[video=youtube;juuDc4UzMOg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juuDc4UzMOg[/video]
I hope this fuel Biohacking or any Biotechnology-theme movement that actually permission used this technology. Thus create Biopunk dystopia is coming your way.
And this is available for me, First, it either modified my brain to recoded for "cure" my disorder or maybe later I also modified myself with Goat genes if any physical or biological traits appear to change...
I misread the title as "Would you eat your childs gnome" and wondered what the fuck
Absolutely. Having my children be without any disease and be biologically resistant to new ones would be what people have been doing for centuries: finding ways to make life for their children easier and healthier.
The idea that the rich would be in control goes opposite to what he was originally saying about CRISPR, that it is cheap and easy. Just federally integrate it into normal prenatal healthcare and you're good to go.
As for "discriminating" against people with disabilities, this is completely absurd. Anyone that WANTS their child to be born with something like cystic fibrosis or even autism is harming their child. Whether they opt to keep a child that was born that way is up to them. You can already selectively abort your child in many countries if it will be born with autism, and many people do it. This is a nonissue.
The argument that children will have chosen traits against their will and be forced to be a "design" of their parents is plausible, but in a way we already do that when we have children with someone we find attractive. Another thing to think about here is that people are a product of their life experiences and decisions, not their physical appearance.
CRISPR used correctly has the capacity to do much more good than harm, and most of the arguments against it are the same ones used against IVF (that children would be "test tube babies")
[t]http://i.imgur.com/qxxVW5I.jpg[/t]
But seriously, having a severely disabled/handicapped child is honestly one of my biggest fears even though that may seem selfish. My dad's been a special education teacher for years and it's been really tough on him.
My concerns with gene editing aren't so much about getting rid of genetic diseases, but with determining things like: height, looks, personality, etc.
So much of the human experience is dependent on us having a huge variety of personalities, strengths, weaknesses, etc. and a lot of that is at least partly dependent on genes.
If it is to get rid of birth defects and other true quality of life things, I'm all for it 100%. The second its about building a basketball star or some model child it is a problem.
A hard line to draw, especially since this is all fairly hypothetical at the moment.
[QUOTE=Socram;52184098]If it is to get rid of birth defects and other true quality of life things, I'm all for it 100%. The second its about building a basketball star or some model child it is a problem.
A hard line to draw, especially since this is all fairly hypothetical at the moment.[/QUOTE]
I can see there being different leagues for authentic and modified humans.
[editline]3rd May 2017[/editline]
Then again, what if we treated it like steroids? Completely barring them from entry?
[QUOTE=TerrorShield;52184008][t]http://i.imgur.com/qxxVW5I.jpg[/t]
But seriously, having a severely disabled/handicapped child is honestly one of my biggest fears even though that may seem selfish. My dad's been a special education teacher for years and it's been really tough on him.[/QUOTE]
Gattaca is such a great movie. We actually watched it in my Biology class in high school.
[QUOTE=Funion;52183979]The idea that the rich would be in control goes opposite to what he was originally saying about CRISPR, that it is cheap and easy.[/QUOTE]
Breaking: Martin Shkreli buys patent for CRISPR
[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;52184135]Breaking: Martin Shkreli buys patent for CRISPR[/QUOTE]
From what I've seen it's the idea behind CRISPR that is groundbreaking, not necessarily the exact design behind one apparatus that can accomplish it. Like the telephone. Not a geneticist though but that is my two cents
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned catgirls yet.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;52183975]I misread the title as "Would you eat your childs gnome" and wondered what the fuck[/QUOTE]
i was going to post "yes" when i thought that was the title
Yes, I've lost family members to genetic diseases in their 20's and I would hate to have it happen again to a loved one. If I could edit Cystic Fibrosis out of existence you're damn right I'd do it. It's like breathing out of a straw your whole life, it's awful.
I just wish something could have been done sooner.
[QUOTE=Ott;52184120]I can see there being different leagues for authentic and modified humans.
[editline]3rd May 2017[/editline]
Then again, what if we treated it like steroids? Completely barring them from entry?[/QUOTE]
That'd be incredibly unfair given that it's without their consent
Well I have the choice between eliminating myself from the gene pool and getting children strong enough to live good lives even in a flooded post apocalyptic wasteland. I pick the latter.
I feel like there shouldn't be concern for using this to 'cure' many disabilities like autism, or being born deaf. But maybe a bit of concern for the more unnecessary things.
Like, how far does this go? Could my parents choose my whole appearance? Could they decide whether I'm athletic or a nerd? Could they have an impact on what interests I have in life?
It sounds shaky for me pretty quick. Oh, sure, we'd exterminate 'ugliness' real quick. But the ideas of what an attractive person are are at least pretty similar. For instance, for guys, being tall, having a strong jaw, so on. But I'm not personally attracted to that, so could the type of guy I'm attracted to just disappear as tall, strong jawed guys become the norm? And do we really want all men to look like that? Isn't part of the beauty of our species how [I]different[/I] people are? If we could not eliminate the chance of transgenderism, could I be 'designed' with overtly masculine features and then be screwed once I realize I'm trans?
I don't know about all that. I'm not the most attractive person in the world but I can tell you I wouldn't like it if my parents programmed my appearance. Let alone what kind of person I would be. I [I]like[/I] being relatively an accident of the universe.
My only concern is people modifying their children more and more for vanity than fitness. And to see what I mean, look at the controversy of the kennel club's pedigree dogs. They tend to selectively interbreed dogs until they look a certain way while completely ignoring the actual health of the dog. this is how you get pugs that cant breathe right, german shepards with messed up backs, or dogs with skulls too small for their brain. I think crispr can unintentionally be used to pass on unfit genes that people consider to be attractive. crispr may eventually evolve into that if people get too used to it.
Also I think parents should be allowed to design their children (within limits tho, [URL="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4-ItXUz_C88/maxresdefault.jpg"]none[/URL] [URL="http://members.optusnet.com.au/enchilada/b3ta/catgirl.jpg"]of[/URL] [URL="http://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/fo4faces_beavisbutthead.jpg"]this[/URL] [URL="http://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/zelda.gamepedia.com/e/ea/BotW_Unknown_Character_13.png"]shit[/URL]). I wouldn't have a problem at all if my parents designed me because no matter what u look like, its your experiences in life that make you, not your appearance. After all, parents have been making children in their own likeness whether they knew it or not since sexual reproduction existed. Your child is 'you' physically, but mentally he/she is a product of the environment resulting in his/her own unique identity.
[editline]4th May 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52184466]
I don't know about all that. I'm not the most attractive person in the world but I can tell you I wouldn't like it if my parents programmed my appearance. Let alone what kind of person I would be. I [I]like[/I] being relatively an accident of the universe.[/QUOTE]
If I put you in the same room as 'the version of you programmed by your parents from a split timeline'(essentially your brother/sister) and you two had a debate on this, I think I can guarantee that your 'alternate self' would actively defend his/her existance/identity in the same way you are doing here. I highly doubt that he/she would be envious of you since you were more of an accident than he/she was.
using a brand new technology on things that we don't know is a good idea or not is always a good idea, especially when we're messing with something we barely understand and could end up causing huge problems down the line
I can imagine that the first generation of genetically modified children might suddenly become crippled or have some serious health condition in their later life that nobody realised at the time when doing the gene editing, and it would take decades for anybody to realise (by which point reversing the damage would be too late). the potential risks (injury, mutilation, even death) far outweigh the potential benefits (minor gains in intelligence or attractiveness)
for the health of my child, I wouldn't do it - it's potentially very dangerous
Would I edit my childs genes? Of fucking course.
Praise the emperor, bring on the geneseed.
I'd definitely genetically modify my child, as long as it's restricted to removing disorders and diseases. No parent wants to have a child with down's syndrome or autism and I wouldn't either. So being able to remove those two disorders and countless more would be great.
Though I would draw the line at modifying appearance or intelligence. If something like that would happen, I imagine that genetically modified people would be restricted from participating in certain things, such as certain professions, professional sports and attending the highest ranking and most prestigious universities in the world. Sort of like how it is in Star Trek, where genetically modifying children is illegal and if you do modify your child, the child is then restricted on what they are allowed to do. Such as Dr. Bashir in Deep Space 9 who's genetically modified and shouldn't actually be allowed to practice medicine or enroll in Star Fleet.
All this talk about modifying appearance. implying it's actually what they're going to get. Why wouldn't you modify your child to be smart? Whether he uses it in life or not is his own choice... Why not Modify a child to be able to be strong, athletic, once again it's his choice in life to take advantage of it. I think these should be baselines for future children, rather than optional or banned outright.
[QUOTE=ejonkou;52184877]I'd definitely genetically modify my child, as long as it's restricted to removing disorders and diseases. No parent wants to have a child with down's syndrome or autism and I wouldn't either. So being able to remove those two disorders and countless more would be great.
Though I would draw the line at modifying appearance or intelligence. If something like that would happen, I imagine that genetically modified people would be restricted from participating in certain things, such as certain professions, professional sports and attending the highest ranking and most prestigious universities in the world. Sort of like how it is in Star Trek, where genetically modifying children is illegal and if you do modify your child, the child is then restricted on what they are allowed to do. Such as Dr. Bashir in Deep Space 9 who's genetically modified and shouldn't actually be allowed to practice medicine or enroll in Star Fleet.[/QUOTE]
this comes dangerously close to sins of the father for me. i can understand private organizations (e.g. sports sanctioning bodies) not allowing genetically modified individuals due to it basically being a form of doping, but why would you extend that to professions or universities? why should a hyper-intelligent or hyper-deft individual not be allowed to practice medicine? wouldn't that actually be actively detrimental to society as a whole by losing those skills? how can you say someone can't attend a certain university just because they're genetically modified, because they'd be taking that spot from someone who isn't? in that case why don't we disallow universities from taking in the students of wealthy families, or students from developed nations, or only allow first-generation students to go to university? again, wouldn't it be detrimental to society as a whole for an individual who was extremely competent to not receive the training and mentorship they need to use those competencies to the fullest? it's not as if you can magically program intelligence or strength into someone. even if someone has perfect genetics, they still need the upbringing and training to allow those traits to flourish. more than any of that, why should a child be punished for the sins of their parents? that child didn't choose to be born that way, then you're telling them that they can't get a degree or receive their medicinal license or engineering certification because their parents broke the law?
someone earlier said that the human experience is varied due to people being competent at different things as a result of genetics, and i think that's complete nonsense. sure it plays a part, but your genetics (other than maybe appearance due to affecting how people view you [[b]ALSO warning this is debatable. tabula rasa and shit[/b]]) dont determine your interests or personality. your upbringing, experiences, and personal beliefs that form do. as long as it is not economically disenfranchising anyone (e.g. the government mandates a certain crop of genetic enhancements for each 'generation' so that it's not only the wealthy who receive any benefits) i don't see why we shouldn't attempt it. i think at a certain point it would even become inevitable.
I would give my child gills so he could breathe underwater then we'd go on treasure hunting adventures
[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;52185007]I would give my child gills so he could breathe underwater then we'd go on treasure hunting adventures[/QUOTE]
Give him the ability to filter out radioactive particles while he breathes and to be resistant to radiation then send him out to Chernobyl for the true STALKER experience.
Oh and gills too so he can tell us about all the wack ass stuff living in the cooling ponds.
[QUOTE=Jake Nukem;52184935]I think these should be baselines for future children, rather than optional or banned outright.[/QUOTE]
except then if the entire thing goes tits up then every child is affected
I think it should be banned outright until we have spent at least a good few decades rigorously testing it and allowing it on a small/experimental scale before you should even think about allowing to be used on a large scale - let alone mandating that it be the "baseline" for all future children. having all children be subject to this is something I would never want to see in my lifetime
[QUOTE=Ott;52184208]I'm surprised nobody's mentioned catgirls yet.[/QUOTE]
What evolutionary advantage would we gain from having catgirls?
Would cat ears provide better hearing? Would our tails allow us to better balance ourselves?
Whenever I think of people having tails all I imagine is them getting their tails stuck in closing doors.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52185053]except then if the entire thing goes tits up then every child is affected
I think it should be banned outright until we have spent at least a good few decades rigorously testing it and allowing it on a small/experimental scale before you should even think about allowing to be used on a large scale - let alone mandating that it be the "baseline" for all future children. having all children be subject to this is something I would never want to see in my lifetime[/QUOTE]
No one is advocating using an entire generation of children as experiments. He means in the future when they are verified and safe. You know, how medicine in general works? When a new vaccine is developed they don't immediately go administer it to every infant in the country.
Also 'banned outright' and 'rigorous testing/small scale use' don't quite sit well together.
keep this tech away from the monster factory boys
[QUOTE=Zombii;52185060]No one is advocating using an entire generation of children as experiments. He means in the future when they are verified and safe. You know, how medicine in general works? When a new vaccine is developed they don't immediately go administer it to every infant in the country.
Also 'banned outright' and 'rigorous testing/small scale use' don't quite sit well together.[/QUOTE]
there's a replication crisis in science at the moment, so it's often that we have no idea if medicines even work or not or don't have side effects we didn't anticipate. in cases like this only time can tell if the technology is proven or not. not only is this brand new, but we barely understand it at the moment nor its full potential and ramifications
when it comes to children, we shouldn't be even considering using this technology on them on any sizable scale until we've spent at least a century on it or possibly more (just in case there aren't problems which crop up suddenly when you turn 50 as a result of genetic fuckery). only when we manage to raise several generations will it seem like a safe technology
it should not be available to the public in any capacity until that point in time, or well into the 22nd century
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
