errors (e.g. optical illusions), is incomplete, and the processes we evolved to fill in the gaps are biased both personally and culturally. Yet we make use of our senses to determine the truth, and don't doubt that there is an objective truth that even us and a vastly different intelligent alien species could agree about.

The subtle difference in wording in those two sentences is important: senses versus perception. The scientific method has us look past our intuitive interpretation of our senses, look past what we perceive, and pay attention to the specific sensations (or observations) themselves. It is impossible for two observations per se to contradict; only our interpretations of them may contradict, and if we find a set of observations which seem to support one interpretation and other observations which contradict it, we don't say "well I guess reality isn't objective after all", we say "our interpretation is wrong and we need to find a new one which is consistent with all these observations". Sometimes this requires thinking way outside the box and coming up with things that nobody's intuitive perception of the world would agree with, but which nevertheless is what is indicated when you take all the evidence into account -- that's how we end up with things like relativity and quantum mechanics.

Similarly, I think that our normative analogue of the scientific method will have to go past just polling people about what they emotionally desire and trying to meet all those (possibly contradictory) desires. That would be like conducting science by polling people about their (possibly contradictory) intuitive perceptions and somehow trying to reconcile them all together. Instead, in science, we verify every reported observation ourselves, and try to construct models consistent with all of the verified observations, and then try to find any fault we can in every proposed model, and only tentatively move forward with using a model when exhaustive efforts to tear it down have failed. Likewise, I think our normative analogue of science needs to ask not "what do people want" but "what is it like to live as a person in this or that circumstance" -- something like emic* ethnography. Then take all those accounts of what life "feels like" from all these different perspectives and propose a strategy, a plan of action (analogous here to a theory), which would have consequences that alleviate some suffering (analogous to explaining some observation) without causing any other suffering (analogous to predicting something contrary to observation). The second part is very important and is analogous to trying to falsify a theory: before moving ahead with any strategy, try to tear it down by finding someone it would hurt. Not just someone who objects to it -- that'd be like discarding a theory because someone disagreed with it -- but someone it would hurt, as confirmed by such emic ethnography. Only when a strategy would be useful (alleviate some suffering) and has survived thorough attempts to... lets say "vilify" it (by analogy to "falsify")... should we proceed with it; and even then, only tentatively, constantly watchful for consequent harm that might successfully rule it out.

And yes, that mea

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[wierd_w]

Moral Absolutism I don't think it means what you think it means.

The problem, is that there is no concensus on moral judgements and values. As such, it is just a war of competing ideologies, with no outstanding basis other than "My all powerful diety said so!" Vs "yeah, well MY all powerful deity said otherwise!"

At least the religious have the sense of mind to ascribe the morality to an outside, and presumably perfect source. So far, you have not. That is why I have been harping on you that there is no concensus, and that no ideal is perfectly conserved, as per the definition in the wikipedia article. (Since not even one is conserved, there is no absolute morality.) The best you will get is a culturally conserved cultural morality. This is often confused as being absolute. It is not.

In our culture, infanticide is absolutly intolerable.

In isolated south american ethnic tribal units? Not so much.

Our culture, is not their culture. Our morals are not their morals. What is right and wrong to us, is not the same as what is right and wrong for them. Attempting to conflate the two is a non sequitor. It does not logically hold.

As such, for an absolute morality to exist, it would have to eliminate all competition. Eg, it has to force its acceptance over other moral codes of conduct, until no other codes of conduct exists.

This is why religions that hold an absolute authority invariably cause long lasting strife and violence. Not doing so casts doubt on the authority of their perfect diety.

This is why putting the musslim and the jew in the same room to argue morality is a bad thing. Wear the vest. Seriously.

Re:Moral relativists contradict themselves

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Whoops - you kinda showed your cards there, Jorge. Turns out that you are trying to justify your religious beliefs to yourself.

False. It is not because I have Faith that everything I do is an attempt to justify my Faith.

Nothing wrong with that ... but if you think you've found internal coherency with the church's teachings, you just haven't looked closely enough. Hell, entire orders have been started just to find that consistency.

What?

And if you're trying to avoid "hypocrites" by following the church, well, disappointment awaits you there as well. Hypocrisy is just part of the human condition. Note that some cases are worse than others - you should read up on this guy named Ratzinger, and how he conspired to cover up some pretty awful crimes.

There is no good evidence of that.

You seem to like rigid, almost binary answers, but when your dealing with humans, there really isn't such a thing. wierd_w has already shown you an example where even a simple rule (infanticide is bad) may have exceptions.

False; he simply pointed that some people disagree with that. This does not mean it ceases to be wrong.

And no, not everyone that disagrees with you is a hypocrite.

Gratuitous straw man.

Re:-"Julian Savulescu"

[dywolf]

An "expert in practical ethics". That sounds like baloney to start with. One, it sounds on par with being an "expert on oscillating fan operation". Practical ethics itself is an iffy field. Its not "real ethics" which is more akin to an actual moral code regarding others (dont kill, dont steal). Instead its: dont kill/steal unless you wont get caught and/or really really need to.

As someone with congenital "issues"...

[theedgeofoblivious]

I am congenitally missing several teeth, and have had to undergo significant treatment(braces and surgeries) because of it. I have always had excellent oral hygiene habits, but people have often assumed the opposite because of the missing teeth.

Genetic engineering might mean as little as stimulating cells so that a recessive trait(like the "perfect" teeth common in one of my parents' families) becomes dominant.

Although I don't intend to have children, occasionally I have considered the possibility. I know that people are often fearful of the results of genetic engineering and believe that it would be done for bad reasons, but is it so wrong to not want to inflict what I have gone through on someone else?

Bait and Switch

[Urthas]

The good professor starts with screening flaws, but finishes with the admonition to, "..bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society." Notice the subtle difference? Moreover, he starts by conflating ethics with morality ('moral obligation'), but finishes by accusing those who may disagree as being squeamish and irrational. In my first ethics lecture at university, the professor made it clear that ethics and morality are separate beasts. The same applies to ethics and legality (and morality and legality, for that matter). I for one do not appreciate such atrocious bait and switch, especially from someone who should (and does) know better.

No; morality is relative

[bussdriver]

It will happen and it will be considered moral to some group of people somewhere. It can not be stopped.

Look at food. You bash GM food and related tampering and people take a whole different position as if you are some anti-science flat earth religious nutcase. It shouldn't take much money from some megacorp to get government and the public on their side as they've done with the huge amount of GM stuff out there today. We knew a lot less in the science when we started putting those frankenfoods out to pasture-- and today relative to the problem space we still know nothing!! Even religious people are for sale with today's advanced marketing and numerous corrupt religious "leaders".

Humans are not evolving. We've evolved long ago to the point where we alter (more like hinder) our own evolutionary process so anything we do to cause it to change would be bringing back evolution to the human species. Yes, it would be more conscious than the reality based chaos of natural selection and that is bound to have stupid decisions --because humans are involved. Where is the evolutionary pressure on humans today?? We protect, cure, save just about any creature to come out the womb... to the point where impossible abominations can't even be aborted to save the mother's life without a ton of BS. Sickly children with amazingly bad conditions are kept alive to procreate at HUGE expenses and Darwin Award contenders are saved from the brink of death... See the 1st 10 minutes of the film "Idiocracy."

The way to approach this is to allow any genetic tampering parents want; this would stop widespread policy BS from making HUGE mistakes and instead create somewhat more random and diverse changes where the impact would be less damaging. The reality is, without global government this is the way it will be with each nation making different kinds of blunders -- likely bigger than just leaving it wide open. Even if illegal, there will be people working around it because parents can be quite crazy about their ego extensions (offspring.) Somewhere it'll be legal or easy to circumvent. Peer pressure is about all one can do.

Eugenics is not as bad as people make it up to be; since Hitler embraced it the whole thing is instant taboo even to intellectuals; doesn't help that we had arcane unscientific views during its heyday either. I grew up with a kid who was normal but had MANY problems resulting from BAD parenting which could have been avoided but we as a society now refuse to deal with the issue of mentally retarded people having children. BOTH his parents were quite retarded and his mom went from one retarded husband to another --- literally, which also doesn't help the children. His siblings were genetically retarded as well; worse than the parents, either genetically or worse due to improper care. It was bad for all the children to have retarded parents; they should have been given to competent parents but if you want to avoid hurting the feelings of the parents (who may be retarded but they do have fully functioning emotions) it would be better all around to simply not allow them to have children in the first place. My friend needed parents above a 3rd grade IQ.

Should we be spending crazy amounts of money to keep some people alive so they can have children?? If you think we should all spend any amount of money and effort to prolong everybody to the last possible miserable moment then at least can you consider if we should allow these people to have children? Is it really THAT big of a deal to have children? There are always plenty needing adoption besides the fact we are like 7x over max population. Many issues will be used to legitimize GM humans as ETHICAL, gradually it'll expand from the accepted excuses. Your mutant kid running off a machine can have offspring thanks to Monsanto's personalize superman where you insert only the (unimportant) DNA from yourself and pay a low initial fee! Your grandchild and future generations pay patent rights for any children they may have for eternity (because p

MOD PARENT UP to offset moderation abuse

[INowRegretThesePosts]

How can the parent post be described as "flamebait"?

Moderators are suppose to follow the Slashdot moderation guidelines!

Don't mod something as "flamebait" simply because you disagree. Instead, reply and post your own idea!

Too bad about genius & creativity being weeded

[pubwvj]

creating so-called designer babies could be considered a 'moral obligation' as it makes them grow up into 'ethically better children'

Ethics is a matter of opinion and are not universal. Diversity is key to survival. Don't go the way of the Borg.

screen out personality flaws in their children such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence as it means they will then be less likely to harm themselves and others.

Bummer about accidentally weeding out creativity and genius in the process. That professor has a lot to learn from the factory farming industry that made all sorts of mistakes with breeding in pigs, cattle and poultry, accidentally creating inferior genetic lines and losing important behavioral traits. We don't know enough to start messing with 'designer' babies.

This falls in the really, really, really bad idea category as in, the late humanity that bred itself to extinction.

Re:Tinfoil hat

[GrantRobertson]

Hello!!! Iraq??? War for oil???

The banana republics?

The military industrial complex?

Heard of these?

But you are someone who - even if I showed you a signed plan outlining who would get what - would not believe it. So, I am just wasting my time.

Re:Tinfoil hat

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Hello!!! Iraq??? War for oil???

Michael Moore, is that you?

Straw man

[INowRegretThesePosts]

It would be egregious however to deny someone treatment for alcoholism on the basis that it will hurt their literary output.

No one is speaking of denying someone treatment for alcoholism. We are speaking of engineering designer humans, which not only violates human dignity but also would create a dystopia with vastly different social classes (much worse than it is now). See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551

Re:Straw man

[iluvcapra]

You're talking about something different from the OP.

I would first find fault with the designation of "designer" humans. Are in vitro fertilized embryos "designer"? After all, these are people which shouldn't exist, their parents are empirically incapable of conceiving children, an intervention has occurred (which kills several fertilized embryos in the process) in order to conceive a child, because of the parents' belief that they are incomplete without children -- it is their wish, their sensibility, their purchase, and not their right or their nature. The child is a plan, a consumer product, alas, only available to the relatively wealthy.

Further, places much less well off than rich US medical clinics already offer "designer" humans, in China and India it's common for mothers to simply cull their female zygotes, they abort them. This is plainly an evil thing, it's bad practically and bad morally. But, how do you prevent it? What steps are you willing to go to to prevent the abortion of "undesirable" zygotes? You can ban abortion, but that only bans it for people that can't buy a plane ticket or have access to "discrete" services, and a lot of people believe they have a right to have abortions. The government could examine all expectant mothers and license abortions, forbidding ones that meet their politically-correct standard of "by design." Of course, that designation is up for debate, and something like malaria susceptibility might or might not be defect dependent on local conditions, the "luck" of such a trait given their parents genotype.

And then, we're not just talking about giving people glowing ears or racing stripes, we're also talking about making sure they'll never contract HIV, or the plague, or congenital blindness. What do you tell someone who's born with an abnormality? "Sorry, but our advanced moral consciousness demands that you be born blind, because it would be a violation of human dignity for you not to be"? Why are genotypic changes such a big deal, but phenotypic modifications, like vaccines, not a "violation of human dignity"? Is it a violation of human dignity that I'm immune to measles, because I grew up rich and white in the western world, while a billion Africans are not?

Re:Straw man

[INowRegretThesePosts]

And then, we're not just talking about giving people glowing ears or racing stripes, we're also talking about making sure they'll never contract HIV, or the plague, or congenital blindness. What do you tell someone who's born with an abnormality? "Sorry, but our advanced moral consciousness demands that you be born blind, because it would be a violation of human dignity for you not to be"? Why are genotypic changes such a big deal, but phenotypic modifications, like vaccines, not a "violation of human dignity"? Is it a violation of human dignity that I'm immune to measles, because I grew up rich and white in the western world, while a billion Africans are not?

The current technique (and what Savulescu is talking about) involves killing undesired unborn children. And, if I had the choice, I would much rather be born blind than not be born at all.

Re:Straw man

[shutdown -p now]

We are speaking of engineering designer humans, which not only violates human dignity

Why does it violate human dignity? Every human being is "engineered", that's how conception works.

It could only possibly violate God's dignity if you presuppose that the process of selecting chromosomes is divinely guided. In which case the religious may want to refrain from it, I guess, but I don't see why that should constrain the rest of us.

Re:Straw man

[shaitand]

I don't know about violating human dignity but it is certainly a bad idea. Wiping out a genetic predisposition is comparable to wiping out a species. The human body is a very fragile and delicately balanced ecosystem and removing a trait can and will have unintended consequences. A genetic predisposition of asthma might have the side effect of enabling a new form of abstract thought.

We are far too ignorant in this area to be playing these games. We could easily cull advantages we never knew existed because of minor medical side effects that accompany them.

The real point about Hemingway seems lost on some. Creativity is the driving factor that separates talent from genius in pragmatic fields like science and engineering just as much as in artistic fields. An interesting read is Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintenance. Creativity is often accompanied by mental illness and the strife one encounters with illness and addiction. We could speculate, mental illness obviously associates with differences in the way brain actually works and perhaps difficulties in life press mental escape, day dreaming, or otherwise facilities out of box thinking. Either way, it is arguable that people who would be culled by this 'ethical' treatment represent the best and worst human civilization.

Re:Straw man

[shutdown -p now]

You do realize that we're already playing all those games with our advanced medicine and farming tech meaning we don't weed out the "bad" genes, right?

Re:Straw man

[Belial6]

But would you rather be born out of the violent rape of your mother than not be born at all?

Re:Straw man

[shaitand]

That "advanced medicine" only exists in labs at this point and hasn't lived up to the hype even there if you mean gene therapy. If you mean our attempts at chemical manipulation of the body which we've been doing for some time I'd consider it an excellent example of why this is a bad idea. We've been finding and producing drugs for a long time and we still can't anticipate or even explain their side effects. The genetic makeup of the body is far more complex than the chemical one. Our drugs for mental treatment are an atrocity, broadly targeting general purpose receptors that we have seen have some sort of correlation to certain neuro functions but don't really know why. That is all despite the fact that we have a pretty solid understanding of chemistry itself, we don't have anywhere near that level of understanding with regard to genetic material. We don't even have coherent and reproducible models for constructing genetic sequences with predictable results instead we use extremely primitive process of elimination combined with correlation to locate genes and then play with them until it seems like what we want to happen happens.

Chemical medical treatments MIGHT do more good than harm but you can also stop taking a drug when someone notices a few years later its causing heart complications, cancer, or neurotoxicity. Embryo screening or gene therapy is permanent not just life long but passed down genetic lines. Complications discovered 20 years later might not even be solvable with intentional genocide. Einstein is thought by many to have had a different brain structure than most. This type of screen could catch and fix that with a morning after pill purchasable over the counter at walgreens and mankind would never even know what it lost.

Farming whether you refer to livestock or genetically modified plants is a different game altogether. Nobody knows and few care if our efforts to produce a larger and juicer tenderloin have reduced the potential for the next cow Einstein to live. It isn't so much that a human is less complex than a cow as that our objects when modifying a cow are far simpler. You could lobotomize every lifestock animal and it probably wouldn't conflict with what we are looking for in them. In the case of crops the results haven't always been spectacular either. The genes have spread in unanticipated ways.

My objections to this idea don't center on ethics or human dignity or some magic sky fairy. I object because in this area we know just enough to be dangerous. It isn't a scare tactic. The consequences of failure are very high. The reasoned confidence level of our conclusions in this area are very poor. The potential benefits are marginal at best relative to the risk. When we move beyond working with DNA like we used to work with photosensitive movie film sequences and get to the point where we work with DNA like we do a disassembled computer executable maybe we can start responsibly thinking about something like this.

Re:Straw man

[shutdown -p now]

You misunderstood my point. I wasn't talking about direct gene manipulation. I was rather talking about the fact that widespread availability of even the most basic medicine means that natural selection is much less effective in modern human population, which severely affects our evolution. So, in effect, we're already engaging in genetic engineering on species level, and we're actually selecting "worse" genes.

Re:Straw man

[shaitand]

Ahh... that's another debate altogether. I could play devil's advocate on that one but I happen to agree. That doesn't make direct gene manipulation at this point a good idea. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Re:Straw man

[shutdown -p now]

Well, TFA really isn't about direct gene manipulation, either. They're talking about genetic screening, i.e. artificial selection based on some traits. We could do it without any high-tech, if you're okay with infaticide - in fact many human societies historically did, e.g. Sparta, but eventually we stopped for ethical reasons & because the presence of some "weak" individuals ceased to matter in the grand scheme of things as our tool using capability evolved into what it is today. But now we can do similar thing immediately after fertilization, when there's no fetus yet; or in some cases even before it (genetic compat testing).

Re:Straw man

[wermske]

The premise presents a genuine moral/ethical dilemma. We are asked to examine very sensitive beliefs in a potentially caustic environment that pits the academic against the ecclesiastical.

Unlike my many of my peers, I do not believe that life begins at conception or even (in some circumstances) birth. I do not believe that ALL life is precious. I do not believe that a God endowed all life with equal rights. I do not believe that eugenics is qualitatively good or bad – only that eugenics can be approached either from a moral/ethical perspective or from an immoral/unethical perspective. Applied eugenics can be a blessing and a curse (and perhaps both simultaneously). This is not a boolean challenge -- we must acknowledge the continuum of benefits and banes. I do not believe that the individual or society is supreme – each must argue and champion their benefits. Sheer existance is not enough.

I believe that we are gifted with judgment. We are mastering the power of life and death. We can both nurture and destroy both individuals and entire civilizations. I believe that with this power comes the responsibility to embrace knowledge, to practice wisdom, and to incorporate learning from mistakes into a continued exchange of ideas and experience.

I stand in opposition to your blanket suggestion that a life of diminished capacity is better than no life at all. I advocate the position that a rising tide raises all boats; therefore, where it is possible to improve the circumstances of the many (“raise the tide”) humanity must be willing to consider the sacrifice of the few – even if that means that I am one of the few.

Given the supernatural assumption (that one could choose a particular life prior to existence) and assuming that I am not projecting my feelings upon others (blind people broadly or people of diminished capacity in general), I cannot boldly venture that I would rather be born blind than not be born at all. I reject the assumption that any life is better than no life even if that life is my own.

Therefore, I wholly support selective birthing choice as a right and privilege of potential parents charged with the care and wellfare of the new life.

Re:Straw man

[swalve]

I guess human life has a different value if daddy was a rapist?

Re:Straw man

[iluvcapra]

You aren't a "you" until you're born -- it's impossible to argue from the comparative state of not existing.

Re:Straw man

[Vlado]

In essence I have to say that I agree with the above statement.

The only thing is that I'm not sure that we're quite there yet with our knowledge of genetics to be DEFINITIVELY able to say that a particular gene or sequence of them is responsible for a trait such as "psychopathy". Things like eye color or something along these lines are one thing but complex psychological features that are often combination of multiple factors are quite something else.
Until that is well established all such discussions, while interesting and controversial, are very moot. I simply wouldn't subject my (future) offspring to guesses that tend to change with some frequency.

Re:Straw man

[shaitand]

As a Slashdotter I am proud to say I haven't read TFA. But genetic screening isn't really much better for pretty much the exact same reasons. It won't matter much if done on a small scale but the article definitely implies this should be done across the board. Culling genes from the pool when you really don't have much understanding of how and why they work isn't very bright. Same example applies, the culling of Einstein.

Although similar in concept, high-tech selection and low-tech are very different animals. Low-tech is unlikely to actually cull a specific gene from the species and would require a very long time to do so. High-tech applied broadly could potentially effect genocide in a generation or two.

Re:Straw man

[AK Marc]

No, you wouldn't, as that's not the choice. For one, you couldn't choose anything at the time the decision was made. As a sighted person who likes life, would you rather be born blind or dead? Probably blind. Now, ask the blind person if he'd rather have been born sighted. All but the most militant would rather have been sighted. That's accomplished by destroying the blind fetus and giving birth to the sighted one. Now, would you rather be born with cystic fibrosis or not? Blind you are ok with, but what about blind and deaf? How about blind deaf and no arms or legs? Would you rather be born that way?

Re:Straw man

[INowRegretThesePosts]

All but the most militant would rather have been sighted. That's accomplished by destroying the blind fetus and giving birth to the sighted one.

Then the blind one would cease to exist, and a completely different individual would be born.

Also: I love existing. Being dead would suck. And killing me in the womb would be at least as bad as killing me now. In fact, it would be worse, because if someone kills me now then I at least enjoyed life for a couple of decades.

Re:Straw man

[AK Marc]

Killing me in the womb wouldn't cause me any harm, because I wasn't then what I am now. We start as a cyst-like parasite. Eventually, we gain self consciousness, somewhere around 6 months to a year after birth.

If you were born blind, deaf, and with no arms and legs and didn't enjoy life for a couple decades, your statements seem to imply that it would be "better" to kill you then than now. Funny how having fun devalues your life. The more fun you have, the lower your value.

Human dignity is more important than money

[INowRegretThesePosts]

And if your whistling-past-the-graveyard la-dee-da-chance-is-fine-with-me baby turns out to need $200k worth of otherwise avoidable neo-natal heart work or a lifetime of constant nursing care, you'll be happy to stick other people with the bill, too, right? Because that how that ends of working.

It's one thing to get hit by a bus on your way to work and rack up $1m in neurolgical services. It's another thing to decide to go rock climging without a belay or helmet, and do the same. Likewise, knowing you've got a quarter of a teaspoon of embryo with sure-fire signs of a short, miserable, explensive life of pain and suffering in store for it, and proceeding anyway ... yeah, you're a nice guy. Chance is fun! Save it for poker, not the avoidable horror show of a sick and dying kid.

Human dignity is more important than money.

Re:Human dignity is more important than money

[Surt]

Yes, who are you to decide that I'll spend my life to pay off your bad choices. Preserve my human dignity please.

Re:Human dignity is more important than money

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I would rather give up on public health than let the government decide which children are allowed to be born based on economic criteria.

Re:Human dignity is more important than money

[Surt]

That path is fine with me too. We're just making a stupid compromise that encourages stupid behavior right now. We should go one direction or the other, I don't care which.

it gets better

[Kurrel]

Can I sue the makers of BabyGen if my kid fails algebra?

Genetic engineering is different

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Genetic engineering is different from what you describe, for multiple reasons. One reason is that what you describe is not transmitted to the child's offspring, so it is less likely to result in a separated and immensely powerful upper class. See http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3056849&cid=41035551

Gattaca

[supercrisp]

Has this ethicist seen it?

Re:We Have This Already

[Phrogman]

They are called Republicans...

Re:Stepford Babies

[PCM2]

didn't the Nazis try this a few years back ??

Yours is a rather simplistic response that is likely to be easily shot down by this ethicist guy, but it highlights an important point.

Arguments in favor of eugenics have always been made on the basis of the idea that the people we select for will be superior. They will be stronger, taller, able to run faster, able to throw a discus with more accuracy, they will be smarter ... they will be more BLONDE!

So this guy, an ethicist, comes along and says -- because it's his speciality -- that if we breed humans properly we can make ones that are more ethical.

Logic demands that we ask, "So what?" What is the difference between breeding babies that are more ethical and breeding ones that look more like Dolph Lundgren? We have decided that one goal is abhorrent. Why is the other goal not so?

Through the lens of logic, this guy is just a eugenicist. His being an ethicist matters no more or less than him having any other job, as far as the validity of his argument goes.

Still missing the point

[Dr. Manhattan]

Via "natural" selection? 'Cause the problem is, sickle cell is an example of a very simple gene with a non-obvious side effect. It changes one kind of molecule in an easy-to-detect way, and still it took time and research to tease out the beneficial side effect.

Hardly anything's that simple in genetics. We already know that the genes for red hair also tend to produce freckles, and it turns out it apparently affects pain response in the skin, too. Everything's interrelated.

The proposal is to select for genes affecting personality, though. How complicated can we expect gene effects to be in the brain? Nasty mazes of interrelated and overlapping effects. A gene that might produce alcoholism in some people might produce a great artist or adventurer or scientist when combined with different genes. We just are not informed enough yet to be making such calls.

Re:Still missing the point

[SuricouRaven]

I'd think that even the meddlings of doctors who barely understand should be superior to relying on blind chance with no understanding at all.

Interesting

[holophrastic]

But there's a nice difference between serious flaws like major diseases and personality flaws like alcoholism. There's virtually zero chance of overcoming a major disease, but there's a huge chance of overcoming a personality flaw. While the former creates a never-ending drain on others, the latter typically does not. What's more, the latter results in quite a significant perspective shift, which we often call inspiration.

I'm also intrigued by something more. The "best-suited" person in this day and age would never volunteer for military service, not be likely to protest anything, never understand the plight of those suffering with personality flaws, not waste their life to create amazing art. . .

Ok, so I've just described myself. I look forward to more of me!

I hear Gattaca Corporation is hiring

[gatkinso]

The interview is very short, but it's a real pisser to pass.

Re:I hear Gattaca Corporation is hiring

[PPH]

And always remember: Right handed guys never hold it with their left.

people aren't computers

[Goldsmith]

As much as people here would like to compare genetics to computer software, there's only so far that analogy goes.

Your genes will not force or prevent you from having a particular personality trait. They don't "make" you rebellious or creative or intelligent. Many purely physical characteristics are highly dependent on your environment. In addition you are dependent on non-genetic as well as genetic inherited biology. DNA alone does not include all the information necessary to make a person.

There are many people here with sophisticated understanding of technology, but not so many who understand biology. Biology has been moving faster than any other field over the last 10 years. Things you learned 5 years ago are now understood to be wrong. Try not to have a knee-jerk reaction based on science fiction fears.

Let's start with simple things like food. What would happen if people could drink saltier water without dehydrating, or synthesize more vitamins internally, or digest cellulose? Would that be terrible?

Eugenecist Plays God Again

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"We always know best, and what is for the best."

"Our intellect is capable of producing a better world on its own, if given sufficient technology."

"It is immoral not to condition our babies to accept whole-hardheartedly, their statistically inevitable circumstance in life."

Thank Ford, Huxley's vision of a moral paradise is nigh.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[macs4all]

"We always know best, and what is for the best."

"Our intellect is capable of producing a better world on its own, if given sufficient technology."

"It is immoral not to condition our babies to accept whole-hardheartedly, their statistically inevitable circumstance in life."

Thank Ford, Huxley's vision of a moral paradise is nigh.

Mod Parent UP!

This isn't genetics; it's EUGENICS.

...and it always starts with the best of intentions...

Mark my words: If followed, this will have extremely negative, and unforseen, impacts. Such as "Ok, you've gotten rid of schizoid and autistic tendencies; but now the mean IQ is 60, and no one is left that knows how to modify the software in the automatic, and now government-mandated fetus-selector."

So, programmable evolution and quickly become programmable devolution.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

They Tell Us That
We Lost Our Tails
Evolving Up
From Little Snails
I Say It's All
Just Wind In Sails
Are We Not Men?

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[canadian_right]

Well there is a difference. Using genetic engineering we can choose to make our babies "better". Previous methods involved culling babies, children, and even adults which is morally wrong. I don't see any moral issues with tweaking an embryo to gave the child a better life.

Will we always make choices that are better? Only time will tell.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[macs4all]

We are DEVO!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[macs4all]

Will we always make choices that are better? Only time will tell.

And therein lies the rub. This particular "experiment" needs about 100 years' more research before it's EVEN ready to THINK ABOUT becoming something you want Joe Sixpack and Jane Ritalin-Addict to have casual access to.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[eugene ts wong]

...and it always starts with the best of intentions...

What makes you say that? What makes you think that it isn't the worst of intentions that is sold to us with a lie?

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[macs4all]

...and it always starts with the best of intentions...

What makes you say that? What makes you think that it isn't the worst of intentions that is sold to us with a lie?

I suppose that is also possible, true.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[couchslug]

"This isn't genetics; it's EUGENICS."

I don't confuse pseudo-scientific eugenics with eugenics. There is no reason to fear it if properly applied.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[cmarkn]

Define “properly”. There's the source of the fear.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[Skal Tura]

...and it always starts with the best of intentions...

One problem tho in your statement. We've not had this kind of technology before.

We have been doing selective breeding however, unfortunately it's usually with too small population of subjects, leading to all kinds of diseases etc. That being the case on cats, dogs and horses, so called purebreds.
Albeit, they tend to be genetically superior on the traits chosen by the breeder.
My understanding is that the inherited diseases etc. is a result of breeding within too small population.

My personal opinion? Genetically engineering is Eugenics 2.0, where the major kinks has been solved.
Watch Game of Thrones and you can see where the "old kind" of eugenics can lead (in game of thrones it's incest, brother and sister having children, yuck!), and the resulting son is crazy.
Not sure if it's being researched, but there is "folk lore" that children of incest tend to be crazy like that.
So that kind of "eugenics" is rigged to fail from get-go.

BUT, 2 completely non-related people having children, and then having for example genetic diseases fixed and introducing a gene known to increase mental ability, i don't see a problem in that. The changes are still rather small, say if there is 1-2 inherited potential genetic diseases and a single gene added.
IT CAN however result in unexpected consequences for the better or worse, and i would say this leads to evolution speed in the exponent, at the expense of less completely random changes where multiples of undesired genes are warranted for the positive change to happen.

But on the other hand basic evolution will become extremely rapid, there are some absolutely amazing people in terms of mental capability and physical ability, which are considered to be abnormal, someone might even call those people freaks.
Some of the extreme abilities: Extreme flexibility, extreme pain threshold (still feels but doesn't get the same reaction as others), ability to control skin surface temperature exchange (Ability to withstand temperature extremes better), ability to change the rate of oxygen consumption AND negated Co2 reaction (Extremely good for free divers).
There's also that one guy who seems to have ACTUAL photographic memory, tho i'm not still 100% conceived as some experts considers that ability to be near impossible and/or causing severe drawbacks. In that guys case we've seen in the news the drawback is autism.

Imagine you could introduce the same genes that made einstein so brilliant to your child! I would pay some serious dough for that - mental capability is one of the most important factors for success in life, albeit not a necessity (just watch some of the reality tv shows... Some really dumb people are making quite an success)

Also, some people have dyslexia and the mathematics variety of dyslexia, i wouldn't want my child to suffer from either. There is also related ailments of lesser, but still important, drawbacks.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[Skal Tura]

Unless they happen to be rich, they won't have access.
Tho, their children might need it most, so some countries might make it available for them free of charge for removing tendencies to addictions, and other highly negative elements.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[GbrDead]

The mean IQ is 100, by definition.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[Richard Dick Head]

No, it'll result in less needy people in the world, resulting in far, far less "meaningful" work for humanitarians, social workers, and religious workers . That is why idealist-type personalities are instinctively scared of this sort of thing. It's going to be a dull, meaningless world for them and they know it.

All the work done by the progressive movement to get themselves jobs will be slowly be undone not because the world would become more conservative, but because it will not be needed anymore. But keep in mind, the more productive the population is, the more social government makes sense since it doesn't cost nearly as much, so you Socialist types should be excited.

So, stop worrying, we'll be fine. Athiest, socialist, less diverse, and less artistic. Not a bad trade off. Humans have evolved on our brains, not anything else. We will never completely adapt to our environment, whatever it is, because too many will outsmart their way into survival to allow a change in the gene pool... so if we want real progress we have to start hacking it.

And if you think this will apply to all humanity? Hahaha no. The poor countries will not see this technology, we'll still need currency vassals to produce our plastic crap, same as now, and same idea as Rome in Roman times. So, I'm certain you'll still have a place to go if you need to escape the dull, ideal world and "help" people.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[JBaustian]

If deviancy can be defined downward, then so can mean IQ.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[Chrontius]

Properly probably implies (at least) not assuming that everything is inherited via Mendelian single-gene systems.

How a single "Feebleminded" allele gave rise to bipolar, schizophrenia, autism, retardation, &c. while appearing spontaneously and at random made sense continues to escape me, though it's a question I've pondered for close to a decade.

Re:Eugenecist Plays God Again

[Chrontius]

Idealist-type personality, here. Fucking thrilled by the idea that this works.
Biology training makes me hesitant, but that's just a QA and testing challenge...

Cynically, the third world will get this once it's more economically valuable to have that many more creative types kicking around and automate all the manufacturing.
Idealistically, we'll realize this is more or less the same year the first world gets access, but...

I probably have slight ADD ... that's an advantage

[Qbertino]

I probably have slight ADD. One of the reasons could be that my mother ate lots of licorice when she was pregnant with me and there are studies that hint to a link between slight ADD - something that would today be called a disease, in other times a talent - to being a sweet tooth and pregnant women eating the stuff.

Slight or partial symptoms of ADD are called by some a genetic disposition that has solid advantages in certain societies but solid disadvantages in others, like ours today. A hunter in a gatherers world basically, to some theories go. Some experts say that ADD is an invented disease.

I curse my concentration problems that definitely are due to my brain chemistry and certain childhood conditions and maybe a few habitual other things. However, the emotional independance and the high frustration tolerance that comes with it are a gift. Its a very special talent that makes it very difficult to blend in and, for instance, find a regular job (a problem I'm having right now), on the other hand it does give you the agressiveness required to turn down a shitty job even if you're broke and your options are running out. It's, if you will, a bit of a moderated-risk-taker condition. I wouldn't be like that if I didn't have these problems, the social situations that occur due to them and the coping mechanisims I've developed to handle them. All that together give me an edge, I just have to use it correctly and avoid situations where I don't function.

It's the basic mental condition emperors or simular people (think 'the Steve Jobs Type') have. They either are bums, drunk and stoned loosers sitting on the curb, or in a small room toying around with some big dream or they are at the helm of a big empire or - nowadays - a large corporation.

If everyone were like me or even more so, the world would go to hell. But without people like me, it would aswell. People who compensate their desire for poetry and meaning due so either using poetry (Duh!) or some other form of art, philosophy or the turn to alcohol and drugs as a substitute. ... I wouldn't want the world filled with boring unimaginative bland characters. I'd rather have the one or other struggle with their demons and have society develop methods of helping each other out.

Bottom line: I think it's to early for humans to decide what kind of personality actually is benefitial to society or not. We're simply not intelligent enough to do that yet. Maybe in a thousand years, if there isn't a giant setback. ... But it's just a few decades ago that a few societies started to accept that women do have a soul and are 100% just as worthy humans as men - it's to early to judge unborn by their genetic disposition and not run the risk of doing serious long term harm to humanity.

My 2 cents.

Simple question - 2 actually

[mikein08]

1. How does one become an "expert in practical ethics"? 2. Who determines which personality and physical traits are desirable and which are not, and what is the policy for dispute resolution? Hitler would just love this guy.

No

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I specifically said that "This proposal has horrible intrinsic moral problems." Creating a designer human, as if he/she was a consumer product, violates human dignity.

stupid but should be legal

[kenorland]

I think Savulescu is full of sh*t if he thinks anybody has an obligation to tinker with the genetic makeup of their babies. And society certainly doesn't think so: parents don't even have much of a responsibility for dealing with the consequences of their parenting mistake, the taxpayer usually does that.

On the other hand, I think you certainly have a right to tinker with the genetic of your baby. If you want blond-haired, blue-skinned babies with strong collectivist drives, knock yourself out.

If you want to do something unethical

[Stirling Newberry]

hire an ethicist.

Who decides what is an undesirable trait?

[kawabago]

Fixing genetic diseases is a good thing, designer babies is a bad thing. Look at the situation in China, everyone was supposed to have only one baby so a large portion of the population used sex selection to choose to have a male child. Now there are millions more men than women and if you aren't at the top of the social ladder you can't find a mate.

Self modifying code

[istartedi]

Self modifying code is the best code. Get crackin' boys. Our software should have fewer bugs and be more "ethical" by the next major release. New! Genetically modified babies. Now 83% more ethical as determined by the National Council on Ethics (chaired by the former CEO of Monsanto).

Re:Stepford Babies

[JackieBrown]

didn't the Nazis try this a few years back ??

mainly to justify a war which was waged to bring the US economy out of recession and suppress the two most potent economic competitors.

I just want to be clear on this, you are saying that the US waged World War II to two most potent economic competitors?

If so, do you realize the timeline of that war?

Also, I don't believe eugenics was a major propaganda piece during the war for the allies. In fact, it seems that it was the germans that used it during the war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda

Smart people having kids

[TheSync]

Today it is far easier to achieve "assortative mating" due to advanced economies and enhanced information technology.

Intelligent men and women find each other in college or on the Internet, and have smart children. 100 years ago, intelligent people would be far more willing to marry less intelligent people due to population limitations - based on who lived in their town, or perhaps would trade off looks or brawn for intelligence.

Let's be honest, this is happening, and leading to higher levels of IQ inequality in advanced economies.

Re:Smart people having kids

[GameboyRMH]

IQ is basically a novelty in today's society, it doesn't give that much of an advantage. Massive IQ inequality would be a precondition for massive power/wealth inequality if society were to change radically to reward IQ however.

Re:Smart people having kids

[TheSync]

IQ is basically a novelty in today's society, it doesn't give that much of an advantage.

IQ is correlated highly with income. Each point increase in IQ test scores raises income by between $234 and $616 per year.

Re:I probably have slight ADD ... that's an advant

[PPH]

It's the basic mental condition emperors or simular people (think 'the Steve Jobs Type') have.

And possibly Bill Gates.

You might have what is called Asperger's Syndrome.

Docile, conformist

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Watch as mainstream sources urge people to program their children to be "good citizens", while the people who run the mainstream sources engineer their children for "leadership abilities".

Re:Overlords

[PPH]

Well, seeing as how some people are trying to classify AGW denial as a mental disorder, perhaps in the future we can ensure the success of our political agendas by selecting for them genetically.

Could versus should

[starfishsystems]

It's generally not that case that from the emergence of any new possibility that you could do something, it automatically follows that you should do it.

The reasoning is akin to Cantor diagonalization. Any imperative that you should do something has to be justified, and such justification proceeds stepwise.

Engineering is actually a well-chosen term

[MerlinTheWizard]

What they are talking about here is exactly that: something akin to engineering - basically using science facts and "recipes" to create or modify things without really understanding what one is doing on a deeper level, as long as it seems to be working (and until it breaks).
Modern views on evolution and on genetics tend to admit that DNA is actually a very vague description, where genes code very general characteristics and not the precise details we used to think they did, leaving a large part for randomness and subjectness to interactions with the environment.
What that basically means is that by trying to "fix" DNA, we are actually reducing the overall possibilies: maybe some bad characteristic won't show up, but probably many more other possibilites won't either, the result of which we have absolutely no idea about.
I'm baffled that some current "professor" does seem to think as though we were 50 or 60 years ago. Grow up!

Khan!

[josepha48]

Either you get it or you don't. Obviously this professor doesn't get it.

Obligation to eat worms and like it

[WaffleMonster]

When it comes to biology we are nothing but a bunch of clueless hackers who think our education and fancy titles endow us with the ability to understand or predict the consequences of our actions when no such thing is currently within our reach.

"We can do better than chance" ... Except nobody knows how to design and build anything resembling the capabilities of a human. Until this changes it seems exceedingly foolish to assume we are smarter than evolution.

I agree with one sentiment we are already playing god be it from medical interventions to save those who would have normally died, relative lack of scarcity or detecting serious defects in the unborn.

I can think of no credible way to falisify the in for a penny in for a pound argument mr Pickens makes... we're doing it anyway so why stop now?

Rather than accusing others of making irrational arguments some self reflection might first be in order.

Jurassic Park?

[MarkvW]

We are at the threshold of genetic knowledge. Twiddling around with things we don't know too much about can easily lead to unintended consequences.

KHAN!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Combination of cluelessness with logical fallac

[MerlinTheWizard]

You make 3 very good points. To quote Wikipedia: "Savulescu argues that humanity is on the brink of disappearing in a metaphorical ‘Bermuda Triangle’ – unless certain eugenic steps are taken to correct what he considers to be aberrant human behaviour and overly liberal laws."

Maybe his romanian origins (Romania under the soviet union influence for a long time) could explain some of this. As for me, the sentence above shows that they guy is more of a dangerous politician than a scientist. End of story.

Need more than 'barely'.

[Dr. Manhattan]

Thailidomide.

That's why you need more than "barely". Simple molecule, studied for safety... except they didn't test long enough, among enough diverse circumstances, to catch a major issue. Biological systems are orders of magnitude more complex than the things humans normally work with, and are the equivalent of spaghetti code, with just oodles of non-obvious interactions, kludges, and general weirdness.

So no, 'barely' isn't enough. You need 'thoroughly'.

Short story

[LMariachi]

What was that short story about the one of the few non-genetically-engineered teenagers in a school full of kids who’d been engineered to be good-looking and highly intelligent? She catches all kinds of passive-aggressive shit until a dormant flaw manifests in all the GM kids; it ends with her delivering the commencement address calling for empathy for the now-disabled. Or something. I’m drawing a blank.

Re:-"Julian Savulescu"

[omfgnosis]

Its not "real ethics" which is more akin to an actual moral code regarding others (dont kill, dont steal). Instead its: dont kill/steal unless you wont get caught and/or really really need to.

You should consider a cursory study of ethics, because the latter very much represents an ethical consideration. Any moral system which disregards the conditions affecting moral considerations is a moral system with little value. Taking the "don't kill" example, it becomes clear that the idea is morally bankrupt when you instruct a person not to kill an aggressor who would otherwise kill them. This is why ethics is complex, and why we need to work at it rather than accept some code from on high.

"Practical ethics" sounds to me like a field where the considerations of ethics are compromised with considerations of the status quo—which may or may not be a valuable field, but certainly isn't a study of ethics.

How could moral relativism work?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Perhaps it is simply the case that many bear the banner of moral relativism are hypocrites.

Not "many". ALL. I have never seen (or heard of) one single moral relativist that _even tries_ to be minimally consistent.

If you mention abortion or prostitution, they are all about "don't impose your morality on others". But the instant you mention something they don't like (say, nuclear energy), they change their minds and now say that thing is evil and must be forbidden. And they are not even embarrassed; they don't even appreciate the irony; they don't seem to feel any guilt.

By the way, how does moral relativism translate to a political philosophy? You could say "since morality is relative, we must not interfere with other people's lives" but that would be itself a moral judgment, and therefore relative and non-binding.

You could say "whatever the majority wants, the government must obey" but that is itself a moral judgment, and therefore relative and non-binding.

Tell me how do you _consistently_ base a political philosophy on moral relativism.

Re:How could moral relativism work?

[RebelWithoutClaws]

Tell me how do you _consistently_ base a political philosophy on moral relativism.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, it's about finding the balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of society. Basically this means addressing every issue individually. Without a predetermined "moral code" to refer to, this is not easy, I admit; but it is necessary. The alternative is a philosophy of moral absolutism, which means attempting to apply simple, predetermined decisions to new and complex problems. That may be easier, but is it better? I don't think it is.

Re:How could moral relativism work?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, it's about finding the balance between the interests of the individual and the interests of society. Basically this means addressing every issue individually. Without a predetermined "moral code" to refer to, this is not easy, I admit; but it is necessary. The alternative is a philosophy of moral absolutism, which means attempting to apply simple, predetermined decisions to new and complex problems. That may be easier, but is it better? I don't think it is.

How exactly do you balance that?
If you do it by democracy, you are basing that on the idea that it is just to follow what the majority wants. But this is itself a moral judgment, so we have a chicken-and-egg problem.

Re:How could moral relativism work?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

> How exactly do you balance that?

Is that an honest question, or are you just trying to poke holes in the parent's argument? The honest answer is: the best way you can. You use knowledge, history, reason, experience, judgement and yes, sometimes, majority rule.

Suppose I propose another solution: we create an hereditary monarchy.The monarchs will be educated from birth to be excellent rulers.

Since all morality is relative, how can you say your proposal is better than mine?

Re:How could moral relativism work?

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Note that I didn't use any absolute terms in that statement, because there are no absolutes. This seems to be the part you are having the hardest time grasping: you have to make choices, but all choices are *not* equal. Sometimes the better choice is easy to find, like in your ludicrous math example below. Sometimes it is tougher.

I have "a hard time grasping" because you are hardly making any sense. Moral relativism says that no moral framework is privileged. So yes, all choices are equal (as long as different people make them).

Also, how can there be human rights in a world of moral relativism? See what I wrote elsewhere about the Violians.

Re:Stepford Babies

[siglercm]

His being an ethicist matters no more or less than him having any other job, as far as the validity of his argument goes.

IMHO, his being an ethicist, as one who comes to this conclusion, strongly calls into question his training and credentials in ethics.

I believe Star Trek has already covered this ...

[DontScotty]

"'Whether we like it or not,
the future of humanity is in our hands now.
Rather than fearing genetics,
we should embrace it. We can
do better than chance.'
Earth, Hitler, 1938. "
-- Captain James T. Kirk:

Re:Too bad about genius & creativity being wee

[ne0n]

The interaction between unfit genes and the rest seems impossibly complicated. It's the height of silly human hubris to think that scientists can even come clost to approximating billions of years of incremental improvements.

The proposed genetic monoculture sounds ripe for destruction by a currently-rare disease. I wonder what Darwin would think about manual manipulation of unfit genes.

we can't do better than chance

[NemoinSpace]

Until we eliminate it from the equation. Proclaiming we know everything there is to know about genetics, while maintaining that the majority of our genes are comprised of "junk DNA" is poking a stick at nature. The people that would play roulette with the future of the human race, unfortunately will have zero accountability in the next thousand years. While i don't propose we go back to worshipping sun gods, I do think we have a lot more observational science to practice before rushing headlong into the engineering aspects Acting responsibley without the capability of neong responsible iss the moral dillema

Fear and Loathing in the 21st century

[TiggertheMad]

You know, just because science figures out something that could make our lives better doesn't mean that it will be misused. To automatically refute advances in medicine puts you squarely in the realm of the Luddite. Someone like you was saying that soap is an unhealthy and unholy invention a couple thousand years ago.

Re:Fear and Loathing in the 21st century

[macs4all]

You know, just because science figures out something that could make our lives better doesn't mean that it will be misused. To automatically refute advances in medicine puts you squarely in the realm of the Luddite. Someone like you was saying that soap is an unhealthy and unholy invention a couple thousand years ago.

Ahem. I don't know about "unholy"; but it seems like at least the use of some soaps IS DECIDEDLY UNHEALTHY.

Sorry. You just walked into that one and shut the door behind yourself.

For the record: I am anything BUT a luddite. But I also have a nose for bad science. And this is the epitome of just that.

Re:Fear and Loathing in the 21st century

[Macgrrl]

I think that some caution in deciding to use genetic manipulation of fetuses is valid.

While it may be used initially to screen out obvious disadvantages such as a tenancy for alcoholism, there will always be a doctor somewhere who will be prepared to screen for other traits as they become identifiable.

Did you know that it is illegal in parts of India to screen for gender? This is due to the gender imbalance of males to females, it is feared it will become even worse as people abort female children in preference to male. Despite it being illegal there are plenty of doctors who will tell parents the gender for a fee.

If your parents give you a stupid name as the result of some trend (hello to all those Bellas and Edwards out there just entering pre-school). You can at least change your name by deed poll. You can't change your build/height/ eye or hair colour (permanently) if appearance trends start dictating genetic manipulation choices.

You know, just because science figures out something that could make our lives better doesn't mean that it will be misused.

History begs to differ.

Re:Fear and Loathing in the 21st century

[Chrontius]

They didn't have triclosan a couple thousand years ago. While you make a good point, it's ultimately a red herring.

Your signature

[colinrichardday]

Wouldn't the DNA for durum semolina be the ultimate spaghetti code?

Wasn't it

[mrmeval]

Scientists, politicians and religious people who gave us eugenics, forced sterilization and death camps?

Basis of personality traits

[jodido]

Another problem is that personality traits like "selfishness" are a. hard to define and b. have some degree, maybe 100 percent, of a social, not genetic basis. Hack DNA to eliminate, for example, something like an alleged "propensity to violence"? They'll start with the slaves, of course.

I've thought about this for years

[dixonpete]

In yesteryear harmful mutations were selected out. Nowadays we can accommodate more and more disability with technology and social support. Probably someone could work out the date, but it's inevitable that without selection the human race genome will eventually degrade to making a pile a protoplasm with all accrued genetic damage. It's either select out or die out. Helluva choice I know, but..

Disease

[hackus]

and what its affects are, is not understood very well. Furthermore, from e genomic stand point, researchers are not sure what disease free actually means.
Tinkering with genes on purpose will more than likely have consequences, some of them highly undesirable I would suspect.

Genomic research is in its infancy, and we should hold off for another 100 years as the field develops and more is understood. We simply do not have enough wisdom or knowledge to make a decision right now on how to control the human genome.

Furthermore, humanity hasn't risen to the level where all races can participate equally in such decisions. Until that happens, laws should be put in place to prevent genetic manipulation of offspring.

-Hack

subject

[Legion303]

Would Hemingway have been Hemingway without the depression and alcoholism?

I don't know, and neither does this guy.

Re:Stepford Babies

[GameboyRMH]

The US was heavily into eugenics until the Nazis got their cooties all over it (a good thing, because imagine how long it would take for society to come to their senses the good ol' fashioned way, as with racism and homosexuality).

Re:We Have This Already

[epyT-R]

Check your history. Most of the ideological nuttery of the last 100 years comes from extremist left wing lunacy.

I'd be all for this if only

[kilodelta]

They could cull out conservatism. To me that's one of the bigger mental disorders out there.

Zero'th Law?

[TempestRose]

Sorry for bringing fiction into Real Life, but wouldn't the good of ALL humanity outweigh the good of the individual human? Seriously. Asimov made a good play for a zero'th law. ( Yeah, bah, I'm too lazy to go look up how he wrote it. Bite me. ) Is this TRULY what we want? Everyone choosing what is best for THEIR children, at the cost of what is best for humanity? Travolta, you need to build an organization, QUICKLY, to make sure that custom babies are blown to bits, preferably with LNNW ( no more ball bearings!), just to be sure. You know? Olivaw to the Rescue!!! Olivaw for President!!! (For the humour impaired, get a clue. )

Re:Zero'th Law?

[TempestRose]

God Damnit. LNNW = LYNW Frickin Gin...

Click to re-roll

[coldsalmon]

The thing about babies is that you can't (yet) alter individual stats, you just have to re-roll a new character. Sometimes it's better to take the -5 weakness to fire if it's balanced out by really high intelligence or strength, rather than waiting forever to generate the perfect battlemage.

Flaws that might be useful

[Taco Cowboy]

I read somewhere that flaws like paranoia could be an asset in times of crisis

Those without any paranoia are more likely be "sheeples" and they will blindly walk into a slaughterhouse waiting to be slaughtered

Those who are paranoid - oh yes, the world often laugh at them - may choose to not enter the slaughterhouse, and thus spared

I also read that flaws like depression could be useful too

Depressed people have much less spontaneity than those who are not depressed. Because of that, they are less likely to do spontaneous things, - like jumping over a drainage, for example - thus, are less likely to suffer injury that could have been prevented
 

Re:Flaws that might be useful

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Yes.

Let's create a genetic monoculture, and screen out diversity.

what's in it for me?

[slick7]

It depends on who holds the patents.

To support your point -- the Orchid child

[Paul Fernhout]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/12/the-science-of-success/307761/
"Most of us have genes that make us as hardy as dandelions: able to take root and survive almost anywhere. A few of us, however, are more like the orchid: fragile and fickle, but capable of blooming spectacularly if given greenhouse care. So holds a provocative new theory of genetics, which asserts that the very genes that give us the most trouble as a species, causing behaviors that are self-destructive and antisocial, also underlie humankind's phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary success. With a bad environment and poor parenting, orchid children can end up depressed, drug-addicted, or in jail -- but with the right environment and good parenting, they can grow up to be society's most creative, successful, and happy people."

So, rather than address issues of society making good parenting difficult, it sounds like this "ethicist" would just terminate in advance all the children at risk of "potential alcoholism" who just need good parenting and good societies to blossom in -- places with walking trails (see "Blue Zones"), with people getting vitamin-D from sunlight, lots of cheap vegetables and healthy fats like omegas-3s, with toxins like many artifical colors and flavors excluded from the food supply, and so on... As Dr. Fuhrman says in "Eat to Live", genes may give us weak links, but how much those links are pulled on is a function of diet and lifestyle (and upbringing).

Note also that nature is often more concerned about parasite resistance and disease resistance than many other factors this ethicist might focus on instead -- so that ethicist's plan put in practice might produce a society of great-looking high-IQ people who collapse at the first sniffle. Just look at what industrial breeding of tomatoes has brought us as far as what you see in your typical supermarket (compared to heirloom varieties).

It's sad what passes for overly-cerebral "ethics" these days (as much as I too might have said much the same when I was younger, brought up in a hyper-competitive US culture); here is part of why that is (but a bunch more is just a cultural pendulum swinging perhaps):
http://disciplinedminds.com/
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/11b.htm
"The eugenics movement begun by Galton in England was energetically spread to the United States by his followers. Besides destroying lesser breeds (as they were routinely called) by abortion, sterilization, adoption, celibacy, two-job family separations, low-wage rates to dull the zest for life, and, above all, schooling to dull the mind and debase the character, other methods were clinically discussed in journals, including a childlessness which could be induced through easy access to pornography.2 At the same time those deemed inferior were to be turned into eunuchs, Galtonians advocated the notion of breeding a super race. Humanist Scott Nearing wrote his masterpiece, The Super Race: An American Problem, in 1912, just as the drive to destroy an academic curriculum in public schools was reaching its first crescendo. By "problem," Nearing wasn't referring to a moral dilemma. Rather, he was simply arguing that only America had the resources to meet the engineering challenge posed in creating supermen out of genetic raw stock."

Gatto suggests even the reason school rooms were called "class rooms" is linked with the eugenics notion that "classes" of people kept together would end up breeding with the same class, to produce superior offspring for the high ranked classes, and easily exploitable and disposable ones for the lower ranked ones.

As you say, today's defect can be tomorrow's salvation. There seems to be plenty of room for more people with more unique ideas and perspectives as part of a global (or someday galaxy-wide) cooperative discussion:

Society not parents

[Tom]

I'm going to draw a lot of flack here, but I strongly believe that for many (not all) decision regarding future human beings, the parent are the last ones who should decide. Simple truth of the matter is that nobody is further away from objective evaluation than hormone-swamped people with built-in motherly and fatherly love.

Look at disabled children brought into the world with full knowledge of their genetic defects and severe consequences for their entire lives. There is no rational explanation for allowing that to happen, all the explanations are irrational: Either religion ("do not interfere with gods mysterious ways") or psycho-babble ("but it is our child and we'll love it no matter how it is").
There are some conditions where I consider it cruel to bringt that child into the world. It will be suffering its entire life. Abort it and make a new one if you are a loving parent.

Now TFA simply extends that to psychological, etc. defects. That's a bit SciFi and a bit nonsense because on most of those we do not yet know how much and what effect precisely the genetic component plays. But imagine it works, at least for some. What's the ethical consequences? I don't have a full answer, but I do have first-hand experience with someone mentally ill. Not genetically caused in this case, but for the thought-experiment assuming it would were. I must honestly say that I'm not sure. The amount of pain and suffering caused to both the ill one and everyone close was tremendous and long-term. I can not imagine any ethically defensible argument to abstain from prevent such things to happen, except that the actions required would be even worse. That certainly is true for murder, but then we're back at the irrational arguments where abortion and murder are equated, which rests on irrational definitions of life, personality and entity/beings.

And before you hit me with a reply, keep in mind that common sense is what tells us that the world is flat. Don't make "it feels wrong" an argument, because it isn't. Not in either direction - slavery or force marriages of very young girls didn't feel wrong for most of human history. Saying that your imaginary friend actually is imaginary, but not much of a friend, on the other hand, did.

Re:Society not parents

[Aphoxema]

The issue I see here is that the qualities we already screen for are "master" flaws, things that will definitely, objectively ruin a person's life or prevent them from surviving at all. Medical care can't keep up with these problems.

Lesser flaws, like alcoholism, psychopathy and a predisposition to violence are things that are held subjectively and have a a social stigma against them... however, none of these things make someone inherently a bad person. There's also a lot of therapeutic or medical options available for things like this that will only improve over time. Then there's the possibility that society must have assholes to function.

All this does is raise the line of "good enough" and that is undeniably in the direction of eugenics. Maybe that's a good thing, but I don't believe society really has the awareness, wherewithal or objectivity needed to improve itself in such a way. I'll be happy to come back to the question once religion is forgotten.

Re:Society not parents

[Tom]

however, none of these things make someone inherently a bad person.

Neither does having a debilitating handicap. It's not about being a bad person, it's about causing unbearable amounts of suffering to both yourself and others.

Then there's the possibility that society must have assholes to function.

A hypothesis that needs supporting evidence before it becomes an argument.

All this does is raise the line of "good enough"

Yeah, the most difficult question I see in all this is where to draw the line and what objective measures to use.

eugenics is back!

[davydagger]

It shouldn't suprise anyone, because it started in the US to begin with. But it looks like it has a new advocate in the 21st century.

How someone could call themselves an ethiscist and recommend this is beyond me.

The tacit assumption people here seem to make is

[ToddInSF]

that we already know that by manipulating a particular gene is going to have an entirely predictable outcome...

Sure, you've removed a gene that has an associated risk of disease x with it; WHAT ELSE have you removed in doing this ?

The answer, of course is, that they do not know.

The biggest problem with technologists is the tendency to not admit when there is a simple question. When we just do not know.

"Kindess"

[tmjva]

I remember a science fiction short story about a person that was a throwback to normal humans. I think the story was called "Kindness". As the one of the last "normal" humans, he was so far behind intellectuall, they put him in a sort of leper colony with others like him. I don't remember however if the "others" like him were in fact really just like him, or just actors making him feel at home.

I also forget who the sci-fi author was, but I think it was one of the famous ones from the 1950s.

Re:Combination of cluelessness with logical fallac

[buddyglass]

It's worth noting that Down's syndrome, while "genetic", isn't "heritable". You can't be a "carrier" for Down's syndrome. There are no families who are "predisposed" to Down's syndrome. It's just a freak thing that becomes increasingly more likely with the age of the mother. Or, more specifically, becomes more likely as the quality of her ova declines. If every Down's baby were aborted it wouldn't reduce the number of Down's babies conceived. (It would, obviously, reduce the number of Down's babies born).

to screen out potential genetic personality flaws?

[KingBenny]

... no comment

More humanity from the Journal of Medical Ethics

[uninformedLuddite]

Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

Here's the link to make sure you don't think I am just a troll

Re:Reading Stuff Like This...

[Macgrrl]

Reminds me of a quote from one of my technical repairs service trainers [1] - ...none of the screws are optional.

[1] I think it was an Epson guy, it may have been NEC. I've certainly worked with plenty of techs who thought a number of screws were optional, and it led to devices being returned multiple times for repairs.

Original source in Reader's Digest

[jamespjh]

It seems the original source of this is not the Telegraph article, but: http://www.readersdigest.co.uk/magazine/readers-digest-main/the-maverick-its-our-duty-to-have-designer-babies

A replacement for "real" ethics?

[doccus]

An expert in "practical" ethics? Wudda mealy mouthful.. So how does that work anyways? Get rid of anything that might be misconstrued as "real" ethics (such as do no murder, do not bear false witness, do not touch your neighbor's ass (even if she is pretty)) , and 'invent' your own? So how does making up your *own* ethics deserve a degree? And how does one become an 'expert' at making up their own rules? As Bugs said (and he's as good an 'expert' as anyone else) Wudda Maroon...

not 500 years of democracy and peace

[StueyNZ]

Switzerland, like the rest of western europe has not had 500 years of democracy and peace. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_in_the_Napoleonic_era

Nothing could be truer

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Nothing could be truer and more important than the statement this researcher made.

Look at our most pressing problems, they are all caused by human nature . What IS human nature? It's whatever evolution shit out its ass over the course of a few hundred millions years. What was (and is) evolution's goal? Make something, anything, that lives long enough in its environment to reproduce itself as much as possible. Full stop.

We evolved in a resource constrained environment in which we had to compete for those resources in order to survive. So we have a genetic mandate to see the world and the things in it as prizes in a zero sum game, and this impulse of ours admits of no limits and knows no boundaries whatsoever, moral or otherwise.

The evidence is all around you . Just to snatch the latest headlines, look at the LIBOR scandal. This is a broad criminal conspiracy on the part of the most privileged, most educated, most well-off, most secure segment of a first world society which itself enjoys the most stability, the most food security, the highest standard of living of any in all of human history. And yet, these Brooks Brother wearing, extraordinarily successful members of that society are hungry for more.

This is what human beings are. This is the underlying force driving all of human history. The hypothetical, counterfactual alternative is laughable on the face of it: instead of war, humans work with fervor to make sure everyone has what they need and when that's accomplished they set about with equal determination to attack our few remaining foes - natural disaster and disease.

Men want to copulate with as many desirable females as they can in order to make as many copies of their genes as they can. This is their genetic heritage and it knows no limits. Females greatly prefer men who have power and resources and stature to men who don't because it facilitates the survival of their offspring . This is their genetic heritage. So we have Genghis Khan seeding his way across Asia leaving 1 in 200 Asians alive today as direct descendants of him and his kin. So we have Arnold and Kennedy and Elliot Spitzer the Republican Congressman or Senator of your choice unable to control their impulses despite hat amounts to personal dynasties being imperiled because the whole purpose of personal dynasty making is to provide increased access to desirable females. Not fucking everything that isn't nailed down would e like starting a business and then eschewing the profits.

You can talk about genetic engineering in terms of criminality and sociopathy all your want, but the fact is that what counts as sociopathy changes with the times . There's a great scene in Clockwork Orange where Alex is daydreaming about being a Roman Centurion and whipping Christ a few times as trudges by with the cross on his back on the way to Calvary. What Kubric is saying is, as bad as Alex seems to us, the same personality type was a well adjusted member of society in Roman times. What is changing society now and determining whose "in" and who's "out" is technology and specifically the ability of a small band of humans to inflict their will not merely on every other human on the planet, and not merely temporarily, but for all future time and all future people. By leveraging the collective but hierarchical power of the corporation and the systematic abasement and perversion of lawmaking through "campaign contributions" (Citizens United being just the most recent example of an enabler in this context) , the impulse to have more, to accumulate greater and greater amounts of wealth and power at the expense of all future human generations has reached its self destructive peak forward of which point there is either radical reform or oblivion.

And if there is going to be radical reform, if we're going to survive, how exactly is that we're going to change? Are we going to shore up our democratic institutions ? Is that working now

I could swear I saw this movie recently...

[jeko]

"These are just a few of the images we've recorded. And you can see, it wasn't what we thought. There's been no war here and no terraforming event. The environment is stable. It's the Pax. The G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate that we added to the air processors. It was supposed to calm the population, weed out aggression. Well, it works. The people here stopped fighting. And then they stopped everything else. They stopped going to work, they stopped breeding, talking, eating. There's 30 million people here, and they all just let themselves die."

QFT

[Chrontius]

"I'm sure people predicted the same thing about vaccinations. (And some people still think they're right.)"

Quoted for truth (and +2 karma)

Re:We Have This Already

[Chrontius]

It looks like they're trying to make up for lost time.