extend the benefits of designer babies to everyone for free regardless of their social class
That’s not going to help you much. Some mothers want their daughters to have really big brains, and some mothers want their daughters to have really big boobs...
Require designer babies to possess genes for compassion, benevolence, and reflectiveness by law
Oh, dear. Let’s not go there. I bet the first genes “required by law” will be loyalty and obedience to authority.
I bet the first genes “required by law” will be loyalty and obedience to authority.
That isn’t what they’ll be called. They’ll be “just basic fixes to prevent antisocial personality disorder.” And whenever there’s a new fix that needs to be marketed, the obvious route will be to pathologize the current state (if it isn’t already).
That kind of approach is not just good for publicity, it helps pressure health insurers to pay for the procedures.
That’s not going to help you much. Some mothers want their daughters to have really big brains, and some mothers want their daughters to have really big boobs...
Remember there’s not a trade-off here. I think most people want their kids to be at least a little bit smarter than they are. And if parents know that all the other parents are maxing out the “intelligence” dial, I think they will want to as well. Parents compete against one another to have the best kids. Maxing out the “intelligence” dial is an easy way to compete.
Oh, dear. Let’s not go there. I bet the first genes “required by law” will be loyalty and obedience to authority.
It’s true that any laws about what genes to give your baby might end up being bad laws. So it’s possible that we’d be better off with no laws at all. I think most parents would prefer not to give birth to a psychopath, so maybe it’s not necessary to have a law against giving birth to a psychopath. I know I would prefer to have a kid who is more compassionate and benevolent than I am, but I’m not sure if this tendency is universal.
One idea is to make certain changes mandatory only if you’re having a designer baby, and not make having a designer baby mandatory.
I don’t know about that. I feel pretty certain there will be trade-offs, we don’t know yet of what kind and how severe.
Maxing out the “intelligence” dial is an easy way to compete.
So, I switch on a TV and lo and behold! The Kardashian sisters! They clearly won at life. So if I want my daughters to win at life like them, what do I maximize? X-)
In your social circle intelligence is paramount, in others—not necessarily.
I think most parents would prefer not to give birth to a psychopath
The opposite of obedient to authority is not “psychopath”, it’s “troublemaker”. Like Richard Feynman, for example.
The opposite of obedient to authority is not “psychopath”, it’s “troublemaker”.
It looks as if you’re responding to JM4 as if he’s claiming “it’s OK to have laws requiring babies to be tweaked for obedience to authority, because that’s how we avoid getting psychopaths”. But it looks to me as if he’s actually claiming “There won’t be laws requiring babies to be tweaked for obedience to authority—the populace wouldn’t stand for it. What there might be is laws requiring them to be tweaked for not-being-psychopaths, and that would be OK”.
It’s perfectly reasonable to be concerned that what there would actually be is a law called the Psychopathy Prevention Act whose text, when read carefully, in fact requires babies to be tweaked for obedience to authority. But if indeed that’s what would happen then JM4′s problem is not that he approves of enforcing obedience to authority but that he is making a wrong prediction about future politics.
I mostly have slippery slope concerns here. Once you’ve given the government the right to choose some—any—characteristics of your children, I fear the list of these characteristics can only expand.
That’s not going to help you much. Some mothers want their daughters to have really big brains, and some mothers want their daughters to have really big boobs...
Oh, dear. Let’s not go there. I bet the first genes “required by law” will be loyalty and obedience to authority.
That isn’t what they’ll be called. They’ll be “just basic fixes to prevent antisocial personality disorder.” And whenever there’s a new fix that needs to be marketed, the obvious route will be to pathologize the current state (if it isn’t already).
That kind of approach is not just good for publicity, it helps pressure health insurers to pay for the procedures.
Of course. See this :-)
Remember there’s not a trade-off here. I think most people want their kids to be at least a little bit smarter than they are. And if parents know that all the other parents are maxing out the “intelligence” dial, I think they will want to as well. Parents compete against one another to have the best kids. Maxing out the “intelligence” dial is an easy way to compete.
It’s true that any laws about what genes to give your baby might end up being bad laws. So it’s possible that we’d be better off with no laws at all. I think most parents would prefer not to give birth to a psychopath, so maybe it’s not necessary to have a law against giving birth to a psychopath. I know I would prefer to have a kid who is more compassionate and benevolent than I am, but I’m not sure if this tendency is universal.
One idea is to make certain changes mandatory only if you’re having a designer baby, and not make having a designer baby mandatory.
I don’t know about that. I feel pretty certain there will be trade-offs, we don’t know yet of what kind and how severe.
So, I switch on a TV and lo and behold! The Kardashian sisters! They clearly won at life. So if I want my daughters to win at life like them, what do I maximize? X-)
In your social circle intelligence is paramount, in others—not necessarily.
The opposite of obedient to authority is not “psychopath”, it’s “troublemaker”. Like Richard Feynman, for example.
It looks as if you’re responding to JM4 as if he’s claiming “it’s OK to have laws requiring babies to be tweaked for obedience to authority, because that’s how we avoid getting psychopaths”. But it looks to me as if he’s actually claiming “There won’t be laws requiring babies to be tweaked for obedience to authority—the populace wouldn’t stand for it. What there might be is laws requiring them to be tweaked for not-being-psychopaths, and that would be OK”.
It’s perfectly reasonable to be concerned that what there would actually be is a law called the Psychopathy Prevention Act whose text, when read carefully, in fact requires babies to be tweaked for obedience to authority. But if indeed that’s what would happen then JM4′s problem is not that he approves of enforcing obedience to authority but that he is making a wrong prediction about future politics.
I mostly have slippery slope concerns here. Once you’ve given the government the right to choose some—any—characteristics of your children, I fear the list of these characteristics can only expand.