history has proven that soldiers given orders and not expected to follow it to the letter, but achieve the end goals, tend to emerge victorious or at least not have so many casualties
Having a good friend who's daughter suffers multiple medical issues (the least of which being highly aggressive epilepsy) and who is, by IQ definition 'TRIBBLE', I know how angry she gets when people suggest that her daughter be 'made better'.
That is so massively, ridiculously, selfish it hurts to read.
Epilepsy is deviation from the norm, it is a defect with zero redeeming qualities, it's not even got marginal benefits like Sickle Cell.
I'm sure, if she were in her daughters situation, she would be begging to be made better, to be healed, and to be able to live a full life.
Acceptance is only acceptable when there is no cure or only false hope, acceptance when a cure would exist (in this hypothetical world of fixing genes) is delusional to your self and abuse on behalf of others.
Humans need to 'play god' because any existing ones are doing a TRIBBLE job of it. Once fully realised and researched, genetic alterations are no different to vaccinations, antibiotics, and any other advancement we've made since we stopped just accepting the way things are.
To people complaining about fixing the unborn's genes to 'conform' would you allow a child to be born with a Cleft lip? It's a mildly harmless defect that can be fixed immediately after birth, what if it could be genetically fixed in-utero, why let the potentially harmful surgery go ahead when it could be fixed so much earlier?
What about intelligence then? Not arbitrary IQ points, but noticeable defects form malformed neurons? Hope you can spend the next 30 years trying to raise them up to the standard of a 10 year old and just accept their limited standard of life or attempt to resolve the obvious defect and help them?
Acceptance is just stagnation, it's death. Just accepting on somebody else's behalf is just cruelty.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I get my Gene (Roddenberry) Therapy every time I play STO or watch a Trek Movie/Show.
Of course, some of my friends and family think I need a "different kind of therapy", but I tend to ignore them.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Let me ask you a question, should those with specific disabilities such as senso-neural be fixed? Those who are Deaf, Blind? etc.
Yes. There's no advantage to deliberately birthing a human who is not fully capable. It's just cruel if you can easily prevent it. If it's after birth in any case then it's down to the individual (providing they are mentally competent) as with all treatments.
Sensory misalignments may be cope-able for current adults but there's no reason why they would have to be for the next generation, everything Humans do is meant to be for the betterment of our descendants.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
I don't even know how genetic alterations would work on individuals after birth.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Some tissues might not respond well (or at all) to postnatal modification, but others could probably be altered after the fact - particularly muscle or skin tissue. Don't have a lot of detailed knowledge about that, though, so take everything I've said with a grain of salt.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Having a good friend who's daughter suffers multiple medical issues (the least of which being highly aggressive epilepsy) and who is, by IQ definition 'TRIBBLE', I know how angry she gets when people suggest that her daughter be 'made better'.
That is so massively, ridiculously, selfish it hurts to read.
Epilepsy is deviation from the norm, it is a defect with zero redeeming qualities, it's not even got marginal benefits like Sickle Cell.
I'm sure, if she were in her daughters situation, she would be begging to be made better, to be healed, and to be able to live a full life.
Acceptance is only acceptable when there is no cure or only false hope, acceptance when a cure would exist (in this hypothetical world of fixing genes) is delusional to your self and abuse on behalf of others.
Humans need to 'play god' because any existing ones are doing a TRIBBLE job of it. Once fully realised and researched, genetic alterations are no different to vaccinations, antibiotics, and any other advancement we've made since we stopped just accepting the way things are.
To people complaining about fixing the unborn's genes to 'conform' would you allow a child to be born with a Cleft lip? It's a mildly harmless defect that can be fixed immediately after birth, what if it could be genetically fixed in-utero, why let the potentially harmful surgery go ahead when it could be fixed so much earlier?
What about intelligence then? Not arbitrary IQ points, but noticeable defects form malformed neurons? Hope you can spend the next 30 years trying to raise them up to the standard of a 10 year old and just accept their limited standard of life or attempt to resolve the obvious defect and help them?
Acceptance is just stagnation, it's death. Just accepting on somebody else's behalf is just cruelty.
She is a massively selfish person, but that's friends for you...
For the record, wifey and I have said from the day that we met, that if we were to ever have a child who was to have Downs, they would be terminated. No ifs, no buts, no question. I appreciate it's only my voice here, but I assure that it is our shared opinion.
Baring that in mind, if gene therapy was developed which could prevent or correct that, I would be all for it. I mentioned my friend's perspective on her daughter (and other children) as it is so contrary to what many may think would be a welcomed advance in genetics. As I said, I wonder if it's some kind of Munchausen By Proxy...
Let me ask you a question, should those with specific disabilities such as senso-neural be fixed? Those who are Deaf, Blind? etc.
Interesting question...
The most touchy-feely may say "Yes, why should they suffer??" but that presupposes that the deaf for example suffer, and utterly ignores things such as deaf -culture (not something I'm prrsonally aware of, but have heard mentioned) Maybe if the ability to correct such conditions (and they must be accepted as 'fixable', given they are atypical to humanity) I would say that option should be down to that individual when they are old enough to make that choice for themself...
Let me ask you a question, should those with specific disabilities such as senso-neural be fixed? Those who are Deaf, Blind? etc.
Interesting question...
The most touchy-feely may say "Yes, why should they suffer??" but that presupposes that the deaf for example suffer, and utterly ignores things such as deaf -culture (not something I'm prrsonally aware of, but have heard mentioned) Maybe if the ability to correct such conditions (and they must be accepted as 'fixable', given they are atypical to humanity) I would say that option should be down to that individual when they are old enough to make that choice for themself...
That sounds like a pretty good point of view for augmentative engineering, too. Don't force the change upon anyone, but make absolutely certain that they are at no point prevented from deciding to do it, either.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
Let me ask you a question, should those with specific disabilities such as senso-neural be fixed? Those who are Deaf, Blind? etc.
Interesting question...
The most touchy-feely may say "Yes, why should they suffer??" but that presupposes that the deaf for example suffer, and utterly ignores things such as deaf -culture (not something I'm prrsonally aware of, but have heard mentioned) Maybe if the ability to correct such conditions (and they must be accepted as 'fixable', given they are atypical to humanity) I would say that option should be down to that individual when they are old enough to make that choice for themself...
They are unable to hear, something that is necessary, so yes, it's suffering. It's not to say it cannot be overcome, but that doesn't mean you should allow for a child to go through it. Most ailments can be overcome, it doesn't mean they should need to be. By fixing the hearing lose, you're not depriving the child of an opportunity to be deaf, but by not fixing it, you are depriving them the opportunity to hear.
Edit: Upload an avatar please, the blank space is creeping me out .
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Let me ask you a question, should those with specific disabilities such as senso-neural be fixed? Those who are Deaf, Blind? etc.
Interesting question...
The most touchy-feely may say "Yes, why should they suffer??" but that presupposes that the deaf for example suffer, and utterly ignores things such as deaf -culture (not something I'm prrsonally aware of, but have heard mentioned) Maybe if the ability to correct such conditions (and they must be accepted as 'fixable', given they are atypical to humanity) I would say that option should be down to that individual when they are old enough to make that choice for themself...
That sounds like a pretty good point of view for augmentative engineering, too. Don't force the change upon anyone, but make absolutely certain that they are at no point prevented from deciding to do it, either.
Thanks At the end of thr day, I think the choice should be with the individual...
Let me ask you a question, should those with specific disabilities such as senso-neural be fixed? Those who are Deaf, Blind? etc.
Interesting question...
The most touchy-feely may say "Yes, why should they suffer??" but that presupposes that the deaf for example suffer, and utterly ignores things such as deaf -culture (not something I'm prrsonally aware of, but have heard mentioned) Maybe if the ability to correct such conditions (and they must be accepted as 'fixable', given they are atypical to humanity) I would say that option should be down to that individual when they are old enough to make that choice for themself...
They are unable to hear, something that is necessary, so yes, it's suffering. It's not to say it cannot be overcome, but that doesn't mean you should allow for a child to go through it. Most ailments can be overcome, it doesn't mean they should need to be. By fixing the hearing lose, you're not depriving the child of an opportunity to be deaf, but by not fixing it, you are depriving them the opportunity to hear.
Edit: Upload an avatar please, the blank space is creeping me out .
I quite agree, hearing is the norm, so to not hear is to be a sense less, but, I can't say that deaf people suffer -- I'm not hearing-impaired, so it's not my place to speak for them, so I would still say that the decision needs to be down to that person...
I want to upload one, but no matter which page setting I look at, I can't seem to see how :-\
Let me ask you a question, should those with specific disabilities such as senso-neural be fixed? Those who are Deaf, Blind? etc.
Interesting question...
The most touchy-feely may say "Yes, why should they suffer??" but that presupposes that the deaf for example suffer, and utterly ignores things such as deaf -culture (not something I'm prrsonally aware of, but have heard mentioned) Maybe if the ability to correct such conditions (and they must be accepted as 'fixable', given they are atypical to humanity) I would say that option should be down to that individual when they are old enough to make that choice for themself...
They are unable to hear, something that is necessary, so yes, it's suffering. It's not to say it cannot be overcome, but that doesn't mean you should allow for a child to go through it. Most ailments can be overcome, it doesn't mean they should need to be. By fixing the hearing lose, you're not depriving the child of an opportunity to be deaf, but by not fixing it, you are depriving them the opportunity to hear.
Edit: Upload an avatar please, the blank space is creeping me out .
I quite agree, hearing is the norm, so to not hear is to be a sense less, but, I can't say that deaf people suffer -- I'm not hearing-impaired, so it's not my place to speak for them, so I would still say that the decision needs to be down to that person...
I want to upload one, but no matter which page setting I look at, I can't seem to see how :-\
This change will go into effect Wednesday, December 9, 2015 @11 AM PST
~LaughingTrendy
Then hover over the avatar box and click the pencil.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Let me ask you a question, should those with specific disabilities such as senso-neural be fixed? Those who are Deaf, Blind? etc.
Interesting question...
The most touchy-feely may say "Yes, why should they suffer??" but that presupposes that the deaf for example suffer, and utterly ignores things such as deaf -culture (not something I'm prrsonally aware of, but have heard mentioned) Maybe if the ability to correct such conditions (and they must be accepted as 'fixable', given they are atypical to humanity) I would say that option should be down to that individual when they are old enough to make that choice for themself...
They are unable to hear, something that is necessary, so yes, it's suffering. It's not to say it cannot be overcome, but that doesn't mean you should allow for a child to go through it. Most ailments can be overcome, it doesn't mean they should need to be. By fixing the hearing lose, you're not depriving the child of an opportunity to be deaf, but by not fixing it, you are depriving them the opportunity to hear.
Edit: Upload an avatar please, the blank space is creeping me out .
I quite agree, hearing is the norm, so to not hear is to be a sense less, but, I can't say that deaf people suffer -- I'm not hearing-impaired, so it's not my place to speak for them, so I would still say that the decision needs to be down to that person...
I want to upload one, but no matter which page setting I look at, I can't seem to see how :-\
well before birth, I may agree, but after birth, it's their decision. It's not bad being Deaf... unless you want employment... ugh
I always think that sign language should be taught to all kids from Day One at school...
Agreed but at the point the education system is at i doubt many kids would even relise that its a language and not some tweaker moving their fingers oddly.
One of the major questions for me is what the risk entailed in the genetic alteration is, versus the help that can be given by non-genetic means. We like to assume that all genetics is as simple as dealing with a single gene that can be easily pinpointed, or a simple chromosome addition or deletion. It is far from that in many cases. Many things are the result of such a complex interplay of genetics and epigenetics that the consequences of manipulation are something I think we should be cautious of. If, compared to the risks and benefits of genetic manipulation, surgery or medicine will still be safer, and will provide the individual good health, then I would opt for that as the safer remedy.
I also refuse to be in the business of is deciding who deserves to live and who "doesn't." To me, medicine is about preserving life and treating the sick, and any solution IMO must meet the criterion of "first do no harm." And if someone still "gets through" whatever treatment exists in a given stage of technological development (or their condition is something we do not know how to prevent) and still has some sort of medical condition, I will insist they be treated with utmost dignity and care as I expect to be done now, and not in any way as human refuse or a mistake.
Also, to shed a bit more light about what I was thinking of with altering people simply to conform or to make ourselves more comfortable because we don't have to face people with differences (which I consider a very destructive mindset): some conditions either do not need treatment or can be easily handled through routine, time-tested non-genetic means. I do not see a need, for instance, to treat my nearsightedness as some kind of medical crisis when I can correct it to 20/20 with glasses. For someone with such an easily correctable "defect," which is really more of a nuisance than a serious condition, it just seems like bringing an A-bomb to battle an ant hill.
I would also greatly resent it if someone felt I should have been culled or corrected because I have ADHD. I may do things differently sometimes and it is best for me to choose a job with avoiding boredom and routine in mind, but with conscious discipline, I do very well for myself. If someone is bothered by some sort of "eugenic principles" by seeing me with glasses, or that I am a bit scatterbrained sometimes, they can get over themselves.
Now, bringing it back around to Star Trek, we see something very noticeable in their society, which is so hesitant about genetic manipulation for all but serious medical problems: non-genetic intervention is far more advanced and brings fewer risks with it than it does in our time. What they can do for someone without tinkering with the genetic code is downright miraculous. It seems to me that they are at a point where genetic tinkering for anything but serious illness is even MORE unnecessary than it was at the time of the Eugenics Wars.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Increasing knowledge of sign language is not a bad idea. I am of the mind that all students should learn a minimum of one foreign language beginning in the early grades. Children benefit from the early introduction of foreign languages so IMO there is no downside.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
As a sub-note, Jeri Ryan posted on facebook a few weeks back, that her lasik treatment has 'worn off', and she's now wearing glasses. Now I don't know if lasik is a one-time-only treatment, that, once done, can't be repeated re-corrected, but it was interesting how many people shared her experience, and the average was only about 9 years clear vision... My sister in law had it done earlier in the year, meaning that by the time she's 35, it'll have 'worn off' (Possibly meaning she will have to wear glasses afterwards...
well before birth, I may agree, but after birth, it's their decision. It's not bad being Deaf... unless you want employment... ugh
I always think that sign language should be taught to all kids from Day One at school...
Agreed but at the point the education system is at i doubt many kids would even relise that its a language and not some tweaker moving their fingers oddly.
Let me ask you a question, should those with specific disabilities such as senso-neural be fixed? Those who are Deaf, Blind? etc.
Interesting question...
The most touchy-feely may say "Yes, why should they suffer??" but that presupposes that the deaf for example suffer, and utterly ignores things such as deaf -culture (not something I'm prrsonally aware of, but have heard mentioned) Maybe if the ability to correct such conditions (and they must be accepted as 'fixable', given they are atypical to humanity) I would say that option should be down to that individual when they are old enough to make that choice for themself...
They are unable to hear, something that is necessary, so yes, it's suffering. It's not to say it cannot be overcome, but that doesn't mean you should allow for a child to go through it. Most ailments can be overcome, it doesn't mean they should need to be. By fixing the hearing lose, you're not depriving the child of an opportunity to be deaf, but by not fixing it, you are depriving them the opportunity to hear.
Yeah, then you have things like hemophilia.... the downside to THAT condition is so severe I don't know that ANY upside could possibly be worth it.
It's clear that there are many genetic traits that no one really wants to have. It's also clear that the number are generally increasing due to reduced mortality for those that have them.
sign language has been proven to encourage early language development... because they can sign before they can talk. I like your point... it should only be for life-threatening issues. Otherwise, leave it be unless the patient wants it corrected.
That makes sense...though of course what's taught to hearing infants is often of a very ungrammatical nature and therefore really an alternate encoding of the spoken language. So in addition to that I would also be in full support of exposing kids to the full-blown sign language of their country in school, with proper grammar and all. I would expect it would provide the same intellectual benefits through the school years as any mandatory foreign language would.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
What I meant was that hearing parents don't often teach sign language with respect for its unique grammar, sometimes because they genuinely don't know better. In those cases, if the kid grows up thinking that's all there is to it, unless they get a proper education from a teacher that can explain, they're going to get a rude awakening when they try it on a native signer.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
On the one hand, there are few who'd argue with correcting obvious physical issues, such as the cleft lip mentioned above.
On the other hand, there are those who'd edit out, for instance, autism, despite the fact that every human being who can be identified as having made a major contribution to the advancement of humanity has displayed traits of being on the autism spectrum (Tesla's our patron saint! And the letters of Einstein are pretty illuminating...). Then there's the idea of trying to edit astigmatism, despite its fairly harmless nature, or even selecting for sex or hair color.
On the gripping hand, comic books and Star Trek Lego genetics aside, once someone has reached a given point in their development, genetic alteration will do nothing - the genes have already expressed. Even immediately post-birth, the best you can hope for is epigenetics; the primary blueprint was set long before. If you want effective genetic therapy, you'd need to treat the embryo before it becomes a fetus, at which stage even a thorough genetic mapping could only give an opinion on whether a given genetic mutation will be expressed. Add to this the fact that most of the things we'd want to affect are governed by entire complexes of genes, not the simple switches once imagined, and the problem becomes unfathomably complex. Better not to TRIBBLE with things too much, in my opinion.
Comments
That is so massively, ridiculously, selfish it hurts to read.
Epilepsy is deviation from the norm, it is a defect with zero redeeming qualities, it's not even got marginal benefits like Sickle Cell.
I'm sure, if she were in her daughters situation, she would be begging to be made better, to be healed, and to be able to live a full life.
Acceptance is only acceptable when there is no cure or only false hope, acceptance when a cure would exist (in this hypothetical world of fixing genes) is delusional to your self and abuse on behalf of others.
Humans need to 'play god' because any existing ones are doing a TRIBBLE job of it. Once fully realised and researched, genetic alterations are no different to vaccinations, antibiotics, and any other advancement we've made since we stopped just accepting the way things are.
To people complaining about fixing the unborn's genes to 'conform' would you allow a child to be born with a Cleft lip? It's a mildly harmless defect that can be fixed immediately after birth, what if it could be genetically fixed in-utero, why let the potentially harmful surgery go ahead when it could be fixed so much earlier?
What about intelligence then? Not arbitrary IQ points, but noticeable defects form malformed neurons? Hope you can spend the next 30 years trying to raise them up to the standard of a 10 year old and just accept their limited standard of life or attempt to resolve the obvious defect and help them?
Acceptance is just stagnation, it's death. Just accepting on somebody else's behalf is just cruelty.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Of course, some of my friends and family think I need a "different kind of therapy", but I tend to ignore them.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
Yes. There's no advantage to deliberately birthing a human who is not fully capable. It's just cruel if you can easily prevent it. If it's after birth in any case then it's down to the individual (providing they are mentally competent) as with all treatments.
Sensory misalignments may be cope-able for current adults but there's no reason why they would have to be for the next generation, everything Humans do is meant to be for the betterment of our descendants.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I don't even know how genetic alterations would work on individuals after birth.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
For the record, wifey and I have said from the day that we met, that if we were to ever have a child who was to have Downs, they would be terminated. No ifs, no buts, no question. I appreciate it's only my voice here, but I assure that it is our shared opinion.
Baring that in mind, if gene therapy was developed which could prevent or correct that, I would be all for it. I mentioned my friend's perspective on her daughter (and other children) as it is so contrary to what many may think would be a welcomed advance in genetics. As I said, I wonder if it's some kind of Munchausen By Proxy...
The most touchy-feely may say "Yes, why should they suffer??" but that presupposes that the deaf for example suffer, and utterly ignores things such as deaf -culture (not something I'm prrsonally aware of, but have heard mentioned) Maybe if the ability to correct such conditions (and they must be accepted as 'fixable', given they are atypical to humanity) I would say that option should be down to that individual when they are old enough to make that choice for themself...
That sounds like a pretty good point of view for augmentative engineering, too. Don't force the change upon anyone, but make absolutely certain that they are at no point prevented from deciding to do it, either.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
They are unable to hear, something that is necessary, so yes, it's suffering. It's not to say it cannot be overcome, but that doesn't mean you should allow for a child to go through it. Most ailments can be overcome, it doesn't mean they should need to be. By fixing the hearing lose, you're not depriving the child of an opportunity to be deaf, but by not fixing it, you are depriving them the opportunity to hear.
Edit: Upload an avatar please, the blank space is creeping me out
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The most touchy-feely may say "Yes, why should Thanks
I want to upload one, but no matter which page setting I look at, I can't seem to see how :-\
Then hover over the avatar box and click the pencil.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Agreed but at the point the education system is at i doubt many kids would even relise that its a language and not some tweaker moving their fingers oddly.
I also refuse to be in the business of is deciding who deserves to live and who "doesn't." To me, medicine is about preserving life and treating the sick, and any solution IMO must meet the criterion of "first do no harm." And if someone still "gets through" whatever treatment exists in a given stage of technological development (or their condition is something we do not know how to prevent) and still has some sort of medical condition, I will insist they be treated with utmost dignity and care as I expect to be done now, and not in any way as human refuse or a mistake.
Also, to shed a bit more light about what I was thinking of with altering people simply to conform or to make ourselves more comfortable because we don't have to face people with differences (which I consider a very destructive mindset): some conditions either do not need treatment or can be easily handled through routine, time-tested non-genetic means. I do not see a need, for instance, to treat my nearsightedness as some kind of medical crisis when I can correct it to 20/20 with glasses. For someone with such an easily correctable "defect," which is really more of a nuisance than a serious condition, it just seems like bringing an A-bomb to battle an ant hill.
I would also greatly resent it if someone felt I should have been culled or corrected because I have ADHD. I may do things differently sometimes and it is best for me to choose a job with avoiding boredom and routine in mind, but with conscious discipline, I do very well for myself. If someone is bothered by some sort of "eugenic principles" by seeing me with glasses, or that I am a bit scatterbrained sometimes, they can get over themselves.
Now, bringing it back around to Star Trek, we see something very noticeable in their society, which is so hesitant about genetic manipulation for all but serious medical problems: non-genetic intervention is far more advanced and brings fewer risks with it than it does in our time. What they can do for someone without tinkering with the genetic code is downright miraculous. It seems to me that they are at a point where genetic tinkering for anything but serious illness is even MORE unnecessary than it was at the time of the Eugenics Wars.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
It's clear that there are many genetic traits that no one really wants to have. It's also clear that the number are generally increasing due to reduced mortality for those that have them.
My character Tsin'xing
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
On the other hand, there are those who'd edit out, for instance, autism, despite the fact that every human being who can be identified as having made a major contribution to the advancement of humanity has displayed traits of being on the autism spectrum (Tesla's our patron saint! And the letters of Einstein are pretty illuminating...). Then there's the idea of trying to edit astigmatism, despite its fairly harmless nature, or even selecting for sex or hair color.
On the gripping hand, comic books and Star Trek Lego genetics aside, once someone has reached a given point in their development, genetic alteration will do nothing - the genes have already expressed. Even immediately post-birth, the best you can hope for is epigenetics; the primary blueprint was set long before. If you want effective genetic therapy, you'd need to treat the embryo before it becomes a fetus, at which stage even a thorough genetic mapping could only give an opinion on whether a given genetic mutation will be expressed. Add to this the fact that most of the things we'd want to affect are governed by entire complexes of genes, not the simple switches once imagined, and the problem becomes unfathomably complex. Better not to TRIBBLE with things too much, in my opinion.