posted on Jan, 13 2005 @ 04:27 PM
"That makes me a no then. I'm all for theraputic cloning for stem cells, that is an aspect of medical science that deserves as much funding as
it can get. I would even agree with genetic engineering as a use for bolstering the human immune system, removal of potential cancer causing genes
etc., but not as a tool for over the top superficial parents to choose the colour of their kids eyes or their sex or any of that, designer babies are
a bad idea."
Well, wait a minute. When it comes to developing a child with "bolstering an immune system, removal of potential cancer cusing genes, etc",
isn't that a "designer baby"? How about genetic markers for obseity, alopecia, dental caries, Kreuznach's Syndrome, sickle cell anemia,
and other genetic diseases? How about developing a kid with the genes to keep chromosomal telomeres from unraveling so she can have a life expectancy
of ~400-500 years?
Those considerations make things like eye color seem rather petty, wouldn't you agree? I mean, terms like "over the top" and "superficial
parents" are kind of subjective; what is irrelevant for you and me might be v ery important to another parent.
Don't get me wrong, Term; I'm not shooting your ideas down, because I kind of agree with them. However, I think we should all realize that we're
on a slippery slope here.
"What I'm not for is the use of cloning and genetic engineering purely just to increase the general population, especially as this will just give
legitimacy for governments all over the world to start cloning soldiers, assuming attempts havent already been made."
I agree; that sounds pretty nasty. But countries like Japan and Germany are facing severe depopulation issues; should they be constrained from
replenishing their own kind? Anyway, large armies are no longer a major issue; Saddam Hussein had the fourth-largest army in the world, and look how
well that helped him!
"Mankind already creates more life than it takes, the world population has been increasing ever since the aftermath of the bubonic plague in the
Agreed. but I don't think the issue is genetic engineering to make more people, but to make better people.
Of course, different people define "better" people in different ways....
Actually, in the final analysis, your opinion -- or mine -- doesn't make any difference any more.
The genie is already out of the bottle; the toothpaste is out of the tube; you cannot make the clock tick backwards.
Genetic engineering, even including human and probably transgenic engineering, is within the realm of possibility; the only question is whether or not
the leaders will be the USA and the UK -- or Singapore and the PRC.
The United States has been the breadbasket of the planet for at least a half-century now; if we do not improve our crops, someone else will; from a
biotechnological aspect, we'll be a third world country