making "perfect" babies

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Hey

Where do most people stand on the idea the one day people will be able to be born and doctors will be able to make sure they don’t have disabilities and such.

Do we support this? As you can look at it from the position that it basically stops people from having to live with something they feel is awful.

On the other hand, should we oppose it because its kind of nazi'ish?

I don’t really know too much about it, I haven’t read anything about it so I’m just wondering really.

My first impression is that we could have people who are born with certain disabilities or problems, like being born blind and they could decide whether this is something that modern medicine (if able) to babies being born with blindness.

I guess that’s sounds reasonable to me at the moment.

What do you think?

[Janus]

Where do most people stand on the idea the one day people will be able to be born and doctors will be able to make sure they don’t have disabilities and such.
That's already happening to a degree.

Gene therapy, an aspect of genetic engineering, is continually advancing. I think it is quite interesting and uplifting to know that we are not bound to our "natural" limits and that we can change these things which we have always thought were immutable.

Now, I can only think of using this for beneficial reasons in the future though it may get to a point where it becomes something like plastic surgery in which everybody will wanna make the Fabio-Einstein kid but that's still quite off in the distance and even then will mainly be available to the rich.


On the other hand, should we oppose it because its kind of nazi'ish?
The thing with the Nazis was that their eugenics program was forced and was only "positive" in their point of view. These types of things should never be forced upon individuals by the state.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 02:47 AM
On the other hand, should we oppose it because its kind of nazi'ish?


Not at all, it would only be Naziesque if we started attatching certian values to 'racial features' that had no such value or even didn't really exist.

Personally I think we should fully support this for medical uses, but not for any genetic improvment uses: until that is we get rid of this bloody 'capitalism' thing. Then I think we should work on improving the human species as much as possible.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 01:07 am

Where do most people stand on the idea the one day people will be able to be born and doctors will be able to make sure they don’t have disabilities and such.
That's already happening to a degree.

Gene therapy, an aspect of genetic engineering, is continually advancing. I think it is quite interesting and uplifting to know that we are not bound to our "natural" limits and that we can change these things which we have always thought were immutable.

Now, I can only think of using this for beneficial reasons in the future though it may get to a point where it becomes something like plastic surgery in which everybody will wanna make the Fabio-Einstein kid but that's still quite off in the distance and even then will mainly be available to the rich.


On the other hand, should we oppose it because its kind of nazi'ish?
The thing with the Nazis was that their eugenics program was forced and was only "positive" in their point of view. These types of things should never be forced upon individuals by the state.
when we get the technology perfected, it will be a world of tall healthy people. although alot of people argue against the concept of medically engineered children (saying that it would result in a world of tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, fair-complcted, strong, beautiful people... kind of like hitler's dream race) i think it's kind of a good idea.

think about how great it would be if no one had to worry about their children being born retarded or crippled. and what about bad eyes (a problem that affects me, personally)... and bad ears and weaklings?

so thus i say: set legal limits to the ammount of genetic manipulation that may be allowed. don't let people determine the looks of their baby (besides... it would be really wierd to see a black couple with a hitler baby, or an asian couple with a jew-einstein baby), but let them asure that their child is born healthy, intelligent, and free of mutations (which will become more common if these pollution levels keep rising)

...

but aside from all of that... choose your partner from a different race than your own.

mixing races brings in new strains of dna --> new ways to fight disease.

it's the same concept as inbreeding (well, that is, it's the same concept as NOT inbreeding, anyway).

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Jazzratt+October 10, 2006 01:30 am--> (Jazzratt @ October 10, 2006 01:30 am)
[email protected]ct 9 2006, 02:47 AM
On the other hand, should we oppose it because its kind of nazi'ish?


Not at all, it would only be Naziesque if we started attatching certian values to 'racial features' that had no such value or even didn't really exist. [/b]
Exactly. If germ-line gene therapy can help the proletariat then it shouldnt be condemned.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Absolutely support it, as long as cosmetics stay out of it.

What if we could alter our babies to make them have more empathy, a better capacity for critical thought, a brilliant poet, etc.

Dream world.

-Alex

[Political_Chucky]

Yea I think as long as its not necessarily for a social benefit but more of a benefit for the child’s own health and mind. Appearance should really stay out of it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Yes. We support non-voluntary eugenics policies. There is no reason we can't "play god." There may be some scientific arguments against it, but I am not aware of any credible ones that aren't slippery slope arguments. It should also apply to appearance and be monitored by the collective.

[MrDoom]

If it were possible, a number of animal and plant traits, as well as nanotech cybernetic augmentations would be an incredible leap for mankind in adaptability and specieal fortitude.

[piet11111]

i dont see a problem in genetic enchancements of our offspring.
aslong it is done reponsibly and doesnt involve cosmetic alterations then im ok with it.

it should not become some designer baby that will have blonde hair and blue eyes and a tall body.

but if we could give them other advantages like superior memory health etc. that we should allow.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Why is everyone against doing it for cosmetic purposes? Why not?

[LSD]

it should not become some designer baby that will have blonde hair and blue eyes and a tall body.

The subtle Nazi assides notwithstanding, there is absolutely nothing wrong with parents determining the cosmetic features of their children. Of all the dangers of "designer" genetic modification, cosmetics are one of the more benign ones.

Remember, as long as we're talking about capitalist society, any advances in genetic technlogies will be exclusively available to the rich, at least for the forseeable future.

So while improved minds and abilities may seem more "substantive" than improved looks, it will actually only serve to help the bourgeoisie perpetuate its dominance.

There are enough definitions of "beauty" out there that it's pretty much impossible to monopolize good looks, but in our semi-meritocratic class society, ability is very easy to quantify.

That means that once this technlogy becomes viable, the rulling class will gain yet another tool to assure their progeneration.

Selecting hair colour is ultimately superficial, breeding an "improved" race of bourgeois elites is a far more frightening possibility.

[Aeturnal Narcosis]

although... if you think about it... in a dozen or so generations , we'd all look the same and racial discrimination would disappear...

and... could you imagine... no man would have to try real hard to get with a tall, skinny blonde supermodel-like woman... they'd be everywhere, and all us men would be tall, blonde, blue-eyed beautiful people too....

[EwokUtopia]

But then wouldnt we just be creating new castes of Uberhumans and the regulars? How would we stop the smarter, prettier, stronger, healthier genetically enhanced humans from oppressing over the naturally born ones? If it is voluntary, those who opt out of it will be left behind, if it is involuntary, that takes away peoples inalienable rights of reproductive liberties. This is a pitfall we would be wise to avoid.

[anarchista feminista]

Originally posted by Aeturnal Narcosis+October 28, 2006 03:18 am--> (Aeturnal Narcosis @ October 28, 2006 03:18 am)
[email protected] 10, 2006 01:07 am

when we get the technology perfected, it will be a world of tall healthy people. although alot of people argue against the concept of medically engineered children (saying that it would result in a world of tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, fair-complcted, strong, beautiful people... kind of like hitler's dream race) i think it's kind of a good idea.

think about how great it would be if no one had to worry about their children being born retarded or crippled. and what about bad eyes (a problem that affects me, personally)... and bad ears and weaklings?

so thus i say: set legal limits to the ammount of genetic manipulation that may be allowed. don't let people determine the looks of their baby (besides... it would be really wierd to see a black couple with a hitler baby, or an asian couple with a jew-einstein baby), but let them asure that their child is born healthy, intelligent, and free of mutations (which will become more common if these pollution levels keep rising)

...

but aside from all of that... choose your partner from a different race than your own.

mixing races brings in new strains of dna --> new ways to fight disease.

it's the same concept as inbreeding (well, that is, it's the same concept as NOT inbreeding, anyway). [/b]
yes, but sometimes I wonder where will it end? they can give the option of the sex of the baby which i suppose in some cases may be okay (a mother perhaps always dreaming of having a girl) but it might completely change the ratio of males to females. I like how Australia is so multicultural although we are still quite a rascist country. I don't like the idea of this being used for cosmetic purposes. Parents should be greatful for the child they are given. I know I would be devestated if my parents chose to make me beautiful. It would make me feel unloved no matter what their reasons are. Your parents are supposed to love you even though this isn't always the case but it shouldn't matter what you look like. So for medical reasons I suppose that could be okay.

[Module]

Originally posted by anarchy_oi+October 30, 2006 11:52 pm--> (anarchy_oi @ October 30, 2006 11:52 pm)
Originally posted by Aeturnal [email protected] 28, 2006 03:18 am

[email protected] 10, 2006 01:07 am

when we get the technology perfected, it will be a world of tall healthy people. although alot of people argue against the concept of medically engineered children (saying that it would result in a world of tall, blonde-haired, blue-eyed, fair-complcted, strong, beautiful people... kind of like hitler's dream race) i think it's kind of a good idea.

think about how great it would be if no one had to worry about their children being born retarded or crippled. and what about bad eyes (a problem that affects me, personally)... and bad ears and weaklings?

so thus i say: set legal limits to the ammount of genetic manipulation that may be allowed. don't let people determine the looks of their baby (besides... it would be really wierd to see a black couple with a hitler baby, or an asian couple with a jew-einstein baby), but let them asure that their child is born healthy, intelligent, and free of mutations (which will become more common if these pollution levels keep rising)

...

but aside from all of that... choose your partner from a different race than your own.

mixing races brings in new strains of dna --> new ways to fight disease.

it's the same concept as inbreeding (well, that is, it's the same concept as NOT inbreeding, anyway).
yes, but sometimes I wonder where will it end? they can give the option of the sex of the baby which i suppose in some cases may be okay (a mother perhaps always dreaming of having a girl) but it might completely change the ratio of males to females. I like how Australia is so multicultural although we are still quite a rascist country. I don't like the idea of this being used for cosmetic purposes. Parents should be greatful for the child they are given. I know I would be devestated if my parents chose to make me beautiful. It would make me feel unloved no matter what their reasons are. Your parents are supposed to love you even though this isn't always the case but it shouldn't matter what you look like. So for medical reasons I suppose that could be okay.[/b]
I've always had a problem with the idea of genetic alteration of human beings... for diseases or disabilities it's alright, but to make a child more intelligent, more creative etc. I'm not so in favour of it. All the measures of these things in the individual is what makes them who they are. I would not want to give my child artificial characteristics such as making them smarter, and I would not want anybody else to do it to their children either. Diversity in our species is what makes us appreciate those around us. One child may be naturally beautiful and another child may be naturally smart. I think most people in this forum can agree that intelligence is definately another admirable thing to have. Just as if every child was made beautiful appreciation for beauty would slowly dissappear, appreciation for intelligence would dissappear in the same way. What about somebody who was genetically altered to become more creative? Would you admire him/her so much as if they were naturally gifted with their talents? Why should some be given something they are not naturally entitled to? Does this not take away due admiration and appreciation from those who are?
The things that are considered great amongst our species are only so in comparison. Yes they are great, and should be considered great because they are so naturally. Somebody made great through genetic alteration does not deserve the same admiration as they are not in any way a jewel in our species to be proud of, merely a result of another abuse of technology.

[Module]

And also, since I imagine genetic alteration to make children smarter would be a very expensive procedure... it would end up being restricted to the richer members of society... so they'd be richer AND more intelligent! Eh? Myes.

[anarchista feminista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 06:42 pm
And also, since I imagine genetic alteration to make children smarter would be a very expensive procedure... it would end up being restricted to the richer members of society... so they'd be richer AND more intelligent! Eh? Myes.
AH! I did not consider this. You're a smart one. ;)

[Physco Bitch]

While doing this for the purposes of helping people with disabilties goes, this is a good idea as they should have the same chance as everyone else when it comes to living a life without such things. But i watched a dramatized programe a couple of years ago where they rightly pointed out that it will just push an even bigger wedge between the population. Those who are poor will have to live with illness or disabileites while the rich will have perfect babies how look great, talk perfectly and are little Einsteins. In the prgramme it howed the poorer persons side where the rich would block of big chunks of cities and put huge fences and secruity equitement to keep out the "lower end" of society. This may not happen, but if they only make it availble to the rich forever then this could happen. This is a great idea as far as i can see but there is always the other darker side which usually becomes inevitible in these kind of sitiuations. Though as this might well take a long time to surface- who nows what state the world could be in, we could all be getting on greatly and the big rich and poor divide could be a thing of the past. Then again i think the lightlyhood of that happening is as small a chance of a capitilst politician actually telling the truth <_< .

[TC]

*all* technological advances in medicine that extend people&#39;s lives and all fashions and cosmetics are first available to the rich when they&#39;re discovered in capitalist states.

And yet, i&#39;ve never heard anyone say that we shouldn&#39;t allow heart transplants because they disproportionately benefit the rich, that we shouldn&#39;t do research into anti-AIDS drugs that mostly benefit rich HIV + people while poor HIV + people die, or that we should stop cancer research and so on.

So my feeling is that recourse to the &#39;it will just benefit the rich&#39; arguments is more an excuse to justify opposing genetic modification on entirely different grounds.

My suspicion is that it has much less to do with fear of using it for bourgeois hierarchy and much more to do with an irrational, traditionalist, conservative fetishizing of "the natural", viewing human reproduction as some kindof sacred space that ought not to be messed with by people &#39;playing god.&#39;

Theres no justification for instance for not wanting people to pick their babies apperance apart from a wholely irrational belief that those things are &#39;best left alone&#39; for &#39;nature to decide.&#39; People effectivfely choose the parameteres of their child&#39;s physical apperance through genetic selection as it is now because they pick the father based on apperance...if tall blonde nazi babies are scary how about the fact that there are nations full of scandenavians who (shock, horror) have children with other tall blonde white blue eyed people knowing full well that this will (shock, horror) likely mean their children too will be tall blonde and blue eyed.


I know that everyone loves their children (hahaha) but if given the option, anyone who wants children would surely prefer, wanting the best for them, that they be intellegent and attractive as intellegence and good looks make people&#39;s lives a lot easier and they&#39;d want that for themselves.

[Module]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 10:04 pm
*all* technological advances in medicine that extend people&#39;s lives and all fashions and cosmetics are first available to the rich when they&#39;re discovered in capitalist states.

And yet, i&#39;ve never heard anyone say that we shouldn&#39;t allow heart transplants because they disproportionately benefit the rich, that we shouldn&#39;t do research into anti-AIDS drugs that mostly benefit rich HIV + people while poor HIV + people die, or that we should stop cancer research and so on.

So my feeling is that recourse to the &#39;it will just benefit the rich&#39; arguments is more an excuse to justify opposing genetic modification on entirely different grounds.

My suspicion is that it has much less to do with fear of using it for bourgeois hierarchy and much more to do with an irrational, traditionalist, conservative fetishizing of "the natural", viewing human reproduction as some kindof sacred space that ought not to be messed with by people &#39;playing god.&#39;

Theres no justification for instance for not wanting people to pick their babies apperance apart from a wholely irrational belief that those things are &#39;best left alone&#39; for &#39;nature to decide.&#39; People effectivfely choose the parameteres of their child&#39;s physical apperance through genetic selection as it is now because they pick the father based on apperance...if tall blonde nazi babies are scary how about the fact that there are nations full of scandenavians who (shock, horror) have children with other tall blonde white blue eyed people knowing full well that this will (shock, horror) likely mean their children too will be tall blonde and blue eyed.


I know that everyone loves their children (hahaha) but if given the option, anyone who wants children would surely prefer, wanting the best for them, that they be intellegent and attractive as intellegence and good looks make people&#39;s lives a lot easier and they&#39;d want that for themselves.
Nobody here is saying they shouldn&#39;t be used to cure diseases, but measures of attractiveness, intellect, creativity etc. are things that make an individual who she/he is. When we all have these things they would no longer be things to admire. Naturally gifted individuals would no longer be things to admire. <opn*>It is the difference of levels in all qualities people may have which help to create all the diversity in the human world. All capacity of intellect or creativity mixed with the difference experiences filtered through these things as well as the measure of your attractiveness, or just your appearence in general is what creates such a wide variety of minds.. and henceforth ideas and opinions.</opn>
The justification for parents not wanting to pick their babies appearance is that,
1. Appearance is something that should be in no way important, and if genetically engineering the appearance of your child became a widespread thing the world would become far more cosmetically based and the human species less diverse, and tolerance for unattractiveness or difference of appearence in general would undoubtably decrease.
(I should probably put <opn></opn> here too)
2. Beauty is merely an opinion. I know I&#39;ve been very much attracted to people that others thought were completely rancid, and quite frankly, a lot of the models I see on advertisements or the like or even most of the people others I know find "so hawwwt" I see as having a pretty boring face. What about people like me? What&#39;s going to happen when all the beautiful uglies dissappear? (That doesn&#39;t sound too good but its the only way I could phrase it&#33;)
3. Due to the obvious mob-mentality of us human beings, an attractive person to average bob number 1 will look very very similar to the attractive person to average bob number 2. Let&#39;s face it, 90% of human being&#39;s personal preference changes to suit that of everybody else. If people were really allowed to change the appearance of their children to look what they consider to be attractive, people are going to start looking quite similar. Sure, they&#39;ll all have straight noses, long eyelashes and blonde wavy hair and human beings will be quite an "attractive" bunch... but I mean... you know. :wacko: The number of cliche beautiful members of the various ethnic groups would undoubtably increase.
4. Because I&#39;m actually secretly a conservative christian and I was lying the whole time. :o

* opinion
...Actually most of this post was just a personal opinion of mine. Mo well.

Edit: There was a spelling mistake :ph34r:

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by TC+--> (TC)So my feeling is that recourse to the &#39;it will just benefit the rich&#39; arguments is more an excuse to justify opposing genetic modification on entirely different grounds.[/b]

Spot on, I&#39;m in agreement with you here. It does indeed seem like an attempt to justify a moralistic, semi-religious way of thinking. In capitalism progress mostly benefits the rich but that definitely doesn&#39;t mean we should be against it. That would be insanity.


mogenim
Nobody here is saying they shouldn&#39;t be used to cure diseases, but measures of attractiveness, intellect, creativity etc. are things that make an individual who she/he is

Should genetic engineering be used to increase attractiviness? Why not.

Intellect and creativity? Absolutely&#33; There is no reason to glorify ignorance, ever.


When we all have these things they would no longer be things to admire. Naturally gifted individuals would no longer be things to admire.

We do not need a fucking elite to admire, as that requires inequality. Why do you think optimising the abilities of all would make everyone the same? That just doesn&#39;t make any sense at all. People would still be unique due to different uprisings and experiences.

See, our goal must be giving every individual the best starting position in life possible. That also benefits our species as a whole. Being against that can only be reactionary.

We humans must take control of our destiny if we are to prevail in an ever changing, hostile world.

And no misery is necessary or &#39;sacred&#39;.


Because I&#39;m actually secretly a conservative christian and I was lying the whole time.

You might not be, but your position here sure seems like one such a person would hold, idealistic and a little weird to be frank. No offense..

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 09:22 am
Nobody here is saying they shouldn&#39;t be used to cure diseases, but measures of attractiveness, intellect, creativity etc. are things that make an individual who she/he is.
It&#39;s generally an indivduals personality that makes them who they are, regardless of these factors.


When we all have these things they would no longer be things to admire. Naturally gifted individuals would no longer be things to admire. Yes, so what? We don&#39;t need people to be &#39;admired&#39; for being "better" than the norm. We want everyone to be brilliant.
<opn*>It is the difference of levels in all qualities people may have which help to create all the diversity in the human world. All capacity of intellect or creativity mixed with the difference experiences filtered through these things as well as the measure of your attractiveness, or just your appearence in general is what creates such a wide variety of minds.. and henceforth ideas and opinions.</opn> So if we all looked the same, or had any deformities removed from birth we would all be the same? Would I have different ideas to the ones I do now if my parents had decided I should have green eyes and striaght hair?

The justification for parents not wanting to pick their babies appearance is that,
1. Appearance is something that should be in no way important, and if genetically engineering the appearance of your child became a widespread thing the world would become far more cosmetically based and the human species less diverse, and tolerance for unattractiveness or difference of appearence in general would undoubtably decrease.
(I should probably put <opn></opn> here too) most of your <opn>s seem to be complete bullshit, and here is no different. You&#39;re for a start assuming that people would be intolerant of differences to some standard appearence, but who is to say that there will be a standard appearence - after all many different parents will want different things for their child. Also they can only really change little parts of appearence, they can&#39;t make their child "pretty".

2. Beauty is merely an opinion. I know I&#39;ve been very much attracted to people that others thought were completely rancid, and quite frankly, a lot of the models I see on advertisements or the like or even most of the people others I know find "so hawwwt" I see as having a pretty boring face. What about people like me? What&#39;s going to happen when all the beautiful uglies dissappear? (That doesn&#39;t sound too good but its the only way I could phrase it&#33;) Well I assume that people like you are capable of reproducing? That and as stated above there is no way of making somone "pretty" for this very reason.

3. Due to the obvious mob-mentality of us human beings, an attractive person to average bob number 1 will look very very similar to the attractive person to average bob number 2. Let&#39;s face it, 90% of human being&#39;s personal preference changes to suit that of everybody else. If people were really allowed to change the appearance of their children to look what they consider to be attractive, people are going to start looking quite similar. Sure, they&#39;ll all have straight noses, long eyelashes and blonde wavy hair and human beings will be quite an "attractive" bunch... but I mean... you know. :wacko: The number of cliche beautiful members of the various ethnic groups would undoubtably increase. So what? It sounds like you judge waaaaaaaay too much by appearence.

4. Because I&#39;m actually secretly a conservative christian and I was lying the whole time. :o I think Sentinel&#39;s reply to this worked.

[Module]

Hmm, so you think that if everybody was equal in terms of the various mental abilities then people would still be just as unique? Personality is something that is shaped by your mental abilities and experience throughout your life, and whatever unique intellectual traits you may have will undoubtably effect what personality you have.. how you percieve certain situations, how you learn, how you understand, how you react etc.
It also effects your intrests, for example, creative individuals generally enjoy things that stimulate their creativity. Human beings enjoy their differences to others. It&#39;s what makes them feel special. Everybody has their own strengths and weaknesses, and they do a large part in shaping who they are. To make mental ability the same for every human being is undoubtably going to have a dramatic effect on individuality because it is that which makes your experiences that much different from other people&#39;s. I love the differences in people, and there is absolutely nothing "weird" about that.
Do you honestly think that the best way to create equality is to scientifically destroy all intellectual difference? Now that, to me, is very weird.

So if we all looked the same, or had any deformities removed from birth we would all be the same? Would I have different ideas to the ones I do now if my parents had decided I should have green eyes and striaght hair?

most of your <opn>s seem to be complete bullshit, and here is no different. You&#39;re for a start assuming that people would be intolerant of differences to some standard appearence, but who is to say that there will be a standard appearence - after all many different parents will want different things for their child. Also they can only really change little parts of appearence, they can&#39;t make their child "pretty".
I didn&#39;t say you would all be the same because of appearence completely.. you&#39;re intellectual modifications will do most of that job fine. People are all shallow to a degree, and not a small one at that. People are taught that appearance important, which is undoubtably what would motivate them to want to change the appearence of their child in the first place. How you look will effect how people see and treat you, and henceforth how you turn out as a person, no matter what you would like to believe.
Deformities I have nothing wrong with changing, of course, but have I ever said anything that obviously includes that? No. General appearance, what I have been talking about, is what I am concerned with.
I don&#39;t know what world you&#39;re living in, but people in this one ARE intolerant of differences from the standard appearence. A good example of this is the simple existence of fashion.

So what? It sounds like you judge waaaaaaaay too much by appearence.
I see absolutely nothing which implies this.


You might not be, but your position here sure seems like one such a person would hold, idealistic and a little weird to be frank. No offense..
I&#39;d consider it quite idealistic to consider personality as mentally shallow enough to make everybody as intellectually able as eachother and still maintain a society just as diverse.

[Rodack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 01:07 am

Where do most people stand on the idea the one day people will be able to be born and doctors will be able to make sure they don’t have disabilities and such.
That&#39;s already happening to a degree.

Gene therapy, an aspect of genetic engineering, is continually advancing. I think it is quite interesting and uplifting to know that we are not bound to our "natural" limits and that we can change these things which we have always thought were immutable.

Now, I can only think of using this for beneficial reasons in the future though it may get to a point where it becomes something like plastic surgery in which everybody will wanna make the Fabio-Einstein kid but that&#39;s still quite off in the distance and even then will mainly be available to the rich.


On the other hand, should we oppose it because its kind of nazi&#39;ish?
The thing with the Nazis was that their eugenics program was forced and was only "positive" in their point of view. These types of things should never be forced upon individuals by the state.
Will society except a &#39;Master Race&#39; through labratory conditions instead of Hitlers social program of Racial Genocide by creating the perfect human and allowing time to rid society of those deemed &#39;Sub Human&#39;&#39;. Is cloning also a form of Genocide by means of scientific reasearch. Is this more acceptable to society than weeding those out and loading them on to railroad carts too extermination camps? You raise a very intresting question, Comrade

[rebel_heart]

i have to say i&#39;m against all this perfect people thing it reminds me of hitler and the Aryans and in addition if they can control the way new babies look they&#39;ll be able to control the way they think as well...

[Rodack]

Originally posted by Physco *****@October 31, 2006 03:30 pm
While doing this for the purposes of helping people with disabilties goes, this is a good idea as they should have the same chance as everyone else when it comes to living a life without such things. But i watched a dramatized programe a couple of years ago where they rightly pointed out that it will just push an even bigger wedge between the population. Those who are poor will have to live with illness or disabileites while the rich will have perfect babies how look great, talk perfectly and are little Einsteins. In the prgramme it howed the poorer persons side where the rich would block of big chunks of cities and put huge fences and secruity equitement to keep out the "lower end" of society. This may not happen, but if they only make it availble to the rich forever then this could happen. This is a great idea as far as i can see but there is always the other darker side which usually becomes inevitible in these kind of sitiuations. Though as this might well take a long time to surface- who nows what state the world could be in, we could all be getting on greatly and the big rich and poor divide could be a thing of the past. Then again i think the lightlyhood of that happening is as small a chance of a capitilst politician actually telling the truth <_< .
Sacrafices must be made in order to achieve our ultimate goal of equality and freedom for all. Yes, there will be some who will say that equality and freedom are directly apossed to one another, that you can not be truly free in a equal society and you can not be truly equal in a free society. These are the hurdles that we as intelecuals must over come and conquer for the good of all, Comrades

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 05:37 am
Hmm, so you think that if everybody was equal in terms of the various mental abilities then people would still be just as unique?
You&#39;re claiming that people of the same intellectual ability are the same :lol: What the fuck?


Personality is something that is shaped by your mental abilities and experience throughout your life, and whatever unique intellectual traits you may have will undoubtably effect what personality you have.. how you percieve certain situations, how you learn, how you understand, how you react etc. THis is a poor justification for allowing the existance of stupid people whilst preventing us from reaching a new stage in our evolution. A) It assumes that two people of the same intellectual ability will be so similar as to make no odds, which is bollocks. It also assumes that personal experiences have such a negligble affect that they can be simply mentioned and then ignored.

It also effects your intrests, for example, creative individuals generally enjoy things that stimulate their creativity. Human beings enjoy their differences to others. It&#39;s what makes them feel special. Everybody has their own strengths and weaknesses, and they do a large part in shaping who they are. To make mental ability the same for every human being is undoubtably going to have a dramatic effect on individuality because it is that which makes your experiences that much different from other people&#39;s. I love the differences in people, and there is absolutely nothing "weird" about that. You&#39;re creating a massive strawman from our arguments, we do not think that everyone should be the same but simply that everyone should be the best we can possibly make them.What&#39;s "weird" about your arguments is not that you like differences but you believe that they are created entirely by differences in intelligence. Hell, no you make claims about what people may or may not enjoy based on their mental abilities rather than any predispositions.

Do you honestly think that the best way to create equality is to scientifically destroy all intellectual difference? Now that, to me, is very weird. That would be one way of achieving it. THis however is not about equality, because I already aim for that through my political ideology. This is about improvement of humanity.


So if we all looked the same, or had any deformities removed from birth we would all be the same? Would I have different ideas to the ones I do now if my parents had decided I should have green eyes and striaght hair?

most of your <opn>s seem to be complete bullshit, and here is no different. You&#39;re for a start assuming that people would be intolerant of differences to some standard appearence, but who is to say that there will be a standard appearence - after all many different parents will want different things for their child. Also they can only really change little parts of appearence, they can&#39;t make their child "pretty".
I didn&#39;t say you would all be the same because of appearence completely.. you&#39;re intellectual modifications will do most of that job fine. Absolutley fucking groundless.
People are all shallow to a degree, and not a small one at that. People are taught that appearance important, which is undoubtably what would motivate them to want to change the appearence of their child in the first place. How you look will effect how people see and treat you, and henceforth how you turn out as a person, no matter what you would like to believe.So appearnce will matter as much in a society that can change it easily (through advanced cosmetic surgeries for example) as it does now? You think that if you got two different mothers to decide on their babies appearence the two would look identical?

Deformities I have nothing wrong with changing, of course, but have I ever said anything that obviously includes that? No. General appearance, what I have been talking about, is what I am concerned with. Why, so far all I&#39;ve seen is pure emotional arguments. Emotion just doesn&#39;t wash with me on these matters.

I don&#39;t know what world you&#39;re living in, but people in this one ARE intolerant of differences from the standard appearence. A good example of this is the simple existence of fashion. So an industry based on appearnce exists, therefore all of humanity must judge by appearence. There is a small and illegal industry for the manufacture of child pornography - are we all, then, paedophiles? Does the meat industry make us all non-vegetarian? THe tobbacco industry make us all smokers? There are so many ways in which you are wrong.


So what? It sounds like you judge waaaaaaaay too much by appearence.
I see absolutely nothing which implies this. The fact that your every argument seems to be based on what you think about appearance and &#39;uniqueness&#39;.



You might not be, but your position here sure seems like one such a person would hold, idealistic and a little weird to be frank. No offense..
I&#39;d consider it quite idealistic to consider personality as mentally shallow enough to make everybody as intellectually able as eachother and still maintain a society just as diverse. Society would remain diverse. Diversity is no sacred object, it&#39;s preservation is a want borne of pure emotionalism. Most of the "diversity" you preach is based on having inferior members of the human race.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2006 08:59 am
i have to say i&#39;m against all this perfect people thing it reminds me of hitler and the Aryans
You&#39;re clearly an idiot then, it&#39;s already been explained how this is not the case. The idea of a &#39;Master Race&#39; falls down at around the word &#39;Race&#39;. Simply desiring to increase humanity&#39;s capacity for improvement and so on does not make one a nazi.


and in addition if they can control the way new babies look they&#39;ll be able to control the way they think as well... Please, show me how you came to this conclusion. Is it just emotionalism? All we could really do is find a way of changing a person&#39;s capacity for thought, which would be increased. I think you need to lay down the dystopian fiction - friend.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Unless you object to education after birth, don&#39;t object to increasing intelligence pre-birth.

Unless you object to make up, exercise to improve physique, anything like that, don&#39;t object to cosmetic design before birth.

Unless you object to teaching a child basic wrong and right, don&#39;t object to increasing empathy and moral intuition before birth.

The list goes on. Why attach such sentimentality to birth?

-Alex

P.S. I have an emotional reluctance to accept the cosmetic side of it all, but rationally there&#39;s no real objections that aren&#39;t slippery slope or Nazi paralells.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 12:46 am
On the other hand, should we oppose it because its kind of nazi&#39;ish?


I don&#39;t think it is related to nazism at all, because the nazis were trying to create a perfect race via extermination and pseudo-science, however we are trying to eliminate and cure various diseases, and disabilities (regardless of race), via technology.

I think if we have the capability to cure these ailments, why not?

[Sentinel]

Even though people opposed to genetic engineering sometimes try to disguise their intentions behind veils of rational argument, it comes down to emotionality, and the fear of change.

This is basically nothing but the same argument that we would have with the religious, with nature-worshippers or primmies. The glorification of ignorance takes many forms indeed, but in every case it plays into the hands of the ruling class.

&#39;Things are meant to be the way they are, we should not mess with nature&#39;. -- We are part of that &#39;nature&#39;, nothing we do can be &#39;unnatural&#39;, ever.

&#39;We should not play god&#39;. -- Yes we fucking should, and we will. Actually, our abilities will go far beyond anything the authors of &#39;holy&#39; scripture could ever imagine to those of their &#39;gods&#39; to be.

&#39;We would all be the same&#39; is an interesting argument against genetic engineering, indeed. Guess who likes using it as well? Rightwingers, when talking about communism. &#39;Equality would be boring&#39; -- to those who are customed to oppress others, maybe. :angry:

We live in a hostile world, and it&#39;s our duty towards ourselves and future generations to make it perfect for us, as well as make ourselves perfect in order to inhabit it, and to rule it.

Given that we increasingly have the means to do this, abstaining would be insanity. It would be like a caveman saying, &#39;no, fire is dangerous, we have managed without it so far and should not use it&#39;. It would be the victory of irrational fear, something we can never allow, not if we still listen to the words of the Internationale:

Our own right hand the chains must shiver, chains of hatred, greed and fear&#33;

[Module]

Originally posted by Jazzrat+--> (Jazzrat)You&#39;re claiming that people of the same intellectual ability are the same :lol: What the fuck?[/b]
My point&#39;s just gone straight over your head, hasn&#39;t it?


Originally posted by Jazzrat+--> (Jazzrat)THis is a poor justification for allowing the existance of stupid people whilst preventing us from reaching a new stage in our evolution. A) It assumes that two people of the same intellectual ability will be so similar as to make no odds, which is bollocks. It also assumes that personal experiences have such a negligble affect that they can be simply mentioned and then ignored.[/b]
Hmm. You&#39;ve just managed to simplify my argument to the point of it no longer being the argument I was making.
What I said was that intellectual ability effects your experiences, which effects who you are, as well as effecting who you are directly. Does everybody encounter the exact same people throughout their life? Does everybody live in the same neighbourhood, have the same friends, become exposed to the same kinds of information as eachother? No. No they definately do not. So please explain to me how what I said led you to infer that everybody would be same based on intellectual ability alone? Infact, I explained that would NOT simply be the case with my argument against genetic alterations to appearance, did I not? I&#39;m pretty sure I did.
Your second &#39;assumption&#39; to validate my argument is completely unfounded as I have already explained that experiences help to shape you as a person, and your intellectual ability helps to shape your experiences. I&#39;m confused as to how you missed that.


Originally posted by Jazzrat
You&#39;re creating a massive strawman from our arguments, we do not think that everyone should be the same but simply that everyone should be the best we can possibly make them.What&#39;s "weird" about your arguments is not that you like differences but you believe that they are created entirely by differences in intelligence. Hell, no you make claims about what people may or may not enjoy based on their mental abilities rather than any predispositions.

Again, you&#39;ve come to incorrect conclusions (mysteriously?). Read the word &#39;effects&#39; used, not &#39;creates&#39;, which I typed nowhere. What makes you think that certain &#39;predispositions&#39; a human being might have rules out experience or environment, which I have already talked about. And again, what makes you think that they are separate from intellectual ability? Do you disagree that certain mental strengths effect what activities you can enjoy? I&#39;ve given my example. Why don&#39;t you try telling me why it&#39;s incorrect?


Originally posted by Jazzrat
So appearnce will matter as much in a society that can change it easily (through advanced cosmetic surgeries for example) as it does now? You think that if you got two different mothers to decide on their babies appearence the two would look identical?
Oh wow. I&#39;m surprised the impact of the avaliability of cosmetic surgery has managed to escape you.


Originally posted by Jazzrat
Why, so far all I&#39;ve seen is pure emotional arguments. Emotion just doesn&#39;t wash with me on these matters.
Are my arguments really purely emotional? Well in that case maybe you could borrow just a teensy bit of emotion from mine and we&#39;ll both be A-Okay. d (o_o) b


[email protected]
So an industry based on appearnce exists, therefore all of humanity must judge by appearence. There is a small and illegal industry for the manufacture of child pornography - are we all, then, paedophiles? Does the meat industry make us all non-vegetarian? THe tobbacco industry make us all smokers? There are so many ways in which you are wrong.
Human beings don&#39;t have a natural urge for smoking, or (99%) child pornography, whereas &#39;belonging&#39; is a very natural urge. The avoidment of meat is an ethical decision which is somewhat easy to make as long as a human being has become enlightened to it, due to it&#39;s solid obvious effects of exploitation of animals. Fashion&#39;s effects are far less obvious, combined with the fact that there are no &#39;clothing liberation&#39; organisations that explain the &#39;dangers&#39; of following fashion. The importance of fashion in western society cannot be compared to any of the things you&#39;ve mentioned.


Jazzrat
The fact that your every argument seems to be based on what you think about appearance and &#39;uniqueness&#39;.
So how does that mean I judge way too much by appearance?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by mogenim+November 06, 2006 05:13 am--> (mogenim @ November 06, 2006 05:13 am)
Originally posted by Jazzrat+--> (Jazzrat)You&#39;re claiming that people of the same intellectual ability are the same :lol: What the fuck?[/b]
My point&#39;s just gone straight over your head, hasn&#39;t it? [/b]
No.
"Hmm, so you think that if everybody was equal in terms of the various mental abilities then people would still be just as unique?" I imagine that to imply that people with the same mental abilities would be less unique, thus more "samey" which is a load of horseshit.




Originally posted by Jazzrat
THis is a poor justification for allowing the existance of stupid people whilst preventing us from reaching a new stage in our evolution. A) It assumes that two people of the same intellectual ability will be so similar as to make no odds, which is bollocks. It also assumes that personal experiences have such a negligble affect that they can be simply mentioned and then ignored.
Hmm. You&#39;ve just managed to simplify my argument to the point of it no longer being the argument I was making.
What I said was that intellectual ability effects your experiences, which effects who you are, as well as effecting who you are directly. Does everybody encounter the exact same people throughout their life? Does everybody live in the same neighbourhood, have the same friends, become exposed to the same kinds of information as eachother? No. No they definately do not. So please explain to me how what I said led you to infer that everybody would be same based on intellectual ability alone? Infact, I explained that would NOT simply be the case with my argument against genetic alterations to appearance, did I not? I&#39;m pretty sure I did.
Your second &#39;assumption&#39; to validate my argument is completely unfounded as I have already explained that experiences help to shape you as a person, and your intellectual ability helps to shape your experiences. I&#39;m confused as to how you missed that. So now you&#39;re backtracking and saying people won&#39;t be the same? Make up your fucking mind you irritating closet reactionary.



Originally posted by Jazzrat
You&#39;re creating a massive strawman from our arguments, we do not think that everyone should be the same but simply that everyone should be the best we can possibly make them.What&#39;s "weird" about your arguments is not that you like differences but you believe that they are created entirely by differences in intelligence. Hell, no you make claims about what people may or may not enjoy based on their mental abilities rather than any predispositions.

Again, you&#39;ve come to incorrect conclusions (mysteriously?). Read the word &#39;effects&#39; used, not &#39;creates&#39;, which I typed nowhere. What makes you think that certain &#39;predispositions&#39; a human being might have rules out experience or environment, which I have already talked about. And again, what makes you think that they are separate from intellectual ability? Do you disagree that certain mental strengths effect what activities you can enjoy? I&#39;ve given my example. Why don&#39;t you try telling me why it&#39;s incorrect? Again, your argument has changed, do you still oppose improving humanity?



Originally posted by Jazzrat
So appearnce will matter as much in a society that can change it easily (through advanced cosmetic surgeries for example) as it does now? You think that if you got two different mothers to decide on their babies appearence the two would look identical?
Oh wow. I&#39;m surprised the impact of the avaliability of cosmetic surgery has managed to escape you. :rolleyes: Oh please inform me great wise one. Think logically for a second, as much as it may pain you to do so, if we reach the point that we can do whatever we like with an embryo do you not think we would have similar cosmetic technologies for later in life? Meaning people can look how they damn well please



Originally posted by Jazzrat
Why, so far all I&#39;ve seen is pure emotional arguments. Emotion just doesn&#39;t wash with me on these matters.
Are my arguments really purely emotional? Well in that case maybe you could borrow just a teensy bit of emotion from mine and we&#39;ll both be A-Okay. d (o_o) b What the fuck do you need emotionalism in an argument for? The future is too important for us to piss around with petty emotionalisms.



[email protected]
So an industry based on appearnce exists, therefore all of humanity must judge by appearence. There is a small and illegal industry for the manufacture of child pornography - are we all, then, paedophiles? Does the meat industry make us all non-vegetarian? THe tobbacco industry make us all smokers? There are so many ways in which you are wrong.
Human beings don&#39;t have a natural urge for smoking, or (99%) child pornography, whereas &#39;belonging&#39; is a very natural urge. The avoidment of meat is an ethical decision which is somewhat easy to make as long as a human being has become enlightened to it, due to it&#39;s solid obvious effects of exploitation of animals. Fashion&#39;s effects are far less obvious, combined with the fact that there are no &#39;clothing liberation&#39; organisations that explain the &#39;dangers&#39; of following fashion. The importance of fashion in western society cannot be compared to any of the things you&#39;ve mentioned. (emphasis mine).
Christ I new you were bad, but a veggie too?&#33; That may also prove your undoing as avoiding meat is something a human must do consciously, meaning that by your logic the meat industry makes eating meat important to us. Also you may not have noticed but there are quite a lot of movements dedicated to stopping people following fashions.



Jazzrat
The fact that your every argument seems to be based on what you think about appearance and &#39;uniqueness&#39;.
So how does that mean I judge way too much by appearance? Why else would you believe it to be where our "individuality" stems from.