that's a given. and trying to make a decision based on our feeble knowledge would be quite foolish, hopefully it's just theoretical as the choice is still not ours to make. i never said that. you misunderstood i guess.
To begin with, it would be better to get a genetic screening to see the probability of passing a genetic disorder to their offspring. So, if the risk were high, I might consider the option.
Might be a good idea to give the kid a smaller dick then me, so they aren't so burdened with this massive weight I have to lug around all the time. Otherwise, I don't think I could splice any genes superior to what I'm passing down naturally.
Of course I would. There's billions of people in the world and only so many resources. If I can give my child every advantage at my disposal to put them ahead of the competition there's no way I wouldn't do it. You're free to feel superior for not doing it though.
As a geneticist, my answer is yes and no. People have already covered the part about disease predesposition so I won't belabour that. Genetic modification is simply a tool, no different from things like cars or planes or guns. Yet, like the terrorist attacks in the past decade have shown, these tools can also be misused. The most glaring example of "genetic selection" is that of the old "One Child Policy" in China causing the mass culling of females. While not "modification" it is a very big example of what happens when idiots get their hands on tools that they are not mentally mature enough to use yet. Imagine if you can now have a "One Child Policy" without the culling? Just tweak the genes to have all males. Of course the West won't do such a sexist thing, we'll only just edit everyone to look White. Wimpiness? That is so last century, we have editted everyone to look like Arnold Schwazenegger, the only people who are wimpy are the poor. Gene modification is a useful tool, hence "good". However, I'm not sure society in general is mature and wise enough to use it wisely and I'm afraid we never will be. Modern day maturity seems to be on a declining scale these days.
There are many drawbacks in genetic modifications. Genetic and DNA on natural order are written by the law of nature itself so careless modification to them can be detrimental to their survival of themselves and their offspring and they could possibly also bring such effect onto their closely related species. DNA is like a program written through trial and error. You might found bug and deficiency in the current version but you shouldn't try to fix them without knowing what and how each codes works together. I'm all for it but for the near future i believe the genetically modified organisms should be neutered and controlled so it doesn't carelessly infect natural dna down the line.
Can we add laser beams to their heads? That's a matter of how they are treated. Unfortunately a lot of parents if they find out their child is a genius treat them as some sort of winning prize poodle. Bringing out a child's max potential is important, but so is making them feel like they are human and that people care about them. That even if they fail and don't get nowhere, it's a-ok.
rather than smart or thing like that this cat prefer the child being healthy, genetic wise that enuf~ raising child is complex matter more so if we as parent decide what kind of future the child should have based on our value~ put it simple as long as there no genetic defect this cat ok~
I'd support it cuz even though how much information they can digest or remember or how strong they are will affect their personality, but so will the environment they grow up in. If you say no to this, it just means you're afraid of responsibility, because a lot could go wrong with the child's mental development. If you don't want to consciously influence their life then does that mean if they have bad friends you won't stop their relationship, because they should make their own choices? Of course not.
We are already genetically modified baby, to prevent the preventable disease and the likes. I'm okay with it, honestly. Just let the professional do the work; they know better which is good which is bad. It's better than leaving it to random chance anyway.
I disagree with this, there is this religious belief system that thinks "natural" is "better", it isn't, it's just random. Aiming for a result when you know what you are doing is a lot better than randomly blasting away and hoping you'll hit the result you want. Remember the basic principle of Darwinism, that genes that do not give the best likelihood of survival... does what? Get retirement? Medical care? No, to get your "pure" "natural" species, every other mutation HAS TO DIE. Natural does not give a better survival rate, it gives a much, much worse one. But we don't hear about it because of one big reason. The dead can't complain. I agree that we need to know what we are doing first though, genetic modification is a very fine line. Unlike superhero movies, getting it wrong don't give you superpowers, most cases, the foetus won't end up growing at all and just spontanously aborts. If we even want a healthy, living baby, we need to get it about 99.999% right since even one wrong gene can be the difference between a miscarriage and a live birth. Anyway, don't believe that "natural" is better, it's just more random.
I'm gonna be comnpletely honest. I have helped raised kids. You dont want them to be stronger or smarter than you.
I never claim natural is better i note that natural genetic makeup is made of selection of what made them survive and carelessly deleting or editing them can be detrimental to the species. It is an architectural design of some sort.
Un? I'm confused? Can you randomly delete things in architectural design? Of course not? It might affect the whole of the project? That was a dumb statement? Who said anything will randomly be deleted?
Who said anything will randomly deleted ? Well how about edited ? It might affect the whole project ? Of course and living organisms has growth and mutation potential (combined with their reproduction down the line you might affect much more than you intended). Let's say in example xx organisms have gene to grow in random angular shape and you edited them to grow rather into rectangular shape so they are easier to sort what kind of changes that affect them now ? What if they grow in angular shape as adaptation for some of their weakness ? Well if you don't understand let's say you have a working program with codes. You found defect or bug in their code and you attempt to fix them by editing the codes. However after editing them a new bigger bug come out as a result in other parts. Repeating such process then you might now made the program completely unusable. With living organisms the program would be affecting other program, multiplying and mutating with corrupt codes.
Dude, I'm sure they'd test everything before implementing anything. Do you think you're the only one with brains? Do you think others can't think of what you thought of? Are you a special snowflake?
Lol i basically has to explained how it's works to you who fail to grasp what I'm getting at in my previous comment. Sure they might think what I'm thinking of and has brains but you certainly aren't.