'Designer' Babies.

I didn’t expect that this would happen so soon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7918296.stm

Article wrote:A US clinic has sparked controversy by offering would-be parents the chance to select traits like the eye and hair colour of their offspring.

The LA Fertility Institutes run by Dr Jeff Steinberg, a pioneer of IVF in the 1970s, expects a trait-selected baby to be born next year.

Article wrote:This involves testing a cell taken from a very early embryo before it is put into the mother's womb.

Doctors then select an embryo free from rogue genes - or in this case an embryo with the desired physical traits such as blonde hair and blue eyes - to continue the pregnancy, and discard any others.

Very fascinating.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/03/03/2009-03-03_designakid_clinic_puts_offer_on_hold.html

Now (because of all the outrage and drama, I think) he's retracted it.

Curiouser and curiouser...

I don't know that I'd be comfortable changing my childs appearance- but I'd like to think this technology could be used to "fix" (for want of a better word) damaging mutations/ impairments en-utero (I think that's the word for "still in the womb)

Yeah, I can understand that. I, too, think the idea of preventing heinous genetic disorders should definitely be a standard (or compulsory) medical practice. But the cosmetic changes seem a little less justifiable, though I can't really think of a good reason against them...

How about- the kid has rights too, why should they look like a parents idea of perfect?

(not particularily worried- but thought this was a fun topic to debate)

Yeah, good suggested question for opening of debate.

But to that I would feel compelled to say,

Sure, the kid has rights... but how does that relate? Kids already don’t decide what genes they get. At least this method (potentially) puts some ‘rationality’ behind it.

But it's someone else's idea of good looking- at least if it isn't affected by a surgeon (or however it's done) they look like their own family- a fact that surely adds to their sense of identity, belonging, etc.

Yeah, but at least it is someone's... rather than random lottery like it is now (even though, sure, I think we shouldn’t place such emphasis on physical appearance, but we manifestly do).

I guess looking like your parents could be an argument. I don’t know how much of an important one it is though. I mean, what about adopted kids and sperm donors and what not, not to mention that a lot of kids don’t necessarily look much like either parent. Why would you need that as your source of identity? I don't, for what it's worth.

But many people do- i reckon if you took a poll of kids who look like members of their families, and ones who don't- which ones end up with psyche issues... hmm, a bit of a reach. try this: if we do start messing with kids looks before they come out of the womb, how long before someone creates (or re-creates) the idea of the supreme race?

Glenjamin wrote:hmm, a bit of a reach.

Ha, nice. I like that. Nah, I do get your point that people do associate with that kind of thing. But maybe that’s just because we’re used to it? I dunno. I mean, seriously, how different can you look from your parents... and how bad can that be?

The point about the ‘supreme race’ I don’t like. Sure, I guess it’s a serious one, and someone may suggest it, but all we have to do is reject them like we do now. I don’t see why this technology will make their idea any more legitimate.

It's already happening in places like India- people with lighter skin are given a higher status within the Caste system (or so is my limited understanding )- how long before we get Albino Indians as the norm? How long before a parents idea of perfect produces children who cannot step out into the sunlight and live lives without the ability to go out and enjoy God's creation in it's fullness?

Are you taking the piss?

No just presenting part of my view- and to bring back an earlier point, that looks are a random lottery- that i just don't believe, kids always have distinguishing features from their parents.

Yeah, okay, my fault—I did say “random lottery.” That can be misleading. Yes, genetics obviously plays a role, and so offspring inherit looks. But my point was that from the child’s perspective it might as well be a random lottery, because they don’t get to decide which parents they come from. It is essentially random, for all intents and purposes, that I have the specific looks that I do, despite me looking exactly like my dad; I didn’t choose what parent I would have....

But that's a whole different idea- who would choose their parents? I love mine, but if'd a choice- it'd be all Brangelina baby- Lokks AND Money! Or perhaps Warren Buffet, so i could look at the vast fortune i'm set to inherit and sigh, and think "What nation would i purchase today?"... but i think we have a different idea of random, Children (biological) will always inherit their looks from their forebears- this is a natural and sequential thing. The idea of a parent deciding their kid(s) should have none of their own features speaks of a society where looks count for more than anything (we lean that way already, but i don't think we're as far as this would inevitably take us), a society where the poor will be even further separated from the rich and eventually (it's possible guy) to a species which will separate itself racially to the point where genocide becomes natural- think nazi!

Well, I agreed with a lot of that. Most of it except for the Nazi thing. Again with the Nazis, Glen. No more Nazis!

I agree that a society that allows this may be one that focuses too much on appearances, and that maybe we should spend more effort on trying to foster a different attitude. But... I really just don’t see that happening. Not that that means we shouldn’t try, although I think that it may be like trying to ‘educate’ people to ‘not like’ junk food—it’s almost biologically impossible. People are going to be unconsciously driven towards what they’ve been ‘programmed’ to find attractive. And, couldn’t it be seen as being more humane to at least allow parents to free their children from certain unfortunate physical characteristics that those parents had foisted upon them and who found it rather difficult to endure? To me it seems rather unjust (perhaps even cruel) that we allow this forced passing on of characteristics which can often lead to whole lineages of peoples being prisoners of this genetic cage. And after all, it’s just a biological peculiarity.

I don't no that i can agree with classifying "passing on of characteristics" as cruel- I think the attitudes of people should be changed before we look at setting up a Gattica like society.

But what if the characteristics are cruel...?

Also, Gattica really blew as a movie... in my opinion.

Unless these characteristics impair the person (i'm not sure Characteristics can do that) then how are they cruel? it's the attitude of the people in society and their reactions to people that are cruel.

Also i agree that Gattica sucked, but it raised some interesting ideas, which pertain to this discussion!

Glenjamin wrote:it's the attitude of the people in society and their reactions to people that are cruel.

True. Good point. But haven’t you just described almost all subjective human experience? If you make it as vague as that, then anything is only dependant on people’s “attitude” and “reactions” e.g. food doesn’t taste good; it’s only peoples reaction to it. Murder isn’t wrong; it’s only how people perceive it.

Extreme examples, I know, but I use them because I don’t think you can just push it all aside by saying that it’s simply people’s attitudes. Everything is people’s attitudes, but that’s what our lives are.

I completely agree that people’s attitudes should be altered (but that’s just on a personal level). But then again, what are we proposing? To make it completely ‘uncruel’ wouldn’t we have to have people place absolutely no emphasis on physical appearance? Now, my overwhelming vanity aside, I don’t think I have much of a problem with that personally, but many people would. I think almost everyone takes a small amount of pleasure in trying to look good, and what-not, and I have no problem with that (I do it myself). Most people would probably feel that it’s actually quite a significant part of their life (significant only in the sense that it just adds to the small joys of everyday living). I wouldn’t necessarily want to take that away. And, the crux of argument: some people aren’t even afforded this small luxury, which can become progressively larger as time goes by.

So, in summing up, even if we could change people’s attitudes, would you really want to? I mean, I’m not sure we’re really appreciating what it would mean. You and I sit here and say "wouldn’t it be great if people didn’t focus on appearances". But then, we all enjoy indulging in such things: telling our girlfriends/wives that we find them physically attractive; the general lust felt at being with someone you find physically attractive etc.—everyone enjoys these. And, as cruel as it sounds, some people aren’t really allowed to experience this.

Removing people’s attitudes may probably have to remove those minor pleasurable things, which I don’t think people want to give up, and (possibly) shouldn’t have to.