Want to play God?

[Griffey]

After having a very heated and interesting discussion today with some of my friends, I have a qestion to pose. Let's say we have a situation where the technology is avaliable to choose your kid's genes by picking out the gametes from either parent that have the desired genes on them. (The assumption here is that this is in all ways legal, affordable, avaliable, and widely-used.)

Therefore you could "wire" your kids to be the most intelligent, good-looking, athletic, or whatever else out of the potential of your and your partner's genes. (For the purposes of this argument let's leave this person out of the moral equation.)

So, would you do it?

And if we take it a step further: Let's say you could genetically determine their values and morals...would you draw the line there? Or not?

[Maverick]

Griffey, there's one thing I want to call to your attention here. The question you are asking seems to assume genetic determinism. (That is, it seems to take the "nature" side in the nature vs. nurture debate.) In your hypothetical situation, will the child's environment play any role in the development of his/her values, morals, intelligence, looks, etc?

Personally, I would only manipulate my child's genetics to correct any possible health problems/deformities and to increase my child's potential. I wouldn't "wire" my child to have specific interests, possess certain talents, etc, because I would want my child to develop these things on his/her own.

As far as values and morals are concerned, is it even possible to genetically "wire" these things into a child? Our values and morals depend on our interaction with other people. If my child hasn't yet been born, how can he/she have any set values or morals without having interacted with other people?

[Griffey]

In your hypothetical situation, will the child's environment play any role in the development of his/her values, morals, intelligence, looks, etc?

As far as it does now, I would say so. I mean, you could have a kid genetically predisposed to be super-intelligent, but maybe he/she was neglected intellectually by the parents and thus never reached this top potential. Or perhaps they were quite good-looking but suffered some skin-maiming condition that left them less attractive. So yes, the environment would have an effect on these things; the only thing you could ensure with the genes would be the potential of these things.

As far as values and morals are concerned, is it even possible to genetically "wire" these things into a child?

I doubt it. This was merely a hypothetical suggestion; I don't think this kind of thing is genetic in real life. It's just a "what if?" kind of question.

As for your comments about how you would engineer your child's genes: Why would you choose to alter their intelligence or looks, but not their morals? After all, in one way or another, all parents pass on their values to their kids; why not do so genetically? Is there some reason this way is different than the conventional way?

I'm guessing most of the people on this board are open-minded and would want to pass this value onto their kids, which makes the whole value thing a little null, as they'd want the kids to make their own decisions. But couldn't you "wire" the kid to challenge their beliefs? Or would you take the chance that they'd accept anything blindly?

[dragonfly]

I find this question interesting. I wonder if human beings will ever be able to unscramble the combined environmental and genetic influences that form each individual.

No matter your genetic programming things happen beyond your control. For instance think of the Holocaust in Germany and all the atrocities committed by ordinary people. I like to think I would be the type of person who would risk my life to smuggle Jewish children to safety BUT would I ? The fact remains that many people who were known to be loving parents and fine upstanding members of THEIR community and great friends to those they defined as friends were also capable of incredible cruelty and indeed participants of active genocide! Without Nazi Germany these same people might have lived out their lives without blemish.

My family were aristocrats in the time of the French revolution.Some of us due to our particular ignorance and fatal arrogance met an untimely end at the hands of those we oppressed.Some of us wisely fled...others joined the common people in their cause. I am named after one who died young and studying her portrait one who was not only of noble bearing but if one can judge by expression convinced of her superiority. I can not help wondering who's genes have found expression in myself.If I was plunged through time would I have found myself "outraged at the rabble!" or sympathetic to the plight of the poor?

Human beings are alarmingly plastic and malleable....just look at the history of fashion for ample proof! I am a firm believer in genetic influences too but its extremely difficult to distinguish to the degree one is formed by them as there are too many other influencing factors. (for instance when I lived in a cool climate I adored dancing and now I live in an extremely hot climate I find I paint more.....had I stayed in a cold climate I might never have picked up my paint brush,had I been born in the hot one I inhabit now I might never have discovered my dance skills.....in different circumstances all together who knows?)

If it were possible I would ensure my children were healthy (and perhaps good looking) but thats about it. #nosmileys

[Supremor]

I'd like to think that I would never accept genetics as an aide to my children, but the fact is I just don't know.

In Britain, a minister(Dianne Abbot) recently resigned, having said before she became the education minister, that she would never send her child to a private school, and that people who did were 'playing the system'. However, she then started sending her child to a top private school in London. Her excuse was that there were no good state schools in that part of London, and that she just wanted what was best for her child.

Although it's very easy to call her a hypocrit, I just wonder what I would have done in a similar situation. I might well of, like Dianne Abbot, sent my child to a private school. I might even, if I ever have the honour of being a father(I'm only a teenager, so I'm not considering it currently), choose to have a genetically chosen child for the same reasons that mrs Abbot used.

I guess I just don't know

[Jewel]

If my mother could have determined my likes/dislikes/features/etc... she would have. The only thing I worry about my husband's & my child having is bipolar disorder. It runs in hubby's family. I would make sure the child wouldn't have mental health issues.

Jewel

[coolguy]

This question assumes that I would have children. Hmmm

It also reminds me of playing dungeons and dragons or any type of game where you pick whether you want your character to be a fighter, thief, wizard, dwarf, elf, etc. Change my name to ali baba and get a harem and make 40 thieves... yea, that would rock. Name them George Bush III, George Bush IV... etc.

Well, anyway, of course I would use that kind of technology... would I have my offspring eat the cheapest (and not very nutritious) food or would I try to feed him/her/them a healthiest diet I can afford? Would I take them to doctors and keep them in the best health or just pray that they get better and let them "heal naturally" whenever they were ill? Would I send them to the best school (IMO) I can find or would I send them to some crappy public or religious school? Would I tinker with their genes to optimize their existence or just let them be born "naturally"?

Now if you are asking, "would you let your kid be a guinea pig for all this" then my I answer is no, but assuming the technology has already been perfected if/when I have kids, then yes, I'll use it.

[coolguy]

dragonfly said:

My family were aristocrats in the time of the French revolution.Some of us due to our particular ignorance and fatal arrogance met an untimely end at the hands of those we oppressed.Some of us wisely fled...others joined the common people in their cause. I am named after one who died young and studying her portrait one who was not only of noble bearing but if one can judge by expression convinced of her superiority. I can not help wondering who's genes have found expression in myself.If I was plunged through time would I have found myself "outraged at the rabble!" or sympathetic to the plight of the poor?

It could have been the artist's rendering, too. "I am painting a noble, I want to make her look noble." Even photographs don't always accurately portray the person's real image. Still, you're alive now, not then. How much do the poor matter to you? How much time do you spend enjoying the luxuries of modern life while knowing (or burying the fact) that the overwhelming majority of men (alive today or in the past) will never enjoy those luxuries, and how much effort do you put into changing that? I don't know the answers to those questions nor do I make any assumption, but they are good ones to think about.

[Franc28]

Griffey said:

After having a very heated and interesting discussion today with some of my friends, I have a qestion to pose. Let's say we have a situation where the technology is avaliable to choose your kid's genes by picking out the gametes from either parent that have the desired genes on them. (The assumption here is that this is in all ways legal, affordable, avaliable, and widely-used.)

Therefore you could "wire" your kids to be the most intelligent, good-looking, athletic, or whatever else out of the potential of your and your partner's genes. (For the purposes of this argument let's leave this person out of the moral equation.)

So, would you do it?

If there are already acceptable genetic code revisions available to all, then one should use them, yes. Insofar as they improve the possibilities of the potential individual.

And if we take it a step further: Let's say you could genetically determine their values and morals...would you draw the line there? Or not?

That is impossible. Your question makes no sense.

[Griffey]

Well, it was hypothetical. I wasn't intending this to be a super-realistic activity; the question I'm really asking is, if you could potentially make this kid believe or value anything you wanted, would you?

[pieisgood]

If given both those options, I would only do things that are strictly, obviously, without debate, good. For instance, I would make them open-minded, but I would NOT make them necessarily atheist. I would make them smart but I would not make them exclusively good at math. I strongly believe that anybody who has a belief is entiteled to persue it and decide their own priority list. You don't get somewhere by following somebody else's agenda. So I'd give my kid as many resources as I could, but let them decide what to persue.

[Franc28]

Griffey said:

Well, it was hypothetical. I wasn't intending this to be a super-realistic activity; the question I'm really asking is, if you could potentially make this kid believe or value anything you wanted, would you?

In that hypothetical and completely unrealistic situation, yes.