Designer Babies

[Dalek Prime]

Fair enough. I was diagnosed just this year, in my fifties. I dont think it was a common diagnosis when I was a kid.

Just to mention, I don't drink or do illicit drugs. Im not what one would call an addictive personality., and if I wasn't being benefited in a mwasureable way, I would stop taking it. Most people would get a rush from it. Someone with ADD does not.

When I think about it, all through my school years I can't think of a single child that I would describe as having a 'mental disorder', just many differing personalities that were accepted by parents and teachers alike. I suspect the navel-gazing and pill-popping revolution probably started in the US. Anything for a buck.

Definitely an imperfect world, veg.

[Terrapin Station]

Sorry. I meant that 'Frankenstein' should be the only warning we should need, not to mess with life or play god. Even with in vitro, we are crossing lines we shouldn't, putting more pressure on population where it needn't have been. And with that and designer babies, what need will there ever be to adopt a child who already exists, and needs attention and nurturing?

I've always seen Frankenstein as a story that emphasizes problems with folks not accepting difference, not problems with being different. In other words, the problems arise due to the attitudes of the pitchfork-and-torch-carrying villagers, not Frankenstein's creature.

Frankenstein is a story about creating a mind that 'can' suffer, and inevitably will. Why the creature suffers is secondary to the fact that he can and will suffer, needlessly.

Different people see it different ways (unsurprisingly enough).

[Dalek Prime]

I've always seen Frankenstein as a story that emphasizes problems with folks not accepting difference, not problems with being different. In other words, the problems arise due to the attitudes of the pitchfork-and-torch-carrying villagers, not Frankenstein's creature.

Frankenstein is a story about creating a mind that 'can' suffer, and inevitably will. Why the creature suffers is secondary to the fact that he can and will suffer, needlessly.

Different people see it different ways (unsurprisingly enough).

It's the bigger picture I gave. Yours is a suffering microcosm. Mine is about suffering, period. No creation, no suffering.

[Terrapin Station]

Frankenstein is a story about creating a mind that 'can' suffer, and inevitably will. Why the creature suffers is secondary to the fact that he can and will suffer, needlessly.

Different people see it different ways (unsurprisingly enough).

It's the bigger picture I gave. Yours is a suffering microcosm. Mine is about suffering, period. No creation, no suffering.

You're not saying something like your intepretation is correct or objectively preferred or something like that, are you?

[Dalek Prime]

Different people see it different ways (unsurprisingly enough).

It's the bigger picture I gave. Yours is a suffering microcosm. Mine is about suffering, period. No creation, no suffering.

You're not saying something like your intepretation is correct or objectively preferred or something like that, are you?

Yours is a subset of mine. That's what I'm saying. You gave a specific instance, and I'm putting it in the larger context. What's the issue?

[Terrapin Station]

It's the bigger picture I gave. Yours is a suffering microcosm. Mine is about suffering, period. No creation, no suffering.

You're not saying something like your intepretation is correct or objectively preferred or something like that, are you?

Yours is a subset of mine. That's what I'm saying. You gave a specific instance, and I'm putting it in the larger context. What's the issue?

I don't agree with your interpretation, though. I don't think it's wrong--I don't think there are right or wrong interpretations; I just don't agree with it.

[Hobbes' Choice]

This stuff is going to happen whether you like it or not.

It will simply be done by tweeking yours, and your partner's DNA to select the stuff you want, and reject the stuff you do not. The effect will be to get the best possible son or daughter rather than leave it up to choice. It will start small with hair colour and eye colour, and the suppression of "faulty" genes or one that give rise to diseases or 'malformations'. Then it will develop to avoid obesity, flat feet, or a big nose. Soon enough other people's genes could be spliced in to improve looks, or body shape.
If you want it to be much smarter- that is going to be more difficult, as there is no gene specifically for "intelligence" (whatever that is), but even that could be enhanced with practice.
You can legislate against it only to a certain degree. And where that occurs the local jurisdiction will be at a disadvantage.
The religious nuts that resist it will be outclassed by new race of smarter humans. If you can't get it done at home because of laws in your own land, you can always get it done in a shop in some other country then come home for the birth.

[Dalek Prime]

You're not saying something like your intepretation is correct or objectively preferred or something like that, are you?

Yours is a subset of mine. That's what I'm saying. You gave a specific instance, and I'm putting it in the larger context. What's the issue?

I don't agree with your interpretation, though. I don't think it's wrong--I don't think there are right or wrong interpretations; I just don't agree with it.

Why not? Does the monster not suffer for his existence? Don't we all?

But yes, you're right. We don't know what was in Mary Shelley's head at the time. Mind you, there is a chapter o. antinatalism and suffering in the book, 'The Philosophy of Frankenstein'.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Yours is a subset of mine. That's what I'm saying. You gave a specific instance, and I'm putting it in the larger context. What's the issue?

I don't agree with your interpretation, though. I don't think it's wrong--I don't think there are right or wrong interpretations; I just don't agree with it.

Why not? Does the monster not suffer for his existence? Don't we all?

But yes, you're right. We don't know what was in Mary Shelley's head at the time. Mind you, there is a chapter o. antinatalism and suffering in the book, 'The Philosophy of Frankenstein'.

Have you even read the book?
What makes you think it is any kind of analogy for "designer babies"?
It simply is NOT.
Some people have a life long disposition to be optimistic and cheerful even in diversity, and even when they are suffering great hardship. I see no reason that this trait could not be enhanced with GM.

Frankenstein collected the parts of dead bodies and the brain of a criminal to produce an remarkably erudite and eloquent "monster", at a time when the idea of genes was not even known.

[Dalek Prime]

I don't agree with your interpretation, though. I don't think it's wrong--I don't think there are right or wrong interpretations; I just don't agree with it.

Why not? Does the monster not suffer for his existence? Don't we all?

But yes, you're right. We don't know what was in Mary Shelley's head at the time. Mind you, there is a chapter o. antinatalism and suffering in the book, 'The Philosophy of Frankenstein'.

Have you even read the book?
What makes you think it is any kind of analogy for "designer babies"?
It simply is NOT.
Some people have a life long disposition to be optimistic and cheerful even in diversity, and even when they are suffering great hardship. I see no reason that this trait could not be enhanced with GM.

Frankenstein collected the parts of dead bodies and the brain of a criminal to produce an remarkably erudite and eloquent "monster", at a time when the idea of genes was not even known.

Did you wipe your bum with toilet paper after taking that dump? I was speaking on a side issue with someone else. Don't interrupt and change my discussion.

[Terrapin Station]

Why not? Does the monster not suffer for his existence? Don't we all?

No, I don't think that everyone "suffers for their existence." See my comments on the recent suffering thread started by Bill. In general, I think that suffering talk in philosophical contexts tends to be very vague and dubious.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Why not? Does the monster not suffer for his existence? Don't we all?

But yes, you're right. We don't know what was in Mary Shelley's head at the time. Mind you, there is a chapter o. antinatalism and suffering in the book, 'The Philosophy of Frankenstein'.

Have you even read the book?
What makes you think it is any kind of analogy for "designer babies"?
It simply is NOT.
Some people have a life long disposition to be optimistic and cheerful even in diversity, and even when they are suffering great hardship. I see no reason that this trait could not be enhanced with GM.

Frankenstein collected the parts of dead bodies and the brain of a criminal to produce an remarkably erudite and eloquent "monster", at a time when the idea of genes was not even known.

Did you wipe your bum with toilet paper after taking that dump? I was speaking on a side issue with someone else. Don't interrupt and change my discussion.

I have a perfect right to join this discussion. The case about Frankenstein is hysterical nonsense. It's a piss poor analogy to bring to a discussion on designer babies.

Yes, my bum came away very clean as usual. But you do have rather a lot of shit on your (ahem!) argument.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Why not? Does the monster not suffer for his existence? Don't we all?

No, I don't think that everyone "suffers for their existence." See my comments on the recent suffering thread started by Bill. In general, I think that suffering talk in philosophical contexts tends to be very vague and dubious.

GM could mean never having to feel bad about your "suffering".
What is not to like?
How about humans who actually think it was a great idea to have been born in the first place (unlike Dalek brain).

[Terrapin Station]

How about humans who actually think it was a great idea to have been born in the first place

I'm one of those.

[Dalek Prime]

Why not? Does the monster not suffer for his existence? Don't we all?

No, I don't think that everyone "suffers for their existence." See my comments on the recent suffering thread started by Bill. In general, I think that suffering talk in philosophical contexts tends to be very vague and dubious.

GM could mean never having to feel bad about your "suffering".
What is not to like?
How about humans who actually think it was a great idea to have been born in the first place (unlike Dalek brain).

They have no choice to feel good about existence. It's all they have or know. You can't stop thinking from an extants POV, and that is where you fail. 'Nothing' wants for nothing.