Outlawing this kind of thing is a bad idea imo. You can't force every country to outlaw it, so people will go where it is available.

This is one of the first steps in humans taking control of their evolutionary future. Not everyone will agree with it, but no one will be able to stop it. I'd rather see people steer it in a positive direction than outlaw it and force it into the underground market.

Anyway, I thought this would be an interesting point of discussion. =)

So fucking what if hair or eye color preference is subjective!?!?!

Underground trait picking WILL happen.
Then you end up with a section of the population that is smarter, stronger, faster, lives longer, less disease, better eyesight, hearing, sense of smell etc in nations that dont outlaw it (or regions that participate in it underground), and you end up with a super-race.

Look to Gataca (the movie) for a perfect example of what might happen in a world where genetic selection is only for a select portion of the population.

The better outcome would be to allow it, encourage it, and make it free choice for everyone, regardless of socio-economic status.

Moving this video to Psychologic's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter Psychologic.

ooo and lets make all the brown babies white while were at it. and all the short people tall, get rid of brown eyes and hair. well building a super race then everyone will be tall, strong, smart, healthy and pretty... superior after all. oh and well get rid of diseases, none of the pretty people will ever get sick or die!!!
what could possibly go wrong?!

^ People can already change most of their visual characteristics, yet there isn't a huge movement to ban plastic surgery or hair dye. Would you be against fixing any genetically-caused deformities with these methods? If my kid were going to be born without a nose then I'd sure as hell fix that if I had the ability.

... and what is wrong with getting rid of disease? We've been trying to do that for pretty much all of human history. I welcome the day we have the ability.


Performance is a different issue admittedly, but I still don't have a problem with it. If a kid is going to be born with, for instance, an IQ of 50 then most people would support fixing that severe disability at the genetic level before it becomes a problem (assuming it is both possible and safe at the time). That way the kid gets to grow up without needing special assistance all of his life. I would love to live in a world where there is no longer a need for "special education" classes.

The interesting part of this is what happens if that kid ends up with an IQ closer to 150 (for example). Is that a bad thing? Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'd rather have him at 150 than 50, and I think society would benefit from it as well.

Then you run into the question of the point at which you let people be more intelligent. Either you don't use the procedure to fix anyone (unethical imo) or you let anyone destined for a sub-150 IQ have the procedure. The side effect is that you would have a lot of fairly intelligent people in the world. That sounds pretty damn good to me.


You also have to understand that this technology is not limited to unborn children. RNA interference (among other methods) are progressing just as quickly at let anyone control their own genetics. It isn't like smarter kids would force older people into obsolescence since the older people would have access to the same results.


The overriding point of this issue though is the fact that no one can stop it. Drugs are popular and prohibition for them is a joke even though they are considered "harmful". Genetic control will be extremely popular and generally seen as helpful (outside of the superstitious). A few countries might outlaw it, but all they will do is put their own citizens at a disadvantage against countries that allow it.

Yay, genetic divide.

>> ^gwiz665:
Yay, genetic divide.


Come to North Carolina, we have plenty of that already. =)

you seem to not pick up on the paranoid tone of my comment. now we can just replace genocide with forced eugenics. build super races and such.no danger there.

oh and sure, if i knew my kid was going to be born without a nose, id want to fix it genetically as opposed to surgically.

i have no problem with eliminating disease except for the whole ... you know, people are supposed to die. the planet can not possibly sustain a booming population, already in the billions, oh and great now average people can live to 130! dying from natural wear and tear and my genetic predisposition to diabetes and cancers is preferable to dying of starvation.

its coming and theres nothing i can do about it. i just hope it doesnt get at all popular for another 40 years or so because i am checking out at 70. period.

>> ^peggedbea:
you seem to not pick up on the paranoid tone of my comment. now we can just replace genocide with forced eugenics. build super races and such.no danger there.

I just don't see that happening. Why would anyone force others into this? Most countries provide the right to say "no thanks" to medical procedures... I don't know why this would change anything.



i have no problem with eliminating disease except for the whole ... you know, people are supposed to die.

Says who? Just because we currently do die doesn't mean were designed with that requirement. The population concern is valid, but it is unlikely to become a major issue. Trends show that birthrate drops significantly as a population gains technology and transitions to cities. The population will definitely still go up, but it will level off significantly in the next 50 years (at least according to the evidence I've read on the subject).

What if insurance companies use genetic knowledge to discriminate against people prone to diseases? Oh, wait, that was already outlawed by congress a couple of years ago! Most of the problems with genetics and trait selection are just as easily solved as was the insurance company problem that's still cited, even though it's already solved.