Are you For or Against the genome editing of human embryos in order to produce babies with such traits as high intelligence & resistance to diseases?

Question

BeMuse · Accepted Answer

I’m against genetically modifying humans against their will. The same goes for aborting children... If someone wants to undergo a medical procedure, they should comprehend the choices they are making and the potential consequences of that decision on their life. Uninformed or forced gene therapies are unethical (including “vaccines” under the clown world new speak commie definitions that fly in the face of science)… You’re not going to make someone immune to diseases through genetically engineering a baby anyway. You can reduce a specific disease risk by modifying germ line mutations, but can potentially create new problems… Additionally people are always going to have risks associated with exposure to mutagens, ionizing radiation, infections, and random copying mistakes. It is better to address the specif disease issue when it arises. Imperfect gene insertions have a risk of causing various types of cancer. The real world is often imperfect, so I believe if it more preferable to focus on micro RNA therapies to regulate gene expression in most cases if the patient is willing and a patient specific therapy is engineered. We’re not all coded the same, so tossing in generic spaghetti code at random without evaluating the specific program is dangerous. I also like the concept of cloning individuals cells and tissue engineering organs for specific people to surgically implant into patients that have more advance disease states and need more significant repairs.

NamerOfStars · Accepted Answer

Not without a few more centuries worth of genetic knowledge, at the *very* least. We tried eugenics before, and it took the atrocities of the 30's and 40's to kill it (and I do mean ALL of those atrocities- I don't blame the Nazis for the actions of the Ustase, or them for those of the Soviets, or them for those of the UK, and so forth). Given the complexity of human genetics, making a tiny tweak somewhere could screw something else up, potentially far down the line. Genetic diversity is also an important part of how our species survived a great many crises that we've been through- Toba wiped out every last branch of the human family, except us and the Neanderthals, and they were thousands of miles away in Europe at the time.

There's also the "that's the plot of Gattaca" element; even if you have no OFFICIAL discrimination against the unmodified, social pressure and insurance companies will take up the slack. Plus, there's the question of what, exactly, constitutes a "favorable" trait- and I'm really, REALLY reluctant to trust the scientific knowledge of people who think that Alzheimer's and strokes are apparently LUNG conditions.

Ammi_goldie806 · Accepted Answer

I feel like it's a good idea, honestly like what if that baby can one day cute cancer, STOP racism. have a mind that could help the world in the future to come. its better than making robots that can't be stopped if it gets too smart. that baby can be an inspiration to people all over the world, the right baby can be the first... doctor to cure a very deadly disease, the first to teacher every subject, to be the first ANYTHING!!! as long as they don't hurt, or put anything in the embryo and putting something that won't hurt the baby the world will be balanced.

purplepoppy · Accepted Answer

If there's a history of a genetic disease in a family I'm all for a little intervention. But not for wealthy families who just want their kid to be good at football

GreenLanternI0I · Answer

This type of technology quite literally will create a two tier society, 1%'s and 99%'s and absolutely nothing in between, just a pure void. 99%'s will be stuck in their state forever, because they will never get an access to enough money, technology or any type of connections that would get them any type of mods, so they can join 1%'s (smarter, healthier, stronger, wiser, living for a whole lot longer in a legit paradise). That's why I'm SUPER against it, because humans are humans and they will do what humans do best.

ChrisMaster69 · Answer

Very much against it.

it would be another of those areas where the super rich start to become pretty much a different race.

being able to live until 180, having specific physical characteristics, making them genetically more protected against common ailments and diseases.

Also you run the risk of engineering in a flaw in to the human building block that nature refined over 1000’s of years.

Then you have the potential for Genetic Infantry - GI Soldiers.

shove in ability to have artificial wombs, genetically engineered bodies….

Aethereal · Answer

100% for. I'd actually be less against having children when it becomes possible. No more unfair advantages/disadvantages like height, metabolism, mental disease, general health issues, etc. for children. Everyone would technically be beautiful in the general sense. I believe this (genome editing) will be a major milestone for humanity, to be trumped only by biological immortality.

Of course I believe the religious people should be allowed to play with RNG as much as they want. Their kids can/will make the edits they want when they become independent.

TheorionMage · Answer

We humans INTRENSICALLY naturally edit our heredity's genome by courtship of the subjective 'best' potential Mother of our offspring.

'Best' being open to subjective interpretation;
a physically- 'attractive' baby will have numerous life advantages
a future potentially-'smart' baby will have to work harder to experience.
And THAT, is the unfair, pragmatic 'truth' of Reality! Suck it up, Buttercup~
There is reason that 'glamoury' is counted among a 'bewitching' /'enchanting' female's skills!

Humans are prone to FIRST respond intuitively EMOTIONALLY, wearing their hearts on their sleeves
then rationalizing 'why' they chose as they did, when things 'go south'.

MCheetah · Answer

For it. Although I don't think most people should get designer babies. All I know is EVERYTHING about my hyper-sh*tty body and genetics is the very reason I'd never have kids, even if I had a woman (not that this society is fit to be raising children in it right now; I feel sorry for all the decent parents out there trying to avoid their son or daughter becoming a tranny, "non-binary," or an OnlyFans thot).

But yeah, I'm for "designer babies," but it should only be for those people who are already genetically f*cked up, to begin with. ... Like me!

Nomoturtle · Answer

I feel I don't understand the opposition argument well enough, but I think I'm for it. If people want to do it they should be able to.

It will cause inequality, reduce some genetic diversity, and there's potential for corruption.
However, it will increase productivity both positively and in reducing dead weight (free choice + wide healthcare = dysgenics), reduce suffering, reduce early loss of life, increase lifespan, etc.

It's a similar story for every new technology, and I can't think of any that have been more bad than good, nor of any technology that we've deliberately stopped pursuing for that reason. As far as I know tech has only been restrained by ethics evaluations made in the present: Eg cutting that human's head off is unethical, even if you think you can probably re-attach it, so you can't do your head transplant experiment.

Adam1978 · Answer

I think we need to take babystep in this area, we know way to little in what consequences such manipulation will do. So if we allow one gene change per child and there for generation. It probably manageable. But we still need to policy police it or someone will wants to turn their babies into lizards or snakes or something absurd like that.

cth96190 · Answer

For, if science and government could be trusted, which they cannot.
The elite would use it to create more obedient slaves and to exterminate us.
Only National Socialists could be trusted to use such a technology for the greater good, because breeding a physically perfect ubermann is central to the ideology.

Deathraider · Answer

Against. It’s not that the argument “oh it’s unnatural” or anything like that. It’s impossible to get their consent to do it on them. But it’s also impossible to get their consent to bring them into existence with predisposition that would negatively impact their wellbeing. It seems there’s only one solution to this.

josephinelcajon · Answer

It is not just humans we have already altered plants, animals, minerals, water, air EVERYTHING in this world we have and continue to alter them in many ways! We will eventually destroy EVERYTHING including OURSELVES!

Anonymous · Answer

i think it can be a good idea but it will need many more years of evolution and testing to prove its safe. and if this dose release to the masses i think the process to doing it should be open allowing anyone to look in to how it works not some secrete proprietary formal from a company

InYourHead · Answer

I think it's a bit dehumanizing. Like, a baby isn't worth having unless it looks a particular way. People should be loved the way they are.  I don't know. Just my opinion.

Aakash_Hangargi · Answer

It would be only for the rich lol.

If everybody would be a genius then no one is a genius 😂.

If all entertainers there is no audience both loose meaning.

It has no meaning and will be treated as mutants like X-Men ☃️

TacosRAwesome · Answer

If I'm doing it the natural way (through regular sex) then I'm happy with whatever I get. If I'm doing it through IVF or similar methods then yes I'm for some modifications.

Seinna · Answer

That will just increase the gap between super rich and the rest of us... we will be like different species.

Guanfei · Answer

Against, because it's a very expensive procedure, and most likely will only be affordable for rich people. You'd have a society divided between "perfect" rich people, and the rest of the pleb like us.

Juxtapose · Answer

I actually think one of the only ways to save humanity is to edit our genes so we can get along with each other better but of course such power would be abused in the opposite direction.. in the worst possible way by governments and corporations.

TheSpaceGnome · Answer

For, but against homogenized versions, because that creates more disease by shallowing the gene pool. It also has to be an open science, no propriatary or secret anything.

TexasRed95 · Answer

At that point they would basically be a new species of Human. And as history has shown when their numbers get high they will kill us off. Like we did to our predecessors.

sensible27 · Answer

Depends on how it is done, if it doesn't eventually lead to unhinged genome modification sure.

Snakeyes7 · Answer

Even if we do this, there will still be people who will be weaker in some areas and stronger in others. Maybe we will be better off, but division won't change.

AviatorTom · Answer

When are we gonna learn that "You can't fuck with Mother Nature?"

ChiTown33 · Answer

I'm for it! But since we don't know the long term effects I think it only prudent we go slow.

ManHater · Answer

Watch the movie

jasco · Answer

Basically this baby will be agent 47 from Hitman which would be awesome but also bad

shortster · Answer

This is some GATTACA stuff.

maximus99 · Answer

Parents should be able to select Gene's that don't carry genetic risk for cancer, Alzheimers, and other diseases.

Shiningtempest · Answer

@physics-man I believe genome editing of human embryos has the power to increase the chance of survival for people.

BillyBalls · Answer

Hitler wanted a "master race". Genetic engineering is that vehicle. So no!!!

Anonymous · Answer

Against, obviously; see any of many dystopian films for why.

Ryfyle · Answer

Hella for it. Imagine siring a Genetic Demigod into this world.

Katie102 · Answer

I'm against this because it's hella creepy.

Wise4myage · Answer

No, that puts us one step closer to AI.

Tomtom9494 · Answer

Liberals are almost like Nazis hmmm

Anonymous · Answer

I am that baby so no I am not against it.

Twalli · Answer

Have you ever seen GATTACA?

jimmy2 · Answer

We are not God

SmokinAces2000 · Answer

Is this a real thing or a hypothetical

Are you For or Against the genome editing of human embryos in order to produce babies with such traits as high intelligence & resistance to diseases?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Are you For or Against the genome editing of human embryos in order to produce babies with such traits as high intelligence & resistance to diseases?

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.