POOHEAD189

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Kratesis I think there's a huge amount of miscommunication between us. My fault probably. I should have been in bed awhile ago.

I never said anything about ugly people, ever.

But I never said I want them to be ugly.

No one said to make them ugly.

I never said we as parents should make life difficult for our children either (I did say to not give them too much, though). I never suggested I'd take away freedoms or trip them and watch them fall. I said difficulties can be good. So while genetically helping them is good, there's also downsides to it.

All I was saying was, making your baby (or anyone) conventionally attractive is not an inherent good because of a lot of factors. Maturity can be one. Character can be one. How they are perceived for good or ill (in the scientific community for example like the article suggested).

There's nothing to suggest that ensuring your kid is pretty will make them happier as an adult, because for every article I found that claims it, another claims it is the opposite.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Google is all over the place on whether or not attractive or unattractive people are paid more. This article by Forbe gives the quote

“Physical attractiveness may appear to have an effect on earnings, because more attractive workers are simultaneously healthier, more intelligent and have better (in particular, more conscientious, more extraverted, and less neurotic) personality more conducive to earning more.”

The major wrinkle, however, appears when you look at the same set of data comparisons with very unattractive people. Because contrary to what we’d normally assume, they benefit from the same “bias” as prettier people, perhaps even more.

So beautiful and ugly people are both given opportunities based on looks. It's the generic guy/gal that suffers.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@Kratesis Also, apparently unattractive people are given better career opportunities in the scientific community.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Just as their are variations between the traits individuals find attractive there is also a general trend. In short, the features humans find attractive are a scatter plot but there is also a trend line and that line correlates strongly with high cheekbones, secondary sexual characteristics and facial symmetry.

The first trait is arguable and the other two traits are generalities.

What does "a lot" mean Poohead? Are we talking one percent of unattractive people? Two percent? Maybe ten? I'm just spitballing numbers here but-
A: 'Maybe if I make him ugly he'll become a better person and get smarter!' sounds like a low percentage bet.
B: It's also a pretty crappy thing to do to a human being who you care about. This is someone's life we are talking about here.
C: I doubt it's even true.

A. It's the norm, not a low percentage. But I never said I want them to be ugly.
B. No one said to make them ugly. But even if that were the case, that's my point. This is their life, and do I want them to have a higher percentage chance of being mature and having character or do I want them to have 'facial symmetry.'
C. You...what? You doubt... how. As in you think it's impossible? Do you really hold physical appearance at such a high standard that you cannot fathom someone loving someone else romantically for their personality? I'm not actually assuming this of you but I don't know how else to take that.

While your satisfaction with one element of your parents approach to raising you is a positive I don't really see what that has to do with genetics. (Though I agree with their choice to not spoil their children.)

Simply using it as an example. Difficulties are good. Parents not making things too easy for a child helps them grow. Then again, while difficulties are good, so is healthy choices. Which is just one more reason why I don't want to touch genetics other than halting diseases.

That maturity is why you named yourself Poohead, I assume? Forgive me if I am not quite persuaded of the validity of your logic here ;-P

I lol'd. I'll paraphrase the explanation of the name from my profile.

"To be honest, I have a lot of interests and I take who I am very seriously. So why the poo? Because I could never really find something that I felt could describe me in a way that I would want. I made it up when I was 5, and just like my actual name Ben, I never thought it needed changing. If people want to judge me for that, good. It's them reading a book by its cover."

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

You can prove how it'd make the world worse. Just point out that the collective editing of multiple generations would lead to more homogenized gene pools. Also, wealthier families which successfully tailor their descendants to manifest certain traits would be more likely to become richer than those that don't. Not only that, wealthier families that end up creating more problems through unsuccessful tailoring would basically be throwing their money and lineage into a giant pit of wasted potential.

@catchamber

Well true, I agree with you and (gasp) mdk on how it'd effect society, yes. But I feel like to prove it we'd need hard evidence. But yeah, I concur.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@KratesisWell there's a whole can of worms of there. A lot of people get smarter because they weren't physically attractive to begin with. A lot of people grow character because they weren't physically attractive to begin with. A lot of people find true happiness with someone else because they saw each other as beautiful rather than by going with societies standards. What's physically attractive to you doesn't mean it's attractive to others. What's physically attractive now might not be in 20 years when it will actually matter. What's physically attractive is also someone who is more likely to be used by others for their looks. And let's say you're right though, and it's clear cut black and white.

If I have a child, I want them to have difficulties. Not to say I necessarily want them to be unappealing physically, or that I wouldn't provide for them, but a lack of difficulties is a lack of actual character. I'm the biggest critic of my parents but even when we weren't struggling for money, my mom didn't give us anymore than we needed and it helped me to live by myself as an adult. I can say similar things about looks. Some people find me conventionally attractive now, but growing up they did not. I wouldn't have changed that. Being seen as unappealing helped me be more mature later in life when I became appealing.

@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.

@Penny

I feel like I'd just be regurgitating my points. As with most ethical arguments I feel like it'll go back and forth in a circle. I'll just say I am uncomfortable with it, but I can see why it looks like a nonissue to some as well.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

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.

@Penny

I agree.

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'?

In most cases I believe the child would feel better, yes. If they even asked 'why do I look like this' which is hardly on people's minds because with no technology such as this, it's nearly a non issue.

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?

@Penny

I could be confused on your point. Wasn't your logic "why is it bad if it theoretically does not negatively effect the child?"

Although I re-read your quote. This is my point.

There are all sorts of decisions they make that affect its future success

While I, myself would still be uncomfortable with it. I wouldn't be against it on an intellectual level if it was for the child's betterment. If changing their hair or eye color would increase the success of the child, then I'm all for it. It was when the parent fancied something regardless of how they thought the child felt was when I was against it.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

@PennySorry didn't tag :P

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

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.

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.

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?

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.

My main concern is the ethics of it, and while that is subjective, I already admitted it's just my opinion.

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.

I was simply reiterating the logic that if it's the same with the parents choosing as it is with natural selection, then take away the legal part of it, it'd be the same if anyone chose it.

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.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

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

@Penny

That's true...
It's an underrated movie tbh.

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.

@Penny

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.

@Penny

You could believe that, but there'd be no way to know exactly, and (in my opinion) in the end it would do nothing but ensure the parent's comfort. I can only say for certain how I'd feel, and while my appearance isn't so important to me, I was glad to be different looking growing up and it gave me my confidence, and if my parents chose to make me whiter like mom almost all of my life would be altered little by little. But even if I was born that way out of random chance, it would bring me comfort knowing I had no one to blame for it and that I was made by chance rather than my dad/mom feeling a certain way 26 years ago.

And if I am speaking purely personally other than only somewhat with my experiences, I am a Christian too and even looking past a parent's responsibility, which I think choosing traits does go past their responsibility no matter your belief, I do think it's something you should be proud of because it's chosen by God.

Also I just think that if the child really wouldn't be effected by the change, it really wouldn't matter who switched it up. The president, the brother, the doctor. The kid won't know any different so why does it matter?

If I had the option to genetically tailor my child I would take it in a heartbeat. The chances of mental illness could be dramatically reduced and their life outcomes could be improved by selecting genes related to intelligence and health. They would be happier, healthier and wealthier. Were I a parent I would find myself obligated to do everything I could to give them the best chance in life and DNA is no exception to the responsibilities of motherhood.

@Kratesis

Oh we're just talking aesthetically. Like parent's choosing gender, eye color, hair color, etc. But yes, I think we'd all choose good genetic traits for them for their health.