The morality of genetic engineering [POLL]

[Ben No.3]

Genetic engineering is about to become a major part of our lives. What do you think about its morals?

 

If you need a briefing, check this link, it gives a nice overview

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jAhjPd4uNFY

[Ben No.3]

I do believe genetic engendered is an unavoidable Chance, however, the creation of so called "designer babies" that have been modified to forfill certain ideals (rather than cure a birth defect) should be illegal. Not only because it would create a superior elite, but also because it predetermines the child's life, as many parents will optimise it in a way that would fit a certain task that the child might not want to take on.

[Gfted1]

Yes, yes, and more yes. If we had ways to improve on the fly I would do it to myself right now. And I absolutely, positively, would have edited any genetic flaws from my child while turning them into a superior being. Without a second thought.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

The day I become a cyborg mutant will be a happy day.

[Hurlshort]

Yes, but not at the cost of the diversity that is so important to the human race.  And I'm not just talking about people looking different, I'm talking about the concern that if we all become genetic gods, we are one good virus away from wiping everyone out.

[Ben No.3]

Yes, yes, and more yes. If we had ways to improve on the fly I would do it to myself right now. And I absolutely, positively, would have edited any genetic flaws from my child while turning them into a superior being. Without a second thought.

In the beginning, such a procedure would cost millions to conduct, only making it possible for the richest. By the time science will be far enough to make it possible for everyone, a elite of genetically superior humans might exist that have no interest in loosing their power Movie scenario, but let's consider all options

 

So, while maybe not fully prohibiting designer babies, we should at lest wait until the technology is cheap, don't you think?

Edited October 10, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Gfted1]

Seriously? Hold back progress until everyone can afford it? You went and made me ROOFLES! Anyhow, no, the world needs ditch diggers too.

[HoonDing]

Pointless to engage in any eugenics programs without first curbing population growth.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

whatever brings us closer to a glorious posthuman future

[Ben No.3]

Seriously? Hold back progress until everyone can afford it? You went and made me ROOFLES! Anyhow, no, the world needs ditch diggers too.

Obviously not everyone and not regarding anything. But as far that basic genetic engineering can be afforded by most of the population of a country

[Meshugger]

Only if the possibilities are like we already do with different dog breeds. The least.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Yes, yes, and more yes. If we had ways to improve on the fly I would do it to myself right now. And I absolutely, positively, would have edited any genetic flaws from my child while turning them into a superior being. Without a second thought.

In the beginning, such a procedure would cost millions to conduct, only making it possible for the richest. By the time science will be far enough to make it possible for everyone, a elite of genetically superior humans might exist that have no interest in loosing their power 

 

This premise is, of course, predicated on a/ genetic engineering being able to create "superior humans" instead of merely ensuring they will be in the top, say, 10 percent of human potential in their respective field of excellence (if even that), and b/ that the process can't be improved (ie. that there won't be far more refined methods available for the elite by the time low-level enhancements become affordable to the majority).

 

All in all, I'm not convinced that this is very realistic.

Edited October 10, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Meshugger]

 

 

Yes, yes, and more yes. If we had ways to improve on the fly I would do it to myself right now. And I absolutely, positively, would have edited any genetic flaws from my child while turning them into a superior being. Without a second thought.

In the beginning, such a procedure would cost millions to conduct, only making it possible for the richest. By the time science will be far enough to make it possible for everyone, a elite of genetically superior humans might exist that have no interest in loosing their power 

 

This premise is, of course, predicated on a/ genetic engineering being able to create "superior humans" instead of merely ensuring they will be in the top, say, 10 percent of human potential in their respective field of excellence (if even that), and b/ that the process can't be improved (ie. that there won't be far more refined methods available for the elite by the time low-level enhancements become affordable to the majority).

 

All in all, I'm not convinced that this is very realistic.

 

 

It will be something only the super rich will afford in the beginning, but will become affordable for everyone in the long run. Think of every commodity from smart phones to aspirin.

 

Based on that presume, it begs another question: Do we really know what we truly want? Tarkovsky's "Stalker" touched on that subject quite well. Such a simple question, but so many answers.

Edited October 10, 2016 by Meshugger

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

Yes, yes, and more yes. If we had ways to improve on the fly I would do it to myself right now. And I absolutely, positively, would have edited any genetic flaws from my child while turning them into a superior being. Without a second thought.

In the beginning, such a procedure would cost millions to conduct, only making it possible for the richest. By the time science will be far enough to make it possible for everyone, a elite of genetically superior humans might exist that have no interest in loosing their power 

 

This premise is, of course, predicated on a/ genetic engineering being able to create "superior humans" instead of merely ensuring they will be in the top, say, 10 percent of human potential in their respective field of excellence (if even that), and b/ that the process can't be improved (ie. that there won't be far more refined methods available for the elite by the time low-level enhancements become affordable to the majority).

 

All in all, I'm not convinced that this is very realistic.

 

 

Based on that presume, it begs another question: Do we really know what we truly want?

 

 

I'm pretty sure we'll be able to figure it out by the time it becomes widely available.

[Barothmuk]

Stalker. S.T.A.L.K.E.R is the game.

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

Yes, yes, and more yes. If we had ways to improve on the fly I would do it to myself right now. And I absolutely, positively, would have edited any genetic flaws from my child while turning them into a superior being. Without a second thought.

In the beginning, such a procedure would cost millions to conduct, only making it possible for the richest. By the time science will be far enough to make it possible for everyone, a elite of genetically superior humans might exist that have no interest in loosing their power 

 

This premise is, of course, predicated on a/ genetic engineering being able to create "superior humans" instead of merely ensuring they will be in the top, say, 10 percent of human potential in their respective field of excellence (if even that), and b/ that the process can't be improved (ie. that there won't be far more refined methods available for the elite by the time low-level enhancements become affordable to the majority).

 

All in all, I'm not convinced that this is very realistic.

 

 

Based on that presume, it begs another question: Do we really know what we truly want?

 

 

I'm pretty sure we'll be able to figure it out by the time it becomes widely available.

 

 

Perhaps, but i find it very interesting considering humanity's lack of control of its base desires and its own will.

 

Stalker. S.T.A.L.K.E.R is the game.

 

That....was embaressing. Fixed.

[Namutree]

Genetic engineering sounds neat. Count me in.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Yes, yes, and more yes. If we had ways to improve on the fly I would do it to myself right now. And I absolutely, positively, would have edited any genetic flaws from my child while turning them into a superior being. Without a second thought.

In the beginning, such a procedure would cost millions to conduct, only making it possible for the richest. By the time science will be far enough to make it possible for everyone, a elite of genetically superior humans might exist that have no interest in loosing their power.

There's a solution to that.

[Gfted1]

Whaaa? It will expand exponentially with nothing more than reproduction. Hell, we need to figure out how to add it to drones and just cropdust everyone. The next generation would be the dawn of a new age.

[Malcador]

whatever brings us closer to a glorious posthuman future

Just as long as some dude doesn't try creating twenty sons.

[ShadySands]

Am I the only one that has seen Island City?

[ManifestedISO]

I say we figure out how to give a dude back his hairline, then worry about creating six-million dollar designer babies.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Who cares about morals? What we really should be worried about is ethics!

Because those are different things after all.

[Gfted1]

Why would editing out our genetic flaws be an ethical problem?

 

I know weve created a non-problem problem with the mythical "only the rich will benefit" routine but thats not the case. Genetic manipulation would extend beyond the host because thats one of the things that genes do, pass traits to offspring. Of course everyone would want to be an Adonis but think of the possibilities! This blasted near-sightedness of mine could be edited out....or even bigger.....think about if we managed to, for lack of a better term, "immunization" against heart disease or cancer.

 

The only real problem I can see is overpopulation. We are such a parasitic species that we need to die in droves or the Earth would never make it.

[Ben No.3]

Here is some not serious question: cancer is just body cells that don't die, as other cells do. The other cells do so in order to keep the system that is your body up and running.

So, can you blame the cancer for not wanting to die for the sake of some greater being?

Hm.... Now who does that remind me of?