General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThose who have or want to have children: would you want to genetically modify them?
I am on the shorter side, and height in males is a great advantage. I would make my boys taller.
Also, obviously I would try to crank up IQ. As it stands, I did boost my kids by marrying a woman with an IQ a standard deviation above mine!
Akso, heart disease runs in my wife's family and this form of heart disease is genetic. There are a few autoummune diseases in mine.
Would you do it?
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I'd sure like my husband gmo'd.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Good God, I dont even Want. To. Know.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)daredtowork
(3,732 posts)And then I would ask you to think about the injustices that would result as we get into who can't afford such modifications.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)daredtowork
(3,732 posts)and people kept saying when this and that advancement is made, we will have a "social conversation" about how to include people. But we don't have any such social conversations. Poor people are simply left out of the conversation. Rich people can afford all the goodies and that's that.
Makes me mad.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Although one hopes that universal health coverage (or, preferably, a SPHC system) would mitigate that somewhat.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)but something like height for a son as a competitive employment advantage? Nope - those who can afford it will aggregate the advantages all to themselves and increase their advantages further.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)genetic tinkering, in the first place, for "competitive employment advantage".
I'm getting the NBA, and not much else.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)http://www.livescience.com/5552-taller-people-earn-money.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/Careers/02/02/cb.tall.people/
http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2003/10/workplace-rewards-tall-people-with-money-respect-uf-study-shows.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2002/03/short_changed.html
...and the studies go on and on and on. It's well covered ground.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Untested invasive genetic alteration of their children, for that particular reason.
People who care that much and are thinking that far ahead can already hedge their bets by having children with someome who happens to be really tall.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)My kids all carry the recessive gene for albinism (their mother had two copies of the gene), and if that could be eliminated, then they wouldn't pass it on to their kids. However, of the three of them, only one has had one child, and they're all married, in their thirties.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)have no idea if her problem is genetic or not and she will never have children. But if I could change the years of her suffering I would.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)I don't think it would be fair to give a kid either of those.
Both at once? Way unfair.
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)Not worried about height, eye color, hair color, etc. But I would have made sure they didn't have any chance of mental illness. Depression and other issues in my mother's family are genetic, and it's a horrible way to live. Yes, there are meds, but they don't always work (my sister knows this very well).
gollygee
(22,336 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I would choose every advantage possible starting with intelligence, beauty and health, then keep going until the embryo could no longer be modified further
It's a shame the technology probably won't come soon enough for my wife and me. Oh well
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Modifying my kid to have an extra arm with the budweiser logo, growing out of their head? Probably not.
But the technology itself is not inherently "evil". In fact it has tremendous potential for good.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)fadedrose
(10,044 posts)I don't drink beer, so I would just go for the extra arm.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I dont drink, either. But if I did, I wouldnt pick that swill.
You know that saying "it's not a bug, it's a feature"? Peeing budweiser would definitely be a bug.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Just got back from wisco. Stull have SC on my mind.
enlightenment
(8,830 posts)No technology is inherently "evil" - it's what people do with it that makes it so.
Deciding that the possibility of doing something is either good or bad before it has even been tested is an unfortunate human response.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)But then you'd have increasingly murky areas where certain "illnesses" are gray areas. Finding a gene to prevent ADHD, or to increase overall intelligence, for example. Making a child have genes that guarantees it's 6 feet tall, lean body mass, blond hair, blue eyes...
All the focus is currently on illnesses that harm. That's why we have a Downs test. But those gray areas are going to be explored as we move forward with our understanding, and it's going to be tough. You don't want a Gattaca style future.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Gattaca was a movie which didnt get enough credit when it came out, but that is all it is- a movie.
I can already make a child with pretty good odds of being 6', blond hair, blue eyes. No lab required. Frankly the lean body mass is the tricky one, and to me that actually does have a health component.
If i could have kept the metabolism i had when I was 22, instead of now where I have to exercise like a mofo and STILL can't fully get rid of that inch or two of spare tire? Hate to say it, but sign me up. Fuck yes.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Not disagreeing at all. Baldness is another big one for men.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Yes.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)on my fiancée's side, lung cancer on mine.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I don't know yet if my children have inherited it or not. Do I want to see my children suffer through cancer? Of course not. I don't want my children to ever be hurt or get sick. But the reality is that we cannot make life suffer proof. There will always be something our children will have to suffer through. Losing my mom to breast cancer was part of my journey in life. I would have loved it if she had gotten better and I could have had a mom, but that just isn't how it happened. Will my kids have to lose me or will I lose one of them to cancer? I don't know. Life is not always filled with ease and comfort. Sometimes it is filled with pain and heartache. I have learned to accept what comes my way. Don't get me wrong, if I got cancer I would fight to stay around for my children. If one of my kids got cancer I would do whatever I could to help them get better. But if it were to work out that either I or my children were to move on from this life that somehow I would be okay and they would be okay too.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Clear up any diseases, get rid of this pesky male pattern baldness that plagues my family, make 'em smarter, more athletic, taller, and do something about the weak eyes we all seem to have.
But mostly they'll be lucky to look like their mother rather than me.
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)blondes with the same hairdo the same face and makeup, I'm starting to think they were gmo'd or cloned, or some guy sure had a lot of sperm to sell..
Codeine
(25,586 posts)R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)but arrogance and ignorance are something that probably can't be modified out.
Be careful for what you ask for.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)....like myself but smarter and have blond hair and take away the Perfect Pitch thing. (it's aggravating and causes you to despise popular music.)
...and naturally have great health.
katsy
(4,246 posts)So all I dream about is having the ability to genetically alter them to speak a different language than me so ai don't have to listen to them.
I know language isn't genetic but I can dream, right?
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Other than that, there is nothing I would change on him.
I want them just who they are, flaws and all. Period.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Haves and Have-Nots.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)I would give her wings.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)humans. Anyone who does obviously doesn't understand how DNA works. There will always be genetic imperfections. It is part of what makes us part of the living universe. My son is autistic and sometimes wishes he wasn't because it makes things so much harder to accomplish the same things everyone else does. But what I tell him is that the autism is partly responsible for the fact that he thinks outside the box, sees things in a way that others don't or can't, has such persistence and determination, and is so funny and outgoing. My daughter has picked up my anxiety issues, but she too is developing persistence and determination. She pushes through her anxiety and does what she sets out to do and occasionally when she needs help she talks to a therapist. I am also learning to push past my anxieties so that I can accomplish my dreams. I am going back to school and I hope that by always getting back up and trying I inspire both my children to keep fighting for the things in life that make them happy. I am even learning how to accept my husband just as he is as he journeys through PTSD. I wanted so bad to have a quick fix so he could get rid of his anger, but I am learning that to help him get through his PTSD I have to accept the journey and quick looking for a quick fix. So, no I would not change my kids, my husband, or myself.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)If Down's syndrome is involved, definitely, but that
would involve a whole chromosome. I don't see any
reason to create taller or more"beautiful" children.
Besides, I would hate a human monoculture Diversity
is good and preferable to me in many ways.
besides
REP
(21,691 posts)I'm pretty sure they would have excised the gene that causes the diabetes in both their families, and my kidney disease; made sure neither my brother nor I had any part of the Tay-Sachs code ...
It's not about taller and stronger. It can be about healthier and less suffering.
Whiskey Jim
(13 posts)Yeah, I'm going to do that. Most of my life already revolves around that anyway.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)it would make her not repudiate me and everything I ever tried to teach her.
Don't think genetics has gotten to that.
I do not want to hear about Mother's Day.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)The above is my view on procreation, that said, a major flaw with the human DNA is our lack of the ability to synthesize vitamin C.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The world is, en masse, more prosperous and peaceful right now than it has ever been at any point in history. Compared to the vast majority of time that our species has been on Earth more or less in our current evolutionary state, this is paradise for most people- even those not in the 1st world or particularly well off.
Life for the human animal 10,000 years ago was uniformly nasty, brutish, and short.
All the hyperbole about what an awful world this is to bring people into... It is baloney. We have great challenges and significant problems, yes, but there are also previously undreamed of opportunities for us as individuals, and as a species.
It is a very exciting time to be alive.
LostOne4Ever
(9,288 posts)Trillo
(9,154 posts)The question was about personal reasons, FFS. You are of course free to have your own view about the happiness life confers.
DU in general discusses a lot of topics about how this is not a good world. For example, did you feel that Freddie Gray had a wonderful, happy life? It was so peaceful for him, particularly there right at the end, FFS. We have institutions, state actors, that gang up on individuals, such as the Kansas mother who just recently lost her child because her kid spoke out in class after a teacher misled the class. FFS.
How do you suppose living in poverty makes so many feel? FFS. There's no problem with poverty in the world. FFS. There's no problem with the Prison industrial complex. FFS. There's no problem with rich people like Koch's having undue influence, or court decisions like Citizens United creating inequity. FFS. The minimum wage is nowhere near a living wage. FFS.
As a potential parent, I feel it is my responsibility to evaluate these conditions before having a child. I would not bring my child to this world, it is my responsibility to protect them from it. It is not a good or a great place for the masses. FFS.
That life has been good for you, full of peace and love and happiness and rainbows and unicorns, seems to me a rather narrow view applicable to just a few. Perhaps you should take off those blinders and look around at the mass suffering around the world and even in the U.S. Perhaps you should take a realists view of the world, instead of a fantastic one. FFS.
I, personally, would much preferred to have lived in the Hunter Gatherer era. Back then you knew the enemies. The modern world we've created is full of deception and deceit, a plutocracy combined with corporatism and fascism, and may only be good for something like 1% of folks.
That's why we have folks rioting in Baltimore. FFS.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)There ARE problems, but again, en masse, life is better for most of humanity, than it was then. When 30 was considered old age and people routinely died of things like dental infections.
Ever had a dental infection? NOT a fun way to die.
Hey, I would never second-guess anyone's choice not to have kids, but realistically, "the world" is a much better place now. It simply is. That's not "blinders".
It's telling that optimism pisses some people off so profoundly. Hey, speaking of "personal", if you're right and I'm wrong, and we're all doomed anyway, what difference does it make if I skip through my deluded world of rainbow unicorn farts? Why should it bother you?
(And of course, if you choose to be unnecessarily focused on bleakness I suppose that's your business as well.)
And none of that means that the Koch bros, or the idiotic drug war in places like Kansas, are peachy keen.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)are vast and perpetrated by highly educated people. These are generally more intelligent people, with college degrees, many of whom have dedicated their lives to squeezing nickels out of carrots, and they have the ability to manipulate less intelligent people into believing that they're actually doing good. The situation in Kansas shows something else, the ability of an entire set of state actors to make one person's life miserable, while simultaneously asserting the opposite. Case in point is the school acting as snitch. Now, multiply that institutionalism out by hundreds of millions of people. That's the world we're living in. Deception coming from everywhere, wild animals with college degrees, manipulating that this is a better world. It is not.
The natural world was nowhere near as deceptive. When a wild animal attacked, everyone knew it was a danger.
Look at your first post to me in this thread. Did you at all concentrate on the benefits or the problems associated with humans inability to produce their own Vitamin C, or how animals that have that condition are subjected to greater vascular problems? No, you did not. Instead of concentrating on the context of the OP and how my post related to it, instead you chose to make an attack. That was not a good or constructive use of your brain or intelligence. It sowed division, mistrust and misery. Yet in the same breath, you state this is a better world than ever. That was both deceptive and manipulative.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The names change, the script remains the same.
Why I responded to the point I did? Like you, I have things that bug me. One thing that bugs me is the constant drone of negativity and humanity-hating I see from some corners, on this board. I do not think it actually helps address the real problems we, as progressives, actually face.
So I roll my eyes a bit when I hear how absolutely awful the world is now. Because there is really no way one could objectively shake out that the 21st century is worse for your average human, than the -100th was.
What you choose to see as an "attack" is merely me going "hey, maybe things aren't as bad as you think". Damn, here, I think I'm actually being NICE. But of course, that could just be my wily deception, trying to lure you off the path of truth, the truth being that everything REALLY sucks.
So, far be it for me to try to change your mind.
The situation in Kansas shows something else, the ability of an entire set of state actors to make one person's life miserable, while simultaneously asserting the opposite. Case in point is the school acting as snitch. Now, multiply that institutionalism out by hundreds of millions of people. That's the world we're living in.
True. AND the world we're living in is one where medical marijuana is now legal in more than half the country, 3 states and DC have legalized for recreational use, and the drug war- particularly marijuana prohibition- are, if not on their last legs, certainly down for the count and on a limited clock. Where there has been a sea change, both in state laws and public opinion. Same with LGBT marriage equality.
So yes the injustice in Kansas is wrong and horrible, but it points up a situation that more and more people are coming to realize, is intolerable and needs to end.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)You still haven't responded to the Vitamin C-producing missing gene and improving your kid by giving them that gene through genetic engineering, though less sophisticated manipulations have used three parents to make a kid, and the change is reportedly persistent through descendants.
What does religion have to do with any of this? I have little patience for that book of deception, it is the work of Satan plain and simple, and it has fooled many otherwise good people. Here's what they want, using their intelligence to produce intentional misery (Seldom do they explicitly admit they intend to create more misery and suffering.) instead of using their brains to produce something better. BTW, that guy is a college graduate, though not Ivy League.
People don't generally riot in the streets because they're happy, so your point about my personal misery is a continuation of your personalization of larger issues. I was merely responsible, and chose not to get caught up in procreative sex without strong precautions. It was an act of asserting the mind over the desires of the body, exactly what all compulsory schools teach, though I extended it to lifelong. I would never ask a loved one of mine to go through the crap I've gone through, but people do that everyday, I'm convinced many do it simply because they get caught up in the heat of a moment or two, and 9 months later, there is the evidence of what occurred 9 months prior. They really didn't think about whether they would want their loved one, their child, to go through the hell they've been through.
The bible sets everyone else up as less than, there's only one son of god. Schools are not that much different, mostly punishment based crap, you're less than, and sometimes their deceptions are quite sophisticated. An example is todays abstinence based sex education, where they don't even teach about the different sexual orientations, only hetero"normative" views. This is not fact or science based instruction, it is biblical and deceptive. Sexual orientation, by itself, has nothing to do with sex, and teaching kids about them is not in conflict with abstinence. It would teach the kids what kind of relationships to look for later in their lives however, and the bible thumpers' reps can't have that, according to the link and twitter posts, the local school board, lifelong misery and its maximization is their goal (also see link above). What failing to teach kids about sexual orientations is that it sets some of them, the more minority orientations, up for more misery later in their lives. This is deliberate and intentional, part of their heteronormative tyranny of the majority while our schools have the temerity to teach with a straight face, "pursuit of happiness" and the fabulous "equality of opportunity" presented to all, if you merely get more education, and work work work to keep these guys happy.
What a riot, though not one like they had in Baltimore.
And by the way, I wasn't talking about -100th century primarily. The hunter-gather era started somewhere more like 80,000 BC or thereabouts, though there are alternative histories suggesting prior "advanced" civilizations in between iceages.
I think it would have been just peachy to have lived 80,000 years ago, before we messed everything up.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The apocalyptic, garden of eden, fall from grace script is the same, whether the original sin is apple eating, sex, or the development of industrial civilization.
It's not "bringing religion into it", the story turns up all over the place, fundamentalist religions and cults love it, authoritarian and monochromatic political movements, too-- but they're far from the only ones who adopt it. Usually when people see the world in black and white you don't have to drill very far down to find one of them. A singular, universal source of evil or oppression, an idyllic original state... It's so prevalent in the human psyche one wonders if it is hard wired. I'm sure Joseph Campbell had some stuff to say about it.
But... I suspect we're talking past each other, here.
The Vitamin C idea is an interesting one, of course I'm not sure scurvy is a widespread problem anymore, even in developing countries. It seems other vitamin deficiencies are more of a problem, than C.
But it's an interesting idea. I was reminded of a sci-fi short story I read years ago where people had been genetically engineered to have chloroplasts in their cells, so their skin could make food from sunlight. Of course, everyone was green.
Trillo
(9,154 posts)I'll try to change my approach a little bit to stop talking past.
As far as the similarity to apocalyptic philosophy, it really isn't that hard to understand.
We've had and have a society where the folks who are running the show are like that Rep who wants to intentionally create more misery, it's really not that difficult to understand why folks like myself would rather live in a different time when they hadn't yet conquered the world with their religion and related so-called "secular" structures, putting their folks in key pyramidal positions of power and influence throughout history, even usurping what they falsely assert is "secular" public education. Folks with similar viewpoints to that Rep and who lived long ago wrote the bible and I'm sure others, and others with similar views later edited it multiple times, and it has caused a whole lot of misery for many people throughout history all the way up to today.
Today we have doctors that intentionally harm kids and their patients, beginning on the day they are born. We have parents who are abusive in a variety of ways. We have schools who are more concerned about punishment than finding what the kid is good at and helping, and sending a few of those kids on to prison. We have employers who refuse to pay their employees, literally cheat them by withholding payment, "What'cha gonna do, hire a lawyer? You don't have the money." Other bosses are simply mean, its how they were trained themselves to motivate employees. Even when you find a boss that is okay, honest, reasonable, they have hostile workplaces where other employees bully each other. We have a corrupt economic system that is designed to trickle up money to a few super-rich people, and the minimum-wage system does not pay the masses enough to live and thrive.
The distribution of a bell curve will mean that a few folks will experience all of those negatives, while a few others will experience the opposite, great successes, the midas touch. And there are a lot more folks in the middle of the distribution who will experience a mix.
The information on Vitamin C is rather interesting. There is quite a difference between the information presented on the wikipedia page L-gulonolactone_oxidase, versus reading the page about Vitamin C. The latter has a lot of ambiguous language or phrasing, "have provided conflicting results", "found weak evidence", "failed to find" but another study "may be associated with increased survival", etc. I could continue, but the pattern is explained and occurs throughout the article particularly in the deficiency section. There is great medical or scientific resistance to the idea that Vitamin C is helpful to humans. The L-gulonolactone_oxidase page is not so written, though it may use more technical language.
My own big light bulb moment occurred some time back, I no longer recall the specific values, but I had calculated the normal circulating blood levels of ascorbic acid in felines who do produce their own C, for some reason decided to to convert it to mg amounts for an average human weight because I was playing with the spreadsheet already in relation to housecat husbandry and it was easy to calculate, and found it correlated to a daily human intake of 2000, maybe it was 4000 mg per day human dose (I don't recall the specific figure, it was somewhere in that range, and don't want to rifle through archived files right now). So, no, we're not just talking about scurvy and the low amounts known as RDA levels. Housecat type felines are animals that, while they live in the wild and when they have sufficient food and have not overpopulated an area of predation, are very healthy, they do not have "doctor" cats from which they purchase health services, they wouldn't need them even if they could. Humans, however, appear to have always had a medicine person of some kind to help them survive, and illnesses are often quite severe and sometimes fatal in the absence of modern medicine and pharmaceuticals. Back in the 1800s, it was common for a mother to lose 50% or more of her kids while they were infants or still quite young to disease (this relates to the value of vaccinations, at least when the medical establishment can be trusted to not adulterate them). Vitamin C is concentrated in lymph nodes, and nobody with institutional and scientific credentials seems to be able to understand why. uh huh. Most vitamin C pills are not timed release, and I've even had trouble getting multiple large-chain pharmacists to understand why that would be valuable, even given it's short elimination half life of 30 minutes. It's like the pharmacists didn't even go to school to learn that stuff. Red flags all over the place. In any case, even timed release varieties, supplementation would simply not be as beneficial as having your own body produce it 24/7, since the timed release methods are not perfect linear releases, and there's the issue of forgetting to take them.
I've wondered if we were to have a serious conversation about genetically engineering the human to produce their own Vitamin C if the folks who sell vitamin C would object, for they would see their sales largely end, though likely somewhat slowly. A few CEOs would lose their source of income. Additionally, it appears there would be greater health in the population overall, which would reduce the need for some medical staff, as people who are healthy generally do not go to doctors, office visits are generally unpleasant experiences full of folks who know better than you and are often arrogant and contemptuous, and even when they're not, they're interrogative, while veterinarians prove that interrogation isn't needed to practice medicine, and human medicine is sometimes deliberately harmful so long as they believe the harm will go unnoticed, they work too closely with cops who we have known for a long time are corrupt, but our leaders have been clueless. IOW, there would be entire careers at risk as well as sectors of the economy that are substantial, presumably even threaten Big Brother and the NSA's collection of information through such professionals (the snitch phenom, which isn't limited to schools, it's actually a function of hierarchy and arrogance).
If I was writing a science fiction novel (I won't ever do that, I'm not a good enough writer, but also know there isn't enough financial reward in it for 99% of those who are good enough), perhaps of an advanced past civilization, I'd make sure they had genetically engineered humans as a slave race, and deliberately removed genetic code which created optimum health, then would sell them pills so that as long as they did what the owners wanted, they could take that pill and stay reasonably healthy. If they didn't, they could just get sick and die, no need to violently murder anyone. Then the slaves would have a revolt, and to survive, they needed a medical sector of some kind appropriate to their current society, maybe called a "medicine man" or "medicine woman".
And there you have the dark side of genetically engineering human DNA, if only presented as hypothetical storyline. Meet the new Monsanto human, designed solely for ownership and slavery.
Well, our society already has that, the best slave is one who doesn't know it. Perhaps democratic governments have made marginal improvements around the edges, but our ownership by the extraordinarily wealthy and their trickle-up system is clear. That is our system's culture of deception as it has evolved through the centuries, and much of this deception is based around economics and money. That is why I would choose to be born into a different type of world, and cannot in good faith bring children into this one.
Too much money and greed, not enough love. The natural earth, while seemingly brutal and cruel, was honest, money wasn't needed, and we still thrived in spite of the problems. Our modern world has created a system where most folks can only thrive after you've paid a lot of money to higher educational establishments (and these have their own problems, campuses are usually police states), and even that method of survival has been threatened in recent decades. The point is that the natural world was better for the masses of people, while the modern world is better for a few.
Modern civilization is associated with deception and money.
elleng
(130,895 posts)and the sociopath stuff. Sorry tho, too late.
Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)Telcontar
(660 posts)Longer , healthier life span. Eliminate genetic timebombs. Enhanced physical and mental ability. So, pretty much juat like their dear old dad.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)I'd genetically modify myself if I could.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)I'm not totally convinced that tinkering with the genes in an egg or a sperm is morally wrong, but it's certainly a can of worms, and I wouldn't want my children to be at the forefront of the technology.
But if I was offered the chance to be certain that my children wouldn't have, say, cystic fibrosis, or hereditary insulin resistance, I'd jump at it.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
Javaman
(62,521 posts)sort of trumps the whole geek argument of wanting a flying car future!
Pisces
(5,599 posts)Gattaca may not be a documentary as someone posted above, but it could be a preface of things to come.
Lancero
(3,003 posts)I wouldn't support alterations for physical appearance, or characteristics (IE, make them taller or smarter) but I'd be all for modifications to remove genetic predisposition to diseases, or to grant resistance to illnesses.
Edit - This isn't to say that I'd deny alternations for appearance or characteristics, just that they aren't ones that I'd force upon them as children. When they grow up and if they desire modifications that fall under those categories, then I'd be fine with that - Their choice.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)Why would you want to inflict the horrible pain, massive handicaps, and shortened life expectancy of hundreds of potential congenital conditions on your child if you could avoid it? Why do people always leap to the designer baby extreme when the healthy baby is a far more plausible, far more achievable and far more important option in genetic manipulation?
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
progressoid
(49,988 posts)I wonder if such a poll could be done and compared with people who oppose or support genetic engineering of food.
GMO food seems to scare the bajeebus out of people. Wonder if they are as frightened of GMP (genetically modified people).
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)pipi_k
(21,020 posts)absolutely not.
Health-wise. Yes. Definitely.
Between my son and daughter, they are dealing with Rheumatoid Arthritis, heart disease, a missing kidney (from birth), anxiety disorder, and possible fibromyalgia.
And those are the ones I know about.
I wish I could go back 44 and 42 years and have the option to eradicate those problems from their bodies.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Round-Up Ready kids will be well suited for survival in a GMO world.
merrily
(45,251 posts)And I would have been dead wrong. I could not possibly have done better in my life than to give birth to exactly the son to whom I did give birth.
I am very grateful that I never had the chance to mess up.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Gattaca fears aside, the goal of parenting is to give you child every advantage possible so they can be successful in life. If we could remove the genes that cause health issues, insert genes that improve longevity, crank up the height, give them a metabolism like a jet engine, and an IQ like Einstein, why wouldn't I pursue that?
Physical appearance isn't something I'd worry about, and neither is gender, but the genetic components that influence their success in life are all worth reviewing and updating if needed.