Would you genetically augment your children?

[Mysteryman]

No.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Disagree with whom, now?

The various people equating genetic engineering to Hitler's eugenics. Or the popular eugenics of the 20th century period.

 

[Doctor Evo]

The various people equating genetic engineering to Hitler's eugenics. Or the popular eugenics of the 20th century period.

Oh, okay, because it seemed like that comment was in response to moviedoors, who made no such comment. So I was confused.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Oh, okay, because it seemed like that comment was in response to moviedoors, who made no such comment. So I was confused.

I was in part. Well, I assumed he was referring to the racist 20th century eugenics movements, which the word eugenics has come to be associated with.

It's a rather... tainted word. Even scientists don't use it without adjectives (i.e. liberal eugenics).

 

[Doctor Evo]

I was in part. Well, I assumed he was referring to the racist 20th century eugenics movements, which the word eugenics has come to mean.

...what exactly do you think he was saying?

Have you seen "=/=" before?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Enlighten me, professor.

Since you know everything.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Enlighten me, professor.

Since you know everything.

Well, since you're choosing to get snarky, I guess I'm allowed to get snarky, too.

I mean, I figured that even middle-school students are able to recognize an inequality symbol when they see one.

In case the word "inequality" didn't tip you off, it indicates that two things are not equivalent.

You're welcome. ash.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, since you're choosing to get snarky, I guess I'm allowed to get snarky, too.

I mean, I figured that even middle-school students are able to recognize an inequality symbol when they see one.

In case the word "inequality" didn't tip you off, it indicates that two things are not equivalent.

You're welcome. ash.

Hey finally, a human reaction from you. And here I figured you were just a particularly poorly programmed bot.

I must admit, I was not familiar with that sign(s?). Two equal signs and a forward slash. Good to know. A bit counterintuitive, if you ask me, but what do I know, I only took college grade math.

 

[Doctor Evo]

Hey finally, a human reaction from you. And here I figured you were just a particularly poorly programmed bot.

I try to refrain from those types of responses not because I want to, but because the mods piss their pants at the slightest sign of controversy.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Seems fine so far. But it's only me. If you insulted someone well-liked, probably be an issue.

But moving on.

 

[redhawk23]

My problem with it is how near sighted we are all certain to be should such technology be selected.

Everyone wants their kid to be smart in order to be successful but there are different types of intelligence. Different forms of imagination and cognition.

By artificially selecting for the kinds of intelligence that are currently valued by our economy for instance, we may too quick eliminate important influences upon our society or remove traits from the population that may have become more useful in another context or future situation.

By removing variability from the population we would essentially be shrinking the gene pool leaving us open to suffer even greater losses to different diseases and threats that humanity may face in the future.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I assume there would be some variation. One person more gifted at that than the other.

Not everyone wants there son to be an olympian. And some people would value certain kinds of intelligence more than others.

 

[tard_kart]

Only if it means my child would be able to shoot lasers out of his/her face somehow.

 

[Piper Maru]

Yeah sure, if I ever spawn some more humans than I want them to be genetically augmented. That way they're better than everyone else.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I assume there would be some variation. One person more gifted at that than the other.

Not everyone wants there son to be an olympian. And some people would value certain kinds of intelligence more than others.

Most people are only aware or concerned with the type of intelligence that allows riches and social climbing.

Think of how many parents divert their children from being artistic because they don't want their kids to be the starving artist cliche.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Well, we could get rid of things like mental illness and debilitating physical conditions. That would be a step in the right direction.

Van Gogh was a nutcase. So lets burn up all his paintings, right?

Humans suck at deciding what is of true value.

and giving them a chance to genetically arrange their own children to have some trophy they're less connected to physically, mentally or spiritually is pointless.

 

[Slushy]

Have you guys seen Gattaca? Great fu**ing movie!

 

[Thundercrack85]

Have you guys seen Gattaca? Great fu**ing movie!

Good movie, but I'm not sure if that applies though. Because in Gattaca, it's more about ideal gene selection, than augmentation.

Though it's been a while since I saw it, so I could be wrong.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Good movie, but I'm not sure if that applies though. Because in Gattaca, it's more about ideal gene selection, than augmentation.

Though it's been a while since I saw it, so I could be wrong.

What's the difference?

You're still hand-picking the desired genes/traits for whatever reason.

 

[Destructus86]

My problem with it is how near sighted we are all certain to be should such technology be selected.

Everyone wants their kid to be smart in order to be successful but there are different types of intelligence. Different forms of imagination and cognition.

By artificially selecting for the kinds of intelligence that are currently valued by our economy for instance, we may too quick eliminate important influences upon our society or remove traits from the population that may have become more useful in another context or future situation.

By removing variability from the population we would essentially be shrinking the gene pool leaving us open to suffer even greater losses to different diseases and threats that humanity may face in the future.

That's exactly right. Well said.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I assume augmentation means actually improving the genes. Make people stronger, faster, smarter, etc.

Not simply the ideal pairing of two people's genes.

The latter wouldn't make you immune to diseases for example, but it would lessen your chances of having a stroke.

 

[BestGirl]

My problem with it is how near sighted we are all certain to be should such technology be selected.

Everyone wants their kid to be smart in order to be successful but there are different types of intelligence. Different forms of imagination and cognition.

By artificially selecting for the kinds of intelligence that are currently valued by our economy for instance, we may too quick eliminate important influences upon our society or remove traits from the population that may have become more useful in another context or future situation.

By removing variability from the population we would essentially be shrinking the gene pool leaving us open to suffer even greater losses to different diseases and threats that humanity may face in the future.

That's why, if I were in charge, I'd limit genetic augmentation to aesthetic appearance (maybe) and eliminating physical and mental diseases.

Van Gogh was a nutcase. So lets burn up all his paintings, right?

Yeah, that's just what I said.

Humans suck at deciding what is of true value.

and giving them a chance to genetically arrange their own children to have some trophy they're less connected to physically, mentally or spiritually is pointless.

Where on earth do you get the idea that GA would lead to people being less connected physically, mentally, and spiritually to their children?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Yeah, that's just what I said.

You roll your eyes but if you eliminate mental illness you are essential destroying future work and influence from mentally ill people like Van Gogh.

Where on earth do you get the idea that GA would lead to people being less connected physically, mentally, and spiritually to their children?

It's my personally believe that God has reasons beyond human understanding for placing certain children and trying to micromanage the type of child you will get will have similar results as when humans toy with ecosystems.

Disastrous.

Honestly parents are lucky is they can raise a decent person let alone build the ideal match for them head to toe genetically.

 

[Ant-manic]

my son's going to be a Manbearpig.

 

[Ant-manic]

It's my personally believe that God has reasons beyond human understanding for placing certain children and trying to micromanage the type of child you will get will have similar results as when humans toy with ecosystems.

or maybe God allowed for this genetic augmentation for reasons beyond your understanding.