Gattaca argument: the new Aufnordung project? (designer babies)

[EliasAlucard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

I haven't seen this movie yet, but its plot is interesting and based on the concept of "liberal eugenics". There's a specific thread about liberal eugenics, in which you can discuss that concept more in-depth:

Libertarian transhumanism and Biolibertarianism (liberal eugenics): http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=377

There's also something called the "Gattaca argument":


The 1997 film Gattaca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca)'s depiction of a dystopian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia) society in which one's social class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class) depends entirely on genetic modifications is often cited by critics in support of these views.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca_argument

And now there's some speculation in the media, about the possibility to design your future children:


Now, in the latest twist in the march towards designer babies, The Fertility Institutes says they will soon be able to offer couples the ability to screen their embryos for eye color, hair color, and complexion. The Institute cannot change the DNA of the donating couple — if neither the mother nor the father has genes for green eyes, for example, then the Institute cannot give them a baby with green eyes. Yet within the constraints inherent in the DNA of the donating couple, The Fertility Institute is willing to screen embryos for these traits. The Fertility Institute wants to offer several other customizations, and many more are sure to be released in the coming years as the science behind screening for them is developed.
Source: Designer Babies – Like It Or Not, Here They Come (http://singularityhub.com/2009/02/25/designer-babies-like-it-or-not-here-they-come/)

So, this isn't genetic modification, but rather, parents being given the choice to choose the specific embryos/genes they carry and want to artificially, selectively breed.

Recently, in Sweden's most sold daily newspaper Aftonbladet, an article appeared on the commercial demand for blond, blue-eyed high IQ designed children:

Köpes: blonda, blåögda barn – med hög IQ: http://www.aftonbladet.se/wendela/barn/article5821727.ab

The Aftonbladet article discusses the book of Swedish author Danny Wattin, in which the plot is centred around genetic modification, where ugliness is a sin, and the ideal eggs come from blond, blue-eyed top-students, which according to him is pretty much the same as the old race biology ideas. Indeed, it is similar to Hitler's Aufnordung project. The purpose with Aufnordung was "to increase the Nordic race amongst race mixed peoples."

The concept of Aufnordung seems to live on, and will eventually be ideologically revitalised with the advent of modern genetics technology.

What's your opinion on this? Are you for or against it? Discuss.

[EliasAlucard]

See also:
In early February, the Fertility Institutes created enormous controversy by announcing that they planned to offer PGD services allowing for the selection of eye and hair color for children. Steinberg was quoted by the BBC as saying, “I would not say this is a dangerous road. It’s an uncharted road.” As a scientist experienced in PGD/IVF techniques, Steinberg was aware that the technology to select physical traits in humans has been available for years, but no one would touch it. “It’s time for everyone to pull their heads out of the sand,” Steinberg said. Transhumanists and other fans of procreative freedom were excited by the news.Source: http://www.hplusmagazine.com/articles/bio/great-designer-baby-controversy-%E2%80%9909

Steinberg eh? Sounds Jewish.

Edit:

On second thoughts, moved to a better forum-section

//Mod

[Humanist]

Gattaca is one of my favorite films. Thank you for the wiki link. I am going to head over there and read up on this, "Gattaca Argument."

Edit: HaHa! It redirects to the Transhumanism article. :)

[EliasAlucard]

Gattaca is one of my favorite films. Thank you for the wiki link. I am going to head over there and read up on this, "Gattaca Argument."

Edit: HaHa! It redirects to the Transhumanism article. :)I just finished watching Gattaca. As a genetics enthusiast, I expected a better movie. I'm disappointed.

[annihilus]

I quite liked it. It is not a very 'technical' movie so you have to use your own imagination, that makes it a better movie otherwise it would get outdated quickly. I already consider it to be a classis. Has been a while since saw it so I might watch it tonight and later dream about cloning Uma Thurmans:lol:

[sean]

I am agree with this, it could help to prevent hereditary deceases.

I have asked something similar before:
Selective conseption, how far are we from there?, (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=13651)

---------- Post added 2011-02-19 at 22:29 ----------

What is wonderful of Gattaca is they can get the DNA sequence without spitting into a tube and wait 2 months to get the results.

[GeneX]

Really a good movie for me as well. :) Well, in spite of controversy, there is still a successful business of generating “designer infants,” or kids intended by genetic manipulation to their parents' precise requirements, Trend of designer babies still alive and well (http://www.newsytype.com/11632-designer-babies/). Curtailing hereditary problems was the birth of the science behind it, but critics slam the fertility business for creating humans made-to-order.

[Balder]

I recently read the article and decided to post here;

Genetically engineering 'ethical' babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9480372/Genetically-engineering-ethical-babies-is-a-moral-obligation-says-Oxford-professor.html)


Professor Julian Savulescu said that creating so-called designer babies could be considered a "moral obligation" as it makes them grow up into "ethically better children".
The expert in practical ethics said that we should actively give parents the choice to screen out personality flaws in their children as it meant they were then less likely to "harm themselves and others".

The academic, who is also editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, made his comments in an article in the latest edition of Reader's Digest.
He explained that we are now in the middle of a genetic revolution and that although screening, for all but a few conditions, remained illegal it should be welcomed.

I'm all for that small step in the direction of post/trans/meta-human development that starts with embryonic customization.

Eventually, hopefully, hopefully within our lifetimes, such engineering can go beyond embryonic and develop into tailoring people at will, with custom manufactured viral packages, or nano-tech. Whatever the case I look forward to a better world with better, more capable, less disappointing people in it. I hope, that's why I support such technology.

[Crypto]

The embryo screening project sounds awful. They will kill 1-4 embryos per each successful birth. It's sick to have three (or more) of your kids aborted just because they don't have blue eyes.
Nordic individuals have been fashionable just for the past 100 years. Before that, for thousands of years, Mediterranean races were considered the ideal ones.

[ImageBased]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

I haven't seen this movie yet, but its plot is interesting and based on the concept of "liberal eugenics". There's a specific thread about liberal eugenics, in which you can discuss that concept more in-depth:

Libertarian transhumanism and Biolibertarianism (liberal eugenics): http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=377

There's also something called the "Gattaca argument":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca_argument

And now there's some speculation in the media, about the possibility to design your future children:
Now, in the latest twist in the march towards designer babies, The Fertility Institutes says they will soon be able to offer couples the ability to screen their embryos for eye color, hair color, and complexion. The Institute cannot change the DNA of the donating couple — if neither the mother nor the father has genes for green eyes, for example, then the Institute cannot give them a baby with green eyes. Yet within the constraints inherent in the DNA of the donating couple, The Fertility Institute is willing to screen embryos for these traits. The Fertility Institute wants to offer several other customizations, and many more are sure to be released in the coming years as the science behind screening for them is developed.
Source: Designer Babies – Like It Or Not, Here They Come (http://singularityhub.com/2009/02/25/designer-babies-like-it-or-not-here-they-come/)So, this isn't genetic modification, but rather, parents being given the choice to choose the specific embryos/genes they carry and want to artificially, selectively breed.

Recently, in Sweden's most sold daily newspaper Aftonbladet, an article appeared on the commercial demand for blond, blue-eyed high IQ designed children:

Köpes: blonda, blåögda barn – med hög IQ: http://www.aftonbladet.se/wendela/barn/article5821727.ab

The Aftonbladet article discusses the book of Swedish author Danny Wattin, in which the plot is centred around genetic modification, where ugliness is a sin, and the ideal eggs come from blond, blue-eyed top-students, which according to him is pretty much the same as the old race biology ideas. Indeed, it is similar to Hitler's Aufnordung project. The purpose with Aufnordung was "to increase the Nordic race amongst race mixed peoples."

The concept of Aufnordung seems to live on, and will eventually be ideologically revitalised with the advent of modern genetics technology.

What's your opinion on this? Are you for or against it? Discuss.


Can the market be stopped? For if it cannot, surely genetic engineering cannot. People said porn would never catch on because it was immoral. It's hard to argue that ensuring your child will have the best DNA is immoral. Perhaps it is truly the greatest morality?


I can tell you Elias that it will occur. It isn't among Europeans. Mixed race and other races desperately are constantly trying to Europeanize themselves.

The global whitening industry

The "marry the whitest man-woman" phenomena

The Asian "Eye Europeanization" plastic surgery industry


If genetic engineering is being hastened at all it is because non Europeans desperately are out in force in the market to make it happen. It isn't hard to see. Look at colored eye sales. Hair straighteners among black women. Whitening products in India. Eye surgery in Asia. It is not Europeans that are pushing the future of genetic engineering. All of middle class China and India want blue eyes and to be 6ft tall. Think on it. Why would blue eyed, 6ft tall Europeans be pushing for such an industry? They wouldn't. It is non Europeans that will deliver us genetic engineering.

[Balder]

The embryo screening project sounds awful. They will kill 1-4 embryos per each successful birth. It's sick to have three (or more) of your kids aborted just because they don't have blue eyes.
Nordic individuals have been fashionable just for the past 100 years. Before that, for thousands of years, Mediterranean races were considered the ideal ones.

I find this topic interesting, please don't come here just to harm this with low brow discussion of tired med vs e.g nords bullshit, and all its inferiority complex with the theme, as so, blue eyes are not unique to Northern Europeans or Nordics whatever what you want to define.

Overall designer babies is when take the best "genes" of egg and sperm to make the best baby possible with no defects. Also, since our specimen have not evolved much since the dawn or agriculture why can't we help future humans by altering them genetically? Or if our limited intelligence has gotten us this far, imagine the mysteries of the universe that could be solved if we just tweaked genetically ourselves a bit in future. Phenotype is just a secondary issue here.

I pray that genetic engineering becomes accepted and highly advanced. It's way too tantalizing for most of us to resist. It is also way too important. It will be rapidly enhance our evolution. I don't even necessarily consider genetic engineering "unnatural." When it is a reality, the majority of the anti-genetic engineering's will hop onto the genetic engineering bandwagon. Especially when genetic engineering is perfected and proved to have no negative results on the specimen.

[Jonny]

I approve of this.

What better step in the evolution of humans than to control it ourselves?
Evolution is excellent, but is by no means a perfect process (black leaves would absorb more light than green ones). I see no reason why we should not fix hereditary diseases, boost intelligence etc simply by changing a few SNPs.

In the long term, maybe what we need to be able to colonise other planets is not only to adapt the planets, but to adapt ourselves.

[anunnaki]

In the battle against diseases or to enhance intelligence, I say it's fine. But what's the point of tampering with your child's colours? Someone who would be happier if his child had light eyes instead of dark needs therapy of the ordinary kind.

[Zakar-Baal]

I don't think we are totally ready for this yet, forget about the moral ramifications, I am talking about scientifically ready. We have no idea what way this could effect Humans in the long run. Still it needs to start somewhere, but I don't think it should be mainstream until we absolutely know what sort of effects it could have.

From a moral basis I think it is ok to prevent serious genetic disorders. The sort that can hinder someone in a very negative way for life. Things like Cystic Fibrosis or Huntingtons. But choosing eye and hair colour is not what this should be used for. Besides isn't that all part of the excitement :D

[QQuake]

An artificial method of natural selection that will weed out undesirable traits via pre-mature screenings of embryos? I can already hear the far-right anti-abortion groups rallying up against this form of 'mass murder'. Generally I'd say I'm for it, but who's to say what traits are considered favorable(i.e. healthy)?


The Aftonbladet article discusses the book of Swedish author Danny Wattin, in which the plot is centred around genetic modification, where ugliness is a sin, and the ideal eggs come from blond, blue-eyed top-students, which according to him is pretty much the same as the old race biology ideas. Indeed, it is similar to Hitler's Aufnordung project. The purpose with Aufnordung was "to increase the Nordic race amongst race mixed peoples."



If we go by the proto-aryan definition of the perfect human then wouldn't this mean that certain populations would be excluded from this project thus eventually dying out or having certain disadvantages over other populations? Not an expert in this field of course but just some interesting little details.

[Balder]

The natural selection in its evolutionary process in a way a form of 'eugenics'. It's just picking 'the good gene' from existing genes instead of willfully altering them directly, but the principle is almost the same. When picking a mate, you are already essentially picking and choosing what genes you want in your children, and those genes are not necessarily helpful to survival, only to finding a mate for having 'beautiful' children.

[ImageBased]

In the battle against diseases or to enhance intelligence, I say it's fine. But what's the point of tampering with your child's colours? Someone who would be happier if his child had light eyes instead of dark needs therapy of the ordinary kind.


Apparently a very large portion of people with money to spend disagree entirely with you. I don't think they're all in need of therapy.

http://www.youknowit.com/online-shop/blue-contact-lenses.cfm

[anunnaki]

Apparently a very large portion of people with money to spend disagree entirely with you. I don't think they're all in need of therapy.

http://www.youknowit.com/online-shop/blue-contact-lenses.cfm

Buying colored lenses for yourself is one thing. I've dyed my hair all kind of colours, but I'd never dream of trying to colour my childrens lightbrown hair blonde. Two brown-eyed parents getting sad because their children also get brown eyes is idiotic. It's ridiculous and not good for the child as such resentment will be felt by the child. If an Indian family has two children and one of them is lighter-skinned and they treat that child better simply because of its pigmentation, then yes, I'd say the parents do need therapy (or a good kick in the head).

[ImageBased]

The natural selection in its evolutionary process in a way a form of 'eugenics'. It's just picking 'the good gene' from existing genes instead of willfully altering them directly, but the principle is almost the same. When picking a mate, you are already essentially picking and choosing what genes you want in your children, and those genes are not necessarily helpful to survival, only to finding a mate for having 'beautiful' children.


Indeed. Arguments that "it's unethical" or that people "need therapy" for choosing what they want their children or their bodies to posses is a contradictory line of thinking. It is to suggest there exists a draconian moral dictate as to how people should view morality. This actually is an extraordinarily immoral line of thinking. The true moral line of thought would be to allow individuals to do what they wish within a moral frame. Choosing to have children with beautiful blue eyes and end your brown eye gene among your children is a human right. Let people have their freedom. Why the phenotype Nazism? Allow people to choose blue eyes, skin whitening products, eye surgeries to make their eyes more European and whatever else they, as free people, desire.

Genetic engineering is human freedom and was meant to happen. It is a part of nature in so much as it is possible to begin with. Nature intended for us to do it seeing as it is possible in the first place.

[cinnamona]

Can the market be stopped? For if it cannot, surely genetic engineering cannot. People said porn would never catch on because it was immoral. It's hard to argue that ensuring your child will have the best DNA is immoral. Perhaps it is truly the greatest morality?


I can tell you Elias that it will occur. It isn't among Europeans. Mixed race and other races desperately are constantly trying to Europeanize themselves.

The global whitening industry

The "marry the whitest man-woman" phenomena

The Asian "Eye Europeanization" plastic surgery industry


If genetic engineering is being hastened at all it is because non Europeans desperately are out in force in the market to make it happen. It isn't hard to see. Look at colored eye sales. Hair straighteners among black women. Whitening products in India. Eye surgery in Asia. It is not Europeans that are pushing the future of genetic engineering. All of middle class China and India want blue eyes and to be 6ft tall. Think on it. Why would blue eyed, 6ft tall Europeans be pushing for such an industry? They wouldn't. It is non Europeans that will deliver us genetic engineering.

I've read a blog of some African-American women who is light skinned and talks about her experiences being black "but not the darkest" (at least, it's one of the topics in her blog) and wrote that dark African American women feel worse looking than her, less confident, etc. And there is an article about how popular nose surgeries are amongst non Swedes in Sweden. So there is a clear pattern - to physically fit in predominantly European caucasoid (or just in other words) local society. There are more reasons, but I have to agree with you, that the the most popular preference pattern probably will be "europianization".