Would you genetically tweak your unborn child?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shifrbv

Senior member
Feb 21, 2000
981
1
0
I think already we're altering more than we should and it's already starting to affect us. People are living unnaturally long lives due to medical technologies. In industrialized countries, the effects are just now starting to be felt. Young people having to wait longer to be married and having fewer children. Less opportunity for wealth to recirculate. Vast amounts of resources being distributed to the elderly and less focus on the younger generations. What if they are able to discover the aging genes and make people live much longer than they do today? I don't think that's a world I would want to be in. I still think people don't understand what the world's going to be like in America in 15 years when 65% of the population is 65 or older and controls nearly all the wealth. Same thing in Europe.

The world is formed on a cycle of birth and death. These are natural things, but humans have been trying to tinker with them more than ever in the last 100 years. And I think with some things we have just strayed too far away from what nature intended.
 

Cooltech2k

Banned
Feb 9, 2001
2,001
1
0
If I Could I Would... At least for certain things, Like for insistance I Have pscorisis & I Know my kids & there kids will all get it also since it's genetic & If I Could I Would Just have whatever part of my jeans removed from my offspring before they were born just so that they dont have to put up with it...
 

webnewland

Golden Member
Apr 21, 2001
1,250
0
0
I suppose I would. But only to make it fair to my child to survive, suppose every other child is genetically changed to be a lot smarter, it wouldn't be fair to my child to be born normally yet still considered "handicapped". if there is no advantage/disadvantages involved, I would do it for bad diseases.
 

Belegost

Golden Member
Feb 20, 2001
1,807
19
81


<< But maybe it's time we consider this question: Would it be a bad thing if the Human species would become extinct? >>


I hope they do, biology has served it's purpose, let's find a better container for the mind.

As for the question: Absolutely. It would be a way to force humanity towards new development. Personally I think the genetic changes that should most take place are those to prepare humans for living in extra-terrestrial enviroments - improved immune system, more efficient digestion, etc. This will help humans adapt until artificial vessels for the mind can be constructed.


 

SgtTux

Junior Member
Apr 17, 2001
14
0
0


<< Yes, yes and yes.

Why wouldn't I want to avoid any possible hardships for my children if it is possible for me to do so?
>>




<rant>
its like on Star Trek, absolute power corrupts absolutely. If people could, for a price, make their kids smart, athletic, tall, etc, then there would be one hell of a problem. Those who couldnt afford or wouldnt want to change their children would have 'inferior' children. And those who are better would ultimately become a master race. We are talking about playing God here. This is a sick idea indeed, and those who think long and hard about it and still support it are even sicker.
</rant>
 

AppleTalking

Golden Member
Dec 15, 2000
1,316
0
0
<<maybe we dont have the knowledge today but definitely in 10-20 years.
20 years before the first heart transplant people were also thinking its impossible and totally out of the question to take a heart out of a human being and put it into another one. Today heart transplants happen all the time and its nothing unusual. Same will happen with genetical engineering, once we know what every single gene does, doctors will use this information to cure and even to alter physical characteristics. Hey they might even become the plastical surgeon's of the future.
>>

There is a fundamental difference between performing a heart transplant and genetically altering millions of people. A heart transplant is an operation that has an effect on only one person: the person receiving the heart. A heart is a heart; nothing about the person has really changed. Getting a new heart won't make you taller or shorter, change your intelligence, or change the color of your hair. All it does is prolong your life (hopefully).

On the other hand, genetic engineering does not only affect the person who is being genetically altered, but also his offspring. Once you begin changing the genetic code of unborn children, you begin to tamper with their offspring, and their offspring, and so on and so on.

I do not believe that humans will ever have enough knowledge to begin tampering with their own genes. There are just too many combinations, too many possibilities. Even if you know what every gene does, what happens when you start tampering with them. It is entirely possible that changing one gene will have an affect on another. You cannot claim that humans will ever know how changing one gene affects every other gene; again, there are simply too many possibilities to ever be entirely sure that genetic modification is safe.

<<we werent created the way we are, we evolved into what we are over thousands of years, and this is simply the next step.>>

Okay, I didn't intend to start a creationism vs. evolution debate here. I don't care whether you believe God created man or that he evolved out of the oceans, or both. I'm assuming you believe in evolution from your comment, so I'll respond to that.

Evolution is a slow deliberate process that results in a population with certain genetic modifications that allows them to be best suited to their environment. Genetic engineering is not evolution. Genetic engineering is artificially enhancing evolution to speed it up by thousands of times. Genetic engineering is not a natural process, it is an artificial (man-made) one. Evolution has been in place for thousands of years, why start to question it now?

From man's track record with nature, I can only assume that he will wind up screwing over evolution should he try to tamper with it.

Nick
 

monk3y

Lifer
Jun 12, 2001
12,699
0
76
I think the only reason i would genetically tweak my child would be if he/she was going to have a disease or deformation that could be stopped by the tweaking... I really wouldn't mess with beauty mainly cause i know i'd love the kid no matter how he/she looked.
 

bigd480

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,580
0
0
i'd overclock that mofo to 6'10&quot; at age 13 and sell him to an NBA team on the FS forum...

:D

Seriously i would only do it to prevent possible hereditary diseases...
 

AppleTalking

Golden Member
Dec 15, 2000
1,316
0
0
To InstincT and everyone else who wants to solve only harmful genetic disorders:

You say that you would only genetically engineer your child against potentially deadly diseases. I only wish that such modifications could be possible without unleashing a host of other problems. The problem is that if/when the technology for genetic engineering becomes available, it won't become available just to eliminate harmful diseases. Instead, scientists will have the power to modify any gene in the human genome. Thus, there will almost certainly be &quot;doctors&quot; who will do modifications for beauty or intelligence for a lot of money; kind of like a black market for genetic engineering. Even if laws were passed against this kind of modification, I'd be willing to bet that hoards of people would still want to go through with it. That would, then, force everyone to do these modifications because it wouldn't be fair to let some people have &quot;superhuman babies&quot; while others do not. Then we'd just be right back where we started.

All I can say is, the government needs to stop this kind of research or find some way to stop any kind of genetic engineering from hitting the market.

Nick
 

Raspewtin

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 1999
3,634
0
0
i would prefer not to, but if everyone else is doing it I will do it so my child is not at a disadvantage.
 

Barrak

Guest
Jan 8, 2001
710
0
81
Yes, but only if I was confidant that it would have no negative side effects. I would want my kid to have it better than I do.
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0
No. I don't think its something we can ever really control, and I'm not about to play guinie-pig with my child.
 

Namuna

Platinum Member
Jun 20, 2000
2,435
1
0
If it was within my means, HELL YEAH I would!

Gimme every damned option available! clear skin, brains, athletic, I want my children to have the best I'm able to give!
 

mk52

Senior member
Aug 8, 2000
810
0
0


<< There is a fundamental difference between performing a heart transplant and genetically altering millions of people. A heart transplant is an operation that has an effect on only one person: the person receiving the heart. A heart is a heart; nothing about the person has really changed. Getting a new heart won't make you taller or shorter, change your intelligence, or change the color of your hair. All it does is prolong your life (hopefully).

On the other hand, genetic engineering does not only affect the person who is being genetically altered, but also his offspring. Once you begin changing the genetic code of unborn children, you begin to tamper with their offspring, and their offspring, and so on and so on.

I do not believe that humans will ever have enough knowledge to begin tampering with their own genes. There are just too many combinations, too many possibilities. Even if you know what every gene does, what happens when you start tampering with them. It is entirely possible that changing one gene will have an affect on another. You cannot claim that humans will ever know how changing one gene affects every other gene; again, there are simply too many possibilities to ever be entirely sure that genetic modification is safe.

Okay, I didn't intend to start a creationism vs. evolution debate here. I don't care whether you believe God created man or that he evolved out of the oceans, or both. I'm assuming you believe in evolution from your comment, so I'll respond to that.

Evolution is a slow deliberate process that results in a population with certain genetic modifications that allows them to be best suited to their environment. Genetic engineering is not evolution. Genetic engineering is artificially enhancing evolution to speed it up by thousands of times. Genetic engineering is not a natural process, it is an artificial (man-made) one. Evolution has been in place for thousands of years, why start to question it now?

From man's track record with nature, I can only assume that he will wind up screwing over evolution should he try to tamper with it.

Nick
>>



I don't think anyone of us could answer the question from an ethical standpoint, cause it is still more then two decades away and people views about certain procedures change once they become reality.

See all I m saying is that sooner or later some form of genetical engineering is going to happen. Scientists all over the world are already working on animals testing the effects of various genetic alterations. The potential is infinite. It's simply a matter of how we are going to use. But that doesn't mean we have the right to completely abandon any type of research and development in that area.

It's simply a different way of looking at it. I see it as the next step in human evolution, whereas you think its some scientists trying to play god.
It's also wrong to underestimate the capabilities of modern science. I'm pretty sure that given enough time we will unveil the mysteries of genetic engineering.

Oh and responding to those who say only people with money will profit from this well, maybe in the beginning but once it turns out to be more and more common it could become standard procedure to every unborn child.

The fact that richer people would have an advantage is already something that is indirectly happening today, with rich parents being able to send their kids to elite colleges, where they receive a superior education. Of course a genetical advantage is different, thus this scenario still show that genetical engineering won't cause any new disadvantages between rich and poor that aren't already there.

-MeliK
 

bigd480

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,580
0
0
also - genes aren't that simple... it's not like 0s and 1s in a registry where you can turn stuff on and off... genes rely on other genes in a manner which we may never fully discover... a parent would have to be an absolute fool (not saying it won't happen) to try to tweak a gene for height, intelligence, looks, etc because it could cause any sort of unforseeable complication in their child...
 

DRGrim

Senior member
Aug 20, 2000
459
0
0
I think tweaking appearance and abilities is too nazi-ish, but I would remove all disease genes, as well as make it harder for things like heart disease and cancer to occur. This may be manditory at some time in the future, although I don't think it will be legal to chainge appearance or abilities. At least I hope not.
 

RaDragon

Diamond Member
May 23, 2000
4,123
1
71
tweaking biological matter (e.g., embryos, produce, etc.) is definitely freaky. so, no -- i wouldn't genetically tweak anything! now, mechanical-tweaks (e.g., windows, processors, etc.) that's kewl :)
 

AppleTalking

Golden Member
Dec 15, 2000
1,316
0
0
<<I don't think anyone of us could answer the question from an ethical standpoint, cause it is still more then two decades away and people views about certain procedures change once they become reality.>>

I am not trying to answer this question from the ethical standpoint of a person 20 years from now, as no one can predict what people will think in the future, but based on what I know about genetic engineering right now.

<<See all I m saying is that sooner or later some form of genetical engineering is going to happen. Scientists all over the world are already working on animals testing the effects of various genetic alterations. The potential is infinite. . . .

It's simply a different way of looking at it. I see it as the next step in human evolution, whereas you think its some scientists trying to play god.
>>

I do agree with you on one point: we are looking at this in different ways. ;) You're saying that the technology is inevitable; that there's nothing we can do to stop genetic engineering from becoming a reality in our lives. Well, there's one way to stop it: make it illegal to genetically engineer humans. Genetic engineering may have infinite potential to make our lives better, but it also has an infinite potential to cause irreparable harm to the human gene pool and fundamentally alter existance as we know it.

<<It's simply a matter of how we are going to use. But that doesn't mean we have the right to completely abandon any type of research and development in that area.>>

But how we're going to use it is the heart of the problem!! Be realistic here: you do really believe that if the technology were available that people would not try to genetically alter their children to be faster, smarter, more attractive, and more desirable than everyone else's? Face it, we are greedy when it comes to our children, as evidenced by many of the posts in this thread. It's only natural to want what's best for your children. However, this is not necessarily what's best. Each generation will want their children to be better than themselves. Every couple will want children that are better than the one's next door. It will be the ultimate case of &quot;keeping up with the Joneses.&quot; Science will be forced by society into creating newer and better ways to genetically engineer children, at the expense of adequate testing. This is not just a one-shot deal here, folks. Once you start genetically engineering children there is no turning back. It's a one-way street and there's no light at the end of the tunnel. (Talk about mixing a metaphor . . . sheesh! ;))

<<It's also wrong to underestimate the capabilities of modern science. I'm pretty sure that given enough time we will unveil the mysteries of genetic engineering.>>

And given enough time, a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters could reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. The fact of the matter is that it's darned near impossible to know the effect of every gene on every other gene. Even given the fact that there are only so many introns (actual coding regions) in the human genome, the possibilities for what could happen by changing even only a few genes are infinite. There's no way that we could ever completely understand it. But, as usual, science's rush for a solution (and people's rush for $$$) will produce a process for genetic engineering that has not been adequately tested or studied.

Nick

edit: spelling
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0
You're saying that the technology is inevitable; that there's nothing we can do to stop genetic engineering from becoming a reality in our lives. Well, there's one way to stop it: make it illegal to genetically engineer humans

Making something illegal doesn't mean it won't happen again. Else prohibiting alcohol, nicotine and other drugs would finally make sense.

If you make something illegal, it means that you lose every control over it. You can't make rules which must be followed by everyone who wants to use certain substances, or wants to carry out a certain procedure.

If the genetical engineering of Humans would be prohibited, it would mean a total disaster. Without any rules or supervision it would quickly get out of hand. I really hope that you are able to realize this.
 

mk52

Senior member
Aug 8, 2000
810
0
0
Every new technology of that magnitude is extremely dangerous. Take nuclear power for example. It has so much potential and can be used for mass destruction or mass energy production. And although regulations are so tight lots of organizations still get their hands on nuclear warheads. As a matter of fact the world is not one collective mind that agrees on all sorts of issues. If for example the US would ban genetical experiments/research, scientists would go somewhere else. Countries could deliberately loosen laws on genetical engineering in order to attract foreign investors. You can't stop it.

In the beginning nobody would be able to use any of this technology for commercial use anyway because of the enormous costs. So it would be government/military only. Just like you can't go out and by a nuclear missile. But maybe at some point in time there will be nuclear powered cars or you will have a micro power plant in your cellar. That's why I am saying its going to take decades before we will even hear about genetical engineering in the news, but eventually that technology is going to become commercially available.

-MeliK
 

AppleTalking

Golden Member
Dec 15, 2000
1,316
0
0
Elledan: Perhaps I need to clarify my point. I think that we must stop research on genetic engineering before it even &quot;hits the streets.&quot; Once something like this gets out into the public, the kind of chaos I described in my last post will ensue. There is a lot of good that genetic engineering could do, but this good is outweighed by all the potential for damaging society and our value system.

Whether or not we make genetic engineering illegal, once the technology becomes available, people will use it to make their children faster/smarter/prettier/more athletic and we'll end up creating race after race of superhuman children, each &quot;better&quot; than the last. This is not evolution. This is artifically enhancing ourselves to try to be what some consider &quot;perfect.&quot;

So to clarify my position, genetic engineering cannot be allowed to reach the public. Whether making it illegal is the solution or whether different, more drastic measures need to be taken remains to be seen.

Nick

 

Fausto

Elite Member
Nov 29, 2000
26,521
2
0
IMO, the only time I would advocate fetal &quot;tinkering&quot; is if a chromosomal abnormality were found to be present in an otherwise healthy fetus (ie- Downs Syndrome). Otherwise, leave it alone, we don't need an entire population of Brad Pitt or Jennifer Anniston clones with 180 IQ's. (that gives me the heebie-jeebies just typing it).

Fausto
 

AppleTalking

Golden Member
Dec 15, 2000
1,316
0
0
Every new technology of that magnitude is extremely dangerous. Take nuclear power for example. It has so much potential and can be used for mass destruction or mass energy production. And although regulations are so tight lots of organizations still get their hands on nuclear warheads.

Genetic engineering is not like any other new technology that has ever come along. Let me explain using your example of nuclear power.

There are ways to restrict what nuclear power can do. Low-yield nuclear weapons, for example, are not nearly as powerful as high-yield nuclear weapons are. The government can restrict the type and the strength of nuclear power that power companies and other organizations can get their hands on.

Nuclear weapons also carry with them a certain deterrant. Any organization that has a nuclear warhead knows that if it ever used one, there would be serious reprocussions (i.e. they would get blown to smitherines in retaliation). This is what kept us alive during the Cold War, the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Nuclear power is also still a very limited technology. There are very few people that can get access to even the smallest amount of nuclear energy.

Genetic engineering, though, has no protection like this. If you have the power to change one gene, you have the power to change them all. There is no way you can make the technology available to just change certain genes. That's what makes it so dangerous, the fact that people will not only want to change genes for certain deadly diseases, but also for hair color, eye color, strength, speed, height, weight, etc.. There's just no way to limit it.

There is also no realistic deterrant with genetic engineering. There's nothing to stop someone from going ahead and using it on their unborn child to make them &quot;better.&quot; Granted, some people might not want to do it because they're smart and they actually realize the risks, but they eventually will be forced to go through with it if they want their children to be as &quot;improved&quot; as everyone else's who had the procedure done.

And unlike nuclear technology, genetic engineering is going to be very widespread, very quickly. Once this kind of thing gets out in the open, people are going to be beating down the doors to have doctors make their kids &quot;better.&quot; That's when the chaos starts.

This isn't just some kind of machine, medical procedure, or technological development that is going to make our lives better, this is something that affects our children. And when it comes to our children, people want what they think is best for them. And that's what will lead to the problems I have previously described.

As a matter of fact the world is not one collective mind that agrees on all sorts of issues. If for example the US would ban genetical experiments/research, scientists would go somewhere else. Countries could deliberately loosen laws on genetical engineering in order to attract foreign investors. You can't stop it.

You may be right, but I hope and pray that you're wrong. Still, we can only do our small part towards preventing the kind of tragedy that will become a reality with genetic engineering. I'm thinking we could have some kind of severe sanctions or some kind of retailiation against any country that does this kind of thing, but that's assuming the U.S. is willing to undertake an anti-genetic engineering policy in the first place.

I still maintain that we have the genes that we have for a reason. It's nature's way of assuring a balance. What happens when everyone lives to be 150 years old, for example? We already have enough problems with population as it is. And what about when everyone starts genetically engineering their children to be beautiful? What will happen to our standards of intelligence, beauty, athleticism, etc. once everyone is good at it? It may be hard to accept, but there are reasons that humans have flaws. Some people aren't intelligent, others aren't beautiful, and others aren't athletic. If everybody was good at everything, what would make us different? Just something to think about. :)

Nick