Super Babies

[Michael]

We are apparently on the threshold of a whole bunch of new technologies for "improving" on nature's design for one's children. Genetic screenings, genetic modifications, computer implants, the list is endless.

WE ARE on the brink of technological breakthroughs that could augment our mental powers beyond recognition. It will soon be possible to boost human brainpower with electronic "plug-ins" or even by genetic enhancement. What will this mean for the future of humanity?
This was the theme of a recent Neuroscience in Context meeting in Germany, where anthropologists, technologists, neurologists, archaeologists and philosophers met to consider the implications of this next stage of human brain development. Would it widen the gulf between the world's haves and have-nots - and perhaps even lead to a distinct and dominant species with unmatchable powers of intellect?

Source (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227083.700-will-designer-brains-divide-humanity.html)

What do you think of this? Do you support or oppose this? Do you think it might cause some political problems? Should the government regulate this activity?

[andrewl]

We are apparently on the threshold of a whole bunch of new technologies for "improving" on nature's design for one's children. Genetic screenings, genetic modifications, computer implants, the list is endless.



Source (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227083.700-will-designer-brains-divide-humanity.html)

What do you think of this? Do you support or oppose this? Do you think it might cause some political problems? Should the government regulate this activity?


Its just another step in the dehumanizing path of domestication that began with the agricultural revolution and the division of labour.

I oppose it.

This is closely related to some ideas on technology i have been struggling with as of late. Specifically, whether or not technology is 'neutral' as common wisdom holds it to be. Or is it the case that such statements like "technology is neutral" is in itself a value based (or biased) judgment on technology.

Does technology subjugate humans? The idea of super babies seems to be a case of technology shaping humanity, rather than humanity shaping some neutral value free technology?

Andrew

[partofme]

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand I'm not opposed to parents getting to do these sort of things any more than I am to them being able to terminate a pregnancy after the tests usually run during early pregnancy. On the other hand there would be a barrier due to price so that rich people could have children this way but many could not which could lead to two very separate classes of people which doesn't seem like a good idea either. I guess there needs to be a line somewhere but not a complete ban but I really don't know enough to say where it should be.

I also think that as with most technologies there would be a huge cost in the beginning but it would fall over time and eventually be available to more people. Also I could see why it might be a good idea to have some charities and such to provide these to more people since I think it's in everybody's interest to have a more intelligent society.

[Michael]

I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand I'm not opposed to parents getting to do these sort of things any more than I am to them being able to terminate a pregnancy after the tests usually run during early pregnancy. On the other hand there would be a barrier due to price so that rich people could have children this way but many could not which could lead to two very separate classes of people which doesn't seem like a good idea either. I guess there needs to be a line somewhere but not a complete ban but I really don't know enough to say where it should be.

I also think that as with most technologies there would be a huge cost in the beginning but it would fall over time and eventually be available to more people. Also I could see why it might be a good idea to have some charities and such to provide these to more people since I think it's in everybody's interest to have a more intelligent society.

I think you covered off most of the key points here. I too have "mixed feelings" about it. I just don't know if this stuff is going to end up taking us all to hell or if it will be benign and beneficial (or more likely, somewhere in between, or a mixture of both).

I can easily see some nasty political consequences developing here though - wouldn't surprise me to see serious opposition to this kind of development. Very difficult issue it is!

[partofme]

I think you covered off most of the key points here. I too have "mixed feelings" about it. I just don't know if this stuff is going to end up taking us all to hell or if it will be benign and beneficial (or more likely, somewhere in between, or a mixture of both).

I can easily see some nasty political consequences developing here though - wouldn't surprise me to see serious opposition to this kind of development. Very difficult issue it is!

True but then those that want to develop it can take it to friendlier places and then if that gives them a advantage it may lead the U.S. to adopt it to compete.

[The Drunk Guy]

True but then those that want to develop it can take it to friendlier places and then if that gives them a advantage it may lead the U.S. to adopt it to compete.
And make it all compatible so as to make controlling people all the easier for our Masonic overlords. ;)

[Greendruid]

My province actively discourages the adoption of children from other "races". Wouldn't it be kind of funny if we designed our own children with different skin colours, hair textures, eye colours, nose shapes, etc. just to challenge bullshit like this?

Seriously though, I find the concept scary. We do it enough with animals and plants already and have been breeding them without direct genetic manipulation for thousands of years. I enter into evidence exhibit A:

http://www.iwannapet.com/pug.jpg

Do we really need to mess with things any further than this?

[Multiplum]

I guess I support it if we exclude the possibility of the creation of a sub-class of humans as a result.

If they could implant me with a chip that gave me, say, photographic memory when I so choose, I'd already be on my way over there (I'd ace all my exams easily with that). And I wouldn't hesitate to do whatever it takes to give my offspring the best possible starting point. In that regard, a little jiggery-pokery is much like giving the child intellectual stimuli and nutrition for optimal development. Poor people's kids don't get that either.

But, of course, I don't believe in souls or stuff like that, and say we should just get out there and go as far as we can before we're extinct.

Also, I'm the kind of guy who would try to persuade a pregnant girlfriend to abort a baby with Down's syndome. I really would.

[Michael]

http://www.iwannapet.com/pug.jpg

Do we really need to mess with things any further than this?

Very good point! :rofl:

I guess I support it if we exclude the possibility of the creation of a sub-class of humans as a result.

The "sub-class" of humans are those that won't have the enhancements. Pug-humans (figuratively speaking).

[Korimyr the Rat]

We are apparently on the threshold of a whole bunch of new technologies for "improving" on nature's design for one's children. Genetic screenings, genetic modifications, computer implants, the list is endless.

What do you think of this? Do you support or oppose this?

Hypothetically, as a father, my duties are twofold: to give my children the best possible life, and to raise my children to be the best possible adults. This technology dramatically expands on my options and my ability to do both, and redefines "best possible" in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

If such things become available, it would be immoral not to capitalize on them, just as it is immoral not to provide your children the best nutrition, the best education, and the best emotional support that you can. And if such things are possible when I am ready to have children, I will do absolutely anything within my power to ensure that they have them, whether the obstacles are financial, political, or other.

Do you think it might cause some political problems?

Yes. The lowly crawling things that do not believe we deserve to play in God's sandbox will all come out from under their rocks in force to prevent us from reaching for glory. The whining liberals, in the name of "neurodiversity" and "equality of opportunity", will try to halt the progress of human evolution itself to keep the children of the rich from having advantages over the children of the poor, and to celebrate the rich cultural legacy of cripples and retards. And, of course, our entire cadre of political parasites will pander to one side or the other to ensure that only their children and the children of the chosen elite are allowed to benefit from these technologies.

Should the government regulate this activity?

Only to prevent fraud. And possibly to prevent the deliberate infliction of disabilities on children, as the deaf, little people, and autistic communities can be assured to attempt. I'm not certain I trust the government to regulate the latter without sticking its meathooks into useful enhancements, however.

On the other hand there would be a barrier due to price so that rich people could have children this way but many could not which could lead to two very separate classes of people which doesn't seem like a good idea either.

Well, at the very least, the world's most expensive genetic enhancement can be made available to the child of the poorest woman for the cost of a one-night-stand. If retroactive genetic enhancements were possible, I'd take out loans for as many as possible, dose up on fertility drugs, and do my damnedest to pay off the loans one handshake at a time.

Heh. There's more than one way to beat Genghis Khan.

Also I could see why it might be a good idea to have some charities and such to provide these to more people since I think it's in everybody's interest to have a more intelligent society.

I absolutely support this. This is a much cleaner and more humane form of eugenics than has ever been practiced before-- and it practically ensures the preservation of genetic diversity, unlike other proposed systems.

My province actively discourages the adoption of children from other "races". Wouldn't it be kind of funny if we designed our own children with different skin colours, hair textures, eye colours, nose shapes, etc. just to challenge bullshit like this?

You have no idea the depths to which such policies sicken me. As if adopted children were any less real than biological children, and the less genetically similar, the less real they are? Or is it that somehow genetic traits conveyed a sense of culture, and that raising genetically dissimilar children is somehow unnaturally depriving them of their rightful culture?

The only thing such policies encourage is depriving needy children of worthy homes, and perpetuating racial divisions.

I guess I support it if we exclude the possibility of the creation of a sub-class of humans as a result.

Inevitable. Even if the enhancements were deeply subsidized by government and private charities, what do you think is going to happen to the children of people whose moral or religious beliefs forbid genetic enhancement?

Also, I'm the kind of guy who would try to persuade a pregnant girlfriend to abort a baby with Down's syndome. I really would.

Almost sounds like you're apologizing for it. You shouldn't. You'd be saving yourself and her a whole lot of heartache, and if getting married because you're having a normal kid is a bad idea...

[Margot]

If such things become available, it would be immoral not to capitalize on them, just as it is immoral not to provide your children the best nutrition, the best education, and the best emotional support that you can. And if such things are possible when I am ready to have children, I will do absolutely anything within my power to ensure that they have them, whether the obstacles are financial, political, or other.



Does that include making sure they don't die before they reach adulthood?

[Korimyr the Rat]

Does that include making sure they don't die before they reach adulthood?

Depends on whether or not they're going to grow up worth a damn.

[Multiplum]

Inevitable. Even if the enhancements were deeply subsidized by government and private charities, what do you think is going to happen to the children of people whose moral or religious beliefs forbid genetic enhancement?

Yes, but it's just a further polarization of the status quo. There's no such thing as equality, and your dive in the gene pool can result in either success or shit luck anyway. There are plenty of diseases we should seek to eliminate, if we really do with to minimize suffering. A lot of kids are socially retarded already as a result of their parents religion/morals (in a social context, many damaged, guilt-ridden kids don't "fit in", I mean.) Just thinking back to the kids of Jehova's witnesses in elementary school. I hope they're doing better now.

If I had a kid on the way, I would seek to give it the best possible starting point. If I could eliminate potential genetic disorders, and boost its cognitive abilities, I would. On the other hand, we should be breeding less, and take in some of the millions of kids waiting to get parents rather than selfishly squeezing out larvae.


Almost sounds like you're apologizing for it. You shouldn't. You'd be saving yourself and her a whole lot of heartache, and if getting married because you're having a normal kid is a bad idea... I openly and unapologetically take this stance. I don't intend to mow my own lawn when I reach 50, and I don't want to have to sacrifice everything I have to take care of a child that never truly grows up, and is unable to make any truly valuable contributions to society. Sure, many will claim that the diversity their presence brings is a gift, or whatever, and of course; the ones that are around should be allowed to live as happily and peacefully as possible.

Edit: I bring this up every now and then. Women are more prone to take offense and disagree with me. I see life as purely mechanical, though, and an embryo in and of itself has no "human value" to me. I'm guessing this won't raise as many eyebrows as it would on a certain other discussion forum.

[The Drunk Girl]

I stand firmly in the fact that the brain should be left alone. Yes, it is nice to fantasize what we (and the world) would be like if we had the ability to use a larger percentage of our brains or enhance what we have, but there is a reason why it is the way it is. I just see too many problems evolving from this. The brain is powerful but is also sensitive and one wrong move..a slip-up could turn someone into a vegetable. Not to mention the side effects that could possibly appear from these plug-ins and enhancements. I don't know, it just doesn't sound good to me.

That's just too much of a risk for one person to take when they could try to become more educated on their own

On the other hand, I don't think this will really take off much like cloning.

[Korimyr the Rat]

On the other hand, we should be breeding less, and take in some of the millions of kids waiting to get parents rather than selfishly squeezing out larvae.

Certainly agree that we should be adopting more children. I don't consider "squeezing out larvae" to be selfish, however-- it's necessary to the perpetuation of one's culture-- and I think it ought to be encouraged nearly as heavily as adoption.

On the other hand, I don't think this will really take off much like cloning.

Cloning as an approach to reproduction is just... misguided. The entire purpose of this technology is to ensure that our children have a better genetic foundation to build upon than we are capable of providing for them. Same reason I'm so picky in looking for a mate-- I want someone who can provide quality gene stock for my biological children, as well as be a better mother to all of my children than I had.

[The Drunk Girl]

I'm just saying I don't believe that it will really "take off." When Dolly was cloned, people started talking about humans being cloned and what would happen. But there has yet to be a human cloned, unless you want to include embryos.

I believe that it is our responsibility as adults, parents, brothers/sisters, society to help shape our youth. Sure, having the best possible genetic foundation may not be there, but what we can give them is something real, and not just something that was scientifically given to them.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I believe that it is our responsibility as adults, parents, brothers/sisters, society to help shape our youth. Sure, having the best possible genetic foundation may not be there, but what we can give them is something real, and not just something that was scientifically given to them.

That's certainly the most important part of the equation. It's just also the hardest.

[The Drunk Girl]

That's certainly the most important part of the equation. It's just also the hardest.

I agree. It is the hardest. Hell, like you said, it is hard enough to find an "adequate" spouse/significant other to be with. But, scientifically aiding/inhibiting people sounds so fake and boring to me. There's no challenge and no reason to try anymore.

[Korimyr the Rat]

But, scientifically aiding/inhibiting people sounds so fake and boring to me. There's no challenge and no reason to try anymore.

I do not believe that humanity is the pinnacle of biological evolution. I believe it is possible for both the average member of our species and our most impressive specimens to be more intelligent, more resilient, more powerful and more agile than anything we have seen before.

If that goal isn't worth pursuing, at least as a consideration in the pursuit of one's other goals, I cannot imagine what would be.

[Dominick]

I do not believe that humanity is the pinnacle of biological evolution. I believe it is possible for both the average member of our species and our most impressive specimens to be more intelligent, more resilient, more powerful and more agile than anything we have seen before.

If that goal isn't worth pursuing, at least as a consideration in the pursuit of one's other goals, I cannot imagine what would be.
Everything that now lives is at the pinnacle of evolution presently. Evolution has no purpose. It just happens, it's an entirely passive process.

The human brain is far too complex for contemporary technology to mess with it. The fuckups in this process will far outweigh the potential benefits. Furthermore, the perception of those benefits will inevitably be ideologically coloured so that even in the eventuality of being succesful, it will amount to nothing more than a new form of control of people by authorities.

[SMadsen]

Certainly agree that we should be adopting more children. I don't consider "squeezing out larvae" to be selfish, however-- it's necessary to the perpetuation of one's culture-- and I think it ought to be encouraged nearly as heavily as adoption.
Having children is inherently selfish, regardless of the gene source. It's a required selfishness. However, I don't see how adoption interferes with the perpetuation of one's culture. Guess it depends on the scope of one's particular view of one's culture.

Cloning as an approach to reproduction is just... misguided. The entire purpose of this technology is to ensure that our children have a better genetic foundation to build upon than we are capable of providing for them. Same reason I'm so picky in looking for a mate-- I want someone who can provide quality gene stock for my biological children, as well as be a better mother to all of my children than I had.
Is that a criterion that you consciously aim or aimed at?

Just being curious.

[Americano]

Certainly agree that we should be adopting more children. I don't consider "squeezing out larvae" to be selfish, however-- it's necessary to the perpetuation of one's culture-- and I think it ought to be encouraged nearly as heavily as adoption.



Cloning as an approach to reproduction is just... misguided. The entire purpose of this technology is to ensure that our children have a better genetic foundation to build upon than we are capable of providing for them. Same reason I'm so picky in looking for a mate-- I want someone who can provide quality gene stock for my biological children, as well as be a better mother to all of my children than I had.

Gotta make for some very tough first date questions. Or do you have a detailed questionnaire to simplify matters? How do women react to broodstock questions?

[partofme]

Everything that now lives is at the pinnacle of evolution presently. Evolution has no purpose. It just happens, it's an entirely passive process.

The human brain is far too complex for contemporary technology to mess with it. The fuckups in this process will far outweigh the potential benefits. Furthermore, the perception of those benefits will inevitably be ideologically coloured so that even in the eventuality of being succesful, it will amount to nothing more than a new form of control of people by authorities.

I think you make a good point here. Evolution isn't a one way street towards a species that is better than that which comes before. It's a process in which species adapt to their environment. While one species may seem to have evolved to a higher level in fact it's likely that it has moved away from being better suited to environments it was in in the distant past. Just because a species may be better adapted towards it's current situation doesn't mean it's best for all situations or environments. The idea that evolution is leading us to some perfect end product is wishful thinking at best.

[Michael]

...The idea that evolution is leading us to some perfect end product is wishful thinking at best.

It is a logical extension from the idea of religious appoved evolutionary theory.

[SMadsen]

It is a logical extension from the idea of religious appoved evolutionary theory.
Was ist das für ein ding?

[Korimyr the Rat]

Everything that now lives is at the pinnacle of evolution presently. Evolution has no purpose. It just happens, it's an entirely passive process.

Everything in our universe exists without purpose, and everything but our own actions is an entirely passive process. It is in our nature to assign meaning to events, to devise a purpose for them, and find a way for passive processes to suit our active agendas.

Like everything else in the universe, evolution can be used to suit our purposes. And my purpose is to improve things, especially those things which benefit my family.

I think you make a good point here. Evolution isn't a one way street towards a species that is better than that which comes before. It's a process in which species adapt to their environment.

Not exactly. It's a process in which species adapt to resemble whichever members of their species are most successful at reproducing. In an environment of relative abundance and safety, this has little to do with any measure of competence, and with the power of modern medicine, also little to do with most measures of health.

Since almost every infant born survives to adulthood, we are evolving to most resemble those members of our society who have the most children, and least resemble those who have the least children.

Take a look at who has the most children and who has the least, and ask yourself if that's really the direction you want our species to be moving.

The idea that evolution is leading us to some perfect end product is wishful thinking at best.

In the case of a species which is capable of consciously influencing its own evolutionary development, that is exactly what evolution should be doing. It's not wishful thinking, it's a declaration of intent.

However, I don't see how adoption interferes with the perpetuation of one's culture. Guess it depends on the scope of one's particular view of one's culture.

I may not have written clearly. I do not think that adoption interferes with the perpetuation of one's culture at all, and I consider it even more morally praiseworthy than reproduction. My point was only that reproduction should be encouraged on a moral and practical level; at the very least, if noone is having children, there won't be any children to adopt.

Is that a criterion that you consciously aim or aimed at?

Yes, it is something I take into consideration. It's not my highest priority by a long shot, but it certainly ranks much higher than trivialities like hair color and whether or not she roots for the same sports teams.

Gotta make for some very tough first date questions. Or do you have a detailed questionnaire to simplify matters? How do women react to broodstock questions?

About as well as you'd expect, which is why I'm not so crass as to ask them. On the other hand, there's a lot you can pick up by simple observation-- and most people would agree with the statement that you should get to know a woman and her family before having children with her.

[Korimyr the Rat]

It is a logical extension from the idea of religious appoved evolutionary theory.

Heh. Gods who don't want us to become more godlike aren't worthy of worship.

[The Drunk Girl]

Gotta make for some very tough first date questions. Or do you have a detailed questionnaire to simplify matters? How do women react to broodstock questions?

:rofl: Definitely not first date questions...can we say, "awkward"?:erm:

Sorry, that just hit my funny bone..or maybe the Coors Light made me laugh. I'm not for sure

[The Drunk Girl]

I have to disagree with your statement that everything in the universe exists with no purpose. Whether you are religious or not, we're not here for nothing. Everything has a purpose in someway. If nothing else, the purpose is being apart of the world. Sure some people, living things, organisms, etc. might not have a dynamic purpose compared to others, but we are all connected in some way. Everything in our world needs something from someplace else and that in itself gives whatever something a purpose.

On a lighter note I would like to reflect back to my childhood with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX07j9SDFcc

[Michael]

Was ist das für ein ding?

Please note that English is the language of discussion at this forum. Please do not post messages in languages other than English. If there is interest, we can establish a non-English language section.

[SMadsen]

It is a logical extension from the idea of religious appoved evolutionary theory.
What's that, "religious app[r]oved evolutionary theory"?

[Michael]

What's that, "religious app[r]oved evolutionary theory"?
The Roman Catholic Church officially acknowledges evolutionary theory under the 'watchmaker analogy'.

That implies that evolutionary theory 'unfolds' over time as God's plan - or according' to God's original design plan.

[SMadsen]

The Roman Catholic Church officially acknowledges evolutionary theory under the 'watchmaker analogy'.

That implies that evolutionary theory 'unfolds' over time as God's plan - or according' to God's original design plan.
No, it does not imply anything about the theory of evolution but about the Roman Catholic Church.

It implies that the Roman Catholic Church will acknowledge the theory of evolution if they, the Roman Catholic Church, can fit it into a religious doctrine.


Pedantry? Well ...

[Michael]

No, it does not imply anything about the theory of evolution but about the Roman Catholic Church.

It implies that the Roman Catholic Church will acknowledge the theory of evolution if they, the Roman Catholic Church, can fit it into a religious doctrine.


Pedantry? Well ...

Well yes. :D

But the point is that a fairly large number of people do hold to that view or interpretation of evolutionary theory - and the key concept introduced is that a "goal" is involved in the process.

You are correct that says more about the RCC than it does about evolution, but I'm just explaining where the "goal" of evolution idea originates from - I'm certainly not agreeing with it or proposing it as true.

[SMadsen]

:D

It's just that an adjective usually modifies the noun that follows, so the particular wording "religious approved .. theory" sent shivers down the spine :eek:

[andrewl]

Well yes. :D

But the point is that a fairly large number of people do hold to that view or interpretation of evolutionary theory - and the key concept introduced is that a "goal" is involved in the process.

You are correct that says more about the RCC than it does about evolution, but I'm just explaining where the "goal" of evolution idea originates from - I'm certainly not agreeing with it or proposing it as true.

This is the "secular creation myth" of western culture.

Andrew