'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say

[Wilikon]

Rapid progress in genetics is making "designer babies" more likely and society needs to be prepared, leading scientists have told the BBC.

Dr Tony Perry, a pioneer in cloning, has announced precise DNA editing at the moment of conception in mice.

He said huge advances in the past two years meant "designer babies" were no longer HG Wells territory.

Other leading scientists and bioethicists argue it is time for a serious public debate on the issue.

Designer babies - genetically modified for beauty, intelligence or to be free of disease - have long been a topic of science fiction.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

This is not HG Wells, you can imagine people doing this soon”

Dr Tony Perry
University of Bath
Dr Perry, who was part of the teams to clone the first mice and pigs, said the prospect was still fiction, but science was rapidly catching up to make elements of it possible.

In the journal Scientific Reports, he details precisely editing the genome of mice at the point DNA from the sperm and egg come together.

Dr Perry, who is based at the University of Bath, told the BBC: "We used a pair of molecular scissors and a molecular sat-nav that tells the scissors where to cut.

"It is approaching 100% efficiency already, it's a case of 'you shoot you score'."


New era

It is the latest development of "Crispr technology" - which is a more precise way of editing DNA than anything that has come before.

It was named one of the top breakthroughs in 2013, hailed as the start of a new era of genetics and is being used in a wide-range of experiments in thousands of laboratories.

As well simply cutting the DNA to make mutations, as the Bath team have done, it is also possible to use the technology to insert new pieces of genetic code at the site of the cut.

It has reopened questions about genetically modifying people.

Prof Perry added: "On the human side, one has to be very cautious.

"There are heritable diseases coded by mutations in DNA and some people could say, 'I don't want my children to have these mutations.'"

This includes conditions such as cystic fibrosis and genes that increase the risk of cancer.

"There's much speculation here, but it's not completely fanciful, this is not HG Wells, you can imagine people doing this soon [in animals].

"At that time the HFEA [the UK's fertility regulator] will need to be prepared because they're going to have to deal with this issue."

He said science existed as part of a wider community and that it was up to society as a whole to begin assessing the implications and decide what is acceptable.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30742774



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Planned parenthood + designer babies = Eugenics 2.0

[1715031498]

1715031498

[1715031498]

1715031498

[1715031498]

1715031498

[username18333]

Generally speaking, Homo sapiens sapiens babyhood is rather ephemeral; therefor, that one would so consider it (indeed, neglecting its adulthood) is, without a context of the subspecies’ natures, peculiar.

[Wilikon]

Generally speaking, Homo sapiens sapiens babyhood is rather ephemeral; therefor, that one would so consider it (indeed, neglecting its adulthood) is, without a context of the subspecies’ natures, peculiar.

When I see a reply from you in one of my thread, I feel honored. I have no idea what you mean 97.59% of the case, but it does not matter as I am sure others do... 

[username18333]

Generally speaking, Homo sapiens sapiens babyhood is rather ephemeral; therefor, that one would so consider it (indeed, neglecting its adulthood) is, without a context of the subspecies’ natures, peculiar.

When I see a reply from you in one of my thread, I feel honored. I have no idea what you mean 97.59% of the case, but it does not matter as I am sure others do...  

“People" are adults “a lot" longer than they are babies; therefore, it would follow that one would primarily consider their “adult selves” and not their “baby selves,” as is often the case.

[BADecker]

Generally speaking, Homo sapiens sapiens babyhood is rather ephemeral; therefor, that one would so consider it (indeed, neglecting its adulthood) is, without a context of the subspecies’ natures, peculiar.

When I see a reply from you in one of my thread, I feel honored. I have no idea what you mean 97.59% of the case, but it does not matter as I am sure others do...  

“People" are adults “a lot" longer than they are babies; therefore, it would follow that one would primarily consider their “adult selves” and not their “baby selves,” as is often the case.

However, this kind of thinking is self-deceptive.

Think back to when you were 10 years old. Didn't a year take much longer to pass back then? And if you can remember back to 5 years old, didn't a year seem to take exceedingly long to pass back then? Think of how long the first month in Mommy's tummy must have taken. Maybe a thousand years? 10,000? 100,000?

We are living off that basic training that we received back at those millions of years that we lived in Mommy's tummy. "Practice makes perfect." We practiced how to live for those millions of years in Mommy's tummy. But it has only taken us 80 or 90 years outside to forget how to live, and get old and die.

[username18333]

. . .

However, this kind of thinking is self-deceptive.

Think back to when you were 10 years old. Didn't a year take much longer to pass back then? And if you can remember back to 5 years old, didn't a year seem to take exceedingly long to pass back then? Think of how long the first month in Mommy's tummy must have taken. Maybe a thousand years? 10,000? 100,000?

We are living off that basic training that we received back at those millions of years that we lived in Mommy's tummy. "Practice makes perfect." We practiced how to live for those millions of years in Mommy's tummy. But it has only taken us 80 or 90 years outside to forget how to live, and get old and die.

Regarding my perception thereof, the duration of a year is directly proportionate to my “activeness” thereover.

[BADecker]

. . .

However, this kind of thinking is self-deceptive.

Think back to when you were 10 years old. Didn't a year take much longer to pass back then? And if you can remember back to 5 years old, didn't a year seem to take exceedingly long to pass back then? Think of how long the first month in Mommy's tummy must have taken. Maybe a thousand years? 10,000? 100,000?

We are living off that basic training that we received back at those millions of years that we lived in Mommy's tummy. "Practice makes perfect." We practiced how to live for those millions of years in Mommy's tummy. But it has only taken us 80 or 90 years outside to forget how to live, and get old and die.

Regarding my perception thereof, the duration of a year is directly proportionate to my “activeness” thereover.

We're all hoping you live out the year.      Just kidding.

[Nemo1024]

I first thought I was seeing double or these two threads were cloned.  

[Wilikon]

I first thought I was seeing double of these two threads were cloned. 

I was not even sure I replied to my own thread either. I was confused.

I'll scan the page first next time before posting a new thread 

[BADecker]

Personally, I like the idea that Bitcoin Talk allows same name threads. Imagine a full page in a forum with 20 separate threads, all having the same name.

I wonder if they will allow us to personally start 20 threads with the same name. Imagine! A full page of "'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say" all by Wilikon!



EDIT: Think of the possibilities. Imagine a hospital full of unrelated designer babies, all born to different parents, yet all exactly the same, simply because they had been designed that way.

Is that why there are two threads with the same name? I wouldn't put it past Wilikon to have one of his buddies start a second, "designer" page, just like his designer baby page, at least in title, simply to make a point, or, to get some laughs.

[Wilikon]

Personally, I like the idea that Bitcoin Talk allows same name threads. Imagine a full page in a forum with 20 separate threads, all having the same name.

I wonder if they will allow us to personally start 20 threads with the same name. Imagine! A full page of "'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say" all by Wilikon!



EDIT: Think of the possibilities. Imagine a hospital full of unrelated designer babies, all born to different parents, yet all exactly the same, simply because they had been designed that way.

Is that why there are two threads with the same name? I wouldn't put it past Wilikon to have one of his buddies start a second, "designer" page, just like his designer baby page, at least in title, simply to make a point, or, to get some laughs.

"All by Wilikon"

As a reminder to all, I do not have any buddies on bitcointalk. I cannot prove to you I am telling the truth though. The 'Trust no one protocol' is still in place, all the time, in my mind.

Secondly, I never forget posting on bitcointalk is a privilege, not a human right. I try to keep disturbing links and images to a strict minimum. When I have already developed a thread for a particular subject, I'll try to keep it updated as long as I am alive.

Most of us here are mature adults, no matter how different our political views are. That could be one of the reason your idea of infinite cloning of threads with the same titles hasn't taken root yet... 

[BADecker]

Personally, I like the idea that Bitcoin Talk allows same name threads. Imagine a full page in a forum with 20 separate threads, all having the same name.

I wonder if they will allow us to personally start 20 threads with the same name. Imagine! A full page of "'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say" all by Wilikon!



EDIT: Think of the possibilities. Imagine a hospital full of unrelated designer babies, all born to different parents, yet all exactly the same, simply because they had been designed that way.

Is that why there are two threads with the same name? I wouldn't put it past Wilikon to have one of his buddies start a second, "designer" page, just like his designer baby page, at least in title, simply to make a point, or, to get some laughs.

"All by Wilikon"

As a reminder to all, I do not have any buddies on bitcointalk. I cannot prove to you I am telling the truth though. The 'Trust no one protocol' is still in place, all the time, in my mind.

Secondly, I never forget posting on bitcointalk is a privilege, not a human right. I try to keep disturbing links and images to a strict minimum. When I have already developed a thread for a particular subject, I'll try to keep it updated as long as I am alive.

Most of us here are mature adults, no matter how different our political views are. That could be one of the reason your idea of infinite cloning of threads with the same titles hasn't taken root yet...  

My apologies, for suggesting that you have buddies here. But we are all a little inter related, especially if we have been posting right along side each other for a long time, aren't we?

Anyway. I should have posted a grinning smiley, because I was joking (somewhat); I thought it was obviousish.



EDIT: I wonder if it is possible to design unisex babies that, after they have grown up, can reproduce more of their own kind without having a sex partner. This might be something that is built into the genes in such a way that it could never happen naturally. But we just might be able to "tweak" the genetics enough to start it happening.

[Wilikon]

Personally, I like the idea that Bitcoin Talk allows same name threads. Imagine a full page in a forum with 20 separate threads, all having the same name.

I wonder if they will allow us to personally start 20 threads with the same name. Imagine! A full page of "'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say" all by Wilikon!



EDIT: Think of the possibilities. Imagine a hospital full of unrelated designer babies, all born to different parents, yet all exactly the same, simply because they had been designed that way.

Is that why there are two threads with the same name? I wouldn't put it past Wilikon to have one of his buddies start a second, "designer" page, just like his designer baby page, at least in title, simply to make a point, or, to get some laughs.

"All by Wilikon"

As a reminder to all, I do not have any buddies on bitcointalk. I cannot prove to you I am telling the truth though. The 'Trust no one protocol' is still in place, all the time, in my mind.

Secondly, I never forget posting on bitcointalk is a privilege, not a human right. I try to keep disturbing links and images to a strict minimum. When I have already developed a thread for a particular subject, I'll try to keep it updated as long as I am alive.

Most of us here are mature adults, no matter how different our political views are. That could be one of the reason your idea of infinite cloning of threads with the same titles hasn't taken root yet...  

My apologies, for suggesting that you have buddies here. But we are all a little inter related, especially if we have been posting right along side each other for a long time, aren't we?

Anyway. I should have posted a grinning smiley, because I was joking (somewhat); I thought it was obviousish.



EDIT: I wonder if it is possible to design unisex babies that, after they have grown up, can reproduce more of their own kind without having a sex partner. This might be something that is built into the genes in such a way that it could never happen naturally. But we just might be able to "tweak" the genetics enough to start it happening.

No worry about 'offending me or my image'. I love caricatures 

I did not take what you say wrongly. Sadly I have to remember a lot of people on the net can't understand the art of irony without the help of a yellow 

Not everyone understands the subtleties of the english language...

[Wilikon]

Personally, I like the idea that Bitcoin Talk allows same name threads. Imagine a full page in a forum with 20 separate threads, all having the same name.

I wonder if they will allow us to personally start 20 threads with the same name. Imagine! A full page of "'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say" all by Wilikon!



EDIT: Think of the possibilities. Imagine a hospital full of unrelated designer babies, all born to different parents, yet all exactly the same, simply because they had been designed that way.

Is that why there are two threads with the same name? I wouldn't put it past Wilikon to have one of his buddies start a second, "designer" page, just like his designer baby page, at least in title, simply to make a point, or, to get some laughs.

"All by Wilikon"

As a reminder to all, I do not have any buddies on bitcointalk. I cannot prove to you I am telling the truth though. The 'Trust no one protocol' is still in place, all the time, in my mind.

Secondly, I never forget posting on bitcointalk is a privilege, not a human right. I try to keep disturbing links and images to a strict minimum. When I have already developed a thread for a particular subject, I'll try to keep it updated as long as I am alive.

Most of us here are mature adults, no matter how different our political views are. That could be one of the reason your idea of infinite cloning of threads with the same titles hasn't taken root yet...  

My apologies, for suggesting that you have buddies here. But we are all a little inter related, especially if we have been posting right along side each other for a long time, aren't we?

Anyway. I should have posted a grinning smiley, because I was joking (somewhat); I thought it was obviousish.



EDIT: I wonder if it is possible to design unisex babies that, after they have grown up, can reproduce more of their own kind without having a sex partner. This might be something that is built into the genes in such a way that it could never happen naturally. But we just might be able to "tweak" the genetics enough to start it happening.

I am not sure if we are smart enough to understand the millions of years of survival of the fittest paradigm yet. Everything we imagine is locked with us on this planet forever. Good or bad. Cloning exists in multiple forms in nature already. Although none of those living creatures seem to be on a evolutionary path to create the next bitcoin protocol, even if we wait a billion years.

It is not by chance we do what we do. Even if you only believe in chance and pure randomness of nature, you know this little insect, no matter how many times it will roll the dice of evolution, won't fly all the way to the moon, unless being a parasite stucked in some human being gloves...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7eRGHVx3p0


We may take the risk of limiting ourselves genetically for long, multi generation star trekking...

[freedomno1]

I first thought I was seeing double or these two threads were cloned.  

The thread had babies and they cloned themselves
It just went to show that it was an interesting topic
Anyways a bit to close to Eugenics for me although a world with Gundam Seed level coordinators and naturals does seem like its setting the stage for an epic space saga of the future.

[BADecker]

Personally, I like the idea that Bitcoin Talk allows same name threads. Imagine a full page in a forum with 20 separate threads, all having the same name.

I wonder if they will allow us to personally start 20 threads with the same name. Imagine! A full page of "'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say" all by Wilikon!



EDIT: Think of the possibilities. Imagine a hospital full of unrelated designer babies, all born to different parents, yet all exactly the same, simply because they had been designed that way.

Is that why there are two threads with the same name? I wouldn't put it past Wilikon to have one of his buddies start a second, "designer" page, just like his designer baby page, at least in title, simply to make a point, or, to get some laughs.

"All by Wilikon"

As a reminder to all, I do not have any buddies on bitcointalk. I cannot prove to you I am telling the truth though. The 'Trust no one protocol' is still in place, all the time, in my mind.

Secondly, I never forget posting on bitcointalk is a privilege, not a human right. I try to keep disturbing links and images to a strict minimum. When I have already developed a thread for a particular subject, I'll try to keep it updated as long as I am alive.

Most of us here are mature adults, no matter how different our political views are. That could be one of the reason your idea of infinite cloning of threads with the same titles hasn't taken root yet...  

My apologies, for suggesting that you have buddies here. But we are all a little inter related, especially if we have been posting right along side each other for a long time, aren't we?

Anyway. I should have posted a grinning smiley, because I was joking (somewhat); I thought it was obviousish.



EDIT: I wonder if it is possible to design unisex babies that, after they have grown up, can reproduce more of their own kind without having a sex partner. This might be something that is built into the genes in such a way that it could never happen naturally. But we just might be able to "tweak" the genetics enough to start it happening.

I am not sure if we are smart enough to understand the millions of years of survival of the fittest paradigm yet. Everything we imagine is locked with us on this planet forever. Good or bad. Cloning exists in multiple forms in nature already. Although none of those living creatures seem to be on a evolutionary path to create the next bitcoin protocol, even if we wait a billion years.

It is not by chance we do what we do. Even if you only believe in chance and pure randomness of nature, you know this little insect, no matter how many times it will roll the dice of evolution, won't fly all the way to the moon, unless being a parasite stucked in some human being gloves...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7eRGHVx3p0


We may take the risk of limiting ourselves genetically for long, multi generation star trekking...

With the help of computers, we just might be able to engineer anything we want. The problem in our thinking is that there are so many variables around, that we can't tell much about the past. The best we can do is to determine the near past, and to understand the things that we see happening.

Until we get a practically operating time viewer, we are not really going to know what happened in the distant past. We see what exists now. We can extrapolate somewhat, according to experience. But the further back we go, the greater the chance is that we missed an important event or two that affected everything.

The best we can do regarding the past is to interpret the writings of those people who recorded the ancient past as it unfolded in their lives. We have inscriptions on walls, ancient scrolls, and all kinds of handed down traditions. It amazes me that scientists don't take the history of the Bible more seriously. After all, it is some of the best written history, with some of the best tradition regarding its authenticity, that exists today. In fact, it is way beyond anything else tradition-wise. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Old Testament of the Bible is absolutely the most powerful historical writing that exists.

[Troonetpt]

It's wrong to choose an occupation when you are still a baby, but it's also good to have new designers as well.

[Wilikon]

Personally, I like the idea that Bitcoin Talk allows same name threads. Imagine a full page in a forum with 20 separate threads, all having the same name.

I wonder if they will allow us to personally start 20 threads with the same name. Imagine! A full page of "'Designer babies' debate should start, scientists say" all by Wilikon!



EDIT: Think of the possibilities. Imagine a hospital full of unrelated designer babies, all born to different parents, yet all exactly the same, simply because they had been designed that way.

Is that why there are two threads with the same name? I wouldn't put it past Wilikon to have one of his buddies start a second, "designer" page, just like his designer baby page, at least in title, simply to make a point, or, to get some laughs.

"All by Wilikon"

As a reminder to all, I do not have any buddies on bitcointalk. I cannot prove to you I am telling the truth though. The 'Trust no one protocol' is still in place, all the time, in my mind.

Secondly, I never forget posting on bitcointalk is a privilege, not a human right. I try to keep disturbing links and images to a strict minimum. When I have already developed a thread for a particular subject, I'll try to keep it updated as long as I am alive.

Most of us here are mature adults, no matter how different our political views are. That could be one of the reason your idea of infinite cloning of threads with the same titles hasn't taken root yet...  

My apologies, for suggesting that you have buddies here. But we are all a little inter related, especially if we have been posting right along side each other for a long time, aren't we?

Anyway. I should have posted a grinning smiley, because I was joking (somewhat); I thought it was obviousish.



EDIT: I wonder if it is possible to design unisex babies that, after they have grown up, can reproduce more of their own kind without having a sex partner. This might be something that is built into the genes in such a way that it could never happen naturally. But we just might be able to "tweak" the genetics enough to start it happening.

I am not sure if we are smart enough to understand the millions of years of survival of the fittest paradigm yet. Everything we imagine is locked with us on this planet forever. Good or bad. Cloning exists in multiple forms in nature already. Although none of those living creatures seem to be on a evolutionary path to create the next bitcoin protocol, even if we wait a billion years.

It is not by chance we do what we do. Even if you only believe in chance and pure randomness of nature, you know this little insect, no matter how many times it will roll the dice of evolution, won't fly all the way to the moon, unless being a parasite stucked in some human being gloves...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7eRGHVx3p0


We may take the risk of limiting ourselves genetically for long, multi generation star trekking...

With the help of computers, we just might be able to engineer anything we want. The problem in our thinking is that there are so many variables around, that we can't tell much about the past. The best we can do is to determine the near past, and to understand the things that we see happening.

Until we get a practically operating time viewer, we are not really going to know what happened in the distant past. We see what exists now. We can extrapolate somewhat, according to experience. But the further back we go, the greater the chance is that we missed an important event or two that affected everything.

The best we can do regarding the past is to interpret the writings of those people who recorded the ancient past as it unfolded in their lives. We have inscriptions on walls, ancient scrolls, and all kinds of handed down traditions. It amazes me that scientists don't take the history of the Bible more seriously. After all, it is some of the best written history, with some of the best tradition regarding its authenticity, that exists today. In fact, it is way beyond anything else tradition-wise. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Old Testament of the Bible is absolutely the most powerful historical writing that exists.

... Until the next discovery inside another cave somewhere.
When we believe we know something, we freeze the flux of reality to make sense of the now. The computer will help make better humans now, risking freezing the flow of our future genetic reality forever.

[BADecker]

... Until the next discovery inside another cave somewhere.
When we believe we know something, we freeze the flux of reality to make sense of the now. The computer will help make better humans now, risking freezing the flow of our future genetic reality forever.

If I wanted something practical, I'd get married. But this is way too poetic.

[Wilikon]

... Until the next discovery inside another cave somewhere.
When we believe we know something, we freeze the flux of reality to make sense of the now. The computer will help make better humans now, risking freezing the flow of our future genetic reality forever.

If I wanted something practical, I'd get married. But this is way too poetic.

Let the flux of reality flow...