Reprogenics?

[Seldon2639]

Before we get into what may be a fairly spicy (and dicey) topic, let me clear up the biggest question:

Reprogenics is not eugenics. The latter is predicated on trying to limit the reproduction of "bad" genetic lineages. Reprogenics is based on attempting to use technology Gattaca-style to improve the genetic lot of humanity, or give incentives for people whose genetic code we think is beneficial to reproduce. It's positive action (trying to make things better, and get more "good" people to breed), rather than negative (trying to get fewer "bad" people to breed).

So, here's the questions:

Would you do this to yourself, if possible?

Would you have it done to your children?

Would you force it on everyone's children?

The last question there is the most controversial, but bear with me for a moment. If we allow parents to choose whether their children are engineered, it would lead (like in Gattaca) to a two-tiered society, where someone's caste in life is entirely based on his parents' decisions. We don't often (or shouldn't often) allow a parent to refuse vaccinations for their children, mostly because we don't want the idiocy of those parents to ruin their children's lives.

I'm not sure how you can have a system of genetic engineering without making sure it's done to every child. The alternative feels like it means whoever can afford it (and has fewer qualms) will have better children. Those children of the parents with reservations about genetic engineering will be (societally speaking) punished for the beliefs of their parents. That seems bad.

 

[bodyklok]

1. No. I'm good, thanks.

2. No. They can do it later on, if they want to.

3. Hell no. Really just no.

I'm not saying mankind shouldn't dabble in genetics, things like gene therapy have the potential to help millions of people overcome their genetic disorders, but I don't think we should ever force anyone to do anything because of their genes.

Also,

Those children of the parents with reservations about genetic engineering will be (societally speaking) punished for the beliefs of their parents.

Perhaps it could be the other way round, initially at lest.

 

[HentMas]

well, this would hardly change the world were we live in, the people that are already kind of wealty would be able to "enhance" their children, wile the ones that cant afford it, will not, so, the only difference i see (sociologicaly speaking) is that the divisions of "classes" would be much more underlined

no offence but, in a world where one can "buy" a better children, it would just end up in making the ones that cant aford it less of "humans" (because the deffinition of human would eventually change) and they would en up in slavery...

or who knows, take a look at the mexicans that enter the US illegaly, they get jobs because they charge less than a citizen, if we put it in "context" perhaps the "un-engineered" would be getting low paid jobs, and the other ones, the ones made better would be strugling in a battle to get a better job...

i dont know, its to late, i am sick and my head is a confusing mess of politics, razism.... and genetics now thanks to you haha

 

[traceur_]

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

I say we use eugenics and reprogenics at the same time.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

1. No. We have no idea what altering the gene pool does, most genetically modified products have become modified throuh trial and error. We'd have no idea what this would do to me until we have done it.

2. Only if the child himself wants to.

3. No. We shouldn't have to force it on other people.