Is gene-therapy wrong?

[Calgetorix]

Natural selection works like this. There is a competition for resources or an environmental condition that sees certain people coping better in such a situation (e.g. people with more heavier builds surviving better in a cold climate). The people who are better suited live on while those who don't die. Those who live on pass their gene of having a heavier build on. Natural selection therefore renders everyone within that region to have that trait (this of course can take hundreds of years).

However, in modern society, people who would die out aren't. We have medicine to treat them, ways to accommodate for them. Where once they would have died due to natural selection, they live on, passing those genes into society.

Natural selection has been effectively halted by our superiority over other life-forms and advances in science. Therefore, let science continue natural selection for us.

While you are right some might pass on their genes now when they wouldn't have been able to unaided, modern society is the new environment. People are still subject to natural selection even though more are given the chance to pass on their genes.

 

[neoontime]

No it seems right in the way that it can be used to elimante a hereditary disease in their children.

 

[Calgetorix]

Far too many people in this thread using the "don't play God" argument.

Why the hell not? Sick of religious arguments having any merit in everyday life.

Because what right do we have to change someones appearance before they can realise the implications of our actions? Even worse how can we do it when they don't condone it? That is not something that should be up to the parents or anybody. It should be up to the child but as they have no comprehension of anything then it shouldn't be done at all. Science should very much be controlled and regulated just like any other industry. Look what unchecked science brought us in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The "rights" of a child not even concieved yet seems kind of moot to me (I assume that genetic alterations are only possible before conception). To me it makes no sense to talk about the rights of something not real yet.

Also, I would say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were very much checked. The decision to drop the bombs is always up for debate but the government knew about it.
It also brought us nuclear power among other things. How is that bad?

 

[fletch_talon]

You know who else wanted to create the perfect race? And would have genetically altered all children to have blonde hair and blue eyes if he could?

Hitler and the Nazis...

Now did I just Godwin this thread or did someone beat me to it?
It seems that it should have come up earlier.

On topic: Its bad, society is already rather prejudiced against various groups. Give people the ability to control the looks of their children and you validate prejudice against numerous groups, short people for example.
Obviously the disease curing part is fine, the restriction on such procedures simply needs to specify that any gene therapy can only be preformed for the purpose of removing harmful genetic illness/defects.

 

[MGlBlaze]

All technology is morally neutral. Only what we use it for can have morality attached to it.

Gene therapy itself is morally neutral. I'm fairly certain that talk you mentioned is mostly academic in nature. You are also ignoring the numerous useful things that could come out of it, such as curing hereditary diseases. Depending on what it is capable of (I am by no means well-versed on these matters) it could slow the human aging process too, or fix all sorts of genetically-based problems.

That doesn't mean it also cannot be used for things it shouldn't be used for. It all depends on how careful we are with its use. I remember another story (forget where i heard it) where a scientist succeeded in creating a completely artificial cell.

 

[Duskwaith]

Eugenics in a different form. Id say yes if diseases and the like can be avoided but to tailor a baby to what you want is just wrong to me.

 

[Trebort]

Gene Therapy is brilliant . I wish I could have been designed before I popped out.

 

[dex-dex]

don't fuck with nature

she will screw you over!

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

To remove eye sight problems and other genetic problems go for it. For changing hair and eye colour as well as skin it should be banned really.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

Tell me, sir, have you ever heard the tale of Daedalus and Icarus?
OP: If this happens during our lifetime, I will raise some sort of extremist group and bomb the shit out of every single clinic and hospital that condones its use. Science tampering with the natural beauty of life in such a way is so far out of bounds it deserves to go up in flames.

You consider seizures, depression, retardation, Down's Syndrome, Autism, etc. natural beauty?

Is altering some chemical molecules really that much different than chemotherapy or blood transfusions or scanning someone's body or cutting them open and replacing their body parts with ones from a dead person's? Don't let your own opinion infringe on other people being able to keep on living.

 

[Sjakie]

I'm all for it.
Humans are basically hardly evolved monkeys. If we want to evolve further, we will have to bring it on ourselves and genetherapy is a means to do so!
Doing it in the womb allready is going a bit far, since the child then has no choice in the matter. When it comes to outward appearance there are plenty of alternatives then Genetherapy. But taking out/modifying 'bad' genes is a worthy cause. And finding out your parents did stuff to you which makes you more resillient against disease will probably not make you feel violated but protected. Grown up people should be able to modify themselves as much as they want!
Splice that shit!

 

[GiantRedButton]

Scientists(who I'm already not too fond of to begin with) are talking of altering children in the womb to parents tastes.....It seems wrong to me,custom pre-modeled children it ....I don't know it just doesn't seem right,What do you all think?

Your writing ON the internet, and yet you hate scientists?
Gen therapy is about diseases not character, as most of it is determined by actual expierience

 

[Mr. Mike]

Natural selection works like this. There is a competition for resources or an environmental condition that sees certain people coping better in such a situation (e.g. people with more heavier builds surviving better in a cold climate). The people who are better suited live on while those who don't die. Those who live on pass their gene of having a heavier build on. Natural selection therefore renders everyone within that region to have that trait (this of course can take hundreds of years).

However, in modern society, people who would die out aren't. We have medicine to treat them, ways to accommodate for them. Where once they would have died due to natural selection, they live on, passing those genes into society.

Natural selection has been effectively halted by our superiority over other life-forms and advances in science. Therefore, let science continue natural selection for us.

While you are right some might pass on their genes now when they wouldn't have been able to unaided, modern society is the new environment. People are still subject to natural selection even though more are given the chance to pass on their genes.

Yes, fair enough. I was speaking in terms of Western, well developed countries with high levels of healthcare. I'm certain those in less developed countries would still be subject to natural selection to a degree. Nonetheless, the severity of natural selection has been lessened to the point where most people will live and pass on their genes regardless of what natural selection would have done in the past (kill them off).

Therefore, I still believe that genetic modification could be the next step in natural selection. I've mentioned other issues, but this could be the next major "evolution" in mankind.

 

[Blueruler182]

To an extent, it is wrong. So far as illnesses and shit like that go, yes, get rid of them. I mean, I'm fucked so far as genetics go. My legs are gimped, I've got carpel tunnel (or however you spell it), and I come from a long line of fatasses, to which I'm probably the skinniest, not to mention the fact that I'll go damn near blind. If my parents could have gotten rid of all that, it would have been nice.

So far as altering physical appearance though, I kinda disagree with that. Too many people would look the same. Or we get the video game problem, what with teen parents, who'd just scroll to the soonest thing they like and click that.

That being said, if gene-testing brings the power of flight forward, I will not complain at all. You could make everyone look and sound like Gilbert Godfried and I'd still be okay with it.

 

[Shirokurou]

If you can stop your children from having pre-determined diseases, then HELL YEAH.

If you do it just to make them look good, then WHY NOT?

 

[Duraji]

To me, it's wrong in the sense that the rich will be able to make genetically superior children as compared to the poor, and that will lead to more cultural segregation between the "haves" and the "have nots". Given the majority of wealthy people, too, it could also mark the death of true creativity and those who go from rags to riches with inspirational, motivational roots.

Maybe it's because I've seen Gattaca and rather enjoyed that film, but the concept worries me unless it's something that can be universally provided. Then again, what if it goes wrong? Will that justify more abortions simply out of lack of preference? For example, what about autistic children, if they can be detected just a month into pregnancy? I would be very worried about people who feel justified in aborting their fetus just because they didn't want something specific... and that could open even more worrying possibilities such as neo-nazis aborting gay children or anyone without blond hair or blue eyes...

 

[TheLaofKazi]

I don't think we are anywhere close to manipulating or changing genes to achieve a certain personality. Personality, intelligence, and many other human traits are not that simple. There isn't just a smart gene of some sort you can turn on and off, personality and intelligence are most likely influenced by thousands of different things that aren't just genetic, but also based on one's upbringing, environment, ect. Plus, what is intelligence? Is it being able to solve mathematical formulas really fast? Or is being open minded? Is it having good memory? There are so many different types of intelligence.

But I think we may be approaching the possibility of preventing hereditary diseases and stuff like that. I have absolutely no problem with that. But trying to mold the "perfect" child, I'm not so sure about. I'm not outright opposed to it, but leaning more toward the fact that you can't really create a perfect anything. Plus, every parent already molds their child to their will by the way they raise their child, what they teach them, ect. Is this really any different?