It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New L.A. Clinic lets Parents Genetically Design their new Baby

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   

New L.A. Clinic lets Parents Genetically Design their new Baby


futurestorm.blogspot.com

One Los Angeles fertility clinic is now offering to design babies to the exact specifications of the parents.

The Fertility Institute is calling this new technology "cosmetic medicine". Do you want your daughter to look like Barbie? Done. Just order up a tall, light-skinned, green-eyed, daughter with blonde hair and the clinic will do the rest.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
New Scientist: Genetically Modified Humans

[edit on 6-3-2009 by Skyfloating]




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
As predicted by sci-fi author Aldous Huxley in the 1950s.
While most of us still see this as something unnatural and sinister, scientists and their magazine outlets are celebrating "transhumanism" and breakthroughs in genetic engineering as the "next step" and a chance to "improve our evolution".

Im curious what the people here on ATS think.

futurestorm.blogspot.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Related Video:





posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Awesome (although I wouldn't do it)! I would like my baby to be a surprise, I wouldn't want to know or even pick what he/she would look like. I asked my Biology professor about this (as I heard something like this on ATS, I think, a while back) and he said that this technology wasn't available yet. I knew he was wrong!

[edit on 6-3-2009 by they see ALL]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I wouldnt use this service either. The surprise is whats so special about it.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I think you're exaggerating the issue. You say:


scientists and their magazine outlets are celebrating "transhumanism" and breakthroughs in genetic engineering as the "next step" and a chance to "improve our evolution"


But:


Mark Hughes, one of the pioneers of PGD, said: "It's ridiculous and irresponsible. There are thousands of desperate couples who have no hope of having healthy children without this technology, and here we are talking about this."

Marcy Darnovsky, director of the Centre for Genetics and Society, said: "The concern is that we'll be creating a society with new sorts of discrimination. Now it's eye and hair colour. What happens if it's height and intelligence? Some parents may have qualms, but still feel under pressure."

www.watoday.com.au...


Scientists have a sense of ethics and caution, just like everyone else. In fact, maybe moreso in some cases, as they're more familiar with the technologies and potential misuses.

But a point is valid: human beings, as a species, have never showed consistent restraint from misusing technologies. These issues will be explored.

The technology being discussed in the article is not genetic modification. It's a form of 'genetic screening', rather than manipulation:


Dr Steinberg's clinic, already the world's largest provider of gender choice, has had "five or six" requests from couples for the new service, which involves embryo selection not genetic modification.

He expects the first "trait selection" baby to be born next year. The cost for the process will be about $US18,000 ($A28,000).

It is based on pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD, which has for several years allowed doctors to identify potentially lethal diseases or conditions in embryos.

www.watoday.com.au...


There's already been some interesting legislation in the United States restricting various types of discrimination based on genetic analysis. Is 'selection' of an embryo (and the perhaps consequential destruction of 'unselected' embryos) a form of genetically-discriminated abortion? Are there cases where it's justifiable, such as life-threatening congenital defect?

Interesting and valid questions that are being discussed by the scientific and medical communities.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Transhumanism, ha? Well - this is definetly the way of the future, it will eventually bring a lot of benefits. Less people would suffer from deseases, people would be more capable to do things that we do not dream on and other positive results would in the end be achieved.
Shame that we as a species will have to be replaced by "trans"Homo Sapiens (and not by cis
).
I am not that happy about this. It is falling into abyss, not just staring into it.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I can imagine a world where you can be born whatever you want to be. No more will sentience be restrained to the cruel brutality of natural DNA. If I can increase my metabolic efficiency, my muscle building potential, my intellectual capacity then I am freeing myself from the cruelty of Darwinian natural selection. I never have to become redundant. I am free to live on forever and experience the universe at my whim. It's not fair that I was born this way. How could possibly tell someone with a straight face that the way they entered this world will be the same as the way they are going to live through it and will be the way they will eventually die, and there's nothing they can do about it? Come on, people have been dreaming about this since the days of Daedalus. All we have to be weary of is irrationality. Let's hope we don't fly too close to the sun. Those that don't will be able to experience lives infinitely better than all their ancestors could have ever imagined. Bottom line it has to be ethical. But we can't let fear stop us from exploring new modes of life and consciousness. The benefits, if applied humanely, far outweigh the costs of abandoning all hope out of fear and uncertainty.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by cognoscente]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating


As predicted by sci-fi author Aldous Huxley in the 1950s.
While most of us still see this as something unnatural and sinister, scientists and their magazine outlets are celebrating "transhumanism" and breakthroughs in genetic engineering as the "next step" and a chance to "improve our evolution".

Im curious what the people here on ATS think.

futurestorm.blogspot.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



I'm all for transhumanism!

This is amazing news!

Thanks for the great post



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Once again we realize the 'future is now'. But I think this speaks less to Huxley's "Brave New World" than it does to the film "Gattaca".

It is interesting to me that the clinics director, Jeff Steinberg, was involved in the first succesful test-tube baby; knowing how common that procedure became there is no reason to think this will not become the 'new normal', esp. when it is beginning at the low price point of 18k.

I believe it is entirely possible, barring massive international legislation to stop it, that we will live in a "Gattaca" world within two or three generations.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I think It would be great if there was a debilitating hereditary gene that might negatively affect the child, this could completely romove that

What I'd be worried about is how far this could go, parents who can spend $18k just to change the appearance of their child obviously have no problem with money or ethics about gene changing.

So what will the future be like? I'm sure there are doctors out there who will abuse this to make million on parents who realise they can have pink or blue skinned babies and the like parading them around as fashion items...

Wow... that thought just made me feel sick for some reason...

Don't tell me you don't think there are people out there that are so rich but stupid that they wouldn't do this, and once the rich and famous start doing it...




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Go for it. Take out the genes that make people inherently stupid and limited in potential intelligence. Get rid of non empathetic human beings which destroy others for self gain.

A world where all people feel empathy for one another, they all work for intelligent solutions, etc. etc. Well, I am all for it.

The current version of human being will disappear. Take a look around, is that necessarily a bad thing? We destroy our own environment we depend upon for survival, we kill each other over petty differences, the greedy non-empathetic rich rob others at every chance they get, exploiting countless innocent people who work themselves to death just to get by.

It is my opinion that a smarter, healthier, and more empathetic race of our current selves is the best thing that could ever happen to our species. In fact, it may end up being necessary for our survival that we do just such things.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Yes Ian, I didnt mean to cliche the "mad and evil scientist". Of course ethics still means something here and there.

Yes TWISI, I was thinking Gattaca and Jude Law and posted Huxley.

_______________________________________

Personally I`m ambivalent on this. I think its valid to find ways cure disabilities but reject the type of atheism that sees the entirety of a human as a lump of meat.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Can they design super hot blondes that can be 18-24 of age and help around the house??

I think this is good news and about time. They've only been hiding this technology for like 40 years.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


If we look at ourselves as biological computers, there is actually a theory to already term this point in our evolution.

en.wikipedia.org...

I believe that we may have hit that point, or we will soon hit that point, were we can improve ourselves without the help from nature, much like a machine would improve itself, without the need of help from man.

I think it is possible that the future of our species is dependent upon how soon we can accomplish the Technological Singularity for ourselves. We cannot continue being as ignorant as we are, lack empathy as we do, and expect to survive as a species.

[edit on 6-3-2009 by grimreaper797]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Irishwolf


So what will the future be like? I'm sure there are doctors out there who will abuse this to make million on parents who realise they can have pink or blue skinned babies and the like parading them around as fashion items...

Wow... that thought just made me feel sick for some reason...

Don't tell me you don't think there are people out there that are so rich but stupid that they wouldn't do this, and once the rich and famous start doing it...




I don't think that's a bad thing at all. If we can actually interject a myriad of colors for skin tones, imagine the effect on society! We would truly be a melting pot.

I really don't see the problem with doing this.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Grimreaper / Hunka:

One potential problem is the diversity of nature vs. the same-ishness of humans limited cliche-like ideas of what "good looks" are.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

I think its valid to find ways cure disabilities but reject the type of atheism that sees the entirety of a human as a lump of meat.


But if we were going to get all 'metaphysical' about it -- and agreed with the concept that we choose our bodies, lives, parents, challenges, etc. in this life before incarnating -- what difference does it make?
...

Well, I guess we'd have fewer choices from which to have the human experience... so maybe it does make a difference.

Anyway, I am not going to have children, so I will not have to face this quandry (at least not in this lifetime
) but think it has the very real potential of becoming common place in the blink of an eye as a lot of people will choose this option if it is really this viable and cheap and sure to get even cheaper.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

But if we were going to get all 'metaphysical' about it -- and agreed with the concept that we choose our bodies, lives, parents, challenges, etc. in this life before incarnating -- what difference does it make?



I guess it wouldnt make much difference from a "we are a soul not a body" viewpoint. Except that personality and experience also shape ones looks and no matter how "perfect" parents want their child to be, they cant force it to remain that way.



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


cliche good looks vs. the solving of many of modern mans problems....that is a tough one.

Not everyone has the same view of good looks. That is certain. I think something looks good, my friend thinks it looks terrible. We would obviously not pick the same "looks" if we had the choice.

I think the benefits greatly outweigh the negative aspects like more generic good looking people. Honestly, physical diversity is overrated. I think the survival/furthering of our species is a bit more pressing.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join