Genetic Enhancement - Moral or Immoral?

Do we not tamper with natural selection already through medicine, environmental and social changes?

most parents would boost the IQ of their child. But what if, for example, a society of people with higher IQ ended up being deficient in other kinds of intelligence. (Wiki article on intelligences.)

NE, I think what Show Me is saying is that when we use penicillin to cure a disease, for example, we are tampering with natural selection to a huge degree. Natural selection would normally wipe out all of those with a weakness to a certain disease.

Many of the objections to genetic engineering rely on the naturalistic fallacy. There are plenty of good ones though.

That theory of multiple intelligences isn't very well supported. I think it merely stretches the definition of intelligence to reach a feel good conclusion. Most of gardners "intelligences" are heavily reliant on a general intelligence.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. That's why I included the "to a lesser degree" clause in my response. I assume that someday we'll have to "pay the piper" when genetic weaknesses add up over generations. And I suspect GE, for better or worse, will be one way that we will attempt to deal with this. I hope it works out for the better.

Oh I am definetly aware of the naturalistic fallacy, and tend to fall on the "unnatural" side of things. People lived completely "organically" not too long ago... and life expectancy was something like 45 years (maybe less?). No thanks. My point is that there might be more purpose in the "random" distribution of traits we see in a population, and that we should consider this before changing a population's genetics en masse.

That's fine. All I was trying to say is that if most parents end up picking one particular trait, it seems likely that there could end up being a corresponding lack of another important trait in the population.

I am far from convinced that darwinism, natural selecton, and so forth, are actually even applicable to the human species on the time scales that we are considering. It is something that operates over millenia.

I am far from convinced that darwinism, natural selecton, and so forth, are actually even applicable to the human species on the time scales that we are considering.

I do remember reading an article about a cure for plaque they came up with. It was a modified form of the bacteria that cause plaque and cavities. Modified to release a toxin that killed the regular bacteria and didn't harm the teeth. One swish and you never have to visit the dentist again. But it said they weren't going to do anything with it at the moment because of the risk of it getting out into the environment and wreaking havoc.

Do we not tamper with natural selection already through medicine, environmental and social changes?

Do you think that genetic enhancement regarding phenotypes is moral or immoral?
For example, being able to chose your unborn child's hair colour, eye colour, height, or even IQ.

In all honestly, I don't think it is immoral when it is "taken with a grain of salt". But when used in extreme ways, then that's when immorality takes place.

Comments?

Do you think that genetic enhancement regarding phenotypes is moral or immoral?
For example, being able to chose your unborn child's hair colour, eye colour, height, or even IQ.

In all honestly, I don't think it is immoral when it is "taken with a grain of salt". But when used in extreme ways, then that's when immorality takes place.

Comments?