POOHEAD189

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.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Equally true in the case of natural random distribution.
So? It isn't any worse than allowing a random distribution.

@Penny

No one made the decision with random distribution. Therefore there is no blame.

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.

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)

But there is no other alternative for the dichotomy that I can see. 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?

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

I saw GATACA, didn't love it :P

@Penny

*Googles* Aw, it wasn't good? I've not seen it. 40K has that too, and so does Shadowrun and the Dredd series...I think. Lotta stuff.

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.

@Penny

This is why I love Sci Fi^^

We should use this for the RP tbh.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@PennyWell sure people can choose to abort a fetus, but there is still a very large argument on whether or not that is 'good' and I can see no inherent goodness in choosing traits for kids.

Why shouldn't parents who hope for a girl with brown eyes have the option of selecting one?

Because the child didn't select it.

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

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.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@PennyI never said nature was all good (in fact I purposefully didn't because I figured you might use your above point). I said randomness is fair. But to tackle your point, drugs and vaccines are preventative to diseases to increase your chances of surviving. Changing a humans physical traits to suit your whims is simply giving control to those who shouldn't have it.

Most people would agree that a good parent raises their kids, and a poor or overbearing parent controls them. In nearly every case (at least in western society), a parent has a responsibility for their kids life, not a domination over their kids life. Changing physical traits goes beyond the nurturing and teaching, and it simply makes the kid into another tool to suit their tastes. Yes, it's my opinion and in the end I can't prove how it would make the world worse. We'd just need to wait and see. I just cannot see what benefits it would it have other than making a kid easy on the eyes to a (likely) high maintenance parent.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@POOHEAD189

'Fair' according to what standard?

Kids often resent their parents choices in a wide vareity of situations. Parents can be controlling already, people already treat others differently due to accidents of birth and genetics.

The technology isn't responsible for engineering societies and citizens that aren't heartless assholes.

@Penny

There's very few choices parents can make that permanently effect their children. So why make another? Yes parents can be controlling already. Why add to that? (They make a lot of choices that do effect their kids, but most of them are not to that extreme).

Fair to the fact that no fallible human decides your looks based on their tastes.

The cultural thing was me just thinking aloud. Though technology does engineer societies. Now, it doesn't make people assholes. But why give assholes more opportunities when there is very little benefit to it other than "I like them this way."

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

<Snipped quote by POOHEAD189>

And it's taking some of the LIFE out of, well, life, isn't it? Someday I wanna look my lesbian intersexual daughterson in the mismatched eyes and tell shim "I'd love you even if you were straight."

....and I'm only joking about the offensive part, like, that unconditional love between a parent and a child is about as fundamental to the human story as anything else. When we start picking our kids' traits out of a brochure, we're introducing contionality to it. Like "Look, I love you kid, but they fucked up your nose, it's too big, that's not what I paid for and frankly I feel like I should get some of my money back. I mean not all of it, you're still mostly cool, but come on though."

@mdk

Lmao. I have to agree. I suppose I couldn't put that part into words as well.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Because I think randomness is far more fair, and humans deciding it on their tastes seem unethical to me. If you're randomly made, you just are that way. If you're tailor made by your mom and dad, it might make you resent them because you don't like their choices, or they in turn might think they can control you far more in other areas of life if they can control you there. It could easily become a cultural thing.

And I also feel like, if there is a future with that in it, then eventually kids who were born naturally like we all are will be treated by others and possibly their parents as kids who are unplanned 'accidents' are today, and in extreme cases, might be called unwanted, to continue with the cultural aspect of it.

But then again, this could all be false and it is my personal opinion on it being unethical. We wouldn't know unless it happened for the other things as well.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

because jesus hates blood transfusions.

@Penny

And then God spake, do not get a blood transfusion, for it is not cool with me.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Parents make dramatic life altering decisions for kids all the time. This is just starting a little earlier. You wouldn't be any less your parents son if they decided you should be a red head.

@Penny

True, but most decisions aren't as permanent as that. Choosing whether your kid gets certain medications or if they go to a certain school is what the parent thinks is best, not what the parent exactly feels like they want. To me it's like they're treating a baby like a cheese burger. "Oh, no pickles. Lots of lettuce. And yes, ketchup. But not TOO much ketchup."