The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Put it here because it is an ethical question.

I know we have designer animals / plants. But engineering your kids? Maybe I'm so old that "Space Seed" and other Sci Fi regarding supermen still bothers me.

Is playing God with the human genome a good thing?

I guess I just view it as outside of the realm of relevancy for Christianity. Not every question is an ethics question and not every ethics question is a religious question. For me, asking 'should mankind change the color of an offspring's eyes to blue?' is similar to 'should mankind move at 200 MPH?' In Christianity, God really didn't build mankind out of the box to do either and has explicitly said we should not do either exactly zero times. If somehow one believes we're playing God in one of the situations, one should believe we're playing God in both. And in both cases, that person is waay overestimating mankind's capabilities. So I don't see it being relevant to the Christian side of the topic whereas I see 'should mankind needlessly injure mankind' as a core question in both ethics and religion.

Not thread policing you...its just an observation.

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I guess I just view it as outside of the realm of relevancy for Christianity. Not every question is an ethics question and not every ethics question is a religious question. For me, asking 'should mankind change the color of an offspring's eyes to blue?' is similar to 'should mankind move at 200 MPH?' In Christianity, God really didn't build mankind out of the box to do either and has explicitly said we should not do either exactly zero times. If somehow one believes we're playing God in one of the situations, one should believe we're playing God in both. And in both cases, that person is waay overestimating mankind's capabilities. So I don't see it being relevant to the Christian side of the topic whereas I see 'should mankind needlessly injure mankind' as a core question in both ethics and religion.

Not thread policing you...its just an observation.

Why? There are a number of religious leaders who have come out with opinions on this now and over history. Also there are those that argue this is a harm to humanity.

Also- I would not under-estimate human kind'd ability to do just about anything medically. The things that I was taught were unpossible when I was in school have been possible and in some cases have become obsolete. When you enter nursing school now they tell you a great deal of what you learn as cutting edge will be obsolete by the time you graduate. There are already fertility techniques that are giving ethicists fits.

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Why? There are a number of religious leaders who have come out with opinions on this now and over history. Also there are those that argue this is a harm to humanity.

Also- I would not under-estimate human kind'd ability to do just about anything medically. The things that I was taught were unpossible when I was in school have been possible and in some cases have become obsolete. When you enter nursing school now they tell you a great deal of what you learn as cutting edge will be obsolete by the time you graduate. There are already fertility techniques that are giving ethicists fits.

Opinion

First, religious leaders saying something doesn't mean anything. Historically, some televangelists have asked for money without much relevancy for Christianity. Regardless, Christ did not saying thing about it...and for Christians, that needs to be black and white.

Second, the problem with the proposal made here is that these sort of procedures are not a bad deal across the board...and therefore, this is not a question of banning an entire class of medical activities but rather one of policing specific outcomes. And I don't buy that these are generally a bad deal. If we can fix birth defects (no Down's syndrome), aren't those some really positive outcomes...and I would have a feeling that there are far more of those types of positive outcomes in the offing than negative medical outcomes. The important aspect is to police negative outcomes. Sounds like Golden Rule stuff to me.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

There's a long running pitched battle here by Christian apologists who like to attack "secular culture," whatever that is, as a slippery slope to a parade of horribles that includes forced sterilization by the government of political and racial undesirables (like, it is implied, Christian apologists). Bob Gray was the Founding Member but it looks like he is licensing franchises now.

It's one of those things like Chemtrails where people in the club are Very, Very Concerned, and everybody else just kind of nods politely and edges towards the door.

Taking it hard that your franchise request was denied yet again?

Exit the paranoia chamber and your request may be viewed more favorably!

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Taking it hard that your franchise request was denied yet again?

Exit the paranoia chamber and your request may be viewed more favorably!

Wow. You're like Candyman. :-)

My franchise is the Megyn Kelly Mouseketeers (sp?).

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Put it here because it is an ethical question.

I know we have designer animals / plants. But engineering your kids? Maybe I'm so old that "Space Seed" and other Sci Fi regarding supermen still bothers me.

Is playing God with the human genome a good thing?

I assume this is something that in a hundred years will be completely normal and fully integrated into people's moral universe, but which now, at least to people like you and me, seems like a REALLY REALLY BAD IDEA.

I suspect the first generation without severe genetic disabilities will say, "yeah... about that."

Our generation, or our kids, will probably be the last tribe that thinks this particular photography steals your soul.

Dr. Mrs. and I were talking about something similar this weekend. At some point everybody will probably just walk around with a couple (or a fleet of) little nano-drones that will be able to zoom off in any direction to do errands, take photos, whatever. I think this is ghastly, but my grandkids will think it's as obvious as a cell phone (which I also think is ghastly). The first generation of people who got telephones faced an older generation who reacted violently against the idea that they should answer a ringer from someone who didn't have the manners to come over to talk. My great grandmother's reaction to the first phone installed in her house was, "we are all each other's servants, now."

I would have really liked my great grandmother.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I assume this is something that in a hundred years will be completely normal and fully integrated into people's moral universe, but which now, at least to people like you and me, seems like a REALLY REALLY BAD IDEA.

Perhaps. However, I don't think one has to be religious to find the idea of "designer babies" rather creepy, nor to point out some of the obvious dilemmas of being able to choose exactly what traits you want in your kid, while preventing any "undesirable" ones from being expressed.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Perhaps. However, I don't think one has to be religious to find the idea of "designer babies" rather creepy, nor to point out some of the obvious dilemmas of being able to choose exactly what traits you want in your kid, while preventing any "undesirable" ones from being expressed.

What was that crappy horror movie from around 1998 or so, from the guy who made Dawson's Creek and starred Katie Holmes? Basically, it was something like The Stepford Wives except for teenage children. Almost all of the kids are these perfect, precious little things until their new neighbors arrive into town and then clichéd stuff happens. That's what comes to my mind when I think of these handcrafted kids - and I'm not talking hand jobs and turkey basters here, folks.


ETA: Found it, Disturbing Behavior.

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I assume this is something that in a hundred years will be completely normal and fully integrated into people's moral universe, but which now, at least to people like you and me, seems like a REALLY REALLY BAD IDEA.

I suspect the first generation without severe genetic disabilities will say, "yeah... about that."

Our generation, or our kids, will probably be the last tribe that thinks this particular photography steals your soul.

Dr. Mrs. and I were talking about something similar this weekend. At some point everybody will probably just walk around with a couple (or a fleet of) little nano-drones that will be able to zoom off in any direction to do errands, take photos, whatever. I think this is ghastly, but my grandkids will think it's as obvious as a cell phone (which I also think is ghastly). The first generation of people who got telephones faced an older generation who reacted violently against the idea that they should answer a ringer from someone who didn't have the manners to come over to talk. My great grandmother's reaction to the first phone installed in her house was, "we are all each other's servants, now."

I would have really liked my great grandmother.

Think of all the people who were 'less than perfect' in their world but now viewed as genius now. Galileao was a heretic for one/ Heard a theory recently that reasoned there were more autistic people as the way their brain works is a much better fit for the modern world. Very compelling.

Would designer kids arrest further development, inovation, etc as we had a cookie cutter version of what is considered de rigeur at the time? Something to ponder.

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Think of all the people who were 'less than perfect' in their world but now viewed as genius now. Galileao was a heretic for one/ Heard a theory recently that reasoned there were more autistic people as the way their brain works is a much better fit for the modern world. Very compelling.

Would designer kids arrest further development, inovation, etc as we had a cookie cutter version of what is considered de rigeur at the time? Something to ponder.

Think about the pressure parents would put onto "designer" kids. I can imagine it now as I've seen how parents act at hockey rinks while Junior's on the ice and he's clearly not getting the amount of ice time the Next Gretzky so richly deserves. Parents would spend a lot of time and money investing into the design of their children, and if those children weren't performing, then there will be severe consequences. Parents already do this with their kids in sports, now you'll just extend that effect to the rest of their lives too. It's a bad idea from start to finish.

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Think about the pressure parents would put onto "designer" kids. I can imagine it now as I've seen how parents act at hockey rinks while Junior's on the ice and he's clearly not getting the amount of ice time the Next Gretzky so richly deserves. Parents would spend a lot of time and money investing into the design of their children, and if those children weren't performing, then there will be severe consequences. Parents already do this with their kids in sports, now you'll just extend that effect to the rest of their lives too. It's a bad idea from start to finish.

Unfortunately I don't see how this does not come to pass. Money drives some people more than considering the aftermath. There are already people messing with this stuff.