Would you have your sperm genetically modified?

Carcano

Valued Senior Member
I firmly believe its coming...the freedom to choose that is.

I have no doubt that genetics will soon attain complete mastery of the human code and be able to manipulate it towards a more positive outcome.

In the near future YOU will be able to take a vial of your sperm to a special clinic and have your code tweaked, nipped and tucked in four primary areas.

1. The removal of genetically caused disease patterns and abnormalities.

2. The modification of the code determining myostatin levels, which in turn controls the percentage of muscle mass relative to height and bone structure.

3. The alteration of genetic material determining brain size in specific areas. This is the trickiest one by far, but I think its clear from the fossil record that brain size is related to overall intelligence.

4. The modification the gene's telomeres, enabling the cells to divide longer for greatly enhanced longevity.

So the question is...would you do it, as a way of bettering the odds of giving life to a new and improved extension of your biological lineage???
 
Last edited:
Bad idea; diversity enables survival.
Diversity is a neutral term in this case. And I would suggest that this is THE most genetically diverse period in human history, with huge populations from different parts of the world all in the blender.

If a species has a very diverse base of dsyfunctional genetic patterns...this doesnt bode well for survival.
 
i personaly wouldent do it. why fix something that is not broken (and clearly super human to begin with)
Ok, but suppose you have unexpressed code in your genome that could cause abnormalities in your grandchildren...wouldnt you want these threads removed from the fabric of life?
 
Ok, but suppose you have unexpressed code in your genome that could cause abnormalities in your grandchildren...wouldnt you want these threads removed from the fabric of life?

but then the gandchild that would have been born would not be the same person, so i would be replacing what would have been my grandchild with another person.

and i dont like that. i prefer to keep my bloodline natural. my daughter will be born in less than 3 months now. the scans show her as in perfect health. she puzzled the doctors when we had the first ultrasound scan. she had a strong heartbeat when she shouldent have. she was as the nurse/doctor put it "more healthy than she should be" they said they have never seen a baby with a strong heatbeat at that age.


peace.
 
I would do it, if it were proven safe. And I will teach my super-children to rule like gods over the "normals" born to those who refuse.
 
i would be replacing what would have been my grandchild with another person.
Not another person, just an altered person with more of same qualities you value in yourself.

Youre proud of your physical fitness arent you, and your intellect?

A modified genome would simply be more of the same.
 
Not another person, just an altered person with more of same qualities you value in yourself.

Youre proud of your physical fitness arent you, and your intellect?

A modified genome would simply be more of the same.

im proud of my defects too because they make me unique. i understand that it would be altered. but if you alter something before it develops then it would not grow into the same baby that a natural development would permit.

it would in all respects be more of a clone than a child, and therefore not unique.

peace.
 
Bad idea; diversity enables survival.
I share your concern regarding the unintended consequenses of genetic modification. But, I'd have no problem whatsoever with #1. Clearly diseases such as cystic fibrosis provide no survival advantage.
 
slow altering of living things through slective breeding is one thing fucking around with the acually gentic code itself is something else
 
slow altering of living things through slective breeding is one thing fucking around with the acually gentic code itself is something else
Yes, its a lot quicker and requires an enormous reserve of knowledge and technology. The goal however is the same.

Evolution must become more conscious.
 
I share your concern regarding the unintended consequenses of genetic modification. But, I'd have no problem whatsoever with #1. Clearly diseases such as cystic fibrosis provide no survival advantage.

I agree. It wouldn't make sense to have a kid who would have Huntington's disease if he didn't need to have it. To say absolutely no to genetically engineering your germ cells would be a bad idea. The other things he's talking about with the enhanced muscles and brain tissues, well that seems a bit invasive. I'd have to see how well that technology works. And if it does, without conferring any maladies, I would consider it. Brain mass, for sure. I would want my kids to be smart and advantaged--especially if everyone else's kids are going to be smart and advantaged.
 
The other things he's talking about with the enhanced muscles and brain tissues, well that seems a bit invasive. I'd have to see how well that technology works. And if it does, without conferring any maladies, I would consider it. Brain mass, for sure. I would want my kids to be smart and advantaged--especially if everyone else's kids are going to be smart and advantaged.
How long would it take to know that such procedures were safe? When you're talking about curing diseases such as Huntington's, you're dead anyway. But who's to say the increase in brain size doesn't result in Alzheimers at age forty?

It would really take a generations or two at least to know these treatments were safe. I'd jump on board immediately to cure disease, but I'd be very cautious about "designer babies"
 
Yes, its a lot quicker and requires an enormous reserve of knowledge and technology. The goal however is the same.

Evolution must become more conscious.

the goal may be the same but the two are not comparable. the human mind cannot comprehend the gentic code well enough to alter with decent results. splice yes but to alter the dna secuence its self no
 
the goal may be the same but the two are not comparable. the human mind cannot comprehend the gentic code well enough to alter with decent results. splice yes but to alter the dna secuence its self no
Given time and experimentation, why not? Of course, I wouldn't let them experiment with my kids (unless they had a serious genetic disorder.)
 
Back
Top