Genetic Selection Guidelines on Babies

Should people be able to choose their baby's sex, skin colour, intelligence, etc.? I propose a guideline that has the following foundation: the limitations of direct genetic engineering on babies should be the same as those of indirect selection through choosing who to have the baby with.

Guidelines are important here because there is a fine line between the inalienable human right to reproduce by choice with whomever, and outright eugenics (creating a human "superior master" race).

I don't believe eugenics would be the main issue. After all, how many people would choose to have a child not genetically theirs because they objectively assess themselves as ugly and stupid (chuckle)?

I believe the main issue would be an amplification of the already existing set of expectations parents lay on their children before they are born.

A baby's general appearance can be selected indirectly by mate selection, therefore to that extent it should be available in genetic engineering. Thankfully, our genome is not as discerning as we are, and most features are not monogenic.

You could select your baby's rough height, skin/hair colour, rough facial features, but you could not select the precise nose-mouth size ratio. Eye colour itself is a combo of around 16 genes.

You can't select your baby's sex by choosing different partners - and so you shouldn't have that option through genetic engineering (again, not because there's something wrong or dangerous with that; there isn't; but because it would inflate parent expectations in a harmful way).

Many attractive features such as sense of humour, occupation, and appearance are not inheritable e.g. make up, exercise, so in fact any genetic engineering should be focused on optimising health; any remaining subjective features should be put through the "if I chose a partner" test.

If a feature could not be chosen indirectly through the partner, it should not be available directly via genetic engineering.

Comments

4 Reasons Google's Calico Won't "Solve Death"

The on-line world has been taken ablaze by Calico's bid to end ageing, and thus death itself, but is this what they will actually focus on, and will they achieve it? The fact is ageing will be reversed, and death by "natural causes" will go with it. The questions are "When?" and "By whom?". Until recently, not a lot was known about the approach Calico would take in this venture dubbed "moonshot thinking" - a term touted by Google as the source of all considerable human progress throughout history. This we don't doubt, but is this what Calico is all about? CNN's Dan Primack has revealed details about Calico's plan , which hint at a less-than-moonshot thinking approach, and cast a serious question mark on its ability to deliver the punchy TIME headline. Here is why: 1. The man with the idea, Bill Maris, arrived at the conclusion that the root of all death-causing disease is simply ageing itself. Not only is this widely

The evolution of the human body

In order to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror and be able to answer the question "Why do I look like this?", we must look back to our ancestry and their lifestyle, over a very long period of time. For the purpose of this analysis, let's look at the human versus the neanderthal. Recently there have been found neanderthal genes within the human gene pool, but the two species are different enough to compare, yet not too different (human versus fly would be too different). As you can see, the construction of the human pelvis and toes is different, and the human has less hair. This results in humans being able to run easily for long distances, in the detriment of short-distance running which we are worse at. We sweat better, so we can do more long-term effort. This feat is essential to better settlements, as we can discover a larger area with potentially better resources. It might seem counterproductive to not be able to run quickly for a short period, when it come

How do you experience evolutionary selection pressure?

Evolutionary selection permeates the consciousness of members of a species at a level higher than the individuals themselves. Everyone comes into awareness about the selection pressures and adaptations taking place across their population. This happens independently of who they happen to be. Awareness of “life”, being alive, what it takes to survive, exist in each individual even when they lack it in some perceived manner e.g. being unattractive, having low self-esteem, being a failure. Indeed, it’s what enables self-deprecation and sometimes suicide based on some of these beliefs in an individual. Each individual is not out for themselves, with the selection pressure encouraging them to succeed, but rather they are out for the collective they are part of, whether they realise it or not, whether they like it or not. It is detrimental to individuals to feel bad about themselves. However, this is the effect of collective selection. Individuals therefore place themselves

Principles of Evolution

Search This Blog