Silkroad Online Forums

In this article http://finance.sympatico.msn.ca/savings ... d=10626178 it says that in a couple of years people with the money can buy the perfect baby, who can be cancer free, and look as you want them to look...do you guys think that this is right?

Seems right... Genetic engineering...yahr?

Thats wrong =/

like always... why dont we clone? why dont we use animals to produce certain proteins?

it all comes back on 1 thing, the ethic question , should humans take over the job of god, create and destroy, shape the world in every aspect we can change...

answer for now.. NO...

although certain countrys ignore those ethic rules....

sounds wrong to me, but i'm too lazy to read the whole thing

Are you guys stupid...
Create the perfect girl.... Perfect breast size perfect eyes lips skin tone size height hair style/color

You can make the girl famous and get paid...

and how many people are gonna think of that?



ALOT

if you where woundering

Squirt wrote:Are you guys stupid...
Create the perfect girl.... Perfect breast size perfect eyes lips skin tone size height hair style/color

You can make the girl famous and get paid...

lol +1/2

Anyone who says it's morally wrong is a dumbshit, morals are relative to who you are, state should NEVER had ANYTHING to do with morals/ethics/religion, it should be plain can we do it and if it would be best for us.

IMO, this isn't morally wrong, but should it be done? I believe it for sure should be allowed to be done to an extent, such as hair color, eye color, skin tone, purely physical things (like breast size as meantioned above ), but mental stuff? I'm not sure if that's a good idea, I mean, maybe it should be limited, you can't make a kid with an IQ higher than 120 by unnatural means, because if you do, you're totally changing who the child was "supposed" to be, that's not really what I'd be mad about (though it does disturb me a bit), but you're also giving the child a sort of free ride through life.
Of course, if the kid is going to be born with an IQ of 80, then you should definately change that if you can, you're just helping them out, they could be struggling through life and be very stupid, but you can help them out and give them an IQ of 115 so they're smarter than average, but it's not like making a fuckin' steven hawking baby, lol.

So in short: What do I think?
I think it should be allowed to be done to an extent, but I think mental stuff, that will affect kids who were unable to be genetically altered. Also, if this is allowed, then DEFINATELY there must be CONFIDENTIALITY! If not, then perhaps the kids who are genetically altered will be made fun of (hopefully it doesn't get like a point to where almost everyone is genetically engineered though and kids who aren't are made fun of, that's mean).

Also though, if this is done, the entire human race could totally and completely change from us average joes to supermodel-stevenhawking-sexkitten-einstein-ians, that could be good, but we really can't be sure.

So.... I guess I'm half and half, I support the motion, but I hope it doesn't go too far too fast where we won't be able to undo it, it might be a mistake (physical stuff though, I have really ALMOST no problem with it, but if you can make the perfect girl/boy, then maybe they'll get too much of a freeride, and if too many people do it, the less attractive/smart kids might get made fun of... *sigh*, it's a tough debate)

mmm...
I'm kinda neutral on this... The idea is great...

But to take away peoples individuality would be wrong... not saying that this would but it could reach a point.

It would be like living in a world of clones...

Its all "ROLLIN IN THE MONEY" until the child finds out its a genetically enhanced child and turns into a wreck, etc. etc. all downhill from there

Grimm-.- wrote:mmm...
I'm kinda neutral on this... The idea is great...

But to take away peoples individuality would be wrong... not saying that this would but it could reach a point.

It would be like living in a world of clones...

Yeah, and in the end, everyone is gonna look the same...

srsly, what happens when you f*ck with the balance of nature, when will we learn to live with ourselves the way we are?

CrimsonNuker wrote:Its all "ROLLIN IN THE MONEY" until the child finds out its a genetically enhanced child and turns into a wreck, etc. etc. all downhill from there

Who says being genetically altered will have a bad tinge to it? Maybe they'll be proud?

now that'd be something for Brangelina...

BlackFox898 wrote:srsly, what happens when you f*ck with the balance of nature, when will we learn to live with ourselves the way we are?

Mhmm... some things should just go untouched.
The only benefits I can see from this is the fact of not having to deal with cancer...etc... Possible having a healthier body then most newborns... But that can all be turned around by the way you live your life anyway.
+ I'm sure it hasn't been tested yet.

Since when the perfect baby is cancer free?

Like all babies have cancer. I don't have cancer, doe that make me a perfect baby?

heroo wrote:Since when the perfect baby is cancer free?

Like all babies have cancer. I don't have cancer, doe that make me a perfect baby?

lol.

heroo wrote:Since when the perfect baby is cancer free?

Like all babies have cancer. I don't have cancer, doe that make me a perfect baby?

I take it English isn't your native language... or its not my native language... hmmm.. brb shower.

Grimm-.- wrote:

heroo wrote:Since when the perfect baby is cancer free?

Like all babies have cancer. I don't have cancer, doe that make me a perfect baby?

I take it English isn't your native language... or its not my native language... hmmm.. brb shower.

haven't read the article, only his post.

and you're right, english isn't my native language.

I took a class two years ago that deals with human enhancements. We went through steroids, boob jobs, and hearing aids to genetic engineering, robotics, and nanotechnology. We dug pretty deep into the ethics of these issues but I didn't get any answers... yet.

Even today as in the past, parents are molding their children to their own judgements. Why should they be allowed to push it further and control their kids down to the molecular level? Why not? Equally important: where do we draw the line?

Perhaps the ethical dilemma boils down to volition. Does the act of controlling the child's genes rob him/her of will or individuality? We should keep in mind that absolute genetic determinism is hardly true. Identical twins have the same sets of DNA but can have different personalities due to numerous factors such as the environment.

There's also the problem on knowledge (that is similar to Theological Fatalism). Does the knowledge of the child's capabilities (rooted on his/her DNA) rob him/her of will or individuality? We have the technology to find out people's genomes, and even, to an extent, translate the codes to what they are. This problem shifts the light from the manipulation of genes, to knowing the full blueprint of a person. Should this information be used in screening possible sociopaths? Perhaps we can expand our use of it in medicine? As the article states, we may be able to prevent cancer and numerous other genetic disorders.

Here is where I take an agreement. Yes, germ line genetic engineering should be allowed but only to cure genetic disorders (though what constitutes it can change in the future). Manipulation should only be used when in need. However, the dilemma goes deeper. How far can we say "need"? The greatest discoveries and inventions were formulated and created by great minds - by people with exceptionally high IQ. Would it be right to say then that if we create individuals with higher IQs, perhaps they can make breakthroughs in science and technology that can ultimately benefit us. Is that a need or a want?

Blah blah blah... that's all for now. -.-

I think the whole idea is sick and twisted

BlackFox898 wrote:srsly, what happens when you f*ck with the balance of nature, when will we learn to live with ourselves the way we are?

QFT

The chinese will be all over this i guarentee it

how many rich people would have a clone pornstar? that is all.

ot: i am all for killing anything and creating anything as long as it doesnt end with us creating braindead people to use them as modern slaves.

clone wars!!

In the end it all comes out to who got designed by who.

Guchi babies only 50,000~
Well I was made by Shaun john~

Yeah well Hilfiger created me!

I would buy little Misa Campo.

Love wrote:how many rich people would have a clone pornstar? that is all.

Why would someone want their daughter to be a pornstar? I mean, I might make my daughter have larger breasts, but purely because women with larger breasts have an advantage in life, but if you actually like purposely turn your child into a pornstar... that's just weird, yo.

Rainigul wrote:

Love wrote:how many rich people would have a clone pornstar? that is all.

Why would someone want their daughter to be a pornstar? I mean, I might make my daughter have larger breasts, but purely because women with larger breasts have an advantage in life, but if you actually like purposely turn your child into a pornstar... that's just weird, yo.

To rape them.

Wow. shits messed. humans shouldnt try to make people from nothing... we cant even make software that isnt buggy... somthings just need to be left alone... and how can they guarantee that it will be cancer free? we dont even know how to cure that shit... all i know is they're going to be messed up. maybe it will seem ok at first, but it will fail later. We are not God.

chesticles wrote:The chinese will be all over this i guarentee it

They all look the same anyway.

LOL

No buy seriously.. I didn't read the article!
someone explain.. what exactly are they saying they can do?
Change the fetus while it's developing to make it into whatever they want or..?
tbh I guess it doesn't really matter how, they should make them not be able to get cancer - yes, but to make them look a certain way.. that's just not natural, God planned for what people are suppose to look like (my belief, obviously lots will disagree) and we shouldn't be changing that.