Jump to content

Designer babies


Encryptor

Designer babies  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you allow gene modification to create designer babies?

    • Yes
      7
    • No
      4


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

zapatos and I like a good debate and have clashed several times in the past, that's why I'll sleep on it before commenting on his very good points.

That's what I thought. ;-)  I like all three of you for different reasons and I know you can argue with each other a lot.  ;-)   lol...  none of my business though really. Have a good night! :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

OK, so we agree the creation of genetically superior people will lead to disadvantages for the rest. I' just think whatever social intervention, laws, customs or otherwise you put in place that gap will ever be bridged. For instance the wealth gap is widening, not shortening, despite various laws and taxes that should diminish wealth inequality. That's why i don't think you can have both. And btw that's the optimistic picture i wish i could share.

Alright, I wish to adjust the approach I'm taking in my argument with you. It seems I am doing the same thing that I just got done telling you to stop doing with me, which is reading too much into what you are saying instead of just taking your words at face value. Sorry. We don't actually seem to have much difference of opinion, more of a difference on which way we lean.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

zapatos and I like a good debate and have clashed several times in the past, that's why I'll sleep on it before commenting on his very good points.

You and I seem to differ a bit more in our opinions on this matter. I tend to think things should be allowed unless there is real evidence of a poor outcome. I suppose I lean libertarian. But of course if we didn't differ, we'd lose the fun of the debate. :)

2 hours ago, DrP said:

  This might seem irrelevant, but I guess the point I am trying to make is not to fall out over this topic...  you might end up going in circles and getting frustrated with each other.

I find I'm often the reason for frustration. I tend to speak plainly. I generally don't mean to be abrasive, I just often forget to put the time into how my words will be interpreted. Especially when a debate speeds up. Thanks for the reminder. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As per provided link https://listverse.com/2013/07/26/top-10-gm-animals-you-can-buy-or-eat/   

 "The first batch of genetically modified babies were created in 2001.  Out of 30 that were born 15 of them had dna from 3 diferent adults." 

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/02/worlds-first-genetically-modified-babies-born-or-were-they/ (est. Reliable refrence of first link)

I guess designer babies are a thing of now instead of few or many years away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, zapatos said:

You and I seem to differ a bit more in our opinions on this matter. I tend to think things should be allowed unless there is real evidence of a poor outcome. I suppose I lean libertarian.

 

Maybe not so much as it might seem, my objection is the potential for it being the thin end of the wedge.

Which is a combination of my argument and Prometheus.

Firstly I think he's right, but also the chance that through corruption it could become a backdoor version of eugenics.

Secondly, Imagine we all had unlimited access to a car factory in the summer, to make whatever car we want. What would most people build? If I had the choice, a convertible, top of the range, Aston Martin or equivalent.

A desirable choice that's next to useless in a muddy field.

Look at what we've done to dogs.

Quote

The first Crufts dog show took place in 1891 and the idea of a ‘purebred dog’ began to take hold. Purebred dogs were regarded as somehow better than mixed breed dogs, which were (and still are) referred to as ‘mongrels’. The Kennel Club was founded to run dog shows and make the rules for breeding and showing. It also registers all pedigree dogs and issues pedigree certificates so that a dog’s ancestry can be traced.

 

https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/pets/dogs/health/pedigreedogs

Quote

There's a wealth of scientific and other evidence demonstrating that the welfare and quality of life of many pedigree and purebred dogs are seriously compromised as a result of established selective breeding practices.  

 

20 hours ago, zapatos said:

I find I'm often the reason for frustration. I tend to speak plainly. I generally don't mean to be abrasive, I just often forget to put the time into how my words will be interpreted. Especially when a debate speeds up. Thanks for the reminder. :)

 

It's like we're twins... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

The social gap widening is a very, very, very big and serious risk, there's no denying that. I believe a social market economy of the Scandinavian kind would be the most successfull at reducing this risk, but there is no guarantee. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

The social gap widening is a very, very, very big and serious risk, there's no denying that. I believe a social market economy of the Scandinavian kind would be the most successfull at reducing this risk, but there is no guarantee. 

If you're going to resurrect old threads (that have been explored), please do us the courtesy of reading them before you add your tuppence/ten cents worth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If you're going to resurrect old threads (that have been explored), please do us the courtesy of reading them before you add your tuppence/ten cents worth

Sorry, I must have skipped a bit. If it's explored, why is it still open?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:
3 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

Omg, It's alive! What have I done!?!?!?!

I love a good joke, just not when it's used to deflect a reasonable point/argument.

I didn't mean to deflect, though now I see how it could be perceived that way. I'll stop commenting after this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

I'll stop commenting after this

Don't do that, I'm not trying to shut you up, you have an interesting and articulate POV, I just want you to join in rather than skipping over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Don't do that, I'm not trying to shut you up, you have an interesting and articulate POV, I just want you to join in rather than skipping over. 

No, I really did read the thread in the mean time, and there's nothing more for me to add. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

For the record, thread necromancy is not explicitly forbidden in the rules, but it is frowned upon, especially when the necromancer adds nothing new to the conversation. YaDinghus, it would be greatly appreciated if you slowed down on it a little. You are often responding to OP's who haven't been here in months or years, or are contributing points that have already been covered at some point in the thread. While I welcome your enthusiasm, I think that if you wish to discuss things brought up in old threads or posts, you can quote them in new threads and start new discussions around them. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.