Genetically Enhanced Super-Babies

[hooblabla6262]

My girlfriend and I were discussing children last night. Like all conversations on babies, the topic soon turned to genetic alteration.

I stated that in a future where genetic alterations can be safely made, I would have no moral problems with a genetically superior baby.

She did not agree.

She claimed it to be unnatural. I argued that man is of nature, and that he uses components of nature to make these alterations. So to me it seems natural.

She also stated that people would pick traits favored by society resulting in similar babies among particular cultures. I felt that people were to vain to not make a baby that, at least to some degree, resembled themselves.

She still did not agree.

So Escapists, would you genetically enhance your baby?

Edit: If you had to choose one single thing to alter, what would it be?
I'd go with a genetically enhanced immune system. Just to be safe.

captcha: dinosaur spaceship

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I belonged to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the color of your skin. No, we now have discrimination down to a science.

Really though, if the option were available, would I want to take advantage of it for my own kid? You betcha. It's probably a really, really bad idea though.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

No, because I am scared of genetically advanced super-beings. Or, you know, at least wait until I get fancy ass cybernetic upgrades. Cybernetics is much cooler than genetic modification anyway.

 

[IndomitableSam]

I'm all for genetic enhancement. Better health, fewer risk factors for diseases, better physical fitness, even choosing physical traits would be fine by me. No issues in the slightest. Nature will always fix itself if we go too far... and if not, well, we'll hopefully wipe ourselves out before we destroy the planet beyond salvation.

Part of the reason I've decided not to have kids (woman, age 29) is because I don't want to pass along some of my genes. Also, I don't want a daughter. At all. I don't want to raise a girl in today's society, having grown up in it myself. I'd be okay with a boy, and if you could guarantee me I'd have a boy, I would. Especially because many of my family's health issues occur only on the women's side.

 

[Esotera]

Hell yes. As long as genetic diversity of the population as a whole isn't impacted, then I don't see any downsides at all to the process itself, as long as it's well regulated and only positive changes are allowed. How society handles it is a different matter...there would need to be a lot of genetic counselling, and no pressure to make babies look certain ways.

With the ease of world travel, we're actually approaching an exciting time in human evolution. Whereas at one time genetic populations were largely fixed by geography and thus certain genes could be lost should disaster strike that local population; we have reached a technological, economic, and social level where people can migrate all over the world. Interracial reproduction is trivially easy, and certain populations are even specifically seeking mates from outside their genetic pool on a world-wide scale. Short-sighted people with old-fashioned notions of race are threatened by this, but in the long run I believe this will be humanity's greatest leap forward since the computer age. We will diversify the genetic code on a species level, ensuring that our genes are scattered throughout the population. This genetic diversity will give us the adaptability we need to survive long-term, that is, if we don't artificially cut it short through fashionable genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering also has the potential to massively increase our genetic diversity as a species though, as we can add in basically any gene that has been sequenced. This would be awesome as humans are very genetically homogenous thanks to our evolutionary history.

 

[J Tyran]

I am not against it at all, in some situations I would be totally for it. But its not as easy as that, having babies born with all traces of inherited disease removed or any genetic predispositions towards disease or illness removed or essentially having some kind of genetic vaccination would be superb things. Children being born with lowered nutritional or water needs would be superb things, people in Africa would be more resistant to drought and famine or disease. The suffering and death of hundreds of millions would be prevented. Global food production would be better able to meet the demands we place on it, especially when you factor in other advances in food production technology and the genetic engineering in food production itself.

In the west healthcare would prosper like never before, doctors and hospitals could focus on injuries and the acquired diseases that could not be genetically vaccinated against. The dream of having our species resistant to disease and no longer carrying genetic flaws that cause certain illnesses or conditions is an intoxicating one but it would never work out like that. For a start it would be expensive, so only those with means would have the privilege and opportunity so it would be a very long time before children across the globe would benefit (if ever). In the developed nations healthcare wouldn't be relieved of all of the inherited disease or the ones we could not genetically engineer immunity/resistance towards. As the wealthy have good healthcare anyway there would be no massive benefits from making middle class and downwards immune and highly resistant to disease.

The you have the way that piecemeal introduction of genetic engineering would just create another divide, lower class and working class people already trend towards being unhealthier and dying younger anyway. Creating a world like we saw in Gattaca is the most likely result in piecemeal enhancement by the portions of society that have access to it. If we could avoid that and start a mass program of enhancement for as many people as possible regardless of whether they can pay or not would ultimately benefit the species. Less suffering, less illness and better health for all would be the result. How would it be paid for though? It can't, the researchers need to be paid and the facilities need to be built. Without the investment attracted by the potential profits it wouldn't be possible, so we could either do it wrong and create another level of inequality or not do it at all.

The of course you have the problems with misuse and abuse of genetic engineering, you know that it would only be a matter of time before someone created super soldiers or tried to implement some kind of genetic master race like the Eugenics Wars in the Star Trek timeline.

On the whole as a species we are incapable of doing it right and doing it ethically, maybe its for the best if we never let this particular genie out of the bottle. I don't see why people think it shouldn't happen because of it being "unnatural" many things we do are unnatural, healthcare of any kind is unnatural. So is selective breeding, driving cars, building skyscraper. Should we stop all of that as well? The main argument against it for me is our inability to do it ethically.

 

[Esotera]

We can. I don't believe we would.

Firstly, because that costs money. No genetic engineer is ever going to say, "Well, Mr. and Mrs. Gunderson, I know you didn't request it but I gave your child the gene for a slightly increased eyebrow height at no extra charge, just because it might be useful for our species' future survival and I'm not selling a lot of kids with that trait these days."

Secondly, because we can only know a gene is needed if it's studied. And it can only be studied if it's in the active human population (baring some ethical shift that allows us to clone humans purely for scientific experimentation). Remember that genes do not directly translate to physiological attributes. What they really translate to is chemical production. It's entirely posssible that a gene that codes for a certain combination of chemicals that results in children having bad acne when they're 13 also allows those same chemicals to provide a defense against some mutant virus that arises in the future. But in a future with widespread genetic engineering, we wouldn't ever learn that because the gene for acne, once discovered, would likely be eradicated.

It costs money at the moment to add or replace genes, but the cost and technological knowledge required to do this in future is going to decrease very fast, so that genofixing will become a feasible option for babies in a couple of decades. If you can introduce genetic diversity into the population with no significant change in phenotype, then why not? I'm sure there would be ill-informed objections from the general public like we have with FrankenFoods, but I for one wouldn't care which animal the gene originated from as long as it didn't harm me.

It's hard to tell the effects a gene will have on phenotype without actually doing it in the target organism, but that doesn't mean there aren't methods to do just that. For example, instead of just knocking out one gene and seeing what its effects are on the expression of others, it's possible to knock out two unrelated genes and see whether the two together change expression levels in an unforeseen way. Unless a gene encodes something really key, the number of genes with significant changes in expression is generally a very small percentage of the entire genome.

I'd only be in favour of genetic modification of humans when we actually understand the majority of interactions within the human genome, which will hopefully be soonish. It would require a fair amount of testing but there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to introduce very subtle changes (analogous to harmless mutations that nature produces) when removing 'bad' genes.

 

[You Can't Take the Sky From Me]

Eliminate genetic diseases, things like Sickle Cell and Huntington's Disease. Also do something to strengthen our rather pathetic spines and make it so that we can regenerate from severe injuries. I also want a prehensile tail, but that's not really a sticking point for me... But it would be neat.

 

[Jadak]

I certainly have no problems with it, but as for picking one thing? Hmm, I'm undecided between a boost to intelligence and getting rid of any sort of diseases, mental / illness, or other things that would be a detriment to having a healthy, functional child.

 

[Souplex]

Eliminating genetic diseases, and predisposition to cancers would be important.
Improved intelligence and strength would be nice.
Other than that, I don't think I'd get into specifics.

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

I think it'd be better to have natural-born babies (provided we still advance the science of getting them to adulthood healthily) and then give THEM the choice to be genetically altered. I'd rather blame God than my parents for being born with four arms or something like that, because at least I don't have to live with God until I can support myself.
Maybe we could alter a baby's DNA so that modifications could be easier down the road, like supressing the rejection of synthetic prostheses or something.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

I would only be in favor fixing potential health risks. Picking and choosing genes bases on skin color and other traits has a lot of potential to cross social lines that I absolutely refuse to cross.

 

[fix-the-spade]

She also stated that people would pick traits favored by society resulting in similar babies among particular cultures. I felt that people were to vain to not make a baby that, at least to some degree, resembled themselves.

Well, she has a point. We already apply fashion ruthlessly to animals, I doubt given the opportunity humans would be above picking their offspring based on this season's must have look.

On the other hand, genetic engineering represents a chance to prevent Downs Syndrome (and amongst other things, cystic fibrosis). If you want to oppose it, you have to go explain to all the kids born with it that they're going to suffer and die because it makes you feel better.

It's an interesting dilemma, but given our tendency to force evolution and mess with natural selection at every opportunity, I don't see how humanity as a whole is going to avoid using (and abusing) these things once they become viable.