Reading Network - Team: Technology Divides

[YOSS]

Say everyone had money to do it, would it be right or wrong?

I don't agree that it encourages sexist practices; and I think it should remain available for whoever wants it; legally that is.

On a personal level, I think people should use sound judegement and make choices that best serve their family unit to evolve in a balanced manner and be happy - and what is balanced or a source of happiness will vary by family.

[Stella]

I oppose it simply because it puts too much emphasis on gender, gender selection is a kind of discrimination, what doesn’t really ft to the tolerant world we are aiming to build.

Also in the long run it can change dramatically the present gender ratio, which can have disastrous consequences. /current situation in China/

And finally playing god is always a risky business, if the technology is not in proper hands.

[Osiris]

Originally Posted by Stella

I oppose it simply because it puts too much emphasis on gender, gender selection is a kind of discrimination, what doesn’t really ft to the tolerant world we are aiming to build.

Also in the long run it can change dramatically the present gender ratio, which can have disastrous consequences. /current situation in China/

And finally playing god is always a risky business, if the technology is not in proper hands.

Couldn't say it any better! :) totally agree.

[SeekNirvana]

This article got me thinking for 2 days now (good sign) and I can't come up with an answer. Hope it will be better after this post.

+ To start with, IMO people are free. They take choices and they are the only ones responsible for their choices.

- However, this choice in this case is taken on something not actually "owned" by the people making the choice. This embryo will become a free human being in the future. So this practice is affecting another being.

+ However, this other being will [like it or not] be a property of those people for the next 15-16 years at least. (hmm ... weak)

+ But, does this human being have a choice about his/her sex? Not really. So making this choice is, at the end of the day, a replacement for a probability (or actually play in the probability since it's not 100% guaranteed). When the parents are making this choice, they are not breaching the freedom of choice of anyone else including their baby since he didn't have a say anyway.

- But by playing with this probability, we will be playing the role of the Creator.

+ So what? What's the big deal? Didn't many philosophies suggest that this is the path of history anyway? Assuming that the practice is safe and we won't get babies looking like this, it doesn't seem too bad.

- But that would encourage sexist tendencies.

+ If a person believes in the superiority of one gender on the other, that person would likely resort to other means to make that happen. (abortion)

- Parents might prefer one gender over the other but wouldn't go all the way to abortion just because their baby is from the other gender.

+ Fine, but is this really encouraging sexism? I mean, those people would still believe that one gender is superior to the other even if they have a baby from the other gender. It's not like there are less sexists in the world because of that and more sexists because of sex selection.

- Now, that might affect the demographics of the world and things can get out of hand. Look at the examples given in the text.

+ Well, if it's what the people want, then we should follow. Isn't that democracy? And wouldn't that be also part of evolution as people would subsequently realize the problem at hand and start having babies from the other gender so that equilibrium would be reached again?

Ok, that's as far as I got. I think I seem ok with it.
Comments?

[YOSS]

Originally Posted by Stella

I oppose it simply because it puts too much emphasis on gender, gender selection is a kind of discrimination, what doesn’t really ft to the tolerant world we are aiming to build.

Hmmm.. See... what you're saying here surely seems and sounds good, but, answer me this: which problem created the other? why is the world less tolerant? Why does the world have a number of serious problems today? didn't we drill it into our minds, and leterature before, and find out that it all started in the family unit, its environment, and society after that? To simplify it: Why do criminals become criminals? How much of that was caused by the family unit to this "future free independant human" as mkhoury put it?

If the family unit has its choice, and the family unit for the most families, makes judgements that best help its family unit succeed, and be happy (and i'm talking intrisincally happy on a psycological level). My bet is those resulting free humans will grow to be a lot more tolerant than the unhappy ones.

Also in the long run it can change dramatically the present gender ratio, which can have disastrous consequences. /current situation in China/

But the article said the requests are 50/50. And things (and certainly nature) have a way of balancing themselves. Good family units, give us good societies, good governments, etc. (c'mon you're giving up on the daydreaming or what? We don't wanna make decisions that actually make our daydreams harder to come true do we?)

And finally playing god is always a risky business, if the technology is not in proper hands.

Oh boy, not sure what to say here... ok. Many cultures in the past, hundreds of years ago, believed causes by certain ilnesses and certain astronomical phenomenae etc. (sorry too late an hour for me now to go search the examples ) to be caused by God and a sign from God. Science explained much stuff over the years that made many of such beliefs appear silly today. Especially if my daydream above works, and the freedome to chose for families made them better families and society became more healthy and more tolerant, wouldn't this become just another silly example of 'we used to think we were playing God'?

I'll end with this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...icle679092.ece ... you people have the vagina's, and its your embryos! , which embryos would you rather make it, and do you think these scientists are playing God?

(This post too was therapeutic)

[YOSS]

Originally Posted by mkhoury

This article got me thinking for 2 days now (good sign) and I can't come up with an answer. Hope it will be better after this post.

+ To start with, IMO people are free. They take choices and they are the only ones responsible for their choices.

- However, this choice in this case is taken on something not actually "owned" by the people making the choice. This embryo will become a free human being in the future. So this practice is affecting another being.

+ However, this other being will [like it or not] be a property of those people for the next 15-16 years at least. (hmm ... weak)

+ But, does this human being have a choice about his/her sex? Not really. So making this choice is, at the end of the day, a replacement for a probability (or actually play in the probability since it's not 100% guaranteed). When the parents are making this choice, they are not breaching the freedom of choice of anyone else including their baby since he didn't have a say anyway.

- But by playing with this probability, we will be playing the role of the Creator.

+ So what? What's the big deal? Didn't many philosophies suggest that this is the path of history anyway? Assuming that the practice is safe and we won't get babies looking like this, it doesn't seem too bad.

- But that would encourage sexist tendencies.

+ If a person believes in the superiority of one gender on the other, that person would likely resort to other means to make that happen. (abortion)

- Parents might prefer one gender over the other but wouldn't go all the way to abortion just because their baby is from the other gender.

+ Fine, but is this really encouraging sexism? I mean, those people would still believe that one gender is superior to the other even if they have a baby from the other gender. It's not like there are less sexists in the world because of that and more sexists because of sex selection.

- Now, that might affect the demographics of the world and things can get out of hand. Look at the examples given in the text.

+ Well, if it's what the people want, then we should follow. Isn't that democracy? And wouldn't that be also part of evolution as people would subsequently realize the problem at hand and start having babies from the other gender so that equilibrium would be reached again?

Ok, that's as far as I got. I think I seem ok with it.
Comments?

I'm ok with it too; sounds kosher, and in the right direction

[arbre]

i totally oppose the possibility of choosing the childs sex.
parents should accept the child as it is born. its not a toy, but a life long commitment for parents. if the couple is not ready to accept childs sex, would it be able to accept its sickness or other "defaults" which could occur in some later period of life? how far could this choosing possibility go? next may come choosing eye colour, nose shape... but what if parents still are not satisfied with theyr child?
besides, the less men try to improve the nature, the better. and such choises do not only impact on this particular child life. when gender balance changes it may cause a serious social problems, like in china where girls are beeing kidnapped or bought from other countries because men cannot find wifes.

[Stella]

Originally Posted by mkhoury

+ Well, if it's what the people want, then we should follow. Isn't that democracy? And wouldn't that be also part of evolution as people would subsequently realize the problem at hand and start having babies from the other gender so that equilibrium would be reached again?

Humans are frailty and easily corrupted, remember? The main problem is with those people who would abuse this technology.
But this is somehow sick the very idea of choosing the gender, as arbre said, it could lead to later to chose the features of the child as well, furthermore their very personality, every single detail abt them imprinted into their DNA. Scary, sounds like a brave new world. Certainly it brings Gattaca into my mind.
And no, this way the equilibrium can slip out of our hands, its similar to the climate change, just now the "scientists" would be behind it, deliberately.

If any country would ever pass such law which allows the gender selection, that would be really the beginning of a new era, the end of the old world.
The generation of the selected gender children will have another kind of consciousness, not much connection to the old world. ie they wouldnt find these things unethical anymore, it would be the normal for them.

Basically I am with eugenics, within limits, as long as it serves morally backed treatments.
Problem is though with the words "morally" and "limits", right?:)

YOSS,

I would like to recommend you to read a book by Michel Houellebecq, "The possibility of an island". You will see why.


ps: great this forum is therepautic for you:p

[YOSS]

Originally Posted by Stella

YOSS,

I would like to recommend you to read a book by Michel Houellebecq, "The possibility of an island". You will see why.


ps: great this forum is therepautic for you:p

That's it? You're sending me off with a book? Tayyib, I'll take your word for it on the book, why not you put in grosso modo here why and how that book would back up your argument?

And no personal reply to my reasoning? what you find wrong with it? comments about the article I attached? ....

Too easy sending me off with a book, and no one else gets to understand what you mean; unless you believe I am the only one, on an island, who thinks this is not a bad idea... :)

[Stella]

Ah ok, I see you wont let me!:D I will have an answer for you once when am not this dead tired!:D

Originally Posted by YOSS

That's it? You're sending me off with a book? Tayyib, I'll take your word for it on the book, why not you put in grosso modo here why and how that book would back up your argument?

Because then I would have to ask for a royalty from Michel.:p