Designer Babies

[KendallJ]

By the way, if someone wants to use a real example to discuss, then there is a common genetic linkage between deafness and coat color in Australian Sheperds. Specifically a double merle (spotted) dog runs a very high risk of being deaf. This is visibly evident in any Aussies who have white ears (yes, completely white ears almost always means the pup is deaf).

Inbreeding did not cause this, and random breeding will not fix it. Only the untimely natural death / or artificial removal (i.e. genetic engineering) from breeding pool will select away from the trait.

Edited March 9, 2007 by KendallJ

[Moebius]

Inbreeding runs the risk of losing critical genes. Selective breeding doesn't, anymore than random breeding does. Artificially limiting a gene pool is dangerous; however, selecting for traits within an equally varied gene pool isn't.

The random vigor hypothesis assumes ignorance in both cases (random breeding or in-breeding). It is a mis-use of statistics (that's another thread) which in this case are a form of ignorance. But preserving the gene pool and selecting for a trait involves understanding cause and effect. If there are linked causes that are important, then learning about those means you can then safely outbreed to breed away from the linkage.

1) Given that you agree that artificially limiting a gene pool is dangerous. Assume that each parents get to decide the intelligence of their child. Assume that the gene sequence that determines intelligence is the same in all humans. Then it would reasonably follow that almost all parents are going to choose the highest possible intelligence, and therefore all their children are going to have at least that part of their genes be nearly identical - essentially limiting the gene pool. Now we move down the list with things like resistance to diseases, longevity, athleticism... etc. Essentially all the things that a parent would value in a child.

2) You're absolutely right of course that if we absolutely understand EVERYTHING about how the human genome works, we can safely breed away. Of course in reality, does this mean that we shouldn't use a technology until we understand every thing there is to know about it? Or at least until we can anticipate and have solutions to all possible negative outcomes? In reality, ignorance is rarely a choice, but rather an acceptable cost in exchange for expediency.

If man no longer needs anti-malarial genes, then random crosses will eventually cause it to be removed anyway, or at least no more prevalent than any other mutation.

Without selective pressure, I don't see why a gene would be removed. Lack of use of course isn't exactly a selective pressure.

We're already selecting for those traits today in deciding who we're going to make babies with. That is ultimately caused evolution and it is controlled by survial / mating pressures. 1) I don't see the lack of variability that you describe in today's population and 2) I don't see why genetic engineering would change that. Breeding is genetic engineering, and it's been going on since life began.

1) The couple that's breed does not get to choose the exact genetic combos that they want. And each sperm and egg combination provides a huge amount of genetic diversity, even if they're from the same two people. There's a clear difference between picking the mate you want and picking the gene you want, similar to how there's a difference between throwing a rock and using a high caliber sniper rifle.

2) Not every body choose their mates with the intention of producing the "best possible" offspring in mind. In fact most people probably don't. Of course there are things correlated with signs of health that one may find attractive, such as healthy skin, symmetry etc. But given the staggering size of earth's population, I doubt that you would be able to "see" genetic variability with your naked eyes (not to mention that you would have nothing to reference what you see against...).

[KendallJ]

1) Given that you agree that artificially limiting a gene pool is dangerous. Assume that each parents get to decide the intelligence of their child. Assume that the gene sequence that determines intelligence is the same in all humans. Then it would reasonably follow that almost all parents are going to choose the highest possible intelligence, and therefore all their children are going to have at least that part of their genes be nearly identical - essentially limiting the gene pool. Now we move down the list with things like resistance to diseases, longevity, athleticism... etc. Essentially all the things that a parent would value in a child.

You've again made all sorts of fantastic assumptions to get to a seemingly dangerous quandry.

a. Assuming that we have somehow managed to map the complex interrelationships of intelligence while at the same time remaining somehow unbelievable ignorant of the related interrelationships with other aspects is a bit erroneous. In fact that is not how the knowledge would be obtained. We learn about simple relationships within traits and simultaneously simple relationships among traits. More complex understanding of relationships both in and among traits are then developed from the resulting earlier work. You don't get to a point where you can snip the "gene for intelligence" without knowing a significant amount about its interrelationships.

b. What you describe is not limiting the gene pool. If the design is so fullly mapped out that you can truly "cut and paste" it, then as I said, its interrelationships are known so that you would screen for harmful interactions. The problem with this is oversimplification, i.e. assuming that there is one of anything that is the penultimate desirability. The issue isn't in the genetics, it is in your assumptions about the pressures applied in designing for anything. We already select for beauty, and as a result we have a rich diversity of what beauty actually is. The idea that one template maps for everything that anyone would desire is the flaw. First, by virtue of genes themselves, it cannot exist, and second, everyone would not uniformly want it. If I want a blue eyed baby to look like my wife, and we can select our eggs / sperm that will give us a blue eyed baby, that isn't limiting the gene pool.

2) You're absolutely right of course that if we absolutely understand EVERYTHING about how the human genome works, we can safely breed away. Of course in reality, does this mean that we shouldn't use a technology until we understand every thing there is to know about it? Or at least until we can anticipate and have solutions to all possible negative outcomes? In reality, ignorance is rarely a choice, but rather an acceptable cost in exchange for expediency.

This is where the real philosophical issue comes in. This "we shouldn't start until we know more..." mentality. This is a flawed thought. For reasons I outlined in #1, we should start knowing that if we act on the basis of what we do know now, that we won't make mistakes that are any worse than we would make in complete ignorance. The idea that we will somehow do much more damage than we would in ignorance is an idea that has been perpetuated since before Shelley wrote Frankenstein. Genetic engineering will not create, by accident, the deadly virus that will wipe out mankind no matter how many horror movies put that forward as a plot device.

Without selective pressure, I don't see why a gene would be removed. Lack of use of course isn't exactly a selective pressure.

There is two fundamental reason that this happens: random mutation, and statistical variability. Given that not eveyone carries the gene, one would expect that eventually statistical combination would mix up those who had it and those who didn't and given that this feature does nothing to the survivability of the organism, that distribution would end up being fairly random. Second, without any selective pressure to keep the gene, it is free to mutate away from its current form and such mutation does nothing to the survivability of the organism. Bye bye gene.

1) The couple that's breed does not get to choose the exact genetic combos that they want. And each sperm and egg combination provides a huge amount of genetic diversity, even if they're from the same two people. There's a clear difference between picking the mate you want and picking the gene you want, similar to how there's a difference between throwing a rock and using a high caliber sniper rifle.

It makes no difference. A consistent selective pressure over generations will still ultimately select for the trait in a very pure form, so-called "limitation" of the gene pool. Evolution is a high-powered rifle. Diversity is a sign of insignificance of a trait. Compared with the diversity of life, there is very little diversity in the molecular stucture for hemoglobin, and some other fundamental chemicals have even fewer instances. That is because without it organisms die, i.e. there is selective pressure. Cause and effect require hemoglobin to be exactly what it is with very little variation, and the pressure to hold it in that form is extreme and "high-powered". Without it, your genes dont' perpetuate themselves.

2) Not every body choose their mates with the intention of producing the "best possible" offspring in mind. In fact most people probably don't. Of course there are things correlated with signs of health that one may find attractive, such as healthy skin, symmetry etc. But given the staggering size of earth's population, I doubt that you would be able to "see" genetic variability with your naked eyes (not to mention that you would have nothing to reference what you see against...).

So let me see if I understand. If people today aren't too particular about selection for the traits of their children, that means they make "mistakes" all the time, right (ones of ignorance). And somehow being more careful about selection (i.e. more tied to direct known cause and effect) means we run the risk of making bigger mistakes? Come on...

The reason evolution provides us with external markers of genetic fitness in the first place is so that we can make better choices (i.e. less random ones) about selection of offspring traits. But somehow enhancing that process by finding even more fundamental markers will make our results worse?

[~Sophia~]

It is true, though, that we don't fully understand everything about disease and human genetics, and if we were to eliminate a certain genetic defect, that might unbeknownst to us eliminate a positive genetic trait that for example reduces the severity of malaria attacks.

You are probably refering here to sickle-cell anemia. It is a recessive condition which means that in order to get sick both copies of a gene must be defective (both parents are carriers even if healthy themselves). An individual with one defective copy and one normal copy is not going to develop this disease but will benefit from an increased immunity to malaria in early childhood. I don't think two normal copies produce this effect.

So you can eliminate a disease but not fully the genetic defect. Since there are known benefits to having one normal and one defective copy - one may choose it and stil be healthy.

Elimination of a disease should not lead to a loss of another positive trait since a proper function was biologially intended in a first place.

Imagine if all women were engineered to be clones of Britney Spears and all men were engineerd to be clones of Russell Crowe (well, there goes the human race right there) and it turns out that this happens by eliminating a gene that protects against Vrangyllian blood fever, which mankind hasn't been exposed to yet. Then we're screwed, unless we find a cure within a very short time.

The presence of wide-spread irrationality in a society would be a concern of mine when it comes to cherry picking genetic traits.

Cloning (genetic replica) and in your scenario in many copies of the same thing is not the same as removing genetic defects from otherwise genetically diverse individuals. Huge difference in reduction of genetic variability within a population between the two. I would argue the first is highly irrational.

[DavidOdden]

Artificially limiting a gene pool is dangerous; however, selecting for traits within an equally varied gene pool isn't.

Right, and for this sci-fi assumption that people can genetically design babies to order, that would have to be done by direct (i.e. biochemical) manipulation of DNA and not by selective breeding. In which case, it needs to be done very cautiously. Thus the fact that a certain piece of DNA seems to cause bad thing X does not preclude that same piece of DNA from also doing something good, and a sane person would want to understand all of the consequences of genetic manipulation, not just one of them. That's the fever point. Note that I do not and never have endorsed the ridiculous proposition that genetic variation is an intrinsic good and that gene-manipulation is bad. The only point that I endorse is that one should be cautious when using a powerful new tool that has not been well tested so that its consequences are understood. We're now learning that Frankenfoods are good and safe, and it's appropriate to be moving the technological bar further forward. Before the day comes when all male humans are engineered replicas of Russell Crowe and all female humans are engineered replicas of Britney Spears, which is the worst case scenario that I can imagine (zero genetic variability), we want to be sure that we haven't irretrievably engineered out a desirable trait, by accident.

[Moebius]

There was a time when people thought that asbestos and pesticides were safe and good. They were wrong.

Even a rational man can come to the wrong conclusion when faced with a completely new technology for lack of a complete and total information. Sometimes there are simply too many variables for the human mind to comprehend all future consequences.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Moebius

[Moebius]

Our dialogue is sort of snow balling out of control, so forgive me if I don't respond to everything your wrote.

There is two fundamental reason that this happens: random mutation, and statistical variability. Given that not eveyone carries the gene, one would expect that eventually statistical combination would mix up those who had it and those who didn't and given that this feature does nothing to the survivability of the organism, that distribution would end up being fairly random. Second, without any selective pressure to keep the gene, it is free to mutate away from its current form and such mutation does nothing to the survivability of the organism. Bye bye gene.

It makes no difference. A consistent selective pressure over generations will still ultimately select for the trait in a very pure form, so-called "limitation" of the gene pool. Evolution is a high-powered rifle. Diversity is a sign of insignificance of a trait. Compared with the diversity of life, there is very little diversity in the molecular stucture for hemoglobin, and some other fundamental chemicals have even fewer instances. That is because without it organisms die, i.e. there is selective pressure. Cause and effect require hemoglobin to be exactly what it is with very little variation, and the pressure to hold it in that form is extreme and "high-powered". Without it, your genes dont' perpetuate themselves.

First of all, a gene that is useless doesn't disappear. It would stay within the population within range of a normal genetic drift unless an outside pressure was applied. That's one of the reasons why a large portion of our DNA sequence are just meaningless white noise that doesn't do anything, as well as the reason why we still have vestigial tail bones and wisdom teeth. And you also seem to have a strange idea about mutation. A mutation of a particular gene in a single individual doesn't effect the gene pool in any significant fashion unless it makes a difference in terms of survival or reproduction. If gene A mutates into gene B by freak chance in a single organism, the original gene A still exist for the rest of the population. In other words, useless genes don't just disappear.

Secondly, evolution does not select for traits in a "pure form". A necessary trait only has to be just good enough where it allows the owner to live until productive age and successfully mate. If they happen to make it, they make babies, if they don't, they die. A hemoglobin for instance, if it was made by an intelligent designer, would probably be different from its current form. In that sense evolution is more like a blunt machete than a surgeon's scalpel.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Moebius

[Alessa36]

By the way, if you are concerned that people might do "crazy" things with their child's "design" (for lack of better word) , you should remember that if (or when) such a procedure is possible ,it will probably be performed by doctors who will have some personal judgment or laws that will prevent too much creativeness.

You would want to believe that laws would prevent misuse of new technology but its unlikely. Something like the internet provides amazing possibility. It also has child porn sites and clubs. Stem cell research and tecnology is amazing and could help so many people. How long do you think before there are baby farms...where poorer woman are paid to get pregnant or have abortions so companys can use their unborn for gain.

[softwareNerd]

How long do you think before there are baby farms...where poorer woman are paid to get pregnant or have abortions so companys can use their unborn for gain.

They probably won't need farms. They could go about their business and come back after a month; but that's incidental. I think you're saying this would constitute a problem? If so, could you explain why? Suppose humans could grow an extra heart, at will -- would there be a problem if people did so and gave that heart to people who needed transplants? So, what's the exact difference with a foetus? Edited March 9, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Alessa36]

They probably won't need farms. They could go about their business and come back after a month; but that's incidental. I think you're saying this would constitute a problem? If so, could you explain why? Suppose humans could grow an extra heart, at will -- would there be a problem if people did so and gave that heart to people who needed transplants? So, what's the exact difference with a foetus?

I meant that some people could act immorally. I don't have the mindset of how this technology could be abused since I don't think that way, like you I see this as a good thing, but something like saying your baby is defective and you should abort it, even though its healthy, just for the research. Abortion clinics would become research clinics and maybe like drug trafficking there will be fetus trafficking. Something along that line. I don't think its wrong for anyone to make the right decision for themselves but Imagine how many crack addicts might start getting pregnant on purpose and selling their unborn for drug money.

[~Sophia~]

First of all, a gene that is useless doesn't disappear. It would stay within the population within range of a normal genetic drift unless an outside pressure was applied.

Although deletions within genetic sequence happen - it would be rare for a person to be missing a whole gene sequence. People do however differ in base-pair mutations and small base-pair deletions (which may or may not be significant on the protein level - many of them are what we call silent). But most importantly people vary in expression level of genes from which major physiological differences arise (I think differences in inteligence or endurance, for example, are differences in expression levels of genes + plus diet and all of the other things on the "nurture" side of the equation). The amount of particular protein product determines how often a biochemical pathway is turned on or off which affects everything else downstream.

Selecting traits aside from fixing mistakes would mostly mean manipulating expression levels of genes.

The process of selecting traits can be introduced gradually, starting first with elimination of major diseases, which can be nothing but beneficial. Small changes such as eye color or hair color are harmless IMHO as they do not affect other biochemical pathways. Later, as we become more knowledgable we can expand the list of possible manipulations.

[KendallJ]

First of all, a gene that is useless doesn't disappear. It would stay within the population within range of a normal genetic drift unless an outside pressure was applied. That's one of the reasons why a large portion of our DNA sequence are just meaningless white noise that doesn't do anything, as well as the reason why we still have vestigial tail bones and wisdom teeth. And you also seem to have a strange idea about mutation. A mutation of a particular gene in a single individual doesn't effect the gene pool in any significant fashion unless it makes a difference in terms of survival or reproduction. If gene A mutates into gene B by freak chance in a single organism, the original gene A still exist for the rest of the population. In other words, useless genes don't just disappear.

Without selective pressure the range of "genetic drift" is toward complete randomness. This mechanism is present for all copies of the gene so all copies can be expected to mutate over successive generations. The analogy is as such:

ORIGINAL: The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

MUTATED: The quick brown fox alksdfj over the lazy dog.

If you want to argue that the word "jumped" hasn't disappeared from the 2nd sentence, then be my guest.

Secondly, evolution does not select for traits in a "pure form". A necessary trait only has to be just good enough where it allows the owner to live until productive age and successfully mate. If they happen to make it, they make babies, if they don't, they die. A hemoglobin for instance, if it was made by an intelligent designer, would probably be different from its current form. In that sense evolution is more like a blunt machete than a surgeon's scalpel.

If survivability is different for different forms then regardless of whether a lesser form is able to successively reproduce in any one instance, the trait will eventually move toward the most survivable form of the trait, so it will go to it's "purest" form. This is especially true when there is competition among forms for traits.

There are specific proteins that are so critical to the life process that across millions of species and umpteen millions of members of species, the only form that perpetuates itself is the one single version. In that sense an intelligent designer wouldn't makes this protein or hemoglobin any different than they already are.

[KendallJ]

I don't think its wrong for anyone to make the right decision for themselves but Imagine how many crack addicts might start getting pregnant on purpose and selling their unborn for drug money.

Quite few actually. Crack babies aren't exactly in high demand in adoptions. Given that the potential health of a baby is probably one of the most important aspects a prospective couple could screen for, the fact that some people might act immorally is no reason not to allow the practice. It just means that health screening of the donor parent would become one of the factors that would value the baby.

I've heard exactly the same argument given in regards to selling organs. "Imagine how many crack addicts would sell a kidney to get drug money." In reality this practice would be screened for as a matter of rational self-interest of the receiving party. That is, it doesn't mean that it wouldnt' happen, but fraud would be minimized.

[~Sophia~]

To expland on my previous post...

Gene expression (levels) is the primary mechanism by which information encoded in the genome is converted into developmental, morphological, and physiological traits. It is also an important source of evolutionary change within and among species, and aberrant gene expression (too high of a level or too low) has been implicated in the pathogenesis of numerous diseases.

Understanding patterns of gene-expression variation is the key to understanding the molecular basis of trait diversity. Little is known about how gene-expression variation is apportioned within and among human populations. One study just came out this month in The American Journal of Human Genetics that estimated that ~83% of genes are differentially expressed among individuals and that ~17% of genes are differentially expressed among populations. At the same time observed sequence divergence is relatively low.

Central to the process of differential gene expression are cis-regulatory elements of genes. To understand this process of switching genes on and off is the key to manipulating traits (and not so much the manipulation of sequences of genes itself - aside from fixing errors or picking alleles for a desired eye color (which happens to be a very simple biochemical pathway, unlike most others - usually things are not so straight forward)).

[KendallJ]

Sophia, this is good information. My take away is that thinking of genes as switches that can be clipped in and spliced out to design for traits is being oversimplistic. How would you integrate this information into the implications for "designer babies"?

The presence of wide-spread irrationality in a society would be a concern of mine when it comes to cherry picking genetic traits.

Can you expand on this thought. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

[~Sophia~]

One implication of what I wrote in my two previous posts (that differences in traits mostly come from gene expression variations and not from sequence diversity itself) is the fact that to a great extend we can affect our physical traits by affecting the mechanisms regulating gene expression in our body through for example healthy diet and lifestyle. Regulation itself does have a genetic component ("good genes" may mean the right amount of regulatory elements) but there is a significant environmental component to it as well.

It is amazing just how much in control of our biology we can be. Truly self-made.

[~Sophia~]

My take away is that thinking of genes as switches that can be clipped in and spliced out to design for traits is being oversimplistic. How would you integrate this information into the implications for "designer babies"?

Manipulation would mean manipulation of regulatory elements to either increase or decrease gene expression. For example high inteligence maybe someday linked to high expression of genes X,Y,X with low expression of gene A. We all do have all 4 genes in our genetic makeup already. What you have to do is fine tune their expression level to what is necessary.

QUOTE(~Sophia~ @ Mar 9 2007, 12:23 AM) The presence of wide-spread irrationality in a society would be a concern of mine when it comes to cherry picking genetic traits.

Can you expand on this thought. I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

When I was writing that I was thinking of, for example, a religious fanatic selecting some irrational traits for irrational reasons in their child, which would not benefit the kid but actually hinder his life.

Edited March 9, 2007 by ~Sophia~

[Galileo Blogs]

Quite interesting comments, especially from Sophia and Kendall.

I can't add to the discussion of the science of genetic selection, but as for the morality of it, I see no problem with it. I agree with the comments that adding positive genetic features such as height, intelligence, etc., is really akin to removing negative genetic features, such as genetic predispositions to disease. Why wouldn't a parent want to have the best possible child, both for the child's sake and his own? Why shouldn't that include giving that child greater intelligence or more beautiful physical features as much as removing from him the gene for Down's syndrome or multiple sclerosis?

As for the potential of genetic selection causing some sort of genetic risk to mankind, an imagined potential risk is not the same thing as an actual risk. Imagining potential harms is exactly the tactic of those who would regulate all human innovations so that, unless something is expressly permitted by the regulator, it is forbidden. What if that new drug has an unknown problem? What if that financial innovation destabilizes the system? What if...

Any new idea or technology or medical procedure that is good should be tried. If it turns out that there is an unforeseen negative consequence of deploying it, deal with it at that time. The self-interest of the entrepreneur, innovator, inventor and his financial backers and customers ensures that the outcome of these innovations is beneficial the vast majority of the time. That is why, even though some businesses fail, new drugs harm, bridges collapse, etc., our standard of living keeps rising so dramatically as all these new ideas are put into action.

The bottom line is that it is rational to presume that an innovation will be beneficial unless there is concrete, specific evidence that it will not be.

[Moebius]

Let me add two more sets of questions, more clearly this time:

1) Is it moral to genetically engineer a child BEYOND what you and your partner can possibly conceive? And at what point does that child stop being your own biologically? Does it matter?

2) Is it moral to create, through genetic engineering, superior bodily features or even completely different organs that doesn't presently exist in the human population? If yes, would there be a limit to how much improvement you can do? At some point does the child cease to be human, whatever your definition of humanity may be?

[miseleigh]

At least for the first one, a 'no' answer would also imply that it's immoral to adopt, since they're not your 'real' children. In other words, it doesn't matter if the child is (or could be) biologically yours.

As for two, I don't see why not... the species barrier is viable offspring, so as long as my kid could reproduce with gills, hell, let him have gills. At least I would never have to worry about drowning. The reproduction argument isn't much of a barrier anyway, since we'd be able to engineer his kids, and their kids... Would they be human? Maybe not, but they'd still be rational animals. I would be careful about making my kid look different from other people, so he doesn't get ridiculed or beat up or something, but gills would rock, and webbed toes to go with them, and built-in sunscreen, and whatever else we could dream up. The morality of it, for me anyway, seems to equate to living with intelligent, rights-respecting extra-terrestrials, or artificially intelligent robots.

Edit: Note: I am not Objectivist, I am just a student of Oism, so don't take my word for it.

Edited March 10, 2007 by miseleigh

[KendallJ]

I'm with miseleigh on this one (and two).

Why is the barrier necessary? I can think of all sort of "Is it moral to X beyond your capabilities?" sorts of questions when it comes to raising children. (e.g. is it moral to educate your children beyond what you and your wife can earn? - assuming you magically come into the means). Why wouldn't it be?

[DavidOdden]

1) Is it moral to genetically engineer a child BEYOND what you and your partner can possibly conceive? And at what point does that child stop being your own biologically? Does it matter?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking whether it is moral for two people to use technological methods to create a pregnancy that can't arise by the old-fashioned method, such as in vitro fertilization? I cannot imagine why it would not be. Are you asking whether it would be moral to change the genetic material before conception so that the resulting child would, I dunno, have blond hair when both parents have black hair? Sure, why not?

[KendallJ]

Ladies and Gentlemen....

Some examples of designer babies. Wolf babies that is.

1. First up, since Megan wanted webbed feet, we have this little guy. No gills, but does have webbed feet, a water resistant coat and soft mouth for retrieving water fowl.

2. Next up the "roto-rooters" of the designer baby world. These guys will be tenacious hunters, and have no fear of small tight spaces, and specifically love to dig. If you have a vermin problem, these are your ticket.

3. The all-terrain, "low-temperature model". When grown these guys will have the ability to survive in snow and temperatures easily dipping down to 40 below.

4. This little guy. I have no idea what he's good for, but he'll probably not break 5 lbs. ever.

5. These guys will have a natural ability to herd flock animals.

6. This guy will probably top 200 lbs and drool alot. If you want your walls slimed, he's the one.

Not to be too tongue in cheek, and I realize there is a difference ethically between children and "designer wolves", but the fact is that these animals have been genetically engineered by man to the point that they don't even resemble their original anscestor, in either appearance or in behavior. yes, their behaviors can be seen to be similar and once one knows they all derived from similar animals, one can see how their behaviors might be derivatives of each other, but frankly they are entirely different. But because we only see the final result, it seems perfectly normal to us.

Oh, and this guy. You can't have him. He's mine.

[Galileo Blogs]

Those are well-designed babies, indeed, Kendall. I say, humans should design their babies, thereby directing man-made "evolution" that will take humans to an even higher level. For example, increase the number of spindle neurons (see this thread) to make man conceptualize better, make him taller, more beautiful and more disease-resistant.

I agree with a comment made in a prior post that human reproductive choices are acts of genetic selection. Why not make those selections in the lab dish? In the lab genetic preferences can be precisely targeted, not just generalities such as "wide hips, big eyes and a hell of a mind."

One of my favorite shows as a child was The Six Million Dollar Man. In the opening sequence, the astronaut-hero Steve Austin suffers a plane crash, and then the doctors operate on him, implanting cutting edge bionic technology into his body. As the narrator says:

"Steve Austin: astronaut. A man barely alive. We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better...stronger...faster."

You see him lifting cars with his bionic arm, leaping to the tops of buildings and running faster than cars.

Of course, I always wondered why his bionic arm never pulled out of his shoulder socket, since only his arm was bionic, not the rest of his body. ??

But if we can genetically engineer a man "better than he was before, better, stronger, faster," I say, "Why not?"