The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Modern day science. New ventures, new technology, new ideas. Where does it all go too far?
With genetically modification already a reality in farming, a centre of controversy, how soon will it be before they start taking the same approach to humans? Designer Babies, choose their Sex, Eye and hair colour, height, build, features. Imagine that, doesn’t it disturb you? It does me.
But, doesn’t that all just seem wrong? Forget about the dangers, the advantages and the “New age glory” Doesn’t the principle, of making a human being in a way you’d like worry anyone else?
Agreed, in some cases things like choosing the sex of a child may be acceptable, like if there’s a certain disease that’ll only pass to a male child. But, apart from such cases is it right to choose the sex of a child purely on preference? Same with eye-colour and hair colour, can’t you just see these features going through “trends” just like clothe-fashion these days? Would you like to see a whole generation of blue-eyed, blonde haired children?
Screening for Genetic diseases and modifying the genes as needed could also be acceptable, scary thought, but better then for a child to be born without a genetic disease then with. But how serious can the disease be to warrant modifying? Allergies? Asthma? This too could be taken too far.
Think of the implications these could bring, only the rich would be able to afford such a thing as designer babies, given their children an upper hand in life, giving them the chance to do better then the most. The great gap between the rich and the poor will just get wider and wider as more of the rich modify their children to be a success, while the poor depend on luck. Couldn’t this almost separate the rich and poor into separate races?
Ignoring the evidence, ignoring the implications, I still think the idea of creating a child to a “design” is disturbing and wrong. The new step in science is a frightening possibility. Is this method of playing God right?
Iguana
With genetically modification already a reality in farming, a centre of controversy, how soon will it be before they start taking the same approach to humans? Designer Babies, choose their Sex, Eye and hair colour, height, build, features. Imagine that, doesn’t it disturb you? It does me.
But, doesn’t that all just seem wrong? Forget about the dangers, the advantages and the “New age glory” Doesn’t the principle, of making a human being in a way you’d like worry anyone else?
Agreed, in some cases things like choosing the sex of a child may be acceptable, like if there’s a certain disease that’ll only pass to a male child. But, apart from such cases is it right to choose the sex of a child purely on preference? Same with eye-colour and hair colour, can’t you just see these features going through “trends” just like clothe-fashion these days? Would you like to see a whole generation of blue-eyed, blonde haired children?
Screening for Genetic diseases and modifying the genes as needed could also be acceptable, scary thought, but better then for a child to be born without a genetic disease then with. But how serious can the disease be to warrant modifying? Allergies? Asthma? This too could be taken too far.
Think of the implications these could bring, only the rich would be able to afford such a thing as designer babies, given their children an upper hand in life, giving them the chance to do better then the most. The great gap between the rich and the poor will just get wider and wider as more of the rich modify their children to be a success, while the poor depend on luck. Couldn’t this almost separate the rich and poor into separate races?
Ignoring the evidence, ignoring the implications, I still think the idea of creating a child to a “design” is disturbing and wrong. The new step in science is a frightening possibility. Is this method of playing God right?
Iguana
Page:
Issues with genetic research are very poignant at the moment, Stem Cell research from human embryo's being the flavour of the month, particularly in the United States. The problems faced by this type of science are the same faced by any type and are as follows;
Is the field ethical?
How will the technology be used?
The first question raises the most concerns within some groups prominent in society today, is it right to be considering and carrying out this type of research, irrespective of it's apparent benefits to mankind? I find it funny that people suddenly grow a conscious when it comes to things like this. Seen what's going on in Israel at the moment? That's okay though, it's not me, it has no effect on my life.
But genetics, ooh that's scary, people could build a monster or wipe out the world with some new virulent strain of the common cold. Headline grabbing journalism masks the reality behind the work carried out within this institutes, branding men and women working to better the lives of others as murderers.
Genetics is the most powerful tool in modern medicine today. Vaccinations, identifying genomes, DNA strand structure and other advances are covered by it's shell. (No Genome, No Genome Soldier, No MGS...) All of these come from genetics. This technology has the power to save lives each year. Every year the Flu virus returns and mutates, starting a hunt for the vaccine to save the lives of millions of people each year. Genetics makes this possible.
If we want these advances, society is going to have to understand that sacrifices have to be made. Science requires experimentation.
The second question concerns worries that all rational people have about ANY new technology; 'How do we intend to use this?' Most new ideas within science are generally miss-understood by the general public, because of the complicated understanding required to grasp the ideas put forward. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, most people are perfectly capable of understanding the concepts and, more importantly the outcome of these advances. They do tend however, to focus on the negative uses of a technology, rather than the positive.
A mention of the word Nuclear, the classic double edged sword is a prime example. People fear Nuclear technologies, with good reason as well. Because of this fear, people overlook the staggering advances that have come around with the atomic age. Genetics must be handled with the same kid gloves, the power that comes with the responsibility of this knowledge is immense. To use this knowledge to select the attributes of your child is an example of the misuse of this power that the public fear. People assume that this is the reason for the technology, that in five years time we'll be picking out children from a catalogue in the same way we choose wall colour.
No. This won't happen. Even when these 'test cases' are reported on by the media, the illusion that these procedures will suddenly be available to one and all is clearly painted. The fact that these operations are carried out by leading practitioners in their respective fields in Universities across the world, seems to escape the notice of the general populace. The research value of such exploratory experiments is vital to the progression of medical science, theory only gets you so far.
The concerns that you put forward Iguana are valid ones, I agree with them completely. I do not think that you have to worry about it too much though, you're more likely to receive an injection that cures cancer within the next twenty years, than you are to choose how good your child is at maths.
Even if the intelligence gene can be proven to exist, you've got the whole Nature/Nurture thing going on. This post has been long enough as it is........
Is the field ethical?
How will the technology be used?
The first question raises the most concerns within some groups prominent in society today, is it right to be considering and carrying out this type of research, irrespective of it's apparent benefits to mankind? I find it funny that people suddenly grow a conscious when it comes to things like this. Seen what's going on in Israel at the moment? That's okay though, it's not me, it has no effect on my life.
But genetics, ooh that's scary, people could build a monster or wipe out the world with some new virulent strain of the common cold. Headline grabbing journalism masks the reality behind the work carried out within this institutes, branding men and women working to better the lives of others as murderers.
Genetics is the most powerful tool in modern medicine today. Vaccinations, identifying genomes, DNA strand structure and other advances are covered by it's shell. (No Genome, No Genome Soldier, No MGS...) All of these come from genetics. This technology has the power to save lives each year. Every year the Flu virus returns and mutates, starting a hunt for the vaccine to save the lives of millions of people each year. Genetics makes this possible.
If we want these advances, society is going to have to understand that sacrifices have to be made. Science requires experimentation.
The second question concerns worries that all rational people have about ANY new technology; 'How do we intend to use this?' Most new ideas within science are generally miss-understood by the general public, because of the complicated understanding required to grasp the ideas put forward. I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, most people are perfectly capable of understanding the concepts and, more importantly the outcome of these advances. They do tend however, to focus on the negative uses of a technology, rather than the positive.
A mention of the word Nuclear, the classic double edged sword is a prime example. People fear Nuclear technologies, with good reason as well. Because of this fear, people overlook the staggering advances that have come around with the atomic age. Genetics must be handled with the same kid gloves, the power that comes with the responsibility of this knowledge is immense. To use this knowledge to select the attributes of your child is an example of the misuse of this power that the public fear. People assume that this is the reason for the technology, that in five years time we'll be picking out children from a catalogue in the same way we choose wall colour.
No. This won't happen. Even when these 'test cases' are reported on by the media, the illusion that these procedures will suddenly be available to one and all is clearly painted. The fact that these operations are carried out by leading practitioners in their respective fields in Universities across the world, seems to escape the notice of the general populace. The research value of such exploratory experiments is vital to the progression of medical science, theory only gets you so far.
The concerns that you put forward Iguana are valid ones, I agree with them completely. I do not think that you have to worry about it too much though, you're more likely to receive an injection that cures cancer within the next twenty years, than you are to choose how good your child is at maths.
Even if the intelligence gene can be proven to exist, you've got the whole Nature/Nurture thing going on. This post has been long enough as it is........
I'd just like to make something clear, as I don't think I did in my original post. I think there are many advantages to modifying babies, but I feel it should only be for medical reasons and not cosmetic.
Scary prospect, lots can go wrong, but won't if it's used right and sensibly.
Scary prospect, lots can go wrong, but won't if it's used right and sensibly.
The whole cloning thing that's currently up in the air is actually a publicity stunt to promote the title of the new Star Wars movie, Attack of the Clones....
People are looking at this cloning thing and picturing the worst case scenario, taking that as fact and screaming about totalitarian future worlds with under-classes etc.
We already have that without cloning. You don’t make decisions that affect the world, you make decisions for your life. There are a few people that do run things, and you have no say in it.
If we stifle and “forbid” advances, through things like research and experimentation, then we will never move any further forward than we are now. That, to me, is a Luddite attitude and has place in the 21st century.
We need to be continually pushing our boundaries, or we have wasted millions of years of evolution (sorry creationists).
The only part that causes problems with any new kind of breakthrough or research is the ethical issues.
And these are always argued and worried about by those that have only a basic understanding of the issues and apply the usual attitude of panic hysteria. (Brasseye, GM foods etc).
Like in the US right now, a furore about stem cell research. Bush Jr has waded in and decreed what will be done.
This is a guy that is a fundamentalist Christian, advocates the death sentence whilst Gov of Texas and tried to ban the teaching of evolution in several Southern states,
Science will always appear to be scary and full of doomsday predictions. Be it Galleleio (sp?) placed under house arrest for suggesting the universe did not revolve around the sun, to people burning “witches” in case they were turned into newts.
We don’t understand 95% of the science that goes on, but that doesn’t mean we can predict future outcomes and dire times of “super-babies” etc.
The cloning issue is just the latest thing to hit the news, it will go away and we will soon forget.
Happened with GM foods, foot and mouth, Brasseye, ice caps melting, the ozone layer etc etc etc etc.
People love to get behind an issue that is topical, offer an opinion based on extremely little research into the subject and warn of dark days ahead.
Just relax, nobody sailed off the end of the world (as once feared), nobody has grown another head from GM food and this will pass.
We already have that without cloning. You don’t make decisions that affect the world, you make decisions for your life. There are a few people that do run things, and you have no say in it.
If we stifle and “forbid” advances, through things like research and experimentation, then we will never move any further forward than we are now. That, to me, is a Luddite attitude and has place in the 21st century.
We need to be continually pushing our boundaries, or we have wasted millions of years of evolution (sorry creationists).
The only part that causes problems with any new kind of breakthrough or research is the ethical issues.
And these are always argued and worried about by those that have only a basic understanding of the issues and apply the usual attitude of panic hysteria. (Brasseye, GM foods etc).
Like in the US right now, a furore about stem cell research. Bush Jr has waded in and decreed what will be done.
This is a guy that is a fundamentalist Christian, advocates the death sentence whilst Gov of Texas and tried to ban the teaching of evolution in several Southern states,
Science will always appear to be scary and full of doomsday predictions. Be it Galleleio (sp?) placed under house arrest for suggesting the universe did not revolve around the sun, to people burning “witches” in case they were turned into newts.
We don’t understand 95% of the science that goes on, but that doesn’t mean we can predict future outcomes and dire times of “super-babies” etc.
The cloning issue is just the latest thing to hit the news, it will go away and we will soon forget.
Happened with GM foods, foot and mouth, Brasseye, ice caps melting, the ozone layer etc etc etc etc.
People love to get behind an issue that is topical, offer an opinion based on extremely little research into the subject and warn of dark days ahead.
Just relax, nobody sailed off the end of the world (as once feared), nobody has grown another head from GM food and this will pass.
I am worried that genetic tampering will lead to the extinction of the evolution of the human race. In other words will will upset the balence and we will not continue to evolve. For all we know we could be about to enter a new era, telekinecis (I carn't spell) or telepathy (told you I couldn't spell :) ). I could even lead to us leaving our bodies and becoming beings of pure enegy (it could do...).
The problem is that if all babies are produced the same or similar then there will be no genetic abnormalities to trigger the process of evolution. Can we really risk endangering the risk of future enchancement just so we can have pretty babies?
The problem is that if all babies are produced the same or similar then there will be no genetic abnormalities to trigger the process of evolution. Can we really risk endangering the risk of future enchancement just so we can have pretty babies?
*FM checks himself for excessive body hair and a wet nose*
nah
nah
FM could be a clone of me.
My thoughts exaclty.
My thoughts exaclty.
Cloning is already in widespread use in both science and medicine. Scientists can 'grow' organs for transplant now, they can 'grow' skin for grafting onto burns, they can 'grow' eyeballs even, with perfect vision every time. Insects are cloned en mass for scientific research.
500 years ago you'd have been burnt at the stake for using some of the everyday remedies that we use for ailments today, 200 years ago they were still drawing blood from sick people to 'remove the poison'.
Today, cloning technology is already changing our lives in many ways, it's of major importance to the wellbeing of humanity.
There ARE serious ethical issues, designer babies just being one of them, there are many who say we should never even be tampering with the human genome in the first place. Even today it is possible to clone and produce biological and chemically immune soldiers to go into combat, which would save a fortune in equipment and armour. Something that most of us would consider an horrific thought, but which the military wouldn't hesitate to take advantage of.
Designer babies won't be a serious threat to the human gene pool, there are 6 billion of us on this planet, we're talking about only a few thousand of the most elite and wealthy or connected humans who would actually have access to the choice of designer babies, and perhaps only a small portion of those would actually consider it.
Even if it were made available on the NHS as a free service during the first trimester of pregnancy, it's doubtful whether or not many mothers would seriously consider tampering with their fetus' genetic makeup purely for cosmetic reasons. But if cloning technology IS allowed to develop, they could eventually have their babies born fully equipped to be disease resistant, immune to infection, no worries about measles or whooping cough or athsma etc., and then they wouldn't have to take the risk of the MMR vaccination later on in life.
Both advantages and disadvantages are there, the question is: are humans responsible enough to wield this power for our own good or our own destruction?
I think we're responsible enough.
500 years ago you'd have been burnt at the stake for using some of the everyday remedies that we use for ailments today, 200 years ago they were still drawing blood from sick people to 'remove the poison'.
Today, cloning technology is already changing our lives in many ways, it's of major importance to the wellbeing of humanity.
There ARE serious ethical issues, designer babies just being one of them, there are many who say we should never even be tampering with the human genome in the first place. Even today it is possible to clone and produce biological and chemically immune soldiers to go into combat, which would save a fortune in equipment and armour. Something that most of us would consider an horrific thought, but which the military wouldn't hesitate to take advantage of.
Designer babies won't be a serious threat to the human gene pool, there are 6 billion of us on this planet, we're talking about only a few thousand of the most elite and wealthy or connected humans who would actually have access to the choice of designer babies, and perhaps only a small portion of those would actually consider it.
Even if it were made available on the NHS as a free service during the first trimester of pregnancy, it's doubtful whether or not many mothers would seriously consider tampering with their fetus' genetic makeup purely for cosmetic reasons. But if cloning technology IS allowed to develop, they could eventually have their babies born fully equipped to be disease resistant, immune to infection, no worries about measles or whooping cough or athsma etc., and then they wouldn't have to take the risk of the MMR vaccination later on in life.
Both advantages and disadvantages are there, the question is: are humans responsible enough to wield this power for our own good or our own destruction?
I think we're responsible enough.
The thing about cloning is, why?
Why would any parent want a clone of themselves, rather than a whole new person, made from both parents?
Maybe clones could be used for great 'body farms' so when you lose a limp, or need a spare organ, just pick one off the shelf....
I really don't see what can be achieved by human cloning?
And designer babies?
Erradicating genetic disease would be a wonderful achievement, but it really could go too far. If people could pick their childrens skills, what they looked like - no, it just doesn't seem to be right.
But then you could argue that you could make the entire population non aggressive, and practically wipe out crime in a generation....
As a parent, I can honestly say that half of the joy of having children is watching them grow, and learn new things. If you new what they would become, would you have the same bond with them? Would you continue to be amazed by them every single day?
My children, Malibu and Georgia, are very different from each other already. Malibu is nearly 2 years old, and Georgia almost 4 months, but I can tell that they will be very different. To begin with, even though they have some similar physical features, they also differ. For instance, Malibu is blonde, Georgia is very dark. Where Malibu was a small-ish baby, Georgia is much bigger. Where Malibu didn't make much noise (other than the odd cry!) Georgia is forever gurgling, and making baby noises....
It's just simple things like this, that I'd probably have missed out on, had I have designed by babies, as I may not have chosen those characteristics.
Mind you, if the technology was there, and you didn't choose to 'design' your baby, then it was born disabled, how would you feel?
I'm glad I'll never face this decision, but I fear that my children may have to.
Why would any parent want a clone of themselves, rather than a whole new person, made from both parents?
Maybe clones could be used for great 'body farms' so when you lose a limp, or need a spare organ, just pick one off the shelf....
I really don't see what can be achieved by human cloning?
And designer babies?
Erradicating genetic disease would be a wonderful achievement, but it really could go too far. If people could pick their childrens skills, what they looked like - no, it just doesn't seem to be right.
But then you could argue that you could make the entire population non aggressive, and practically wipe out crime in a generation....
As a parent, I can honestly say that half of the joy of having children is watching them grow, and learn new things. If you new what they would become, would you have the same bond with them? Would you continue to be amazed by them every single day?
My children, Malibu and Georgia, are very different from each other already. Malibu is nearly 2 years old, and Georgia almost 4 months, but I can tell that they will be very different. To begin with, even though they have some similar physical features, they also differ. For instance, Malibu is blonde, Georgia is very dark. Where Malibu was a small-ish baby, Georgia is much bigger. Where Malibu didn't make much noise (other than the odd cry!) Georgia is forever gurgling, and making baby noises....
It's just simple things like this, that I'd probably have missed out on, had I have designed by babies, as I may not have chosen those characteristics.
Mind you, if the technology was there, and you didn't choose to 'design' your baby, then it was born disabled, how would you feel?
I'm glad I'll never face this decision, but I fear that my children may have to.
My parents and I have had a three-hour discussion about genetics and cloning tonight, funnily enough.
I don't have time to explain all my reasoning right now, as it would take hours for me to type everything up - but suffice to say that I believe that both genetic engineering and cloning must be allowed to progress, as the benefits far, far outweigh the negative side.
I don't have time to explain all my reasoning right now, as it would take hours for me to type everything up - but suffice to say that I believe that both genetic engineering and cloning must be allowed to progress, as the benefits far, far outweigh the negative side.
Page: