shopping cart CART ITEMS: -
| CHECKOUT
Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET   |   NEW MEDIA   |   START-UPS   |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY   |   WIRELESS   |   COMPUTING   |   ENGINEERING   |   CEOS
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Live Now
Watch Now

You Look Good In Those Genes

The Case Against Perfection: Michael Sandel

12
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
27,330 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

Mitchell01 Avatar
Mitchell01
Posts: 5
Posted: 10.14.09, 11:18 PM
I believe that the only rules we need is the rule of unconditional love! Living by example to magnify love for the one that needs it most is the universal rule of law. Sort of like in a family to where the parents show love unconditionally, and the children learn not by rule of law, but through rule of love. Love always wins, and is the only rule mankind will ever need to live in harmony in our limited and linear existence.
Permalink
studio7manga Avatar
studio7manga
Posts: 1
Posted: 09.11.09, 01:42 AM
I don't find this argument convincing in the least. Parents already control what goes into their child's diet, education, exercise, and other activities like music or dance lessons. This is simply gifting their children with additional advantages prior to their birth. And by the way, kids already are objects of their parent's ambition, just go to any little league game or spelling bee or whatever.

To me this argument is little more than technophobic paranoia packaged in a revamped "if man was meant to fly, he'd be given wings" argument. Arguing from nature to my mind fails utterly, there is just as much "good" in nature as there is "bad". Humans are the arbiter of what is proper not nature. Additionally I find it compelling to be able to take the reigns of our own evolution for the first time in history.
Permalink
daniel_t Avatar
daniel_t
Posts: 6
Posted: 07.27.09, 04:38 PM
I think there are a couple of fundamental points Sandel missed.

Over and over he talks about using genetic engineering to "improve" our children, but nothing of the sort is being done or proposed. I will illustrate what I mean with an example:

Couple A decides they want a daughter and so they go to a clinic and arrange to ensure that they have a little baby girl. Couple B makes no such decision, they just want a kid, but their child also happens to be born a girl. How are the two children any different? Is either loved less by their parents? No. Is either more advantaged in society than the other? No. Just because couple A choose their child, doesn't mean they *improved* their child.

You can replace the trait with *any other* trait you wish, intelligence, physical or musical aptitude, whatever, and the situation remains the same.

Further, if his objection is valid, then surely he considers adoption morally wrong. After all, that is exactly what adopting parents do. They *choose* their children!
Permalink
benjis007 Avatar
benjis007
Posts: 16
Posted: 01.08.09, 08:45 AM
or better yet...leave the children out of it. Stick to the transhumanism that can be granted after you are a consenting adult -- ie: microchips(optional), memory enhancing nanotech (its real and available soon), or cell improvment tech to improve longevity. All these could be optional for an adult, not genetically implanted into children.
Permalink
benjis007 Avatar
benjis007
Posts: 16
Posted: 01.08.09, 08:17 AM
i like the idea of taking our perspective out of the equation when talking about modification of children. Keep it double-blind and objective as possible. Perhaps there is an ideal algorithm for producing the best random mix of traits of parents, etc... People though, perhaps aren't objective enough on their own to choose their children and his/her traits to a large degree.
Permalink
thinkahol Avatar
thinkahol
Posts: 1
Posted: 11.08.08, 10:41 PM
In addition the question of the rich/poor gap being inscribed in our genes, could only be temporary, as the technology eventually becomes cheaper, better, and more available.
Permalink
thinkahol Avatar
thinkahol
Posts: 1
Posted: 11.08.08, 10:39 PM
very quickly,
Sandel makes a good argument for why we should individually prefer to eschew genetically modifying our children, but I think is unconvincing in implying that it should be outlawed.
He very much overstates the influence modification could have, or underestimates the role chance would continue to play in shaping the identity of the child.
Also he argues that society should be made more fitting for humans and not the other way around. Of course society should be more just, but that does not preclude us from trying to make humans more capable of enacting and preserving a just society.
I would also ask Sandel what he thinks about specifically genetically enhancing morality in our children.
Permalink
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
JOIN NOW >>

Recommended

Using Designer Babies to Save Siblings Using Designer Babies to Save Siblings
00:02:17 min | 10,977 Views
Guilt by Genetics: Perils of Familial DNA Surveillance Guilt by Genetics: Perils of Familial DNA Surveillance
00:04:31 min | 19,070 Views
Genetically Modified Foods and the Future Genetically Modified Foods and the Future
00:03:18 min | 22,298 Views
Designing and Building Organisms: Simple As Writing Code Designing and Building Organisms: Simple As Writing Code
00:03:49 min | 57,953 Views
Arthur Caplan on the Inequality of Bioengineering Arthur Caplan on the Inequality of Bioengineering
00:06:38 min | 15,630 Views

Get Our Free Newsletter

Advertisement