Penny

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

I think people are underestimating the time frame and the degree to which societal attitudes and tastes change. A century ago showing a little ankle was risque. In 2017 something like 1 in 4 people have a tattoo, something that would have been unthinkable in 1917 (especially for women). Gay marriage was unthinkable, interracial marriage was illegal ect ect ect. The pace of change seems to be increasing and I dont see why it would not continue to do so.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@The Harbinger of Ferocity I can totally appreciate all of those concerns but I think the world of the genetically tailored individual is inevitable and its up to us to create societies and families that can mitigate the negatives and accentuate the positives.

Common ground with Harbringer? My Kuru is definitely acting up.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

I mentioned health but I didn't just mention health Poohead.
I don't see any reason to not select traits considered attractive by the society I currently live in because a person who is conventionally attractive has better life outcomes on average than someone who is unattractive. Thus I would also select for aesthetic traits so they would have the most options when selecting a partner and the best odds of enjoying a satisfying relationship. Aesthetics aren't just cosmetics in our society. On average physically attractive people make more money, are seen as more capable by their peers and have an easier time making friends.

@Kratesis

That is well put. Again you child might be Taylor Swift randomly, the potential exists, so why not maximize it. Sure the child might have issues if aesthetic values change dramatically, or you move to another society which values different things but those risks would exist just as much for the random characteristics as the designed ones.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@POOHEAD189
Maybe my Kuru is acting up but this seems to make less sense the more you explain it. Let me recapitulate.

Even if it were only for the parents aesthetic benefit, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't tip the scale of random selection one way or the other. They are choosing to create a child, why not choose for it to have dark lustrous hair?

Why would randomness necessarily be better than design? You might end up with a girl anyway, why not put your thumb on the scale. Admittedly its not a great use of what would be amazing tech, but neither is 99% of what people do with tech.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote>
Well 'doctor' has two meanings there. But if we take a theological look at it...
Jesus healed people of diseases, and told others to do thus. But it's also gospel that God creates man into who he/she is, not other people.

@POOHEAD189

There would be little theoretical difference between changing hair color and editing the gene which causes a genetic disorder. They are both physical features and it is simply genetic information. This seems to unduly privilege visible physical features.

I think appealing to randomness so as not to feel bitter is just as good of an argument as a parent going 'I felt like it.' Or, I think it's a better argument because it's the child's feelings on their own features that are put into main account, not the parents.

@POOHEAD189

How is 'I felt like it' any worse than 'its just random'. A child's feeling on their features are emergent in either case. If your kid hates the way it looks you can just throw up your hands and say 'hey its just the luck of the draw'?

If random chance effects a child just as much or as little as parental choice, then a doctor choosing the child's physical traits will effect the child the same as the other two. What you were talking about is the child wouldn't see it differently so why does it matter? I'm simply adding onto that and saying, in this fictional universe with this fictional technology, what if there was no law against the head of state or the doctor choosing the child's traits? I think for a parent to say "but it's my child" can easily be debunked by the child going "but it's my face" if they could.

@POOHEAD189

I'm still not sure what your trying to say here and how it is in anyway relevant other than as some sort of weird dystopian aside. The parents choose to make the child (hopefully). There are all sorts of decisions they make that affect its future success (diet, maternal age ect) how is hair color suddenly a bridge to far for parental control?

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@POOHEAD189

By that logic wouldn't your terrible genetic disease be just as much a part appointed by God as you blue eyes? If it is wrong to doctor your appearance then it would be wrong to doctor the disease.

It seems to me that appealing to randomness to make you not feel bitter about ones parents decisions is a weakish argument. Sorry but I really don't see much to go on here other than 'its not natural'. Your parent already exercise some control as to your physical appearance via the choice of partner. It is the same distinction between naturally selecting crops and genetically engineering them. Maybe you can restate this to clarify it for me?

How does the fact that it dosent matter to the child lead you to 'well the president could make the decision'. Parents (mothers prebirth IMO) are responsible for decisions effecting their child and just because it is unimportant dosen't magically give the president a right to interfere. Pretty sure people would get up in arms if Trump started mandating genital mutilation although it is a little hard to tell with his supporters.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

This has got to be the first time we've actually disagreed and taken over the thread instead of reading someone else's claims and diagreeing with them.

@POOHEAD189

Yeah we are torching our Mr and Mrs Smith meme, although I guess they fight in the movie too.

It would only be a false dichotomy if you misread the wording, or if I just didn't type clearly enough. I should have put
1) They believe it is good for the child.
2) They believe it is good for the parent. (Though it'd be hard for them not to know)

@POOHEAD189

You could also believe that it will have a neutral effect on the child and be good for the parent, or a good effect on the child and a bad effect on the parent. My contention is that choosing a feature such as hair color has neither a positive or negative effect on the child.

My hangup is the parents taking a choice into their hands they shouldn't have. But if it's ok for the parents to do it, then arguably it's ok for the president to choose the physical features of american citizens. Or an older brother getting to choose the physical features of a younger brother in the womb. The citizen or the brother can't decide, so why not them?

@POOHEAD189

Is there a particular reason the parents shouldn't have the choice, rather than rolling the dice? As for the other stuff thats kind of a stretch that relies on among other things, physical standards for citizenship which would be a huge and independent issue. A brother could throw his opinion out there I guess, but he wouldn't have any legal power to enforce it.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by Penny>
This is why I love Sci Fi^^

We should use this for the RP tbh.

@POOHEAD189

I saw GATACA, didn't love it :P

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote>
Because the child didn't select it.

@POOHEAD189

Equally true in the case of natural random distribution.

Because it effects the child with no inherent goodness towards the child.

@POOHEAD189

So? It isn't any worse than allowing a random distribution.

Here is my point: Imagine if a parent needs to make a permanent decision about their child. There's two reasonings they would use for their decision.
1) It is good for the child.
2) It is good for the parent.

If you have chosen number 2, that is inherently selfish imo.

@POOHEAD189

That is a false dichotomy. Decisions maybe good, they maybe bad, they may be neither, they may have mixed results. The child will have a hair color, selecting it in advance dosent negatively effect the child. No other negative effect flow from that choice which might not flow from a random assignment.

Is your hangup that a parent is making a permanent aesthetic choice for their child? Because the child doesn't choose in either case. Seems a little odd to give some sort of privileged status to a random selection over a parental choice.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Also we should think bigger in terms of our potential fuck ups. Imagine instead of cosmetic changes, novel forms of neurotransmitters that increase reaction time, rewiring nerves to make the paths less tortured, increasing the oxygen carrying capacity of hemoglobin. Creating humans that are better in measurable ways. Now imagine the technology is necessarily expensive and thus unevenly distributed, the dystopian possibilities are endless.