|
| Thread: Baby making project.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 05, 2011 03:50 PM |
|
|
And, Doomforge, if everyone is perfectly symmetrical, someomne slightly asymmetrical will be considered more "interesting", countering your "equality principle".
And you can stop calling the question for exact definitions "semantic wars". If what you talk about NEEDS a definition to be implemented and you cannot come up with one, you are arguing unsoundly. Simple as that.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 04:22 PM |
|
|
Boobs.
In any culture where women typically wear bras, they technically have deformed boobs. Boobs are not suppose to have a dome-like shape. They're suppose to hang very loosely and look more like flabby pyramids. You and I have been culturally enamored to find the dome shape more appealing. Beauty is hugely determined by fickle social indoctrination.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 04:31 PM |
|
|
Even though I'm done with this topic, I'm still amazed how you two are still arguing for the sake of arguing. No matter how hard you try, it's pretty obvious obesity, saggy boobs, bad teeth and skin problems are considered not attractive, and the world would be pretty less cruel on those people that got unfortunate with the dice roll.. if we eliminated the dice roll.
Now you can counter-argue as much as you can, I'm out.
Quote:
In any case, parents won't consider an indian girl for their german boy. They'll consider german traits of beauty. The german kid will mostly know german girls and woman, etc.
this
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 04:33 PM |
|
|
I betcha people from Papau New Guinea are really into shaggy boobies.
And it's interesting you brought up fatness. Look up ancient artwork of women sometime.
(Ok I'm just posting this for lulz. You really should calm down though)
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 04:34 PM |
|
|
There's an objective mean of what it is to be beautiful and a standard deviation of size depending on who you ask, where you ask, when you ask.
In general, we around the world can agree on many things, which is included in beautiness. Especially the more the world shrink, the more will we agree, the less is the standard deviation.
In any case, parents won't consider an indian girl for their german boy. They'll consider german traits of beauty. The german kid will mostly know german girls and woman, etc.
Edit: Further more. If you really want to solve the problem of having everyone being beautiful independent of cultural, social, etc. determined differencies, you do not make a person have certain outer traits. No you make a person more sensitive to produce whatever chemicals within us that makes us think someone is beautiful. In other words, this makes everyone beautiful, independent of how they look.
Now the problem with this, in my opinion, is that you remove the freedom of people to not thinking someone beautiful.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 04:37 PM |
|
|
|
Beauty is to a large degree cultural. Most Westerners, for example, don't really find noses with bones sticking through them attractive, not to mention tiny bound feet and stretched necks. But there you are...
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 04:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The reason I brought up intelligence is because probably all of us make the assumption that an exceptionally intelligent person is genetically superior to some average guy that works as a retail manager, though it's completely questionable which one is actually living a more rewarding life.
I think this is a good one. Because it is "ridicules".
The only difference between the 2 is the amount of "drive" they have, and amount of "mental masturbation" they have performed.
The 2 people could have been twins, and it would have no impact on the outcome.
It basically just shows us that society is a ridicule measure, because there is no valid information in it.
But I want genetic engineering, because dieing of all age because nature said so is really ridicules. We could overcome all the small problems, like random hearth diseases or defect natural design.
Nature is nothing more than a complex dice machine, will achievable all results by bashing something into something until results is achievable.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 05:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Even though I'm done with this topic
That doesn't make your points less invalid, you know.
By the way - most people have all those "flaws" because of a bad diet and an unhealthy way of living.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 05, 2011 05:22 PM |
|
|
|
that's why it's silly to first think about correcting them thanks to genetics. first allows them to live better.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted April 07, 2011 12:10 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 00:12, 07 Apr 2011.
|
Hello everyone.
Looking through some of my saved documents, I came across this copy of a post I made here some time ago which relates to this topic. Normally I would just link to it, but despite my best efforts I cannot find it on this site anywhere, which means I either never posted it, or I posted it and it was deleted. Or I just can't find it.
The post was part of a discussion I was having with Binabik about (if I recall) the ethics of biotechnology. His position was that he found "manipulation of matter at the atomic level" uncomfortable and because it has some potential downstream negative consequences, we should not pursue it at all. Though I acknolwedged the potential consequences, my position was that this was not reason in itself to abandon research because his criteria for what is allowed and what isn't was completely arbitrary. He contended that I was drawing lines as well, and this is my response. I have removed some portions of it which wouldn't be clear without the rest of the conversation as context.
Even if you don't read it all (and I don't necessarily blame you - it's rather long) I would like to direct anyone interested in this topic to an essay written in 2000 by Bill Joy (founder of Sun Microsystems) entitled "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" on this topic. I do disagree with his conclusions but it's still a thought-provoking bit of prose. You can find it here.
(N.B. Although, my discussion of the virtues of nuclear power, as you'll see, is perhaps not the best choice given events which have since occured.  )
@ Binabik
There's a fundamental difference between the line that you're willing to draw and the line that I'm willing to draw. The difference is that I'm considering the ethics of science to make a distinction between which applications are permissible and which ones are not; you're making the assumption that all applications of a certain technology or scientific discipline should be forbidden because of the potential of some of them to be dangerous. I use a case by case approach to decide which applications of technology are ethical. You, on the other hand, decide that the science itself is too dangerous - and forbid the development of all applications, whether good or ill. Which to me is throwing the baby out with the wash water.
To highlight that distinction, I will use a simple example as an analogy: nuclear technology.
Nuclear technology has two basic applications that most people would agree are either "good" (energy) and "bad" (weapons). My opinion is that nuclear science research should be pursued; as the field matures enough to permit the development of applications that utilize it, then we can deal with those applications individually. Energy applications would be fine; weapon applications are not. That's my ethical line and the reasons should be pretty obvious. As you say, science itself is neutral, so there's no ethical reason to forbid a direction of study - at least none that I can see that are justified. You, on the other hand, would declare that because of one potential application of nuclear technology can lead to evil/destruction/whatever, nuclear science should altogether be outright forbidden. Your ethical line is not on the level of applications - it's on the level of basic research.
(Note: I don't know how you really feel about nuclear technology. I'm making a point about how you appear to feel about technologies with potentially dangerous applications. Certainly nuclear technology satisfies your “manipulation of matter at the atomic level” criterium, so it would seem you should be against it.)
The problem with your approach to science governance, and that of neo-luddism in general, is many-fold.
(1) It's built on assumptions of the future. Essentially, it's an extrapolation of ideas. Naturally, it is useful to try to project the future course of technology. That breeds preparedness. However, it's difficult, if not impossible, to make a proper analysis of the risks and benefits of future applications. The value of a risk analysis is directly related to quality of information. If a technological application hasn't even been developed, how do you properly assess the risks? You can't. So therefore whatever analysis you are making about the risks of a future is necessarily, at least in part, an emotional one (or some other heuristic that's not related to scientific fact). And the pursuit of science shouldn't be ruled by emotion or mere guesses.
(2) There's an important distinction to be made between different types of technology. In the case of nuclear technology, the potential "bad" applications are fairly clear, as are their consequences. In such a case it's fairly easy to have some sort of rational ethical discussion before said applications arrive. The ramification of the development of nuclear weapons/technology is fairly obvious. The consequences are destruction and human death, something that most people want to prevent. On the other hand, the consequences of cloning or biotechnology are not so obvious. Most negative reactions come down to a disdain for some vague "fooling with nature" - which really could be applied to anything, including nuclear technology. Yet, the endpoint isn't clear. What is the ramification of "fooling with nature"? What are the risks of "fooling with nature?" "Nature" doesn't even have a precise definition. Thus not all applications can be dealt with with the same degree of ease.
(3) Neo-luddism at the level of basic science research leads to stagnation of inquiry. Nevermind the potential "good" applications you could be directly missing out on. Preventing certain types of basic science research interrupts the very process of science, and the effects are far-reaching. In this day and age of multidiscplinary research, you can't put a halt to genetics research and expect the consequences to only be local. Scientific progress in the area of genetics leads to breakthroughs in chemistry and physics. Progress in physics and chemistry leads to breakthroughs in biology or anthropology. Not only is this a problem as far as the human pursuit of knowledge is concerned (and that's not something I want to underplay!) - by preventing research in one area, you are retarding the development of potentially beneficial applications in other areas of science. It may not seem obvious how, but telling scientists they're not allowed to pursue genetics research may be preventing the next miracle drug, or solution to the world's nutrition crisis. Sure, you may also be preventing the next disease epidemic - but are you able to prognosticate well enough into the future to determine with surety which end will result? Great example: despite the horrible capacity for abuse of nuclear technology, the Manhattan Project taught us an awful lot about physics – it’s impossible to guess what other beneficial applications that we enjoy today would not be around had we not developed nuclear weapons.
(4) Technology will be developed, regardless of what efforts you make to prevent it. Better that it is developed in a controlled, regulated fashion than in underground laboratories by scientists who don't give a crap about the consequences of their work. Better that ethicists, philosophers, scientists and the general public can see the science as it is developed, so that proper deliberation of the consequences of future application can be done in open dialogue. Gene technology research will continue - there is no doubt. Would you rather it be done at the NIH or in some mad savant's basement? By trying to prevent technological research in the name of protecting society, you may actually be hastening the development of the very dangerous applications you wish to avoid.
(5) Yes, it's true that the scientist and the neo-luddite both draw ethical lines. The line that the scientist draws is, however, mobile and flexible, and is drawn only after a proper, logical analysis of the risks and benefits of each application of technology arises. The neo-luddite, however, arbitrarily draws the line at the level of basic science research. The latter's line is drawn exclusively out of fear, often irrational fear that occurs before any real risks or benefits are even determined. You say we should not pursue certain types of technology. Specifically, ones that manipulate matter at the atomic level or ones having to do with altering genes. But what about these kinds of technologies is unique with respect to their capacity for harm? EVERY new technology has potential negative consequences if it is abused. What is the logical reason to forbid some but not others? Why not forbid science in general - that's the only way to really avoid a future technology-based disaster. But I've never heard a well-reasoned answer to that question. Every chemical reaction manipulates matter at the atomic or molecular level, and the abuse of chemistry can have very bad consequences. Yet you do not condone the abandonment of chemistry, do you? Likewise, we manipulate genes every time we try to generate pink flowers by taking a plant with red flowers and mixing it with a plant with white flowers. (Can you imagine what our world would be like today if Gregor Mendel had not researched ‘genetic manipulation’? Medicine would still be in the civil-war era.) We manipulate genetics every time we pick a sexual partner based on how she/he looks. Yet you do not condone the abandonment of dating, do you? Perhaps all dating should be blind, so that humans do not manipulate the genetics of their offspring.
I know, that seems a bit far-fetched, but it appears that you are only against genetic manipulation when it is done one gene at a time. But I just don't see the difference? One gene at a time, one DNA base pair at a time, one organism at a time; in the lab in a matter of hours or on a farm in a matter of centuries, the output is the same. What's the difference? Or is it just a gut feeling?
In conclusion, you are attempting to thwart future events by a categorical forbiddance of what kind of science is allowed and what kind isn't, but your criteria for making that distinction are vague and illogical. My line, on the other hand, thwarts future catastrophic events by analyzing applications of scientific research on a case-by-base basis, which uses facts and real risk analysis to make a well-reasoned, objective analysis of the benefits versus risks of technology. Your line is akin to deciding you're never going to drive a car because you might get into some sort of accident. My line is akin to deciding to drive a car because I recognize the benefits (and risks) of doing so, but when I get to a flooded road covered in running water, I make a rational risk analysis of the consequences of driving through it, and decide not to. That does not mean, of course, that I will never be in an accident, but when it is all said and done the risks of driving are far outweighed by the benefits, and so car-technology is, overall, technology worth pursuing. If your philosophy won out, think of all the great benefits we'd miss out on, just in the name of avoiding a small risk that can be easily avoided through rational thinking when we arrive at a situation that demands it. Yes, she should consider the potential consequences of auto-technology before we ever get in a car - but to categorically rule out driving for every human on the planet because of a small (even real!) risk seems unnecessarily cautious.
My opinion can be best summed up by the following: Ethical decisions should be based on objective analyses of real risks to human health or the environment - not irrational fears of what consequences might or might not be. That's my very clear ethical line, placed at the level of application and based on a very well defined set of rules.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted April 07, 2011 12:16 AM |
|
|
You did post it. I remember reading it.
Can't seem to find it either though. Got lost in the gutter it seems.
Enough off-topic nonsense, Joonas out.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 07, 2011 12:20 AM |
|
|
Well it's good I'm not going crazy. I can't imagine having written all that and then neglecting to post it. Weird.
In any case, what I really wanted to accomplish by posting here today was to link the Bill Joy essay. If you didn't read it last time, and you're interested in the ethics of 21st Century Technologies, it's really a fantastic read, even if I don't agree with a word of it. 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted April 07, 2011 07:54 PM |
|
|
Some rewards given. Please continue this topic in the same manner, that's how we bring back other members to the OSM.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted April 08, 2011 12:53 PM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 12:54, 08 Apr 2011.
|
First of all thank you for the QP angelito. I'm quite pleased to find that I can still contribute something worthwhile after having mostly spent my time in the osm giving you a slight headache from time to time.
Oh so I left the thread thinking that the subject had been pretty much cleared and look what this has blossomed in to . Well I've only done catching up to page 7 but I'd like go back to an issue that I think has a bit more to do with what I originally associated with the start of the thread. Smithey and Corribus discussion on page 5 lacked a certain element (and after 2 more pages of reading noone seemed to have picked it up so I don't think I'll be repeating anything) if you ask me.
@Corribus here's what you said
Quote:
On the other hand, we have a process of genetic engineering, which allows us to go in with a pair of metaphorical tweezers and specifically design the DNA we want. In some sense, the outputs of these two processes are (or can be) exactly the same - we arrive at creatures that possess a desired kind of DNA. It is the process which is different. And because people clearly have no problem with Honeycrisp apples or Golden Retrievers or any of the other hundreds of examples of human genetic engineering resulting from selective breeding (because make no mistake - genetic engineering is what it is), we can safely conclude that it is the process which determines acceptability.
...
Do you have a problem with genetically engineered foods?
On the other hand, if the answer is no, then your issue is likely related to a belief that the human genome is somehow more sacred than those of animals and plants.
While altering DNA has been accepted by society for ages (Carrots for example are only orange because they were bred to have that colour (to honor the Dutch royal family the "Oranjes") originally they were blue) and altering the DNA of a dog,plant or a human scientifically speaking makes no difference as you've explained you comes to the logical conclusion that "it is the process which determines acceptability". But while the result of genetic engineering is the same as the one of the socially accepted selective breeding (they both produce products with manually altered DNA) they're only the same on paper. And that's where my issue with the whole thing lies.
A Goldenretriever or an Honeycrustapple doesn't have to live with the knowledge of being designed to combine favourable traits. Some children have difficulties accepting that they were adopted, illegetimate (their parents were not married at their birth as in my case. I can't begin to fanthom why kids would have an issue with that but it happens) or other things that make them somewhat unique or "unconventional". Therefore there is a quite distinct possibility that some children just might not take the fact too well that they're strictly speaking not a 100% natural. Of course this will have a lot to do with their upbringing, their values and how the parents tell them and so much more but how the kids take it isn't the point.
The point is that unlike with a goldenretriever or an delicious apple a choice has been made for the child that it will have to confront at some point in its life. And I doubt that the knowledge of the fact that nothing "new" was done to concive it will help them come to terms with the fact that some things that make them who they are (maybe not eyecolour but such things as heigth and gender?)have been chosen for them. So it's not the process that's the real issue it's the potential burden we place with the child. The whole "You're a partially genetically engineered son/daugther" is going to be an issue for as long as the whole genetic engineering thing hasn't become atleast somewhat mainstream or socially accepted.
I see similar neglect for the future of the child in JJ posts:
Quote:
Because one way or another humans change and alter nature and themselves since they started to develop a medicine. Cosmetical operations, skin-grafting, changing "sizes" of all kinds, leg lengths.
Key word being themselves there. If you want to have a smaller nose or bigger breasts that's cool noone will be offended or talk to you about ethic implications in german we say "Des Menschen Wille ist sein Himmelreich" which basically means if you want something that affects yourself you're free to do it to yourself. But a fetus can't (and never will be able to) make any of those decision for itself.
As admirable as focussing on the scientific part of the endavour is this is a bit more complex (not-scientifically speaking) than making an tasty apple or a super-energetic dog, I hope I've made that clear. So to a point I think what Selcy says isn't to be underestimated. I mean the thing is that as a parent you want a child, not a son or a daughter but a child. You don't talk to your husband/wife about having a son or having a daugther you talk about having a child or children and none of us who haven't had a child can really understand what it feels like to become a father or a mother. I'm pretty sure however that when you hold your child for the first time such considerations as whether it's the gender of your choice are the furthest thing from your mind...
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2011 01:14 PM |
|
|
I would think parents with genetically engineered children would probably approve of genetic engineering, and so they'd raise their child with the idea that genetic engineering is okay, that there's nothing weird or wrong with it, etc. The kid may not even have a moment of realization that he/she is genetically modified if they were brought up knowing that from the beginning. Do you remember learning that you're human? It didn't shock you to find that out. It'd be like that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted April 08, 2011 01:25 PM |
|
Edited by Jabanoss at 14:06, 08 Apr 2011.
|
(Since my post on page 6 didn't raise any discussion. I'll just ask Mvass right out of the bat. )
What is the limit, of how much or what parents should be allowed to modify their children? (if there is a limit...)
Should parents be allowed to make their children more obedient for example?
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 08, 2011 04:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Key word being themselves there. If you want to have a smaller nose or bigger breasts that's cool noone will be offended or talk to you about ethic implications in german we say "Des Menschen Wille ist sein Himmelreich" which basically means if you want something that affects yourself you're free to do it to yourself. But a fetus can't (and never will be able to) make any of those decision for itself.
A slight correction, Azagal. The German saying you quote has a slightly different meaning. It means that humans are prone to do what they want, NO MATTER WHAT (reason, logic and so on). It's used, when someone wants to do something even though it is considered foolish or unwise or impractical or something, but is deaf for all arguments. Then you shrug and say that.
For your point, I repeat my first post. If you are allowed to ABORT a fetus, you should CERTAINLY be allowed to genetically alter it in the ways that are "safe" and won't be torture for the child.
This isn't legally clwar - there is no law that says an unborn child has a right on genetically staying the way it is. So IF there is an option to make sure children have a certain height (being within a certain "normal" range), why shouldn't a mother be allowed to pull that option?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 08, 2011 04:38 PM |
|
|
@Azagal
Suppose for a second that humans began selectively breeding humans for certain tasks. Three hundred years later, there is a new class of humans that are dumber and stronger, specifically designed for manual labor.
Now compare this to a child you has been genetically engineered to be dumber or stronger by direct manipulation of their DNA.
Is the "burden", as you put it, any less for one child than the other? In both cases, the child knows he is the product of deliberate manipulation of his DNA.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 09, 2011 10:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
What is the limit, of how much or what parents should be allowed to modify their children? (if there is a limit...)
They would only be allowed to add traits that are neutral or positive from the child's point of view. "Obedience" is too vague of a term, but, for example, they wouldn't be allowed to induce Downs Syndrome in their children.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted April 09, 2011 10:49 AM |
|
|
Yeah I know, it is more to represent mind altering or personality tinkering.
"traits that are neutral or positive"
Yeah I can agree with that, even if such things as what are positive and so on can be discussed.
Things like beauty however should be considered neutral, so I see few problems with parents changing how their should children look.
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
| |
|
|
