POLL: Would you use genetics to have Perfect Children?

[Kyteland]

No, because we really don't know what "good" genes are. The technology isn't developed enough for us to make good judgements on, and as a whole we have absolutely no clue what we are doing.

Imagine if we started tinkering and put gene X (use your imaginaiton) in to everyone because we were so convinced that it was a great trait for everyone to have. What if 1000 years down the road we realized that in fact gene X is a horrible survival trait and will eventually lead to the extinction of everyone who carries it. Now the human race is SOL because us morans back in 2004 decided to put Gene X in to all of our children.

Genetic evolution is a slow process for a reason. It takes a lot of time for bad genes to work their way out of a given population, mostly because what may be good now will be useless in other situations.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Dacalo
No, because if we do that, in time, perfection will ceas to exist.

Would perfection cease to exist or would be it raised higher?

 

[KevinH]

As long as my child is healthy...tha'ts perfect enough for me.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Kyteland
No, because we really don't know what "good" genes are. The technology isn't developed enough for us to make good judgements on, and as a whole we have absolutely no clue what we are doing.

Imagine if we started tinkering and put gene X (use your imaginaiton) in to everyone because we were so convinced that it was a great trait for everyone to have. What if 1000 years down the road we realized that in fact gene X is a horrible survival trait and will eventually lead to the extinction of everyone who carries it. Now the human race is SOL because us morans back in 2004 decided to put Gene X in to all of our children.

Genetic evolution is a slow process for a reason. It takes a lot of time for bad genes to work their way out of a given population, mostly because what may be good now will be useless in other situations.

thats an interesting way to look at it, or what if we eliminate a gene that in the future would help a person become immune to a deadly, future disease, but since we took it out, most of the human race is wiped out?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Not necessarily "perfect" children, but I'd certainly jump at the chance to fix problems such as my lousy eyesight -- like Millhouse I could sell my lenses to a coke-bottle collector.

 

[blakeatwork]

only insomuch as to prevent debilitating physical or mental defects. I don't how people who have "unnormal" children find the strength... It's my biggest fear of having children...

 

[slightlyhuman]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
If they can find the gene that makes kids talk back to their parent or the gene that makes them piss and moan about their allowance or curfew, yes, most definitely.

lmfao

 

[Cattlegod]

uh yes, in a heartbeat. i can't believe anyone would say no under the assumption that they would only have good genes modified.

 

[BigToque]

I guess I tend to think that we should leave ourselves alone. We have evolved to our state as needed. I guess I might do it if it meant that my kid could be healthy (I wouldn't want any other genes added to change things like appearance, etc).

There is also no set of perfect genes (at least in current humans). The genes are a product of what works in its ecological niche.

eg. If you have 2 copies of one certain gene, you get sickle cell anemia, so it's good to not have the gene (at least not have 2). Now if you have this gene and you mated with someone who also had one, your offspring could end up with sickle cell. So you say lets just eliminate the gene and nobody can get sickle cell. Then you have a problem. If you go to Africa you will find many people who carry the gene and it is very beneficial to have it. Why is it beneficial? If you have one copy of the gene you are immune to malaria, which is quite prolific there.

 

[JSang]

marry somebody.... hot and smart....close enough

 

[Rainsford]

You guys that voted yes don't watch Star Trek enough...what kind of geeks are you?

Seriously though, the problem is that we aren't intelligent enough to come up with good "intelligent design". What makes a person unique is not any one particular trait, but the combination of all those traits. What made George Washington or Winston Churchill such good leaders? What made Albert Einstein come up with all those great ideas? Can you isolate the genes necessary to create the next Michael Jordan?

People think that there wouldn't be anything wrong with making some traits better...who wouldn't want to be better looking or smarter or stronger? But in their narrow viewpoint they miss the unintended consequences of those actions.

Here's a perfect example. I'm a pretty average looking guy, I'm not ugly or dorky looking...but I'm also no Brad Pitt. As a result, I've developed an appealing personality and a sense of humor to compensate for my lack of movie star looks when dealing with girls, or just people in general. What if my parents had used genetics to make me look like Brad Pitt, would I have developed the same personality, would I be the same person?

This is just a shallow example...but it illustrates my point. It's hard to tell if traits are good or bad, and what will result from monkeying with them. Some things, like predisposition to cancer, should probably be controlled. But persuing perfection will destroy what makes us great in the first place.

 

[Wheatmaster]

What does it mean to be perfect? That's is the correct question, program terminated.

 

[OrganizedChaos]

yes

gods been in vacation for 2k years and darwins to damn slow. sometimes mother nature just needs a little kick in the pants to get her goin again

 

[Ynog]

Depends. I mean the knee jerk reaction is no. With Gattaca being a great example of the dangers that can result.

But on the other hand, with the higher and higher risks of cancer another diseases that are believe to have some genetic
roots. Would you turn down the possiblity to have children that could/would be genetically free from such health problem?

 

[yukichigai]

Perfect children? No. That'd be a little creepy, particularly since "perfect" is so subjective. But I would get the doc to remove some of the crappier genes I got, like my high, collapsing arches, (in my feet) my bad knees and my poor eyesight. I'd definitely do it if they could get rid of allergies.

P.S. Been watching Gattaca lately?

 

[dullard]

There is no perfect person. Who is to say that blond is perfect and brunnettes aren't? Same goes with every other trait - physical or mental. Thus genetics cannot give you a perfect child.

 

[Ausm]

I don't think it is possible....I know a couple who are complete idiots who had a child that is Uber smart . On the other end of the spectrum, I know a couple who are very intelligent but there son is barely bright enough to pound sand.


Sysadmin

 

[yukichigai]

I think the bottom line is the motivations. If it's so your child is heads above the rest (or even with the rest as in Gattaca) then it's wrong. But if it's as a form of preventative medicine -- removing allergies, defects in bone formation, male pattern baldness, etc. -- then it's not really a problem. I mean look at it this way, which is better: doing genetic engineering so your child doesn't inherit your asthma, or paying for inhalers and other medications and potentially putting your child at risk of death for the rest of their life?

 

[rgwalt]

I would be more interested in making sure that my children are defect free before I went on to make sure they were smart, beautiful, athletic, talented, gifted, etc... I would want to make sure they were free of genetic defects (Downs, etc) and I would want to make sure they weren't predisposed to health problems (alcoholism, heart problems, diabetic, obesity).

That money would be a great investment if you could ensure that your child would have straight teeth, good vision, and no health problems. Good vision runs in my family, but we have bad teeth and bad backs.

Ryan

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Definitely for health purposes. I would like to guarantee that my child will not have a birth defect or grow up to have health problems due to a genetic disorder.

Other than that, I think the things that could be controlled would just be cosmetic, like eye color, hair color whatnot. We know how this stuff gets passed on. I see no reason to mess with that stuff.

Tinkering with genes to make people smarter or stronger seems a little futuristic to me. Its not like there is a "smart" gene (at least that we know of). As it is, 2 short people can have a giant, 2 nice people can have a bastard kid, skinny people can have a fatso etc. Maybe eventually the exact genes that cause that stuff can be identified, but im not so sure all the data is in the genes. There are a multitude of external factors (diet, environment etc.) that have big impacts on those things.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Regarding the stuff about being natural... as far as I am concerned, we "naturally" figured out how to do it, so its fair game. If god or whoever didnt want us doing something they wouldnt have exposed it to us.

The point about accelerating evolution could be valid, but we could also be taking a more proactive approach. If we see obesity is causing deaths, why not eliminate it from the gene pool if we can instead of waiting a million years for evolution to weed it out on its own.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
Regarding the stuff about being natural... as far as I am concerned, we "naturally" figured out how to do it, so its fair game. If god or whoever didnt want us doing something they wouldnt have exposed it to us.

The point about accelerating evolution could be valid, but we could also be taking a more proactive approach. If we see obesity is causing deaths, why not eliminate it from the gene pool if we can instead of waiting a million years for evolution to weed it out on its own.

The ability to pack on the pounds isn't a genetic defect. Just because America is a rich country doesn't mean that humans will never be starving at some point in the future and need to ability to store every bit of food away that they can. What happens if you geneticaly engigneer everyone with an increased metabolism to combat obesity, and then some catastrophy occurs that wipes out civilization. All of a sudden there isn't enough food and everyone is starving. People can't make it through the winters because they have to eat more.

That's the problem with thinking about cosmetic changes like that. You don't think about why those traits exist, you just want to get rid of them because you perceive them as "ugly".

 

[HardcoreRobot]

Originally posted by: Kyteland

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
Regarding the stuff about being natural... as far as I am concerned, we "naturally" figured out how to do it, so its fair game. If god or whoever didnt want us doing something they wouldnt have exposed it to us.

The point about accelerating evolution could be valid, but we could also be taking a more proactive approach. If we see obesity is causing deaths, why not eliminate it from the gene pool if we can instead of waiting a million years for evolution to weed it out on its own.

The ability to pack on the pounds isn't a genetic defect. Just because America is a rich country doesn't mean that humans will never be starving at some point in the future and need to ability to store every bit of food away that they can. What happens if you geneticaly engigneer everyone with an increased metabolism to combat obesity, and then some catastrophy occurs that wipes out civilization. All of a sudden there isn't enough food and everyone is starving. People can't make it through the winters because they have to eat more.

That's the problem with thinking about cosmetic changes like that. You don't think about why those traits exist, you just want to get rid of them because you perceive them as "ugly".

First of all, if a giant catastrophy wipes out civilization, I think there will be bigger problems to work out than not being able to put on weight. You are right, consuming more calories than you use will cause weight gain and that has nothing to do with genetics. Problem is, not all obesity is caused by indulgence. It can be "glandular" or whatever as the direct results of bad genes and has DIRECT connection with heart disease and other health problems. This is in no way "cosmetic", its a documented health issue and is what I was referring to. Nowhere did I say think obesity is ugly or I want to get rid of fat people. Why do people have brown hair? or black hair? Why do these traits exist? Dont be such a fool to think that just bc a trait exists it has a purpose either. Why do we have a tailbone? We dont have tails... When was the last time you used your appendix? Why should we NOT remedy an established health concern? To *possibly* improve our lot if the world *happens* to fall apart? Come on now...