Even just removing genetic diseases could be a problem. The classic example is sickle cell: If we had the resources to spend on genetic testing (and possibly modification, but it could also be done just by culling sperm and eggs), we could eliminate the gene for sickle cell, and ensure that nobody ever gets it again. That, in itself, would be a good thing… except that carrying one copy of the sickle cell gene provides protection against malaria, and in some parts of the world, malaria is a bigger killer than sickle cell.
Of course, we could also use technology to protect against malaria. Or at least, we can do that now. But what happens if we lose that technology, and malaria again becomes a major killer? It could happen. We can’t be sure it won’t. And if that happens, we’d be glad to still have a few malaria-resistant people in the population.
And of course, the issue isn’t just sickle-cell and malaria. Maybe, for all we know, someday there will be some other disease which emerges, which we’ve currently never heard of, and it turns out that having a single copy of the Tay-Sachs gene protects against it. Or likewise for any given genetic disease you might think of.
We can even take it one step further: Sometimes, a disease itself can be a benefit, depending on circumstances. Hemochromatosis, for instance, causes the body to accumulate too much iron. It’s a fairly mild disease, compared to the likes of sickle-cell and Tay-Sachs, and fairly easily treated, but in the long run it can lead to arthritis, gland problems, and other issues. On the other hand, it also means that you can recover from blood loss more rapidly, and so if you’re in an environment where bloodshed is frequent, it could actually be an advantage.
If we allow unfettered genetic manipulation, Khan Noonien Singh will end up controlling a full quarter of the planet during the Eugenics Wars in the 1990s before he and his followers are stopped at an astounding cost. As a species, we simply cannot afford that.
I’d feel a little bit better about designer babies IF we can do the following first.
We can take a sample of human DNA. A preserve it perfectly (statistically speaking) for a very long time.
AND
We can use that DNA sample to make a clone (not one of those crappy clones that don’t work right/last). An honest to goodness clone that has no defects the original owner didn’t have.
So then we start taking samples of everybody. After that we do the designer baby thing.
THEN
If it turns out this designer baby stuff was a BAD idea…we have something to fall back on.
Otherwise we end up like the Azgard (sp?) on Stargate.
Exactly. This is reminiscent of the GMO crop debate. We’ve been doing this stuff for a long, long time. It freaks people out a bit that we can now (well, soon in the case of this debate) quicker than on a generational scale. I don’t see any downsides to allow people to have some ability to ‘design’ their children, since it’s something we’ve all done since the first humans started walking around. It’s just that now, instead of designing them by choosing mates with specific, desirable traits and hoping for the best, it will be a bit less rolling the dice. As for the poor missing out, that might be the case initially, but eventually it will be like big screen TVs. Initially, only the rich could afford the things. Now, you can go to Walmart and get one for less than $400.
You can also bet that it’s going to be done somewhere, whether “we” like it or not. Better to do it under conditions “we” can control than by North Korea.
[QUOTE=billfish678]
A generation or two at best is a “long long time”?
[/QUOTE]
Dude, humans have been tinkering with genetics, our own and other species for thousands of years…10’s of thousands really. I’d say that’s a ‘long long time’, yes.
It’s all part of a continuum. Consider that corn itself is a genetically modified plant that wouldn’t exist without human intervention and breeding.
No, we’ve been scratching the surface of designing our species for 10’s of thousands of years. What you mean is that recently we started making progress in doing it in a more formal and rigorous manner using technology to achieve what we are after instead of breeding and random mutation.
If humans felt as you did we’d still be debating the merits of fire and if we should start using it, since we wouldn’t know all the rather profound changes it would have on our species both physiological and societal it effect. Know how we found out what all it would do? We tinkered and figured it out. Same as with all the other technology we’ve developed and incorporated into our species since. A lot of which caused a hell of a lot of death and pain.
You are saying that tinkering is ‘morally wrong’, whatever that means. Doesn’t seem to be much mind reading involved in making a comparison. It’s simply another technology that is going to change humans in unknown and unexpected ways. My guess is that fire has had a MUCH more profound on human psychology and physiology than ‘designer babies’ ever will.
Especially because reproducing these genetic improvements isn’t even stone age technology, and the only effective tools to prevent “bootlegging” probably qualify as crimes against humanity.
We should separate the issues here: avoiding certain genetically transmitted conditions is a purely medical issue. Let’s not confuse it with using it for cosmetic changes, which is pretty science fiction-y at the moment. There’s two debates going on in here.
What about, say, increasing intelligence? I doubt “having an average intellect” is a purely medical condition, but I wouldn’t say the improvement is a cosmetic change.
Plus there’s the question of what to engineer. If the australopithecines had genetic engineering they might have chosen sharper teeth and claws and thicker fur rather than speech and brains. Are we qualified to choose what changes to make?