Would You Edit Your Child’s Genome? - General

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;52185173]I wouldn't engineer them to be exceptionally intelligent or athletic, because that takes away the accomplishment of reaching that level. You become intelligent by studying and athletic by training your body and devoting yourself. There is no satisfaction, no value in starting out from the top.[/QUOTE] Would we be starting them from the top? Or merely setting the standard for 'average' far higher, allowing those with the willpower to reach even higher than we ever thought possible? Those who see furthest do so by standing on the shoulders of giants. To deny them a better baseline would be to deny them the spot upon our shoulders. Science would go nowhere if each new generation of science had to re-invent the scientific method and calculus every time.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;52187249]If anything there's alot of sociological and psychological aspects to transhumanism that are always muddled out by "muh immortality". Look around us in modern day and you'll see transhumanism at work, ofc we don't have augmentations, but we have a constant supply of information right at our fingertips which has changed our society in countless ways.[/quote] not always for the better, which is why I distrust transhumanism [quote][b]Information overload has become almost the norm[/b], privacy is at risk and [b]some people [U]actually choose to be ignorant[/U] in this day and age for better/worse.[/b] People 25 years ago couldn't have predicted how our society will look, that's the power of actual transhumanism.[/QUOTE] when scientific papers can't replicate half the time (or worse), experts regularly fail to predict anything (economics is especially guilty of this), when journalists have become machines to churn out "coffee gives you cancer/prevents cancer" articles, when webshites like 538 make predictions that consistently fail, and when iatrogenics is one of the biggest killers in the modern era it's no surprise that people turn away from those and trust their grandmothers instead of the exponentially growing amount of noisy information and the peddlers that permeate our world ironically, in spite of having more information than ever before, we are unable to make use of it or use it effectively - even machinery is regularly fooled by the our exponential increases in complexity. I am suspicious of prediction-making, but one I'd like to make is that an exponential growth in information combined with science and technology we understand less and less is a recipe for disaster

[QUOTE=ejonkou;52187472]Because it would be practically impossible for anyone who isn't genetically modified to be able to compete with someone who has a genius level of intelligence. Life is ultimately a competition, we compete with other people in practically every part of our lives, whether that's eduction, work etc. We, as people, have been fighting for such a long time to try to make things equal, and in large parts of the worlds it's equal, or as close as you can realistically get to equality. So suddenly we should just start breeding super humans who are superior to a regular person in intelligence, athleticism, appearance and throw the entire notion of equality out the window?[/quote] is it 'practically impossible' for someone who wants to get into university now to get into it while competing against all of these people who apparently have preset genetics marking them as intelligent? we do compete with other people in every aspect of life, but even if every person started with an equal footing as far as genetics are concerned, someone who has worked harder at something is always going to be superior at it. having to compete against others is not a bad thing, it encourages people to try hard and stand out. as someone who is hyper-competitive at a lot of things i would go so far as to say it's part of what makes us human. you say that we should fight to make things equal, but things will never be completely equal, that's just how humanity is. equality of opportunity is what matters, not equality of result. also, no one is suggesting that we should just let a certain subset of people (wealthy, a certain ethnicity/geographical region, etc) genetically augment their children so they have an advantage. obviously that would exacerbate existing problems and cause additional ones. but if we had the opportunity to give future generations, the human race, and society a better future by saying 'from a certain date, every child born must receive these genetic modifications' what is wrong with that? [quote]While it could benefit society, it won't. It's going to harm you, me and everyone else. It would divide us even further.[/quote] ...what? in my post i specifically mentioned that it should be done unilaterally so as to not divide anyone. who are we going to be divided from, the future generations? the children? apparently, based on genetics and youth, not to mention advances in medicine and vaccines, children already have an advantage, so we're just totally boned! what if i'm old and frail and contract an unknown disease and the only person who could have created a cure is a researcher who is genetically modified and wanted to work in medicine? but oh wait, they were prevented from doing so because it wouldn't be 'fair', so now civilization as a whole doesn't receive that cure. or a leader who prevents war, or a scientist who makes a key breakthrough, or an engineer who creates a device to utilize that breakthrough. obviously there are challenges to overcome in regards to that fairness and making sure nobody is disenfranchised totally. and hopefully by the time this technology becomes tested enough to be used on future children we're at a point where no ones livelihood depends on their job and as a society we have more support for everyone. but it sounds to me like you think we should just hunt down and murder any child or person born with genetic modifications in order to protect the pureblood's chances! (obviously exaggerated for effect here) [quote]I'm citing Star Trek, so that's exactly what I'm referring to, lol. I'm also not going to try to predict what technology hundreds of years in the future will look like. If someone from the 17th century could get a glimpse in the life of an average person the western world in the 21st century they would think it was fiction.[/quote] we're not talking about technology that's 'hundreds of years' into the future, unless you mean what we'll have when star trek's time period rolls around. genetic engineering is already being tested today. sure, we're not going to be creating 9ft tall hyper-intelligent super soldiers in the next couple years but technology moves blindingly fast, so i think 'hundreds' of years in the future may be a little bit too conservative. [quote]You're totally wrong. We are definitely not blank slates. Genetics plays a huge part in how we develop, it has a major hand in pretty much every aspect of us. From personality to appearance and even intelligence. We are all born with a temperatment, the foundation on which we then build ourselves through upbringing and life experiences, and this is most definitely influenced largely by genetical factor. We aren't all born with the ability to become geniuses under the right conditions, our limit is already set from birth. Many of John B. Watson's ideas about Behavioral therapy and how we are structured have been proven wrong time and time again. Watson was a sad, horrible little man and it's not someone you should try to base your arguments on.[/QUOTE] i admit i'm not a psyche major, and i don't follow any journals related to it, but nature vs nurture is literally one of the oldest and longest running arguments in all of science. has there been a discovery recently that proves that people's personalities and temperament are based in genetics alone? i'm speaking mostly from belief here for the rest of this paragraph, rather than from any concrete knowledge. i'm more familiar with the physical sciences than the soft. but saying that 'our limit is already set from birth' is pretty depressing and defeatist, imo. sure, not everyone is born with the capability to be an einstein, hawking, planck, or bohr. But a large portion of a person's intelligence does come from nurture. even geniuses aren't born with the knowledge already in their head, and even someone with the capability to become a genius may not take that path because it doesn't interest them. again, look at bodybuilding. some people have the genetics so that they don't have to put in as much work as someone else to get huge, but even someone with shit genetics can do it if they eat right and put the work in. humans are definitely NOT predetermined by their genes. why do you think people change after being injured or having traumatic experiences, or change career paths late in life? the idea that humans have natural, inset limits isn't something that i would be willing to accept. not without hard, replicated, peer-reviewed evidence. if that exists, then just fuck me sideways with a pole. also, tabula rasu originates with john locke. it's just another part of nature v nurture and i'm not basing my arguments on anything, just saying that nature v nurture is an argument that's still ongoing.

Hell yeah I would. Why would I want my kid to develop eyesight problems or lung problems like I have? I'm not on board for the vain bullshit of turning your kid into a super model or trying to genetically engineer them for a particular job, but give my kid the strongest lungs and heart you can and cram in as many brains as you can fit. Let the kid decide what to do with them, just make sure they're got the best I can give them to start off.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52188824]not always for the better, which is why I distrust transhumanism[/QUOTE] Without Transhumanist influences in both non-fictional or fictional works, No way Western culture will understand and even accepted science and biotechnology for humanity, Instead ironically remain stuck in a Fallout-like world with massive reactionary influnces in all western society.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52188824]not always for the better, which is why I distrust transhumanism when scientific papers can't replicate half the time (or worse), experts regularly fail to predict anything (economics is especially guilty of this), when journalists have become machines to churn out "coffee gives you cancer/prevents cancer" articles, when webshites like 538 make predictions that consistently fail, and when iatrogenics is one of the biggest killers in the modern era it's no surprise that people turn away from those and trust their grandmothers instead of the exponentially growing amount of noisy information and the peddlers that permeate our world ironically, in spite of having more information than ever before, we are unable to make use of it or use it effectively - even machinery is regularly fooled by the our exponential increases in complexity. I am suspicious of prediction-making, but one I'd like to make is that an exponential growth in information combined with science and technology we understand less and less is a recipe for disaster[/QUOTE] Well, economics sometimes fails to predict what happens because its facts are not as well defined as what you'd see with physics or chemistry. There you can repeat an experiment many times and it will work the same way 100% with allowable variations. The monkey wrench here is the unpredictability of humanity at work. But that doesn't mean a lot of economics isn't based on sound theories and observable variations. When going into economics, be prepared for the unexpected to change things.

[QUOTE=ChadMcGoatMan;52189524]Without Transhumanist influences in both non-fictional or fictional works, No way Western culture will understand and even accepted science and biotechnology for humanity, Instead ironically remain stuck in a Fallout-like world with massive reactionary influnces in all western society.[/QUOTE] i have no idea how rejecting transhumanism somehow makes you a reactionary that wants to be stuck in a "fallout world". I am just suspicious of attempts to "improve" or "perfect" man, especially because every time its been tried it's blown up in the face of the people attempting it you can be innovate and invent as much as you please, but I don't think people should be fucking with incredibly risky things that they don't understand and has the potential to explode in their face. genetic engineering of millions of children or attempting to take dozens of different pills has a massive potential to go wrong - the past century or two of medical science shows that [QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52189533]Well, economics sometimes fails to predict what happens because its facts are not as well defined as what you'd see with physics or chemistry.[/quote] if you can't define the facts, either work on defining them, or stop pretending its something that's a part of science. [quote]There you can repeat an experiment many times and it will work the same way 100% with allowable variations. The monkey wrench here is the unpredictability of humanity at work. But that doesn't mean a lot of economics isn't based on sound theories and observable variations. When going into economics, be prepared for the unexpected to change things.[/QUOTE] the vast bulk of economics papers observations can't be replicated, and the entire fact that the unexpected can change everything means you shouldn't put much stock into theories that are completely incapable of actually describing economic behaviour most economists don't even bother with collecting experimental data to prove their theories (let alone trying to devise an experiment that would falsify their hypothesis), but instead they make simplified assumptions about human behaviour and use a lot of needlessly complicated mathematics (or computer simulations) to make it look respectable. until the replication crisis (something which actually brings the vast bulk of modern research into question) is fixed and economics becomes a science (at the moment the best they do is collect statistical data) then the bulk of economists predictions and policies are largely bunk (especially if they aren't based upon precedent)

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;52185173] [B]I wouldn't engineer them to be exceptionally intelligent or athletic, because that takes away the accomplishment of reaching that level. You become intelligent by studying and athletic by training your body and devoting yourself. There is no satisfaction, no value in starting out from the top.[/B] If I can remove the obstacles and barriers and let them develop themselves into their own person, I'd do it in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE] What? Why? You don't want your child to be successful?

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;52185173] I wouldn't engineer them to be exceptionally intelligent or athletic, because that takes away the accomplishment of reaching that level. You become intelligent by studying and athletic by training your body and devoting yourself. There is no satisfaction, no value in starting out from the top. If I can remove the obstacles and barriers and let them develop themselves into their own person, I'd do it in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE] I think you are looking at it the wrong way. genetically modifying your kid to be exceptionally intelligent or athletic doesn't mean they don't need to study and work hard(they wont be born innately knowing calculus and shit). It just means their limit is much higher than other people. Increasing intelligence would be like having a much faster/efficient brain (no amount of studying improves this, you are stuck with the speed of your brain and it only gets slower when you get old). So your child could learn more things faster than most people. An athletic enhancement wouldn't mean you kid is born ripped, it would mean if he did training like normal people he would just be stronger/quicker than them(even if everyone devoted 100% of their life to physical training, you would still see that some humans are just better than others in terms of physical fitness). So you aren't starting at the top, and the satisfaction of improving still exists. The only 'bad' thing about being extremely intelligent is boredom, if there isn't anything that poses a challenge for your mind you will get very bored with what you are doing, and you will gravitate towards activities that are more fit for your mental caliber.

If I ever do get bonked on the head hard enough to want a kid, yeah, I'd probably edit the everloving fuck out of it. Lots of things in my family tree they don't need, like the genetic predisposition to diabeetus on my mom's side. I'd probably also tweak their metabolism to make it super hard for them to get fat, turn their allergies off, crank their immune system up to 12, and probably turn their senses up a notch.

[QUOTE=noh_mercy;52189981]I think you are looking at it the wrong way. genetically modifying your kid to be exceptionally intelligent or athletic doesn't mean they don't need to study and work hard(they wont be born innately knowing calculus and shit). It just means their limit is much higher than other people. Increasing intelligence would be like having a much faster/efficient brain (no amount of studying improves this, you are stuck with the speed of your brain and it only gets slower when you get old). So your child could learn more things faster than most people. An athletic enhancement wouldn't mean you kid is born ripped, it would mean if he did training like normal people he would just be stronger/quicker than them(even if everyone devoted 100% of their life to physical training, you would still see that some humans are just better than others in terms of physical fitness). So you aren't starting at the top, and the satisfaction of improving still exists. The only 'bad' thing about being extremely intelligent is boredom, if there isn't anything that poses a challenge for your mind you will get very bored with what you are doing, and you will gravitate towards activities that are more fit for your mental caliber.[/QUOTE] Good points, I hadn't looked at it like that.

I would very much edit any bad inherited stuff away from my child. I have deuteranopia and I have a bad hearing defect (since birth, my sister has it too) and I don't want to pass those on. Cancer is also part of the family, so if that could go away it would be nice too.

[QUOTE=TerrorShield;52184008][t]My dad's been a special education teacher for years and it's been really tough on him.[/QUOTE] He must love you very much.

I wouldn't.