Cloned Babies
 

So what do you think about the idea of being able to clone yourself a designer baby? (and I mean "yourself" literally). Just interested in other's thoughts about this near to be realized future eventuality and where it could go. Growing babies for living with......... (fill in the space ie you, parents, military, etc.). Growing babies for parts? Growing babies for 2 future mates that will soon die and would like to spend their entire life together? The possibilities are endless. Could put an end for the necessity of learning how to get along with others. :lovers:

Re: Cloned Babies
 

Is having sex with your clone simply masturbation or is it a sign of homosexuality?

Re: Re: Cloned Babies
 

It's a sign of "autosexuality". No, wait... that had something to do with a Chevy. Cops have no sense of humor anymore.

Clone the mate of your choice once every 5 years. Move down the line as they ripen.;)

I think the idea of "designer babies" is silly.

I have no objection to cloning in and of itself, and no problem with fixing babies by fiddling with their DNA. When it comes to health, fiddling with DNA is a good thing. Saying, "I want a girl with blue eyes and curly blonde hair, who'll be 5'9' or taller, with a fast metabolism, and a high intelligence" oy vey...takes out all the individuality.

It's not the fiddling. It's WHY the fiddling takes place. I'm not going at it from a moral viewpoint. It's just that ordering a kid like a hamburger from Burger king has a high "ick factor" for me.

Since we can't guarantee that a Burger King Burger will be constructed correctly, I'd hate to see what we'd do with people ...

"Hearts and kidneys are tinkertoys. I'm talking about the central nervous system. "

--- Friederich von Frankestein, Young Frankenstein

Can I ask a few questions:

At what stage of these mass cells or embryo do we take what we need from them for transplanting? Is there a name for this embryo? If this embryo were implanted in a woman, would it become a baby?

:mad:

Certainly not after they're past 19 or 20 years old. Hell, what's the point after that? They've started to use them up themselves by then. I'd want some nice, fresh organs and stuff like that.

The movie Gattica does a good job of showing an example society driven by designer babies. The normal babies get shifted down to second rate citizens because the gene taylored humans are so superior in every way.

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is an excellent excellent science fiction book. It has fetuses having their oxygen intentionally withheld so those babies will grow up stupid and fill the lower classes. After all, would a genius be interested in sweeping floor and taking out garbage?

I find the idea of tampering with humans (adults, children, fetuses, and fertalized eggs) to be a very morally charged issue. It treats genetically unique individuals as objects that can be shaped, used, and discarded at will, rather than treating them as true human beings.

That sort of reminds me of something I was thinking to myself Thursday while I was trapped on campus due the the city's Mardi Gras parade.

"So this is what an Alpha would feel like in a world full of Gammas..."

Ethically as well. One of the core ethics is that people can't be used as a means to an end. But where does the idea of seeding the gene pool with an improved breed of fish to pull the average up fall?

Fish?

Did you mean to say human and then sex something else? :confused:

I don't see anything ethical about altering fish. It might be bad for the environment though if we tamper with something without knowing its possible consequences.

And we definitely don't want to breed intelligent shark - except if they can be made to eat only bad Hollywood directors, producers, and movie writers.

You're poking fun at "Deep Blue Sea," among others, aren't you?

Horrible movie, not even saved by the existence of a cute parrot, about a hyperintelligent shark that eats the research facility that's been torturing it.

My whole point was how does the ethical consideration of helping the species by seeding the gene pool with people who are slightly improved? Those improved people may, or may not, know that they have been manipulated geneticall.

Those improved people breed with baseline people and the overall curve starts to pull upward.

I ask again. Ethically, where does that end up?

For myself, the idea is sound. So long as the changes are in basic and only effect presently existing traits and that the people are placed randomly and then all records of their placement are lost/destroyed.

That being said, I don't think it would work.

It all regresses to the mean, dude.

Won't work. You won't end up with slightly smarter. You'll get significantly dumber.