The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
How far do you think the scientific community should be allowed to go? There are so many issues surrounding the area of fertility treatment and genetic manipulation of human embryos.
Some people think that if a couple is unable to have children 'naturally' then they should accept that. In my opinion, this is very close to saying that if there is something wrong with (for example) your heart, then you should accept this. But of course this isn't the case, people are given medicine, or if the condition is serious enough, surgery.
Why shouldn't they be allowed the same if there is a problem with their reproductive system?
Of course in some cases neither drugs nor surgery will overcome subfertility problems. It is a case of live without children or attempt in vitro fertilisation (IVF). How do you feel about IVF?
In some cases both sets of genes can come from the prospective 'parents'. But in many cases one or other of the parents cannot produce their gametes (sperm or egg), and a donor has to take the place of the 'parent'. Is this any worse than sperm donation of a more usual kind? How do you feel about egg donations? In women are being paid thousands of pounds to donate their eggs, just as long as they are suitable, which includes the way you look, how tall and slim etc. Your medical history, (they don't want any history of familial diseases). . In Britain it is illegal to be paid any more than expenses for this. How do you feel about egg donations?
Some people think that we should be allowed to go as far as genetically manipulating our offspring to produce babies free from genetic defects, and expressing desirable genes, like 'tall' genes or 'blue eye' genes. The technology is even there to produce an exact clone of somebody. Something like a Twin born much later than their sibling. Many people want to allow this in order to 'bring back lost children or loved ones' and for many other reasons.
In a society where scientific taboos are being broken, and the limits of what is acceptable are continually being stretched, do you know where you stand on these issues?
Thank you for reading
Ros
Some people think that if a couple is unable to have children 'naturally' then they should accept that. In my opinion, this is very close to saying that if there is something wrong with (for example) your heart, then you should accept this. But of course this isn't the case, people are given medicine, or if the condition is serious enough, surgery.
Why shouldn't they be allowed the same if there is a problem with their reproductive system?
Of course in some cases neither drugs nor surgery will overcome subfertility problems. It is a case of live without children or attempt in vitro fertilisation (IVF). How do you feel about IVF?
In some cases both sets of genes can come from the prospective 'parents'. But in many cases one or other of the parents cannot produce their gametes (sperm or egg), and a donor has to take the place of the 'parent'. Is this any worse than sperm donation of a more usual kind? How do you feel about egg donations? In women are being paid thousands of pounds to donate their eggs, just as long as they are suitable, which includes the way you look, how tall and slim etc. Your medical history, (they don't want any history of familial diseases). . In Britain it is illegal to be paid any more than expenses for this. How do you feel about egg donations?
Some people think that we should be allowed to go as far as genetically manipulating our offspring to produce babies free from genetic defects, and expressing desirable genes, like 'tall' genes or 'blue eye' genes. The technology is even there to produce an exact clone of somebody. Something like a Twin born much later than their sibling. Many people want to allow this in order to 'bring back lost children or loved ones' and for many other reasons.
In a society where scientific taboos are being broken, and the limits of what is acceptable are continually being stretched, do you know where you stand on these issues?
Thank you for reading
Ros
Page:
Social engineering by "designing babies" would ultimately lead to a two-tier society.
Having progeny that are designed to be more human than human would be desirable (to some) but there are many inherent risks. Foremost would be the (very likely) exhorbitant cost, immediately restricting it's availability to a tiny minority. In turn this exclusive group will probably develop more successfully than their non-enhanced peers and end up being in the high income bracket. Thus they themselves will be able to afford to continue the process of "unatural selection". The second generation babies, if intially created by two "enhanced people", would presumably be geneticaly superior to other children without enhancement (whilst the children from enhanced parents themselves, may not need any enhancement, given the genetic material that they are receiving "naturally" from them). In effect, one could argue that designer babies would only be marketable for one or two generations.
Society would become very deliniated whatever the outcome.
The world is an interesting place because of our imperfections; evolution occurs through the process of natural selection and this is based on competition and success. We should leave it to it's own devices and let it take us to where we are headed. In time.
Having progeny that are designed to be more human than human would be desirable (to some) but there are many inherent risks. Foremost would be the (very likely) exhorbitant cost, immediately restricting it's availability to a tiny minority. In turn this exclusive group will probably develop more successfully than their non-enhanced peers and end up being in the high income bracket. Thus they themselves will be able to afford to continue the process of "unatural selection". The second generation babies, if intially created by two "enhanced people", would presumably be geneticaly superior to other children without enhancement (whilst the children from enhanced parents themselves, may not need any enhancement, given the genetic material that they are receiving "naturally" from them). In effect, one could argue that designer babies would only be marketable for one or two generations.
Society would become very deliniated whatever the outcome.
The world is an interesting place because of our imperfections; evolution occurs through the process of natural selection and this is based on competition and success. We should leave it to it's own devices and let it take us to where we are headed. In time.
Belldandy wrote:
> It's the 21st century you know.... people find people they love, and
> just because there are less/more of the opposite sex will not make
> people love someone they do not.
I'm sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that there won't necassarily be an increse in the gay population beacuse of an imbalance in the gender ration, then I think you are wrong. Experiments in Rats have shown that Overcrowding, and lack of females induces homosexuality. This has been backed up by looking at situations in which the above circumatances are true, in humans.
> It's the 21st century you know.... people find people they love, and
> just because there are less/more of the opposite sex will not make
> people love someone they do not.
I'm sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that there won't necassarily be an increse in the gay population beacuse of an imbalance in the gender ration, then I think you are wrong. Experiments in Rats have shown that Overcrowding, and lack of females induces homosexuality. This has been backed up by looking at situations in which the above circumatances are true, in humans.
Belldandy wrote:
> What has to be considered here is that, unless India finds oil or
> something like that, it will never be able to allow all of it's
> population access to this kind of technology.
Not necessarilly. All technology cheapens with age. In time, it will be available to everyone. In 10 years time, cosmetic surgery will be as available as fast food, and performed almost as quickly.
> You can design somebody like that, but you cannot design what they
> will want to be in their life. Not everyone who looks like a model is
> one, and if all those born in the future could be like that then would
> there be any need for models anyway ?
So dumb them down a little. With no possibility of a real vocation, they will quickly turn to fast cash via modelling, escorting, or just outright prostitution.
> But even without this, sperm counts in males are dropping all across
> the West anyway, this technology could counter that. There could well
> be a gender misbalance, but of what consequence is a dramatic increase
> in the gay population ?
Why counter it? The earth can barely take the population we have now, maintaing a growth rate will eventually lead to ecological collapse. Male sperm counts are probably dropping for a good reason.
And personally, I don't think the world needs more gay men.
> It's the 21st century you know.... people find people they love, and
> just because there are less/more of the opposite sex will not make
> people love someone they do not.
Do you not find it interesting that as the population grows, there is an increasing proportion of people not interested in natural forms of reproduction?
> Essentially this technology changes who we see, adn their health, but
> not who they are, their soul is theirs and cannot be engineered or
> altered.
Soul? Don't even go there.
> What has to be considered here is that, unless India finds oil or
> something like that, it will never be able to allow all of it's
> population access to this kind of technology.
Not necessarilly. All technology cheapens with age. In time, it will be available to everyone. In 10 years time, cosmetic surgery will be as available as fast food, and performed almost as quickly.
> You can design somebody like that, but you cannot design what they
> will want to be in their life. Not everyone who looks like a model is
> one, and if all those born in the future could be like that then would
> there be any need for models anyway ?
So dumb them down a little. With no possibility of a real vocation, they will quickly turn to fast cash via modelling, escorting, or just outright prostitution.
> But even without this, sperm counts in males are dropping all across
> the West anyway, this technology could counter that. There could well
> be a gender misbalance, but of what consequence is a dramatic increase
> in the gay population ?
Why counter it? The earth can barely take the population we have now, maintaing a growth rate will eventually lead to ecological collapse. Male sperm counts are probably dropping for a good reason.
And personally, I don't think the world needs more gay men.
> It's the 21st century you know.... people find people they love, and
> just because there are less/more of the opposite sex will not make
> people love someone they do not.
Do you not find it interesting that as the population grows, there is an increasing proportion of people not interested in natural forms of reproduction?
> Essentially this technology changes who we see, adn their health, but
> not who they are, their soul is theirs and cannot be engineered or
> altered.
Soul? Don't even go there.
I think i remembered a Toy that used to Pee and take a &^$@ but my memory is Fading.... i dont think they make em anymore due to huge*messes*
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> Design a brat that can't scream, doesn't crap itself, and can fend for
> itself after a couple of days.
Probably possible, though expect the UN to bomb the crap out of any country that did it... engineer it without vocal cords, use IV's for food or something similar to bypass defecation, and I'm not sure about the fend for itself bit...
~~Belldandy~~
> Design a brat that can't scream, doesn't crap itself, and can fend for
> itself after a couple of days.
Probably possible, though expect the UN to bomb the crap out of any country that did it... engineer it without vocal cords, use IV's for food or something similar to bypass defecation, and I'm not sure about the fend for itself bit...
~~Belldandy~~
I've got a challenge for them...
Design a brat that can't scream, doesn't crap itself, and can fend for itself after a couple of days.
Design a brat that can't scream, doesn't crap itself, and can fend for itself after a couple of days.
RM18 wrote:
>I thought that what was implied was using the technology to
> create an exact replicant of the child that died, and I would be
> personally against that.
This is an area where nobody is to sure on what exactly would happen, in theory a clone's mind would, if grown from birth normally, be different from the deceased's mind as the way we think and act is governed by experiences.
>It's an important factor to consider (even more so if
> you are weighing up the use of such technology for military means)...
The potential is certainly there to create people whom would make our current special forces look like first graders. The media seems to have swallowed hook line and sinker the idea that the outlawing of cloning will prevent such research. If this technology can be used then it will be used without hesitation by NATO countries, and America, and their enemies. Again, the potential is there to create nightmare scenarios - suicide attackers who release genetically programmed plagues, people with no pain nerves, and much more.
~~Belldandy~~
>I thought that what was implied was using the technology to
> create an exact replicant of the child that died, and I would be
> personally against that.
This is an area where nobody is to sure on what exactly would happen, in theory a clone's mind would, if grown from birth normally, be different from the deceased's mind as the way we think and act is governed by experiences.
>It's an important factor to consider (even more so if
> you are weighing up the use of such technology for military means)...
The potential is certainly there to create people whom would make our current special forces look like first graders. The media seems to have swallowed hook line and sinker the idea that the outlawing of cloning will prevent such research. If this technology can be used then it will be used without hesitation by NATO countries, and America, and their enemies. Again, the potential is there to create nightmare scenarios - suicide attackers who release genetically programmed plagues, people with no pain nerves, and much more.
~~Belldandy~~
Having, for example, another female child to replace another is one thing, but I thought that what was implied was using the technology to create an exact replicant of the child that died, and I would be personally against that.
Another point I would like to raise - would cloning, genetic replication etc in the case of replacing the look of a person imply a replication of the mind? It's one thing cloning a person, but would they think the same, act the same, or each develop different personalities? It's an important factor to consider (even more so if you are weighing up the use of such technology for military means)...
Another point I would like to raise - would cloning, genetic replication etc in the case of replacing the look of a person imply a replication of the mind? It's one thing cloning a person, but would they think the same, act the same, or each develop different personalities? It's an important factor to consider (even more so if you are weighing up the use of such technology for military means)...
RM18 wrote:
> As for bringing up children that look the same as lost ones,
> replacements if you will, then I defy any of you to provide me with a
> substantial explanation why that is a good thing.
What this comes down to, in some ways, is whether this is a moral, or legal issue. Because if it's moral then there will always be the argument that those who do not wish to see it are imposing a moraity on others, which in a democracy doesn't go down too well.
Or is it a legal issue ? Could doing so somehow breach the law? How ? Its hard to see how as organs/tissue samples e.t.c are regularly taken during autopsies and stored, stealing DNA and other necessary things would be no different. If a child dies from a disease that this technology then why not go back, fix the problem, and recreate that person.
Ultimately, do people believe in souls, or is it how we're brought up that creates us ? Because if we have true souls then we cannot truly recreate someone who has been lost, but if we do not, then we can, in many ways, recreate a life to a certain degree.
>If we start going
> down that route, then that is not what I term evolution...
Depends how you term evolution. In this case technology could allow us to drastically cut deaths from many diseases, and create children how people would like. No one is saying that people have to do so, just that the possiblity should not be ruled out. Some people would like to use it, for various reasons, and that does not make them bad people. If a couple desperatly wants another female child because a previous one died then I see no wrong in that. Of course, most parents will love a child whatever it is, and becomes, but we will soon have the chance to effect this, removing control from nature, no bad thing.
In many ways gene therapy, designer babies, cloning and all that lot are the first steps on the road to unlocking immortality. We'll be able to create, and adapt life, so extending it is a matter of time and money.
Then of course, there is the massive military potential for this technology, but thats for another time eh ?
~~Belldandy~~
> As for bringing up children that look the same as lost ones,
> replacements if you will, then I defy any of you to provide me with a
> substantial explanation why that is a good thing.
What this comes down to, in some ways, is whether this is a moral, or legal issue. Because if it's moral then there will always be the argument that those who do not wish to see it are imposing a moraity on others, which in a democracy doesn't go down too well.
Or is it a legal issue ? Could doing so somehow breach the law? How ? Its hard to see how as organs/tissue samples e.t.c are regularly taken during autopsies and stored, stealing DNA and other necessary things would be no different. If a child dies from a disease that this technology then why not go back, fix the problem, and recreate that person.
Ultimately, do people believe in souls, or is it how we're brought up that creates us ? Because if we have true souls then we cannot truly recreate someone who has been lost, but if we do not, then we can, in many ways, recreate a life to a certain degree.
>If we start going
> down that route, then that is not what I term evolution...
Depends how you term evolution. In this case technology could allow us to drastically cut deaths from many diseases, and create children how people would like. No one is saying that people have to do so, just that the possiblity should not be ruled out. Some people would like to use it, for various reasons, and that does not make them bad people. If a couple desperatly wants another female child because a previous one died then I see no wrong in that. Of course, most parents will love a child whatever it is, and becomes, but we will soon have the chance to effect this, removing control from nature, no bad thing.
In many ways gene therapy, designer babies, cloning and all that lot are the first steps on the road to unlocking immortality. We'll be able to create, and adapt life, so extending it is a matter of time and money.
Then of course, there is the massive military potential for this technology, but thats for another time eh ?
~~Belldandy~~
Flips sides to this debate, as always. ;D
There are potential benefits in this - for instance, ensuring babies are born without any deficiencies, disabilities etc. As far as configuring teh look of your baby, that for me personally is a definite no-no - as people have pointed out, there will always be a few idiots going to abuse the system. Just like you have muppets nowadays giving their children stupid name or middle names as a homage to their idol, the potential is there with this technology to go even further.
As for bringing up children that look the same as lost ones, replacements if you will, then I defy any of you to provide me with a substantial explanation why that is a good thing. If we start going down that route, then that is not what I term evolution...
There are potential benefits in this - for instance, ensuring babies are born without any deficiencies, disabilities etc. As far as configuring teh look of your baby, that for me personally is a definite no-no - as people have pointed out, there will always be a few idiots going to abuse the system. Just like you have muppets nowadays giving their children stupid name or middle names as a homage to their idol, the potential is there with this technology to go even further.
As for bringing up children that look the same as lost ones, replacements if you will, then I defy any of you to provide me with a substantial explanation why that is a good thing. If we start going down that route, then that is not what I term evolution...
Page: