skytitan, the way people LEARN about things is by EXPERIMENTING WITH THEM. you cant say "leave it alone until you understand it" because if you leave it alone you'll NEVER UNDERSTAND IT.

you're being irrational, because you have no understanding of genetics and chemistry aside from what you've learnt in movies, and the only thing movies try to teach you about genetics is "be afraid".

i'm done trying to convince you of anything. if you think genetic engineering is going to lead to disaster then TRY AND STOP US.

and you'll have to actually learn the science and understand what we're doing, in order to have any kind of credibility to the people who matter.

so, you waking the fuck up to yourself is pretty much inevitable if you actually decide to do something about what you're afraid of.

yeah totally, because christopher columbus had google maps and a complete topographical survey of the americas.

i dont understand why you're so terrified of this technology. what are you so afraid of? what do you think will happen?

i know that there are risks. i know that there is the potential for the technology to be used to create synthetic cells which could wipe out and replace all life on earth if not stopped.

but i also know that others will research the technology anyway, and they cannot be stopped, no matter how hard people try, and the only way to understand how to stop such bio-weapons is by understanding everything about them, and having the technology to create them, and artificial viruses which can selectively target them.

I'm not terrified of it, but just because we can't it from happening doesn't mean we should accelerate the process.

and i'm not saying we should accelerate it, im saying we shouldnt let idiots who call themselves "bioethicists" decide what is and isnt researched.

The technology of choosing which sperm and egg to use is fine with me, so long as you don't manage to always pick a sperm that can't swim and eventually turn baby making into pure surgical work.(which I find quite unlikely, honestly, but it'd suck none the less)

i think our disagreement stems from the fact you're only considering human specific genetic technology and research. the knowledge needed to "fix" any fertility problems is practically inevitable. the genes for "swimming sperm" are in tens of thousands of other species, so as an absolute worst case scenario, humans will simply have to rely on primate genes. and thats only if human genetic information is not preserved (which it almost certainly will be, as many more gene sequencing programs will be run in the coming years, and hundreds of thousands of people will have their DNA completely catalogued and sequenced)

Bioethicists can just fuck off with that sort of thing. "doesn't examine the question of designing humans" because it has nothing to do with the patent. Then they go on about no emotional or biological connection.

These aren't bioethicists. They may claim to be bioethicists but they're just pushing personal agendas. The no biological connection claim is absurd, as the egg and sperm are from the parents. The "no emotional connection" has nothing to do with emotional connections.

Put short, these "bioethicists" are the people who will shove their face into a baby's until it crys so they can "bond with it". It's nothing to do with ethics or emotion, it's basically a selective condom that only allows certain sperm through.
this is the best "laymans" explanation of this technology that i have ever heard
They're mad because it lets the parents decide what they want. this is pretty much 100% correct. the thing about scientists is that they tend to have strong opinions and a strong distain for people they consider to be stupid. they decide what political views they want to hold and then they justify them afterwards. they get no reward for being scientific when it comes to politics, so they dont bother.

most of the assholes attacking this technology are doing it because of some deluded notion that african american parents might use it to make their children whiter, or that ugly people will use it to make their children better looking.

This is seen as "choosing" between "right and wrong". That's what they have a problem with. thats what they say they have a problem with, but what they really have a problem with is recognising that society has already defined what is "desirable" and "undesirable". they're so committed to a "perfect world" that they cant accept realisitic methods of improving the lives of everyday people. society's prejudices already shape humanity, those prejudices bring misery and suffering to hundreds of millions of people. refusing to allow people to avoid being subject to those prejudices does not help anyone, and it certainly doesnt help eradicate those prejudices.

what will help eradicate those prejudices is the technology to allow people to prevent their genetic flaws being passed onto their children. tall women will no longer have the excuse of "i dont want short kids" when they reject short men. people with asymetrical faces or deformities will no longer have to deal with the "i dont want ugly kids" effect.

My problem with it is not that. My problem is that assisted reproduction helps those who could not otherwise reproduce, reproduce. Not because I want them not to be able to reproduce, but because the trait of not being able to reproduce could get passed on. the good thing about genetic technology is that as it progresses, defective genes in people will be swapped and replaced much like car parts are swapped and replaced.

and this would happen 10x quicker (i.e. 30 years compared to 300 for sterility) than the time it would take for the entire population to become sterile due to flawed practices in gamete screening.

One could even go so far as to say that the trait of stupidity could be an example for what could follow.

It's not a "terrified" thing, it's more of a seething hatred of accepting a harmful thing into the genepool and helping it reproduce. Fucking cancer is common enough as it is. Just another thing for someone to lie about. Before long you'll need a family history of the other person to avoid children with missing limbs.

i understand completely. and without genetic technology reaching the point where gene therapy is as routine and safe as donating blood, its practically inevitable that humanity will degenerate, because natural selection has been suspended by modern medicine.

That's the kind of person I see these "ethicists" as. People who will further their own agenda of this sort of thing. "Would you really not marry someone just because they had cancer?" Yes. "Even if they got treatment for it?" Yes. Fun conversations to have with people. It's like a cult, really.

There's my agreement and personal opinion. Feel free to rant, I enjoy these topics.