Designer Babies

[Kit-Fox]

Perhaps the biggest problem with so called designer babies is that it takes nature completly out of the question and places control of evolution into our hands entirely, which we have shown time & again are totally unready for the responsibility.

No its best that genetics is left to nature for the moment, we are still too stupid by far to stop ourselves from doing something that might destroy the human race entirely. Maybe someday, but that day is nowhere near upon us yet.

[Thriller]

This is my new favourite part of the forum. Glad to have so many responses.

I avoided getting the technical details of what is involved in the procedure, and I'm happy to let multiple paths merge into the same issue for the debate.

I was more curious as to how people would respond to the idea of ANY manipulation of human embryos, or selective attributes.

The only arguments against allowing parents to choose the sex of a baby that I think hold any weight are those that argue that as some cultures place a greater importance on a specific sex, it could lead to a major imbalance which would have severe affects on the society. And the other would be abuse, for instance, the sex trade, allowing people who force women into the sex trade, could then selectively breed more women for the same purpose.

And whilst I acknowledge these two arguments, they don't address the core issue, in fact, it raises a wider concern about social and cultural values. Allowing normal parents who say already have two sons, and would like a daughter to then choose that fate, I cannot come up with a single argument.

There is another aspect, as Juliette discussed, 'prada' babies. Arguing that children would be a means, as opposed to an end, for the parents, being used as a status symbol, or fashion accessory. But this is to me the same issue, perhaps you should be questioning people's motives behind having children.

Personally, if I was having a child, I would want mine to have every benefit, healthy, immune to diseases, attractive, intelligent (or at least potential for). I cannot fathom what is wrong for wanting a child to have every advantage possible.

Another thing is saying nature is the best artist. I find this a little misled. Humans as a whole have eradicated natural selection in their own species. Perpetuating cycles of defects. Take the current allergy epidemic, where the vast majority of children have massive allergy issues (peanut butter springs to mind). Without scientific intervention I would say that this is potentially going to get worse.

Your post was okay until the end.

If you design your baby to express genes not found in your own genome then its not really your baby; More like frakensteins.

Also There is no allergy epidemic, allergies have just become main stream news. Allergie sufferers vs population lvls haven't really changed all that much.

YOu cannot escape natural selection, that's like trying to defy gravity. Yes soceity is shapping our evolution, maybe even speeding it up. IT's defeinately not stopping it. You do not have an objective view large enough to know if its actually disavantageous to have certain allergies(or whatever) or not. All mutations are neutral and its the environment that decides their benefit or their disadvantage, and you cannot predict how that might change.

[Sylus]

@ Thriller, there has been a marked rise in allergies amongst preschoolers in Australia, from 39 in every million to 194 in every million.

This isn't just reflective of population growth, in fact, some medical clinics have reported a 1200% increase in admissions from allergy related issues.

- That's from the Australian Medical Journal.

And one might argue that this mutation amongst a species which can potentially kill the carrier for ingesting certain foods would be potentially 'weeded out' in natural circumstances. However we already interfere with this.

By exerting control over the environment in which they survive, humans may not have killed natural selection, but they've certainly altered it.

And I don't potentially have a problem with the idea of offspring carrying better altered genes that aren't necessarily in my natural genome. That's just my opinion though.

[Thriller]

over what kind of timespan did the increase occur?

Also your not quite grasping the concept of natural selection. It's not a passive thing controlled by gaya lord of the forest. When organisms group together and form colonies they did so out of the process of natural selection. Any changes the in the organisms further development caused by the new group dynamic are just as much a part of ns, as those not under its influence.

[Sylus]

Increase occured from '94 - '05

I am arguing that the inheritable traits that would increase the individuals chances of both survival and reproduction, which would be the fundamental aspect of natural selection is something that can potentially undermined by current human society.

You have argued that the mutation is neutral, and that the environment is responsible for whether it is beneficial or disadvantageous, I'll use the current take on fatal food reactions that can potentially kill the individual based on this mutation unless direct intervention is made, would you argue that allowing this mutation that would otherwise not survive, to continue and reproduce, that natural selection is occuring, however detrimental?

Wouldn't that be the opposite of natural selection?