Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 103

Thread: Ethicum colloquium, the thread on human conduct.

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    5,048
    Sorry man, I was either gifted by God or by evolution with such amazing talent!

    So the ignore function's not working for you guys? Better talk to the admins to get that fixed!

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3,157
    Since when does it take talent to live under a bridge and harass billy goats?

  3. #13
    Junior Potato
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,589
    Oh great Billy is here.

    Another thread on morality to stay away from.

  4. #14
    Female Masturbatory Aid
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    JAX
    Posts
    1,892
    I vote for them to genetically "etch-a-sketch" shake up the human psyche to remove all notions of religion.

  5. #15
    Severed Member JoeW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Tampa, Fl
    Posts
    617
    Star Trek OG has already covered all the colonization topics

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,322
    What is the ethical problems with gene editing?
    Is it bad if someone is immune to a disease?
    Was the issue the lack of consent and visibility?

    What if you could tick a box and your child could be free from a genetic condition carried by their parents? Maybe some rare and debilitating issue, maybe breast cancer.
    What if it’s less life critical but simply desirable, smarter, taller, faster, more beautiful (genetic cosmetic surgery). What about places like India were “whiter” is considered better and lots of money spent on skin bleaching, is it ok to dial up a paler kid?
    Do parents have the right to choose that stuff for their children?

    This is going to happen at some point. The ethics is about what we deem acceptable.

    I don’t agree with how this doctor went about it, but not sure I disagree with what he was trying to do.

  7. #17
    Junior Potato
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    4,589
    The rights of a child that you intend to bring to term (not aborted) are not really a thing weíve dealt with.

    I personally think that gene editing should only be used to improve the health of a child. Cure genetic diseases, or make them immune to AIDS, etc.

    If we start going the cosmetic route then it opens a can of worms.

    Plus the ethical complications of breeding a powerful athlete that could potentially Ďbelongí to an entity as some sort of profit generating thing are just something that I donít want to think about. To me itís a flat no. And letís not get started on genetically engineered super soldiers.

    Remember any cosmetic traits will be passed down to their offspring. They will essentially forever be a slave to whatever trend their ancestors thought would be best for their kids.

    Consider selective breeding. Itís a widespread thing for plants and animals. We choose organisms that have the best desired traits and breed them together, so they can be sold. Thatís how we get Angus beef and cute Labradors.

    But we donít selectively breed humans. I don't think thereís ever been a time in history where humans have been purposefully bred for their traits, in order to be sold. I could be wrong of course, and we definitely donít do it these days. The closest we go is perhaps fostering a famous personís child to see what their potential is (e.g. Mick Schumacher) but itís largely a free choice of that person if they even want to follow in their parentís footsteps.

    Genetically engineering humans to fit a specific purpose is bordering on selective breeding, in my opinion.

  8. #18
    Crime Fighter Cam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    3,224
    Where do you draw the line between improving a person's health to creating a superior human? Gene editing is eugenics.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    1,322
    What is so wrong with wanting a physically "superior" person?
    As long as that person is free to make their life choices, arent owed or indebted in anyway to the gene creator, what is the harm?
    So your kid is taller, faster could be a star sports person - in the end it still their choice. Is it any worse than kids who parents push them into a sport from age 5?
    Or maybe they are smarter - again parents push their kids with out of school tutors to get an advantage.
    Why not use a genetic advantage if you can?

    I can see that there is a lot of potential for wrong doing and even more potential for unintended side effects - but I dont have a moral problem with the concept of genetic manipulation of people. I think it will become the norm at some point.

    There could quickly be a Gattaca style issue where society could be divided by "naturals" and "edits". But we have a long history of society having divides, often by power/money. This would probably just be another step down the same path.

    The term "eugenics" is usually considered bad mostly because it attempts to limit the "less desirables". Or has put this less desirable tag on groups based on race.
    But is there anything ethically wrong with positive eugenics?

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    481
    You're clearly a part of a not negative side of something.

    We are already in the middle of more equal than others.
    (rights of a minority vs. responsibilities of a majority)

    Part of the globe is also doomed to be a totally lesser part.

    50+ years is a long time to be a left over.

    One over many and free breeding away first.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •