Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Americans Uncomfortable With Possibility of Ubiquitous Drones, Designer Babies

Posted by Soulskill on from the can-you-design-the-babies-to-also-be-drones dept.

alphadogg writes: "Americans are optimistic about scientific inventions on the horizon, though are cautious about future uses of DNA, robots, drones and always-on implants, according to the latest Pew Research Center survey on future technology (PDF). Asked about the likelihood of certain advances 50 years from now, survey respondents were most sure that lab-grown custom organs for transplant will happen (81%). Only 19% expect humans will be able to control the weather by then. When asked how they felt about possible near-term advances, 65% thought robot caregivers for the elderly is a bad idea, 63% didn't want to see personal drones in U.S. airspace, and 66% thought parents altering the DNA of prospective children was a bad idea."

18 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Personal Drones by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

    Just like 10 years after hiroshima, atom bombs were a fundamental right, right?

    Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the intent and apparent results of the 2nd amendment, but we don't actually enable much of a civilian arms race in the US.

  2. Better not ask them... by jpellino · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... about replacing the baby-delivering storks with drones.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  3. Designer babies by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

    What if eugenics stopped involving depriving people of their right to reproduce, and instead just targeted the actual genes/gene combinations that are "bad"?

    Could we get the best of both worlds? Or is eugenics always wrong, on account of pre-judging people on DNA? Regardless of the ethics, I find myself getting strongly behind genetic engineering of that sort being available, at least.

    1. Re:Designer babies by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      What if eugenics stopped involving depriving people of their right to reproduce, and instead just targeted the actual genes/gene combinations that are "bad"?

      Could we get the best of both worlds? Or is eugenics always wrong, on account of pre-judging people on DNA? Regardless of the ethics, I find myself getting strongly behind genetic engineering of that sort being available, at least.

      Looking at the world today, and how those in power treat those who are not, do you honestly think humanity would be responsible with that kind of power? Or would powerful people try and manipulate the general public into supporting the elimination of "genetic abnormalities" that aren't directly detrimental to society at large, but rather represent a threat to their monopoly on power?

      I.e., the oligarchs would absolutely love being able to stomp out dissent genetically.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Designer babies by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just as the strongest argument against communism is to simply point at every attempt to implement it, likewise the strongest argument against Eugenics is to look at all the times we (US, Germany, etc) attempted it.

      Its not a good path to go down. It invariably leads towards first/second class citizens, people whose ability to reproduce is considered detrimental to society, and a tyranny of the masses.

    3. Re:Designer babies by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      But previous attempts at eugenics all attempted to operate at the "can reproduce" stage, it could be very different to do so at the "How you reproduce" stage.

    4. Re:Designer babies by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      And... what exactly is this means you're thinking they'll have?

      Well, one obvious way to do it would be to set up a pricing structure for designer babies such that the babies with the Politically Correct genome (whatever that is conceived to be) waaay cheaper than the non-PC genomes.

      I mean, something as simple as "white babies 1/2 off this month only!" would be vile beyond belief, and almost certainly done if it were possbile.

      You could also look for genetic defects common to [minority you despise] and offer to "fix" them, along with a "few other [unspecified] improvements" that might not be seen as "improvements" by the prospective parents....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Designer babies by Your.Master · · Score: 2

      I don't necessarily disagree with you about genetic engineering being within a lifetime. But...15 years ago, seriously? Most of those things were considered plausible, not sci-fi. Hell, in 1999 we *assumed* we'd have incredibly powerful computers in our pockets and we often see articles disappointed that we haven't met 1999's expectations. Remember, it was 2001 when the infamous stem cell research funding ban came into effect. Drones were used in the first Gulf War in 1991, and it was big news when they were first used in a targeted killing in 2002.

      I think if you asked the average educated person 15 years ago about these things, they'd call them all either plausible or obvious developments. You'd have to be stunningly ignorant to disbelieve some of those.

      Mind you I still see people on slashdot arguing that self-driving cars are ridiculous sci-fi even though we have licensed robot cars *today*, so maybe you are right in a sense.

    6. Re:Designer babies by Stem_Cell_Brad · · Score: 2

      I think genetic engineering is definitely within a lifetime. We have been making genetic changes in the germline of mice for over 25 years. It was horribly inefficient for about 23 of those years. Now, it is fairly easy with RNA Guided Nucleases like CRISPR/Cas9. We are starting to develop treatments for diseases based on engineering somatic cells in adults. Going to germline modification in the human will take some technological developmental and refinements. But, it is not a large conceptual step to go to from genome editing in mice to humans.

    7. Re:Designer babies by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      People also make the argument that the prior communists just werent doing it right.

      Id prefer to learn from history. It has NEVER gone well with eugenics, and once you've accepted the premise of eugenics the rest of the nastiness follows logically.

  4. Re:Personal Drones by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everybody who is not properly trained in their use having a drone is a horrible idea, kind of like giving everyone who is not properly trained in their use a gun is a bad idea.

    FTFY. Proper training has a tendency to fix a lot of the issues with people misusing tools, outliers notwithstanding.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  5. Re:Personal Drones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Romanes eunt domus, biches.

  6. Paranoia by jklovanc · · Score: 2

    This is the kind of blatant generalizations that cause unnecessary fear of government drones.
    FEMA is a government agency and could use drones to quickly survey disaster areas and send help where it is need.
    The Forest Service is a government agency that could use drones to spot for water bombers and keep pilots out of dangerous situations.
    The Forest Service can also use drones to survey the health of the forests.
    There are many very good uses for government drones.

    more death and destruction.

    The most government drones that will be authorized for use in US airspace will be surveillance drones. How can surveillance drones lead to death and destruction? The only exception to this I can see would be in cases like the armored bulldozer rampage. Sorry but drones are not going to be shooting Hellfires at speeders.

  7. designer gentals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "...66% thought parents altering the DNA of prospective children was a bad idea..."

    Unfortunately, nearly half of Americans still have no problem surgically altering the genitals of their sons in order to suit their own aesthetic and sexual preferences or to satisfy their own religious blood rituals.

    1. Re:designer gentals by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      Look at places where Christianity is NOT the major religion, this kind of artificial genital alteration are NOT generally practiced.

      Huh? You do know that circumcision is primarily associated with Jewish and Muslim practice, right? It wasn't until the past 150 years or so with supposed "hygienic" movements that Christians became circumcised in some countries. It was doctors driving the practice, not religion... in fact, for centuries it was considered a mortal sin in Catholicism to circumcise anyone.

  8. Re:Personal Drones by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The gun rights supporters oppose training requirements for the same reason pro-choice supporters oppose any forms of restriction on abortion. They both recognise that regulation can easily be used as constitutional workrounds: The government cannot ban X, but they can require X is only available after filling in form 3940-subsection-C in triplicate and submitting to a federal agency which has an annual budget of $50 and a two-year backlog on processing the paperwork.

    This is a very common approach in the US, where various levels of government are often working at cross-purposes and actively trying to subvert one another. Witness things like zoning laws being used to ban sexually orientated businesses, or sexual offender exclusion zones that are intentionally overlapped so entire cities are without a square inch not somehow covered. If there was a requirement that individuals were required to undergo gun training and get a license, an anti-gun administration could deliberately underfund the department or set certification standards so high as to be humanly impossible to pass. In the same way that some states have passed laws which require any doctor performing an abortion have admitting privilidges at a local hospital, in full knowledge that for many clinics there are no hospitals within range that would grant such privledges and thus the requirement is intentionally impossible to comply with.

  9. Come on, this is insane by nobuddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A drone is just a remote controlled aircraft with a camera. I had several "drones" in the late 1980's as a teenager, for fuck's sake. Get over the knee-jerk raction equating "drone" with "terminator T-1000" and come back to sanity.

  10. Re:Personal drones with guns. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You would be surprised, but sometimes the unlikely movie scenarios do happen. Happened to me recently. Luckily, I had the 'other' lethal weapon with me, which resulted in the other guy having broken bones, not me. You don't need a gun 99.9% days of your life, but when you do, it can decide the outcome between life and death.