Natural or Scientific?

[Adhamh Ashashi]

Well I was watching the movie Gattaca in Biology the other day and it made me think, which would you rather choose:

1. A natural birth where no science is involved and you leave it up to God or Nature depending on your beliefs.

2. A scientific birth where you choose the genes your child inherits and you choose how the child looks.

I thought it sounded interesting.

[Tigrul]

From an ethical point of view, there is absolutely no dilemma here. The best choice for the human species is obviously the second, each human to be genetically engineered.

From a psychological point of view... it might not be that good for the parents to choose the child... but then again... who cares about the parents?! The evolution of the human species is the more important here

[Helm]

I'm not too bothered about looks, but I would use science to ensure that they don't have any genetic diseases or defects.

[Romanos IV]

2 only of the kid knew how would he/she look like.... but that's of course impossible.

[Playfishpaste]

there is no machine on earth that can emulate the artificial intelligence of nature, so until that happens, I'll go for the natural pick.

[Helm]

there is no machine on earth that can emulate the artificial intelligence of nature, so until that happens, I'll go for the natural pick.

We can do things such as select the sperm to fertilise the egg, or select the fertilised egg to be implanted, test tube babies and the like.

[basics]

So what do you do if the thing created happens to be imperfect?

[Tigrul]

there is no machine on earth that can emulate the artificial intelligence of nature, so until that happens, I'll go for the natural pick.

here's how nature works:

two animals of different sexes copulate
the sperm fastest to the egg fertilizes it
bam! an offspring of that species is created

then nature begins decision making:
is this offspring good enough to survive?
is this offspring good enough to replicate?
if both are true, then this goes on another generation and so on.

what could humans do?

well...
take sperm
take eggs
test and see which is the best combo
fertilize the best egg with the best sperm
test the resultant embryo

if it checks out, implant it
if it doesn't, back to the drawing board

I am sorry for my ignorance concerning genetics, I have no clue just how far it's gotten, so it may not be possible to determine the best sperm-egg combo, for instance, but... you get my point.

The idea is that nature's selection mechanism starts acting as soon as the offspring is born, which, depending on which species we're talking about, can range anything between a few days to a few years for ellies.

With the method that humans would use, the waiting time (9 months) would be saved.

Also... note that most of nature's selection mechanism is no longer working on humans. We have no natural predator... with the exception of micro-organisms, of course, but I don't count them in. And we have evolved to be highly social and innately kind to each-other, which means that, direct competition, though still working, isn't doing all that great.

To be honest... at this point, genetic engineering is the only way I see that the human species can still evolve. And unlike other ideas, this solution doesn't even require the suffering of the weaker humans.

One more thing: though it may be true that we can't determine everything, we're still very close to being able to do a far better job than nature has managed to do so far.

[Playfishpaste]

here's how nature works:

two animals of different sexes copulate
the sperm fastest to the egg fertilizes it
bam! an offspring of that species is created

then nature begins decision making:
is this offspring good enough to survive?
is this offspring good enough to replicate?
if both are true, then this goes on another generation and so on.

what could humans do?

well...
take sperm
take eggs
test and see which is the best combo
fertilize the best egg with the best sperm
test the resultant embryo

if it checks out, implant it
if it doesn't, back to the drawing board

I am sorry for my ignorance concerning genetics, I have no clue just how far it's gotten, so it may not be possible to determine the best sperm-egg combo, for instance, but... you get my point.

The idea is that nature's selection mechanism starts acting as soon as the offspring is born, which, depending on which species we're talking about, can range anything between a few days to a few years for ellies.

With the method that humans would use, the waiting time (9 months) would be saved.

Also... note that most of nature's selection mechanism is no longer working on humans. We have no natural predator... with the exception of micro-organisms, of course, but I don't count them in. And we have evolved to be highly social and innately kind to each-other, which means that, direct competition, though still working, isn't doing all that great.

To be honest... at this point, genetic engineering is the only way I see that the human species can still evolve. And unlike other ideas, this solution doesn't even require the suffering of the weaker humans.

One more thing: though it may be true that we can't determine everything, we're still very close to being able to do a far better job than nature has managed to do so far.

Our machines aren't based on chaotic attractors. And I am not talking about anything to do with natural selection or evolutionary processes or phylogeny. Please see Matt Ridley's Nature via Nurture for a better understanding of why you are born perfectly programmed and any deviation would not likely be better. Encapsulating all of it in a few posts would seem extremely challenging and I really don't have the time to.

[Playfishpaste]

Yes we can, but we cannot select which genes will be most efficient for that baby's circumstances. We'd need a computer which is smarter then all of the world's think tanks put together. A nearly omniscient machine to predict all of the things that nature has already put forth.

Think of it as the perfect video game, if you mod it, you have to be the perfect modder, or just an extremely talented modder, to produce a better or equal game. And why do that when it's already perfect?

[Roman_Wolf]

Natural selection for me. Why mess with a perfect system?

[The spartan]

Natural selection for me. Why mess with a perfect system?

Natural selection isn't a perfect system. It is the most fair system.

[Dayman]

Natural selection isn't a perfect system. It is the most fair system.

Natural selection by definition isn't fair. The weak die, the strong live.

[Thanatos]

Natural selection by definition isn't fair. The weak die, the strong live.

Hell of a lot better chance than with the second one.

[Dayman]

Hell of a lot better chance than with the second one.

The second one everyone is engineered to be strong...

That seems the most fair to me. I wouldn't mind being created with perfect genetics.

[Cyrus Kabir]

The weak die, the strong live.

This term belongs to the Social Darwinism "survival of the fittest" and has nothing to do with evolution, cause there many factors play together so that an organism can "survive".

[Pious Agnost]

This term belongs to the Social Darwinism "survival of the fittest" and has nothing to do with evolution, cause there many factors play together so that an organism can "survive".

No... Social Darwinism is the belief that different societies, regions and areas within humanity have evolved in different ways

"Survival of the fittest" is natural selection

[Dayman]

This term belongs to the Social Darwinism "survival of the fittest" and has nothing to do with evolution, cause there many factors play together so that an organism can "survive".

No, as Alakasam said Social Darwinism is something else.

The driving principle of natural selection is that organisms with "strong" traits live to pass them one, while those with "weak" ones die off.

You know what, not everyone can be as "pure" as you folk. I was born with a genetic "defect": deuteranopia, or red-green colour-blindness.
And you are implying that people like me do not deserve real, natural children, lest we pass on our "disease". It's discrimination.
People like you, who support eugenics, make me sick.

Wouldn't it be great if we could eliminate all genetic disease in a generation though?

[MaximiIian]

Natural method. The second option smacks of eugenics.

[Pious Agnost]

I would've picked 2, but then you have parents who enjoy naming their children after Hitler, and some on drugs, and it's just not a good idea