Jump to content

Welcome to Green Day Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Listen to Static Noise 94: We give our thoughts on Demolicious.

Photo

"Genetic Screening Of Embryos Should Be Celebrated, Not Feared"

Debate

  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#31
John.

John.
  • I sought my image in the scorching glass

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,885 posts
  • Joined Sep 23, 2006
  • 6,795 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Clearwater, FL

But what about the rare cases where the child eventually overcomes their symptoms?


In that case, a potential person is not brought in the world, much like happens every time you are fertile and don't get pregnant, or the fact that more fertilized zygotes spontaneously self-destruct than actually get implanted into a uterus. I think it's a little too broad to deem it a tragedy that someone who could have existed doesn't exist. Shit, if you want to get really philosophical, the consequences of little insignificant actions we do every day a part of a series of cause and effect that he resulted in thousands of people who exist and also thousands of other people who could have existed instead of the ones that do.

Sure, if a woman is pregnant she may be emotionally invested in it, and if she was optimistic and joyful about the possibility of bringing a child into the world, finding out the pregnancy has a huge risk for or confirmed defect and deciding to abort it, that is tragic. But it's tragic for the woman and the father and all the people who are currently alive, it is not at all sad for the little fetus who never was because the little fetus who never was can't care because it can't think.

It's just so unnecessary, why can't they just live the baby as they are? Why waste loads of money on making your child look "perfect"? It interferring with nature too much in my opinion. It may not "hurt" them in any obvious way, but I think creates indirect problems for society if this kind of practise became common. There would be the "designer babies" of the people rich enough to afford them, and then the "normal" babies of everyone else. I think life would become far too much like a sci fi movie if people start altering everything about their unborn children just because they can.


Our species has spent its entire existence interfering with nature, the fact that we alter nature is what defines us, it is the reason we are actually significant and not just another primate subspecies roaming around the jungles.

Your entire quality of life exists because people have spent thousands of years interfering with nature to give you doubled life spans from your ancestors, to make you taller, to cure diseases that would otherwise kill you. In fact, interfering with nature is what reduced infant mortality from staggeringly high numbers to a relatively rare thing.

I like futurology. I like 200 year lifespans and artificially enhanced muscle mass and genetically engineered purple eyes, shit let's start breathing underwater and lighting shit on fire with our minds. Sure, it's crazy now, but little white things that do more to curing disease than cutting open someone's skull was crazy at one point.

Or maybe we'll all nuke each other and go extinct, or peak oil will end civilization and we'll turn into a sad parody of Mad Max. But, you know what, as long as mankind can continue to unfold its powers, I say it's all very interesting and should be encouraged in general.

In that scenario, nine times out of ten it'll be the other way around http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...

Having read everyone's replies, I think I'm just a little bit more against it than I am in support of it. Sure, if was used to detect and get rid of things like cancer, leukemia (Did I spell that right?) etc, it'd be great. But where is the line gonna be drawn? Will a line even be drawn at all? I agree with Yvonne, we'd end up in a sci-fi movie if it was let progress far enough. I believe medical research will eventually find a cure for such diseases, and when they do, who's to say that a way of preventing it from happening at all wont be discovered?


Our modern lives are our ancestors' proverbial sci fi movie.

Either we as a species deserve progress, in which case it will continually enhance our quality of life, or we don't, in which case we'll destroy ourselves. But we can't sit back stagnant and say 'enough is enough'.

#32
colour_me_stupid_

colour_me_stupid_
  • disappearin' in the fade

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,739 posts
  • Joined Jan 07, 2007
  • 1,304 rep
  • Age:21
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland
Dammit John you always have a way of making me see things in a different way :lol: Which is a good thing, but I'm really torn now.. :unsure:

#33
Vesper

Vesper
  • Channelling Her

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,032 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,145 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England

I like 200 year lifespans



No thanks. :P

#34
John.

John.
  • I sought my image in the scorching glass

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,885 posts
  • Joined Sep 23, 2006
  • 6,795 rep
  • Age:22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Clearwater, FL

No thanks. http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...


Well obviously all the other cool tech keeps you looking hot cool through 170. :P

If you think about it, all of us were born designer babies. Think about how modern day nutrition has altered our height, for example.

#35
Vesper

Vesper
  • Channelling Her

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,032 posts
  • Joined Jun 10, 2010
  • 6,145 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:North Yorkshire, England//Lancashire, England

Well obviously all the other cool tech keeps you looking hot cool through 170. http://www.greendaycommunity.org/public/...


Nah, I just meant I wouldn't like to see how much change would happen in 200 years. It's bad enough for people whole live 'til they're 90.

#36
Elena

Elena
  • -Very Custom Title-

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,960 posts
  • Joined Aug 12, 2011
  • 1,041 rep
  • Age:18
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Germany
well, i'm for it if they really just take it for e.g. the cancer thing or any other genetic disorders
...but i'm sure some people would do some abuse on it, e.g. trying to create a perfect person...and this would especially become bad when some dictators would try to create the perfect soldiers who would never say anything against them and fought for them and so on and so on...but i don't wanna exaggerate here, first of i think it would be good, just in the future probably in some cases not...

#37
Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love

Daughter.of.Rage.and.Love
  • No, this is Patrick

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,271 posts
  • Joined Oct 23, 2008
  • 3,416 rep
  • Age:20
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Hollmanyreland
I am torn about this. On the one hand it would be great to put a stop to crippling diseases, but on the other hand, this planet is way overpopulated already, and eradicating all diseases (because it's not just gonna stop at the worst genetic diseases) isn't going to help with that.

Not to mention designer babies and their possibly destroying effect on society, splitting society into people who are rich enough to have been optimized as fetuses and who can afford to do the same to their children, and those who aren't and who will have some sort of inferior position in society. Plus I think turning humans into perfect, unflawed creatures can't have good results anyway.

Our modern lives are our ancestors' proverbial sci fi movie.

Either we as a species deserve progress, in which case it will continually enhance our quality of life, or we don't, in which case we'll destroy ourselves. But we can't sit back stagnant and say 'enough is enough'.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't go about that sensibly and know where to say 'halt'. Progress can be great, and we shouldn't do nothing at all with all our knowledge, but we also shouldn't sit back and do nothing while we're doing things that could potentially wreck us, and which could have been stopped if we hadn't let people do whatever they came up with. I think it's a very bad idea to let progress just run wild without any reins. Just because we can something doesn't mean we should do it.


I think even from a utilitarian perspective, genetic enhancement isn't per se the ideal.

#38
Rosie May

Rosie May
  • Positively Pessimistic

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,868 posts
  • Joined Mar 30, 2007
  • 846 rep
  • Age:21
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ruby Room

Either we as a species deserve progress, in which case it will continually enhance our quality of life, or we don't, in which case we'll destroy ourselves. But we can't sit back stagnant and say 'enough is enough'.


I disagree. I think it is important to say "enough is enough." I think it's important to have limits, I don't think moving away complete from nature (as in nature in a traditional sense, living in the woods etc, etc) is a good thing. We need balance, I think it's a bad idea to get carried away with the kind of things we can do with technology just for the sake of it. I don't like the idea of people becoming "perfect," or of computer chips being placed in people for whatever reason. I think to do that, we lose far more than we gain.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Debate

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users