Should parents be allowed to design their babies?
|
I can only go on this from personal experience. Before I had my first born, a girl, I would have leaned towards maybe. Now? I lean towards no. My daughter is high functioning autistic, she's almost 5 (in August) and our communication is on....maaaaaaaybe a two year olds level, and that's being generous. There are days where I would give anything to be able to have a conversation with her. As it is just being a part of her world from time to time is amazing. She will go off in her head and not recognize or want anything to do, she will have melt downs which is VERY embarrassing in public - not because she's doing it but because of all the judgement from people thinking she's just a bratty kid. She looks normal but she functions differently. But through it all she is a true blessing. We never take for granted all of the things that parents with "normal" children do. We WANT her endless questions to come, we want her to talk back. The rare times she says "I love you" to either one of us makes us cry with joy. She opened our eyes and made us more tolerant to other people and their differences and her empathy, generosity and intelligence is just off the charts. She is SMART. She has stumped every single one of her therapists when they tried to sabotage something she's doing to try to get her to come to them for help. She thinks around the puzzles and solves them in a way we don't always think of. As much as I am wishing for the day we can communicate, I will never what to change who she is. To me, "designer babies" takes out the possibility of surprise, the chance to grow as a parent, and just seems so cold. To think that someone like my daughter and all of her amazing abilities wouldn't exist because someone saw her as undesirable...it makes my soul scream. I think a lot of people could relate to your experience, though, and would share your view that genetic design removes the surprise and everything positive that can come with it. I'm curious why people believe that very many people wouldn't share that intuition, and would opt for (extensive) genetic design of their offspring. I don't actually know if that's your belief or not. I also wonder whether creating protected classes that can't be selected out of the genetic pool wouldn't be a better solution to concerns like yours than outright banning the whole thing. Thoughts on that? I'm curious why people believe that very many people wouldn't share that intuition, and would opt for (extensive) genetic design of their offspring. I wouldn't be able to figure out the percentages of who would opt for it and who wouldn't, that would be an interesting study. I do know that a portion of society is very keen on looks, to the point where physical alterations are the norm. Areas such as S. Korea, or Japan where the cultural body image is replaced with a more "hollywood" look, if that makes sense. Getting a nose job and eye tuck to look more European is usually done as a birthday present. That's not all of the population of course but a stunning portion of it. I think it's because of this and other instances that it's not out of the realm of possibility that there would be a movement of mass quantity for people who want to design their "perfect" baby. I also wonder whether creating protected classes that can't be selected out of the genetic pool wouldn't be a better solution to concerns like yours than outright banning the whole thing. 100% of the time, when I have to explain to someone that my daughter is Autistic, I get the "Ohh, I'm so sorry" look or speech. And my answer is, for what? I don't think they would ever consider anyone on the ASD scale as a protected class. Anything different from social norm is considered either unwanted or an abhorrence by many people. Even the phrase "why can't you be normal" is considered appropriate. So I think my question to that would be, who decides what is protected class? A greater homogeneity of genetics would be the eventual outcome of such processes. This would lead us to be more vulnerable to pathogens. It also would lead to greater homogeneity of thought and behavior, as one's temperament (personality) has a large genetic component (Source 1). In addition, as Mint states, it is often the things we expect to be negative that actually end up positive. Autism is responsible for a great deal of our historical progress, particularly in technology. Genes that we deem sub-optimal likely serve purposes that we don't understand fully. Such trait selection may cause genetic diseases several generations in the future that cannot be foreseen now. I find it likely that natural genetic selection (the sperm's competition to reach the egg through a hostile environment and similar) is the most adaptive selection process and will over time produce the best results. I can appreciate that genetic disorders could be a good thing to remove but I don't think selecting for one's "best" traits is a good idea. Sources: It's not immediately obvious that greater homogeneity would result, let alone to such an order of magnitude that species survival would be threatened. For a start, there's no reason to suppose that enough people would opt for genetic design to have an appreciable impact on the overall genetic composition of the species. Mint is not alone in believing in the preferability of non-designed children, and there are many reasons people might not choose it for themselves. A value in the results of randomness and depreciation in the value of just getting what (they think) they want is one. Also significant: procreation is often regarded as an extension of one's self, a way to survive death as it were. Given the emotional weight of resemblance and genetic connection, it's entirely reasonable to suppose many people wouldn't want to genetically alter their offspring much (if at all). This doesn't even go into peoples' moral intuitions, which could also continue to predispose against opting for genetic design. Further, even if a significant portion of the human population opted for genetic design there is no reason to presume that they would all make the same choices. People are diverse in their preferences already, so even if resemblance didn't matter there's still no real basis from which to suppose that they'd all choose so similarly as to critically endanger the species. Even if the genetic diversity of the species were significantly diminished, there is no reason to suppose this would critically endanger the species. Environment remains a very significant influence on diversity as well; your own reference identifies environment as accounting for 40-80% of personality variance, for instance. Further, there's no obvious reason to suppose that science couldn't or wouldn't develop responses to the consequences of genetic design (from pathogens to disease, and beyond). In fact, the inter-generational timeline this all plays out upon and the degree of scientific development necessary to even make this play out at all might even be taken to suggest it would do just that. Conventional genetic selection produces merely sufficient results, so there's no immediately evident reason to suppose that it's more likely to get the better results. (And even if it did, this doesn't mean that genetic design would produce bad or insufficient results.) This seems predicated upon presumptions against the aptitude of people to influence selection, but we already do that without genetic design by choosing who we procreate with and how we raise our offspring. Conventional selection has never been separate from human influence because we're necessarily part of the process. How is selecting out for genetic disorder not the same thing as selecting for the "best" traits. The very idea of disorder presumes a better condition which is necessarily be preferenced and selected by opting out of the disordered condition. For that matter, autism is considered a disorder by many people and most scientific institutions... so that's at odds with your previous observations about the demerits of selecting disorder out of the gene pool. Finally, even if everything you said were sound... why should individual autonomy be sacrificed for the survival of the species? "It's not immediately obvious that greater homogeneity would result, let alone to such an order of magnitude that species survival would be threatened. " Why would people select short, ugly, weak, unintelligent genes over tall, attractive, muscular intelligent genetics? Of course the gene pool will become less diverse if such processes were implemented on any significant scale. "For a start, there's no reason to suppose that enough people would opt for genetic design to have an appreciable impact on the overall genetic composition of the species. Mint is not alone in believing in the preferability of non-designed children, and there are many reasons people might not choose it for themselves. A value in the results of randomness and depreciation in the value of just getting what (they think) they want is one." Even if we implemented such methods on a small scale, these people will breed with the general public (likely more successfully than the average) and pass on their genes. In addition, such people will be good candidates for sperm and egg donation. Even if only five to ten percent of babies (incredibly conservative figures) were modified this would quickly spread to the general population. Think about the long term: even two to three generations time. "Also significant: procreation is often regarded as an extension of one's self, a way to survive death as it were. Given the emotional weight of resemblance and genetic connection, it's entirely reasonable to suppose many people wouldn't want to genetically alter their offspring much (if at all). This doesn't even go into peoples' moral intuitions, which could also continue to predispose against opting for genetic design" I would note that while other avenues may be being explored the proposed method is actually simply selection of the "best" traits from the parents rather than addition of traits from other sources. "Further, even if a significant portion of the human population opted for genetic design there is no reason to presume that they would all make the same choices. People are diverse in their preferences already, so even if resemblance didn't matter there's still no real basis from which to suppose that they'd all choose so similarly as to critically endanger the species." Would you pick a muscular or weak phenotype? An intelligent or unintelligent one? A tall or short one? An ugly or attractive one? It simply makes no sense to make the less desirable choice in any of these pairings. "Even if the genetic diversity of the species were significantly diminished, there is no reason to suppose this would critically endanger the species." As aforementioned, less genetic variation results in greater susceptibility as a species to disease (Source 1). "Environment remains a very significant influence on diversity as well; your own reference identifies environment as accounting for 40-80% of personality variance, for instance." Indeed, however there are ways in which individuals can vary genetically which cannot be attained through environmental influences. One, for example, cannot develop sickle cell anemia. The same is true for personality, one cannot, for example, develop a genius level IQ from an average one despite the fact that one can increase their IQ through environmental influences. "Further, there's no obvious reason to suppose that science couldn't or wouldn't develop responses to the consequences of genetic design (from pathogens to disease, and beyond). In fact, the inter-generational timeline this all plays out upon and the degree of scientific development necessary to even make this play out at all might even be taken to suggest it would do just that." Aside from the fact that this only applies to disease resistance, I'm not really sure how we are going to defend against a disease we don't even know exists. "Conventional genetic selection produces merely sufficient results, so there's no immediately evident reason to suppose that it's more likely to get the better results. (And even if it did, this doesn't mean that genetic design would produce bad or insufficient results.)" If conventional reproduction does provide better results it's the best method to use. To rebut though, all that need be said is that there's no evidence that genetic design will produce better results. Personally, I think that natural reproduction is the best method, for the reasons given. " This seems predicated upon presumptions against the aptitude of people to influence selection, but we already do that without genetic design by choosing who we procreate with and how we raise our offspring. Conventional selection has never been separate from human influence because we're necessarily part of the process." I never said humans shouldn't play a part in their reproduction, such a position is nonsensical. There is a difference between mate selection (general genetic mixing) and deciding an exact genetic combination. "How is selecting out for genetic disorder not the same thing as selecting for the "best" traits. The very idea of disorder presumes a better condition which is necessarily be preferenced and selected by opting out of the disordered condition." As I've already explained, we don't know what the best traits are. Different traits are better in different situations. There are, however, genetic diseases which cause the recipient a horrific quality of life such as Cystic Fibrosis and Huntington's Chorea. I think it could be reasonable in such extreme cases to attempt to prevent this. "For that matter, autism is considered a disorder by many people and most scientific institutions... so that's at odds with your previous observations about the demerits of selecting disorder out of the gene pool." I think that individuals with autism are obviously of benefit to society. It's a difficult choice for me to state that one should be forced to suffer such a drastically reduced quality of life (Source 2) for it's benefits though. The example was merely to show that traits we view as negative can actually be positive in some ways. Further I would state that I've merely expressed sympathy toward such technology's use for such things and haven't actually expressed endorsement. My view is that we should be careful about any implementation of such techniques, but that a legitimate use could be the removal of genetic disease. "Finally, even if everything you said were sound... why should individual autonomy be sacrificed for the survival of the species?" It's not actually individual autonomy as they are doing it to another individual and not themselves. A theoretical future baby that hasn't even been conceived has no autonomy. Note also the problems one might create one or two generations down the line if the different genetic combinations create new genetic diseases. Sources: (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ (2) http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/ Well this is an interesting topic. I can't think of anything wrong with it, unless parents could purposefully choose really weird things that would mess with the child's life. How would it be regulated? If this became a reality, wouldn't the only moral thing be to choose the best possible traits? If everyone started choosing the 'best' possible traits, then parents who didn't do so would be putting their child at a disadvantage. That wouldn't be fair to the child, and surely fairness should be important. Either it would have to be made illegal for parents to design their babies, or they would only be able to choose things that don't affect the 'merits' of that child - hair/eye color, sexual orientation, etc. It might even be a good thing for govt. to enforce the best (most beneficial to society and that individual) possible traits, intelligence, empathy, etc, to be put into babies, providing equal opportunity for all, which I suppose would be good. Just some unorganized thoughts. There wouldn't be much outside of war you could do about bad governments doing that. Given all the problems it would create, perhaps it's just better to avoid creating the ability to customize your baby. Hey, do you have any idea why my points aren't going up? I know it doesn't matter, but it's bugging me. "Should" we? Absolutely not. For many reasons: 1) It runs counter to BOTH religious beliefs and evolutionary theory beliefs, so no matter which side you're coming from it's unnatural. 2) It potentially gives an unfair advantage to some, intellectually or physically 3) It potentially can lead to rejection of those which don't turn out perfectly 4) There's too dang many people in the world now as it is 5) It potentially limits diversity. If everybody wants smart, tall, muscular you could someday have primarily that. But diversity exists in the human species for a reason - to help it survive. If you breed out the short, hairy, hairless, whatever, you lose characteristics which someday in the right circumstance actually gives an advantage to those unlikely heroes of the species. The other question though is "Can?" Can we stop it? Probably not. "Absolutely" might be a bit strong... for many reasons: 1. The overwhelming majority of religions don't directly address this because it wasn't even conceived of when they developed. As for evolution, there's nothing unnatural about a species developing the ability to more extensively influence it's own development (species already do this in different ways). 2. So does the alternative. (And, notably, in no small part because of the very "society" you are using to defend your position against designer babies.) 3. Non-unique. People can and do already have children they reject for not being what they want them to be. So if your objection holds against genetic design, then it also holds against procreation broadly. 4. There is no reason to suppose that genetic design would cause more children to be born than otherwise would be. It also isn't clear that overpopulation actually is a problem, rather than resource distribution. Besides, this is again non-unique; if it's an argument against genetic design then it's also an argument against free choice in deciding to have children in the first place. Do you think that's defensible? 5. If we are already diverse in our preferences, then why should we assume that everyone would want the same thing in their offspring (let alone that they'd choose genetic design)? Moreover, why is this a reason to prevent autonomous parental choices? It isn't even clear that this would be a problem, and it's no less speculative than the original concern to suppose that scientific solutions could be found for it. And, again, why doesn't this then justify the government controlling human breeding to increase diversity? Parents do not owe "society" or a non-existent human anything in this. I don't find the rationales against it compelling enough to outweigh parental autonomy. And if we accept the arguments against "designer babies", then there's generally a lot more that follows from their premises which people don't seem inclined to acknowledge. Depending on the argument the implications can range from legitimating state control over other reproductive and parenting choices to delegitimating contraception or abortion. 0
points
Regards Darwin himself we will never know as the chap is no longer with us . I have a friend who got married later in life and decided he wanted to start a family , his wife was warned of the risks of having a Down's syndrome baby on account of her age but went ahead anyway . The child was born with Down's syndrome , armed with the choice of designing a baby I know what I would be opting for . What's wrong with wanting a child with the best of all traits ? "What's wrong with wanting a child with the best of all traits ?" Nothing at all, maybe it could be perceived as selfish, but I don't necessarily agree. But as for your little anecdotal story, the parents were warned of the possibilities, then went ahead anyway.... Can't expect flawed parents to produce perfect offspring...Look at you. |
