Reading Network - Team: Technology Divides

[marisha]

I'm with the gender decision just because after seeing my neighbors trying for years to have a baby boy, they end up having 5 girls. I could see their disappointment each time they knew their child's gender and great expectations every next try....Not that a child isn't happiness but when a boy or a girl can make the difference, why not have the possibility to make that choice in particular.

[SeekNirvana]

Originally Posted by marisha

I'm with the gender decision just because after seeing my neighbors trying for years to have a baby boy, they end up having 5 girls. I could see their disappointment each time they knew their child's gender and great expectations every next try....Not that a child isn't happiness but when a boy or a girl can make the difference, why not have the possibility to make that choice in particular.

marisha,

What we are trying to look at is whether this practice is acceptable in general. It is not advised to use a particular case (like the one you just described) to come up with a general conclusion. It's the other way around, once we accept a general conclusion, we can apply it to specific cases.

So tell us, what do you think?

Originally Posted by Stella

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.

Problem is though with the words "morally" and "limits", right?:)

Stella,

What does the highlighted part add to our situation? If we go with that thinking, then why do we support democracy? Only the wise should rule ... no?

Let's assume equilibrium does split, isn't it the choice of the people. Making the analogy with climate change, don't you agree that slowly but surely, climate is taking priority in political life? Check Canadian parties, that's all they talk about, and that's what's gonna determine the next elections, some analysts say.

You're not off the hook that easy :P ... yalla go further ...

rgds,
M

[YOSS]

There's an Egyptian saying: Silence is a sign of acceptance!

[Stella]

Yoss,

Sorry for the late reply, finally I could recollect myself.

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?

You know that it is a complex issue, we can not see things in black and white. I would have an ideal and naive answer for it, but theres something quite disturbing: why do people become criminals who are raised up in a well situated environment, in a loving family? Is it simply by their choice? Is it in their genes?

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.

The above concern goes along with this too.

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?)

I dont dream about good families, I dream about awakening to our own senses, to come into consciousness. What is a family? Is our blood-family our real family?
Besides the old equilibrium can never be reached, however a new one may arise, that would create a new order, we can not forecast that now.

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'?

Define me then what a "good family" means. :)

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?

Once I had a thread abt "Playing God" I expressed my admiration toward eugenics there, however as I said playing god is a risky business.
It is inevitable though in the long run, eugenics will gain more and more space, the governments cant fight them too long, this is our way of future. Maybe it is in our genes the thirst for immortality and perfection, or maybe we just fear death?
I suggested you to read Michel, the genius:p, as he is drawing a such possible future for us. Very realistic, disenchanting and very inevitable. Or maybe not? It all depends on our decisions of course.
Those who are playing god, they are messing with the rules of evolution, thus creating a new balance.

Originally Posted by mkhoury

Stella,

What does the highlighted part add to our situation? If we go with that thinking, then why do we support democracy? Only the wise should rule ... no?

Let's assume equilibrium does split, isn't it the choice of the people. Making the analogy with climate change, don't you agree that slowly but surely, climate is taking priority in political life? Check Canadian parties, that's all they talk about, and that's what's gonna determine the next elections, some analysts say.

You're not off the hook that easy :P ... yalla go further ...

rgds,
M

Too bad, the politicians are soo heavy minded, the importance of climate change just reached them.
Too many opportunists out there, who claim to be democratic you know.

Humans are reshaping the Earth in many terms, now we began to restructure our own DNA as well.

Humanity may not survive though till we reach into the new equilibrium.

[YOSS]

Originally Posted by Stella

Yoss,

Sorry for the late reply, finally I could recollect myself.




You know that it is a complex issue, we can not see things in black and white. I would have an ideal and naive answer for it, but theres something quite disturbing: why do people become criminals who are raised up in a well situated environment, in a loving family? Is it simply by their choice? Is it in their genes?




The above concern goes along with this too.



I dont dream about good families, I dream about awakening to our own senses, to come into consciousness. What is a family? Is our blood-family our real family?
Besides the old equilibrium can never be reached, however a new one may arise, that would create a new order, we can not forecast that now.




Define me then what a "good family" means. :)




Once I had a thread abt "Playing God" I expressed my admiration toward eugenics there, however as I said playing god is a risky business.
It is inevitable though in the long run, eugenics will gain more and more space, the governments cant fight them too long, this is our way of future. Maybe it is in our genes the thirst for immortality and perfection, or maybe we just fear death?
I suggested you to read Michel, the genius:p, as he is drawing a such possible future for us. Very realistic, disenchanting and very inevitable. Or maybe not? It all depends on our decisions of course.
Those who are playing god, they are messing with the rules of evolution, thus creating a new balance.




Too bad, the politicians are soo heavy minded, the importance of climate change just reached them.
Too many opportunists out there, who claim to be democratic you know.

Humans are reshaping the Earth in many terms, now we began to restructure our own DNA as well.

Humanity may not survive though till we reach into the new equilibrium.

I agree the 'criminals' example is exxagerated given the variety of causes, but I was suggesting from a family choice context and what has better chances in the unfolding of events in that family progress: to have or not have the choice.

And "goodfamily" not to suggest that 'families' are so important, as much as to suggest 'good families' are crucial in the early stages a child's development. And allowing a family to filter bad embryos, or chose what gender balance would help that family be happier and more successfull, then why not. And the happy successful families, deliver better 'specimens' to society, and give it a better chance at evolving into a good & fair society - the daydream. And there is no gender discrimination since we have to remember male = female but male is not same as female.

And if we are affecting evolution in an 'un-natural manner', well, we are affecting it, and negatively in other crucial areas (future article?) that this kind of 'affecting' (embryos, gender selection, genome code diseases, etc.) that helps deliver healthier people & families might actually help offset the damage and help bring about societies that are not so destructive to evolution...

We hope, of course :)

[YOSS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...602039_pf.html

If plastic surgeons can help, or gene restructure to avoid deformations, etc. Well, why not :) Let these newborn have a chance!

[Stella]

Originally Posted by YOSS

I agree the 'criminals' example is exxagerated given the variety of causes, but I was suggesting from a family choice context and what has better chances in the unfolding of events in that family progress: to have or not have the choice.

And "goodfamily" not to suggest that 'families' are so important, as much as to suggest 'good families' are crucial in the early stages a child's development. And allowing a family to filter bad embryos, or chose what gender balance would help that family be happier and more successfull, then why not. And the happy successful families, deliver better 'specimens' to society, and give it a better chance at evolving into a good & fair society - the daydream. And there is no gender discrimination since we have to remember male = female but male is not same as female.

And if we are affecting evolution in an 'un-natural manner', well, we are affecting it, and negatively in other crucial areas (future article?) that this kind of 'affecting' (embryos, gender selection, genome code diseases, etc.) that helps deliver healthier people & families might actually help offset the damage and help bring about societies that are not so destructive to evolution...

We hope, of course :)

Well in a mediocre term yes your "good family" argument stands.
But to answer/or argue your post, we shall agree on the definition of "Limits" and "Morals".

Gender selection is discriminative indeed, when you prefer boys for example over girls, doesnt it sound discriminative to you?

If by repairing the shortcomings of the society with eugenics you mean creating an euphoric and peaceful mass a la Huxley, then I agree, they will not be soo (self) destructive, the blessed ones wont know anything about such disturbing things as "free will".

[YOSS]

Originally Posted by Stella

Well in a mediocre term yes your "good family" argument stands.
But to answer/or argue your post, we shall agree on the definition of "Limits" and "Morals".

Gender selection is discriminative indeed, when you prefer boys for example over girls, doesnt it sound discriminative to you?

If by repairing the shortcomings of the society with eugenics you mean creating an euphoric and peaceful mass a la Huxley, then I agree, they will not be soo (self) destructive, the blessed ones wont know anything about such disturbing things as "free will".

Hmmm.. Not sure what you mean by mediocre term - but societies are first made of families for the most part, then they split up, re-unite, do not re-unite, whatever... But it's a fact, nothing mediocre or not about it.

Not necessarily euphoric, hehe... look.. all I'm sensing in you is a matter of gender discrimination towards females. How about if they chose more females than males? ... But, it is beside the point.

If it was you, and you had, for one reason or the other, a strong desire/need/must to have a girl; the method exists, but some lawmaker illegalized it...

Besides, if something would indeed help reach the "peaceful mass" theoretically as u put it, then it should not be not allowed simply because we find it too difficult to happen. Who are we to judge?

How about if there are too many boys and the public service recommended people have girls; ... frankly, i give up, if someone agrees, help, but IMO parents should have the choice, as they currently do.

[Stella]

Originally Posted by YOSS

How about if there are too many boys and the public service recommended people have girls; ... frankly, i give up, if someone agrees, help, but IMO parents should have the choice, as they currently do.

Having a choice and playing god is two different things!

Too many boys? Cmon from boys is never enough! haha No seriously, you know that always more girls are born than boys, naturally.

[YOSS]

Originally Posted by Stella

Having a choice and playing god is two different things!

You know Stella, God is supposed to be so much larger than our life/reality, so much more mysterious, so much akbar as in "Allahou Akbar" for us to be so arrogant so as to decide and label something we managed to do, as playing God.