The Book The Code Breaker touches on the advancements mankind has made in our ability to read and now write the genome. My cliffs touch only on the area of the ethics.

The age of designer babies is upon us and the only question is what will the politics allow and what will individuals available themselves if allowed or through the black market.

Cliffs:

- uncontroversial uses are things like seeing an unborn child has a defective gene that will result in him being born with Sickle Cell Anemia. A quick correction of that gene removes that lifelong burden.

- A controversial use is described as using the technology to address the 'heritable' parts of our DNA (height, looks, etc) such as was the recent case of the Hong Kong 'CrispR Baby Scandal'

- the philosophical and theological issues are touched upon in this video suggesting we should consider mankind dabbling in what would be considered 'God's Realm' along with other questions.

---------

So some questions:

1- Do you have a formed view on this for or against, other?

2- Do you think theological questions should be part of the over all discourse and decision making going forward?

3- Do you think such 'ethical' type and 'religious' restrictions would largely only be a factor in more 'Western Countries' and more totalitarian nations (China, Russia) would gladly see this as an exploit and advantage they could gain while America and the West hesitated wrestling with them?

4 - if you had the resources and availability and had a child birth approaching and you knew the science was perfected and thus you could give your child what are considered ideal traits (height, looks, etc), and you faced no penalty for doing so, would you?

5 - what things would you consider to be in the ethical batch to 'correct' (diseases, dwarfism, etc) and which ones would you consider unethical (looks (blonde hair, blue eyed, height (do you set a limit?), etc)

I think the slippery slope here is inevitable.

As soon as other countries start using it with no limits and have healthier and in all ways 'better' outcomes for their population (better at sports, smarter, better looking, thus more successful, etc) any country that tries to stop it will simply see their citizens go off on 'vacations' to get the procedure done quietly.

So as with everything the wealthy will get the largest advantage first to compound their many other advantages.

I could not see myself not availing myself of it, if i was to have a impending child. Especially if I knew others were. I could only imagine the talks as your teen, the lesser attractive, least athletic, less smart kid in the class, asks you why???... and you say 'my ethics would not allow it. You must embrace who you were meant to be', going very bad as the kid thinks you did not love them enough to give them the best chance.

You are setting your kid up for a Ned Stark, Cersei Lannister loss, where those with no ethical boundaries crush those who self impose limits on themselves.

We lack genetic diversity as it as a species, «designer babies» and other forms of eugenics is ecological stupidity. It would be likely to greatly increase the risks from pandemics.

I can't imagine anyone who views each human as a unique essense ever wanting to do this. You do this, you deny that future kid his identity, what ever that may be, and you are forcing characteristics upon them, as if they are some doll.

Interesting point.

I had not considered it from the 'reducing diversity/risk' standpoint.

I am thinking the argument against that is ...if, in fact, you can apply and improve this technology the dangers of 'less diversity' are offset. Risks of things like genetic mutations that lead to Down Syndrome, etc are dealt with in advance or reduced because our ability to prevent or fix them exceeds the danger of something popping up and being beyond our ability to identify and rectify.


Now of course if some future ailment or virus, etc popped up that we had not built in any preventative protection against and could not identify and deal with quickly, with this type of tech, the 'sameness' of all people might well facilitate a far more deadly spread.


Hmmmm???

The argument against that is, the unborn child is not a life, and the moral questions are irrelevant, as a matter of policy (Roe v Wade). It's hard to argue it's morally okay to kill the unborn, but unethical to alter it's genetics. Then the question becomes is it safe, and you have to operate within that paradigm of ethics, but you still run into the issue of killing it is safe, but alterning is not safe. Then the question becomes if it is safe for society to be altering it's gene pool, and that's what tames brought up, which really isn't an ethical argument, but self-perseverance/utilitarian argument.

There is a known example (perhaps more, but this is not really my field).

People who are genetic carriers for sickle cell disease (if such a person has a child with someone with the same gene the offspring will great risk of developing sickle cell disease). However this gene is also known to protect against malaria, one of the deadliest diseases in human history.

Of course, people aren't always great at thinking at risks at a population level, so I doubt this is what will affect people's perception of "designer babies" the most, but at the legislative level I think it should be weighed heavily.

"Designer Babies" makes it sound like they'll be designed by Versace or something. Which, honestly, may not be too far from what happens in the future. I can see insta influencers showing off their Dolce and Gabbana-engineered infants.

That's just a limp-wristed attempt at shoehorning the abortion debate into it.

In developed countries pregnancy to child birth is as high and subsequent child mortality rates as low as they have pretty much ever been in human history, so that entire debate is pretty much completely moot.

If it becomes reality, then yes, I suspect fashion will become a driving trend. We see that on the population level for what people let their children learn, wear, eat and how to preserve their health etc.

It's not all we see, but it is a powerful driving force.

I don't get your point. Are you saying it's morally/ethically okay to kill the unborn and possibly immoral to edit the unborns genes? I don't find that to be consistent, and I don't know how you avoid ethics as applied to abortion in a discussion about the ethics of altering the genetics of the unborn.

Well, that's on you, not me.

Don't we force characteristics on infants all the time?

You just described me.

I carry the sickle cell trait gene but not the disease. I am malaria immune and when I married, my then wife, was tested prior to us having kids to make sure she was not also a carrier of the 'trait' and thus our pregnancies watched for this disease.

My connection is thru my W.African genetics line, we did not know was in our family until my bro did a DNA test. But S.Europeans and some Hispanics Arabians and Turkish can also be prone to this gene mutation.

IHIV, you selected the Poll option 'never would'.

I am curious if you thought that through.

There are many genetic conditions that can lead to painful and short lives for children.

Are you saying even if you knew your kid was sure to be born with these conditions and that there was this 'fix' available that was legal and accessible to you, you would not avail yourself of it and instead would let your kid be born, suffer and die a short life as a result?

If so, based on what on what belief or principle?

If there's designer babies there will also be baby designers, right? That's kinda cool.

The real answer is, I don't know. I imagine I would take a few weeks to decide, ultimately. My initial thought is, it's not for me to decide when it comes to altering a person's genetics (as I see the unborn as humans), how that is different from curing someone, I have not thought about and may change my opinion. And, ultimately, I'm not going to have a choice either way, by law, and I'm not going to spend that much time thinking about it.

If God didn't want us messing with DNA He wouldn't have given us the brains capable of doing it.

This is the next logical step in human evolution design.

We already play God by killing unwanted babies. What's the harm in rearranging a few Gs and Ts to make the ones that survive the gauntlet a little more desirable?

If I've learned nothing from my experience with trial and error computer programming, it's that this literally can't end poorly. The only possible outcome is great success, and possibly a few interim executables that inadvertently delete your System32 folder.

I can't wait to see what's on the genetic editing menu at the repurposed Babies R Us stores.

Poker players going gto according the the poll.

I figure I need some kids with good earning prospects in case I live into old age.

Juice the wife up !!!!

They've done a good job with veal.

This is gonna be bigger than Bitcoin.

I would offer this up for consideration to the both of you.

Today, immediately after birth parents consent to often years long surgeries and rebuilding of birth defect ailments. The child dealing with pain and disability for long periods 'if/until corrected.

My cousin's child's severe cleft lip, is a personal example I can offer. Impeding breathing and many other problems. A decade of surgeries to correct.

Gene therapy may offer a quick and easy fix for this type of ailment meaning the child is born without the need to go through all the pain and surgeries.

Do you distinguish therapy and treatment after birth as somehow different to it pre-birth?

If so, why?

I do think it is an inevitability. Kind of like steroids in sports. Once you realize everyone else is doing it and you are falling behind the competition you are forced to a choice. Join in or enjoy your morals and don't compete.

Everyone would be pumping out pro athletes.

Kinda like Russia cheating at the Olympics with the doping.
Only this is cheating from the womb.

I don't know if it's the same as treatment. I guess I see it as kind of conversion therapy. Our struggles in life is just as important as our successes, IMO. I don't think we understand the human brain enough for this to even being worth thinking about yet, everything affects everything, we for sure won't understand the psychological and psychiatric impact.