We have medication for a lot of those, though, the odds of any of those growing to pandemic proportions in the richer countries are rather small.Medaforcer said:
#6: Selective Genes
- Thread starter bacon
- Start date
I say it's wrong, because while doctors and scientists have found the genes for some diseases (like Taysachs, or sickle-cell anoemia), they haven't found the genes for all of them, so if they change the wrong genge, the baby could come out very sick.
I see nothing wrong with it. A smarter, stronger human race would be better than what we have now. I know I wish I was born stronger and smarter.
@ Pandamore, china is a highly undeveloped and very broken country. To put it into perspective, I am going to use a true analogy.
The red in the flag are the children working at their age for a living whilst the yellow are the children who study at their age.
I admit that the selective gene process should only be used when everyone in the world has become an ideal 'equal' (same education, health care, etc). When this happens we will start over populating but by that time we would've most likely be able to live on other planets solving the population problem.
Soon after we then can start creating a more disease free, better human.
I like this idea as I would be grateful and really happy to not have a 90% chance of diabetes yet I still have that massive risk
The red in the flag are the children working at their age for a living whilst the yellow are the children who study at their age.
I admit that the selective gene process should only be used when everyone in the world has become an ideal 'equal' (same education, health care, etc). When this happens we will start over populating but by that time we would've most likely be able to live on other planets solving the population problem.
Soon after we then can start creating a more disease free, better human.
I like this idea as I would be grateful and really happy to not have a 90% chance of diabetes yet I still have that massive risk
If a parent is a carier of some genetic disaese, then in some ways is is acceptable, but otherwise its like turning children into those pick and mix sweet bags.
"So, honey. What type of baby shall we have next?"
"OH, I dunno hun? Maybe blonde hair, brown eyes, bookish type?"
"Yeh, lets make him quite sporty and also intelligent."
"Sounds cool. Shal we give him cute freckles to?"
It's just wrong. You can't pick your children, you have to love them however they turn out to be, You can't say yyou only want a certain type of child. You will never form a proper realtionship wiht them if you do.
"So, honey. What type of baby shall we have next?"
"OH, I dunno hun? Maybe blonde hair, brown eyes, bookish type?"
"Yeh, lets make him quite sporty and also intelligent."
"Sounds cool. Shal we give him cute freckles to?"
It's just wrong. You can't pick your children, you have to love them however they turn out to be, You can't say yyou only want a certain type of child. You will never form a proper realtionship wiht them if you do.
But it isn't a point of view. It is the truth so I am trying to enlighten you with it
If it wasn't deveoped enough, why would we even consider having the Olympics there? And isn't this whole thread about making your opinions?
lol, just because we put the olympics there doesn't by any means make it a developed country. If you look at my anology, do you think that is abiding by the normal list of human rights? Or does the rights have to be more developed for children?
Ofcourse you can make opinions but sometimes what you say may seem an opinion but in actual fact is something which concerns facts
Ofcourse you can make opinions but sometimes what you say may seem an opinion but in actual fact is something which concerns facts
kashmaster said:
Developed in what I'm speaking of isn't the rights of people, but how the country's government and overall soceity works everday. And when I'm comparing facts with your facts, I have my opinion on them. And there's no point to reply to this because it's not even relating to the topic so we better just stop there. I've already put my thoughts on this and I'm done. And I'm just putting my opinon on what facts have already brought up, so "enlightening" me won't do anything...
Well even the voice of reason cannot reach the most advanced of beings...
We are the most advanced species on this planet, yet the voice of reason reaches us. How can you explain that?
Ipersonally think if it could end genetic disorder's then yes i would allow those.
but to chose what skin colour or eye colour your child has.. that draws the line.. imprefections are what make us beautiful.. not those "perfect looking models" they are quite repulsive to me in a way.
but to chose what skin colour or eye colour your child has.. that draws the line.. imprefections are what make us beautiful.. not those "perfect looking models" they are quite repulsive to me in a way.
Selective genes= EPIC FAIL.
Fridge said:
That's what I was trying to say! Well said.
Fridge said:
Even with that selection, you kid might still have the Down Syndrome.....but atleast you got what you ordered, right? (Oh it must be heck to be that kid.)
Pandamore said:
http://www.unescap.org/unis/press/G_05_00.htm
Kofi Annan would like to have a word with you.
Edit: You know what these threads need more of? I'd say sources. These would be much more interesting if more people had sources to what they're saying.
Fridge said:
And that about sums up the whole problem of this discussion. Where do you draw the line between preventing diseases and "picking your children"? Isn't the preventing of genetic diseases "picking your children" too? IMO, we shouldn't mess with genes at all. Sure, it's really sad for all those people who suffer as a result of a genetic disease, but if we allow adapting human genes to prevent genetic diseases, that would be only the first step. People would get used to the concept of artificial genetic adaption, and in no time you'd have the "pick your children" scenario.
Scampy said:
You seem to define “natural” as something like “coming forth from nature by any means, without interference of men”. Is the human species unnatural, then? Yes, I probably am one of the people who are “quick to harp on how we should do things naturally”, but I think medicine = okay.
medaforcer said:
That’s exactly what I mean. IMO, adapting human genes is something different, as it is directly influencing who and what we are.
Fridge said:
And that about sums up the whole problem of this discussion. Where do you draw the line between preventing diseases and customizing people? Isn't the preventing of genetic diseases "picking your children" too? IMO, we shouldn't mess with genes at all. Sure, it's really sad for all those people who suffer as a result of a genetic disease, but if we allow adapting human genes to prevent genetic diseases, that would be only the first step. People would get used to the concept of artificial genetic adaption, and in no time you'd have the "pick your children" scenario.
Scampy said:
You seem to define “natural” as something like “coming forth from nature by any means, without interference of men”. Is the human species unnatural, then? Yes, I probably am one of the people who are “quick to harp on how we should do things naturally”, but I think medicine = okay.
medaforcer said:
That's exactly what I mean. But IMO, adapting human genes is something different, as it is directly influencing who and what we are.
Heavenly Spoon :f said:
Because what you are basically talking about is a species that won’t die out over time. In the end, this world (or any other, for that matter) won’t be able to support such a race anymore, thousands of species will die out, the world will become overpopulated, and what do we get out of it? Nothing. Of course, at that point it will probably be possible to set up colonies on other planets, but after a while, the same will happen there too. A smarter, stronger human race isn’t necessarily a better human race. And by the way, why is it so terrible for you to accept the fact the human race will die out over time?
OK, I’ll stop this now, because it’s getting waaaaay too long.
Why would we want the human race to die out? We're probably one of the few intelligent and species in the universe, and one of the even less who are able to actually use this knowledge to build and achieve stuff no other animal has even done before. Making something like this go to waste is rather sad...
Also, have a vid.
And anyone trying to draw a line between "natural" and "not natural" should wake up. You're using a computer, NOT NATURAL, living in a house, NOT NATURAL, your entire life is one big protest to nature, don't try to act all "this is against nature" all of the sudden...
Where we should draw a line is where something stops being beneficial to the human race. Everyone being blonde-haired, blue-eyed, tall white people isn't necessarily bad, if those people would be better suited to survive on our planet (which I doubt). We would be removing quite a bit of genes from our genepool, which could hurt in the long run considering we'll be modifying and creating humans ourselves to better suit the environmental, instead of letting natural selection do the job, less genes at our disposal means less ways to let us adapt (since we're not going to let this happen naturally anymore). This needs to be regulated to the extremes, but technically there's nothing truly wrong with it. I don't see how there can be any moral objections to this either, sure, you need to love your child no matter what, but why can't we help a little with this, make everything a little more perfect? I think the child itself would also rather be more perfect.
And as I said before, this needs to be part of a national healthcare system, we can't let the rich become both financially as well as genetically dominant over the poor.
Also, have a vid.
And anyone trying to draw a line between "natural" and "not natural" should wake up. You're using a computer, NOT NATURAL, living in a house, NOT NATURAL, your entire life is one big protest to nature, don't try to act all "this is against nature" all of the sudden...
Where we should draw a line is where something stops being beneficial to the human race. Everyone being blonde-haired, blue-eyed, tall white people isn't necessarily bad, if those people would be better suited to survive on our planet (which I doubt). We would be removing quite a bit of genes from our genepool, which could hurt in the long run considering we'll be modifying and creating humans ourselves to better suit the environmental, instead of letting natural selection do the job, less genes at our disposal means less ways to let us adapt (since we're not going to let this happen naturally anymore). This needs to be regulated to the extremes, but technically there's nothing truly wrong with it. I don't see how there can be any moral objections to this either, sure, you need to love your child no matter what, but why can't we help a little with this, make everything a little more perfect? I think the child itself would also rather be more perfect.
And as I said before, this needs to be part of a national healthcare system, we can't let the rich become both financially as well as genetically dominant over the poor.
True, this kind of technology could become very beneficial, and has the potential for tremendous good.
But on the other hand, how long would it take for some psychopath to abuse it? How long until someone crafted an army of 'superhuman soldiers' and started up the next World War?
People invented the aeroplane because they wanted to fly, because it would be fun and you could get from one place to another much more easily. It wasn't that long before we saw space to stick machine guns on them, and started loading bombs in them and all of a sudden it's yet another weapon.
As a species we seem to have proven ourselves pretty much bent on destruction. So why should we, as a species, get our hands on technology like this?
But on the other hand, how long would it take for some psychopath to abuse it? How long until someone crafted an army of 'superhuman soldiers' and started up the next World War?
People invented the aeroplane because they wanted to fly, because it would be fun and you could get from one place to another much more easily. It wasn't that long before we saw space to stick machine guns on them, and started loading bombs in them and all of a sudden it's yet another weapon.
As a species we seem to have proven ourselves pretty much bent on destruction. So why should we, as a species, get our hands on technology like this?
Chaos6 said:
I agree with Chaos here. This kind of knowledge comes with responsibility. If anyone watched the Heroes series, you know that creating a super duper army is B-A-D.
Then again, most kinds of knowledge can be used for evil purposes. =/ It's always the choice we have as person what to do with the knowledge in the end as it will have impact on more then just you person you.[/stressingthis]