Should we allow designer babies in the future? How should it be regulated?

[Anonymous No.10521947]

Post your arguments

[Anonymous No.10521952]

>>10521947

Let the free market decide.

[Anonymous No.10521959]

>>10521947
No. Cuz

1. Class societies would be extreme (unless every baby gets modified)

and 2. If every baby gets modified, every baby might get fucked if we fuck up somehow.

We don't understand how life is created and how evolution works. Toying around with it might lead to catastrophic outcomes eventually. "Oh we cured HIV, great, but whopsie we created SuperHIV doing so"

[Anonymous No.10521983]

>If every baby gets modified, every baby might get fucked
This.
Everybody will want the same mods, resulting in a loss of gene variability. Which in the end will make the population weaker.

[Anonymous No.10522007]

yes because if we don’t we’ll all end up as serfs to 400 IQ Chinese superbabies anyway

[Anonymous No.10522111]

>>10522007
This.

>>10521983
What I'm way more worried about is meddling with my kids DNA to be more subservient, weak, or otherwise modified to obey the powers that be.

[Anonymous No.10522229]

I believe that once the kinks are worked out, it should be heavily subsidized by the government (but NOT directly controlled), but we should encourage a few groups to not adopt it has a societal backup - like the Amish, for instance.

>>10522111
That is a concern of mine as well; there are huge advantages if you can create a society that has a lot less low impulse control idiots running around, but said society of intelligent, patient people will be a lot harder for the powers that be to control. It will be very tempting for government officials to try and mandate excessive "placidness" and such into people, and will need to be watched for.

[Anonymous No.10522377]

>>10521952
fine

[Anonymous No.10522394]

>>10521952
death to boomers

[Anonymous No.10522399]

Instead of actually using gene editing tech, why don’t we just practice eugenics when having kids

[Anonymous No.10522418]

>>10522399
Gene editting is a form of eugenics you monogloid. Those genes are edited at inception so that they will passed on to future generations.

[Anonymous No.10522430]

Lets assume we can biologically design a child who loved sex with adults and would not have lasting mental damages, and used a child to cure the pedophile epidemic. Obviously you're against this but why, its between two parties who consent with no foreseeable downside for either party. This is why designer babies are dangerous to me, just because everyone benefits doesnt mean its morally right. If you object please tell me what part of this argument you're against.

[Anonymous No.10522438]

>>10522430
Or make it so pedophiles don't exist through the same process. That way you don't have mentally underdeveloped kids with pedophiles who can't relate to people their own age.

[Anonymous No.10522450]

>>10522438
Your proposition requires every baby to be edited, mine only requires a select few to be. Mine is more economically feasible.

[Anonymous No.10522479]

>>10522399
One is unethical and unpopular.
The other is highly unethical and unpopular.

It's not that hard

[Anonymous No.10522482]

>>10521947

What will happen once they fuck with normal people and have offspring?

[Anonymous No.10522528]

>>10522450
>more economical
I don't agree with the other anon, but your moral quandary is relevant. However, arguing that it is feasible isn't an argument that it is a moral solution.

I think the answer is that not every tool is morally useful for every moral end. The means must be calibrated to adequately achieve the ends.

[Anonymous No.10522538]

>>10521947
Allow?

[Anonymous No.10522543]

>>10521947
Yes we should, everybody should be able to build muuuuscle

[Anonymous No.10522552]

>high iq
>no baldness
>6'3"
>perfect pitch
>20/20 visionn
>athletic
>not old enough to know if I'll get Alzheimers/other fucked up shit when I'm older

Almost a natty.

[Anonymous No.10522560]

>>10521947
No one on this site will have any influence over the implementation of socially restructuring technologies by multi-national corporations or superpower governments. Every word spent on this issue is a waste of your time.
>>10521959
t. low verbal iq

[Anonymous No.10522563]

>>10522111
>What I'm way more worried about is meddling with my kids DNA to be more subservient, weak, or otherwise modified to obey the powers that be.
This. How do we know a guy in a black suit is not gonna show up, say a few random words and make my son go winter soldier on my ass because I committed thoughtcrime?

[Anonymous No.10522592]

>>10522377
>that meme
>he doesn’t know what wireheading is
>he doesn’t realize that eternal agony is caused by chemical reactions in his brain, and can therefore be cured

https://qualiacomputing.com/2016/08/20/wireheading_done_right/

[Anonymous No.10522603]

>>10521947
Designer babies are the only way to stop idiocracy from becoming reality.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/short-history-of-3rd-millennium/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/nor-breeding-their-best/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/paper-review-icelandic-dysgenics/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/dysgenic-deutschland/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/cicerone-on-dysgenic-decline/
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/frito-effect/

[Anonymous No.10522609]

>>10522430
>This is why designer babies are dangerous to me, just because everyone benefits doesnt mean its morally right.
This argument is nothing more than “muh feefees”.

[Anonymous No.10522630]

>>10521947
It's worth a try. The traditional method doesn't seem to be working terribly well any more.

[Anonymous No.10522643]

>>10521947
It is unethical not to at least screen embryos for genetic defects. Initially this will be restricted to genetic diseases. My hope is that this is as far as things will go.

The reality is that pockets of individuals will go much further.

Before we start culling large portions of genetic material you need to understand some very important facts.

The potential of the average citizen has not yet been maximised at a stage prior to genetic enhancement. Environmental (social, diet, etc.) factors play a large role in how genetics perform.

Genetics will not solve the issue. Eugenics has been going on for a while now and it is a failed experiment.

[Anonymous No.10522668]

>>10522609
>muh feefees
Those were honed by millions of years of death dividing out the things that were not relevant to our survival. I wouldn't be quick to ignore them.

Then again, I'm probably the one that survives this encounter.

[Anonymous No.10522723]

>>10522643
>My hope is that this is as far as things will go.
0% chance of that happening, gramps. Uncle Ted was right.

[Anonymous No.10522732]

>>10522723
We don't really have to worry about artificial genome selection of the span of a population. The localities that enforce that will die out from lack of genetic texture.

[Anonymous No.10522840]

>>10522609
Every moral argument boils down to feefees you ignoramus. You can abstract it in 20 layers of fancy words but its always about feefees.

[Anonymous No.10522859]

>>10521947
Can't imagine why you would regulate it at all. Other than an amoral nanny state that want's to control it's people and keep them as compliant stagnant sheeple.

[Anonymous No.10522863]

>>10521952
100% This

[Anonymous No.10522925]

>>10521947
Should be allowed, everyone would like be to healthier, stronger, smarter, longer lived, better looking, etc. If everyone is genetically better then it'd also improve lives further since people would be healthier and more able to be independent. However, what should be restricted is genetically engineering someone with a set purpose for them (ei genetically designing someone to be a football star before they're born and are able to choose what they want)

[Anonymous No.10522940]

>>10522925
Don't worry about controlled evolution; the morphic resonance hypothesis states that the exact degree of genetic divergence per-mutation into new organisms guarantees free will becomes the dominant resonant factor in any engineered gene or trait or allele.

[Anonymous No.10522955]

>>10521947
How this for an agreement. You are only allowed TWO designer babies for a family of a man & a woman who have been married for at least 2 years.

1. Decrease global population
2. Reward stability and instill family values
3. The natural evolutionary progression towards pair-bonded, high-investment for super genius offspring (K-selection mating strategy).

[Anonymous No.10522971]

\{x \in \mathbb{N} : x \mod \{ y \in \mathbb{N} : y \ne \{x, 1\} \} \ne 0 \}

fuckin primes...

[Anonymous No.10522981]

>>10521947
Yes.
It shouldn't.

[Anonymous No.10522993]

Definitive answer here, clearing this shit up no - no questions asked rite:

Designer babies are the Instagram of 2045, them puffy lips and badonkadonk... genetically selected for vanity...

You don't wanna be in the future, it'll make you puke...

[Anonymous No.10523006]

P = \{x \in \mathbb{N} : x \mod \{ y \in \mathbb{N} : y \ne \{x, 1\} \wedge y \le x \} \ne 0 \}

[Anonymous No.10523017]

>>10521947
Perfect pitch isn't genetic

[Anonymous No.10523023]

>>10522981

No no, anon, that's what WILL happen, not what SHOULD happen, which is what the OP asked about. Hume is disappointed in you.

[Anonymous No.10523027]

If it were regulated dumbfucks like us would be liquidized and fed to more worthy life candidates

[Anonymous No.10523036]

>>10522732
>muh genetic texture
i'm sure Zhang and Ming will be real worried about that when they enslave the rest of the civilized world in the span of a week

[Anonymous No.10523070]

>>10523036
>Zhang and Ming
Aren't you thinking of Khan?

[Anonymous No.10523193]

>>10522430
it's not consent if we biologically design that. That's like breeding subservience in slaves; it's still immoral to do but the generational and chronological distance make it seem more palatable to the people down the line who use the product

[Anonymous No.10523216]

>>10523193
There's nothing wrong with a race of sapient slaves, so long as they are well taken care of and enjoy being what they are. Immoral is when you treat them as lesser because of their social role, or decide that "slavery" is somehow a form of ownership, and treat a sapient being like property. You sidestep this consideration by calling it "palatable," but the slave race should have no lesser a quality of life than the race it's "meant to" serve.

The key here is that a race of asshole masters can die out, and be replaced by masters that are less controlling about subservience. Just because we created them doesn't mean we're treating them well. We still have a moral obligation within what we create, to ensure that we provide it with an environment that keeps selecting for the traits we created.

If we can sustain a race of lolis, fine. But if we end up in a situation where normal children are being confused for lolis, then we need some form of environmental barrier to separate the races such that immoral mixing of environmental factors occurs less.

[Anonymous No.10523368]

>>10523036
>he thinks the chink government will allow them to be intelligent
all they'll do is become even closer to their unfeeling and unquestioning bugman ideal
they'll charge the human lines like a horde, and get obliterated time and time again

[Anonymous No.10523399]

>>10521947
This line from this children's cartoon only applies to the traits in OP's image that are not IQ. Everyone benefits from a world populated exclusively with Einsteins.

[Anonymous No.10523411]

>>10523399
If that were true it would have already happened. We've been evolving for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions outright. Intellect, for whatever reason, correlates with rationed lack of care for others. In other words, disdain, pride, haughtiness. The more intelligent you are, the more excuses you can find to not help others. Literally, in a society where everyone is expected to be a genius, the people who—by chance, or for whatever other reason—aren't will suffer because they can't keep up with the cultural premises surrounding them.

You might think, "Oh but that would be a systemic problem that one of the geniuses would be able to pick up on right away!" but that isn't a realistic statement, because all of them are making that same assumption, up to some optimum Bayesian limit per population or locality. In other words, there is always a margin of error, and the idea that a genius is always completely correct about everything is an unattainable and unrealistic ideal you hold because you favor it emotionally. Not rationally. Emotionally.

When you can reason all this out yourself without me telling you this, that's when you join the dialogue. Until then, all of us have already seen you fail at basic systems reasoning.

[Anonymous No.10523419]

According to the self-reinforcing presupposition of modernization, to be understood is to be modifiable. It is to be expected, therefore, that biology and medicine co-evolve. The same historical dynamic that comprehensively subverts the SSSM through inundating waves of scientific discovery simultaneously volatilizes human biological identity through biotechnology. There is no essential difference between learning what we really are and re-defining ourselves as technological contingencies, or technoplastic beings, susceptible to precise, scientifically-informed transformations. ‘Humanity’ becomes intelligible as it is subsumed into the technosphere, where information processing of the genome – for instance — brings reading and editing into perfect coincidence.

To describe this circuit, as it consumes the human species, is to define our bionic horizon: the threshold of conclusive nature-culture fusion at which a population becomes indistinguishable from its technology. This is neither hereditarian determinism, nor social constructivism, but it is what both would have referred to, had they indicated anything real. It is a syndrome vividly anticipated by Octavia Butler, whose Xenogenesis trilogy is devoted to the examination of a population beyond the bionic horizon. Her Oankali ‘gene traders’ have no identity separable from the biotechnological program that they perpetually implement upon themselves, as they commercially acquire, industrially produce, and sexually reproduce their population within a single, integral process. Between what the Oankali are, and the way they live, or behave, there is no firm difference. Because they make themselves, their nature is their culture and (of course) reciprocally. What they are is exactly what they do.

t. Nick Land, The Dark Enlightenment

[Anonymous No.10523462]

>>10523411
>it would have already happened
We know precious little about evolution. What we do know of it are just the basics. In the words of Newton
>We are playing with a few pebbles on the beaches of a vast ocean

[Anonymous No.10523473]

>>10523419
Who the hell can decipher this algorithm? Are there any code junkies around?

[Anonymous No.10523482]

>>10523419
this guy sounds exactly like the asian troll who posts here sometimes

[Anonymous No.10523484]

>>10523419
WERD
ZALAD

[Anonymous No.10523493]

>>10523419
Who was it who said that if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it? Ah, yes. Einstein.

[Anonymous No.10523500]

>>10523473
>>10523482
>>10523484
>>10523493
Most brainlet sequence of four consecutive posts I've ever seen on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.10523502]

>>10523419
>hereditarian determinism
hereditarian determinism isn't even a thing
just google it and there are 0 results

[Anonymous No.10523505]

>>10523500
I do believe Nick Land is the most brainlet individual who has ever pretended to be an intellectual in all time and space

[Anonymous No.10523507]

>>10521947
no its raciss:^)

[Anonymous No.10523509]

>>10522450
If it were an option, every parent would want offspring that did not turn into a pedo.

[Anonymous No.10523510]

>>10523419
>to be understood is to be modifiable.
You're not very modifiable then, i take it.

[Anonymous No.10525060]

>>10523419
This is intentionally gibberish. But for the most part, anyone that uses tough words to express meaning without it being explicitly needed for the context is a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.10525992]

>>10523502
You know what hereditarian means? Determinism? Then you should know it's the notion that human nature and what we do is predetermined by our genetics. We have little agency, little will that was not bestowed upon us by various gene sequences
>>10525060
If you really think Land's writing is gibberish I'd invite you to consider any specific word in that passage and ask yourself if it says nothing. You really couldn't boil this down without the tough words, and tough words themselves are extremely useful.
Consider his use of the phrase technosphere for instance. One would draw comparison immediately to "biosphere", so it is intuitively understood to most readers what he means: the set environments that contain all technology on the globe. It likens technology to a living ecosystem which is exactly as he's trying to describe it. How else could you so succinctly describe this idea, and do so in such an intuitive way?
Some people hate his writing because he sometimes invents words like this as he goes, but the closer you inspect what he's doing the more impressive it is.
If you're a math guy I think you should appreciate the usefulness of complicated words. In math, definitions tend to compound upon eachother and stand atop other concepts in a manner that allows us to manipulate incredibly sophisticated concepts precisely because we packed the fundamental ideas neatly inside them and don't need to consider them as we consider their progeny. Once you know the basic rules of matrix operations you don't have to worry about the algebraic definitions each time you use them . Likewise words have ancestors, words who make up their definitions. To use words with long lineages that represent complicated ideas precisely is literally more intelligent, communicating more complicated ideas efficiently both with respect to space and cognitive processing

[Anonymous No.10526162]

>>10523419
He is saying that it is highly likely that the pseudo-evolution of humans after gene editing becomes available will result in humans pursuing and eventually becoming identical beings that share the sole purpose of perfecting themselves and reproducing. This will essentially make humans into a sort of hive mind that prevents any human from being identified unless you examine their actions, and similarly, the human race will best be defined as unit(sort of like how we classify a wood chipper as something that chips wood)
Though that sounds like a load of shit to me.

[Anonymous No.10526200]

>>10521947
It will happen. first with the rich, then market forces will drive down costs. gene editing technology post birth will help the poor saps who's parents had moral reservations about it.
also,every race finds lighter skin more attractive, meaning that every generation brown people will get a touch whiter.
the human race will be the white race by 2150

That being said, gene engineering is not going to fix many of our problems

[Anonymous No.10526230]

To hell with designer babies. I'm waiting for the day when we get to modify genes after birth.

[Anonymous No.10526891]

>>10521947
>Should we allow
What do you mean by "we", Peasant?

[Anonymous No.10527047]

>>10522560
wrong, this is the kind of place where big decisions are made. whatever the autists here decide, is what they will sperg to their families, once every doubt is cleared and every counter argument destroyed, they willnfeel secure to metion to other normies, the subject becomes normie talk, which becomes popular opinion, common sense, moral, ethic and law

[Anonymous No.10527088]

>>10521983
Gene editing makes shit genes that are expressd more by inbreeding not an issue though.

[Anonymous No.10527400]

the ethical conundrum isn't any sci-fi bullshit like "hurr but what if it's immoral to create superhumans" but the fact that any significant genetic editing will require the use of newborns as experimental subjects and suddenly your little genius will have his skeleton liquefy at the age of 10

[Anonymous No.10527442]

>>10521947
Yes, but the designs used should be heavily regulated. The market can have perverse incentives. For example, suppose there was a gene that made you smarter but also much more depressed. Every child who did not get this hypothetical gene would have a hard time getting a job as more and more manual/repetitive jobs get automated away. So every parent would have an incentive to purchase this gene for their child, so that their child could compete. On an individual level, this would make their children more happy, as they would be able to support themselves. But on a collective level, society would have been better off if it banned this particular edit: everyone would get the same jobs, might perform slightly worse at them, and the rate of depression would be much lower.

>>10521952
Literally the opposite of this.

[Anonymous No.10527496]

>>10521947
I'm gonna laugh my balls off if one day we find out the illuminati has been referring to 4chin posters like family guy's manatee tank

[Anonymous No.10527505]

>>10527442
>It's worth being stupider if you're happier
Gay

[Anonymous No.10527514]

>>10523419
>According to the self-reinforcing presupposition of modernization, to be understood is to be modifiable.
>To be understood is to be modifiable
What is the speed of light in a vacuum

[Anonymous No.10527528]

>>10522399
Cause it's faster and doesn't have any excess undesirable offshoots.
You can get GMOs by waiting for generations of cross breeding tomatoes with trial and error, or get the desired tomato in a lab in a week.

[Anonymous No.10527533]

>>10523216
How do you have a sapient slave serve you while not feeling that his status is inferior to yours, exactly?!...

[Anonymous No.10527569]

>>10525992
Not entirely wrong but if you can express your ideas in common words understood by everyone* in a few words instead of using looong jargon filled sentences, your communication is far more effective.
(*without oversimplifying the matter)

[Anonymous No.10527597]

>>10521947
I don't know anything about biology or ethics, but what moron put "perfect pitch"? First of all, it's a learned trait, full stop. This is well-documented, it has to do with a child's upbringing *very* early in their life. 440 Hz = A is not some biologically encoded fact in DNA.

Also, more to the point, it's only a good thing if you're a musician! Perfect pitch can actually be fucking annoying out in the real world of loud, incoherent sounds, and is definitely of 0 fucking use outside of musical professions.

What a stupid fucking image.

[Anonymous No.10527739]

>>10527505
Obviously it depends on how much stupider and how much happier. I would gladly trade 1 IQ point for unending bliss. In my hypothetical I'm assuming its a large enough gain in IQ to affect your job performance but not any larger, and that the depression is high-functioning but agonizing. Most people would want to collectively skip the depression.