Slashdot Mirror
Genetically Engineered Children
A reader sent us a ABCNews story about the future of genetically engineered children. It's a bit fluffy, but creates some interesting questions, particularly in regards to the ethical questions. The synopsis of some of the people quoted is that most parents will actually do it, because they will want superior children. What do you folks think?
GATTAGA
:) The plot of the movie is basically fast forwarded n years to the future where we now control the genes of every person. Right from birth, your destiny is controlled by your genes - you can work some places, but not others.. and the world is basically divided up by "how good your genes are", and by extension - how useful you are. Think if it as the ultimate in racism. There is a very real possiblity of this happening - I don't believe this society (or any society in existance right now) is fully prepared to start meddling with genetics. It's an all-too-real possiblity that we'll create a world up with the "genetically superhuman", and the "normals" who are by definition, inferior.. and then it's only a short step to an all out war. This is something you'll read about over and over again - it's a well-used plot in science fiction. Heed their warnings.
If you've seen the movie, that's all I need to say to get my point across. For those that haven't, go see it right now - it was one of those pivotal sci fi movies you should have seen.
--
One hundred years hence, race might have disappeared as the primary differentiation among persons. Instead, we may bear much more significant differences as the result of parental design.
I'm reminded of the scenarios in Player Piano and Brave New World, which do a rather nice job of pointing out the major logistical problem with all this: Someone still has to do the grunt work. As it is, we aren't too far off of Vonnegut's scenario of female PhD's in cutthroat competition for secretarial jobs, and a genetically-engineered meritocracy is only going to aggravate the problem. There will still need to be a "producer" class, which is something that people tend to forget, and in this day and age of cheap mass-market goods made by little kids in China, most people don't want (even if they can afford it) to pay good money for the honest labor of a talented craftsperson. Think of how much less clothing the average person owned when it was usually sewn by someone in the household (by hand even), and how much less than THAT the average person owned when cloth had to be hand-spun and woven as well. Machines DO take care of some of this, but people still must run the machines.
There's also the small matter of the likely high correlation between intelligence and insanity. Remember the "Eve" episode of the X-Files? This holds fairly true in my own life
Trying too hard to "fix" a perceived problem tends to lead to backlash of some sort -- disease-resistant bacteria, anyone? There are two ways this could go, and I don't much care for either of them: An "all the children are above average" scenario, with "deviations" such as CP, Down's Syndrome, or perhaps even homosexuality ruthlessly stomped out, and people becoming ridiculously overqualified for even the most basic jobs; or a *deliberate* system of "breeding" a worker class (either human or AI). Gives me the creeps
"Somebody exploded a letter-bomb today
IMHO, it would be great to get rid of hereditary diseases, as mentioned in the article, and other such things. Someone posted earlier that we are defined by our 'defects.' However, would someone with one such 'defect' be any less of a person if they did not have the problem? I don't think that would be the case. More likely that person had potential that they had extreme difficulty realizing because of a problem that hindered them.
:) But I mean, seriously. If you are Joe Average, and your kid is Jean Intelligent, can you really relate to him? You want to be playing games with your kid at 5 years, but he/she wants to be studying physics. I mean, if you know physics, you can join in, but speaking as a father, I know I'd want to be playing with my kids.
I don't think creating superior children is a good thing, though. We might end up creating monsters that want to do away with all of those who aren't genetically superior. (At least it happens in that way in the sci-fi books
In fact, he says, it will be so beneficial that governments may require children to be engineered genetically to prevent development of new socioeconomic gaps.
I think this would be very wrong. if this happens here, I'm moving to another planet.
By the time these "smart" babies are born, they could be taught via direct transmission of electrical impulses into chips implanted in their brains.
"You might download French into the 3-year-old's brain directly," Caplan says.
Now, I'm wondering, did this really fit into the article at all? They were talking about genetic engineering, not implanted chips. They've gone from genetic engineering to cyborgs. (Personally, I'd want to be a cyborg, so it wouldn't be fair:) Plus, it's *upload* not download. Download is a transmission to you, upload is a transmission from you. Sigh. Net commercialization has corrupted the terms brought about by the old BBSes. Anyway, I'm finished rambling.
Hey, you took three cents!
Well stated.
I would only opt for this technology if I knew my wife or I carried a defective gene that could transmit a serious disease to my children. But the thought of designer children is reprehensible. Each of my three children is a unique individual with their strengths and weaknesses. It is the sum of our set of traits that make us individuals.
You only have to look at the monolith of popular culture with its winner take all approach to celebrity to predict where designer children lead
to. How many tall blond children with perfect teeth and the athletic abilities of Michael Jordan could the world stand?
Aside from the vapid uniformity of such a world there is the serious question of loss of genetic diversity. We are already seeing this in the agriculture industry with every farmer wanting to grow the most profitable strain of wheat or raise a herd of only the most prolific breed of milk producing cows. Extensive genetic engineering of children to culturally determined norms could lead to a world where a new disease, which today might only affect a fraction of the population, might threaten the extinction of the human race (not that it would be much of a loss by that stage).
Another troubling vision is corporate ownership of genetic traits. We already have patented lifeforms and crops genetically engineered by company A to only thrive with company A's fertilizers and herbicides. Will "trait agencies" spring up to buy the genetic information from individuals with outstanding abilities in some specific area like mathematics or athletics? If you have an un-engineered child with natural mathematical abilities could you be sued for fringing on that company's IP? Could parents be sued later in life by un-engineered children for disadvantaging them in the life competition for jobs and spouses? Would third world children be genetically engineered to resemble voluptuous movie stars for a life of slavery and prostitution. A scary world indeed!
(Warning: spoiler for a crappy movie)
.45 to the temple (o.k. maybe nano-carbon rod reinforced bones....)
Gattaca wasn't all bad, just really cheesy and simplistic. And the acting sucked, but that's a staple of sci-fi. Anyway...
At the end of the movie, remember when they were swimming like when they were kids, and they perfect brother lost to the bad one? Why did that happen?
Ever hear a Nature vs. Nurture debate? IMHO, you can't have one without the other. What does it matter if the you have the best genes if you grow up in a box? Or if you're beaten from a young age? What about if you go the natural process and have a full, loving, supporting environment? Who will come out on top? What happens continually to people who think they are better than others and are lazy, when they meet someone "inferior" who works harder?
Genes are only a starting place. The best genes in the world won't save you from a Mack truck or a
Regardless, whatever you call it the human spirit, the soul, desire, will. There is and always will be an intangible part of a being that is as important as the physical part.
+&x
I'm saying that, given a choice, I do not want to force my diseases and minor handicaps on my children. Which is what this discussion should be about. Whether we want to deny our children the chance for a better life than we got.
About "unfit" parents. They are already a problem today. Fathers who rape their infant daugthers, mothers who nearly drown their children as a punishment, drug abusers who get children that are born addicted (and hiv-positive). This wont change, as today there will be limits to what parents are allowed to do to their children.
It seems that your most besic fear is from taking responsibility. By arguing that we should deny the right to choose a better life for our children to *everybody*, you assume that you yourself will not have to make the choice. While this is convenient, it is a lie. By denying it to everybody, you are also forcing a choice on your children.
In our society, the technology will be available to the rich first. You can argue about whether or not this is "fair" or not, but that is the result of living in a capitalist society. However, already today some people are healthier, stronger, and brigther than others, and these people are more often than not a worthy contribution to our society. The opposite viewpoint, that nobody can be healthier, stronger, or brigther than the medium is not a society I' want to live in.
I don't think he meant thin as "skinny." Rather, I'm sure he meant "not fat."
His point is still perfectly valid -- When we select mates, qualities we find physically attractive can always be attributed to some sort of positive genetic attribute.
The very fact that you find an extremely skinny girl unhealthy (thus unattractive) is a direct result of this, and illustrates his point perfectly.