Printable View
Hi, folks!
Read about embryo selection here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preimpl...etic_diagnosis
http://www.brown.edu/Courses/BI0032/gentherp/IVABC.htm
Note the 'ethics' section in the wikipedia article, for this is where this discussion will be about.
My question to you guys is:
Is embryo selection ethical? Is it morally acceptable or morally wrong? And if it is acceptable: where do we draw the line? And more importantly: why?
And.... You may start debating!
Fun ey?
Mmmkay... Bye!
-CD
Until someone gives me a clear reason why this is ethically wrong, I think it's a beautiful opportunity.
If we're talking about designer babies, I can think of four reasons that this might be a bad idea.
1) The technology will probably not be readily available to poor people. This creates potential for the wealthiest families/countries to produce smarter, stronger, healthier children than the poor families/countries, creating a self-perpetuating cycle of eugenic disparity between the rich and the poor. This could lead to a new form of feudalism, except now the aristocrats really are superior. Call this the 'genetic aristocracy' effect.
2) Society and the market may decide that babies should be designed as a matter of moral principle. It would start with society demanding that all babies are screened for disease genes, but then they may demand that babies are as smart as possible, or strong, etc. This may lead to genetic discrimination. Call this the Gattaca effect.
Interestingly, a law was recently passed in the US outlawing genetic discrimination. However, this should be taken more as a sign that it will happen and congress knows it, rather than a sign that it won't.
3) If the technology is developed, governments may use it to produce (probably covertly) a generation of children better suited to serving their own ends, which would be children that are healthier, stronger, dumber, and more prone to indoctrination. Over time, using a combination of eugenics and aggressive indoctrination, it may be possible to create a lower class of humans, barely conscious, bred only to fight war and keep the peace (and trust God/the government). Call this the 'anti-aristocracy' effect.
4) Evolution works best when you don't interfere. Humans may think they know nature's tricks, but no one is cleverer than evolution when it comes to survival. By creating a generation of designer babies, we may inadvertently select out a key gene the immune system uses to fight off viruses. Because of this, humans may not be able to fight off the next plague, and this would make humanity more vulnerable to extinction.
hmmmmmmm
im not sure embryo selection necessarily makes for a smarter/healthier/better off human being
babies aren't born with fully developed brains. the brain is still growing and developing as a baby and as a child and as a teenager. . .what really makes the difference is how they are taken care of in early life. what foods their parents feed them - are they eating junk food and drinking sodas by the age of one? are they getting enough sleep? are their minds being stimulated or are they left to rot in front of the tele?
you know, there are some studies showing how certain groups of minorities are doing worse in school. and its not because of genetics that minorities some how are inferior brains. it comes down to nutrition. some families are too poor to afford to eat healthy. poor family means poor nutrition. poor nutrition means its hard to focus at school. fish has been called brain food for a reason.
with all the newer research we have done, we understand that 1. this is a left brain society that practically suppresses right brain thinking. 2. we are ALL essentially left brainers and can learn to be right brainers 3. your lifestyle has a greater impact on your intelligence and performance as a human being than.....dna. anyone can drink them self stupid even if hes born a genius.
but you know, if the parents want to do this thats fine. I know at least in my immediate family probably the only bad genes we have are bad eyes. in other families there are a host of genetic diseases. maybe some people have more to be concerned about than others
but my real problem is WHO is screening and WHAT are they screening for. An 'anomaly' can be a GOOD thing for example. Thats how evolution works right? Autism is pretty strange, but those individuals can lead fascinating and fulfilling lives and have proven to be able to advance in areas that normal people can't. I would just be worried if we ever get to a point in our history where we are suddenly afraid of any sort of anomaly we don't understand in our dna. Especially at the same time, when were being told only a portion of our dna is active
who has the right to decide what is good and what is bad genetics? where are the lines there and how far will that go?
Of course I'm talking about potential. Obviously the best genes in the world won't help you if you're malnourished. But, given a good environment, good genes can make a difference, and some people might try to exploit this. I say "might" because we don't yet know how much variation you can get out of small genetic modifications. My 4 scenarios are just some things to think about, not predictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Plus, if the technology got advanced enough, than the government, (or people,) could remove or alter certain alleles to actually affect personality to thier own ends, suppress certain emotions, (Equilibreum anyone?,) create dispositions to certain types of things, what have you.
Genetic diversity in the human race = good.
I actually want to become a geneticist when I grow up. I'm fascinated at the prospect of creating a race of super-beings as humanity's slaves.
Then you need a friend who's a biom-mechanic and you can see which is better, genetically altered humans or cyborgs.
Cyborgs will win out. Genetic alteration can only give you so much in terms of extra intelligence, strength, or longevity. But merging with machines can potentially give us infinite intelligence and true immortality.Quote:
Originally Posted by spockman
how does being a cyborg give you infinite intelligence when the human brain is already greater a thousand million times, times 2, than greatest computer?
one of the silliest arguments I hear is, memory. "we don't have the memory like a computer does". this is lack of understanding the human mind. we have two minds, the conscious and the subconscious. the subconscious remembers. the consciousness doesn't. this is for our benefit, so we can focus on RIGHT NOW.
ever had a life like dream? down to every hair? every grain of sand? your subconscious does remember all the crap details we don't bother to think about it.
if we were always conscious of every memory and thought and action that has ever happened, well its not hard to understand how that gets in the way of thinking. its a good thing that we can forget. and our subconscious decides whats good information to remember and what information doesn't matter anymore. it doesn't mean, inferior or less intelligent. we were meant to be more focused on whats important
if a computer had to always think of every bit of information it has all the damn bloody time, it dies! boom! s
the right brain is still the mysterious side, over looked, misunderstood and even suppressed. there are people who claim they can recall any memory to full detail. for example, theres a sculptor, he can see an animal once. look away and sculpt it, every detail. every scar or identifying feature the animal has. so people have proven to have photographic memory
its all up there in our heads. we need to learn to tap into our heads and use our left and right brain equally. a chip in our brain, isn't going to make us more intelligent
For now. But while the human brain has changed little, if at all, in the past 200,000 years, computers double in performance every few years. By the time the prospect of cyborgs becomes a a real, feasible possibility, I suspect it will be a much different story as far as human brains vs computer processors is concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
What DuB said. Industry experts predict that Moore's Law will continue for at least another 20 years now, and their version is that computing power per volume doubles every two years. So they're saying that computers will get at least 1000 times more powerful in the near future. And they're the pessimists in this case. Optimists like Ray Kurzweil say that it could increase by a factor of a million over the next 20 years. So it will be somewhere in between.
The other point I would like to make is that there's no need for a computer-enhanced brain to be confined to a skull. There's plenty of room on Earth for supercomputers as large as buildings, even if there are 7 billion of them. In fact, if you look at the estimates of human processing power and supercomputer FLOPS, you'll see that the top supercomputers are either already at par with a human brain or will be at par within 5-10 years. Consider that that same computing power will be shrunk to at most the size of a desktop computer within 20 or so years, and it becomes obvious that vastly expanded intelligence is inevitable and right around the corner.
Brave New World