NationStates

Not a bad idea. If a male is infertile and a couple refuses sperm from another donor, then they could make this genetically engineered sperm ‘personalised.’

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Xmara wrote:As long as it’s only used for ethical purposes such as reducing cancer risk or correcting potentially fatal genetic defects, I’m fine.

Yeah, this pretty much. The problem is that it can, without a doubt, be exploited by unscrupulous people.

True, but something that can be said of any scientific or technological advance.

Novus America wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Yeah, this pretty much. The problem is that it can, without a doubt, be exploited by unscrupulous people.

True, but something that can be said of any scientific or technological advance.

Unfortunately, yes.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Xmara wrote:As long as it’s only used for ethical purposes such as reducing cancer risk or correcting potentially fatal genetic defects, I’m fine.

Yeah, this pretty much. The problem is that it can, without a doubt, be exploited by unscrupulous people.

Still, this has the potential to help certain people in certain situations. Think of the greater good, for I’m sure some people will benefit.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Novus America wrote:
True, but something that can be said of any scientific or technological advance.

Unfortunately, yes.

Which is why we need regulatory and legal reform to encourage research yet stop abuses. Admittedly a difficult balance to strike. But we must embrace this technology. It is the future. It is coming regardless. If we do not make it work for us it will work against us.

My big concern is the unintended consequences and that issue of human redundancy. It isn't appealing to me.

Humanity didn't live with social networks, digital communication, or even modern medicine until very recently and we fared well in general throughout that history.

Novus America wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Unfortunately, yes.

Which is why we need regulatory and legal reform to encourage research yet stop abuses. Admittedly a difficult balance to strike. But we must embrace this technology. It is the future. It is coming regardless. If we do not make it work for us it will work against us.

Oh, absolutely. We would need a very good regulatory system so as to minimize abuse of such tech as much as possible.

Arthenius wrote:My big concern is the unintended consequences and that issue of human redundancy. It isn't appealing to me.

Humanity didn't live with social networks, digital communication, or even modern medicine until very recently and we fared well in general throughout that history.

Sure we may have survived without all that but those things have drastically improved our lives. Just like how using genetic engineering to fight cancer and other diseases helps us. Just because we can survive without something does not mean we should not use it.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Which is why we need regulatory and legal reform to encourage research yet stop abuses. Admittedly a difficult balance to strike. But we must embrace this technology. It is the future. It is coming regardless. If we do not make it work for us it will work against us.

Oh, absolutely. We would need a very good regulatory system so as to minimize abuse of such tech as much as possible.

Minimize abuse yet also not over regulate such that advancement stops.
Like I said a tricky balance but one we must try to strike.
And also make sure we fund positive and ethical research.

It's a tool, and like all tools whether it's good or bad depends on how you use it.

What ever happened to reproducing the natural way?

Rojava Free State wrote:What ever happened to reproducing the natural way?

Like so many things, we found a better alternative.

Rojava Free State wrote:What ever happened to reproducing the natural way?

Cancer.

Rojava Free State wrote:What ever happened to reproducing the natural way?

Once we went multicellular mitosis just got inefficient.

Kernen wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:What ever happened to reproducing the natural way?

Like so many things, we found a better alternative.

Don't know if i'd call this better. Genetically engineering the perfect children sounds awfully dangerously close to eugenics, and it's our flaws that make us human.

Rojava Free State wrote:What ever happened to reproducing the natural way?

This does not ban you from doing that.
But for some people that is not good option, if the have a high risk of passing on genetic disease or cannot reproduce naturally at all.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Kernen wrote:Like so many things, we found a better alternative.

Don't know if i'd call this better. Genetically engineering the perfect children sounds awfully dangerously close to eugenics, and it's our flaws that make us human.

Yeah, it's getting cancer that makes us human. If we stop getting cancer then what's the point in living?

Rojava Free State wrote:

Kernen wrote:Like so many things, we found a better alternative.

Don't know if i'd call this better. Genetically engineering the perfect children sounds awfully dangerously close to eugenics, and it's our flaws that make us human.

Then being human isn't ideal. Its only eugenics if you control the reproduction of others. People choosing their own reproductive future isn't eugenics.

Ifreann wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Don't know if i'd call this better. Genetically engineering the perfect children sounds awfully dangerously close to eugenics, and it's our flaws that make us human.

Yeah, it's getting cancer that makes us human. If we stop getting cancer then what's the point in living?

Except has anyone guaranteed this will even prevent cancer? And even if it does, who's to say someone can't abuse this kind of system? I see a lot of potential dangers with this advancement

Rojava Free State wrote:

Kernen wrote:Like so many things, we found a better alternative.

Don't know if i'd call this better. Genetically engineering the perfect children sounds awfully dangerously close to eugenics, and it's our flaws that make us human.

This is not making the ¨perfect child.¨ This is simply a way to hopefully reduce cancer.

Andsed wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Don't know if i'd call this better. Genetically engineering the perfect children sounds awfully dangerously close to eugenics, and it's our flaws that make us human.

This is not making the ¨perfect child.¨ This is simply a way to hopefully reduce cancer.

Why not use it to improve and not just prevent?

Andsed wrote:

Rojava Free State wrote:
Don't know if i'd call this better. Genetically engineering the perfect children sounds awfully dangerously close to eugenics, and it's our flaws that make us human.

This is not making the ¨perfect child.¨ This is simply a way to hopefully reduce cancer.

I’m fine with that if it’s only used for reducing cancer.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yeah, it's getting cancer that makes us human. If we stop getting cancer then what's the point in living?

Except has anyone guaranteed this will even prevent cancer? And even if it does, who's to say someone can't abuse this kind of system? I see a lot of potential dangers with this advancement

Except your point is that flaws like getting cancer make us human. You're saying that if this does work, that's bad, because we'd stop being human. But if it doesn't work then that's good, because we stay human and keep dying of cancer.

Rojava Free State wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yeah, it's getting cancer that makes us human. If we stop getting cancer then what's the point in living?

Except has anyone guaranteed this will even prevent cancer? And even if it does, who's to say someone can't abuse this kind of system? I see a lot of potential dangers with this advancement

Yes this still requires research and needs to be regulated. But if we pull it off then the benefits will far outweigh the dangers in my opinion.
So why not continue this research in a regulated and humane way?

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Oh, absolutely. We would need a very good regulatory system so as to minimize abuse of such tech as much as possible.

No, we should embrace the abuses in my view. I want to be using this for the purposes of race. After only one or a few generations, if this were used for all or most of a country's zygotes, the skin color and other traits can be selected by the state to come up with a national standard for aesthetics.

A Japanese baby in that situation, could still look stereotypically Japanese even if the father is Black as one example. In the old days, there was no stopping that baby from having Black skin to some extent as a result of that, but with this- the Black skin trait could plausibly be switched off in favor of whatever it is a government or the parents want.

The commonality or rarity of specific races, could become more like a fashion trend instead of being dictated by immigration, economics, and the fertility or lack thereof of different populations.