Genetically Modified .... Humans

[Coveny]

Humans have already shown that it’s going to be a slippery slope when designer babies pick up full steam. PGD is widely used around the world currently to allow parents to select some of the traits of their children, such as gender and eye color.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a19313/genetic-engineering-allow-parents-select-gender-eye-color-children/

 

First genetically modified human embryo happened this year.

 

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/world-s-first-genetically-modified-human-embryo-raises-ethical-concerns/

 

Is genetic modification of humans to remove genetic illnesses like some cancers, color blindness, Sickle-Cell, Hemophilia, etc. a matter of if or a matter of when? A U.S. Panel has already endorsed it for these serious diseases. 

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603633/us-panel-endorses-designer-babies-to-avoid-serious-disease/

 

Ethically and morally I see it as a positive thing. The ability to remove genetic diseases from the world is huge in and of itself, and I think it more than overcomes the possible abuse by parents to make perfect little designer babies. But we live in a capitalist world so is it just going to become yet another way that the 1% is “better” than the rest of us? Or on the other end what about genetic mistakes happening in third world countries doing bargain basement genetic modifications? 

 

So do you think the benefits of genetically modified humans outweigh the negatives?

[scherado]

...

Ethically and morally I see it as a positive thing. The ability to remove genetic diseases from the world is huge in and of itself, and I think it more than overcomes the possible abuse by parents to make perfect little designer babies. But we live in a capitalist world so is it just going to become yet another way that the 1% is “better” than the rest of us? Or on the other end what about genetic mistakes happening in third world countries doing bargain basement genetic modifications?

...

.

When I read, "But we live in a capitalist world so is it just going to become yet another way that the 1% is 'better' than the rest of us?", I wondered whether the subject medical proceedures, those that implement the "designer baby", whether it will be covered in socialist (non-capitalist) government-run health-care systems around the world?--including the American version, as it exists now and may exist in future.

Edited September 16, 2017 by scherado

[Maine farmer]

When I read, "But we live in a capitalist world so is it just going to become yet another way that the 1% is 'better' than the rest of us?", I wondered whether the subject medical proceedures, those that implement the "designer baby", whether it will be covered in socialist (non-capitalist) government-run health-care systems around the world?--including the American version, as it exists now and may exist in future.

Well, of course we live in a capitalist world, that is just the way people behave.  You can't kill capitalism.  When it's been tried, black markets have always sprung up.

 

 

 so is it just going to become yet another way that the 1% is “better” than the rest of us?

 

I think there is a little too much fretting about the 1%.  This constant drumbeat against them is starting to sound like children crying "No Fair!"  That cry has done nothing to improve the conditions of rest of us.  We need to address the more serious issues of poverty issue by issue and look at real solutions for those issues rather than trying to play "Robin Hood".

 

Now, getting back to genetic modifications;

 

 

 

So do you think the benefits of genetically modified humans outweigh the negatives?

 

I suppose time will tell.  There is clearly no stopping it.   Whenever humans discover that they can do something, they usually do it.  The biggest danger is that humanity isn't so smart as it thinks it is, and is therefore capable of screwing things up with disastrous results.

[scherado]

Well, of course we live in a capitalist world, that is just the way people behave. You can't kill capitalism. When it's been tried, black markets have always sprung up.

...

.

When I read your mistake, I added a quotation box from the OP to my post #2. Now, do you want to reconsider your reply?

Edited September 16, 2017 by scherado

[Maine farmer]

.

When I read your mistake, I added a quotation box from the OP to my post #2. Now, do you want to reconsider your reply?

No reconsideration needed, just a slight modification,

 

. I wondered whether the subject medical proceedures, those that implement the "designer baby", whether it will be covered in socialist (non-capitalist) government-run health-care systems around the world?--including the American version, as it exists now and may exist in future.

This is the quote that lead to my "You can't kill capitalism" quote.  Covered, ( or perhaps even mandated? ), or not, people who have money are going to spend it as they see fit, and people wanting money, will do what it takes to get it. 

 

I don't worry much about socialism, because, in practice, it never works well enough to last.

[scherado]

No reconsideration needed, just a slight modification,

 

This is the quote that lead to my "You can't kill capitalism" quote. Covered, ( or perhaps even mandated? ), or not, people who have money are going to spend it as they see fit, and people wanting money, will do what it takes to get it.

 

I don't worry much about socialism, because, in practice, it never works well enough to last.

.

There was no need to state the quote you used, that is clear in your post #3; The error you failed to recognize is that I was quoting the OP.

 

Now, do you want to reconsider your second reply?

[Maine farmer]

.

There was no need to state the quote you used, that is clear in your post #3; The error you failed to recognize is that I was quoting the OP.

 

Now, do you want to reconsider your second reply?

Not trying to offend you here, but I was responding to your concern about " socialist, government - run healthcare." just as much as I was responding to the OP concern about capitalist healthcare.  Two different concerns with the same response.

 

If you remove all emotional or moral concerns about the issue, it can be concluded that "designer babies" are inevitable in either socialist or capitalist systems.  In capitalism, your insurance companies will want your babies designed to not get sick, and in socialism, the government will want to make everyone "equal" so no one gets, or requires  more healthcare than anyone else. 

[Coveny]

Making us more resilient could pose other problems to the symbiosis we call the human digestive system. If they wanted us to be able to get the nutrients we need without bacteria and other lifeforms living in us, they would really have to rework the human body to overcome the deficiencies. Also there are issues with creating a totally different type of class warfare where you have the designer people of means versus then randoms who can't afford it.

[scherado]

Not trying to offend you here, but I was responding to your concern about " socialist, government - run healthcare." just as much as I was responding to the OP concern about capitalist healthcare. Two different concerns with the same response.

 

If you remove all emotional or moral concerns about the issue, it can be concluded that "designer babies" are inevitable in either socialist or capitalist systems. In capitalism, your insurance companies will want your babies designed to not get sick, and in socialism, the government will want to make everyone "equal" so no one gets, or requires more healthcare than anyone else.

.

You are not offending me, you are annoying me by not reading properly--or whatever it may be that explains the error--and I'm giving you extra consideration because I like farm machinery. For anyone else who made the mistake, the quote to which I referred and which appears in the OP is:

.

...

But we live in a capitalist world so is it just going to become yet another way that the 1% is “better” than the rest of us?

...

.

The OP, the OP's author, introduces the subject of "the 1%" <u>and</u> "capitalist world", which I assume falls within the topic "capitalism."

[Maine farmer]

.

You are not offending me, you are annoying me by not reading properly--or whatever it may be that explains the error--and I'm giving you extra consideration because I like farm machinery. For anyone else who made the mistake, the quote to which I referred and which appears in the OP is:

.

.

The OP, the OP's author, introduces the subject of "the 1%" <u>and</u> "capitalist world", which I assume falls within the topic "capitalism."

Okay, I see you didn't take notice that I was also responding to your response to the OP, specifically your comment about socialized healthcare.  I am pointing out that you need not worry about socialism .  Both systems can yield the same results, for good or for ill, the major difference being that capitalism follows naturally from human behavior.

 

It seems clear that you favor capitalsm.

 

Glad you like the tractor.

[exchemist]

Not trying to offend you here, but I was responding to your concern about " socialist, government - run healthcare." just as much as I was responding to the OP concern about capitalist healthcare.  Two different concerns with the same response.

 

If you remove all emotional or moral concerns about the issue, it can be concluded that "designer babies" are inevitable in either socialist or capitalist systems.  In capitalism, your insurance companies will want your babies designed to not get sick, and in socialism, the government will want to make everyone "equal" so no one gets, or requires  more healthcare than anyone else. 

I'm not so sure. While the UK is not "socialist", it does have a health system (the "NHS") funded through central taxation - as do many civilised countries. Certain treatments are not available on the NHS, due to their cost or inessential nature. I would think this would be one in that category. It might also remain banned in the UK private sector, as morally undesirable.

 

There is no ideological imperative in the UK to make everyone get equal treatment, by the way. Private medicine flourishes, alongside the NHS.   

[Maine farmer]

. Private medicine flourishes, alongside the NHS.   

Of course it does, like I said, you can't kill capitalism.

 

. Certain treatments are not available on the NHS, due to their cost or inessential nature. I would think this would be one in that category. It might also remain banned in the UK private sector, as morally undesirable.

 

I would agree, but add, "for now."  Morality is an ever changing landscape that has often changed as a matter of convenience.  Even the most "moral" people  eventually become hypocrites.

[exchemist]

Of course it does, like I said, you can't kill capitalism.

 

I would agree, but add, "for now."  Morality is an ever changing landscape that has often changed as a matter of convenience.  Even the most "moral" people  eventually become hypocrites.

Yes you may be right that one day it may seen as acceptable. One cannot forecast how morality may change, indeed. 

 

Re "you can't kill capitalism", that's true enough. However I would just like to point out, for the avoidance of any misunderstanding, that this is not what the public health systems of the UK or France, or similar countries, were ever trying to do. In fact in the UK General Practitioners (i.e. neighbourhood family doctors) are not NHS employees but in business on their own account, with a contract with the NHS, which they are free to supplement. Also, most specialists working in the NHS have private practices as well. This was always envisaged, from the foundation of the service. (It's true that latterly some on the far left have sought to paint private medicine as intrinsically unfair and evil, but that's their problem.)

 

The object was not some socialist utopia but simply universal health provision, so as to remedy the pre-war situation in which the poor could easily find themselves unable to afford medical treatment.  

Edited September 17, 2017 by exchemist

[Maine farmer]

. (It's true that latterly some on the far left have sought to paint private medicine as intrinsically unfair and evil, but that's their problem.)

 

Again, I would add a "for now" to the end of that sentence.

 

A lot of extremists have a lot of time on their hands, so they push and push, and eventually cause problems.

[Coveny]

I just saw this video about fetuses in a pod.

 

 

Sorta on topic methinks.

[sophiewilson0191]

People playing Gods will have its toll.

Rather than making this for human beings why not make this for agricultural and conservation purposes.

Technology is not bad but it has it's limit.