a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by nevernegligent

It's easy to write this article without actually taking time to think about what it really means to design a child. Of course it would be nice to eliminate disease and conditions like autism or MS. However, the dismissal of aesthetic or athletic modifications seems knee-jerk to me.

One doesn't get to choose his traits now, and things aren't so bad. Sure some people, myself included didn't draw the genetic lottery when it comes to physical attractiveness or athleticism, but that lack of choice isn't bothersome. So if your parents chose to make you blonde, big deal, you wouldn't have had a choice anyway. Personally, I'd rather that my parents had a choice in my traits.

An argument is that babies would just be born in trend with the popular genetic styling. This seems superficial, but how different is it from popular hairstyles or clothing?

Overall, this is just the next step in evolution. We have outpaced the Earth to the point where we can no longer evolve, however, with this solution we can continue to expand our collective intelligence and pursue the future even faster. That puts me on board.

Though, given how long it took me to design my Skyrim character, I don't know if I'd ever be able to decide on my child.





pureliquidhw  ·  4094 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Aren't parents choosing the genetic traits when they reproduce already? They choose their partner and choose to reproduce. As contraceptives are ubiquitous (especially in the context of populations who are making designer babies) parents are already technically picking and choosing what their kid looks like.

My biggest concern would be the child growing up looking nothing like his/her parents. From the parents side, we look at our own children and subconsciously know to love and care for them. Not that a parent wouldn't love a designed child, but there is an evolved psychology to support their relationship that isn't there.

From the child's side, they might feel disassociated much like an adopted child. So why not just adopt in the first place. I don't think it would be that hard to find a match. The ethics of adopting by appearance might also be unethical, but it is already happening (huge wait list for white babies). To counter that argument, the child could be OK looking different because instead of being given up by the bio parents for adoption, they look different because their parents decided.

Being beautiful has proven societal advantages. On average, you make more, you date more attractive mates (rich people have beautiful daughters), and you are more likely to have a broader social network to support you. So designing a more attractive child than your gene's can maybe in some ways be more beneficial then perhaps saving for college.

Also, limiting your child's risk for cancer and other diseases will give them a leg up later in life when they aren't limited by illness physically or financially. No glasses or LASIK for your child because they will have the gene's necessary for good vision. Breast Cancer runs in your family? Well not anymore!

My real concern is when you start augmenting for strength, speed, agility, intellegence, and obedience. Be it a gov't making super soldiers, or a dad making super heir. And on heir's, what about sex selection? What if a white anime fan wants their kid to look asian? Black parents want their kid to look white.

tl;dr: I don't care about hair color. I do care about elites who can afford it making children that are unbeatable.