CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Genetic Alteration
Do you think its OK to genetically alter people when their in the womb to make them stronger and smarter. Would it be fine if humanity lived/moved to outer space and we could then alter people to be more suitable to living in such an enviorment. Pro/Cons? And would you do it?
I believe that you should take in consideration of the context of genetic modification. If you are modifying traits like diseases and genetic disorders then yes i think it would be a worthwhile endeavor but if you want to modify people for traits like strength, intelligence, and so forth then i think it could create a few ethical dilemmas that would be difficult to solve. In the case of adaptation for space travel, I think that humanity will probably solve these issues with technological solutions rather than genetic. Also, if you modify a person to live in space you may limit their ability to live on a planet.
Genetic alteration occurs naturally through evolution. It's not necessary to physically alter someone genetically (unless they have a genetic disease of some sort perhaps). If anything, instead of altering someone genetically in the womb (very difficult), it would perhaps be more practical to literal family planning, where the parents, instead of throwing their potential child to chance, select sperm and eggs to create a child that is relatively free of "defects" (genetic diseases) or having attributes related to a healthy human (more easily build muscles, form memories etc.). Essentially, choose like Gattaca, without the societal prejudices.
In space, over time and left to their own devices, I assume humans would gradually adapt to a low gravity environment. I don't specifically know how they would adapt, but it would happen.
I don't agree with genetic modification (except in the case of genetic disease, and then only if there is no other way). But I agree even less with something like that. What will the world come to if we are in complete control of such things?
People think a whole load of things are good. Yeah, in some ways they are. But being a control freak isn't good.
Whatever happened to anticipation? Curiosity? Natural order?
When you play an adventure game, why do you play it? It's not as if playing it will change anything in reality. Realistically, it's a waste of time. So, we play for enjoyment. Exactly what do we enjoy? What is so wonderful about games? Wouldn't games be better if you were a crazy powerful ruler, and everyone listened and cooperated and understood each other? Wouldn't a game be so fun if everything were in perfect order and you didn't need to bother with fixing the virtual world?
No. Then there would be no point in playing, and it would be no fun. There would be no story.
So, how about if some guy does it for you and you watch? The you get the story, right?
But then there is no achievement. You will have done nothing.
So, we need achievements in real life. If our children are not made naturally, there is no achievement. What would happen to the pride of having a child? The pride of the child being beautiful, no matter how they look? The pride of having a child who achieves? The joy of it all? The surprise?
What is wrong with throwing a potential child to chance? What is wrong with random selection? If we are picky about our children, then some genes will never be used, and we will have less and less genetic variation, and we would loose all individuality.
If there is a genetic disease, and if it is passed on, then it may not be severe. If it is, then, it might be better to take care of it with genetic modification. But let's not get carried away. It's only if there are no other options. We do not want to meddle in such affairs without first realizing the potential danger.
Altering a sperm and egg is easier than altering a conceived or born child. Additionally, we are assuming via the prompts of the debate that there is a technology capable of sifting through the genetic data of sperms/eggs for specific traits.
It is not like by choosing the most efficient traits we eliminate competition, imperfections, and variety. We would just be choosing whether or not we want the child to have autism or down syndrome. If a couple's progeny is apt to have down syndrome, we could select the relatively few sperms and eggs to prevent that specific gene from being carried. Would you rather sentence a child to that fate, a fate where he or she will, for life, be a de facto second class citizen?
In all of your argument, I could find no other "justification" for resisting genetic alteration other than, "It would be less exciting." Hm. For some reason, I think that that justification falls well short of vindicating a position for no genetic alteration.
The weakest part of your argument was that we should not help children develop into beings far superior to their parents. You think that if a child is faster, stronger, and smarter than their parents that the world will be worse off? It will lessen competition? How so? Will the children not retain a competitive nature to not only be better than their parents, but also better than their peers, whom are similarly endowed? Instead of a civilization slowly decaying in decadence, I would perceive a society progressing in leaps and bounds faster than normal evolution would be able to accomplish.
Pushing even into science fiction now, I would even perceive the creation of new intelligent humanoid species capable of inhabiting other planets or living in space. I don't see stagnation here. I see expansion.
Ever heard of something being too easy? I'm not talking about excitement. I am not talking about happiness. I am talking about drudgery, boredom, and drones.
Think about it. Without struggle, what are we? Would we be strong? No. Our bodies may be strong, and we may be smart, but I'm talking about emotions.
I get sick really, really easily. I missed all but a few days of my seventh grade year, and the summer in-between sixth and seventh grade, and the last month of sixth grade, because I got sick and fell into relapse after relapse. In that time I wished I wasn't sick. I wished I could run around, but I wasn't even allowed to walk too much. I have fallen sick many times besides this, but this was the worst by far.
I lost all of my friends because I could not communicate with them. I got fat from lack of exercise. I got lazy. I became a procrastinator. While I was sick my moods would change by the slightest little thing, and I snapped at everyone. Then I cried because I didn't want to be so angry.
And you know what? If that didn't happen, I wouldn't be who I am today. While I was sick, I became a better writer. I started several books, which I am still continuing. I came to understand just how lonely my life has been, because those friends that I lost weren't ever like best buddies. Before then, I never cared about social life, I was happy enough alone. When I got sick I saw just how lonely I really was. So I vowed that, my eighth grade year, I would be social. I understood just what no exercise is like, so I came to exercise more. I gained a better understanding of computers. Yeah, I got a lot of negatives with it, but, if i hadn't been sick, I wouldn't have been as strong a person as I am today. If I didn't have such a weak immune system, I wouldn't have gotten sick. Another person in my class got the same sickness, but was only out for a week. If I had a better immune system, and had still caught it, then I wouldn't have been out for so long, and I wouldn't have struggled, and I wouldn't have gotten stronger through my struggle.
Everyone in my family passes out really, really easily. I'm into science, but there's a lot of stuff I can't study because it makes me pass out. Know how annoying that is? But it's part of who I am, and, if anyone came up with a cure for that, I wouldn't want it. I've gotten a concussion from it, so it's not like I don't know what can happen.
I'm friends with an autistic girl, and she's the happiest person I know. She's in honors classes in highschool, and she sings and dances.
I once knew a girl who is more severely autistic, and because the two of us were the least popular in elementary school, we always got stuck with each other for groupwork. She was hard to work with, and she's not all that athletic. But she's crazy smart when it comes to history and English, and she likes to sing. she's not athletic, but she really couldn't care less about sports.
We all have strengths and weaknesses. I bet there's something you're not good at, but you probably aren't interested in. If someone came along and wanted to make you a superhero in that area, would it make you happy?
Would you be happy as a kid if you knew that your parents thought you weren't good enough and that they had to pick and choose your genes to improve you? I know my weaknesses, and I know how to face them and improve myself. I wouldn't want anyone to do it for me. I know my strengths, and I want to use them to improve the world. I want to know that I am stronger than others in some ways, even if they are far superior in others. I want to know that I got where I am by my own hard work, and not by some scientist's meddling with my genes.
Any serious genetic illnesses can be taken care of with genetic modification, if they actually come through, and only if there is no other way. A single mistake could be more devastating than the disease itself, and making superhumans destroys the mentality and personality. Someone who finds themself stronger than everyone in every way without even trying would become depressed, perhaps to the point of suicide. We like to challenge ourselves.
And simply removing genes would not work. they'd have to be replaced with something.
Also, creating space-humaniods form human genes is impossible, as they are HUMAN GENES.
And please clarify. Are you talking about altering sperm and egg or selecting sperm and egg? You have used the two interchangeably, but they are quite different, and, though I am opposed to both, I am more opposed to one than the other.
I am confused. Are you arguing that autism is beneficial? Are you arguing that disease, even though it may kill you, should be encouraged because if you live, you MIGHT mature? I can hardly see how a single experience, a personal experience even, may be extrapolated to the wishes of others. How can you logically conclude that by having less disease (less HIV/AIDS, less polio, less malaria, less mad cow disease, less salmonella, less disease for god's sake!), life will be reduced to "drudgery, boredom, and drones."
You presume that there would be one child who would be genetically "chosen," and it is naive to do so. Naturally more parents will want their children to have the best of the best, and I personally see nothing wrong with wanting your children to literally be all they can be. Indeed, I noticed you neglected an entire portion of my argument specifically addressing your qualms about "drudgery, boredom, and drones." I will repost it, again, in the hopes you will respond to it:
"It will lessen competition? How so? Will the children not retain a competitive nature to not only be better than their parents, but also better than their peers, whom are similarly endowed? Instead of a civilization slowly decaying in decadence, I would perceive a society progressing in leaps and bounds faster than normal evolution would be able to accomplish."
As for the space-human thing, I said I was venturing into science fiction, but even then, you don't suppose we could highlight traits in the human genome to be more expressive? More flexible bones, lower oxygen requirements, more protection against UV-radiation, etc. are a few examples of traits within the human genome that could be tweaked to make a more efficient space-faring species. But, as I said, science fiction.
And as for the interchangeability of choosing sperms/eggs versus altering sperms/eggs, they are merely different means for acquiring the same ends. I have no expertise with which to say which would be easiest.
It seems, no matter how I phrase things, you misunderstand my meaning. Perhaps I am writing in a confusing way, and I am sorry about that. Perhaps the problem is that I am neither 100% against or 100% for your arguments, and I am not about to write a book about my feelings of either side.
I am not saying that disease it a good thing. I am certainly not saying that it is beneficial, I even called it a weakness. How you got that from my argument, I do not know.
I also said nothing of maturing. Perhaps I even got slightly less mature and less confident in myself from my personal experience, which is on no account how I believe the entire wold to be. In fact, many people consider me bizarre. Perhaps a personal experience was not the best thing to bring up, but I was trying to make a point, which you obviously completely missed.
You obviously feel very strongly on this topic, which is probably why you are taking everything I say in such a fantastical, fanatic way. Please do not do so, as that is not how it is meant. Perhaps I at one point worded things to seem this way. If this is so, I apologize.
We as humans take pride in our accomplishments. Every struggle creates ever greater joy in the accomplishment. If you remove the struggle, you remove the amplified joy, and the rest should be self-explanatory.
To some extent, anyways.
You obviously do not share my ideas of boundaries between certain aspects of life and certain aspects of science, and as such I apparently cannot relate to you in such a way. I so not know how else to explain. Perhaps you should read/watch more distopian and post-apocalyptic stories, or play more games with plots which relate to these. Then perhaps you will gain a better idea of my point. And yes, I addressed that part of your argument. Find my response for yourself.
If you wish to continue arguing, at least try to understand my point of view, as merely distorting it with the intention of distorting it will get us nowhere. This is a debate. Debates are not just things that people use to vent at each other. Debates are things used to discuss certain topics. If you are not willing to discuss, then please do not debate with me ever again.
I am not saying that disease it a good thing. I am certainly not saying that it is beneficial, I even called it a weakness. How you got that from my argument, I do not know.
"We as humans take pride in our accomplishments. Every struggle creates ever greater joy in the accomplishment. If you remove the struggle, you remove the amplified joy, and the rest should be self-explanatory."
Also, you give two examples of people you know who are amazing because they are autistic. If you do not mean to imply that autism is good, or that genetic hardships in general, are beneficial, you still certainly come across that way.
Perhaps you should read/watch more distopian and post-apocalyptic stories, or play more games with plots which relate to these.
The problem with these is they are meant to entertain rather than accurately educate. It is not wise to base your decisions about the present reality on the portrayals of a dystopian future in the media.
Again, you fail to see my point. In order to understand, you actually have to try.
I never said that they are amazing because they are autistic. I said that they are not suffering for being autistic.
SO PLEASE STOP WITH THE FANTASTICAL FANATIC VIEWS OF EVERYTHING I SAY AND EVERYTHING IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE!!!
And please take into account the things I said that were not directly anger-induced thoughts towards you. And think about it. Do not think about ways to attack. Think about ways to understand and to discuss and to explain. That is the purpose of debates. there is a VERY VERY BIG difference between debates and arguments. This is still an argument.
The problem with these is they are meant to entertain rather than accurately educate. It is not wise to base your decisions about the present reality on the portrayals of a dystopian future in the media.
I am not using these as a source of education. Nor am I using them as entertainment. Not everything is a matter of true and false, yes or no, comedy or tragedy. When I referred you to such things I was speaking of the messages behind them. Distopian and post-apocalyptic stories portray an author's emotions on how the world could go wrong. My reasoning for directing you to such things is not to educate you but to make you understand better my point. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am not saying that you are right. I am saying that things should not be taken to a certain extent, and that there are boundaries that should not be crossed.
You know that I am not Conro, right? You seem to think you are still talking to him. Also, if debating quickly becomes this upsetting for you, this might not be the right website on which to spend your time.
If you are saying that they are amazing people in spite of autism, or independently of autism, then your argument is irrelevant. The only thing that would have actually supported your argument is if you were trying to say that they were amazing because of autism...so I assumed you were making a relevant argument. My mistake, I guess.
How do you know they are not suffering from autism, just because they have overcome some of its challenges? How many autistic people, do you think, would rather not be autistic if they had a choice? I don't doubt there are those that would not change themselves for anything, but I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people who are afflicted with conditions that severely limit their opportunities and abilities and prevent them from leading a mainstream life would rather not have those conditions. A more accurate question, considering the issue at hand is in utero modification: how many healthy people today would opt to have been born with autism or any other genetic condition which is potentially surmountable?
I am not using these as a source of education. Nor am I using them as entertainment. Not everything is a matter of true and false, yes or no, comedy or tragedy. When I referred you to such things I was speaking of the messages behind them. Distopian and post-apocalyptic stories portray an author's emotions on how the world could go wrong. My reasoning for directing you to such things is not to educate you but to make you understand better my point. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am not saying that you are right. I am saying that things should not be taken to a certain extent, and that there are boundaries that should not be crossed.
And my point is that 'an author's emotions' are nothing on which to base a conclusion about this issue. Very rarely are they actually educated in the fields appropriate to create an accurate representation of possibilities, and this is why I warned against using entertainment to help you decide what should and should not be currently acceptable in science.
Jeez. Am I that bad at wording things that two different people fail to understand me?
You are doing the same thing that Conro was doing, which is why I did not realize at first that you were a different person. I apologize.
Normally debates do not upset me. This is not a debate, and it appears that you and Conro are more upset than I am.
My mention of people with autism was supporting my argument, however, my argument is not what you appear to think it to be.
I am not saying that we should ignore genetic diseases. I am not saying that they are enjoyable. I am not saying that they are beneficial. I am not drawing conclusions from authors' emotions.
I am saying that, regardless of original intent, many things are taken far too far. I am drawing emotions and understanding of certain possibilities and viewpoints from authors.
and it appears that you and Conro are more upset than I am.
I disagree.
My mention of people with autism was supporting my argument, however, my argument is not what you appear to think it to be.
What point was it meant to illustrate, then?
I am not saying that we should ignore genetic diseases. I am not saying that they are enjoyable. I am not saying that they are beneficial. I am not drawing conclusions from authors' emotions.
I am saying that, regardless of original intent, many things are taken far too far. I am drawing emotions and understanding of certain possibilities and viewpoints from authors.
What is 'too far' for you when it comes to genetic alteration?
I am not sure why you are still pushing the consumption of dystopian media, unless it is because you have taken some of this media to be a warning of what could happen, and you want us to see examples of technology taken too far. Am I correct? If so, it depends on the individual book/movie, but most of it is a very bad thing to do this with. If not, I am still not understanding its relevance to the discussion.
I am not saying that distopian stories say what is going to happen. I am not talking about any educational value there. But education isn't the only value in existence. If you have not understood my point by now, I get the feeling that you never will. You should know for yourself what is too far, if not by what I have already said. The continuation of this argument is going nowhere. That is why it is not a debate. It is useless bickering.
I am not saying that distopian stories say what is going to happen. I am not talking about any educational value there. But education isn't the only value in existence. If you have not understood my point by now, I get the feeling that you never will. You should know for yourself what is too far, if not by what I have already said. The continuation of this argument is going nowhere. That is why it is not a debate. It is useless bickering.
What I gathered from your discussion of your vulnerability towards sickness was that you gained strengths from the sickness. Therefore, I claimed it unreasonable to declare that sickness would make someone stronger by the fact that they could also potentially die. I had hoped you would gather that from my fear mongering, that little grain of truth.
"We as humans take pride in our accomplishments. Every struggle creates ever greater joy in the accomplishment. If you remove the struggle, you remove the amplified joy, and the rest should be self-explanatory."
I honestly have no idea where you get that I am talking about removing the struggle. We are not making super-beings (as you've stated in your other posts) just making people less vulnerable to diseases, more capable of learning, better able to form muscles. This isn't making superman, nor even the perfect being. This is about chasing perfection. There will still be a struggle, and there will always be a struggle. As long as people bicker (huh, ironic...), argue, fight, and compete there will be a struggle for supremacy in which one will win and one will lose. Certainly there should be restrictions on the type of technology to make improved (read, healthier) children. I am not arguing for the free-market approach to let the rich have thousands of genius babies, and only then the price comes down for the general populace. But once we can make a technology cheaply and efficiently that even those in the lower-middle class (or, ideally, the lower class) can hope for a better future for their children, I would open the floodgates.
I would do it. I would do it to make sure my children are free of genetic disease. I would do it to make sure that my children are capable of surviving outside the womb. But most importantly, I would do it to make sure my children stayed competitive in the capitalist hell- scape that would allow me to modify my unborn children to my own specifications.
Here's a question. Were you genetically modified? I doubt it. Do you know anyone who was? How many people do you know who weren't? How many of them would be different if they were? Is this good?
And, here's another thing. We won't get superhuman strength or mental ability or other suchlike through genetic engineering. Know why? Those genes don't come out of thin air. They come from real, live, human beings.
As exciting as genetic alteration is, I would rather we first find out how to travel back in time and then we can genetically alter Obama to be more of a conservative ;)
