So the first thing I thought was GATACA! Then: Antons Key! Then, far more depressing:
They are so damn trivial.
In GATACA and the Shadow series, the geneticists test for superhuman capabilities. Try to get the best of the best. To ennoble, if not society, then at least the species.
Here is where I think Mr. Card got it all wrong. The sort of folk (imho) that go to geneticists are of two types. Legitimate, where they want to test for inherited diseases such as Tay-Sachs. And horrifically shallow, where they want the child to have a type of eye or hair color.
Think about how pathetic, how unbelievably reckless a parent has to be to muck about with his childs genes only to get blue as opposed to black colored eyes. Which is what the article is about. What happens when the geneticist screws up, and the kid finds out at age 14 that he has an artificially created illness thanks to a mistake on the part of his doctor?
Because these screw ups happen even in "routine" surgical procedures. As a general rule it's a Bad Idea to mess with a critical system that is extremely complicated unless you Absolutely Have To.
You got many of the implications right Mr Card, but you didn't factor in the shallow, pathetic, cardboard imitation people that "live" in Manhattan and LA.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Yes, people who would otherwise be considered intelligent logical and open-minded can do some very malicious things to thier own children. It is common in the UK for parents to abort a fetus when it has a deformation called club foot, a congenital deformation that I was born with and if treated surgically over the first fourteen years leaves no physical shortcomings.
Cant wait to see what mean things I unintentionaly do to my kids.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think while the vast majority of parents are just looking for ten fingers, ten toes, and don't complain about anything that comes next, there are also a large number who'd be interested in tailor made babies not because THEY want a blue eyed blonde haired baby, but because they really do want the best things for their children. Maybe they're parents who weren't as smart as the other kids or athletic, and they don't want their kid to go through the same thing. If you want the sci-fi look from a parent's view, the only thing that comes to mind is the episode of Deep Space Nine where it comes out that Dr. Bashir is genetically enhanced.
Not everyone is shallow and vapid just because there aren't life saving reasons for wanting such an alteration done. And for that matter, dissing LA and NYC en masse because of the stereotypes you're fed I think betrays your own prejudices more than those of the people you're critiquing. Sometimes a parent's desire to protect their child from all sorts of harm can end up creating ill effects for the child, but intentions in this case seem to be the crux of your argument, and my belief is that for the overarching grand majority of parents, the well being of their children is of the highest concern, and that can lead to a great many good and bad decisions.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
When I look at our present world, where thousands of children die of starvation every year, it makes me sick to think of rich people custom building children when there are so many babies in need of adoption.
I come from a multi-racial family with adopted siblings (both my parents are white), and I have to say it's a wonderful experience, but even better knowing that my parents were generous enough to give a home to children who would otherwise have known only a life of poverty and ignorance.
Posted by tickletik (Member # 11982) on :
@Lyrhawn
I can hear it if a parent wants their child to be smarter, stronger or faster. See the title of this post. I don't agree with the concept, but I can hear it. That is the point, these alterations are completely trivial.
Genetics is a beautiful and glorious science. It can save lives and turn away tremendous suffering. There are crops being developed that can end starvation as we know it. Diseases that can be cured before a person is even out of the womb.
But there is some quality in us, some cardboard, some drywall where there should flesh and blood. To destroy and remake the genetic makeup of a human being on a whim, a mere fancy for a different shade of eyes implies an insanity within us.
Do you touch up a newly created Mona Lisa? Do you take a chainsaw to a Weeping Willow?
Is there anything on the planet as beautiful as the eyes of newborn child? Seriously, all melodrama aside. Is there anything that beautiful?
So what kind of dead souled thing thinks they can improve on that? What kind of lunatic would even try it?
Anyway, I think in his next book, Mr. Card should consider incorporating some aspect of this triviality. I think that Robert Louis Stevenson really, really nailed that part of humanity. That empty, soulless, chimplike, grasping, trivial part.
Man, don't even get me STARTED on that crap.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:So what kind of dead souled thing thinks they can improve on that? What kind of lunatic would even try it?
It kinda stops discussion dead, when you begin by calling people that disagree with you "lunatics", "dead souled things", and also "empty, soulless, chimplike, and grasping".
I don't have any children yet, but I don't see what would be so wrong with liking variety in my children's appearance so that e.g. if the first child comes out blonde-baired and green-eyed, one might wish the second to be red-haired and blue-eyed.
But feel free to call me a "dead-souled" thing, for not NECESSARILY wanting my children to be carbon-copies of myself. On my part I see your attitude of wanting your children to be mere genetic copies of yourself much more "chimplike", much more "soulless", much more "grasping" and "empty" and "trivial".
Not that I would ever call you those things. Unlike you, I consider your aesthetic preferences valid. I only wish you opened your mind just one tiny bit to consider my aesthetic preferences likewise valid.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ooooh, I get to be "shallow" because I "live" in "L.A.?"
I didn't know that. Awesome.
I'm gonna go out and dwell on appearances, make unfounded assumptions about people based on how much money they make, and belittle people for wearing non-designer clothing now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To destroy and remake the genetic makeup of a human being on a whim, a mere fancy for a different shade of eyes implies an insanity within us.
Why?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Ooooh, I get to be "shallow" because I "live" in "L.A.?"
I didn't know that. Awesome.
No, no, no. You wouldn't live in LA unless you were already shallow.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Is there anything on the planet as beautiful as the eyes of newborn child? Seriously, all melodrama aside. Is there anything that beautiful?
To pick the obvious example, the eyes of a one year old child. To my mind, probably MORE beautiful, because they open wider, are less likely to be cloudy or yellow with bilirubin, and are probably less gunky since the tear ducts have opened by then. In my kids, they'd also acquired more variegated colors.
However, it WOULD be rather insane to genetically modify your kids to improve their eye appearance at birth. Eyes improve themselves over the next few months just fine.
Oh, btw: I don't think you QUITE managed to leave all melodrama aside. Just sayin.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by tickletik:
Think about how pathetic, how unbelievably reckless a parent has to be to muck about with his childs genes only to get blue as opposed to black colored eyes.
You do understand that no one's genes are being "mucked with"?
Did you even read the article? Granted, the reporter seems to not understand, but apparently, you don't either.