If scientists could design perfect health into our children, should we do that?
In the near future, it may become possible to manipulate human genes in a way that would make us immune to most or all known adverse medical conditions. The advances in biotechnology are moving even faster than the advances in computing power. We will probably see this capability in our lifetimes. Almost certainly our children will see it.
Would it be dangerous to eliminate disease and disorders? Can human pathology be advantageous; either to individuals or to society as a whole? If you could have access to perfect health, would you take it?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
45 Answers
Well, it is not clear to me that this will be the case. It is more likely to result in an arms race with pathogens.
I suspect we can have much improved health, but without active immune systems we would be at the mercy of any new threat.
For example, studies show that children raised in a normal germy environment and with pets have many fewer allergies than children raised in artificially clean environments.
this would create a two class society. the enhanced humans, and the inferior unenhanced humans, who would be discriminated against (why employ an unenhanced one when you can employ one that never gets sick)
Nah.
All that will happen is that supposedly genetically inferior menial laborers will infiltrate their way into the aerospace industry and get themselves launched to Saturn. And then the rest of the world will pause and wonder at the reality of how they got to where they are.
(source)
At what point do we draw the line on genetic manipulation? Are we in danger of losing our humanity? When I hear things like that I am tempted to run off into the woods. Come to think of it, there are lots of things that make me feel that way, but that is definitely one of them.
For one, I don’t actually think we’ll have this capability any time soon. Not in the next generation. Even if we can identify the genes for diseases, we won’t know the consequences of engineering them out. Taking out one “disease” gene might disrupt another normal, healthy function.
But to answer your question, of course I would. And so would everyone else. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.
Like the movie Gattica.
A two class society of Gentically pure people and the “degenerates”.
I guess it would be a good thing as long as myself and my child were on the “good” side.
@nikipedia Some people with mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder don’t want to “cure” the illness. They like what it does to them.
Others have spoken of important lessons that illness has taught them. What would happen to these lessons without such teachers? Are they not as important as we think?
Hmmm..I had not read the whole thread, now that I read this last comment I would say I would be reluctant to “fix” the brain this way, because that is altering personality before the child is even born. But, I would be ok with it helping us fight cancers and other disease. We are going to try to get rid of the physical disease when it occurs anyway, why not get it before it happens? Same logic as vaccines. I am never happy I deal with a chronic health problem. I have learned a lot from dealing with it, and probably appreciate and find joy from simple things because of it, but I would never say I am glad I have the problem. I would rather be healthy.
negative lurve for those who misspell movie titles… especially with links to the correct spelling.
and no, I’m not bitter that you obviously didn’t read my quip nor click on my source reference.
@robmandu well, I’m not bitter either. Since I did this from my phone & didn’t even read your comment, nor your source. Just posted what I thought it sounded like & it just happened to be after someone who already posted it. If I posted from my laptop, I’m sure my response would’ve have been up to your expectations.
Gattaca.
Well, I am ambivalent. Correcting genes that would otherwise develop serious diseases seems fine. We should look at it. I suspect that the people that is most against it are very healthy. Maybe we should ask people with MS, cancer and Parkinson.
Theoretically, yes, of course. If we could manipulate for “perfect health”, then by that assumption the changes we made would not be unhealthy or harmful, because if they were, we would not have achieved perfect health, right?
In practice, I think we are so far from understanding health, disease, and genetics, that the question is almost meaningless. As is, I do not think we should attempt anything like that before we understand much, much more. That’s going to take decades at least, if not centuries.
It really depends on who gets to define “perfect.”
It looks like there is a genetic combination that confers HIV resistance or immunity.
There may also be a genetic combination that leads to left-handedness.
Who decides which one needs to be cured?
this also might lead to a state in which the body kills off every bacteria it encounters. including the ones in our intestines that actually aid digestion. then we would end up with constant diarrhea
@cwilbur makes a fine point.
Indeed, should the ruling majority have the right to decide what aspects of your physiology need “curing”? What if the ruling majority decides that an aspect of your genetic makeup – an aspect that you consider key to your personality and self – is a threat to them? We might then find ourselves on the brink of an incipient and potentially devastating war between those trying to help and those who don’t want help.
(source).
But when it comes to physical disease don’t you think there would be consensus? I can see disagreeing on mental health, color of eyes, physical prowess, but things like, measles, HIV, flu, cancer, you think we might disagree?
I think the option to gain this ‘perfect health’ should be available to EVERYONE (which won’t happen) but people should certain be able to opt out
When I ask “should we” I mean should we, as parents or as individuals have this procedure done to us?
Also, I probably shouldn’t have said “perfect” health. But I do mean if we could have cures to anything that bothered us, would you take that cure? Or would you want to retain an ability to get sick to one degree or another?
I, too, remain skeptical about our abilities to understand the interactions between the 23,000 (or however many there are) genes in our bodies to be able to make effective changes in our genetic coding. There are too many possible interactions, and the results are probably chaotic and unpredictable.
However, I do think we will be able to do an awful lot more with genetics than we can do now, and our knowledge of genetics and capabilities with respect to genetic engineering will increase exponentially—and if Specter is to be believed, this increase will happen even faster than the doubling of computer power that we see every year.
@cwilbur absolutely not! I don’t think anyone considers it a physical illness. I am talking about physical illness only, that is what I am ok with.
@JLeslie: Some people actually do consider it a disease. That’s why we won’t reach consensus on this.
@cwilbur & @JLeslie – how about we define it as succeptability to viral and bacterial infections, and degenerative physical conditions. I’d say the AMA has a pretty good idea of what would be a “disease” and clearly things like homosexuality (or race, which would have been the argument 30 years ago) are NOT on it. I’m not for making one race of people who are genetically superior, I would however be for eliminating certain degenerative conditions, things that could kill or cripple you as a part of prenatal care (which should be available to all) if we can. I would probably want to see it used to keep things like MD, MS, cancer, diabetes, cerberal palsy at bay, because bacterial and viral infections will just find a way to overcome, as they mutate so quickly.
I think it’s a question of where the line gets fuzzy. If a gene that causes a rare cancer is in your bloodline, you’d like that gene removed for your children, correct? If you have dyslexia and you can make sure your children will not inherit your learning disability, you’d probably do it, right? But what if your memory wasn’t so great and you could manipulate the genes in your children to make them have better memory? Stronger analytical abilities? Better abstract thinking? Better organizational skills? Where does it end?
Cultural factors come into play as well. What if, in your neighborhood, having red hair will cause your children to be bullied? Would you alter that trait? What if, in your country, people of lighter-skin have better career opportunities? Do you make your black children white?
I’m not against genetic manipulation for the improvement of quality of life, but I think it requires a mature and thoughtful society to use it responsibly. On the other hand, maybe the only way to build a mature and thoughtful society is through genetic manipulation.
@cwilbur science in the wrong hands is always a risk I guess, but we have to believe in the good. Are you against genome sequencing to begin with? That is the beginning of the slippery slope. I see your point, I really do, but I still stick with my answer. I think @dalepetrie restated kind of where I stand.
I saw Pres. Clinton on Larry King, did you see it last night? He spoke of being able to detect cancers when they are miniscule, that a woman would never need a mastectomy again as long as she was going for detection, and all sorts of medical advances that I find very hopeful. I don’t think genetically modifying embryo’s is coming that quickly. I think assessing an embryo or fetus for more genetic problems than we already can is more likely.
This technology ain’t happening, it’s beyond science fiction, just is. Yeah sure they can make a bunny glow in the dark, but, perfect health? Come on. Why do people think about thinking about things that are a waste of time.
Can’t we define “perfect health [in] our children” as whatever the parents want it to be? Most people will agree on cancer, AIDS, Huntington disease, Alzheimer’s, and similar. Some parents won’t want left-handed kids. Some won’t want bipolar kids. I’m fine leaving that in their hands.
Eventually this will occur anyway. But it will create a disaster during the transition from capitalist-expansion culture into a worldwide balanced technological culture. The disaster will be due to overpopulation and scarcity of resources. This will be temporary, however, as technology catches up with creative ways to deal with that, too.
The functional society on Earth will not occur until the desires for expansion/domination have been tired out/matured out through cultural evolution.
No, struggle against disease is just like every other struggle, in that it makes us stronger. Perfect immunity would mean taking our bodies for granted, and the feeling of being ‘bullet-proof’ could cause a contempt of other threats. The struggle to survive feeds the will to survive.
‘perfect health’ is pretty subjective, when you’ve got folks considering thinking or feeling one way is a mental disorder, etc.
but talking about diseases that have the potential to kill people – on a personal basis, i’d say yes, of course we should do that! but then if you think about it, it might not actually be in our best interest. every population needs a control.
but i don’t know. that’s obviously a very distanced view, as i personally don’t like to see anyone in pain.
@Simone_De_Beauvoir , My fear is that we are creating a brave new world where we become our own invention.
Not entirely, at least not yet.
And once we’re engineering people to be perfectly healthy, however we define that, how much longer before we start engineering Betas who aspire to no position higher than middle management and Gammas who are happy doing boring routine work?
Perfect example of how we could lost our humanity by blurring the distinction between man and automaton.
@cwilbur: I don’t know, are any parents going to want betas and gammas? And if they do make that decision, what’s wrong with that?
The direction of this discussion makes me think of something my sister-in-law once said to me that floored me. She said, “I wouldn’t want my child to be super off the charts smart.” I would never have believed someone would think that. I grew up in a family where intelligence and knowledge was revered, I could not imagine people would not want to be smart.
I would be reluctant to try to get rid of every disease. Mutations do not survive if they don’t have survival value. Things that cause disease in most people can be advantageous in special circumstances. Like sickle cell anemia helps deal with Malaria, or something like that. Perhaps even cancer has a constructive use? I don’t know.
Still, what can you do? If the technology is available, people will want to use it if they can afford it. A lot of people believe in the perfectibility of mankind. So we probably won’t have any choice about it, as individuals. The “market” will determine what happens. If something is valuable to enough people, no law will keep it at bay. We might control immigration a little, and control the supply of heroin a little, but we can’t get rid of it, and we may only be controlling it a very little.
My thought is that if scientists could design perfect health for our children, some people will take them up on it. How many? I have no idea. There will always be people who think “natural” is best. Others who are cautious. But it is interesting to hear what people here would choose. Thanks for the replies, so far.
Never, as long as the symptom is the sole focus for treatment by our medical community.
Creating ideal humans, I hope I am dead by then, can you imagine.
No. We like feeling like shit.
Trying to make perfect humans has many weird results. First, if we make genes for a perfect, healthy, genius human being, the genes will then get into the genepool. And what will happen from there? Our whole species would be altered.
Tampering with genes lets us evade Darwinistic evolution, but is that really what we want? A world of immortal, superstrong, healthy, supersmart people? In some ways that sounds great.
I think that at least for the disease genes, eliminating them is good. But farther than that may not be necessary. I bet we’ll see humongous debates about this in the future.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
